-------
L_.
  ay/of
                                          &WJ.S/X3
                                11-13
                                                                         a
                                                                         CO
                                                                                0)o
                                                                                o§

                                                                                0)3

                                                                               'oi
                                                                                OS
                                                                              O
                                                                           2 2

                                                                           55 ^


                                                                           QQ 2
                                                                           2 o

                                                                           O UJ
                                                                              QC.
VE
                                                                           <
                                                                           CC
                                                                           UJ

                                                                           <5
                                                                           UJ 2
                                                                           o: £r
                                                                           :D uj


                                                                           = 5

                                                                              cc
                                                                              o
                                                                           to
   oo
   &

   .J

   o:
UJ  Q_

5  <

-------
   Alternative No. 5
   Alternative No. 4:  Construct the chlorine contact basin on
                       pile supports at the elevation proposed in
                       the Recommended Plan by building a coffer-
                       dam which would be partially removed
                       following completion of construction
                       (see Figure 4).

                       Construct the chlorine contact basin as
                       proposed in the Recommended Plan but rotate
                       the basin 90° to reduce the size of the
                       lakefill.  Originally, this lakefill was
                       listed by the MMSD as 3.3 acres; later it
                       was revised to 5.7 acres (see Figure 5).

                       This is similar to No. 5 except that it
                       is 4.8 acres and the chlorine contact
                       basins are permanent and would not be
                       converted to basins (see Figure 6).

The MMSD studies found that floating facilities, although
feasible, would cause complex engineering problems and decided
that they should not be developed further.  The revised costs
(October, 1980) , based on geotechnical investigation, for the
feasible alternatives are as follows:

                                                     Revised
                                                   Capital Cost
•  Alternative No. 6
Alternative 4:   Cofferdam
Alternative 5:   Limited (5.7 ac) Lakefill
Recommended Plan (9.5 ac)
Alternative Recommendation  (no fill)
Alternative 6:  Permanent basins on limited
  lakefill (4.8 ac)
                                                   $25,020,000
                                                    22,200,000
                                                    25,400,000
                                                    37,170,000

                                                    21,810,000
The development of these costs is discussed further in the
Addendum to the JIFPE.

Only the MMSD's recommended plan provides for limited future
expansion on "existing" land and construction staging (and would
have the least impact on present land use).  All of the lakefill
alternatives would have similar impacts on water quality and
aquatic biota.  Only the Alternative Recommendations  (no lake-
fill) would have no impact on harbor navigation.  However, the
navigational impacts caused by lakefill would be slight since
the fill area is not normally used for shipping.  Port operations
could be affected by all alternatives to some degree.  The
Alternative Recommendation involves disrupting operation for
Terminal No. 1 during construction.  The lakefill alternatives
(except the cofferdam) could increase wharf space available to
the Port of Milwaukee.
                                11-14

-------
11-15
                                   Q
                                   CO
 (Do
 OS

 .2s
 05
 SQi
 OS
 o>
                                      o
                                      (T
                                      UJ
                                      U_
                                      U.
                                      O
                                      O
                                       i
                                      LU
                                      (T
                                      UJ
                                         CO
LU Q.

5 <
O

-------

                                                           -J
                                                            o
tf3id
&N/J.S/X3
                    11-16
                                Q
                                V)
                                2
                                2
                                  10    d
                                S      £r
                                §    " a.
                                S3    < <
                                u.    a

-------
0
0
     ii
                                                                          Uj
                                                                          00
                                    11-17
                                                                              Q
                                                                              CO
                                                                                     OS
                                                                                       S
o>
                                                                                    LJ_
                                                                                    UJ
                                                                                   Q
                                                                                   UJ

                                                                                uj ji
                                                                                f^   I


                                                                                2 O
                                                                                CC rn
                                                                                   CO
                                                                                   UJ
                                                                                    cc
                                                                                    LLJ
                                                                                    Q_
                                                                                     CO


                                                                                co    d

-------
Any lakefill alternative could affect wave action in Slip No. 1
(see Figure 2).   The MMSD (1981) performed an analysis of the
wave action in Slip No. 1.  This was done in order to determine
the impacts of extending the southeast wharf an additional 367
feet into the Outer Harbor due to a 5.7 acre lakefill for addition-
al treatment facilities.  This study concluded that while the
energy input could be increased 50-60% into Slip No. 1, the
possible impacts could be mitigated.  Mitigation measures could
include using a combination solid wall and permeable barrier
(to dissipate wave energy at the closed end of the slip).  Also,
wave reflection and surging problems could be reduced by using
a concrete apron with a sloping rubble wall (which could reduce
wave energy).

The cofferdam (no. 4) and the no lakefill alternative should have
no effect on wave action in Slip No. 1.  The recommended plan
(9.5 ac. lakefill) could be expected to have a greater impact
than Alternative 5  (5.7 ac. lakefill) or No. 6 (4.8 ac. lakefill)
since it would extend from the north-south bulkhead further into the
Outer Harbor.

The MMSD has determined that if their Recommended Plan is not
approved by the EPA and DNR, then Alternative No. 5 would be
acceptable.

7.2  REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS—PERMITS

7.2.1  FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS

The placement of fill material associated with the construction
of treatment plants, if the facilities are located adjacent to
any of the waters defined in 209.120 of 33 CFR 290, requires
federal permits issued under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
and Section 10 of the River and Harbors Act.  The U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the EPA govern the issuance of
the Section 404/Section 10 permits.

A Section 404 permit is generally required for the discharge of
dredged or fill material into most rivers, lakes and streams,
their nearby wetlands, and coastal waters.  Originally inter-
preted for traditionally navigable waters, the regulatory juris-
diction of the Section 404 permit now exceeds these limits.  A
Section 10 permit is normally required for discharges of dredged
or fill material into rivers, lakes and streams presently or
historically used (or susceptible to use)  for traditional navi-
gation.  Clearly, there are cases in which these jurisdictions
overlap, requiring both types of permits.   The Corps will often
consolidate the requirements of each permit into a single docu-
ment, as criteria for Section 10 and Section 404 permits are
usually identical.  These discharge criteria are those published
by EPA.  A more detailed definition of all water areas affected
by these requirements may be found in the Corps regulation,
33 CFR 209, in 209.120(d).
                              11-18

-------
EPA has the authority under Section 404(c) to deny issuance of
a 404 permit by the Corps if it determines the proposed dis-
charge or fill will have an unacceptable impact on certain en-
vironmental areas, e.g. wetlands, floodplains, nearshore areas.
EPA does not have this veto power for Section 10 permits;
the Corps has sole responsibility for management of the program.
Depending upon circumstances on a case-by-case basis, a discharge
program may be subjected to review by other federal agencies,
such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National
Marine Fisheries Service.  Recommendations made by these
agencies will be considered by the Corps prior to issuance of
a 404 permit.

7.2.2  STATE REQUIREMENTS

Relevant sections of the Wisconsin Statutes which address lake-
fills include:

30.05:  This section exempts Lake Michigan from Chapter 30 re-
        quirements if a municipality has a title to the lake
        bed.

30:12:  This section requires a DNR permit for lakefills in
        state waters.

62.61 (1)(d):  This section gives the Sewerage Commission of the
        city of Milwaukee a lake bed grant.

Other legislative actions include Chapter 178 of the Laws of 1933
(amended by Chapter 194 of the Laws of 1935) .

Under these actions, Milwaukee County was granted a 2,400 foot
wide strip of lake bed along the shoreline of Lake Michigan in
Milwaukee County.  This land was to be used for only parks,
parkways or highways.

Due to the complexity of the statutes, other legislative actions
and court cases involving lakefill, the issue of lakefills for
Jones Island and South Shore may have to be resolved by additional
legislative or court action.

There are also several court cases involving lakefills which
take into account public right to the use of navigable waters.


8.0  NITROGEN CONTROL

Ammonia nitrogen in the Jones Island effluent is discussed in the
revised Appendix VII:  Water Quality, Section 4.1.2.  The dis-
cussion addresses ammonia's toxic effects, impacts on dissolved
oxygen,  and its nutrient effects.  Various nitrogen controls
(including ammonia)  are discussed in the Addendum to Appendix IV:
Solids Management.
                              11-19

-------
9.0  WATER QUALITY

The following sections were modified to reflect the contents of
the revised Appendix VII:  Water Quality.

9.1  AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Replace Water Quality section B from Appendix II Jones Island
(pp. V-95-V-95)  with:

   B.  Water Quality

   The Jones Island WWTP discharges treated wastewater (see
   Table V-l) to Milwaukee's Outer Harbor.  The Outer Harbor
   is a portion of Lake Michigan that is separated from the
   lake proper by a breakwater, and from the Inner Harbor by
   the entrance canal to the Milwaukee, Menomonee, and
   Kinnickinnic Rivers openings.  The breakwater allows limited
   mixing of the Outer Harbor waters with those of the near-
   shore waters of Lake Michigan.  The only outflow of the
   three rivers is through the Outer Harbor where potential
   for mixing and dispersion is limited by the breakwater.
   Thus, pollutants carried by the rivers from different
   sources accumulate in the harbor's waters and sediments.
   The Water Quality appendix of the Final EIS discusses
   Outer Harbor and Lake Michigan water quality in greater
   detail.

   Pollutants found in the waters and sediments of the Outer
   Harbor include cadmium, chromium, lead, PCBs, and other
   toxic substances.  Concentrations of nitrogen and phos-
   phorus in the Outer Harbor have been up to ten times
   greater than levels reported in Lake Michigan.  Normally,
   oxygen levels appear to be near saturation except near the
   harbor bottom; however, the lack of complete data does
   not permit a comprehensive evaluation of the temporal
    (time related) and spatial  (space related) dissolved
   oxygen concentrations.  High chlorine concentrations may
   be a problem in the effluent discharge plume from the
   Jones Island WWTP.

   The sources of pollution to the Outer Harbor include the
   Jones Island WWTP which discharges both treated effluent
   and occasionally chlorinated raw sewage.  In addition,
   the three rivers  (the Milwaukee, Menomonee, and
   Kinnickinnic) carry combined sewer overflows (CSO),
   storm sewer inputs, and non-point source pollutants from
   upstream lands.  The CSO and Water Quality appendices
   provide details on the magnitudes of these loadings.  The
   Jones Island WWTP's effluent is a major source of phos-
   phorus, nitrogen, and organic matter  (measured by BOD) to
   the Outer Harbor.


                              11-20

-------
                           TABLE V-l

            WATER QUALITY OF JONES ISLAND EFFLUENT
                     AND THE OUTER HARBOR
BOD (mg/1)
Suspended Solids  (mg/1)
Total Phosphorus  (mg/1)
Fecal Coliform  (MFFCC/100 ml)
Cadmium (mg/1)
Copper (mg/1)
Lead (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Ammonia-Nitrogen  (mg/1)
Effluent*
 30
 28
  0.6
200
  0.008
  0.07
  0.07
  0.16
  5.2
Outer Harbor
    5.9
    2.8
    0.08
  600
    0.0013
    0.019
    0.010
    0.027
    0.56
*These data were used for Water Quality evaluations.
 Mid 1977-mid 1978 operating given in Table III-6.
SOURCE:  ESEI
                               11-21

-------
9.2  ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Delete section "1.  Water Quality" (pp. VI-107 to VI-110) of
Appendix II:  Jones Island; replace with following:

   1.  Water Quality


   Pollutant loads from the Inner Harbor, two combined sewer
   outfalls discharging directly to the Outer Harbor, the
   Jones Island WWTP, and Lake Michigan affect pollutant con-
   centrations within the Outer Harbor.  It was assumed that
   about 25% of the water in the Outer Harbor comes from the
   Inner Harbor and the Jones Island WWTP, and about 75%
   comes from Lake Michigan inflow.


   The existing and predicted future water quality conditions
   for the Outer Harbor are given in Table VI-1.  The assump-
   ions used to calculate future loadings are given in the
   CSO Appendix V, Chapter 5, Section 5.1.

   Because a very small proportion (less than one percent)  of
   the total flow to the Outer Harbor is contributed from the
   CSSA, and because a large portion of the CSSA pollutants
   are deposited in the Inner Harbor or Outer Harbor bottom
   sediments, there is little variation in average Outer Harbor
   water quality conditions under the different CSO abatement
   alternatives.  On an average annual basis CSO abatement
   would result in varying improvements in water quality con-
   ditions which range between 0 and 98%.  Fecal coliform con-
   centrations would be reduced the most.  Ammonia-nitrogen
   levels would more than double as a result of the implementation
   of anaerobic digestion at the Jones Island WWTP and the
   subsequent increased discharges of ammonia-nitrogen from
   the plant.

   A detailed analysis of the increased ammonia-nitrogen levels
   on the Outer Harbor water quality is given in the Water
   Quality Appendix VII, Chapter 4, Section 4.1.2.  This
   study concluded that acutely toxic levels  (exceeding 0.04
   mg/1 un-ionized ammonia-nitrogen)  would occur during
   critical summer periods, assuming a Jones Island effluent
   total ammonia-nitrogen concentration of 18 mg/1.  While
   these critical periods constitute less than 2% of the summer
   months, if the EPA and DNR establish WPDES effluent limits
   for ammonia, the Jones Island WWTP would have to meet those
   limits.  In the absence of effluent limits, the maximum
   extent of the acute toxic mixing zone would be from 800 to
   2600 feet for the WWTP outfall during these critical
   periods.

   Lee  (1980) studied the impacts of increased ammonia-nitrogen
   loads from Jones Island to the Outer Harbor in terms of
                              11-22

-------







































rH
1
H
^>

cu
rH
.0
m
EH


















































cn
2
O
H
EH
s
fH
2
W
U
2
0
U

£-1
2
S3
EH
D

jj
O
ft

a
0
CM
W
^
J-JJ

Q
ca
6
H
Q
1







































cn in
2 
0 H
§s
rij S
£C CM
JVj
OJ EH
-o
CO 0)
•H Cn
<+H rH Id
•H Id rl
T3 -P O
0 0 -P
S EH cn
0)
c
tJ -H
CU rH
•H C
<4H M
•rH X
•0 EH
0 cn
•z. u



p-
vD O
co o r^ ^o o
• • • • •
CM O •q* rH O





cn
vo O
CO O CO ^D O
• • t • •
CM O ^ HO



o
CU CT
c id
•rl !H
rH O
C -P
H cn


cn
r^ o
oo o cn mo
• • • • •
CN O <* rH O



c
o
CD -H
1 1 i i
cu id
rH rH rH
a, cu (d
S S a
0 a) cu
O cn cn





cn
P- 0
co o cn ^r o
• • * • f
CN O <* rH O




c
o
•H
+J
U


O
2



cn
t-- o
co o o m o
• • • • •
CM O in rH O
pq >_3
EH <
O Q
2 Cn
W < C
g U
CO
2 -H
H X
W
cn
c
•H
-p
01
•rl
X
W


o
CO VO rH
oo o cn mo
CN o in o o




C **"^
0) rH
co co cn \ c
•d 3 >i cn CD
-H ri x g cn
rH O O "-' O
O A • rl
W Ol rH -P -P
CO (d rH -rH
rl
0)
4-)
0)
rl
id
ft
T3 O U D 2
CU ^* .?*, **^ *rH *O 1 •"** ^^
"OrHftrH SC (drH rH
cx xaJrtj -H \ \
(DCnrHCn^S CCn cn
ag idg on) og-ag
10 —* ±> -~^ oQ 6 — ' id-'
3 O -H g tt)
tn EH 03 < r-3


rH
rH
O
0
I
o




H
H
O
0
*
0




rH
t~\
0
o
«
o







rH
rH
0
o
•
O







rH
rH
O
0
•
0




m
rH
O
0
d













^m^
% X
*r^ Cn
<3



i—
rH
0
•
O





f*fc
rH
O
•
o





f^
rH
0
*
0








r-
rH
O
•
O







^
rH
O
•
O




cn
rH
o
d













^^
rH
rl X
CD Cn
8~



CN
CN
O
*
O





CN
CN
0
•
o





CN
CN
O
*
O








CN
CN
0
•
o







M-
CN
O
•
O




CN
0
d













^^
rH
o J1
•rH
N



































































g
O
M-l
•H
H
o
0
rH
id
U
CU





o
•H








o
rH








0
rH











0
rH









o
cn
in





o
o






s~*
rH
g
0
o
rH
X
o
U
fa



















0)
3
T3

T3
Q)
-p
id
o
•H
C
•H


CO CU
cu ,c
U JJ
c
CU 4H
i-l O
4-1 cn
1H C
•H -H
^ ^
C
J-) 3
XI O
Cn rl
•H
rH 0
cn -P
id



































































M
a
cn
w


CU
o
SH
3
O
cn
11-23

-------
nitrification.    The Lee, et al. , (1980) report indicated
that under the maximum effluent ammonia-nitrogen level
(18 mg/1), the dissolved oxygen consumption was only 0.2 to
0.8 mg/1 per day.  The oxygen demand exerted by nitrification
was therefore offset by oxygen production by algae, reaeration,
and lake water exchange.  Based on the simulation results,
increased ammonia discharges from the Jones Island WWTP
will not noticeably affect the average dissolved oxygen
content of the Outer Harbor.  However, some low dissolved
oxygen levels may develop in both the north and south
sections of the Harbor due to the three-layered water
current structure and to the double-gyre circulation
pattern in these areas  (Lee, et al., 1980).

Chlorination/dechlorination is recommended for disinfection
under all future alternatives.  Given the predicted increase
in ammonia-nitrogen under future alternatives, residual
chlorine (which includes chloramines) should be as low as
practicable to avoid dual toxicity effects from residual
chlorine and ammonia-nitrogen.

Ozonation is an alternative means of disinfection that
oxygenates the effluent and can oxidize some of the organic
matter in it.  The dissolved oxygen  (DO) concentration in
ozonated effluent may be well above the air-saturated
concentration.  Substituting ozone for chlorine would also
eliminate the addition of residual chlorine to the Harbor
and the production of chloramines and chlorinated hydro-
carbons.
                            11-24

-------
10.0  REFERENCES

Burton, D.T., and Margrey,  S.L.,  "Control of Fouling Organisms
     in Estuarine Cooling Water System by Chlorine and
     Bromine Chloride,"  ES&T Vol.  13, No.  6, June, 1979.

Feiler, H.,  et al., "Fate of Priority Pollutants in Publicly
     Owner Treatment Works, Interim Report" EPA 440/1-80-31,
     October, 1980.

Gaffney, P.E., "Chlorobiphenyls and PCB's:   formation during
     chlorination," Journal WPCP,  p. 401, March, 1977.

Can, H.B., et al., "Dechlorination of Wastewater:   State of the
     Art Field Survey and Pilot Plant Study," Progress in
     Wastewater Disinfection Technology,  EPA 600/9-79-018,
     June, 1979.

Grissom, C.F., "Planning Decisions in Selecting Wastewater
     Effluent Disinfection for the Olentangy Environmental
     Control Center," Progress in  Wastewater Disinfection
     Technology, EPA 600/9-79-018,  June,  1979.

Holluta, J., "Das Ozon in der Wasserchemie," GWF,  140:  1261,
     1963.

Ingols, R.S., and Fetner, R.H., in Proc.  Soc. Water Treatment
     Exam. 6: 8, 1957.

Stumm, W., "Ozone as a Disinfectant for Water and Sewage,"
     J. Boston Soc. Cir. Eng. 45  (1):  68,  1958.
                              11-25

-------
11.0  ERRATA

Pages 1-3, 1-4, 111-29, IV-40, IV-90, V-103, VI-117, VI-118.

          The metric unit kilojoules is incorrectly abbreviated
          as kj or KJ.  It should be kJ.

Page II-5.

     Section A, Paragraph 1.

          Last sentence:  "Clear Water Act" should read Clean
          Water Act.

Page II-7.

     Section D, Paragraph 2.

          First sentence:  the conversion of 140 MGD should read
          6.1 m3/sec.

Page 111-28.

     Table III-7.

          The title of the table is revised as follows:

                          Table III-7

         ANNUAL POLLUTANT LOADS FROM THE JONES ISLAND
                      WWTP BYPASS:  1978

Page 111-33.

     Section K

          Consumption of ferric chloride should read 32,000 lb/
          day, not 100,000 Ib/day.

Page IV-42.

     Table IV-1.

          Item TKN should have a superscript for footnote #1.

Page V-95.

     Section B, Paragraph 2.

          Delete the last sentence.
                              11-26

-------
Page V-97.

     Section E, Paragraph 1.
          Last sentence:  the sentence should read "...less than
          one-half mile (0.80 km)  from the Jones Island WWTP..."

          "Metric Tons/yr" in the table at the bottom of the page
          should be in parentheses.
Page V-98.

     Table V-2.
          The unit mg/m should be ug/m in each of the five
          columns.

Page VI-108.

     Table VI-1 has been changed to incorporate results of the
          revised Appendix VII, Water Quality.  The new table is
          presented in Section 9.2 of this Addendum to
          Appendix II, Jones Island.

Page Vl-109.

     Paragraph 3.

          Sentence 2:  the Outer Harbor's water residence time
          is about 2, not 6, days.  Change 6 to 2.

Page VI-111.

     Paragraph 3.

          Sentence 2:  delete sentence.

          Sentence 3:  delete the word "However,".
                              11-27

-------
ADDENDUM TO APPENDIX III
    SOUTH SHORE WWTP

-------
ADDENDUM TO APPENDIX III - SOUTH SHORE WWTP

1.0  INTRODUCTION

This Addendum to Appendix III, South Shore of the Draft Environ-
mental Impact Statement (DEIS) on the Milwaukee Metropolitan
Sewerage District's (MMSD) Master Facilities Plan (MFP) includes:

•  New analysis or data
•  Cross references to information in other appendices or
   addenda
•  Corrections of errors  (errata) made in the Draft EIS

The following sections are included:

   2.0  Pisinfection--Cross references to discussion of
   disinfection are given.

   3.0  Historical Influent Flows and Loads—Updated flows
   and loads are presented.

   4.0  Projected Wastewater Flows and Loads for the Planning
   Period—New data are presented.

   5.0  Industrial Loads—Additional data are presented.

   6.0  Lakefill _- EIS Alternatives—Comparative information
   cost, O&M, and energy is presented on Alternatives 1, 8
   and 9.

   7.0  Nitrogen Control—A cross reference is given.

   8.0  Odors—Cross references to new information on odors
   are given.

   9.0  Property Values—The results of a study on property
   values near South Shore WWTP are given.

  10.0  Public Health—The conclusions of several EPA studies
   of public health risks associated with residing near a WWTP
   are presented.

  11.0  Recreation - Dual Use—The possibility of obtaining
   recreational area via the northward expansion of South Shore
   WWTP is discussed.

  12.0  Transportation and Access—New information on future
   truck traffic is given.

  13.0  Errata—Corrections to the Draft EIS South Shore
   Appendix are made.

                              III-l

-------
2.0  DISINFECTION

A discussion of several disinfection methods  is presented in the
Addendum to Appendix II, Jones  Island.   In addition, the safety
and handling of chlorine is  addressed in the  Jones Island Adden-
dum.

3.0  HISTORICAL INFLUENT FLOWS  AND  LOADS (UPDATED)

These data update data presented  in Section G:   (Influent charac-
teristics) of Chapter III  (Existing Conditions) of Appendix III
(South Shore).

The updated influent flows and  loads to the plant are as follows
(MMSD 1981):
      Average
      Annual   Average Annual
 Year   Flow
 Units
 1977
 1978
 1979
 19801
  MGD
  72
  80
  82
  75
BOD5
(Ibs/day)
173,000
139,000
123,000
101,000
mg/1)
288
208
180
161
Average Annual
SS
(Ibs/day) (mg/1)
161,000 268
154,000 231
153,000 224
126,000 202
Average
Annual
Phosphorus
(Ibs/day)
6,600
6,160
5,190
3,440
Average
Annual
TKN
(Ibs/day)
22,960
20,450
21,170
20,690
4.0
     January through August data only.
PROJECTED WASTEWATER FLOWS AND LOADS  FOR  THE  PLANNING PERIOD
(REVISED)
Table  1 presents  new influent wastewater flows and loads to the
South  Shore WWTP.   These estimates are based on results of the
MMSD's Advanced Facility Planning (AFP)  efforts and the table
replaces  Table  IV-1 in Appendix III, South Shore.

5.0  INDUSTRIAL LOADS

The User  Charge Study (MMSD,  1978) used 1977 data to determine
that industrial loads to the  South Shore WWTP were:

•  90,000 Ib/day  BOD5
•  85,000 Ib/day  SS

In 1977,  the  Peter Cooper Company was the largest discharger to
South  Shore with  an output of 60,000 Ib/day BOD5 and 60,000 Ib/day
for suspended solids (SS).  Peter Cooper Company has significantly
reduced its output to 15,000  Ib/day BOD5 and 15,000 Ib/day SS.
                               III-2

-------
                             TABLE 1*
                      DESIGN FLOWS AND LOADS
                            (YEAR 2005)
Flow Conditions

Average Dry Weather
Average Annual
Maximum Month Average
Maximum Week Average
Maximum Day
    Flow Wastewater
    Treatment Plant
     (Attenuated)	

        100 MGD
        115 MGD
        170 MGD
        190 MGD
        250 MGD
Flow Sewerage
 System (Not
 Attenuated)

   100 MGD
   120 MGD
   165 MGD
   240 MGD
   400 MGD
Parameter
Average
 Daily   Average  Maximum  Maximum  Maximum
 Base    Annual    Month    Week      Day
BOD5
  Loading (Ibs/day)  222,000  265,000  287,000  333,000  488,500

Suspended Solids
  Loading (Ibs/day)  263,000  265,000  341,000  420,000  656,000

Phosphorus
  Loading (Ibs/day)    6,300    8,300    8,200    8,800   17,000
TKN
  Loading (Ibs/day)   27,000   29,000   32,400   37,800   51,300
* Revised Table IV-1 from Appendix III - South Shore


Reference:  SSFPE

1 MGD = 3785 m3/day

1 Ib = 0.4536 kg
                                III-3

-------
6.0  LAKEFILL - EIS ALTERNATIVES

In the November 1980 Draft EIS Alternatives 8 ( a six acre lake-
fill) and 9 (no lakefill/no bluff cut) were developed as possible
options should the MMSD's recommended plan (Alternative No. 1 -
30 acre lakefill)  not be approved by the EPA and the DNR.
Although Alternatives 8 and 9 were discussed (pages 11-57, 58
and Chapter VI) no cost information was developed.  These alter-
natives do not have the flexibility of the MMSD's recommended
plan and allow no room for expansion at lake level  (as was planned
for in the original design of the WWTP).

Information developed by the MMSD for Alternatives 8 and 9 on
costs and energy consumption is listed below.  Most of the impacts
are equivalent to those of Alternative 1.  These alternatives pre-
sent severe limitations to the design of process operations.  The
Addendum to the South Shore Facility Plan Element Volume 1:  Plan-
ning Report discusses these limitations in more detail.  Table 2
presents costs for site development (lakefill)  for these alterna-
tives, while Table 3 gives total costs and energy data.

The lakefill section in the Addendum to Appendix II:  Jones Island
provides a general discussion of the regulatory requirements
involved with a lakefill.
Table 2.  Comparison of Site Costs for Alternatives 1  (MMSD's
          Recommended Plan), 8 and 9  (EIS Developed Alternatives)
Site development
   (lakefill)

Wastewater facilities
   (millions of $)
                             Alterna-
                              tive 1

                            (30ac fill)
$ 9.65
$31.80
            Alterna-     Alterna-
             tive 8       tive 9
                         (No fill/
           (6ac fill)   No bluff cut)
$6.00
$32.70
$40.50
Source:  MMSD 1980
The present worth costs for Alternatives 1, 8 and  9 are equiva-
lent, while Alternative 1 has the highest construction energy
requirements but lowest O&M energy needs.
                                 III-4

-------
Table 3.  Comparison of Alternative No. 1  (MMSD's Recommended Plan) with EIS
          Alternatives No. 8 and No. 9.   (Costs Include Liquid and Solids
          Handling).
COST (xlO6)
                            Alternative 1     Alternative 8     Alternative  9
                              (30ac fill)         (6ac fill)         (No  fill/
                                                                No bluff  cut)
  Capital                     $  127.55         $  123.95          $   126.30
  O&M (2005)                       9.87              9.87               9.97
  Present Worth                  237.45            233.95             236.10
ENERGY

  Construction
    Electrical (xlO kWh)          10.02             10.01              10.01
    Gasoline (xlO3 gal)          225               225                225
    Diesel Fuel (xlO3 gal)     1,290               850                900
       Total    (xlO9 BTU)       316               254                261
  O&M (2005)
    Electrical (xlO kWh)           9.02              9.02               9.25
    Natural Gas (xlO3 therms)    435               835               835
    Digester Gas (xlO3 therms) 3,000             3,000              3,000

       Total    (xlO9 BTU)       438               478               481
Source:  MMSD, 1980
         1 kWh = 10,500 BTU (as generated by WEPCO)
         1 gal. gasoline = 127,500 BTU
         1 gal. diesel fuel = 141,000 BTU
         1 therm = 105 BTU
                                       III-5

-------
7.0  NITROGEN CONTROL

Various nitrogen controls, including a discussion on ammonia, are
presented in the Addendum to Appendix IV, Solids Management.  The
effects of ammonia-nitrogen on water quality is discussed in the
Water Quality appendix.

8.0  ODORS

Considerable public concern has been expressed about odors in the
vicinity of the South Shore WWTP.  Because most odor problems at
WWTPs originate from solids handling facilities, odors have been
addressed among the new analyses in the Addendum to Appendix IV,
Solids Management as well as in responses to comments made on the
Draft EIS.  The Solids Management addendum mainly discusses where
odors may escape from a wastewater treatment system, what sub-
stances produce odors, and methods for preventing odors.  The
responses to public comments address specific questions and issues
raised by public agencies, local and state officials, and private
citizens.

9.0  PROPERTY VALUES

The South Milwaukee Tax Assessor conducted a study on the issue
of changing property values near the South Shore WWTP in 1978.
In this study, the assessed values of homes in the area of the
treatment plant (to the north) were compared to the market values
 (from recent sales) of those homes.  This gives the ratio of
assessed to market value.  This ratio was compared to that of
comparable housing in South Milwaukee, but evidence did not show
that there was any difference between the two areas.  The homes
near the treatment plant  (which are primarily $55,00-$60,000
homes) were selling at market values comparable to those of simi-
lar housing in South Milwaukee.   (No adjustment is taken for the
location of the treatment plant when assessing the homes near the
plant.)

The consensus among several realtors interviewed about this issue
was that the properties near the plant may be of relatively less
value, but this was attributable to a number of factors of which
the treatment plant was only one.  These factors included:  loca-
tion of schools and commercial services; housing mix; and odors
 (industrial, treatment plant).

The most accurate findings are those of the South Milwaukee Tax
Assessor since his interpretation is based on a quantified analy-
sis , as opposed to the interpretations of the realtors which
were based on opinion.

The results of the investigation  (relying primarily on the Tax
Assessors study, 1978) show that the value of properties near the
South Shore WWTP are in the same relative position as those of
                                 III-6

-------
 comparable properties in South Milwaukee as a whole.  This allows
 for the possibility that the properties near the treatment plant
 could normally be of higher value than comparable properties in
 South Milwaukee, and that they are being kept from these higher
 values by "other factors" (including the treatment plant)  as
 delineated by the realtors.  Although this possibility might
 exist, it is difficult to determine its probability.

10.0  PUBLIC HEALTH

 Public health risks associated with the discharge of untreated
 or partially treated sewage under the various alternatives were
 determined by estimating fecal coliform concentrations in the
 effluent or discharge and in the receiving water.  Fecal coliform
 is used as an indicator of disease-producing organisms.

 The following studies have 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-600/1-79-019.

      "Health Implications of Sewage Treatment Facilities,"
      EPA-600/1-78-032.

      "Health Effects of a Wastewater Treatment System,"
      EPA-600/1-78-062.

      "Assessment of Disease Rates among Sewer Workers in
      Copenhagen, Denmark," EPA-600/1-78-007.

      "Environmental Monitoring of a Wastewater Treatment
      Plant," US EPA.

      "The Evaluation of Microbiological Aerosols Associated
      with the Application of Wastewater to Land:  Pleasonton,
      CA," Department of the Army.

      "Health Risk of Human Exposure to Wastewater," US EPA.

 Some of the studies concluded that some wastewater treatment
 plants produce aerosol emissions which contain fecal coliform,
 pathogenic bacteria, enteroviruses, and mercury.  However, the
 studies did not indicate that the wastewater treatment plants
 contributed to a statistically higher incidence of disease to
 people living near the plants.

11.0  RECREATION - DUAL USE

 The MMSD's recommended plan (Alternative No. 1) for expansion at
 South Shore includes layouts for dual-use of the northern portion
                                  III-7

-------
      OO
OGO00-3O
        III-8

-------
 of the WWTP grounds (MMSD,  1980).   The dual-use would provide
 necessary improvements at South Shore along with areas for
 recreation.  The proposed plan includes visual screening of the
 WWTP on the west and north sides.   There would also be a buffer
 area on top of the bluff, permanent lake access along the north-
 ern property line and permanent access for fishing (see the
 following figure).  To implement these plans the MMSD, the County
 Parks and Planning Commissions, and local officials would have to
 agree on the development and maintenance of the buffer areas.

 The other alternatives (including  EIS developed Alternatives Nos.
 8 and 9)  do not have lakefill dual-use feature.  The land on the
 bluff (presently occupied by the two northern lagoons abandoned
 in September 1979) could be landscaped to create a park-like at-
 mosphere.  And, although this would create a more aesthetically
 pleasing view, direct access to the lake would be possible only
 with Alternative No. 1 (the MMSD's recommended plan).

12.0  TRANSPORTATION AND ACCESS

 In order to determine how the access to and from the South Shore
 WWTP would be affected by the implementation of the MMSD's recom-
 mended plan, it is relevant to note existing truck traffic at the
 plant.  Table No.  4 shows the existing conditions at the plant.
 Table 5 shows the future conditions at the plant if the MMSD's
 Recommended Plan is implemented.   Most material deliveries will
 not change; in fact, sludge transport will be cut in half.
                                III-9

-------
TABLE 4.  EXISTING CONDITIONS AT SOUTH SHORE WWTP TRANSPORTATION
    Material

Pickle Liquor

Liquid Chlorine
-1 Ton Cylinders

Liquid Polymer

Liquid Polymer
Materials and
Supplies
Sludge

Scum

Grit Screenings
Septic Tank
Sewage
      Carrier

Tank Truck

Railroad Tank Car
Truck  '

Tank Truck

Tank Truck
Semi-Trailer and
Other Delivery
Trucks
Tank Truck

Tank Truck

Roll-Off Container
Tank Truck
       Carrier
      Capacity
(gallons,  tons,  Ibs)

 4,000a gallons

 55  tons
 12-1 ton  cylinders

 5,000 gallons

 5,000 gallons
 Varies
 Varies
 5,500 gallons

 5,500 gallons

 15 cubic yards
 1,500-6,000 gallons
   Frequency
(Trips per week
   or month)

15-30 weekly

1 monthly
Emergency Basis

2 monthly

5 monthly
2 daily
1 daily
1 weekly
1 weekly

50-100 daily

1 weekly

2+ weekly
4-8 daily
     Pickle liquor trucks operate at less than rated capacity.  Pickle
     liquor weighs about 10 Ib/gal.
                                     111-10

-------
TABLE 5.  FUTURE CONDITIONS AT SOUTH SHORE WWTP TRANSPORTATION
     Material

Pickle Liquor

Liquid Chlorine
-1 Ton Cylinders

Liquid Sulfur
Dioxide

Liquid Polymer

Liquid Polymer

Materials and
Supplies
Sludge
Scum
Grit and Screenings*3
Septic Tank
Sewage
     Carrier

NC

NC
No longer required


Tank Truck

NC

NC


NC
Box Trailer Truck
NC
NC

NC
   Carrier
  Capacity

NC

NC



4,000 gallons

NC

NC
NC
30 cu yd
(avg load 26
cu yd)

NC
NC

NC
Frequency

NC

2 monthly



1 monthly

weekly

weekly


NC
45 daily3
NC
NC

NC
   NC:  No change

     a
     .   10 hrs/day, Monday-Friday
        When incinerator scrubber is operational hauling should
        not be necessary
                                     III-ll

-------
13.0  ERRATA

 Page 1-1

      Paragraph C

           The description of Alternative 1 should read as
           follows:

           Alternative 1:  Expansion in the lake to the
           north by enclosing 30 acres (12 ha)  with a
           revetment wall.  Twelve acres (5 ha)  would be
           filled initially to accommodate planned facili-
           ties.  The remaining 18 acres (7.2 ha)  would be
           filled within a period of 10 years.

 Page 1-2

      Paragraph D

           Paragraph D should read as follows:

           The MMSD's Recommended Plan is Alternative 1—the
           enclosing of 30 acres  (12 ha)  of Lake Michigan with
           a revetment wall, of which 12 acres will initially
           be filled to accommodate the expansion of existing
           wastewater treatment facilities and the addition of
           dechlorination facilities.  Aeration capacity would
           be expanded by 16%, and secondary clarification capa-
           city would be expanded by 50%.  Preliminary and pri-
           mary treatment facilities would remain unchanged,
           while new chlorine disinfection facilities would be
           constructed.  Solids handling process changes are
           addressed in the Solids Management Facility Plan
           Element  (SMFPE) and the Solids Management EIS
           Appendix.  The remaining 18 acres enclosed by the
           revetment wall would be filled within 10 years, as
           further expansion becomes necessary.   This time is
           necessary in order to comply with the Corps of
           Engineers 404 permit that requires the fill to be
           accomplished within a  "reasonable" length of time.
           For fill material, spoil from other MMSD projects
           or other construction projects would be used.
 Page 1-4
           On page 1-4, point 4 "resources consumed..." should
           read, 36,000 yd  of stone and gravel, not 36,000
           yd-3 of stone and granite.
                                 111-12

-------
Page II-6

     Section B, Paragraph 1

          This paragraph has been revised to read as follows:

          The need for the South Shore Facility was first
          indicated in the 1933 Report to the Sewerage
          Commission of the City of Milwaukee by its engi-
          neering staff.  A 108 acre  (44 hectares)  site
          for the new facility was purchased in 1940 at
          the eastern end of Puetz Road, in the City of
          Oak Creek.  It was bordered to the north by the
          City of South Milwaukee, to the west by Fifth
          Street, to the south by the Peter Cooper Company,
          and to the east by Lake Michigan.  In the 1950rs,
          as flow to the Jones Island WWTP approached capa-
          city, the MMSD initiated a study to build the
          additional treatment facility.  In 1960,  the
          engineering recommendations were approved, and
          construction of the South Shore WWTP and the
          connecting interceptor sewers was begun.   Com-
          pleted in 1968, the treatment plant was designed
          as a 60 MGD (2.6 m3/sec) primary treatment facil-
          ity.  Forty acres (16 hectares) of Lake Michigan
          were filled in for the liquid treatment facilities.
          In 1974, the WWTP was upgraded to secondary treat-
          ment capability, utilizing air activated sludge
          processes, and the design capacity was increased
          to 120 MGD (5.3 m3/sec).  A thirty acre (12 hec-
          tares)  site,  on the west side of Fifth Street,
          was subsequently purchased in 1977 for the purposes
          of future expansion (see Figure II-l).

Page 111-30

          The following information should be added to the
          table:

          Ammonia (NH3)                   1976  1977  1978  1979

          (No WPDES permit limitations)
          Effluent concentration (mg/1)  13.4  15.8  15.9  24.0

Page 111-32

     Section I, Last Sentence

          The last sentence on this page is corrected to read:

          The bypassed effluent goes from the primary process
          to the chlorinators, bypassing the secondary process,
          and is discharged to Lake Michigan via the outfall.



                               111-13

-------
Page 111-32

     Paragraph 4
          Sentence 3:  Change "Also, ammonia is toxic..."
          to "Also, un-ionized ammonia is toxic..."
          Sentence 5:  Change "4.5 million pounds" to "4.0
          million pounds."
Page 111-34

     Table 111-13
          The energy conversion for natural gas is 1,000
          BTU/ft3.  The energy conversion for digester gas
          is 600 BTU/ft3.
Page IV-39

     Table IV-1
          This table is replaced with Table 1 presented
          in this addendum under Projected Wastewater
          Flows for the Planning Period.
Page IV-45
          The secondary treatment process alternatives should
          include the activated biological filter process.
Page IV-56

     Paragraph 1
          The following statement should be added at the end
          of paragraph 1:

          Construction of an access road in the bluff area
          is a risk because the bluff is not extremely stable,
          experiences groundwater seepage and is approxi-
          mately 85 feet high.
Page IV-59

     Paragraph 2
          Delete the last sentence, "However, no alternative
          has a distinct advantage over another."
                               111-14

-------
Page IV-59

     Paragraph 3

          The last sentence is changed to read:

          "Alternatives 1 and 8 have an advantage because
          they follow the original expansion plans and
          include ample area for construction staging at
          lake level.  Alternative 1 provides room for
          future expansion and enables dual usage of the
          site, providing space for recreational develop-
          ment on top of the bluff and public access to
          the lake for fishing and recreation.

Page IV-60

     Paragraph 3, Sentence 1

          Delete this sentence.

Page IV-67,

     Table IV-9

          The units for electrical energy requirements
          should read kwh/yr, not kWhrs/yr.

Page V-70

     Table V-l

          The dissolved oxygen standard should be 6.0 mg/1.
          There should be no average concentration listed
          for pH.

Page V-71

     Paragraph 1

          Delete the phrase "...most from nonpoint sources..."

Page V-72

     Table V-2

          The title of Table V-2 should read:  BOTTOM-DWELL-
          ING ORGANISMS FOUND IN THE REFERENCE AREA NEAR THE
          WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY'S OAK CREEK POWER
          PLANT.
                               111-15

-------
Page V-73

     Section D,  Paragraph 1

           Delete the reference  to the EIS Water  Quality
           Appendix.

Page V-77

     Section K,  Paragraph 1,

           Next to last sentence:

           The 30-acre  (12 ha)  site west of Fifth Street
           was acquired in 1977,  not 1971.  This  was  a
           typographical error.

Page V-79,  VI-89, VI-90, VI-101

           The units for kilowatt-hours should  be abbre-
           viated to kWh, not  kwh.

Page VI-82

     Paragraph 6

           Paragraph 6  is revised to read as  follows:

           The South Shore WWTP  discharges at four outlets
           located on the bottom of Lake Michigan, 1,800
           feet northeast of the plant.  Effluent, being
           warmer than  lake water, often rises  to the sur-
           face where it spreads as a surface plume (MMSD,
           1979).  Some pollutants are carried  more than
           1,000 feet by winds and currents before being
           diluted to the point that they are no  longer
           distinguishable from ambient conditions.

Page VI-83

     Table VI-1

                    Effluent                           Future

 Suspended Solids—Change "7.5" to  "4.1"
 BOD—Change "7.5" to "3.3"
 Phosphorus—Change  "250,000" to  "160,000"
 Ammonia—Change "4.5" to "4.0"                       Change "6" to "5.3"
 Cadmium—Change 17,00 Ibs/yr to  1,700 Ibs/yr
 Change "Chronium" to "Chromium"
 Lead—Change "15,000" to "15,300"
 Fecal Coliform Bacteria—Change  "0.2" to "0.3"
  Delete footnote  "* Assumes maximum WPDES concentrations."


                                 111-16

-------
Page VI-84

     Table VI-2
          The water quality consequences in Table VI-2
          are revised to read as follows:
Alternative
No Action
     4-
     9
Water Quality
Concentrations of suspended solids, phosphorus,
and biochemical oxygen demand in the effluent
may increase to the maximum levels permitted
by the DNR.  Loads of these parameters, plus
ammonia, lead, and cadmium will increase with a
40% increase in flows from the WWTP.  This
discharge is expected to result in an area
of increased pollutant concentrations and
nutrient enrichment near the outfall.  Con-
centrations of un-ionized ammonia-nitrogen
may violate the DNR standard to support a
coldwater fish and aquatic life classifica-
tion during critical summer periods when the
pH is relatively high.  The phosphorus load
from the WWTP accounts for 1.1% of the total
load of phosphorus to the lake.
Page Vl-92
     Paragraph 2
          Sentences 3, 4, 5 and 6:  Delete these sentences
          and add, "Residual chlorine, including chloramines,
          would not exceed 0.5 mg/1.   The residual chlorine
          concentration should be kept as low as practicable
          below this limit to minimize toxicity effects.
          Chlorinated hydrocarbons would likely be formed
          during chlorination.  Residual sulfur dioxide used
          for dechlorination could exert a measurable, although
          minor, dissolved oxygen demand."

Page VI-92

     Paragraph 5

          Last sentence:  This sentence should be deleted.

Page VI-93

     Paragraph 2

          Sentence 3:  Delete the word "chloramine" from
          the sentence.
                               111-17

-------
Page VI-97

     Paragraph 0
          Last line:  Add "Ozone disinfection represents a
          problem to plant personnel, but not nearby resi-
          dents, since it is generated on-site and readily
          decomposes to oxygen.

Page VI-100

     Number 13.  Resources

          The years for which the data were taken should
          be typed midway between the colums for tons
          and metric tons.  The words "metric tons" and
          all the values in the metric ton columns should
          be enclosed in parentheses.  At the bottom of
          the page, 1 yd3 = 0.7645m3, not 0.9144m3.

Page VI-101

          Kilojoules should be abbreviated to kJ, not kj.

Page VI-105

          Add the following paragraph:

          The MMSD found that Alternative 1 is the only
          Alternative to provide the opportunity to
          integrate wastewater treatment with recreational
          development.  Taking advantage of the lakefront
          location of the plant site, this alternative
          also provides for lake access by the public
           (MMSD, 1980).
                               111-18

-------
GLOSSARY

     First Page,  Algae Bloom
          Place a period after "water."  Delete "as a
          result of high phosphate concentrations from
          farm fertilizers and detergents."
                               111-19

-------
ADDENDUM TO APPENDIX IV
   SOLIDS MANAGEMENT

-------
ADDENDUM TO APPENDIX IV - SOLIDS MANAGEMENT
1.0  INTRODUCTION

This Addendum to Appendix IV, Solids Management of the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared for the Milwaukee
Metropolitan Sewerage District's (MMSD) Water Pollution Abatement
Program (WPAP)  was prepared for several reasons:

*      To more completely address issues presented in the
       MMSD's June 1980 Solids Management Report (SMR).

*      To present the development of new data and analyses
       resulting from the MMSD's Advanced Facility Planning(AFP)
       efforts.

•      To present new EIS analyses.

•      To make corrections to the Draft EIS.

The sections to this addendum are as follows:

2.0  Acid rain - The effects of acid rain on sludge amended soil
     are addressed in response to a  public comment.

3.0  Crop yield - A comparison of crop yields at different sludge
     and heavy metal application rates is made.

4.0  Energy - A comparison of energy consumption for Milorganite
     vs.  land application  of Jones Island sludge is presented.

5.0  Existing  MMSD sludge disposal - The section in the Draft
     EIS is expanded and new information is presented.

6.0  Flexibility - The EIS analysis for a total land application
     system considers flexibility for short and long-term problems
     with sludge disposal.  The MMSD's recommended plan involved
     landfill/land application of sludge.  However, land appli-
     cation was the most cost-effective method of disposal for
     each plant on an individual basis.  Back-up methods for a
     total land application system are discussed.

7.0  Industrial waste pretreatment - Volume 1 of MMSD's
     7 October 1980 Industrial Waste Pretreatment Program is
     discussed along with additional analyses.

8.0  Land requirements - Acreages required for the MMSD's pro-
     posed ultimate disposal facilities are discussed.
                                IV-1

-------
 9.0  Land use - The end use of a closed disposal facility is
      discussed.

10.0  Matschke Report - A report prepared for the Town of East
      Troy evaluated the MMSD's sludge spreading program.  This
      report is evaluated.

11.0  Monitoring - The DNR's program for monitoring groundwater
      and solid waste disposal is presented.

12.0  Nitrogen Control - Nitrogen Control measures are dis-
      cussed (with emphasis on the Jones Island WWTP).

13.0  Odors - Odors generated by wastewater treatment are dis-
      cussed.  In addition, sources where odors may develop
      and possible mitigative measures are identified.

14.0  Priority pollutants - The concentrations of these
      pollutants in MMSD sludge are presented.  The tests which
      determine whether the MMSD's sludge is hazardous or toxic
      are also discussed.

15.0  Public health - The discussion presented in the Draft
      EIS is expanded to include information on specific para-
      meters .

16.0  Terrestrial ecosystems - The discussion presented in the
      Draft EIS is modified.

17.0  Water quality - Surface and groundwater quality are dis-
      cussed.  Drinking water standards are compared with the
      quality of MMSD leachate.  Potential water contamination
      is discussed in relation to the MMSD's recommended forms
      of ultimate disposal.

18.0  Errata - Errors in the Draft EIS are corrected.

19.0  Glossary - Terms are added or modified

20.0  References - Additional reports and papers are cited.


2.0  ACID RAIN

Acid rain is primarily caused by the release of sulfur oxides,
nitrogen oxides, and chlorine into the atmosphere which are
converted to sulfuric acid, nitric acid, and hydrochloric acid
as rain falls through the  atmosphere.  In the Great Lakes area,
the rain is  generally 5 to 40 times more acid than under natural
conditions typically, "pure" rain has a pH of 5.6.  While most
research efforts have been directed at the effects of acid rain
on aquatic life in lakes,  acid rain also potentially affects the
                                IV-2

-------
terrestrial environment.  The potential effects of acid rain
on the terrestrial environment include:


1.  The increased release of heavy metals, including mercury,
    lead, copper, cadmium, aluminum, and zinc, from soils.

2.  The increased toxicity of heavy metals contained within
    soils.

3.  The reduced fertility of soils due to the removal of
    calcium and magnesium from soils, under which bacteria
    are less able to oxidize nitrite and nitrate-nitrogen
    into biologically available forms.

4.  Direct damage to foliage.


Municipal sewage sludge  (e.g. the MMSD's sludge)contains heavy
metals which can be released  from the soil when acidic
conditions predominate.  Page  (1973) found that aerobic soil,
particularly clay with a pH above 7,will retain heavy metals.
Acid rain  (also called acid precipitation) is of concern since
its pH ranges from 1.8 to 5.6.  If acid rain lowers soil pH
significantly, heavy metals could be released from the soil/
sludge mixture and leached to the groundwater.

Whether or not these potential effects of acid rain actually
occur in southeastern Wisconsin is largely dependent on the
buffering capacity of the soils.  The acids in the rain react
with calcareous  (calcium carbonate) materials, such as lime-
stone in soils and rocks, and dissolved bicarbonate in water.
Where the buffering capacity is high, the acids are neutralized
by these reactions. However, in lakes with relatively small amounts
of dissolved bicarbonate, the buffering capacity can be exceeded
and the acidity of the lake itself may increase.  In lakes in
southeastern Wisconsin, the buffering capacity is relatively
high because most soils and sediments are calcarious, and
these lakes are not readily susceptible to acid rain damage.
Therefore, based on current experiences with lakes, the
soils in southeastern Wisconsin probably exhibit a high
buffering capacity against changes in acidity.

However, the effectiveness of this buffering capacity in pre-
venting the release of toxic metals or other substances applied
in sludge, or in preventing the increase of the toxicity of
metals, has not been specifically studied.  Ongoing and pro-
posed research programs are addressing these issues.  For
example, the EPA Environmental Research Laboratory in Duluth,
Minnesota is currently investigating the impact of acid rain
on the release of toxic materials from soils.  In 1981,
the EPA Great Lakes Program Office will monitor the acidity
of rain in southeastern Wisconsin.  Several agricultural


                               IV-3

-------
research facilities, including the Universities of Wisconsin,
Minnesota, and Purdue, are studying the effects of acid rain
on agricultural production.  The results of these studies
should be useful in understanding the relationships between
acid rain and substances applied in sewage sludge.  It is
assumed that limits (on the amount of toxic metals applied
to land established by the EPA and Wisconsin DNR) will be
revised, if necessary, to reflect the findings of these
research studies.  The application of lime (calcium oxide or
calcium carbonate) to the soil (either by the farmer or if
used in the treatment of sludge)  should maintain the soil's
buffering capacity at a high enough level to compensate for
acid rainfall. Also, anaerobically digested sludge has an ex-
tremely high buffering capacity (due to its high alkalinity) and
this should tend to neutralize the effects of acid rain.
However, until results of a study on this particular subject
have been published, it is difficult to fully assess the
effects of acid rain on sludge amended soil.

Wisconsin has a moderate sensitivity to the effects of acid
rain (EPA 1979a).  Morton and Adamski  (1980)  performed a study
for the DNR on acid precipitation but did not address the
effects of acid rain on sludge-amended soils.

3.0  CROP YIELD

The application of sludge to agricultural land has the advan-
tage of recycling plant nutrients:   primarily nitrogen, phos-
phorus, potassium, calcium, magnesium, sulfur, zinc and copper.
It also improves the soil's physical condition, in that it
increases the soil's ability to hold water and nutrients and
reduces runoff and erosion.  Disadvantages include heavy
metals contained in the sludge along with pathogens, odors
and the accumulation of toxic substances in the food chain.
These are discussed elsewhere in this addendum.

Of course, some soils are not well suited for sludge applica-
tion because of the risk of contamination of groundwater or
surface water.  High water table, soils which are subject to
flooding and ponding,  steep slope,  shallow depth to bedrock,
and high permeability are limiting factors.

Crop yields increase when sludge application rates increase.
The differences can be seen in the following tables.  Yields
of corn increase as sludge application rates increase.  The
extra nutrients  in the sludge  (not the additional water)
increased crop yields.
                                 IV-4

-------
     Effect of liquid digested sludge on crop yields over a three-year
    	test period (Arlington,  Wisconsin Experimental Farm).	
Treatment
Tons per acre
of sludge  (dry
Crop
weight basis)
0
1.75
3.5
7.0
14.0
28.0
Water
Rye
T/A
1.67
1.74
1.78
1.81
1.80
1.69
1.67
1st year corn
Bu/A
43
58
77
94
106
120
49
2nd year corn
Bu/A
29
31
40
57
93
102
37
3rd year corn
Bu/A
20
21
30
40
55
72
23
   Sludge was applied during the summer prior to establishment of a  fall
   cover crop of rye. The rye was harvested the following spring and
   the plots were replanted to corn.  No additional  sludge was applied
   in subsequent years.

   Yields are an average from three experiments.

   Water was added at a rate equivalent to that applied with 28 tons
   per acre of sludge (8 acre-inches).

Source:  Walsh, et al (1976).
Increased rates of sludge application  can lead  to increased
rates  of heavy  metal  application,  but  Walsh, et al  (1976)  found
no decrease in  crop yields for  increased zinc,  copper and
cadmium application rates.  The following tables show that
yields are actually increased.
                                   IV-5

-------
   Effect of sludge  applied  at Arlington Experimental Farm on the
  	concentration  of  copper  in plants.	

                                    Crop
Rate of
Application of
Sludge Copper
T /a 1 He /a
0 0
1.75 4.3
3.5 8.6
7.0 17.2
14.0 34.4
28.0 64.8


Rye

3.8
5.8
7.0
8.2
9.4
11.7
1st
Cc
Grain

0.4
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.4
Year
>rn
Stover

- ppm
1.6
2.3
2.2
2.8
2.7
2.9
2nd Yea
Corn
Grain
c l 	
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.3
ir

Stover

2.1
1.9
2.9
2.4
3.8
3.9


Sorghum-
sudan

6.1
7.2
6.4
7.3
6.6
9.4
 Plant growth may be reduced  when  the  level  of  copper  in  the plant  leaves
 exceeds 30 ppm.
   Effect of sludge applied at Arlington Experimental  Farm on  the
  	concentration of  zinc in  plants.	

                                    Crop
Rate of
Application of

Sludge

I/A
0
1.75
3.5
7
14
28

Copper

IDS/A
0
8.9
17.8
35.6
71.2
142.4

Rye


21
29
32
38
46
56
Corn

Grain


18
18
19
21
22
22

Stover

	 ppm
23
21
24
34
42
50
Corn

Grain
7T!1

21
21
21
22
20
22

Stover


28
29
27
37
42
49
Sorghum-
sudan


70
95
102
100
106
122
Plant growth may be reduced when the level of zinc in the  plant leaves
exceeds 150 ppm.
                                   IV-6

-------
      Effect of sludge applied at Arlington Experimental Farm on the
         	concentration of cadmium in plants	
                                       Crop
Rate of
Application of

Sludge Cadmium


0 0
1.75 0.26
3.5 0.52
7 1.05
14 2.10
28 4.20



Rye


.16
.25
.31
.35
.35
.40
1st Ye
Corn

Grain


.08
.07
.10
.08
.09
.07
ar


Stover

	 ppm
.09
.13
.11
.17
.25
.29
2nd Yc
Corn

Grain

(~Q
.06
.06
.06
.07
.07
.12
jar


Stover


.07
.08
.08
.12
.19
.19

Sorghum-
sudan



0.53
0.50
0.75
0.75
0.85
0.95
 4 . 0  ENERGY

 Milorganite consumes more  energy  (from a process and trans-
 portation consideration) than land application  of solids.
 However,  since Milorganite has a much higher  solids fraction
 (approximately 95%  compared to 35%)  it has a  much higher nutri-
 ent energy content.   The following table compares Milorganite
 and land  applied  sludge  (this data is based upon Alternative
 J-16, Table V-ll  of Appendix IV).

                     COMPARISON OF MILORGANITE AND
                    LAND APPLICATION SLUDGE USE SYSTEMS
    Process & Transport Energy
 Energy Used (BTU x 10 /ton)

 Energy Produced (BTU x 10 /ton)

 Net Energy Use (BTU x 10 /ton)
    Nutrient Energy**
                 r
 Nitrogen (BTU x 10 /ton)

 Phosphorous (BTU x 10 /ton)
                  6
 Potassium  (BTU x 10 /ton)
Milorganite

   27.57

    0

   27.57
    3.6

    0.48

    0.06
Land Application

     1.738

    -4.048*

    -2.310*
     1.0

     0.42

     0.048
    Total
 BTU x 10 /ton                           4.14            1.47

    Cost  ($/ton)

 *  Negative values indicate  energy produced by Anaerobic Digestion
**  Equivalent Commercial Fertilizer Production Energy
                                    IV-7

-------
5.0  EXISTING MMSD SLUDGE DISPOSAL

The following description of the existing (1979) sludge dis-
posal for the Jones Island and South Shore wastewater treat-
ment plants  (WWTPs) is intended to supplement that found in
Appendix IV Solids Management.

5.1  Jones Island WWTP

In 1979 the Jones Island WWTP produced approximately 62,200
tons secondary sludge which was disposed of by several methods
including Milorganite production, application on Milwaukee
County park lands, landfill of wet filter cake, and incinera-
tion followed by landfill.  Production of Milorganite has
been the most important element in the utilization and dis-
posal of wastewater solids at Jones Island WWTP.  However,
recent sales of Milorganite have been lagging.  Table I gives
a monthly breakdown for the ultimate disposal of these solids
during 1979.  Table 2 shows a chemical analysis for Milorganite.

In an average year 70,000 tons of Milorganite are produced.
During 1979 Milorganite production was below average  (57,456
tons).  In the past fifteen years production of Milorganite
has slowly decreased.  This decrease may in part be attribu-
table to decreased loads at Jones Island as a result of the
start-up of the South Shore WWTP.

Milorganite has been sold as an organic natural fertilizer
and soil conditioner and during the years 1973-1978 sales
exceeded the inventory in the warehouse  (which has a capacity
of 15,000 tons).  The production of Milorganite (which involved
bagging the heat-dryed sludge) has typically been equivalent
to sales.  However in 1979 and 1980  Milorganite inventory
far exceeded sales,  (as shown by the following figure).
Sales have been more eratic since a cadmium warning was placed
on the bags in 1978, thereby causing a rise in inventory.

Prior to 1977, nearly all wastewater solids recovered at Jones
Island were processed into Milorganite.  Beginning in 1977,
excess dewatered wastewater solids in the form of filter cake
were landfilled to offset both scheduled and unscheduled Mil-
organite shutdown and to facilitate equipment maintenance.
Approximately 546 tons of wet filter cake were landfilled in
1979.  In terms of a wet sludge volume this is equivalent to
648 yd3.

Sludge is hauled by a private contractor to one of three land-
fills in Germantown, Muskego, and Franklin.  At the landfill
site, sludge is mixed and buried with garbage collected from
other communities.
                                 IV-8

-------
                                       TABLE 1
                               Ultimate Solids Disposal
                                                       a,b
Jones Island WWTP -
Park
0
Month Board
1979 (tons)
January 1 . 9
February 3 . 2
March 39 . 7
April 43.1
May 44 . 0
June 4 . 8
July 5 . 0
August 11.3
September 22.3
October 2 . 5
November 100 . 6
December 120.2
TOTALS 398.6
Incin-
eratedd
(tons)
120.3
99.8
125.6
95.9
85.0
87.5
77.2
86.0
67.0
44.0
0
0
888.3
Milorganite
"C"e
(tons)
0
3.6
15.9
3.5
20.9
146.3
0
106.9
281.8
1069.9
1051.3
10.0
2710.1
1979

Wet
q
Milorganite Milorganite Filter
"F"f Cakeh -
(tons)
12.5
8.2
32.8
24.2
21.4
0.7
20.8
3.0
3.6
10.2
3.0
28.0
168.4
(tons)
5,338.8
4,596.3
6,111.7
5,957.6
5,705.5
4,955.4
4,824.1
4,793.8
4,364.1
3,439.3
3,592.6
3,776.9
57,456.1
(tons)
0
23.0
64.0
0
0
0
0
15.0
39.0
190.0
0
215.0
546.0

Monthly
Totals
(tons)
5,473.5
4,734.1
6,389.7
6,124.3
5,876.8
5,194.7
4,927.1
5,016.0
4,777.8
4,755.9
4,747.5
4,150.1
62,167.5
a.  Secondary clarifier solids only.   Does not include grit, coarse screenings and
    fine screenings.

b.  Source:  MMSD.

c.  Spread on the Milwaukee County Park System.

d.  Incinerator ash is landfilled.  Facility was closed permanently in November, 1979.

e.  "Milorganite Chaff" which is landfilled.

f.  "Fine grade Milorganite".  Available by special request only.

g.  This represents the standard Milorganite produced at Jones Island.

h.  Approximately 14% solids.
                                           IV-9

-------
Constituent




Nitrogen




Total Phosphorus




Copper




Zinc




Nickel




Chromium




Lead




Cadmium




Aluminum




Iron
            TABLE 2




Chemical Analysis of Milorganite




                Concentration




                6.0 to 7.0 percent




                3.50 to 4.18 percent




                380 to 430 mg/kg




                750 to 1425 mg/kg




                65 to 115 mg/kg




                6100 to 7800 mg/kg




                500 to 700 mg/kg




                80 to 140 mg/kg




                4600 to 5800 mg/kg




                60,000 to 67,000 mg/kg
 1 mg/kg = ppm
Source:  MMSD, 1978  (TSM)
                                       IV-10

-------
                                                              Q)o
                                                              05
«
1    !
f   !
i    !
i—t-
                                       >
                                   	.V .-
                                                         CO
                                                         01
                                                         CO
                                                         O
                                                         U)
                                                              SSI
                                                            > °i
                                                            0 UJ5:
                                                            O I   I '
                                                            a:
                                                            o
                                                            z
                                                            UJ
                                                            C/5
                                                            UJ
                                                            _J
                                                            <
                                                            05
                                                            ^
                                                            Z
                                                            g

                                                            o
                                                            ID
                                                            Q
                                                            O
                                                            QL
                                                            Q.

                                                            UJ
                                                            cc
                                                            o
               suol
                     IV-11
                                                         E

                                                         o
                                                               CO
                                                               en
                                                                                    o:
                                                                                    tx

-------
The landfilling of filter cake takes place on a variable basis
(See Table 1).  There were six months in 1979 during which no
sludge was landfilled.

5.2  South Shore WWTP

In 1979, the South Shore WWTP disposed of approximately
46,000 dry tons of wastewater solids.  These solids were
disposed of by application to agricultural land or by hauling
to a landfill.  Application to agricultural land has been the
most important element in the utilization and disposal of
wastewater solids from South Shore.  Table 3 lists a monthly
breakdown for the ultimate disposal of these solids during 1979
Table 4 gives a chemical analysis of South Shore sludge.

During 1979, the South Shore WWTP applied approximately
35,000 dry tons of sludge to agricultural land.  According to
MMSD they now have 62,000 acres of land that has been approved
by the DNR to receive sludge.  Currently, only 5,000 acres
or 8% of the approved land is utilized each year.  A given
parcel of land may receive a maximum of one application per
growing season.  However, this may depend upon quality of the
sludge applied and crops grown.

A summary, by county, for the distribution of land applied
sludge is given below:

Distribution of Sludge     Application by County in 1979

	County	     Percentage of Total Sludge Applied

     Milwaukee                             5
     Racine                               10
     Walworth                             60
     Waukesha                             25

Source:  MMSD, 1980

Wastewater solids are currently transported from South Shore
lagoons in a semiliquid form  (10% solids) by a private hauler
to the land application sites.  This same truck is used for
the spreading operations.  After spreading, the solids are
disced and incorporated into the soil.

From approximately December 1 to April 15 sludge cannot be
applied to agricultural fields.  Frozen ground would prevent
proper incorporation of sludge into the soil and future run-
off could have a severe impact upon nearby waterways.  Also,
wet and muddy fields may make it impossible to land apply the
sludge.  To circumvent these problems, sludge is presently
stored at the South Shoe WWTP during the winter months.
                               IV-12

-------
                                 TABLE 3
                         Ultimate Solids Disposal




Month 1979
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December


Digester
Draw
(tons)
2077
2156
2387
2190
2697
2190
2263
2883
2190
2697
2010
2108
South Shore
Solids To
Landfill b
17% Solids
(tons)
93
364
1302
1350
1674
1320
1085
0
810
930
870
899
WWTP - 1979
Solids To
Land Application
10% Solids
(tons)
0
0
0
750
4290
3900
4092
2480
7890
6417
2910
1302

Net Change
In Storage
Lagoon Level
( tons )
1984
1792
1085
90
-3267
-3030
-2914
403
-6510
-4650
-1770
-93
Total
27,848
10,697
34,031
-16,880
a.  Solids which are drawn from a digester and are temporarily stored
    in a lagoon for further dewatering.   The solids taken from the
    lagoon are sent to a landfill or applied on agricultural land.

b.  Does not include screenings and grit.

c.  Source:  MMSD,  1980
                                     IV-13

-------
                            TABLE 4
        Chemical Analysis of Sludge For Land Application
                    South Shore WWTP - 1979 a
Constituent                     Concentration

% Solids                        7.0 to 15.9 percent

pH                              6.7 to 8.4

Nitrogen                        2.44 to 3.63 percent

Cadmium                         34 to 55 rag/Kg

Chromium                        9,800 to 15,000 mg/Kg

Copper                          910 to 1,300 mg/Kg

Iron                            57,000 to 100,200 mg/Kg

Nickel                          480 to 655 mg/Kg

Lead                            420 to 770 mg/Kg

Zinc                            3,605 to 5,000 mg/Kg

Potash                          0.09 to 0.21 percent



Total Phosphate  (P2°5^          6.47 to 8.68 percent

   1 mg/Kg = Ippm



a.  Southeast lagoon.  May to November measurements.
Source:  MMSD, 1980
                                 IV-14

-------
Sludge dewatering and storage, in the past, has taken place
in six lagoons at South Shore.  In response to odor complaints
by South Milwaukee residents, the MMSD abandoned the two north
sludge lagoons in September 1979.  Consequently, only the
four south lagoons are available for sludge dewatering and
storage before ultimate disposal.

The four lagoons are 15 feet deep, cover a total surface
area of 610,000 square feet and have a total storage volume
of 291,580 yds3. Sludge is introduced at one end of each
lagoon and the supernatant is decanted at the opposite end.
Thickened sludge is dredged or pumped into trucks and hauled
away for disposal.

The land application operations take place 6 days a week for
12-14 hours per day.  However, due to inclement weather and
equipment failures the average number of transport days per
month is 21.  During 1979 an average of 100 truckloads per
day left the South Shore WWTP.  The volume of wet sludge
(10% solids) hauled per truck is 25 yds3.

During 1979, the South Shore WWTP landfilled approximately
11,000 dry tons of sludge.  In terms of a wet sludge volume,
this is equivalent to 70,000 yds3 (assuming 17% solids).
Landfill disposal of South Shore sludge is carried out in the
same manner as it is for Jones Island.  At the landfill site
sludge is mixed and buried with garbage collected from other
communities.

The landfill operations take place five days per week and
twelve months per year.  However, due to mechanical mal-
functions and poor weather conditons, the landfill may not
accept sludge on a short-term basis. During 1979 an average
of 25 truckloads per day left the South Shore WWTP.  The
volume of sludge hauled per load is 20 yds3.


6.0  FLEXIBILITY

This section expands the discussions of flexibility on pages
1-3 and IV-24.

Due to the magnitude and complexity of the proposed solids
management plan,  all management schemes can be subject to un-
anticipated problems which could interrupt or shorten their
effective lives.   If a problem developed, the MMSD would have
to find an environmentally sound means of handling almost 500
tons of solids each day.
                               IV-15

-------
The MMSD determined that their recommended plan (Alternatives
J31 - Landfill for Jones Island and S12 - Land application
for South Shore)  would be the most flexible on a short-term
basis.  The EIS used total land application system for compari-
son since the costs presented in the MMSD's Solids Management
Report  (SMR) showed that for each individual plant a land
application system was the most cost-effective.

However, a major concern involved in the planning of a large
land application program is the potential problem of decreas-
ing farmland availability.  This can occur by changes in land
use, loss of interest on the part of farmers or by local
government restrictions on land application of sludge.  The
first two potential problems are mitigated by the following:

•   The Wisconsin Farmland Preservation Program is a state
    sponsored program specifically designed to encourage the
    maintenance of existing farmland through tax incentives
    and zoning.

•   The MMSD has found that the value of land applied sludge
    as a replacement for inorganic fertilizer could decrease
    the annual cost of farming to farmers participating in
    such a program.

Land application of sludge, however, is a viable disposal
alternative only if enough suitable land is not only available
but also obtainable for use.  The amount of suitable soils
currently in field corn in the SEWRPC region has been used in
this analysis as a conservative estimate of land availability.
Implementation of the combined plan of land application of
Jones Island and South Shore  (land application) solids
 (Alternatives J16 and S12) would require the use of approxi-
mately  34 percent of the available land.  Therefore, adequate
land area for sludge application is available.  The identifica-
tion and procurement of specific parcels for use is, of course,
a more difficult determination.  The amount of land which will
be restricted from participation in a land application program
is impossible to estimate without site specific studies and
interaction with local governmental units and the public.

As a  result a Site Specific Analysis is presently being con-
ducted  as part of the Milwaukee Water Pollution Abatement Pro-
gram.   The purpose of this study is to identify specific
utilization/disposal  sites for the recommended solids manage-
ment  alternatives from the Solids Management Report.  Prelim-
 inary results of this study have indicated:

•   that the location of  land and obtaining the rights to
    apply Jones Island solids to such land will be very
    difficult.
                                IV-16

-------
•   that public concern has been raised over the public health
    implications of a program of agricultural application of
    sludge.

•   that the Citizens Environmental Advisory Committee  (CEAC)
    has discouraged the recommendation of an agricultural
    application program for Jones Island sludge because of
    environmental concerns.

In addition, the stated objective of the MMSD is to try to
have more than one method for solids use or disposal in order
to maximize flexibility for the future and shortening reaction
time to future regulatory and technological changes.  These
factors point to the need to evaluate the EIS combined plan
(J16 - S12) in terms of vulnerability to problems, the means
by which the plan could accommodate such problems, the costs
and the plan's implementability.

Any interruption in the ability of MMSD to continue solids
management under the EIS combined plan  (J16 - S12) can be
categorized as either a short-term or long-term problem.

A short-term problem is defined as an interruption that lasts
from several days to two weeks.  A long-term problem is one
which necessitates a changeover of one or more of the final
utilization procedures.  It is assumed that this changeover
would last from two weeks to three years and be either tem-
porary (i.e. the problem necessitating the changeover would
be resolved and utilization of the original procedures would
resume) or permenent (i.e. the original method would be aban-
doned and an alternate method planned and implemented.)

The problems described below do not include mechanical failure
of process equipment.  It is assumed that normal backup sys-
tems and designed excess capacity of individual processes are
sufficient to accommodate such problems.  Analysis of the
design criteria inherent in the management systems revealed
that short-term problems should not be a major cause of con-
cern.  For example, work stoppages could be accommodated by on-
site storage capabilities. Extremely wet weather  (which could
affect land application) could be accommodated by the proposed
capacity of the sludge storage sites.

Long-term problems  (of  a  temporary or permanent nature) for  a
land  application program  could result from the following:

•   Adverse changes  in  sludge quality which would make  it un-
    safe for  land application.

•   Changes in  land  use,
                               IV-17

-------
 •  Loss of market due to public opposition and/or a change
    in farmer's attitudes towards the program.


The costs of providing flexibility for the Jones Island and
South Shore land application alternatives  (J16 and S12) were
calculated, assuming  that solids be landfilled for up to a
five-year period if loss of land application occurs.  The
five-year period was considered by the DNR's Bureau of Solid
Waste as an adequate period to obtain approval for and prepare
a landfill site should the land application alternative fail.

The costs of providing the flexibility were estimated to be
an additional  $l/dry ton for both J16 and S12.  The additional
cost  includes  only the cost of the land and the cost of locating
and designing  such a landfill.  Land to be appreciated at a
compound rate  of 3 percent annual over the 20-year planning
period.  A discount rate of 6-7/8 percent was used in calculating
the salvage value of land.  The cost of locating and designing
the landfill was assumed to be 30 percent of the landfill
capital cost.  The landfill capital cost was determined based
on the  "Landfill Process Criteria" developed for MMSD's SMS.  The
landfill capital cost includes facilities such as storage and
treatment, structure and equipment.  Capital costs for site
preparation and vehicles were excluded.
e.g.  J16
        Land requirement - 280 acres including buffer zone
                    cost = 280 x 3000 = $840,000

        Capital cost:  vehicle = 0
            Storage Treatment  = $  572,000
                    Equipment  =    151,000
                    Structure  =  1,358,OOP
                                 $2,081,000

        30% of $2,081,000      = $  624,000

        Land salvage value     =    840,000 x 1.0320x 1.06875"20
                                    401,000

        Total cost = $624,000 + 840,000 -  401,000 =  $1,063,000

        Equivalent annual cost = $1,063,000 x 0.0935 =  $99,400



        A  Cost/ton = 29894'f°365  = $1/t°n
                                 IV-18

-------
7.0  INDUSTRIAL WASTES

The discussion of "3.  Industrial Pretreatment"(page IV-8
of Appendix IV) should be revised to read as follows:

The MMSD is in the process of developing an industrial pre-
treatiuent program.  Three elements of the program have been
completed  (MMSD, 1980):

    •   Industrial waste survey

    •   Evaluation of the MMSD's legal authority to enforce
        a pretreatment program.

    •   Determination of the technical information necessary
        to design a pretreatment program.

If the MMSD's industrial waste pretreatment program  (IWPP)
is successfully implemented before the start of the planning
period, then the projected pollutant loads to both WWTPs could
be reduced.  This could, in turn, increase the site life of a
land fill or a land application system.  As a result, there
may be some modification of ultimate disposal methods.

However, any prediction of the efforts of local industries
to pretreat their wastewater discharges and the effect that
the pretreatment program would have on future flows and loads
would only be speculation.  Therefore, the Solids Management
Report      (MMSD, 1980a) and the EIS do not take the IWPP
into account when evaluating future wastewater flows and loads.
This conservative approach constitutes a worst case situation.

The MMSD's IWPP makes no projections^of influent quality and
quantity based on reductions of industrial discharges.  However,
after EPA promulgates standards for the 21 industrial cate-
gories, it will be possible to project industrial contribu-
tions to influent quality and quantity.  The following table
shows a breakdown (by category and by municipality)  of the
industries studied in the IWPP.  To date, the EPA has only
published standards for the electroplating industry.

Cadmium is one of the pollutants that represents a tremendous
concern due to its possible effects on public health.  The
MMSD currently regulates industrial cadmium discharges.  The
MMSD is anticipating a 75% reduction of Cadmium in its sludge
due to reduction by a major industry  (presently discharging
to Jones Island).
                              IV-19

-------
                Industries Surveyed By the MMSD

Breakdown by Industrial Category                     Number

    Timber products processing                         3
    Steam electric power                               6
    Leather tanning and finishing                     19
    Iron and steel manufacturing                       5
    Petroleum  refining                                0
    Inorganic chemical manufacturing                  12
    Textile mills                                      8
    Organic chemicals manufacturing                    6
    Nonferrous metals manufacturing                   11
    Paving and roofing materials                       1
    Paint and ink formulation                         40
    Soap and detergent manufacturing                   3
    Auto and other laundries                          10
    Plastics and synthetic materials                   6
    Pulp and paper                                    24
    Rubber processing                                 17
    Miscellaneous chemicals                           28
    Machinery and mechanical products                457
    Electroplating                                    98
    Ore mining and dressing                            0
    Coal mining                                      	0
                                             total   754
Breakdown by Service Area

    Jones Island WWTP                                373
    South Shore WWTP                                  65
    Diversion Area                                   259
                                             total   697

Breakdown by Municipality

    Milwaukee                                        350
    Greenfield                                         3
    Hales Corners                                      0
    St. Francis                                        6
    West Milwaukee                                    32
    Brookfield                                        19
    Brown Deer                                         8
    Butler                                            15
    Cudahy                                            25
    Fox Point                                          0
    Franklin                                           4
    Glendale                                          15
    Greendale                                          5
    Menomonee Falls                                   45
    New Berlin                                        62
    Oak Creek                                         27
    Shorewood                                          0
    Wauwatosa                                         30


                                 IV-20

-------
Industries Surveyed By the MMSD  (continued)

Breakdown by Municipality  (continued)

    West Allis                                         39
    Whitefish Bay                                       0
    Mequon                                             11
    Muskego                                             0
    Elm Grove                                           1
                                  total               697

Annual sludge application rates recommended for agricultural
soils are dependent upon nitrogen and cadmium concentrations
of the sludge and the crop being grown.  In the case of South
Shore sludge, yearly application rates are limited by cadmium.
The total quantity of sludge applied to soils (and therefore
site life) is limited by heavy metals additions, particularly
zinc, copper, nickel, cadmium and lead.  For South Shore sludge,
zinc is most restrictive and thus determines site life.  In
decreasing order, nickel, cadmium, copper and lead are the
next most limiting metals.

In order to maintain the proper operation of their wastewater
treatment plants  (WWTPs) and to protect public health, the MMSD
has the legal authority  (40 CFR 403.8  (f)(i) -  (vi) ) to:

    "(i)  Deny or condition new or increased contributions of
pollutants, or changes in the nature of pollutants, to the
POTW  (Publicy Owned Treatment Works)  by Industrial Users;

     (ii)  Require compliance with applicable Pretreatment
Standards and Requirements by Industrial Users;

     (iii)  Control, through permit,  contract, order, or
similar means, the contribution to the POTW by each Industrial
User to ensure compliance with applicable Pretreatment Standards
and Requirements;

     (iv)  Require  (A) the development of a compliance schedule
by each Industrial User for the installation of technology
required to meet applicable pretreatment standards and require-
ments, and (B) the submission of all notices and self-monitor-
ing reports from Industrial Users as are necessary to assess
and assure compliance by Industrial Users with Pretreatment
Standards and Requirements, including, but not limited to, the
reports required by Section 403.12 of the General Pretreatment
Regulations;
                                IV-21

-------
      (v)   Carry out all  inspection, surveillance and monitoring
procedures necessary to  determine, independent of information
supplied  by Industrial Users,  compliance  or noncompliance  with
applicable Pretreatment  Standards and Requirements by  Indus-
trial Users;

      (vi)   (A)   Obtain remedies for noncompliance by any
Industrial User with any Pretreatment Standard and Require-
ment.   (B)   Pretreatment Requirements which will be enforced
through the remedies set forth in subparagraph A will  include,
but not be limited to, the duty to allow  or carry out  inspec-
tions, entry,  or monitoring activities; any rules, regulations,
or orders issued by the  POTW;  or any reporting requirements
imposed by the POTW or these regulations."

With the  implementation  of the MMSD's Industrial Waste Pre-
treatment Program, industrial wastewater  flows and loads  should
decrease.

Sources  (other than sewage sludge) of some  toxic pollutants
are shown in the following table.  The MMSD's Industrial
Waste Pretreatment Program Report  (Volume 1, October,  1980)
should be consulted for  additional information.
                  Sources of Metals to the Environment
 Element
 Cadmium
Symbol

 Cd
General

Agricultural
Industrial
     Specific

Impure phosphate fertilizers,
Electroplating, pigments, chemi-
cals, alloys, automobile radiators
and batteries.
 Chromium    Cr      Industrial     Refractory bricks, plating of metals,
                                  drying and tanning, corrosion
                                  inhibitors
 Copper
 Lead
 Cu      Electrical
         Plumbing
         Industrial

         Agricultural

 Pb      Plumbing
         Industrial
              Wire,  apparatus
              Copper tubing, sewage pipes
              Boilers, steampipes, automobile
              radiators, brass
              Fungicides, fertilizers.

              Caulking compounds, solders
              Pigments, production of storage
              batteries, gasoline additives,
              anti-corrosive agents in exterior
              paints, ammunition
                                IV-2 2

-------
              Sources of Metals to the Environment (continued)
Element
Mercury
Symbol

 Hg
General

Electrical
Industrial
Nickel
Zinc
 Ni
 Zn
Household


Agricultural

Industrial
Agricultural
Household
                      Industrial
                      Plumbing
          Specific

Apparatus
Electrolytic production of chlorine
and caustic soda, measuring and
control instruments, Pharmaceuticals,
catalysts, lamps (neon, fluorescent
and mercury-arc), switches, batteries,
rectifiers, oscillators, paper and
pulp industries
Paints, floor-waxes, furniture
polishes, fabric softeners, anti-
septics
Fungicides

Electroplating, stainless and heat-
resisting steels, nickel alloys,
pigments in paints and lacquers

Pesticides, superphosphates
Pipes, utensils, glues, cosmetic
and pharmaceutical powders and
ointments, fabrics, porcelain
products, oil colors, antiseptics
Corrosion-preventive coating,
alloys of brass and bronze,
building, transportation and
applicance industries
Galvanized sewage pipes
Source:  Keeny, D.R.; Lee, K. W.;  and Walsh,  L. M.  1975.
         Guidelines for the Application of Wastewater Sludge to
         Agricultural Land in Wisconsin.  Technical Bulletin No.
         Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
                                                     88,
                                    IV-2 3

-------
di
UJ
G
rd
x:
J.Q
tfr
T3
03
3

«
D^
>
^c
en
cn
i-l
1
u*^
0"i
i — 1
X-v
>,
<3
TJ
\
03
Q
i— 1
'
vO
vO
CN


T



in
co
co

*^*
[--.
CN
oo ^* t~^
"S1 O O
ro "* CO
CN

1 1 +



QO r^"* o^
CO (4H -P
0 !H
O
• a
0  rH
< ^
01
CD
•H
UH -P
O -H
A° -H
0
03
fct
tn
MH +J
0 !H
. a
0 CD
2 «


















CO ^ CNJ CO C1!
•^r vo in «? o
r^- r^ E^ in VD





r^ CN co I-H en
^y in ^y co en
CN CN CN rH rH





ro o CN ro rH
ro CN CN CN CO
vO O vO CN vO
•.«.«. «.
TOO ro
r*- i — i ^o ! — i
ro ro




ro ro ro •* ro
rH TJ* O m rH
CO CO CO ro ro




H r~ cn o CN
vo vo m r^ 10
rH rH rH




CD
01
«J
$
CD
ro
T3 O
G 2
rfl
m +
Q Ul rH CN 2
Sen -H O 2
EH O 2 EH



Or^i— icor~cncTivQ'3'cOrH[--cni 03
£rO-H3-iHlH ClHiHrH rH
ft-iHC-HS^;UG
rOOCrJOlTJS^QjtrjrJl^p-IUCJQJca
ffi £>l(HrdX;OCDCtfCD-rH-r-l-rH£CJ
z OjU<;ooui-3ssw2NaHeM





































"O
CD
C
•H
g 


 CD  CD i-H



 330
2  Z E-t
                                                                              IV- 2 4

-------
8.0  LAND REQUIREMENTS

Page V-4, item 2:  Land Requirements parts a, b, and c should
read as follows:

   The MMSD has modified assumptions made in the total
   Solids Management Program  (TSM) which are incorporated
   into the Solids Management Report (SMR).  This, in turn,
   affected their Site Specific Analysis  (SSA) planning efforts
   Assumptions regarding land requirements are discussed below.

The TSM Report  (MMSD, 1978) stated that 150 acres would be
required for a sludge landfill.  The SMR  (MMSD, 1980), which
updated the TSM's requirements, modified the acreage require-
ment to 410 acres for the Jones Island WWTP's sludge landfill.

Also, the TSM Report stated that 50 acres would be required
for a sludge storage site and 52,000 acres would be required
for the application of sludge to agricultural land.  The
SMR which updated the TSM, modified those requirements as
follows:

•  sludge storage facility - 60 acres

•  agricultural application - 35,000 acres

The MMSD's acreage requirement for agricultural application
allows for a 50 percent usage due to adverse physical condi-
tions, e.g. wetlands, woodlands, etc.  These estimates are
dependent on design data and could change as site specific
information is gathered.

The MMSD has modified their criteria based on technical informa-
tion developed in the SMR and SSA planning efforts.

Table V-2 shows the area required (based on MMSD estimates),
on and off-site, for the final solids management alternatives.
The impact of using a parcel of land for processing, storage,
or disposal of sludge products is highly site specific and
related to the uses on adjoining land.   Areas used for sludge
landfilling, processing, or storage are effectively removed
from use for other purposes during (and probably after) the
planning period.  Land application does not preclude the use
of the required area for agriculture and/or other potential
uses.  The methods for deriving the figures presented in the
table are described below.

8.1  On-site Land Requirements

On-site land requirements were developed by the MMSD and are
discussed in the Solids Management Report.  Allowances for 15
                                I V-2 5

-------




rH
10
4->
0
&H






H
rH
•H
13
C
03
iJ




rH
(13
S-l
3
rH
[fl 3
4J U
ti -H
0) M
rsj 2 0^
id) <
^ w
•H
fcj 3
03 d)

•H
CO
g











o3
X



05

•H
4J
C
^4
V
4-1
rHj-ijr-irCO rHr-~C\J(j;
»,_j'3lvOro ^'"^j'*
^ ^ ^ i — i
f\i ^ m
— ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ rH
^D
^j« f^»LncN^31 rOi — t . r^
i^)rHrHi£ICN r^Oin^O
^^rHi — I isDiorOro
_^

tn o r~
ro ro
i in in ^ \Q co ^
I U3 ^ ^ ro | | ro ro
— ' ' — — * — • — 	 ,



I
i co •_* -!
ro ^ rH Qj
10 1 1 1 1 1^3 y3 1 1
1111 VJTJ ^ ' ' X
in o r^ >i
ro ro 4->
•H
I-H r-
•H C
p 4-
(0 C.
"^ — tn n
CN rsi 34.
1 1 1 t 1 1 rH | r-H
1 1 1 1 1 1 "- ' 1 ^ ^


,
rr1
OJ C
Li ^
4-
1 1 1 1 1 1 rH | ,-H U
1 1 1 1 1 1 ro | ro (fl
c
o
•H
4J


0 O
i-J M
••H f^i
^
U1 >t
cocorNtNin cocococo «3
T3 fl)
C ^H
rrj
P_!

Cn
l^Jr-l,-!^^)! (NCOOrH
rHmLnu*>vD rHrHroro
r^jh^h^r^t-^ COCOCOCO

























* in
rsj
)
iH

-P
O



^-S -r^
m
rH r-
^ •
\ •*^*' **™^
j
) ro
i ro
•i •
	 1
HH

CO
•r-i

' ^
3 0
J -P
O
03
UH
>1
4J
•rH
r^i C*^
•H ^
(tJ ^*
CO •
3 0

0) X
4-1
-rH W
tn 0)
SH
ctP U
LH <3
r-
j_i
0 (0
fa 03




IV-2 6

-------
feet (4.6m) clearance between adjacent process units and other
facilities were made.

8.2  Land Requirements for Composting

Land required for composting alternatives was determined to
be 31 acres (12 ha), including all areas necessary for mixing,
composting (21 days), curing (30 days) and screening operations.
Also provided for are one year's storage of woodchips, three
month's storage of final compost product, buildings, roads,
parking areas  and a 200 foot (61 m)  buffer around the entire
site

A marketing study  (performed by A. D. Little, Inc.) contained
in the TSM showed that the optimum amount of sludge that could
be composted was 40 dry tons per day.  Therefore all composting
alternatives would only be capable of processing 40 dry tons
per day.

It should be noted that composting is not part of the MMSD's
Recommended Plan.

8.3  Landfill

The MMSD determined land requirements for sludge landfills
based upon criteria developed in the SMR and TSM.  These
documents should be consulted for a further discussion.  The
exact acreage requirements are site specific.

MMSD landfilling area requirements were computed based on
the total volume of sludge generated plus cover material
required over the planning period divided by an 18-foot
(5.5 m) landfill depth plus the required buffer.  Planning
criteria involved three lifts each 6 feet (1.8 m) thick and
surrounded by a 200 foot (61 m)  buffer  (NR 180 only requires
a 100 foot buffer).

8.4  Land Application

The total amount of agricultural land necessary for sludge
disposal throughout the planning period was determined using
solids production data and a set of assumptions regarding
application rate, site lifetime, and usable land at a parti-
cular site.  Solids production during the planning period was
estimated to be the mean of the average daily solids produc-
tion of 1985 and 2005.

Initially, annual application rates were based on nitrogen
loadings which would maintain levels of plant available nitro-
gen close to crop nitrogen requirements.  The resulting rates
of 4.42 ton/ac/yr  (9.9 x 103 kg/ha/yr)  for Jones Island and
                               IV-2 7

-------
4.93 ton/ac/yr  (11.1 x 10  kg/ha/yr) for South Shore, thus
maximized sludge utilization and minimized environmental
impacts associated with nitrate  (N03~N) leaching.  However,
at these rates the annual cadmium  (Cd) additions for both
Jones Island and South Shore Sludge exceed EPA's 1986 0.45
Ib/ac/yr (0.5 kg Cd/ha/yr) guideline  (40 CFR 257).  Therefore,
the annual application rates were adjusted based on the EPA's
1986 maximum cadmium additions of 0.45 Ib/ac/yr  (0.5 kg/ha/yr.)
The annual application rates adopted for use were 2.23 ton/
ac/yr (5.0 x 103 kg/ac/yr) for Jones Island and for South
Shore 4.46 ton/ac/yr (10.0 x 103 kg/ha/yr).

Site lifetime is determined by WDNR guidelines for maximum
cumulative sludge metal  (lead, zinc, copper, nickel and
cadmium) application for privately owned farmland.  By dis-
continuing land application when the first heavy metal limit
is reached, adverse phytotoxic and bioaccumulative effects
are minimized.  The first total metal application limit to
be reached when applying Jones Island sludge at the above
rates is cadmium.  The limit will be reached after 10 years.
Similarly,  total zinc loads limit South Shore sludge applica-
tion to 6.75 years.

The portion of a site usable for sludge application was esti-
mated to be 75 percent which reflects a 25 percent allowance
for buffers and buildings.  Although it is recognized that a
50 percent land availability factor is typically used
(based upon DNR standards, (WDNR, 1975)), a 75 percent land
availability factor was used for the purposes of this EIS.
The EPA and DNR determined that the 75 percent and 50 percent
figures should be used to allow a comparison of buffer areas.

Land requirements for agricultural application in the EIS and
the SMR were computed based on the same method.  (Required
acres = Tons Dry Sludge/yr x Required Acres/yr/Ton
x 	1	 x planning period years.S
  usability factor     site life Years    /

     Comparison with Land Requirements Calculated by COM:

      Alternative    MMSD Requirements   EIS Requirements*
                            (ac)                (ac)

          J16             89,040              59,638
          S12             31,753              30,664
          S13             38,955              37,461

*  For J16, MMSD's calculations are based upon an annual
application rate of 2.23 tons/ac, a usability factor of 50
percent, and a 10 year site life.  Calculations presented
                              IV-2 8

-------
in the EIS are based upon the same annual rate of 2.23 ton/ac
and a 10 year site life but a usability factor of 75 percent.


For S12 and S13, MMSD's calculations are based on an annual
application rate of 4.46 tons/ac, a site usability factor of
50 percent and a 10 year site life.  EIS calculations are based
on the same annual application rate of 4.46 ton/ac but a usa-
bility factor of 75 percent and a site life of 6.75 years.

Variation in assumptions between MMSD and EIS as to site
usability and site lifetime accounts for the differences in
the results.  ESEI feels that assumptions used are justified
and defensible.

Note:  The agricultural land requirements on Table V-2 have
been revised to correct an error made in computation of the
site usability multiplier.

9.0  LAND USE

The ultimate disposal of municipal wastewater sludges could
have a pronounced effect on the existing and planned land use,
The MMSD's location of ultimate disposal facilities would have
to be compatable with local zoning ordinances and land use
controls.

The application of sludge to agricultural land would have
little short-term effect on localized land use.  However,
long-term application of sludge may affect future use of
agricultural land by placing certain restrictions on land use.
A sludge landfill or sludge storage facility could cause both
short and long-term effects on land use.  If either of these
facilities were located on agricultural land then up to 410
acres for a landfill or 60 acres for an agricultural site
could be permanently removed from productive crop use.  This
would be considered a long-term effect on planned land use.
The location of these facilities in industrial areas would
probably be consistent with existing or planned land use.
The enclosed building used for storage facilities could
later serve a useful function in an industrialized area,
while a closed landfill could eventually be turned into a
recreational facility such as:

•      park

•      golf course

•      wildlife preserve

•      nature area

•      tree farm or nursery
                               IV-29

-------
In addition/ light industrial or commercial buildings could be
constructed on a closed landfill site.  However, settlement of
the landfill site could affect their structural integrity.

A closed landfill site should not be used for a housing sub-
division since the closure cover could be broken.  Crops
requiring frequent plowing (especially those used for human
consumption) should not be grown on the land,  since plowing
or tilling could also break the site's cover.  Breaking the
cover could lead to the release of contaminants contained in
the buried waste.

The end use of a sanitary landfill should be determined before
the site is designed.  The engineer can then plan for the end
use by ensuring that the design, construction, operation and
maintenance of the site will be compatible with the planned
end use.  Some factors that the engineer will have to take
into account in the site's design include:

•      decomposition of the sludge

•      density of the sludge

•      settlement of the compacted waste

*      bearing capacity of the soil and sludge mixture

•      gases given off by biological decomposition of the sludge

*      corrosion caused by decomposing material

Existing and planned land use can be better studied on a site-
specific level and will be addressed in more detail in the SSA
supplemental EIS.

10.0  MATSCHKE REPORT

Privately owned farmland in the Town of East Troy, Wisconsin
has been receiving MMSD sludge since 1975.  In response to public
concern, the Town Board retained the D.E. Matschke Company in
1978 to perform a "Sludge Management Evaluation"  (hereinafter
called the Matschke Report or the Report).  This Report was
prepared with the cooperation and assistance of the MMSD and
was completed in 1979.  The Report contained the following
items:

•      Regulatory programs

•      MMSD programs

•      Monitoring results

•      Recommendation

•      Appendices containing analytical data

                                 IV-30

-------
Some of the report's conclusions were that "abnormally"
high levels of lead plus nitrate and nitrite nitrogen were
in groundwater, and that the heavy metal content of MMSD
sludge should be reduced.  The Report also contained
recommendations, some of which are outlined below:
•      The DNR should be notified when nitrate-nitrogen con-
       centrations in rural water supplies exceed the public
       health limit of 10 mg/1.

•      A sludge management coordinator should be appointed to
       be a liaison between the MMSD and East Troy farmers.

•      The MMSD should monitor groundwater and furnish these
       data to the Town.

•      Follow DNR guidelines for sludge application but if
       EPA guidelines are more restrictive then these should
       be followed.

•      Incorporate sludge promptly to minimize odors.

•      Monitor for lead and determine if sludge application is
       the reason for "abnornal" levels of lead in groundwater.

The Report found that, most heavy metals (except iron, manganese
and potassium) tended to accumulate in the upper six inches of
soil.  Cadmium concentrations in crops were essentially un-
altered due to sludge application.  Pesticides, herbicides and
PCBs were not found to be a significant problem in either
groundwater or crops.  Surface water quality was not signifi-
cantly affected by soil or sludge erosion since most slopes
were moderate and natural buffer areas tended to protect
receiving waters.

Both the DNR and the MMSD reviewed the Matschke Report and
made some general  and specific observations.  Their review
comments lead to exclusion of the Matschke Report from the EIS
analysis.  It was the DNR's opinion (contained in a February
1980 letter from the Secretary of the DNR to a State Senator)
that "very little analytical data or research" supported the
Reports' conclusions or recommendations.  The elevated levels
of some contaminants, e.g. lead and   nitrate and nitrite-
nitrogen could have come from a variety of sources (septic
tanks, animal yards, excessive fertilizer use, an old landfill,
or natural conditions).  The DNR felt that the report could
"best be described as inconclusive".

It was the DNR's opinion that their sludge management program,
as administered through the MMSD's WPDES permit, provided the
necessary controls for sludge disposal.
                               IV-31

-------
The MMSD also reviewed the Matschke Report and critiqued the
following items:

•      Experimental design

•      Monitoring results

•      Groundwater parameters

*      Conclusions

Baseline conditions were not established in the Report, instead
control sites were used to evaluate the impacts of sludge
application. Unfortunately, many of the control sites had
significantly different soil and groundwater properties, e.g.
surface soil cation exchange capacity  (CEC), depth to groundwater
and distances between sites.

CEC is one of the limiting factors used by the EPA in the develop-
ment of their heavy metal application  limits and control sites
sometimes had twice as high a CEC as   test sites. Also, only
a limited number of replicate samples  were obtained and analyzed.
Existing conditions could not be accurately assessed since only
one sample was analyzed and should not have been used to draw
conclusions.  The MMSD also questioned the adequacy of the
groundwater monitoring wells.  The use of the word "abnormal"
for lead concentrations in groundwater is questionable since
most samples were less than EPA drinking water standards
 (e.g. 0.046 mg/1 as opposed to 0.05 mg/1).

For these reasons the results of the Matschke Report were not
used in the EIS.

11.0  MONITORING

In order to protect the public welfare, sites used for the
ultimate disposal of municipal sewage  sludge could be moni-
tored in order to prevent potential environmental degradation.
EPA  (1978b) describes a monitoring program for a municipal
sludge landfill.  The DNR would be the regulatory agency re-
sponsible for administering the MMSD's monitoring program

Wisconsin Administrative Code Chapter  NR  180.13(11) permits  the
DNR to require monitoring at any new or existing  solid waste
land disposal facility.  This may include monitoring of ground-
water levels and quality, monitoring of gases produced in de-
composing waste, surface water quality monitoring, and  "other
aspects of  site operation"  (including  air quality, landfill
settlement, berm stability, vegetation growth, and drainage
control structures).  In practice, groundwater monitoring has
been required at most large landfills  and at most facilities
approved in the last three years.  Surface water monitoring
 is done in  special  situations, and post-closure gas monitoring
 is required at most recently abandoned landfills.
                                IV-3 2

-------
Most  monitoring  is  "self monitoring"  (i.e.  it  would be  done
by  the  MMSD),  and the  DNR's  role  consists primarily of  ensuring
that  the work  is done  according to  schedule and  reviewing the
results.   Incoming  monitoring  data  are  stored  on a  computer.
As  of January  1981,  some 110 facilities were listed on  the
computer file  as having some regular water  monitoring require-
ments.  Several  other  facilities  are required  to monitor  but
have  not been  entered  into the computer system.   Ninety-two
of  these facilities  were required to submit monitoring  data for
December 1980, monitoring 924  sampling  points  (mostly on-site
groundwater  monitoring wells,  but also  stream  sampling  points,
water supply wells,  and leachate  head wells),  during that
month.

Six experiments with  landspreading  of papermill  sludge  have been
undertaken in  recent years under  Department licenses.   All land-
spreading  sites were  monitored for groundwater  quality,  plant
growth  effects and metals uptake.

DNR staff  in Madison available to review self-monitoring  results
and to  undertake site  investigations  (on a  non-routine  basis),
as  of January  1981,  are as follows:

      8  hydrogeologists (groundwater specialists)

      11 non-supervisory environmental engineers assigned to
      residuals management and land disposal ("regular"  solid
      waste)

      2  chemists

      7  environmental engineers for hazardous waste  (limited
      involvement with land disposal)

      3  limited-term hydrogeologists and engineers on staff to
      review and summarize groundwater data

      18 additional permanent staff in central office,  including
      additional technical staff in hazardous waste, mine
      reclamation,  systems management and supervisory people.
      (Does not include vacant positions.)

      2  limited-term employees working on implementation of
      groundwater monitoring data processing system.

The Southeast District has a solid waste program coordinator,
3 solid waste investigators,  1 hazardous waste specialist, 2
additional authorized positions in hazardous waste.   Responsi-
bilities are largely in enforcement, including special size
investigations and tracking compliance with self-monitoring
requirements.
                               IV-3 3

-------
All districts and the central office in Madison have equipment
for groundwater sampling (bailers, pumps, filters) and field
testing (pH meter, conducting meter, water level indicators).
The State Laboratory of Hygiene provides analytical services
when testing is needed.

Currently, the MMSD submits South Shore sludge characteristics
to the DNR.  The South Shore WWTP monitors solids weekly and
metals quarterly.  The MMSD submits specific information on
each land application site to the DNR, which also inspects
sites.  Records are kept, e.g. nitrogen and heavy metal con-
centrations and application rates, so that each site receiving
sludge can be monitored for adverse impacts over a long time
period.

12.0  NITROGEN CONTROL

In 1978 the Jones Island WWTP discharged 2.13 million pounds of
ionized ammonia  (ammonium)  - nitrogen  (NH.+-N)   to the Outer
                                         4                    +
Harbor.  Under the No Action alternative this discharge of NH. -N
would be reduced to 1.77 million pounds per year during the
planning period  (1985-2005) while it would increase to 7.367
million pounds per year with the MMSD's Recommended Plan.  This
more than three-fold increase is due to the replacement of Milor-
ganite by anaerobic digestion.  Nitrogen, which is removed by
Milorganite production, will remain in the WWTP when anaerobic
digester supernatant  (which contains ammonia and organic
nitrogen) is recycled to the head end of the plant.  Thus,
much of the nitrogen contained in the plant influent is not
removed by the WWTP and is discharged in the effluent.

The South Shore WWTP, which currently utilizes anaerobic di-
gestion, discharged 3.906 million pounds of ammonia nitrogen
 (NH-,-N) in 1976.  Under both the No Action alternative and the
MMSD's Recommended Plan the NH,-N would increase to 5.601
million pounds per year during the planning period. Therefore,
the problem of increased nitrogen discharges exists at both
WWTPs.  Since the concentration of ammonia-nitrogen that is
contained in the digester supernatant can average 938 mg/1 for
a typical 20-day detention time  (WPCF, 1977), a significant
quantity of NH^-N can be discharged in the WWTP's effluent.
Pilot studies of the South Shore WWTP found concentrations of
488-566 mg/1 in the dewatering system filtrate return.  The
filtrate is the side-stream that would probably be treated
for NH-, removal.

Various forms of nitrogen can cause different environmental
problems.  While some of these problems are discussed in the
EIS Water Quality Appendix, it is relevant to review them
here.  Some of these problems at the MMSD WWTPs could be:
                               IV-3 4

-------
stimulation of aquatic growth,(e.g. algal blooms) toxicity to
aquatic life,  (fish kills, etc.) oxygen depletion in receiving
waters, increased chlorine toxicity, and difficulty with water
reuse.  Nitrogen can enter surface waters by two prime path-
ways:  "natural" and manmade.  Precipitation, runoff, biologi-
cal fixation and dustfall are some natural sources of nitrogen
that man can affect.  Combustion of fossil fuels, the appli-
cation of agricultural fertilizers  (including municipal sewage
sludge) to cropland, WWTP effluents, industrial discharges,
septic tank leach fields, and combined  or sanitary sewer
overflows are other sources of nitrogen.

Typical wastewater influents contain up to 60 percent ammonia-
nitrogen, 40 percent organic-nitrogen and a negligible amount
of nitrite  (NCU) and nitrate  (NCU) nitrogen.  The range of
nitrogen concentrations in the influent are 15 to 50 mg/1.
Kjeldahl nitrogen  (TKN) includes both ammonia and organic
nitrogen.  TKN, in the influent at the Jones Island WWTP
averaged average 37.2 mg/1 from January 1977 to June 1978
and, averaged 7.8 mg/1 in the effluent  (78% removal).  In
1977 TKN averaged 38 mg/1 in the South Shore influent and
20.9 in the effluent (48% removal).

Nitrogen control would reduce the adverse environmental impacts
mentioned previously which are discussed in the Public Health
and Water Quality sections of this Addendum.

Nitrogen can undergo many transformations (as shown in the
accompanying figure), so transformations-may eliminate one
deleterious effect while causing another.  The nitrogen cycle
in surface water is also shown.  Nitrogen can enter surface
waters in various forms and be transformed in the water or the
sediments (the second figure).

Several treatment forms for nitrogen control exist.  They
include conventional treatment processes, advanced wastewater
treatment processes, and land treatment systems.  Some of the
major nitrogen removal processes are nitrification-denitrifi-
cation, breakpoint  (or "super") chlorination, selective ion
exchange for ammonium  (NH4+)  and ammonia (NHO gas stripping.
The Ammonia Removal and   Recovery Process  (ARRP) which is a
modified ammonia gas stripping process is being considered
by the MMSD.  The effects of these treatment processes
(except ARRP) are outlined on the following table.  Several
factors must be evaluated before determining which method of
nitrogen control to use:  (1)  desired effluent quality,
(2)  form and concentration of nitrogen compounds to be
treated, (3)  compatability with other treatment processes
and at the WWTP, (4)  cost,   (5)  reliability and  (6) flexi-
bility (EPA 1975).
                              IV-35

-------
                                  CM
                                  .

                                II

                                II
I- ,*
^C ID
3 o
O c
-------
                                                  ATMOSPHERIC
                                                    NITROGEN
                         PLANT
                         PROTEIN
                        ORGANIC
                           N
                                          SOURCE: SAWYER, C.N., and RL. McCARTY, CHEMISTRY for SANITARY
                                                 ENGINEERS.  McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1967.
FIGURE

DATE

 APRIL 1981
THE  NITROGEN  CYCLE
                         IV-3 7
                                               SOURCE  See above
PREPARED BY
   s'flEcolSciences
   ^~l .  FNVtnnMMFMTdl  ftROHP
                                                                                ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
-------



Treatment process
Conventional treatment processes
Primary
Secondary

Advanced wastewater treatment processes
Flltratlonc
Carbon sortition
Electrodialysis

• Reverse osmosis

Chemical coagulation0
Land application
Irrigation

Infiltration/percolation
Major nitrogen removal processes
Nitrification
Denitrlflcation
Breakpoint chlorination
Selective Ion exchange for ammonium

Ammonia stripping
Other nitrogen removal processes
Selective ion exchange for nitrate
Oxidation ponds


Algae stripping

Bacterial assimilation

Effect on constituent

Organic N

10-20% removed
15-25% removed15.
urea -»- NI^/NH^

30-95% removed
30-50% removed
100% of suspend
organic N removed
100% of suspend
organic N removed
50-70% removed

-» NH3/NH4

-*• NH3/NH4

limited effect
no effect
uncertain
some removal, un-
certain
no effect

nil
partial transformation
to NH3/NHj

partial transformation
to NH3/NH4
no effect

NH3/NH4

no effect
< 1 0% removed


nil
nil
40% removed

85% removed

nil

-- N03
-*• plant N
-» NOJ

— •• NO^
no effect
90-100% removed
90-97% removed

60-95% removed

nil
partial removal
by stripping

-•. cells

40-70% removed

N03

no effect
nil


nil
nil
40% removed

85% removed

nil

-». plant N

-«N2

no effect
80-98% removed
no effect
no effect

no effect

75-90% removed
partial removal by
nitrification-
denitrification
-*. cells

limited effect
Removal of
total nitrogen
entering process.
percent8

5-10
10-20


20-10
10-20
35-45

80-90

20-30

40-90

0-50

5-10
70-95
80-95
80-95

50-90

70-90
20-90


50-80

30-70
«TH1 depend on the fraction of Influent nitrogen for which the process is effective, which may depend on other processes
in the treatment plant.

Soluble organic nitrogen. In the form of urea and ami no acids. Is substantially reduced by secondary treatment.

May be used to remove paniculate organic carbon in plants where ammonia or nitrate are removed by other processes.
                                    SOURCE-' EPA, 1975, PROCESS DESIGN MANUAL for NITROGEN CONTROL.
                                              TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER,  OCTOBER 1975
FIGURE
DATE
APRIL 1981
y^T^x. SOURCE See above
EFFECT of VARIOUS TRtATMbN'l HROCbSSbS /W^ <\ PREPAR
on NITROGEN COMPOUNDS V^^Sl^^

ED BY
' EcolSciences
1 . ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP

-------
The major nitrogen removal processes  (nitrificaton-denitri-
fication, breakpoint chlorination,ion exchange, ammonia
stripping and ARRP) are the most feasible and cost-effective
processes in existence at this time.

Biological nitrification converts ammonia to nitrite:

2 NH4+ +302	^   2N02~ + 4H+ + 2H2°

Nitrosomonas bacteria make this conversion,  Nitrobacter
converts nitrite to nitrate:
The overall reaction is:  NH + + 202 	>  N03~ + 2N+ + H2°

Stoichiometrically, 4.6 mg/1 of oxygen are needed to oxidize
1 mg/1 of NH-.-N, thereby exerting an oxygen demand.  If the
reaction took place in surface waters oxygen supplies could
be depleted since only 9.2 mg/1 of oxygen can be dissolved
in water at 68°F.  Dissolved oxygen concentration decreases
as the water temperature increases, so this oxygen demand
would be worse during the summer months.  Pseudomorias,
Micrococcus, Achromobacter and Bacillus are bacteria which can
perform the denitrification part of the process., provided
an organic carbon source is present.

Methanol is a typically used organic  carbon source although
other sources exist.  The reaction takes place in two steps:

NO-," + 0.33 CH-.OH 	>     NO ~ + 0.33 CO., + 0.67 H-0
  J           J)                    ^           Z         ^

NO ~ + 0.5  CH-.OH 	^     0.5 N9 (gas) + O.SH.,0 + OH~
  4*           J                       £            £

                                             +0.5 CO

The end product of these reacitons, is nitrogen gas  (N2)

which comprises 79 percent of the air we breathe.  It is easily
removed by nitrification-denitrification and the overall
efficiency of this system is 70 to 95 percent.

Although some nitrification occurs at the Jones Island WWTP
now, it was not specifically designed for that purpose.
Operation of the facility would have to be significantly
modified to achieve nitrification.  This could affect overall
plant operation and treatment efficiency.

Breakpoint chlorination involves the addition of chlorine
which oxidizes the ammonia nitrogen as follows:

3C12 + 2NH4+ 	>     N2 + 6 HC1 + 2H+
                               IV-39
-------
Approximately 10 mg/1 of Cl_ is added for every 1 mg/1 of
ammonia-nitrogen (Stoichiometric requirements are 7.6 mg/1
of Cl_ per 1 mg/1 of NH.,-N) .  The hypochloric acid produced
must 5e neutralized by caustic soda or lime.  Since chlorine
is a toxic substance, dechlorination could be required in
order to reduce the chlorine residual in the effluent.  Only
ammonia would be removed by breakpoint chlorination.  The MMSD
feels that breakpoint chlorination could be easily adapted to
remove ammonia from the main flow of wastewater at the plant.

Selective ion exchange for ammonium (NH. ( removal involves the
use of a column of clinoptilolite which is a natural zeolite
having a high selectivity for NH.+.  Ammonium removals of
90-97 percent can be expected; however, this process has not
been used extensively.

Ammonia stripping involves the conversion of NH,  to NH., and
its removal as a gas by passing air through wastewater droplets
(in a concurrent operating fashion).  Ammonia predominates at
an elevated pH of 10 to 11 and passes to the gas phase  (from
the water phase) by a reduction in partial pressures.  Lime
can be used to elevate the pH and also serve to remove phos-
phates by precipitation, thereby serving a dual role.  However,
cold weather can require shutdowns due to freezing and lime
addition can lead to the formation of calcium carbonate  (lime
scaling) on the air stripping towers.  Ammonia vented to the
atmosphere can be deposited indirectly into receiving bodies
of water by precipitation or dustfalls.

The Ammonia Removal and Recovery Process (ARRP) being considered
by the MMSD for side stream ammonia removal is a modified form
of gas stripping.  It has some distinct advantages as outlined
below:

•     Ammonia concentration - The ARRP process works well
      when ammonia concentrations in the liquid stream are
      relatively high  (greater than 100 mg/1).  Therefore, it
      is advantageous to apply the ARRP to the dewatering sys-
      tem filtrate return where ammonia concentrations are
      488 to 563 mg/1 and the digester supernatant return
      where concentrations average 938 mg/1

•     pH - The equilibrium between ammonium ions  (NH^ ) and
      ammonia gas  (NH-,) in solution is dependent on pH.
      Ammonia gas, which can be liberated from solution under
      proper conditions, predominates at elevated pH.  Live
      conditioning of sludge for dewatering purposes will
      raise the pH and thereby enhance the removal of ammonia
      from solution.
                              IV-40
-------
•      Temperature - The saturation concentration of a gas
      decreases as temperature increases.  Since anaerobic
      digesters operate at temperatures between 95° and 105°F,
      application of the ARRP process to digester supernatant
      takes advantage of the lower saturation concentration
      which enhances ammonia removal efficiency.

The ARRP alleviates  the problem of  high  NH.,  concentrations  in
the waste gas  stream since  NH-, is not  vented to the  atmosphere.
Since the vented NH-.  gas  could find its  way  to  receiving  waters,
the purpose of ammonia removal could be  defeated.  The  follow-
ing figure presents  a schematic of  the ARRP  system.

The system designed  by the  MMSD would  have the  following
characteristics:

•     NH-j-N concentration           500  mg/1

•     NH.,-N removed  efficiency       90%

•     Minimum  Influent
                     pH               10.8
           Temperature               6 0 ° F.

•     Average  Daily  Flow             1.38 MGD

This design criteria would  be verified by pilot studies.

These nitrogen removal processes have  their  advantages  and  dis-
advantages, however, with efficient operation,ammonia dis-
charges at the two WWTPs  can be reduced  significantly.  Although
they are expensive processes, if the anaerobic  digesters  super-
natant is treated  instead of the entire  plant flow,  then  a
considerable cost  savings could be  realized  since  the return
flows are much smaller than total plant  flows.

The MMSD has two options  for ammonia removal:   (1) maintain
existing loads (approximately 10 mg/1  NH^-N);  (2)  meet  future
effluent limitations  (the MMSD projected a 1 mg/1  NH3-N limit).
The ARRP system would be  unable to  meet  either of  these cases
(although it would be close for case No. 1)  using  the MMSD's
conservative design  criteria.  ARRP  in conjunction with break-
point chlorination could  meet both  cases.  The  costs for  these
two cases are presented in  the following table.
                              IV-41
-------
     FILTRATE
    CONTAINING
DISSOLVED AMMONIA
                            GAS STREAM WITH
                            AMMONIA INCREASED
                               DUCTING (TYPICAL)
                                                     FAN
              A  A A A  A
                   STRIPPING
                     UNIT
AAAAA
  ABSORPTION
     UNIT
                            GAS STREAM  - AMMONIA
                           REDUCED BY ABSORPTION
 RECYCLED
ABSORBENT
  LIQUID
                                                                          PUMP
                        AGIO 4 WATER  MAKEUP
                       -*» AMMONIUM SALT
                             SLOWDOWN
                              (LIQUID)
                                   FILTRATE
                            STRIPPED  OP NEARLY  AU.
                             OF AMMONIA (NH3) AND
                              RETURNED TO LIQUID
                             TREATMENT PROCESSES
FIGURE
DATE
APRIL 1981
^£7^ SOURCE MMSD 1981
SCHEMATIC of AMMONIA STRIPPING [JF ,^\ >«EPAF
and ABSORPTION UNIT V^fsSfl
TTT_ A *7 *NJ< 1 ^iC^3 J
J_ V I *- "^"— ^
IEO BY
jTIEcolSciences
3L ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
SM
-------
             ALTERNATIVE COSTS FOR AMMONIA REMOVAL

Case No. 1;  Existing Ammonia Effluent Discharge  (10 mg/1)
              Capital
Alternative    Cost
            O&M
            Cost
            ($/yr]
Energy
Cost
($/yr)
ARRP

Breakpoint
Chlorination
$7,951,000  $  942,900  $252,000


   752,000   2,162,500    52,500
Present Worth

$18,038,000


 23,886,000
Case No.  2;   Future Ammonia Effluent Limits Projected MMSD
Alternative
(1 mg/1)
Capital
Cost
O&M
Cost
($/YT)
Energy
Cost
($/yr)
Present Worth
ARRP plus
Breakpoint
Chlorination

Breakpoint
Chlorination
Alone
$9,549,000  $6,120,000  $409,500
 2,054,000   9,111,400   201,250
            $96,414,000
             99,525,000
1)  All costs are indexed to ENR CC1 3300.
2)  O&M cost includes energy cost.
3)  ARRP costs do not include possible revenue from sale of
    ammonium sulfate.
4)  Breakpoint capital costs do not include capital for:
    (1)  modification to standard contact chamber design to
    facilitate breakpoint,  (2) portion of chlorine unloading
    facility that could be assigned to the breakpoint opera-
    tion, (3) lime handling and feeding facilities required
    for pH control, and  (4) impact on dechlorination facilities,
5)  Salvage values not included.

Source:  MMSD, 1981
                              IV-4 3
-------
13.0  ODORS

Page V-23:  H.  Odor Impacts should read as follows:

H.  Odor Impacts

"Odor" is defined as a sensation which results from stimu-
lation of the olfactory organs, whereas "an odor" is the
experience of perceiving a smell.  The property of a sub-
stance or mixture of substances that affects or stimulates
the sense of smell is called an "odorant".

Odorous compounds may have pleasant or unpleasant odors,
and an odor which is offensive to one person may be acceptable
to another person.  The following table lists odorous sub-
stances associated with wastewater treatment.  While the
quality of an odor is highly subjective, most people are
usually aware of odors and generally agree that some odorous
compounds are obnoxious.  Many odors can be detected when
the odorant is present in a very low concentration.  This con-
centration is known as the odor threshold concentration which
is defined as the minimum concentration that will arouse
stimulation of the olfactory nerves  (Sullivan, 1969).  A
recognition threshold concentration for odor is defined as
the minimum concentration at which the odor quality can
be recognized (Sullivan, 1969).

The degree of obnoxiousness of malodorous gases depends
not only on the concentration of the odor and on the person
exposed to the odor but also on the intensity of the odor.
Most people are particularly sensitive and have a greater
ability to perceive unfamiliar odors.  Olfactory sensitivity
varies from person to person.  Persons continually exposed
to an odor become insensitive to that odor with time;
therefore odor nuisance determinations are highly subjective.

Odor problems can begin at the point of initial sludge
handling and persist for a significant period of time after
disposal.  Odors generated on-site are largely a function
of process type, and while certain processes produce less
offensive odors than others, no treatment plant site can be
considered odor free.  Treatment plant odor is potentially a
public nuisance, depending upon adjacent land use, odor
strength and wind patterns.  The following table gives loca-
tions where odors may develop at a WWTP.

Open sludge conveyance can also be a source of odors.  All
solids transporting facilities should be well ventilated and,
if necessary, provided with odor control for the vented air.
                              IV-4 4
-------



s_
"=•&
jj'S
5
0
Be— S "3

O fil f i ™
gQ • 6
SM

B a» "«
^O b *j g
'•§, ajjj-s
i*i^~
§2
IP
•f-
5'o-r
ill
O^""
•C
si?
•a a a
0 8S

i
a
9)
•B
S
1



_m
A
£








?S£SS So10. "§ 8S$2=aSio«5 S3™ SSSSSS S?
r« r-» ft T-« rt ft T-» r* *-t





i
5 a en !j
* So «
•* r^ rn |^
S

IcoSSS SSSSS SS^Sg^cISS ^"S loSSSS SSSS i
i-tt-l rHl'cM r* W [CM r-t T-,f-tCMl r





f.N nnujoinminino
M

rH Tri COVOOnOOCNO tx
CMICO CMin OOOO03OO OOI f
o 1 to' d ' d d o' o" d o' d d do'1 ' d

^ rH (ji
K
to
^
i
i.
,0
o w
O Ul
O 0
S * o
r- °
^^
CO ^ cs| ^* C*5 O5 ^* •" ^^
Sr^O O CMCMr*r* U. — >
1100 1 I | O I 11100 CMI 00 O Z
o ' i d d ' iio'l ''do o( od Q.<
en co m
UJ
CM ft
lT3c3i COM ^PCnts t^ Q« ^
SOCOOO ! r-'OOr-'OI'OOC^OO CMOOO OOOOOOCO .-.
OOOO 1 OOOOOOOOSOOO OOOO OOOOOOO J^
ddddd ddddddddddd oddd dddoodd "^
a 2?
•* a, •-

liliffi 1 » » j: lifH il
cCcocnDD x 2. cu 2 en £S!s.C^;rt «* r?* •*• 3? "^ "*^ ^ « «a w * iocs « *
*


_ "a?
UCJ2UO CJ'EUUO y.^ u y-y-cj'cJ^d1 cju^uzcJow Siuu^
C
to
eg s « «S9 §"
gfiw (0 C 33 j, fi ^ iiefl cj



if .fin llllillsf! ll Ii Mill
llillflJlffiJJlfllltillliilll!!
«;«;«;«; H COUUUU C3BBQBWUS; — .2 -S (J a,B,o.encn c-c-t-r"
IV- 4 5


>





0)o
Oe
0
C^
i 
0
S S
= 2

o S
en o.
.^— —j
Ssil
/<*\3
/^ »J
U*u
VttMF

^«^^






CO
UJ
0
z
CO
03
CO
CO
o
CC
o
o
0












1 Ul
3 ^
o ;
vZ O
v_/ >
JJS
tl
[inf
^x-x.
ro
InD
inj
UUJ
^ \
A
VA/

^^
























CO
E
Q.
^J

-------
Odors can be a serious problem at a sludge landfill unless
preventative measures are taken.  The sludge should be
covered as frequently as necessary to minimize odor problems.
Lime or chemical masking agents can be applied to reduce odor
problems.

Odors are a significant problem with the existing sludge
lagoons at the South Shore WWTP.  The MMSD intends to abandon
and drain the remaining lagoons before the planning period.
Two lagoons were drained in September of 1979.  The South
Shore EIS Appendix(III) discusses this further.

Sludge spread on farmland can be malodorous when first
applied.  However, after it is incorporated with the soil,
odors typically dissipate.  This has been confirmed by on-
site inspections and by other investigators  (Matschke, 1979) .
Mitchell  (1931), reported that once sludge is plowed under,
odor nuisances are eliminated.

If the MMSD constructs enclosed sludge storage facilities,
and installs odor prevention equipment then sludge odors would
be mitigated.  Sludge, when kept dry is less malodorous then
when rewetted.  Although, no operational experience with this
system of sludge storage is available, it appears that storage
in enclosed buildings will minimize unpleasant odors.
However, storage of up to the planned period of 9 months could
cause anaerobic conditions, thereby giving off unpleasant
odors and dangerous gases.  Measures should be taken to main-
tain aerobic conditions, e.g. mixing up the stored sludge
or aerating the piles.  Safe working conditions could have to
be maintained at all times to minimize hazards to workers
and nearby residents.

While sludge products which are stabilized and dry, such as
compost, and sludge cake have minimal odor potential, sludge
does have the potential for odor nuisances if disposal and
storage operations are not properly managed.  Odor problems
can be kept to a minimum with proper digester operation, sludge
handling techniques, asidfland management at the disposal site.
The Site Specific Analysis to be conducted as a supplement to
the MWPAP-EIS will address odors in relation to specific
sludge disposal sites and storage technologies.

Odors can be controlled most easily if they are eliminated at
their source.  Regular inspection and maintenance, i.e. prac-
ticing  "good housekeeping" techniques, is one of the best
methods of odor prevention.  Identifying odor sources and
taking prompt action to correct the problem is another effec-
tive prevention method.  The following table presents possible
odor prevention and control methods.
                              IV-4 6
-------



to
•e
S j, £. «
pS" ° '* £
SS fa ^!
C
"3
"1

u
14
•2 11
B o 5
D ">
0 5
60"S
s §

CR .£?
jj a o
Is 1
O S M

e JB

-S § "3
w ^


2
g ~j
^


•o
35

E
1

i
* &
g&o
B
o -S

—
•c
u
i S
S «
*



1


X X



X



xxx




XX X X



xxx




XX x X




X X







X X










XX XX




oi
2 I
||l||l
£> ^ .S .f ^ °o
•5 « 'a« >..£
(8 I* C S Q ™
^ O 3 —
O £ a, en










x




X X



XX XX




XX XX




X



X X X



X XX



X X



X X


XX X




Grit chamber
Screens
Grease, screenings and
grit handling
Equalization tank


X XX



X



xxx x




XX XX



XXX X




X XX x




xxx



X X



XX X










X X XX




Primary settling basin:
Sludge transfer
Scum transfer
Chemical addition
Aeration tanks
Trickling filters


x



X



X X X X X




X X X X X



X X X X X X




XXX X




XX X



x x x



XX x










X XX




Ponds
Biodisks
Final settling basins
Granular media filters
Sludge pumping
Sludge thickening






x x



X X X X




X X X X X X



X X X X X X




X X X X X X




X X X X X



X X X X X X



xxx










X X


BC
c
ludge storage
ludge conditioning
ludge dewatering
ludge digestion
eat treatment
rocess Sldestream hand



x



X X XX



x x x x x x




XX X X



X X X X X X




XXX XX




X X X X



X X



X X










XXX XX




Septage handling
Land irrigation
Effluent structure
Ventilation system
Sumps for drainage
Channels for drainage
UJ
-j
XX U
^
£
Q:
iu
X * X ^
i
fc
w
xxx x ^
i.
5
-J "J
O w
XX X ft o'

"Z.
O UJ
U 0
x x x x x Q y
Q ^
JV
O Q_

(jf s-
n~ o
r-
XXX X 2 -J
^
u. 3
U "Z.
Q. <
5 2
xxx
UJ
o
Sj
0
XX W



X















en
B
to
- g BO
I IsllI
l-lllll
u £! o o 5 t
.2 = 13 u 5 S *
13 ~ .U C 0 Q a
3 g O CO CO 00
2 i g -£ -a -a -a
E U U en en c/3


IV- 4 7



Q)o
OS
c
5 'o|
5  o>
(n ® jit ^
Q | | ?
s fflnf
g = ffYnl
tf) a. vJl/L/
' — nnfl
/c^lir^
I /* ^\ 1
V n^ \/
\P^ ^7
^ — ^ *




a.
o
_i
UJ
>
UJ
o

>-
<

^2
CO
a:
o
Q
o
UJ
a:
UJ
x
$
CO
UJ
1-
co

CO
a:
UJ

^
UJ
CO
1
CO
^y
o
LOCATI
00
en
m g
5 u; Q.
0 5 <
u. 0
-------

PREVENTION
Enforcement of good sewer ordinance
Regular inspection and maintenance
Disinfection
Oxidizing agents
Hydrogen peroxide
Ozone
Chlorine
Potassium permanganate
Alkahnuing agents
Lime*
Sodium hydroxide
Maintain O3 source in wastewater
Forced ventilation
Discharge waste activated sludge to unit inlet
Dilution with aerated wastewater
Aeration
Oxygenation
Sodium nitrate
Zinc sulfate
Prevent sludge aging and deposits
More frequent solids withdrawal
Complete mixing in tanks
Sufficient velocity in flows
Smooth transitions in structures
Regular cleaning
Miscellaneous
Equalization of flow
Pretreat at previous units
Reduce loading on unit
Raise temperature to over 1,600 F
Give special treatment before return
CONTROL
Enclose and vent
Structure
Dome
Floating cover
Separate room in building
Add chemicals to odorous wastewater
Hydrogen peroxide
Ozone
Chlorine
Activated carbon
Zinc sulfate
Sodium nitrate
Treat vented gases before discharge" "
Ozonation
Combustion at over 1,600°F
Wet scrubbing
Catalytic oxidation
Vent through activated sludge tank
Activated carbon adsorption
Treated wood chip adsorption
Filter through soil bed
Disinfect effluent
Pretreat influent
Gravity Sewers
X
X


X

X
X


X

X


X

X
X



X
X
X













X
X
X
X
X
X










X
Force Mains
X
X


X

X
X







X

X
X



X
X
X













X
X
X
X
X
X










X
Pumping Stations
X
X


X
X
X



X

X
X



X
X


X
X
X
X








X


X

X
X
X
X
X
X

X




X
X
X

X
Treatment Plant Headworks
X
X


X
X
X



X

X
X








X
X
X








X


X

X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
x
X
X
X



X
Grit Handling and Disposal
X
X


















X


X
X


X



























Screenings Handling & Disposal
X
X


















X


X
X


X





X
X

X




X
X
X

X
X
x
X
X
X




Equalization Tank

X


X
X
X



X


X
X
X





X

X
X

X
X


























X
Primary Clarifier

X


X
X







X






X


X
X

X
X





X
X

X

X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
x
X
X
X



X
Flotation Units

X


















X


X
X

X
X



























Scum Handling and Disposal
X
X


















X


X
X








X
X

X








X
X
x
X
X
X




at
c
2
0
I
&
•a
in

X







X










X
X

X
X








X
X

X








X
X
x
X
X
X




udge Thickening I


X







X













X
X








X
X

X








X
X
x
X
X
X




udge Incineration j


X





















X
X




X



X













x
X






ocess Sldestrearrl j
0.

X


X
X
X


X
X




X
X





X
X
X

X



X
























eration Tanks
<

X













X
X




x

x
X

X
X
X

























X
icklmg Filters |
t-

X


X
X






X










X
X

X
X
X




X
X



X
X





X
X
x
X
X
X



X
abihzation Ponds |
to

X












X








X
X



X
























X

Secondary Clarifier ]

X


X
X














X


X
X

X






X
X

X

X
X





X
X
x
X
X
X




Granular Media Filters

X




X
















X
X


X
X




X
X










X
X
x
X
X
X



X
Polishing With Screens J

X


X
X
X
















X
X

X






X
X

X








X
X
X
X
X
X




Septage Manhole ]
X
X


X







X
X






X


X
X



X




X
X

X

X






X
X
x
X
X
X

X

X
Sludge Drying Beds & Lagoons j

X


















X


X
X



X




X
X










X
X
x.
X
X
X



X
Conditioned Sludge Storage

X


















X


X
X



X




X
X










X
X
x
X
X
x



x
Lawns irrigated w/Wastewater

X


X
X
X





















X

























*
Effluent Structure

X


X
X
X
















X
*








X
X










X
X
x.
X
X
X

X
X

• Lime should not be used where sludge is incinerated.
• "Piping, vents, diffusers, etc., must be corrosion resistant.
SOURCE: EPA,I976, DIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS at MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER
       TREATMENT WORKS. EPA-430/9-76-003 (MCD-20), JANUARY I976
FIGURE
DATE
APRIL I98I
^— — . SOURCE See above
POSSIBLE ODOR PREVENTION /IP^A PREPA*
*. ~. A ^rtMTD^M A< C" TLJ/^OO 1 ^P alVkU — ~ —
and CONTROL MtTnOuS V 7V«=,(f5 g

ED BY
J EcolSciences
I. ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP

-------
14.0  PRIORITY POLLUTANTS

14.1  Introduction

This section discusses the analysis for priority pollutants
and hazardous materials present in MMSD sludge.  If these
pollutants are present in significant amounts, then sludge
disposal practices could be impacted.  In order to understand
how these pollutants might affect sludge disposal methods, the
laws which regulate them should be explained.

The EPA has defined and regulated hazardous materials in
municipal sludge under Section 405 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA), the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), the Toxic
Substance Control Act  (TSCA), the Marine Protection, Research,
and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA), and Section 1004(26A) of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).  It is the
stated policy of the EPA to consolidate and co-promulgate
these regulations under a common heading.  This memo deals
with the evolution of priority pollutant analysis under the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act  (PL 92-500) and the Clean
Water Act (PL-217) and also with the impact of RCRA regulations
on sludge management.

The EPA priority pollutant list was the result of a 1978 court
settlement involving the EPA and several environmental acti-
vist groups.  These groups charged the EPA with not properly
implementing PL 92-500.  One consequence of the suit was a
list of 65 "priority pollutants" for which National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System  (NPDES) effluent limitations
must be set.   (See Table 1.)

The list was expanded to 129 unambiguous chemicals which were
to be monitored in 21 industrial categories and public owned
treatment works (POTW).  The 129 priority pollutants include
31 purgeable organics, 46 base/neutral extractables, 11 acid
extractables, 26 pesticides and PCBs, 13 metals and three
miscellaneous  (Table 2).

Reporting concentrations for these chemicals was set at 10 ppb
(parts per billion) and the EPA initiated a three phase program
of screening, verification and monitoring.  The fate of prior-
ity pollutants in a POTW was studied on a pilot level  (Feiler,
1979) for two treatment plants and is presently being conducted
at an additional 40 POTWs.  No regulations mandating acceptable
concentrations in POTW sludges have been promulgated.

Another EPA act which seeks to define and control the manage-
ment of hazardous solids is RCRA.  RCRA includes domestic
sewage sludge as a potential hazardous material subject to
testing.  The RCRA regulations, promulgated May 19, 1980,
                              IV-49
-------
                                                   TABLE  1

                                          PRIORITY  POLLUTANTS
    The
   .-. 1- •"
     2.
   '.- 3. '
   •  4.
   '5.
   .  6."
     7. '
   '  8.
   :  9.
   '10.'
    11. ;
    12."
    13."
    14.
    16.
   18.
;-M9.
;: 20.
.;.  21:
:-. ^ 22/
'•'-..'23.
." 24.
."  25.
'' -~-~..
 : 26!
 '• 27i
 ' 28.
''.'-  29.
 •' 30.
\'31.
'••-32.
 "'33.
-  34.
 toxic pollutant lisf V^/^V^V:*--T>"":f-*.;-^^-'- 35!"
 Acenaphthene 's~'-^*:rs £: v  c-iv:*'—r ^-1 •:".>"'-'.-">:'-  "-.37..
 Acrolein:.. -j~-Vf / «^---~-?.i- J_F'•;.._ /j'xmV>•-..•_'.,T-.i\.'J^Jr-:r -;r
 Acrylonitriie  .  l'-;'^";",-"'Vx-' •" ';/>•'--..•/: •-:"'•/*-.- !..i"•*-«"»'
 Aldrin/Dieldrin  -„•'„" • '  ~,.^" -'-'.! "•;'"'••,1..'- '.'">.;""r "'_• ~'o:"/."V;
 Antimony and compounds' V  VI".\ -" " '~J--L  '.'.'
 Arsenic and compounds  :"•-,- :,-^-'-- r_'"~;'-<  ;'.'V":V
 Asbestos '•  .  • '----••t/Yv-'-'•'  :;  --"r;--"".-"'""•'-*• '•-•'•
 Benzene ; •"• •'•. \'^~:~-'-~~  ^~* -/-'. ••" ^ 1 '-"'  "~  ~
 Benzidine  ". ": - ..-''   '  "-/'..' ._ ";^_.~''"---'"•     '".-""•'  '•
 Beryllium and compounds'- ""•*  •.."-.  ""- ;"""•'• •"'..'••-  •:''.'
 Cadmium and compounds  ' ••"'.- -•>--.  .-^V" -: -•.-;."
 Carbon tetrachloride      --v~  ;-';'--.  • -.'-"."-/':.*W'•"£':. ^:.
 Chlordane (technical mixture and metabolites) '  "-..---•
 Chlorinated benzenes  (other than dichlorobenzenesj'
 Chlorinated ethanes (including 1,2-dichloroeth-  '
 :.  ane, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, and hexachloroethane)
 Chloroalkyl ethers  (chloromethyl, chloroethyl,  ."
 • " and mixed ethers)    -  .    .-,"-.--"L .--"-" .'•  .""..':
 Chlorinated naphthalene i-_' ,tv-"*  '\-~~~~  ~  '  ';"'
 Chlorinated phenols (other than  those listed _ _•'-'. ':-
  -elsewhere;   includes  trichlorophenols . and • ''"'J: >"
 '•'-- chlorinated cresols)."-.''-'^"v/.V^"'-;'•.;•_"..''."„*•"' '.1 'IV1
 Chloroform "iL-r.'. :-.". ^''^ic^^'^l^^ ,-^V' '/":';r,--
 2-Chlorophenol  "^'_v^>' :V';*'u-.;*;  ,,'t •'-•  'i--J ';"/'-"'•' '-
 Chromium and compounds "!.""]. -.T*,".'.:.?:*•>";'... ".f --"'•>'
 Copper and compounds  ' »7:";:'^f."-;. "i,r.:.  ,".•_*""':.'''
 Cyanides  -':~'~- - >: _';•"-.". ;:-."-.- • -*.. r K'r-'*-""'-".  :- "~" .'
 DDT and metabolites "•"X..-;-  >=? -.'" """,. v.--"•"'."-;'• *v'"•".•   :"-.-. "i-
 Dichiorobenzidine    ".' '-'.'.-:..-'::." ^'  '•" -   '" • '   ' ."
 Dichloroethylenes  (1,1- and 1,2-dichloroethylene)  -;'
 2,4-Dichlorophenol '.' ."v—   '": .•.^:''"7;-.'"  -.'^V'-..'."-.
 Dichloropropane and dichloropropene  ^ ",  "f   -.'- ..
 2,4-DimethyIphenol    '. ,. -. •:-' -;.-'•-. ~~,}ff .-'.-':;  -\ :.-l-
 Dinitrotoluene  "\*'_ -.-"."_•" i:.-;,  .-.."'..
 Diphenylhydrazine  .*•.'/'>.""?"• V "-'.
 Endosulfan and metabolites ~  . '-.";-">•
 Endrin and metabolites •. . -"
   38.
 ', 39.
•",40.
-  41.
 ::-42.
 :': 43.
   44.
•   45.
•   46.
 r'47.
.-748.
/ 49.
 »,-^  •'-

 ""so.
 •: 51.
 • 52.
•-••" 53.
 .  54.
' "55.
  Ethylbenzene -'.^.••.v--- =•*—- •v'-'ii-^T;.-"^-^".-"-;-^
  Fluoranthene-'-;";.--- -:'-"":x-v- -".',"r-•C':"^S-:^s
  _Haloethers (other than those listed elsewheref."
  •„• - includes chlorophenylphenyl esters, bromo^- •-
  "  phenylphenyl  ether,  bis(dichloroisopropyl)-'"
r  .  ether, bis(chloroethoxy) methane, and poly- *
;    chlorinated diphenyl ethers)  : -".'•-'.: '.r'-;' •'
  Halomethanes (other, than those listed elsewhere; •-"
   •  includes methylene chloride, methyl chloride; ".;'
."  ^methyl bromide,  bromoform, dichlorobro- -."
'.   momethane, trichlorofluoromethane, dichlo- -."
. '-•.  rodifluoromethane) , - .;I.,";r.-U"; " - •;"?-. :'":''^-"^
_ Heptachlor and metabolites ' • '-'-^:-v"r\':"v"?\ j.'-'j
  Hexachlorobutadiene ".^••...^V-";--": /'-X-'^S-?^
  -Hexachlorocyclohexane (all isomers). ''•-'^•'-,  •-•.;
 ; Hexachlorocyclopentadiene  .*:  ' <"_-•• :^-.ir:-Z^-^
'; Isophorone   ^V,  '- .\^.~~'-V;" ±''. -"•-')--\' /"---'"-".':
  Lead and compounds- ";--':'L^"- ".-'••"'•.-- -~"'--'.:>
  Mercury and compounds  _j  v-'.^-'<  '.''•  - .-'^''
 ; Naphthalene -2-     " •'*'•£- ••;'_-"."- ••", ^  \::-'~:~z:.
  Nickel and compounds _   '":'~-;-.'-?-"-:"•"'. ':
  Nitrobenzene""-"",",^,  .""•
  Pentachiorophenol'
;  Phenol   V^"-.:;fl ":-'"''!;-/-'c"V> '--• J*-""..";-"-. ^"i
•  Phthalate esters''•-•••  y .--,'* .V—'.^;i"---: •"-' -~ 'J--t''
'.'. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)  *_"'i".<.-r*''_  V.  -i
;  Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (including""  ;,
/"t ' benzanthracenes,  benzopyrenes, benzoflu-,,-^
' '•  oranthene,  chrysenes" dibenzanthracenesf   ^
: p and indenopyrenes)   "•"/-", _"•"•—/-'-." "•"-."vV-.--: •  r
"  Selenium and compounds   "-v'~,'.••*''  V-7,. '.*-r >-V -.
  Silver and compounds  ,  ''"''-',-."  ~:.~  -   A •">."'
  2,3,7,8-Tetra'chlorodibenzo-pAjioxin (TCDD)  '. •.  'L
~ Tetrachforoethylene  .••" ,.^>-.- - i . .?'.;-^c  ••-^.- '•''/''
',  Thallium and compounds  ~^T,f-,-C'-'.'*iN"'" »'-T.-^".'-.4
/Toluene --x~\-'/://-: r^-^:- \i;T;4x^"^T.'.:-i,^ V1'^;
. '_Toxaphene'" ':-'" ^ 64. ' Vinyl chloride " '." Vt -j,': ir
 'Trichloroethylene  65, •_ Zinc and compounds^	.';;
                                                        IV-50
-------
                                         TABLE  2

                  EXPANDED  PRIORITY  POLLUTANT  LIST
A.    Purgeable  Organics
;" •'.   Ao-olein'"-'-.--,•.-.•.-;-. -,>
 f, ••"- _ Acrylonitrile V-i;-Y.-;^v :~
 '.'-_/  Benzene A-..vi';>";. 4 -.'--
 ...  . .  io1uene~~rT-/il.T-i  r "-•;'
-rp~:   Ethylbenzene '•-   ''-*;'•--.-
 >".-".  Carbon tetrachloride - J".-
 .-  ~-   Chlorobenzene'--..-•--  -.-"
     .  1,1,1-Trichloroethaiie.:'-',.
     • -1,1-Dichloroethane -^:'.-"',
     '.1,1-Oichloroethylene'---.' -•
      1,1,2-Trichloroethane ;>r"?
      -1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroetharie
      Chloroethane ->"'-''--r. ^^l-.
      2-ChloroethyI vinyl ether ;.'
      Chloroform r-?.-  *'—^ '^..  '
                                                                    1,2-Oichloropro(3ane
                                                                    1,3-Oichloropropene  -,
                                                                    Methylene chloride .. •  ,.  .
                                                                    Methyl chloride _
                                                                    Methyl bromide
                                                                    Bromoform  '•  " [ _,
                                                                    Dichlorobromomethane -...
                                                                    Trichlorolluoromethane -''.
                                                                    Dichlorodifluoromethane
                                                                    Chlorodibromomethane  •
                                                                   , Tetrachloroethylene ^.   -;
                                                                    Trichloroethylene.  ->._".-.
                                                                   .'Vinyl chloride   ~\  '^   ":
                                                                   '. 1.2-trans-Dichloroethylene
                                                                    bis(Chloromethyl) ether ."  .
 B.    Base/Neutral  Extractables
        1,2-Dichlorobenzeiie -£~*
        1,3-Oichlorobenzene ~- *-l~_~. !^;
                            '"'
        Hexachlorobenzene
      '-, 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene "'•" -•;
      '  bis(2-Chloroethoxy) methane "-. •'.,'•  •-••
      '.'. 'Naphthalene -;;.-.'.^ --'  -' _- •,-'; '--•:'7:
        2-Chloronaphthalene -   -'-'•-
        \sophorone'^':.  i"-^" ^ " "" " "".'•
        Nitrobenzene^-^.' -. i'""'' / '  . _r_--
       , 2,4-Dinitrotoluene - 5~-J'?~-' ,,••-"
  _.".': . 4-Bromophenyl phenyt ether"_ -;
  ~.. " bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate 7.-J"
  .'.''," Di-n-octyl phthalate.-'. A>"rrj1.."^
  ^J.-"/ Dimethyl phthalate :J>f^, C^;» . ;>
  •"• " .Diethyl phthalate Ir'J'^-^.t-^lrv"'V
  ;-..' Di-n-butyl phthalate .i^~2 7 --.T'. '-r*

 r."'j'~, Ac'enaphthylene -f .:r-:Vi-=- ?*".•".'"^
   ;C'Acenaphthene 's'~~ V^^H'i?-;,.-. •
 •^ • -^   Butyl benzyl phthalate"" :;'J-- "iTf1^- .„-
                                                             I---V,
        Fluorene >*'-'f-.-~."'r; ::"-* V
        Fluoranthene ^-,'~- -." -" -T'r
       ' Chrysene ,....>;-•."':"---  .--"..!
        Pyrene •". "_.-;"- i-"-.*' "»:-'  *; _" -
       J Phenanthrene . •;.. *.  .'" -
       I Anthracene - . -  ~ .'-.--.'•  t
        Benzo(a)anthracene - .    . " ."
        Benzo(b)fluoranthene .   ,r
        Benzo{k)fluoranthene" '" •  :.
        Benzo{a)pyrene   .  ";.
        1ndeno<1,2,3-c,d)pyrene   . Z-_
        Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene   r."".
        Benzo(g,h,i)perylene /-r^!^.''
        4-Chlorophenyl phenyl^,-;.^ ' v-;
       :   .ether  •;./-;,, r '.".-.-v-';v...
        3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine" i« J" ?
        Benzidine  -."-  .''r/'/"-^-..V-
        bis(2-Ch!oroethy() ether '£?••:.
       • 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine •/.7..";"r-
        Hexachlorocyclopentadiene ~r
        N-Nitrosodiphenylamjne  •'_'' 7
[".•«'--
                                                                    N-Nitrosodimethylamine • -.
                                                                   " N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine -
                                                                   ' bis(2-Chloroisopropyl) ether'
                                              IV-51
-------
                               TABLE  2  (Cont.)
C.   Acid  Extractables
  ' j_j; -." Phenol »- •;-.; .-377*.
  -'•-".' 2-Nitrophenol "."- ;-—'
  -" "'- 4-Nitrophenol ~~ ~; *
       2,4-Oinitro'phenol ;i
       4,6-Oinitro-o-cresol "
  .   ' i- PenLachlorophenol ""
                                                             p-ChlorOr/rvcresol • - ;
                                                             2-Chtorophenol   "1
                                                             2,4-Oichlofophenol '".
                                                             2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
                                                             2,4-Oimethylphenol
                                                      f- „'-'"
D.   Pesticides/PCBs   (Polychlorinated  Biphenyls)
 -- •"•" Aldrin\:.^-;Vf-^'-^V-\;-'--v'r"'
 *;<•" Dieldrin .-^y^i-VrNn7'•"-.:;.-;'• T'~-:
 '~. . ^^DDE^/^^t-^^V tV
      -4.4'-OOO
       **,•» -tJLJU   -• ..-;.- • - .  f~   ~". -
 •:  '^   4,4'-OOT .. '  ;:'.7.C-?"rv. --'.': ";--.  .".-

 ,'".'.  .Endrin  •  -'...''~-'»' 'V''"'X"'v^"" —
 '-  -• Endrin aldehyde'-"".?-  '-'-(''-^-*--1'.-'!
                                                            i Heptachlw- -.1." rv -V;;
                                                             Heptachlor epoxide -:-..". '-^. •s
                                                            " Chlordane "• -.•-"—«..'--"-'v-—
                                                            « Toxaphene"•.:•*•".-.•--' 'J.-' .--.--
                                                             Arcx:lor 1016"' -;."..'-' , -,-""".-
                                                            - Aroclor 1221 :* -"-'"':* • j""  '•-
                                                            • Aroclor 1232'' 1. -'--.. - ':'.
                                                            *Aroclor 1242  .  "  :"-.-;.-\:-
                                                            'Aroclor 1248    "  :'-•?''•
                                                            /Aroclor 1254  *  \-.-Vr "-'
                                                            • Aroclor 1260   '--"- •   ' "-;•-
                                                             2,3,7.8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-
                                                             /xlioxin (TCDO)  '.   •"•'•"*v
                                                                                       .i
E.   Metals,  Cyanides,  Asbestos  and  Total Phenols
      -   >    ~^TTr?"
      'Antimony  .m-
     .  Arsenic   -.
     '  Beryllium  ".'.
     -  Cadmium   ."
     -  Chromium -^£_
       Copper .-,"-,
                                                             Mercury
                                                             Nickel   '-
                                                             Selenium
                                                             Silver •
                                                            ' Thallium
                                                            -.Zinc   '•-
".'^ . .Total cyanides
                                                     '.'. ".'- Asbestos (fibrous) ';:
                                                     '"   "_..-Totat phenols     -..
                                         IV- 52
-------
define a municipal sludge as hazardous if it is found to
be ignitable (40 CFR 261.21), corrosive  (40 CFR 261.22),
reactive (40 CFR 261.23) or toxic as defined by the
Extraction Procedure (EP) test  (40 CFR 261.24).  The EPA
has further defined hazardous waste from 16 non-specific
sources (40 CFR 261.31), 69 specific sources (40 CFR 261.32)
and 344 discarded commercial chemicals, containers and
spill residues (40 CFR 261,33).  These latter regulations are
not applicable to POTW sludges.  A summary of the criteria
used to evaluate the hazardous potential of sludge is given
in Table 3.  If any one of the four criteria is met, the solid
is defined as hazardous and subject to the regulations
promulgated in 40 CFR parts 260 through 265 and parts 122
through 125.

14.2  Analytical Results and Discussion

Table 4 is a summary of two grab sample analyses of Jones
Island Milorganite and South Shore sludges.  The samples were
related to July 1979 and December 1979 total sludge pro-
ductions to provide an estimate of pollutant loadings.  The
estimate is approximate due to the highly variable nature
of the sludge,  which has been shown to vary daily and season-
ally (Feiler, 1979) .  The samples were taken according to
the EPA screening phase sampling protocol and analyzed for
the 114 organic chemicals cited in Table 2.  The analyses
were performed according to EPA protocol.

Nineteen of the 114 priority pollutants were found at or
above detectable limits.  Phthalate esters and the acid
extractable phenols were the largest fraction of chemicals
found in Milorganite.  There is an expected lack of volatile
organics,  likely due to the nature of Milorganite processing.
Milorganite contained 10 of the 114 priority pollutants.
Their cumulative concentrations ranged from 14.4 ppm in the
summer sample to 0.4 ppm in the winter sample.   No significance
can be attributed to seasonal variation because of the limited
testing.

Fifteen of the 114 organic priority pollutants were identified
in the South Shore sludge.  Phthalate esters and volatile
organics comprised the highest concentrations of those
organics quantitated.  The cumulative priority pollutant con-
centration range was 2.5 ppm for the summer sample to 5.1
ppm for the winter sample.

The ramifications of these analyses on solids management are
not clear.   The EPA has not promulgated acceptable concentra-
tions of priority pollutants in POTW sludge under the NPDES
program.  Data gathered during the screening phase of the
priority pollutant program have identified many of the
                              IV-5 3
-------
                         TABLE 3

         CRITERIA FOR DEFINING'A HAZARDOUS SLUDGE


A.  Characteristics of Ignitability   (261.21)

    1.  A liquid with a Pensky-Martins Closed Cup  (PMCC)
        flash point < 60°C  (<140°F) and containing  >24%
        alcohol.

    2.  A solid waste which is capable of causing  fire
        through friction, moisture absorption,  spontaneous
        combustion, or which burns vigorously and  persistently
        upon ignition.

    3.  An ignitable compressed gas.

    4.  An oxidizer compressed gas.

B.  Characteristics of Corrosivity   (261.22)

    1.  A pH <2 or  >_12.5.

    2.  A liquid which corrodes steel  (grade SAE 1020)
        at a rate > 6.35 mm/yr.

C.  Characteristics of Reactivity

    1.  A waste normally unstable which undergoes  violent change.

    2.  Reacts violently with water.

    3.  Forms potentially explosive mixture with water.

    4.  When mixed with water generates toxic fumes.

    5.  A cyanide or sulfide bearing waste which liberates
        dangerously high levels of toxic gases  when exposed
        to the pH limits given in B.

    6.  Is capable of detonation.

    7.  Is a forbidden explosive.

D.  Characteristics  of Toxicity

    A solid waste  is considered toxic if the maximum concen-
    tration of  the contaminates listed below are exceeded in
    a leachate  generated  by  the method given in  40 CFR part
    261 Appendix II.  These  concentrations are 100 times those
    found in 40 CFR part  141, the National Interim Primary
    Drinking Water regulations.
                            IV-54
-------
             TABLE 3 (Continued)
Parameter             Leachate Concentrations
                             (mg/1)

Arsenic                         5
Barium                        100
Cadmium                         1
Chromium                        5
Lead                  '          5
Mercury                         0.2
2,4-D                          10
Selenium                        1
Silver                          5
Endrin                          0.02
Lindane                         0.4
Methoxychlor                   10
Toxaphene                       0.5
2,4,5-TP                        0.5
                     IV-5 5
-------







































*3*

W
)J
CQ
<
EH





































CO
J2
O
M
EH

CG
EH
2
W
U
2
O
U

EH
2

EH
D
,.3
^
O
ft

>H
EH
H
OH
O
H

-




























W
O
Q
D
j
CO

J_q
<
ft
H
CJ
H C1
2 £

a _i
^
M
W

£3
icjj
[2
j
H
a



-» SH
O
e
N.
tn
j^
*•— •

tn
C
'O
frj
O


T3
CO
4J
ta
•H
-P
tn
W

rH
to
-P
o
EH

-d
c
tO

. — .
JQ
a
a
1 — •

c
o
•H
-P
m
S-l
-p
c
CU
o
c
0
U
Q)
Q
e
CU
co
j^
o
A
to
x:
-P
3
O
to
0
CO
Q









>^
3
£












^|
CO
XJ
e
Q>
0)
-P
•tH
C
fO
tn
>_i
o
rH
•iH
a
O
CU
Q










>i
rH
3
l-3l

tn
c
•H
tf
O
J
*~*,
0
e
tn
yt
•— +


•
0
c
o
CJ
^-*
Q
ft
ft
*— '

tn
c
•H
T3
(0
o

^^«s
o
e

tn
^
«— •

.
o
c
0
CJ
^^
Xl
ft

—'




tn
c
•H
T3
tO
O
i_3
ft^^
o
E

tn
y
• — •


•
U
c
o
CJ
^-,
XI
ft

— '

XI
tn
c
-rH
T3
fO
O
i_3
**^
O
E

tn
y
-—


•
0
^_,
XI
ft
C  ft
o  a
u
             T3
             C
             3
             O
             ft

             §
             U
                                                            ocNmm
                                                                               o
                                                                               cxj
                   VO    OO    TOOO        O
                     .    VO    CNCNOO        CM
             QQOOQ    p     rH(N(NQQ-q-Q
             2222              222
                                                                                               OQ
             rH    rH          rH    CNrHCOOCO    CN        rHO
               •Q   «QQQ   «Q	Q   -QQ   •   •
             o 2 o 2 2 2 o 2 o o CN o o 53 o  2 2 o o
             co    o          m     o
             •^T    (»          VD     (N
                Q     QQQ     Q H
                22222
                                                                                               CO
                                                                                         22
                                                                                  cn
                                                                                 J^
                                                                                £)
                                                                                 o
                                                                                                             rH
                                                                                                             cn
                                                                                                             tn
                                                                                                            r«
                                                                                                           vo
                                                                                                            O
                                                                                                            o
                                                                                                              •
                                                                                                            CN
                                                                                                             tn
o

en
en





Q
2


[3
O O O

^r en CD
in "31 CN
^^
rH
^
CO
g
Q Q "*
2 2

o
o
o o o

o <• o
C^ ^O f"O
^* f"«*.
CN
O CN VD
CN r^ vo
• • •
m m o
n

0 0 O
o o m
u u u
222



Q Q O
222
m
CO
•
Q n Q
2 2

o
r-
f-J Ul
2 2



Q Q
2 2

rH
•
Q VO
2

0
0
f-J U U 1-1 U (-1 1-1
2222222



Q ^J Q Q Q Q Q
2222222

o
»
Q P~ Q D D Q Q
2 22222

o
0
u
rH
X

>=p
•
n

tn
y
VD
o
r-H
X

•^
ylene
thalate
Iphthalate
ene
ylhexyl) phthalate
& pC| ^i
-P ft-P
XJ rH 3
ft >,XJ
«s x: i
C -P C
CO CU |
0 -H -rl
< Q Q
.£* J^
-P -P
C 0)
WCN
O — '
3 n
rH-H
fV ( ff]

CU
c
CU rH
to O
^1 t^
r4 CO
x: x:
0 ft
0)
Q) C
C CO
cu w
rH x:
(0 -P
x: c
-P tO
x: c
ft CU
tO A
2 ft
CU
c
CU
0
03
x:
.p
c
<
Iphthalate
>i
-P
o
o cu
1 C
C CO
t \t
-H >i
Q ft
ene
rophenol
chloride
N 0
C rH
CU A
XI 0
r-H flj
>l-p
x: c
i-P CU
W ft
CU
c
CO
rH
>1
x:
.p
CO
21
-dichloroethylene
to
c
fO CO
i-P CO
1 N
CN C
* CO
rH CQ



CO
C
CO
3
rH
O
EH


CO
C
CU
0
3
iH
CM
dge Production
ight)
3 CO
rH ^
CO
rH J-l
(0 Q
jj -^
0
EH
IV- 5 6














•
0
e
\
tn
4«J
i
^^
0
*
o

C
td
x:
4J

w
w
(D
rH

•o
CU
4J
o
CU
-P
Q)
•a

-P
o
c

II

Q
2
CU
rH
ft
e
ttj
tn
XJ
fl
M
tn
CU
rH
tn
c
•H
0)

03

c
o
T3
CU
to
H3
x>

CU
4J
m
£
•H
-P
en
Q)
c
fl

en
-H

tn
c
•H
-d
ITJ
o
rH

Q)
x:
EH
-------
 pollutants found in the Milwaukee sludge -  (21 industrial
 categories monitored (Keith 1979)).  This would indicate a
 potential decrease in priority pollutant concentrations in
 POTW sludges as pretreatment programs are implemented.

 The EP toxicity test (40 CFR 261.24) is the most likely of
 the four RCRA criteria to be violated by a municipal sludge.
 The MMSD has tested Jones Island and South Shore sludge
 for toxicity as defined in RCRA.  None of the tests exceeded
 the allowable concentrations cited in 40 CFR 261.24 and given
 in Table 3  (part D).  These sludges are accordingly classified
 as non-hazardous under RCRA definitions.


15.0  PUBLIC HEALTH

Pages V-19, V-20, and V-21  E.  Public Health should read as
follows:

15.1  General

The significance of sludge disposal for public health centers
around the ultimate fate of contaminants which are present in
sewage sludge.  These contaminants can be classified into the
following major categories:

•    Elemental Contaminants - elements and their various
     chemical forms  (e.g. heavy metals).

•    Synthetic/Organic Contaminants - a variety of chemicals
     which have been introduced as a consequence of industrial-
     ization such as biocidal chemicals and organic chemicals
     produced by treatment process.

•    Biological Contaminants - pathogenic agents can be
     classified into four groups:  viruses, bacteria, protozoans,
     and intestinal worms (helminths).   The adult forms of the
     latter two perish quickly outside of their hosts, however,
     the cysts of protozoans and ova of helminths do survive
     and are very persistent in wastes.

•    Other Wastewater Contaminants - common constituents of
     wastewater which may be in high concentrations in sludges
     (e.g. nitrogen and phosphorus species).

The various pathways, direct and indirect, by which these con-
taminants may travel from sludge, to land and eventually to
man are complex and not completely understood.  These pathways
include aerosols,  groundwater contamination,  plant uptake, bio-
accumulation, and direct ingestion.
                               IV-5 7
-------
In order to develop a better understanding of the reasons
why certain pollutants are of concern, it is important to
understand how these constituents can affect people.  These
pollutants are discussed below.

The list should not be considered to be all inclusive.
Numerous sources, e.g. EPA  (1976), Sittig  (1980) and Vershueren
(1977), discuss health effects of inorganic and organic
pollutants.  The pollutants listed are those which are found
in MMSD sludge in significant concentrations.  Tables pre-
sented earlier  (comparison of Maximum Contaminant Levels in
drinking water, the range of leachate concentrations, and EPA
hazardous waste concentrations) along with the tables presenting
the chemical analysis of Milorganite and South Shore sludge
show  the concentrations of some of these pollutants.  Also,
the EIS Water Quality Appendix discusses many of these same
contaminants.

Ammonia;  Ammonia (NH^), which is a pungent, colorless gas
that is highly soluable, in water is not typically found (in
water) at concentrations that are harmful to humans.  The
EPA has set a cold water fishery level of 0.02 mg/1 for un-
ionized ammonia, NH-,)  and a warm water fishery level of 0.04
mg/1 for freshwater aquatic life.  Ammonia, which is dependent
upon pH and temperature, predominates under alkaline condi-
tions and is toxic to fish, particularly trout.

Arsenic:  Arsenic (As) is toxic to humans and is a gray,
shiny brittle element that possesses both metallic and non-
metallic properties.  Most forms of arsenic (or arsenicals,
i.e. arsenic derived compounds) are toxic to humans although
it has been used in medical treatment.  Arsenic is used by
industry for hardening of metal alloys, paint manufacture
and in electrical products.  Arsenic is also used in the
manufacture of herbicides.  For comparison, Lueschow  (1964)
found that a total of 215,174 pounds of arsenic was dumpted
into Pewaukee Lake  (located in Waukeska County Wisconsin)
from 1950 to 1964.

Inorganic arsenic, which can be absorbed through the gastro
intestinal tract, lungs and skin  (to a lesser extent) can be
found in the body tissues and fluid.  There appears to be
some controversy as to whether arsenic is carcinogenic
(Frost 1967).  Some of the symptoms of chronic arsenic
poisoning include kidney degeneration, gastro intestinal
inflammation, and hardening of the liver.  Arsenic does not
appear to progressively concentrate along a food chain.

The EPA  (1976) has set a level of 50 yg/1 for arsenic in
domestic water supplies  (for health reasons) and 100 ug/1
                                IV-5 8
-------
for crop irrigation.   (1000 yg = 1 mg, 1 yg/1 = 1 ppb)

Cadmium;  Cadmium  (Cd) is a non-essential, non-beneficial
and toxic element.  It is soluble under acidic conditions.
It exhibits properties similar to zinc and lead and is a soft,
white metal that is easily fusible.  Cadmium  (an accumulate
in various body tissues, including the kidney and liver.
Cadmium may be a factor in such diseases as testicular tumors,
cancer, growth inhibition, and arteriosclerosis (hardening
of the arteries).  Cadmium may even reach fetuses by crossing
the mother's placenta.  The EPA has set a level of 10 yg/1
for Cadmium in domestic water supplies (for health reasons).

Chromium:  Chromium (Cr) is an abundant element, that typically
is found in the trivalent (Cr+3) form in nature.  As chromium
(Cr+3) is an essential trace element for humans, a deficiency
in this form of the element is of more nutritional concern
than overexposure.  On the other hand, hexavalent (Cr4"^) is
irritating and corrosive to mucous membranes.  Occupational
exposure to Cr"1"^ can cause lung cancer, respiratory and skin
problems.  The EPA has set a level of 50 yg/1 for chromium
in domestic water supplies (for health reasons).

Copper:  Copper (Cu) is an essential ingredient in some pesti
cides, algicides, and fungicides.  It is used in paint and
wood preservatives to inhibit plant and animal growth.  It
is also an essential trace element for plant growth and animal
metabolism as well as for the synthesis of  hemoglobin.
Although a human adult requires an intake of 2 yig/day,
copper overdoses can lead to vomiting and prolonged exposure
to elevated levels can lead to liver damage.  In elevated
levels, copper is also toxic to aquatic life.  To minimize
unpleasant taste, the EPA has set a maximum limit of 1.0 yg/1
of copper  for domestic water supplies.

Lead:  Lead (Pb) has many industrial uses and can exist as
metal salts.  Urban runoff can account for 5,000 tons of lead
per year nationally (EPA 1972).  Lead does not appear to exhibit
any beneficial nutritional effects.  It is a toxic metal that
accumulates in body tissues.   In children, lead poisoning
can cause irreversible damage to the brain.  This can happen
when children eat lead based paints.  Toxic effects of lead
poisoning include anemia, kidney malfunction and nerve problems.
Common symptoms include fatigue, severe intestional cramps and
loss of appetite.  The EPA has set the level for lead in
domestic water supplies at 50 yg/1 for health reasons.
                             IV-5 9
-------
Mercury:  Mercury (Hg) is a silver-white liquid metal commonly
used in thermometers.  It is non-essential, non-beneficial
and toxic.  It has been used as a germicide or fungicide
for medical and agricultural purposes .  Incidence of mercury
poisoning is known world-wide.  Mercury poisoning may be
acute  (short-term) or chronic  (long-term) depending upon the
mercury compound involved.  Inorganic mercury from industrial
exposure can cause chronic mercury poisoning.  Organic
mercury poisoning can be caused by environmental pollution.
Ingestion typically causes neurological problems, and death
can ensue: from the consumption of small quantities.  Bisogni
and Lawrence  (1973)  demonstrated that in water, under natural
conditions, inorganic mercury  can be readily converted to
methyl mercury (which is particularly insidious and probably
caused the Minamata Bay poisonings in Japan) .  For health
reasons, the EPA has set a 2.0 yg/1 level for mercury in
domestic water supplies .

Nickel:  Nickel (Ni) is also a silver-white metal which
exists naturally as a solid.  Nickel is relatively non-
toxic to man and is not included in the EPAs National Interim
Primary Drinking Water Regulations .  Nickel can have toxic
effects on aquatic life although tolerances very widely.

Nitrates, Nitrites:   Nitrates  (NO^) and Nitrites  (NO-)  are
products of the Nirogen cycle  (which is discussed in the
Nitrogen Control section) .  Nitrate can be reduced to nitrite
in the gastro intestinal tract.  It then reaches the
bloodstream and reacts with hemoglobin to produce methemoglobin,
which impairs oxygen transfer.  This condition is called
methemoglobinemia and can be fatal to infants.  For this
reason, a 10 mg/1 level for nitrate-nitrogen  (NO-,-N) is  set
by the EPA for domestic water supplies .
   yfhl nri n^t.pd Riphenyls;  PCBs , as they are commonly known,
are a class of compounds that are resistant to heat and
biological degradation.  They are soluble (to varying degrees)
in water, oils and organic solvents.  They are nonflammable,
have useful heat exchange and dielectric properties, and are
used principally by the electrical industry in transformers
and capacitors .  PCBs are strongly absorbed on solid sur-
faces including soils, sediments and particulates in the
environment.

The EPA has set a 0.001 yg/1 level for aquatic organisms
 (and their consumers) since they are affected by acute and
chronic effects of PCBs.  Veith and Lee  (1971) found concen-
trations of 2.0 to 2.8 yg/1 in the Milwaukee River and resi-
dues in fish as high as 405 yg/g.  Schwartz and Peck  (1943)
found that exposure to PCBs can cause skin lesions in humans .
Risebrough  (1969), Street et.al.  (1968) and Wasserman, et.al.
 (1970) found that PCBs increase liver enzyme activity that may
have a secondary effect on reproductive processes.
                               IV-60
-------
Silver:  Silver (Ag) is also a non-essential, non-beneficial
toxic metal. It is a strong bactericide and can cause localized
skin discoloration in humans.  For health reasons the EPA
has set a 50 yg/1 level for domestic water supplies.  Silver
tends to concentrate jin body tissues.

Zinc:  EPA has set a 5 mg/1 limit for Zinc (Zn) for domestic
water supplies.  Zinc is an essential and beneficial element
in human metabolism.  Deficiency leads to growth retardation
in children.  Zinc and zinc salts add a bitter, unpleasant
taste to water.  The degree of zinc toxicity to aquatic ani-
mals is influenced by water hardness, temperature and dissolved
oxygen.  Zinc is also a nutrient for plants.

The effect that these contaminants may have on public health
depends on the solids disposal method used.  Possible rami-
fications on public health are described below:

15.2  Agricultural Application

The potential hazards associated with land disposal are highly
dependent on several factors including the quality of the
sludge or product, the rate of application, the cumulative
loading, the crop grown on sludge amended soil, and chemical
and physical nature of the soil.

In general, it appears that there is little evidence for the
dissemination of disease to humans or animals by land
spreading of digested sewage sludge.  Pathogens are readily
removed by soils through filtration, sorption-inactivation
and die-off.  Pathogen movement is usually limited to within
a few feet from the source, unless the soil is of very coarse
texture or contains cracks and channels.

Nitrate, if applied in amounts greater than can be removed
by plant uptake, can contaminate groundwater and may cause
human and animal health problems.  Excessive nitrate in
drinking water can result in methemoglobinemia.  The USEPA
and World Health Organization drinking water standard is
10 mg/1 of nitrate-nitrogen (NO^-N).  Under a well regulated
land application program where application rate control is
based on fertilizer nitrogen requirements and heavy metals
accumulation, little nitrate should enter the groundwater
and the potential health risks can be minimized.

Of the numerous  heavy metals, cadmium is of the most concern
to public health when applying sludge to land.  Tirsch et.al.
(1979) found that pH, a soil property that can be easily con-
trolled, has the greatest influence on cadmium  (and copper)
removal from the soil.  Adherence to DNR and EPA guidelines
(which are based upon research into health effects)  would,
                               IV-61
-------
of course, minimize public health concerns for heavy metals.
Most other metals do not appear to present significant pro-
blems to public health  (Pahren, et.al. 1979).

According to Pahren et.al. (1979), to date, autopsy data
indicate that persons not occupationally exposed to high
levels of cadmium do not accumulate cadmium in concentrations
close to the critical level of the onset of the disease.

The EPA's regulation for cadmium application  (1978) are as
follows:

40 CFR 257.3-5{a)(1) :  Any site that is currently or will in
the future be used for the production of food chain crops
complies with either subparagraph 1 or subparagraph 2 of this
paragraph.

i.  The annual application of cadmium from solid waste does
not exceed the maximum additions below.

                                       Maximum Annual
                                       Cadmium Addition
              Years                      (kg/ha)

    Present to Dec. 31, 1981                2.0
    Jan. 1, 1982 to Dec. 31,  1985           1.25
    Beginning Jan. 1, 1986                  0.5

ii.  The maximum cumulative amount of cadmium applied to any
hectare of land does not exceed 5 kg on soils with a cation
exchange capacity  (CED) of less than 5, 10 kg on soils whose
CEC is between 5 and 15, and 20 kg on soils whose CED exceeds
15.

40 CFR 257.2-5(a) (1) (III):  Solid waste containing cadmium
concentrations in excess of 25 mg/kg dry weight is not applied
to sites where tobacco, leafy vegetables, or root crops are
or will be grown for direct human consumption.

40 CFR 257.3-5(a)(2):  The land application of solid waste
containing cadmium is acceptable if the resulting level of
cadmium in the crops and meats marketed for human consumption
are analyzed prior to marketing and shown to be comparable
to those levels present in similar crops or meats produced
locally where solid waste has not been applied.

Dairy cows should not be permitted to ingest sludge directly
because many organic compounds tend to accumulate in
rich tissues and fluids, e.g. milk.
                              IV-6 2
-------
An EPA report  (1976) identified two still unanswered crucial
questions regarding the determination of the potential hazards
associated with applying sludge to cropland:

(1)  What percentage of an individual's diet is composed of
     foods affected by heavy metals from sludge?

The Food and Drug Administration  (FDA)  (1977) studied cadmium
intake for 15 to 20 year-old males.  In the table shown below,
dairy products grains, meats and potatoes are significant
sources for cadmium intake.

         Cadmium intake of teen-age males by food class
Food Class
Dairy products
Meat, fish poultry
Grain and cereal products
Potatoes
Leafy vegetables
Legume vegetables
Root vegetables
Garden fruits
Fruits
Oils , fats , shortening
Sugars and adjuncts
Beverages (including water)
Total
Average ,
Consumed
(g/d)
704
262
424
177
54
66
32
88
222
72
83
684
2,868
Cadmium
Residue
(ppb)
5.7
15.3
23.3
48.0
40.5
6.3
32.3
14.7
3.0
15.3
10.0
3.0

Cadmium
Intake
(ug/d)
4.0
4.0
9.9
8.5
2.2
0.4
1.0
1.3
0.7
1.1
0.8
2.1
36
 Trace values assumed as 10 ppb.

""Calculated from concentration and intake reported for each
   food class.
Reference:
FDA, 1977, "Compliance Program Evaluation, Fiscal
Year 1974, Total Diet Studies  (7320.08)".  FDA,
Bureau of Foods
(2)  What are the cummulative effects of repeated applications
     of metals in sludges over time?

This is important for determing the relationship between plant
uptake and the transfer to farm animals as well as to humans
(about which relatively little is known).
                              IV-6 3
-------
 DelMonte  Corporation,  the  world's  largest  canner of fruits
 and  vegetables  has  halted  purchases  of  crops  grown on sludge
 ammended  land  (SLUDGE  magazine,  1980).   They  are concerned
 about  the safety  of the  food  they  market.   Since this ques-
 tion is unanswered,  the  ban will remain in place until the
 company is  convinced that  human  consumption of  crops grown
 on sludge ammended  soils is totally  safe.   However,  DelMonte
 appears to  be the only company  in  the  725  member National
 Food Processors Association  (NFPA) taking  this  stand.

 The  Food  and Drug Administration (FDA),  the EPA and the
 Department  of Agriculture  (DOA)  have recently published a
 guidance  and policy package that addresses the  application of
 sludge to cropland.  The  position taken  in  the document is
 that while  the  Federal government  cannot offer  any compensa-
 tion for  incurred damages, the  risks should be  equivalent to
 normal farming  and  food  processing if  the  Federal (and
 State) guidelines are  followed.  The document follows the
 EPA's  regulations on the application of sludge  to cropland.

 15.3  Landfilling

 While  landfilling is also  subject  to both  state and federal
 regulation, the potential for  public  health impacts through
 contamination of  groundwater  is  a  cause for concern, mainly
 because of  historical  incidents  nationwide, and the diffi-
 culty  in  reversing  the problem  once  encountered.  However,
 strict adherence  to suggested design criteria outlined in EPA
 Process Design  Manuals (1978b,  1979)can substantially minimize
 such problems.


 15.4   Composting

 The  most  recent data available indicate  that  composting,  when
 conducted properly,  is a safe means  of  processing  and utiliza-
 tion of sludge. The land application of  this  material appears
 to present no danger of  the spread of disease from pathogenic
 organisms.  However, while the compost  has  been referred  to
 as a hygienic product  (Surge  & Marsh, 1978),  it is not a
 sterile product because  the high temperatures produced during
 composting are  due  to  the  activity of microorganisms within.
 Certain types of  secondary fungal pathogens and microbial
 allergens have  been  found  at  various compost  sites,  from  all
 stages of the composting process (EPA,  1975).   These secondary
 pathogens are commonly found  in  the  general environment as
 well,  but in lower  concentrations.

The available literature  suggests that potential on-site
 problems  associated  with secondary pathogens  at composting
 sites  are worthy  of  precautionary  considerations.   Millner
 et al.  (1977) states that  aerosolized particles of compost
 which  include conidia  or spores  of Aspergillus  fumigatus
                            IV-6 4
-------
may pose a health problem to certain individuals.  Aspergillus
fumigatus is a fungus (i.e. an organism that produces
spores and prospers in an aerobic environment) commonly found
in compost piles.  It can be considered to be a human patho-
gen.  To reduce the health risk for such individuals who are
employed at composting sites, the wearing of respirators,
periodic water spraying to minimize dust production and possi-
ble dispersal of A. fumigatus spores, and the isolation of
such workers from the spore-dispersing parts of the process
are suggested.  In consideration of off-site health matters
related to air disposal of spores, a buffer distance between
the composting operation and health care facilities or resi-
dential areas may be needed.  In the actual use of the finished
product, generation of dust clouds containing high levels of
spores presents a potential exposure problem for hypersen-
sitive or predisposed persons.

A recent report  (EPA, 1978) assessed the health risk at
the Oxen Cove, Maryland composting operation resulting
from A. fumigatus.  This report concluded that A. fumigatus
would be unlikely to cause health problems in the area
surrounding Oxen Cove.  At Oxen Cove, the mixing and
screening operations  (the major mechanisms for the spores'
release to the air) would be enclosed, thus the emission of
A. fumigatus spores is likely to be low.  They further con-
cluded that the natural occurrence in a residential neighbor-
hood, both indoors and outdoors, appears to be much more
significant.  Recommendations for the Oxen Cove facility
included periodic air monitoring for A. fumigatus spores,
period skin test sampling of human population, and limiting
personnel access to the mixing and screening building to
non-sensitized or otherwise predisposed individuals.

Spores of secondary pathogens associated with composting
sites are easily airborne and may pose a health risk at
locations offsite.  Compost site restrictions or modifications
would be necessary when hospitals, dialysis centers, nursing
homes, blood collection centers, surgical supply manufac-
turers, or pharmaceutical production centers are nearby or
downwind in direct contact with high spore concentrations.

16.0  TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEMS

Pages V-6, V-7, V-8:  C.  Terrestrial Ecosystems, 1.  Land
Application will be modified to read as follows:

Animal habitat on farmland may be directly affected by the
application of sludge.  This land can provide a home for
certain birds, small mammals and other wildlife.

Potential adverse impacts to wildlife at farmland applica-
tion sites are:
                            I V-6 5
-------
•    the loss of individual animals as a result of the
     application process

•    the alteration of farmland habitat due to the applica-
     tion process

•    deleterious effects of metals, pathogens, and toxic
     organics in the land applied sludge.

Sludge can be land applied in two forms:

*    Liquid form, or a slurry, which is how sludge from
     South Shoe WWTP is presently applied.

•    Solid form, or a cake, which is how the MMSD proposes
     to apply South Shore sludge during the planning
     period (1985 - 2005) .

Either form involves  the use of a vehicle which spreads
 (liquid and solid) or injects (liquid only)   the sludge
on the land followed by a device which incorporates the
sludge into the soil by a plowing  (or discing) action.
This action is equivalent to normal fertilizing and plowing
operations.  This action is equivalent to normal fertilizing
and plowing operations.

Individual animals and nesting areas found on farmland could
be destroyed by the discing or plowing action.  This is not
solely due to sludge application, as discing is part of the
normal tilling and fertilization procedure.  Because sludge
application is used as a partial substitute for commercial
fertilizer application, it would reduce the frequency of
discing or plowing.

The same considerations are true when evaluating the effects
of the alteration of farmland habitat as a result of sludge
application.  The effects on the soil and appearance of the
land are much the same following an inorganic fertilizer appli-
cation and tilling operation or following sludge application.
Sludge application would not increase the impacts on farm-
land habitat.

The land application of sewage sludge adds higher levels of
metals, potential pathogens and toxic organics to the soil
than would occur with commercial fertilizers.  Various
plants have the ability to translocate amounts of heavy
metals and chlorinated organics from the soil  (Jelinek et  al,
1976; Chaney et al, 1977; Dacre, 1977).  Animals  grazing on
sludge-amended lands are subject to exposure to sludge-
borne metals, pathogens and chlorinated organics by inges-
tion of sludge with soil, sludge adhering to vegetation or
vegetation which has taken up metals or toxic organics
                             IV-6 6
-------
(Jelinek, et al, 1976; Kienholz, et al,1976).  The kidney
and liver appear to accumulate cadmium and lead  (Jelinek,
et al, 1976; Williams, et al, 1978; Lisk, 1977).  Chlorina-
ted organics have been found to accumulate in fat, liver
and muscle tissues  (Kienholz, et al, 1976; Lisk, 1977)
and milk  (Gleason, et al, 1976) .

The risk of transmitting disease, metals or toxic organics
by land application of sludge is difficult to evaluate.
Members of each group of pathogens associated with sewage
can survive sewage treatment in reduced numbers and can at
times be recovered from the receiving soil (Akin, et al,
1977).  However, there is no evidence that animal exposure
to anaerobically digested or highly limed sludge leads to a
disease hazard  (Kienholz, et al, 1976).

The amounts of heavy metals, pathogens, and toxic organics
will be higher in sludge amended farmlands than in commer-
cially fertilized farmlands.  These substances will be avail-
able to wildlife which utilize farmland habitat.  Wildlife
using sludge amended farmland are at greater risk with regard
to the above factors than wildlife using nonsludge amended
farmland.  Nontheless, significant adverse impacts to wild-
life are not expected to occur because of the dispersion and
thus dilution of the contaminants, the absence of habitat
removal, and the small amount of farmland involved  (compared
to the total amount available).  A particular parcel of
farmland is generally used only intermittently by most wild-
life rather than being a permanent habitat or exclusive food
source.  A site specific analysis is necessary to determine
the anticipated impacts more accurately.

Assuming that each acre of farmland is similar in terms of
habitat quality and wildlife utilization, the degree of impact
for each alternative will be in proporation to the amount of
farmland used.  The alternative which involves the greatest
use of farmland for sludge application could expose the
most wildlife to the sludge contaminants.
17.0  WATER QUALITY

Pages, V-ll - V-18  D.  Water Quality has been modified to
read as follows:

17.1  Groundwater

Groundwater quality may be affected by leaching of nutrients,
heavy metals and other constituents from landfill and land
application systems.  It can also be affected by fertilizers
                             IV-6 7
-------
or pesticides that are applied to cropland, animal waste
storage facilities, and other land treatment disposal systems.

Groundwater quality depends on the ability of soil and rock
to remove contaminants.  Since groundwater cannot purify
itself like surface water (because of contact with living
organisms and the atmosphere), it is difficult to restore
to its unpolluted state.

The DNR is presently proposing changes in the Wisconsin
Administrative Code (NR 1.97 and NR 105) that are related
to groundwater quality.  NR 1.97 outlines the DNR's policy
towards preserving natural groundwater quality, while NR 105
addresses groundwater quality standards.  There are many
pollutants which may affect groundwater quality and are
therefore regulated by the EPA and the DNR.  Since ground-
water can be used for drinking water, then these standards must
be met.  The following table shows primary (health) and secon-
dary  (welfare/aesthetics) drinking water standards.

Nitrogen  (N) is an important element which can affect
groundwater quality in several ways.  The nitrogen cycle in soil
and groundwater is shown in the following figure.  Nitrate
(NO-,) is a major concern for groundwater contamination
since it is the causative agent for methemoglobinemia
(Nitrogen is discussed in section on Public Health).  Nitrate
is mobile in the soil and can leach into the groundwater.
As shown in the figure, other forms of nitrogen can be
altered by several mechanisms.  Nitrate is formed under
aerobic conditions (as would occur with the land application
of sludge).  It is interesting to note that nitrogen can
exist in several valence states as shown below:

Compound             Valence State              Conditions

NH, /NH0                -3                reducing / anaerobic
  T    J
N2                       °


NO                      + 2
N2°3                    +3
N02                     +4

N-0,-, N0.,~              +5                oxidizing / aerobic


Under anaerobic conditions, which are normally associated with
landfills, the predominant nitrogen compounds are Ammonia
(NH3) and Ammonium  (NH +).  The balance between these two forms

is pH dependent with Ammonium predominating at pH  <_ 7 which
would be  the expected conditions for landfill leachate.^
                             IV-6 8
-------
                      SAFE DRINKING WATER
Primary Drinking Water Standards ;
    NR 109.11, NR 109.20
    Wis. Adm. Code 40 CFR 141.11,
    40 CFR 141.12
Contaminant
     Arsenic

     Barium

     Cadmium

     Chromium

     Lead

     Mercury

     Nitrate (as N)

     Selenium

     Silver Fluoride
     Endrin

     Lindane
     Methoxyclor

     Toxaphene

     2, 4-D
     2,4,5-TP (silvex)
  Level (mg/1)

  0.05

  1

  0.010

  0.05

  0.05

  0.002

 10.

  0.01

  0.05

  2.2

  1.4 -

  0.002

  0.004

  0.1

  0.005

  0.1

  0.1
                                      2.4
(NR 109.11)

(40 CFR 141.11)
Secondary Drinking Water Standards:  NR 109.60 Wis. Adm. Code
Standard
     Chloride
     Color
     Copper
     Foaming Agents  (MBAS -
       Methylene-Blue Active
       Substances)
     Hydrogen Sulfide
     Iron
     Manganese
     Odor
     Sulfate
     Total Residue
     Zinc
  Level (mg/1 except as noted)

250
 15 units
  1.0
  0.5
  not detectable
  0.3
  0.05
  3  (Threshold No.)
250
500
  5
                              IV-6 9
-------
                                                                      nj
                                 i   E

                                 i  i
                                 o   °-
                                 cc   ®
                                 z  .5
                                 —   c
                                 UJ   o
                                 -J  t:
                                 o  -=
UJ

o   ~
cc   2
o.
a.
                                 en
                                2
                                O
                                s
                                \-
                                CL
                                <
                                Q
                                      c
                                     -5,
o
tr
t-
z
o
CJ
            UJ
            o
            o
            IT
                                             CO
                                             LU
                                             Q

                                             CO
                                             C/5
                                             UJ
                                             o
                                             o
                                             a:
                                             CL
                                             in
                                             CL

                                             UJ
                                             Q
                                             UJ
            O
            o
                                                           O
                                                          JD
                                                          CO
              
-------
Ammonium bonds with negatively charge soil particles and
therefore is relatively immobile.

Phosphorus  (p) is not as important a factor as nitrogen in
affecting groundwater quality and public health.  It is an
important nutrient for plants and can contribute  (as can
nitrogen) to eutrophication, the natural aging process of
lakes.

The element phosphorus is highly reactive and therefore it is
usually in an oxidized state with oxygen or other mineral
elements.  It is also found in organic compounds.  Since it
is essential for all forms of life (as is Nitrogen), it
must be available in soil and water.

Phosphorus can enter the soil in sludge or a commercial
fertilizer.  There are four removal mechanisms for phosphorus:

•    crop removal - pjhosphorus is taken up by plants, which
     increases growth and phosphorus is removed when the crops
     are harvested.

•    accumulation - phosphorus can accumulate in the solid
     phase of soil as organic compounds, adsorbed ions or
     precipitated inorganic compounds.

•    Soil erosion - phosphorus can be removed by soil erosion
     in a soluble form or precipitated or adsorbed onto
     soil particles.  In this manner it could enter surface
     waters causing nutrient enrichment and be taken up by
     algae.

•    leaching - phosphorus could also leach into the ground-
     water.

It is important to realize that for Wisconsin farmland that
receives sludge, phosphorus is generally immobile in the sub-
soil (Keeny et al, 1975).

Metals  are a great concern in wastewater treatment, particulaly
for the disposal of sludge.  One of the most obvious sources
of these metals is industries discharging to the sewer system.
The MMSD's Industrial Waste Pretreatment Program  (1980)
has identified and categoriezed metals in the wastewater
influent at  the two MMSD WWTPs.  Historical metal concentra-
tions are used for planning purposes and for EIS analysis.
This allows for a "worst case" situation.  The implementation
of the  MMSD's pretreatment program should cause metal concen-
trations (and loads) in the influent, effluent and sludge to
decrease during the planning period.
                            IV-71
-------
Heavy metals in the influent are still cause for considerable
concern.  Some metals are essential for plants and animals
in trace amounts,  but are toxic in higher concentrations.
The following table shows essential and toxic heavy metals
(a heavy metal can be defined  as a metal that has a den-
sity five times higher than water, i.e. a specific gravity
of 5.0).

              Potential toxicity of heavy metals
Element  Plants Animals Plants*
                       Animals
Symbol
Cadmium No No Moderate
Chromium No No Low
Copper Yes Yes High
Lead No No Low
Mercury No No Low
Nickel No Yes High
Zinc Yes Yes Moderate
* When metal is applied to the
** Cumulative effects.
High**
Low
Moderate
High**
High**
Moderate
Low
soil.

Cd
Cr
Cu
Pb
Hg
Ni



Reference:
Keeny, D.R.; Lee, K. W.; and Walsh, L.M., 1975.
Guidelines for the Application of Wastewater
Sludge to Agricultural Land in Wisconsin.
Technical Bulletin No. 88, Wisconsin Department
of Natural Resources.
Metal retention in the soil has been grouped by Hodgson
 (1963) into:

•    Ion exchange - In the soil, cation exchange  (cations are
     positively charged ions) takes place.  However, accord-
     to Keeny et al,  (1975) this electrostatic bonding does
     not play an important role in the mobility of metals in
     soil.

•    Adsorption and precipitation - Metals  (positively charged)
     can be sorbed onto clays  (usually negatively charged)
     or form precipitates as hydroxides.

*    Complexation - Metals can also be associated with many
     other chemicals with coordinate molecular bonds
      (which can be defined as a chemical bond between two
     atoms in which a shared pair of electrons from the
     bond and the pair has been supplied by one of the two
     atoms).  The following figure shows the pathways for
                              IV-7 2
-------
     metals in soils.  Heavy metal availability is minimal
     when the pH is above 6.5.

When metals are immobilized in the soil, the risk of ground-
water contamination is lessened.  In soils with a high organic
content  (sludge amended soils are an example of this),
a high clay fraction, or where the pH is above 6.5 the possi-
bility of groundwater contamination due to metals is slight.
The three criteria which are most important are:  chemical
sludge characteristics chemical properties of soil and
distance to groundwater table.  Application of sludge, in
accordance with EPA and DNR standards  (which are based on
scientific research) should further serve to protect ground-
water used for drinking water supplies.

17.1  Landfill Impacts

A municipal sludge landfill represents a large concentration
of environmental pollutants, e.g. heavy metals, organic
material and toxic materials.  Leachate, which provides a
transport mechanism for these pollutants, is generated as
water infiltrates  (or percolates) from the surface and moves
vertically (or horizontally) through the landfill.  Precipi-
tation can be the primary source of this infiltrating water.
The following figure shows a simplified water balance at a
sludge landfill. Moisture contained in the sludge may also
contribute significantly to the total amount of leachate
produced as the sludge "dewaters".  Also, some landfills are
constructed below the water table and influent groundwater
contributes to leachate generation.  Several existing munici-
pal landfills in southeastern Wisconsin are operated in this
manner.

The constituent concentrations of MMSD's (Jones Island and
South Shore WWTPs) sludge leachate are shown  in the following
table. Also listed are concentration ranges of other leachates
and maximum contaminant levels as listed in the National
Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulation (40 CFR 141)  and
Safe Drinking Water (Section NR 109 Wisconsin Administration
Code).

The mobility of pollutants, particularly metals, ^through the
soil, and eventually into the groundwater depends upon the
properties of the soil, the leaching solution, e.g. water
and the pollutant itself.  The soil properties which are
most useful in predicting mobility of metals through the
soils are  (a) the texture  (particularly the clay content),
(b) the content of hydrous oxides  (especially for iron),
(c) the pH (which can be affected by the amount of time in
a landfilled sludge) and (d) the surface area per unit weight
                             IV-7 3
-------
                                     o
                                     to
CO
_1
<
O


CO

o
O
cc
                                UJ
                               ,1
                                I-
                                <
                                UJ
                                      •o'q-
                                      ) 0> —
                                     OL v a.

                                     Is*
                                     o«,-
                                     55
                                                       o>

                                                      O
           C
           +
                 §
                                                           0
                                                           CO
UJ
_l
QQ
ID

O
CO
z
   IV- 7 4
                               CO



                               o

                               CO
                                                                         Q.
                                                                         cc
                                                                         o
                                                                         CO
                                                                             l;ll
                                   en o 3co
                                   LU
                                   o
                                   cc
                                   3
                                   O
                                   en

                                                      0)5
                                                      OS

                                                      .9><
                                                      05

                                                      "ol
                                                      O>
                                                    1C

                                                    £
                                                  CO
                                                  c o
                                                  — o
                                                  CO "
                                                     x
I- o
O -53
< JC
UJ o

   o

_J x
                                                  UJ
                                                                                               Q.

                                                                                               E
                                                  *" o
                                                  CO _-
                                                                                            H

                                                                                            Q_
                                                       03
                                                       O)
                                                     5  <
                                                     o
-------
                   I PRECIPITATION
                           EV4POTRANSPIRATION

        'POSSIBLE OROUNOWATER CONTOURS
REFERENCE/SOURCE:   EPA,  1978, PROCESS DESIGN MANUAL:
                       Municipal   Sludge  Landfills,
                       EPA,  625/1-78-010, SW-705, Oct. 1978
FIGURE
DATE
APRIL 1981
^— x SOURCE SEE ABOVE
WATER BALANCE AT SLUDGE LANDFILL HPO^ PREPARED BY
IV~75 vZ/'Ot^c

a ItcolSciences
3 J ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP

-------
   cn
   z
   o
 J
K  Z
W  H
EH  U
.
p
PC P cn
g
3
•H
X
fl
S

rO T
1 -r-t
kg U
P ro -H
C p k X
<1> C 0 0
U C
> 4-1 P
H
0)
4J
U
rd
GO k
0
ft
rd
o 4-1 w x:
o
























































































CU
P

-p cu
C iJ
cS




rH
 g
T3 3
•H -H
^i G
0 0
rH ^-1
fi f7]
U 0




i











i




o
rH







1






p^
ro

1
CN
O

0




rH
•x^
i1
3
O





^_j
cu
a
a
0
u



rH
1 0
•
0








tn
1 0
o



ro
• 1
o






m
o
1 •
o






o
rH
O 1
tn
ro i-H
1 •
0 0
rH



r-l i-t
\^ v^
i1^
CU 15
fa ft







C ^
o td
k 0)
H J



^r
o
•
o








ro
O
O




1






O
O
o

CN
0
o
o

o
1
rH
rH
O
o
•
o




rH
V.

Cn
K




1^*1 0)
Jr«| _|J
3 it)
U k
k P
0) -H
S Z



rH
^O O
1 O O
t •
o o
V






ro
m o
1 O O
o r




1 1 1






H m
0 00
o o o
1-1









1 1 1






rH rH rH
\^ v^ \^
Cn Cn Cn
g g g
1 0) Cn
ro cn <
O
Z

g
"« 3
Z -H k
C CU
CO 0) >
rO rH H
— CU -H
cn cn




i i











i i




o m
m
CN







i i






^o
ro
0

rH
1 O

rH O




rH rH

g g
^
O C
cn N



CU
P
«
4-1 O
rH C
3 -H
cn (si
   o
   o
   o

   tn
                                                                                     o
                                                                                     o
                                                                               o
CO
U


O
•H

G
                                                                                               O
                                                                                               O
                                                                                               O
             CN


             I
             O
             O
                                                                                               C7>

                                                                                               g
                                                                                               Q

                                                                                               O
                                                                                               CJ
                                                                                         rfl
                                                                                         O  C
                                                                                         •H  0)
   O
   O
   ro


    I
   O
   O
                                                                                     c
                                                                                  rd 0
                                                                                  Cn &
rH C

£ CU
n3 O"1
                                                                                                   4JCU4J
                                                                                         OOQ
                                                         IV-7 6
-------
01













c
0
•H
P
§03
SH
E 4J
•H C
X CD
03 U
s c
0
u
4J
C
rfl
c

i


(8
4-
> IH
C 0
0 M-t
c_

U-
)

4
>i
4J
•H
U
•H
X
O
4J

P-t
W
O
cn
o
H
•P
M
H
SH
0)
_)J
U
03
SH
03
J^
U






i i
i i






















m
rr*



cn
2
o
H
EH
- E-"
05 2
W W
EH CJ
< Z
S 0
u
o
2 6J
H EH
« cn
2 <
H 2

Q CO
ID
2 O
H Q

CO <
J N
W  a
w
tJ <
CM
EH H —
2 -a
Cd Q CU
2 Z 3
H < G
2 -H
M CONTA
RATIONS
(cont
3 EH
2 2
H W
x o
< z
2 O
O
o u
EH
Z ^
CO U
M <
05 H

>
0)
)J]





rH
(0
o
•H
ft
EH

O

CD
cn
C
03
05











CL*
•P
•H
C
fO

o
fH
•H
2





1 1











1 1






>
a
Second


1 1

>,
SH
1
SH
CM


*
H 1


0
0 0



W
OJ
^J
n3
0
03
CD
kj



4J
•rH
C
D
Q
t
W

W
4J
.rame
03
CM
0 0
O
- O

CN CN
| |

0 0
o o

^ ^
CM CN


rH rH
S ^ g
20 Z 0
CM O CM O
2 H 2 H
1
ft
CD
S 4-> 03
5 CO 3
0 rH H
l tii r™1 i^/
03 -H gO
° H CD O

it Q &j 4-i
^
•H
1 — 1
0


(^
o


< — ^
CO
TD
•rl
rH
0
cn

!*>
r^
rH
*~*













M
O
4-1
n\
(aesthf

•^
^
rH
CU
>_


























co
r-
cn
H
SH
0
P
CJ
O
.
un
o
r-
l
3
cn

^
0
i-H
O
1
co
c^-
i
rH
\.
in
CN

1

t£
Cu
W

cn
rH
rH
• r|
M-t
rrj
C
03
hH

CD
cn

3
rH
cn

rH
03
ft
•H
o
•H
G
£
2


*•
rH
03
3
G
03
S

G
cn
-rf
cn
CD
Q

cn
C/3
CD
o
o
r)
p-l


•
CO
r-
0*^
,-1

•t
rij
pj
W

cu
o
G
0)
^
CD
UH
CD
05
I
rH
IV- 7 7
o
2

1

T1
0)
4-1
cn
•H
rH

cn
SH
CD
4-1
CD
S
00
Sbj
(0
a

r~{
rH
03
•4— ^ M
O , g
in -H
03 4-)
S
•H O
SH 0
CM H

e CD
•H SH
SH 03
CD
4J cn
G 3
H O

rH M
03 cfl
G N
O 03
•H A
4J
OJ 03
•z
SH
1 O
UH
H
^P t^
rH -H
in
05 CD
Cn 4-i
CJ -H
SH
O U

c5
i'
o CD
C A
CD P
}q
CD -P
«4H 03
CD A
05 -P
1
CN






































^
CN
t
rH
VD"
CN

05
tz-i
U

o
^

r^
P
•H
3

CD
O
C
03
T!
SH
O
0
U
03

G
•H

jj
cn
CD
4-1

^i
4-1
•H
U
•H
X
0


CM
W

».
0
CO
cn
rH

Q
CO
*

i*
CD
U
SH
3
0
CO
1
00











CD
4J
cn
03
S

cn
3
0

SH
03
N
03
a
m
o

cn
C
•H
P
cn
•H
j

*O
C
03

C
0
•H
4J
03
0
•H
I4_l
•H
4-1
C
CD
T3
M


,,
g
CD
4J
cn
^,
0)

-P
c
d)
2
-------
of soil.  Landfill leachate can contain high metals concen-
trations as a result of increasing metals solubility caused
by reductions in pH.  Landfills typically exhibit anaero-
bic conditions which can cause this reduction in pH.  Since
metals are of particular concern some method of leachate
control is necessary.  Fuller  (1978) performed a study which
found the mobility of selected metals to be as follows:

•    most generally mobile:  Chromium, Mercury, and Nickel

•    least generally mobile:  Lead and Copper

*    mobility varies with conditions:  Arsenic, Cadmium,
     Selenium and Zinc.

Iron and manganese are more mobile than all of the above
metals under most conditions.

Leachate can be controlled by the following methods (EPA
1978 should be consulted for a further discussion);

•    Natural conditions and attenuation

•    Imported soils or soil amendments used as liners and/
     or cover

9    Membrane liners

*    Collection and treatment - treatment could occur on-
     site or at a WWTP.

If the design of a landfill site requires leachate contain-
ment, then a leachate collection system is needed.  Leachate
can be collected by underdrains  (under the sludge) and by
intercepting benches  (surrounding the site perimeter.   (This is
desirable since it facilitates sludge dewatering.) There are
several methods by which collected leachate may be treated:

•    Discharge to a wastewater collection system or haul
     directly to a WWTP for treatment.  This is dependent
     on leachate quality and quantity and local sewer regula-
     tions .

•    Recycle through the:landfill.  However, this cannot
     continue indenfinitely since a landfill has a finite
     capacity for liquids.

•    Evaporation of leachate in collection ponds.  This
     does not work in humid areas).

•    On-site treatment.  The SMR  (MMSD, 1980) identified
     spray irrigation of raw leachate as the method of
                              IV-7 8
-------
     treatment.  The feasibility of a land application sys-
     tem must be examined on a site specific basis in order
     to preclude the possibility of adverse surface water
     or groundwater impacts resulting from heavy metals,
     nutrient, and nitrate contamination.

The effectiveness of the various treatment processes depends
upon the characteristics of the leachate.

The potential for adverse impacts related to the landfill of
sludge is dependent on site selection, design, and the
degree of control placed on its operation.

Wisconsin Administrative Code, Chapter NR 130: Solid Waste
Management requires that only licensed sanitary landfills capa-
ble of preventing detrimental effects on around and surface
waters can be used for sludge disposal.  The EPA  (1978b)
recommends that all leachate be collected and treated in
order to preclude adverse groundwater or surface water impacts,
However, even the best designed landfill presents the po-
tential for groundwater pollution as a result of unforeseen
problems, e.g. the integrity of the landfill's leachate
collection system may be disrupted by the heavy equipment
which must be operated on top of the collection system.
Should such disruption occur and not be discovered and
corrected immediately, leachate will eventually penetrate
the liner and possibly pollute groundwater.  Although
groundwater monitoring for leachate pollution would be
required for all the MMSD's landfill, the pollution resul-
ting from a damaged site may not be seen for many years
and the damage will be difficult and costly to repair.
In addition, pollutants which enter a groundwater system
could remain there for very long periods of time and could
result in a long-term loss of use of the groundwater resource.

17.1.2  Land Application  Impacts

Land application systems present many of the same potential
impacts on groundwater as do landfills.  Heavy metals in the
sludge may migrate through sub-surface soil layers and even-
tually enter groundwater systems.  However, the provisions
of DNR Technical Bulletin 88 require the selection of suit-
able land application sites to include considerations of
various soil features such as cation exchange capacity  (CEC),
pH, slope, depth to groundwater, and permeability.  Depth to
groundwater, CEC and pH are the predominant factors in
preventing groundwater contamination due to heavy metals.

The equations used in calculating total permissible metals
application to any particular application site are limited
by the CEC table contained in Municipal Sludge Management:
                              IV-7 9
-------
Environmental Factors (EPA, 1977).  This provides a margin
of safety allowing for other factors which control metals
migration through soils.

The mobility of metals in soil decreases as pH increases and
is minimal above pH 6.5.  Thus, groundwater contamination
is also controlled by maintaining soil pH above 6.5 at all
times.

Nitrates, which can be toxic to humans and are formed under
the aerobic conditions associated with land application
systems, must not be allowed to reach groundwater sources.
To prevent nitrate leaching to groundwater, application
rates are based on crop uptake rates and the rate at which
other forms of nitrogen are converted to nitrate.  By limit-
ing total nitrogen application to a rate which approximates
the crop uptake rate, leaching of excess nitrogen is avoided.

Should application of excess sludge in terms of metals or
nitrogen occur, the DNR would require monitoring of soil,
plant and groundwater conditions at the site.  This monitor-
ing should detect problems quickly and application on the
affected site can be discontinued so that serious problems
do not develop.

Page V-15 2.  Surface Water will be modified to read as
follows:

17.2  Surface Water

Sediment is a major nonpoint pollutant of streams.  Erosion
not only depletes valuable land resources, but also reduces
water quality through turbidity and transmission of pollu-
tants such as nitrogen, phosphorus, pesticides, pathogens,
and heavy metals.  Turbidity disrupts aquatic life, par-
ticularly plants and filter feeders, and decreases the con-
sumptive use and recreational value of water resources.
Siltation, occurring when suspended particles begin to settle,
restricts streams and drainage ways and may adversely
affect bottom dwelling organisms.  Nitrogen, phosphorus,
heavy metals, pesticides, and pathogens carried to surface
waters may spur algae growth, which results in oxygen deple-
tion and may harm aquatic animals and limit water uses.
Heavy metals, which are of particular concern, have  three
potential pathways once they are applied to the  land:
 (1) plant uptake,  (2) movement with water to groundwater or
surface water, or  (3) immobilization in the soil  matrix.  As
pointed out earlier, the particular pathway taken depends
on the soil-plant-water relationships of the metal in ques-
                             IV-80
-------
tion as well as the amount of the metal present.  Metals
can pass through the soil unchanged, react with inorganic
or organic compounds to form soluble or insoluble compounds,
be adsorbed on soil colloids or be taken up by plants.

Most heavy metals of concern, e.g. Cadmium, Copper, Lead,
Nickel and Zinc, behave similarly in soils.  Under acidic
conditions they exist as divalent cations in solution
(and therefore are mobile) while under alkaline or neutral
conditions they may combine with, for example, a hydroxyl ion
(and are usually immobile).  For a further discussion of
metal complexes consult Stumm and Morgan (1970)

The potential for contamination of water resources (surface
or groundwater) due to the heavy metals contained in sludge
applied to the land occurs primarily through sedimentation
and surface runoff  (Epstein and Chaney, 1978).  Contamina-
tion of groundwater could occur as a result of concentrated
loading, e.g. landfill.  However, most of the heavy metals
applied to the surface are bound in the soil and do not
move rapidly through it.  Light soil, gravel and sand would
be exception to this rule.  Surface soil erosion could be
the major contributor to contamination of water courses.

17.2.1  Landfill Impacts

Wisconsin Departmentof Natural Resources (DNR) regulations
(NR 180.13 (3)(a)8) require that land disposal sites and
facilities not be located where there is a "reasonable
probability that disposal of solid waste within such an
area will have a detrimental effect on any surface water".
In addition, a Plan of Operation for the proposed facility
must be presented to the DNR for approval and include
detailed information on drainage patterns and drainage con-
trol structures which are designed to prevent surface water
impacts.

Due to these requirements, soil loss from an approved
landfill would be limited to that occurring as a result of
initial construction of surface runoff control structures
and roadways and to runoff from finished areas of the land-
fill before vegetative cover is established.  No runoff or
erosion from areas where waste is being deposited is permitted.
The appropriate runoff and erosion control mechanisms to
be provided are dependent on site specific requirements.

17.2.2  Land Application Impacts

In addition to its use  as a fertilizer, sludge can be con-
sidered to be a soil conditioner.  The high organic matter
content, which is approximately 50 percent of the solid
                             IV-81
-------
fraction of sludge, improves soil physical properties
(Epstein, et al, 1976) .   As organic matter in soil increases
so does soil aggregation, while sediment loss decreases
(Wischmeier and Mannering, 1969) and runoff volume decreases
(Wischmeier and Mannaering, 1965).   Kelling et al, 1977
also found that sludge organic matter may also stabilize
soil against erosion by improving aggregation.  Kladivko
and Nelson (1979)  concluded that dried sludge may reduce
erosional losses from soils and improve water quality.
They found that nutrient concentrations are generally higher
in runoff and in sediment from sludge-amended (treated)
soils when compared to untreated soils, but the total amount
of nutrients delivered to a waterway may be less than from
an untreated area due to decreased erosion from the sludge
amended area.  However,  they did not compare runoff from
sludge-amended soils to runoff from soils treated with
commercial fertilizer.

Also, increases in soil water content and water retention
have been demonstrated (Epstein et al, 1976) and may signi-
ficantly reduce water stress in plants during the growing
season.  Further,  sludge application results in increased
aggregate stability, thus stabilizing soil structure since
aggregates are more resistant to disintegration by water
(Epstein 1975).  Since sludge nutrients replace a portion
of the total fertilizer requiremnts, less commercial
fertilizer will have to be applied to sludge ammended land.
Consequently, improvements in soil stability will result in
reduced erosion and lower nutrient loadings to surface
waters.
18.0  ERRATA

Page 1-1  Section B  First sentence:

It should now read as follows:

"Based upon projections presented in the Solids Management
Report (MMSD, 1980) the forecasted solids production would be
as follows:
•  Jones Island  (1985)
     - MMSD Recommended Plan  (J31)   273 dry tons per day
     - Range                         239 - 294 dry tons per day
•  South Shore  (2005)
     - MMSD Recommended Plan  (S12)   215 dry tons per day
     - Range                         198 - 215 dry tons per day"
                              IV-8 2
-------
Page II-5  Section E  Paragraph 2;

The second paragraph should read:

"To date, the MMSD's Site Specific Analysis has identified
general areas that are suitable for locating sludge land-
fills, sludge storage facilities and the agricultural appli-
cation of sludge.  Specific sites within these general areas
are being identified based on criteria from TSM.  However,
the MMSD has modified some of the identification criteria
based upon recommendations made in the Solids Management
Report (SMR)."

Page III-l  A.  Paragraph 1  3rd sentence:

change "85 MDG" to."85 MGD".

Page III-4  2. a.  Paragraph 2  2nd sentence;

"The Milorganite package guarantees:
     •   nitrogen 6%
     •   phosphorus 2%
         potash 0% "

Page III-l  Paragraph 0  2nd and 3rd sentences:

These should now read as follows:

"Approximately 2.026 x 1012 BTU (2.137  x 1012kj) were ex-
pended in the production of 197 tons (178.8 metric tons)
per day of Milorganite in 1976. -This yields an average
energy consumption of 2.822 x 10  BTU/ton (3.279 x 10' kj/
metric ton)  of Milorganite produced and is approximately
equal to 81.5 percent of the total plant energy consumption."

Page III-8 Last paragraph:

The paragraph should be changed to read:

"Although land application of digested sludge is the most
widely used method of disposal in the SEWRPC region, it is
not possible to incorporate sludge into the soil during
the winter months when the ground is frozen or during certain
portions of the crop growing cycle.  Therefore, provisions for
sludge storage or for an alternative method of sludge dis-
posal must be made for non-application periods."

Page IV-9  b  last bullet, Table IV-3;

Insert "cocombustion" in place of "codisposal".
                             IV-8 3
-------
Page IV-18 first bullet:

The sentence should read:

"•   For Jones Island - Dissolved air flotation thickening
     of waste activated sludge, anaerobic digestion of the
     thickened waste activated sludge and the primary
     sludge, filter press dewatering of the digested
     solids and landfilling of the dewatered solids  (J31)."

Page IV-23   third bullet,first sentence:

The sentence should read:

"Alternatives J15, J16, Sll, S12 are equivalent except that:
- J15, Sll involves centrifugation and injection
- J16, S12 involves belt filters and spreading."

Page IV-23   fourth bullet:

Replace "incineration" with "combustion".

Page V-6   Paragraph 2   first sentence;

Replace "sludge metal" with "heavy metal".

Page V-9   2.  Landfill

This section should read as follows:

"2.  Landfill
The factors related to terrestrial ecosystem impacts that
must be considered in the evaluation of potential landfill
sites are:  required land area, topography, potential
habitat disruption, and potential uses for the completed
landfill area.  Use of a particular site as a landfill
precludes other uses for the life of the landfill and may
restrict ultimate uses for many years or perhaps forever
following closure.  Maintenance of landfill sites after
closure must insure that the integrity of the fill is main-
tained.  Deep rooted plants may disrupt cover materials
causing increased infiltration and leachate production.
Potential adverse impacts to wildlife due to sludge  or ash
disposal in a landfill are related to:
•    loss of individual animals during construction  and
     operation of the  landfill.
•    habitat removal at the landfill site.
•    harmful effects of heavy metals and toxic substances
     in the landfilled  sludge or ash."
                             IV-8 4
-------
Pages V-16  Paragraphs 1, 2, Table V-3 on page V-17 and Table
V-4 on page V-18

This information should be deleted.

Table V-5 page V-24, Table V-7 page V-28, Table V-8 page V-29

Should be modified as shown.

Table V-9 page V-31

 Electricity data should be deleted.

Table V-12 page V-35

Should be modified as shown.
                              I V-8 5
-------











in
i


w
p-q
n
^
r^






to
Ed >H
> U
H 2
EH W
< D
2 CX
PM W
a 2
EH fa
J
< H

E^ U
2 H
H ffi
s pa
H >
O
ril EH
2 OS
< O
S PH
cn
to z
Q ftf
H o;
Ok
 &
•H
           0)
           tn
           OS
           SH
           0)

      13   «C
       0)
      -P   >

       Cn  M
      -H   fl
       0)   0)
      S   >H
       
                    03
            0 t5  O

            64  S
            tfl
    0)  0)
    4-)  Cn  fi5
    •i-l  03
o  cn  ^
EH   i   O
    4H  -P
    4-1  CO CN
    O
    C
    0
   •H
    4-1      m
    03  CD
0  o  -P  03
EH -H  -H  Q
   t—H  CO
    9*
    Oj
                          oo
                                           CN
                                                 o
                                                 in
                         I      i     I
                         I      i     i
                         I      i     1
                                                             in   oo
                                                                         l      I
                                                                         I      i
                                                                         i      i
                                       i      i
                                       I      i
                                       I      I
                                    CN
                                    CN
                                                                         CN
                                                                         n
                                                             ffi
                                                             m
                                                           in
                                                           CN
                           in
                          I      I      I
                          I      I      I
                          I      I      I
                                                              CN
                                                              H
n
t-3
in
*->
                                                              CN    ro
                                                              rH    iH
                                                              CO    CO
                                                           IV-8 6
                                                                 o
                                                                 ro
                                                                 CO
                                                                       n
                                                                       to
                                                                                           a
                                                                                           £
                                                         -p


                                                          0)
                                                          cn
                                                          03
                                                          03
                                                                                          r-t
                                                                                           0
                                                                                          to
                                                                                           o
                                                                                           M
                                                                                           3
                                                                                           0
                                                                                           CO
                                                                                                to
                                                                                                cn
-------
 SH  en
 3  cu
<4H
rH  -H
 3  X
w  o
      CN    CN
                              cn
cn
H H

pg H
i^
E-i 2
O
H
EH

EH
O

cn
2
3
£H

cn
c
0
EH
C
cu cn
Cn CU
0 T3
SH -H
4J X
•H O
2




cn
G
o
s^
C (0
0 O
•H 0
cn SH
cn 73
•H >•
e E


4-1
G
d
3 CU
rH T3
H C -H
0 0 X
Pi Q Q
rl C
rd o
u s






CN ^
CN rH













in ro














tO CN
ro CN


                                                       cn
                                                       CN
                           co    un
                                                  co   cn
                                                                              CN    OJ
                                                                                          vo
                                                                                               CN
                                                                                               (N
    •rH
    4J
    cd
    C

    0)
    4-1
                     iH
                     4->
in
1-3
                           SH
                           id
            4J
            0
            4J
                                            O
                                            3
                                                  CO
                                                  Cn
                       0
                       4J
                                              IN
                                              rH

                                              CO
                                        ro
                                        rH
                                        CO
                                                                     O
                                                                     ro
                                             ro
                                             CO
                                                                                                           r-
                                                                                                           cn
                                                                                                           rH
                                                                                                           ft
                                                                                                           C
                                                                                                           • H

                                                                                                           u
                                                                                                           H

                                                                                                           C
                                                                                                           O
                                                                           CU
                                                                           cn
                                                                                                                             G
                                                                                                                             0
                                                                                                                            4-1
c
0
•rH
cn
i»|
§
G
0
O

0
•H
^
4-1
CU
S
M
CU
4->
•rH


m
co
r-
ro

II

iH

\
rH
*
Cn
^-i
s

ro
cn
0

J

II

SH
^i
\^
cu
rH
•H
g
4->

CN
O
cn
0

u

£•"1
(d
r^
\
c
0
4J





*
rt
^X(
^S^
in cn
co cu
Cn rH
rH -H
2>J
M
(d fX
CU O
^ 3
r4



x~«
*o
(U
4-1
O
C

CO
03

r^
^"1
'*\
rH
fU
CP











O O
o o
o o
*. ^
[^ CN
ro O
.— i r^
^











0
o
0

*3*
ro
r^j




•
M
^i
"•\
rH
fO
Cn

o
o
o

**o
m
/H












O
O
CN
s.
ro
^
ro




*
^
^
•
»— (
fQ
^i

0
0
o

^D
in
rH












O
O
CN

[^
CO
rH












O
o

^
m
CN
00












o o o
0 O 0
'sj4 CN CO

^3* CT* O
^3* ^^ ^^
vo *d* to

4-1
cn
•H
J

cn
SH
o
4J
u

&4

c
0

cn
cn
•H













CU
rH
^q
-------
•



























(3
01 -
^j
OJ
u
CO ^4
i -^
i» 0
01
>
n
-H 2
.
01 \
«< <*•*
O
fl X
Cu £-
•^^

^^
Vi
^,
"x
n
n O
fl fi
O X
«,
\
m
a a
S r~l
—1 X
j £:
V) *~ *
0) Vl
S >
fi £-
0 ~
Oi
T>
0) x~
*j c u
"i 0 >

-H Vl XJ
U fl i-l
0 O —
*

^J
I—I
A

•



J
s

•J ^Dvoininco VDCNCNCN
cnoooo r-^cococo






n n n n
^; ^ ^ ^



=



m fi f i fi in Of i fi fi

-I CM


CQ ri m o ci— i»r'rT"
« • » • • i •
eg n n T in in in
*— 1 rH ft


•o
03
Ul
^

cn
a
o f—^cooscrv CTVCTVCA
Vi .*•« ••>
3 frjinmr^ ^^H^-I
O
01
cu
^
in
CD
cn
fi
Ln uO vo r~- m m in

_, us vo 03 p* r^ r-
J rH — 1 fl
-•

m^cricri01 COCNCNCN
vOrl(*1(r1r1 fOtNCNCN



ooooo oooo
VO lO (N CN CN «
tn
u
CJ
^j
-*-*
f^
ul
CO
p1""
ro

II

Vj
>
'X,
fH
(TJ
™



^»
•71
"^J
^N.
5
-LJ

U
•^
Vl
<^
G
~*
b
•TV
O
1)
Vi
e-



Vl
^»
« V,
= cr>
0 ^
n vo
Vi m
C3 U^
> T
C •
O 0
II
u
— < Vl
v. >.
                                O A
IV-8 8
-------














4J ^
en o
0 0
U 0
m
O rH O
O rd O
CN 3 0
C rH


fN O CTi CO CN
OrH rHCN CN^1 COin i—irO
<* VD o o r^
rH rH




P 0
en o
0 0
O -
rH LO O
t/3 CO rH O
E-t cn rd O
CO rH 3 *
O G rH
j3 *^s



r-~ CN r^ in i-H
rHrH" COCN_ ^^ ^ !£. ^S
in ^o o rH r**
rH rH

a
>
H
a 1
CN 2 05 rn

i S S rn o
> cn J o o
H < U O
w
J CO &H rH O
CQ H 2 rd O
sC 2 W P O
E-i O S -H >
rjj rd 
<: o —



^f rH rn fN CTi
i— I ro cn CO rH
OCN corH in^ voin unn-^
rH rH rH rH rH


^•{
s^
CN
C/J 42
Q P
rJ O 0
O 30
O) O
-p *
c o
cu o
0} O
1, 	 I
ft 


CN ro ^O ro rH
in ^0 CN CO CT*
\Q •" *f ~— CN-' ro^^ P~ ^-*
r~ cn co rH CN
rH rH CN m CN



.
rd — .
3 C
r* C4
^?
>^
4-1 M
C Q
0) X.
rH -CA
rd -'
•H P
3 cn
CT 0
W O






cn ^ CN rH cn co
in ^^ co *-* ^D ^* co ^^ O --^
rHH rHCN CN^f CNin CNrO
	 rf ct G
'(U O O 0
CU iJ -H -H -H
•H
rc
J-
a;
r-

3 -» P P P
4J rH en cn rd
rH rH 3 3 i-l
rHO mM-i ing ing CDC
t— )-H f'Tj'U *"oO *^0 '"D'H
H G 0 O U
Cn rd O O C
<; j£_ U U H,


























m
p
tn
0
H
H
H

cu
en
rd
o
CO

rH
^
£*f
M
rd
CU
P
O

CU
03

P
C
g
tu
cn
rd
C
s
en
T3
•H
H
0
*«
Source

.

G
0
•H
4J
U
3
P
tn
G
0
U
S-l
O
M-»

^
cu
C
•H
A
2
H
a)
P
•H
P
cn
w

•
cn
4J
cn
0
o

Cn
C
•H
01
CD
C
, J

• Cn
i
CD cn M
4-> CU 0
C H Cn
•H (U
- 4-1
dP O rd
CO > U
X, -H
t- P G
1 ra -H
^3 M 43
•* 4-1 4-1
13 W -H
0 -H S
•H G
S-l -H rj>
CU £ C
Ot T3 ---1
 -P
rH U O -H
,&i G CO P U
rrj Cn rd '*H
in IS rH rH M
0 O 1 CU P
O rH T3 M CU
CN rH -H g
1 « g en
in -^  G >
T3 H C II
T3 3 " 0
0) rH 4-1 O C
en O cn --. 0
rd C 0 rH OP
m H o ~— -H
r4 rH
4-1
. . . CU

IV-8 9
-------
19.0  GLOSSARY (Terms modified or added to those defined in
               Appendix IV)

Agricultural Application - application of stabilized sewage
        sludge to agricultural land.

Air Flotation Units - process where fine air bubbles are
        injected into wastewater to thicken sludge, once
        sludge floats to surface it is skimmed off.

Algae - General name for the class of plants including single
        celled plants and common seaweeds.

Biochemical oxygen demand  (BOD) - A standard test used in
        assessing wastewater strength.

        The quantity of oxygen used in the biochemical oxida-
        tion of organic matter in a specified time, at a speci-
        fied temperature, and under specified conditons.

BOD - Abbreviation for biochemical oxygen demand.

Biodegradation (biodegradability) - The destruction or
        mineralization of either natural or synthetic organic
        materials by the microorganisms populating soils,
        natural bodies of water, or wastewater treatment sys-
        tems .

Cadmium - A chemical element, symbol Cd.  A white  ductile metal
        capable of high polish; principal use is the plating
        of iron and steel and to a much less extent of copper,
        brass and other alloys to protect them from corrosion
        and improve solderability and surface conductivity
        and as a control absorber and shield in nuclear
        reactors.

Cation - A positively charged atom or group of atoms, or a
        radical which moves  to the negative pole  (cathode)
        during electrolysis.

Chromium - A metallic chemical element, symbol Cr.  A blue-
        white hard, brittle  metal used  in chrome plating, in
        chromizing, and in many alloys.

Chlorine - An element ordinarily existing as a greenish-
        yellow gas about 2.5 times  as heavy as air.  At
        atmospheric pressure and a  temperature of  -30,F,
        the  gas becomes an amber liquid about 1.5  times as
        heavy as water.  The chemical symbol of chlorine is
        Cl.
                               IV-90
-------
Coliform-group bacteria - A group of bacteria predominantly
        inhabiting the intestines of man or animals, but also
        occasionally found elsewhere. The bacteria are used to
        indicate the presence of sewage.

Combined available chlorine - The concentration of chlorine
        which is combined with ammonia as chloramine or as
        other chloroderivatives, yet is still available to
        oxidize organic matter.

Composting - A technique for processing solid waste and/or
        wastewater sludge into a soil conditioner called
        compost.

Conditioning of Sludge - Any process used to aid in releasing
        liquid from sludges.  It may consist of treating the
        sludges with various chemicals, subjecting them to
        physical conditioning such as heating or cooling,  or
        processing them biologically.

Effluent Limitations - The maximum amount of a pollutant
        that a point source may discharge into a water body
        under the terms of a discharge permit.  They may allow
        some or no discharge at all, depending on the specific
        pollutant to be controlled and the water quality standards
        established for the receiving waters.

Environmental Impact Statement  (EIS) - A detailed analysis
        of the potential environmental impacts of a proposed
        project required when the EPA or the DNR determines
        that a project is highly controversial or may have
        significant adverse environmental effects.  The EIS
        must meet the requirements of WEPA and NEPA.

Exfiltration - The quantity of wastewater which leaks to the
        surrounding ground through unintentional openings  in a
        sewer.

Facility Plan - Preliminary plan developed during the first
        step  (Step 1) of the Three Step Construction Grants
        Program.  The plan, based on an evaluation of various
        treatment alternatives, must be cost-effective,
        environmentally sound and politically acceptable.

Federal Water Pollution Control Act -  (Public Law 92-500
        Along with the Clean Water Act (P.L. 95-217) it is the
        statutory authority for Federal actions to abate water
        pollution.
                               IV-91
-------
Heavy Metal - A metal whose specific gravity is approximately
         5.0 or higher, i.e. a metal which is five times as
         dense as water.

 Hydroxyl - A chemical prefix indicating the OH~ group of an
         organic or inorganic compound, e.g. ZnOH, C^HCOH
                                                    b 3
 Incineration - The combustion of organic matter in wastewater
         sludge solids after water has evaporated from the
         solids.

 Landfill - The controlled disposal of solid wastes or sludge
         by burial.  A landfill involves filling open pits in
         the land with solid waste and covering with earth.
         (See sanitary landfill).

 Leachate - Water that has percolated from the soil, typically
         used in reference to a landfill, but could be used
         in reference to a land application site.

 Lead - A chemical element, symbol Pb.  A soft, heavy metal with
         a silvery bluish color; used principally in alloys in
         pipes, cable sheaths, type metal, and shields against
         radioactivity.

 Lift - The levels of solid waste buried in a landfill.  Each
         lift involves the Separation of solid waste by a layer
         of earth.

 Microorganism - Minute organism, either plant or animal,
         invisible or barely visible to the naked eye.

 Oligochaeta - A class of the phylum Annelida  (segmented worms) .
         these aquatic worms are common in the mud of stagnant
         pools and ponds and in streams and lakes.

 pH - The reciprocal of the logarithm of the hydrogen-ion con-
         centration.  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 10'.  A pH of less than 7 can be con-
         sidered to be acidic, while a pH of greater than 7
         can be considered to be basic.  The range of pH values
         is from 0 to  14 with 0 being the strongest acid and 14
         being the strongest base.

 Pickle liquor - Industrial waste product generated from the
         treatment of  ferrous metals which can be utilized to
         aid in phosphorus removal.
                               IV-9 2
-------
Polychlorinated biphenyl - A colorless liquid used as an
        insulating fluid in electrical equipment.  PCB's are
        fat soluble and tend to accumulate in the fatty tissues
        of organisms.

Surface Water - (1)  All water on the surface, as distinguished
        from subterranean water (ground water) (2) Water
        appearing on the surface in a diffused state, with no
        permanent source of supply or regular course for any
        considerable time, as distinguished from water appearing
        in watercourse, lakes or ponds.

Vermiculture - A method of reducing volume and stabilizing
        sewage sludge which is accomplished by feeding the sludge
        to worms.

Zeolite - A group of hydrated aluminum complex silicates, either
        natural or synthetic, with cation-exchange properties.
                               IV-9 3
-------
20.0  REFERENCES (In addition to those already cited in Appendix
                 IV)

Bisogni, J. J. and A. W. Lawrence 1973.  Methylation of
        Mercury in Aerobic and Anaerobic Environments.  Tech-
        nical Report 63.  Cornell University (Water Resources
        and Marine Sciences Center,  Ithaca, New York.

Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 403 - General
        Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New Sources
        of Pollution.

EPA 1972.  Water Pollution Aspects of Street Surface Contamin-
        ants .

EPA - R2-72-081

          1975. Process Design Manual for Nitrogen Control,
        Technology Transfer, October 1975.

          1976.  "Quality Criteria for Water"
          _1976a.  Direct Environmental Factors at Municipal
        Wastewater Treatment Works, MCD-20, EPA-430/9-76-003,
        January 1976.

       	1978a. "Proposed Classification Criteria, Solid
        Waste Disposal Facilities".  Federal Register
        Volume 43, page 4972, February 6, 1978  (40 CFR 257).

       	1978b."Process Design Manual Municipal Sludge Land-
        fills"  EPA-625/1-78-010, SW-705.  October 1978.

       	1979.  Process Design Manual for Sludge Treatment and
        Disposal.  EPA 625/1-79-011.  September 1979.

          1979a.  Research Summary:  Acid Rain, EPA - 600/8-
        79-028, October 1979.

EPA, U. S. Department of Agriculture, and U. S. Food and Drug
        Administration, 1981, Land Application of Municipal
        Sewage Sludge for the Production of Fruits and Vege-
        tables  (A Statement of Federal Policy and Guidance)
        Joint Policy Statement SW-905.

Epstein, E. and R. L. Chaney, 1978.   "Land Disposal of Toxic
        Substances and Water-Related  Problems."  Journal of
        Water Pollution Control Federation Volume 50, page
        2037
                               IV-9 4
-------
Feiler,"Fate of Priority Pollutants in Publicly Owned Treat-
        ment Works - Pilot Study"  EPA  440/1-79-300.
        October 1979.

Food and Drug Administration.  1977.  "Compliance Program
        Evaluation, Fiscal Year 1974,  Total Diet Studies
        (7320.08)" FOB, Bureau of Foods.

Frost, D.  V.  1967.  Arsenicals in Biology - Retrospect and
        Prospect.  Federation American Society for Experi-
        mental Biology Volume 26, page 194.

Fuller, W. H.  1978.  Investigation of Landfill Leachate
        Pollutant Altenuation by Soils.  EPA-600/2-78-158.
        August 1978.

Hodgson, J. F.  1963.  Chemistry of the Mic.ronutrient
        Elements in Soils.  Advances in Agronomy Volume 13,
        pages 119-159.

Keith, L.  H. and Telliard, W. A., "Priority Pollutants,"
        Environmental Science and Technilogy, Volume 13,
        No. 14, April 1979.

Railing, K. A., A. E. Peterson, and L. M. Walsh, 1977.
        "Effect of Wastewater Sludge on Soil Moisture
        Relationships and Surface Runoff."  Journal of Water
        Pollution Control Federation,  Volume 49, page 1698.

Reeny, D.  R.; Lee, K. W.; and Walsh, L. M. 1975.  Guidelines
        for the Application of Wastewater Sludge to Agricul-
        tural Land in Wisconsin.  Technical Bulletin No. 88,
        Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.

Kladivko,  E. J. and Nelson, D. W., 1979.  "Surface Water Run-
        off from Sludge-Amended Soils".  Journal of Water
        Pollution Control Federation,  Volume 51, page 100.

Lueschow,  L. A. 1964.  The Effects of Arsenic Trioxide used
        in Aquatic Weed Control Operations on Selected As-
        pects of the Bio-Environment.   M. S. Thesis U. Wis-
        consin,  Madison, Wisconsin.

Matschkee, D. E.  1979. Sludge Management Evaluation:  Town
        of East Troy, Wisconsin,  D. E. Matschke W. Hinsdale,
        II. November, 1979.

Mitchell,  G. A.  1931.  "Sludge Disposal of the Sewage Irri-
        gation Farm" Engineering News - Record.  Volume 107,
        page 57 July 1931.
                              IV-9 5
-------
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District, 1980.  Industrial
        Waste Pretreatment Program, Volume 1:  Industrial
        User Survey, Evaluation of Legal Authority, Evaluation
        of Technical Information,  (October 1980).

          1980a.  Solids Management Report, Volume 1 of the
        Solids Management Facility Plan Element (June 1980)

Morton, J. and Adamski, W. 1980.  Sulfate, Nitrates and
        Precursors in the Atmosphere, Wisconsin DNR August,
        1980.

Pahren, M. R., J. B. Lucas, and S. A. Ryan, 1979,  "Health
        Risks Associated with Land Application of Municipal
        Sludge, "Journal of Water Pollution Control Federation
        Volume 51, page 2588.

Page, A. L. 1974.  Fate and Effects of Trace Elements in
        Sewage Sludge when Applied to Agricultural Lands -
        A Literature Review Study, EPA-670/2-74-005, Janury,
        1974.  (PB 237-171).

Risebrough, R. W. 1969.  Chlorinated Hydrocarbons in Marine
        Ecosystems in M. W. Miller and G. G. Berg, eds,
        Chemical Fallout, c. C. Thomas Publishing Company
        Springfield, Illinois.

Sittig, M. ed., 1980.  Priority Toxic Pollutants:  Health
        Impacts and Allowable Limits, Noyes Data Corporation
        Park Ridge, New Jersey, 370 pages.

Sludge Magazine, 1980.  "DelMonte Halts Purchases of Crops
        Grown on Sludge Amended Soils" .  March - April
        1980.  pg. 3.

Stevenson, F. J. and M. S. Ardakani.  1972.  Organic Matter
        Reactions Involving Micronutrients in Soils.  In Micro-
        nutrients in Agriculture, Mortredt, et al,  (eds).
        Soil Science Society of America Madison, Wi., p. 79-114

Street J. C. et al, 1968.  Comparative Effects of Polychlorina-
        ted Biphenyls and Organochlorine Pesticides in Induc-
        tion of Hepatic Microsomal Enzymes Amer. Chem. Soc.
        158th National Meeting. September 8-12, 1968.

Stumm, W. and J. J. Morgan,1970  .  "Aquatic Chemistry:   An
        Introduction Emphasizing Chemical Equilibrium in
        Natural Waters",Wiley-Interscience, New York, N.Y.

Tirsch, F. S., J. H. Baker, and F. A. DiGiano, 1979.  "Copper
        and Cadmium Reactions with Soils in Land Applica-
        tions."  Journal of Water Pollution Control Federa-
        tion, Volume 51, page 2649.
                               IV-9 6
-------
Veith, G. D. and G. F. Lee, 1971.  Chlorobiphenyls  (PCBs)
        in the Milwaukee River.  Water Research Volume 5,
        page 1107.

Verschueren, 1977.  "Handbook of Environmental Data on
        Organic Chamicals, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company,
        New York, New York, 659 pages.

Walsh, L., Peterson, A., and Keeney, D., 1976, Sewage Sludge
        Wastes That Can Be Resources, R2779 Research Report
        University of Wisconsin  (February 1976).

Wasserman, M. et al. 1970.  The Effect of Organochlorine
        Insecticides on Serum Cholesterol Level in People
        Occupationally Exposed.  Bull. Environ, Contam, .Toxical.
        Volume 5, page 368.

Water Pollution Control Federation, 1979.  Odor Control for
        Wastewater Facilities, Manual of Practice No. 22,
        Facilities Development, WPCF, Washington, D. C.

	 and American Society of Civil Engineers, 1977.  Wastewater
        Treatment Plant Design, Manual of Practice 8, 560 pages,
        Lancaster, Pa. 1977.

Wischmeier, W. H., and Mannering, J. V., 1965.  "Effect
        of Organic Matter Content of the Soil on Infiltration".
        Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, Volume 20,
        page 150.

	.  1969.  "Relation of Soil Properties to its Erodi-
        bility".  Soil Science Society of American Proceedings
        Volume 33, page 131.
                               IV-9 7
-------
ADDENDUM TO APPENDIX V
COMBINED SEWER  OVERFLOW
-------
 ADDENDUM TO APPENDIX V - COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW

 1.0  INTRODUCTION

 This addendum to the Milwaukee  Water  Pollution  Abatement
 Program (MWPAP) Environmental Impact  Statement  (EIS)
 Draft Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Appendix  has been
 prepared for two purposes.   The first is to present  new
 analyses in response to comments on the Draft EIS.   The
 second is to list  corrections,  clarifications,  and minor
 changes to the draft appendix.

 There are two new  analyses  included in the addendum:

          June through August Sensitivity Analysis

          Groundwater Impacts of CSO/Peak Wastewater  Storage
          and Conveyance Facilities.

 These analyses are included in  this addendum  as separate topics.
 Summaries of the information presented in the addendum are
 included in the main body of the Final EIS.

 The third section  of the addendum is  titled Errata.   It
 includes the corrections, clarifications, and changes to the
 draft appendix.

 2.0  JUNE THROUGH  AUGUST SENSITIVITY  ANALYSIS

 In Section 5.1.6 of the Draft CSO Appendix, six sensitivity
 analyses were conducted on  the  water  quality  impacts  of the
 Complete Sewer Separation,  Inline Storage, Modified  CST/Inline
 Storage, and Modified Total Storage Alternatives. The purpose
 of these analyses  was to evaluate how various assumptions
 in the CSO water quality impact evaluation affected  the
 results of that evaluation.  One of these analyses,  a seven
 month (April through October) sensitivity analysis,  was
 undertaken because most CSO discharges are likely to  occur
 during that period.  This sensitivity analysis  indicated
 that pollutant loadings from the combined sewer service area
 contributed a larger portion of the total pollutant  loads to
 the Inner Harbor than when  annual loadings were considered.
 The April through  October seasonal analysis was further
 •efined to consider pollutant loadings only during June
   trough August.  That refinement,  presented below, considers
-/ gje three-month period which generally exhibits relatively low
   ream flows and high levels of surface water recreational
   3, and thus would be most susceptible to the  water  quality
   sacts of CSO.  The June through August analysis presents CSO
   .lutant loadings to the Inner Harbor and compares  them to the
 AW '.dings during the April through October period as was presented
 in Section 5.1.6.4 of the draft appendix and  to the  annual
 loadings as was presented in Section  5.1.4.2.1.
                                 V-l
-------
The upstream river flows for the June through August analysis
were determined by using U.S. Geological Survey data to
identify the proportion of the annual streamflow which occurs
during June through August and applying this proportion to
the annual upstream flows and pollutant loads which were used
for the annual loading calculations.  About 17% of the
annual streamflow occurs during June through August.
Therefore upstream annual pollutant loads were multiplied
by a factor of about 0.17 to estimate upstream loads during June
through August.  CSSA flows and pollutant loads were
estimated based on a seasonal evaluation of STORM simulated
hydraulic data used by Meinholz et al. (1979a).  Loads to the
Inner Harbor during June through August are presented in
Table 5-22a for water, suspended solids, biochemical oxygen
demand, lead, and phosphorus.

The seasonal analysis presented in Appendix V indicated that
during April through October, CSSA loadings comprised a larger
proportion of the total Inner Harbor loadings than when annual
loadings were considered.  This June through August analysis
indicates that CSSA loadings are even more important during
this summer period than for the entire April through October
season.  CSSA loadings during June through August
constitute about 35% of the CSSA loadings estimated to occur
from April through October.  However, the upstream loadings
during June through August represent only about 29% of the
April through October loads.  Thus, CSSA loadings represent
a larger proportion of the total Inner Harbor pollutant loads
during June through August than during April through October.

Figure 5-lla compares the percent of the total Inner Harbor
pollutant load contributed by the CSSA and upstream sources
on an annual basis for the periods from April through
October and June through August.  CSSA loads of suspended
solids and biochemical oxygen demand during June through
August represent an approximate 75% larger portion of the
total Inner Harbor loads compared to annual loadings.
For lead, the June through August CSSA loadings comprise
approximately a 25% larger protion of the total Inner
Harbor loads compared to annual loadings, except under
the Modified CST/Inline Storage and the Modified Storage
Alternatives, where the increases ranged from 55 to 76%.
The portion of the total Inner Harbor phosphorus load
contributed from the CSSA is about 60 to 100% higher during
June through August than when considered on an annual basis.
The percent reductions in the existing Inner Harbor loads achieve
by each CSO abatement alternative during June through August
are similar to reductions achieved during April through October.
                                V-2
-------




r-t
AJ
0
EH





z
0
t-H
o
UJ -H
O 4J
U
c
4J
4-1 0)
O -rt
X
* U

it 111



O CN i^> m in
O CO CO 0*1 CO
^


o *r
o 
o en
m O

£
i
H EH
w
. r»i ^>
N £ ^
§ c
O
MH -H
O 4J
U
dP <
C
•rt
>4-l U)
O -H
X
dP U


II III





§o o o o
o o o o
r-t i— ( i— f f-( iH


r^- *r o en
•o

3
fH o CN m o

*r CN o^ CN
r-t rn
7 *
m EH S
o
CO 3
SQ O
< 
Oj Q

a

EH
U
8
S
CU
g
o
z §
14H -rt
O 4J
U


O fH vi) CO CO
O (N rH O rH
rH r-t i— 1 rH rH





Ol
c;
-H
<4-l U)
O -rt
X
*• H


II III






0 r- "
T3
3
m « ...
- r^ ^" m co
CN r-4 t-t P*
EH
CO
X
H






<


0




o
z c
o

O 4J
CJ
* <
tr
c

4J
tU U]
O -H
dr U

O O O O O
O O O O O
rH »H rH r-t rH






II lit


rO TT O rH

1
(N CFi CN 1*0 rH
» «» (N Cft CN
— v tn "O to
MTD-, C~ -^3 —
C-HW igoi nl>4co
OrH'O b'O 'OO'U
r— ( w 3 t~4 u Q) 3 3 QJ 3
^
4J
id

£
(Q Q(Tl4JO O fl O
O^ *O Qj OCcQQ^ CU O CU
0) -H 0) E X
O CO (U5H4JO O O
H»H «rH .CX^HrH rH rHr-4
0)^ ft-" OOD-- T3^ OJ — '
*j tn o nj w
-------






























a.

CO

— <
U x

c to
O H 3
r ) X O
i, E* D
~ <
O
IB EH I
CN U

1 9 §
" 3£

311
D It 5
-5
^3«
tJ O
O b.
04
D
W
E"
(H
D
s
ft.






























rH
<0
-U
o
EH



U
O
s
8
o
2 C
O
U -H
O u
o
do «
C
•H
JJ
^ cn
O -H
X
of H


CO ^






CO CO
en r~




oo en
m r^
•D
(0
a
CO
rH rH
CN
c/3
U
z
w
J
1
2
VH



W
cn
o











o
2 C
0

O 4J
O
C

^J
IM cn
O -H
X
df U


in in
r- co



in tn
r- co









CO CO
•o

a
C1 rH

rH "*











rH
(TJ
JJ
g

2
O
EH

<
O4
Ed
to
o
2 C
o
MH -H
0 15
* <

rH t~

rH




01
q
-H
JJ
tH CO
O -H
X
df U


rH O
O CO
rH





O
O rH
•O
ca
a
VO •

a
4H in
O -H
X



CO fN

rH


0 CN
T>
Kl
3
r^ m
rH >
CN


CN CTl

rH




^ rH
in o
rH


CO
n

CN f*")
rH





r* CN
CN rH
rH


r* rH
fN rH
rH









in r-

O o




m o
\D <—t
rH






^ CN
in o
rH





CO
. ,
CN rn
rH



cn m
(N rH
rH






eft CN
CN rH
i"-!

CA
m
*jO O3

0 O
t-H





u

1-4
OJ
JJ
5
w
§
rH
rH
10

5
O
rH



01
Tl
-H
rH
O
CO
•O
cii

c

pj
Ul
3
cn

In
•D

O
a

3
o

^_.




^
03
O

E


O
o
-H
ffl
C

1
c
CD

^.
X
o



In
0 1
§&4

-KO
JJ O
rH rH




0}
1
a


o
rH
•O —
n)

m
3
0
CU
in
o
x:
ar

rH
id

I

"en
13
§
a

T
O
rH



V-4
-------
TJ  I
C  2
•-I  Z
     OT
   U B
   Q O
   < s
   J O
   O Cu
   CU
   u
   H
   Q





rS
(Q
4J
£











5
to
u









1— 1
fl
-4-*
£•*

















w
en
u




0
z o
U-l -H
<*> <
O*
C
•H
4J
Uj 01

m





rn
o^
CN
Ul
•0
fQ
Q
h3
o
z c
o
114 -H
0 4"1
m
c
4J
M-l Ul
O -H
* U
vo
O
fN

pn
tH



PO
i-l


CN
T3
ID
3
£ g
ID .^
O 4J
U
* <
0<
C
4J
1W Ul
O -H
X
if U
in
CN

TJ-
o^





^*
&




CN
r-
T3
(d
s
o
2 c
U-l •)-)
O 41
O
* <
o>
c
4J
IM in

CO

0
CN

m
(N





in
CN

CN
T3
a
s
r*
^r


to
c
o
rH
M
0)
Jj
i
«
u
ITJ
cu
&
o
Q) ^
4J
KJ
3

(T>

CN
rH
CO
^"





m
^




TP
o

<&


CN
m





CN)
r*l


O
M
m

<—fc
w
13
§
a
o
.— t
T3 —
m
i-3

^£l
in




r^
^T

^J1
P*
m


CN
r-



CN
r-



rH
rn
CN
O
y^





rH
m




TT
rn

d
•
-------
 PARAMETER
                         CSSA LOAD  PERCENT OF TOTAL INNER HARBOR  LOAD
                 EXISTING
  NO ACTION
lOMPLETE SEWER
 SEPARATION
   INLINE
   STORAGE
  MODIFIED
  CST/INLINE
   MODIFIED
TOTAL STORAGE
               JUNE-AUGUST
 JUNE-AUGUST
                                          JUNE-AUGUST
              JUNE-AUGUST
              JUNE-AUGUST
               JUNE-AUGUST
              APRIL-OCTOBER
APRIL-OCTOBER
APRIL-OCTOBER
APRIL-OCTOBER
APRIL-OCTOBER
APRIL-OCTOBER
    LEAD
                 ANNUAL
   ANNUAL
                ANNUAL
                ANNUAL
                              ANNUAL
                              ANNUAL
               JUNE-AUGUST
 JUNE-AUGUST
 JUNE-AUGUST
                                                        JUNE-AUGUST
              JUNE-AUGUST
                                          JUNE-AUGUST
              APRIL-OCTOBER
APRIL-OCTOBER
                                          APRIL-OCTOBER
              APRIL-OCTOBER
              APRIL-OCTOBER
                                         APRIL-OCTOBER
   TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
                 ANNUAL
                              ANNUAL
                                            ANNUAL
                              ANNUAL
                              ANNUAL
                                                         ANNUAL
                                                                           LEGEND
                                                                         TOTAL INNER
                                                                         HARBOR LOAD
FIGURE
5-lla
DATE
APRIL 1981
COMPARISON of CSSA PORTION /^ft>v SOURCE ESEI
Of the TOTAL INNER HARBOR POLLUTANT LOADS rr' <\ PREPK
UNDER the SEASONAL and ANNUAL 1 %" ,^L_ *
LOADING ANALYSIS M/T^S =

IED BY
PflEcolSciences
3L ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
1M
-------
   PARAMETER
                          CSSA LOAD  PERCENT OF TOTAL INNER HARBOR  LOAD
                  EXISTING
                NO ACTION
COMPLETE SEWER
  SEPARATION
   INLINE
  STORAGE
  MODIFIED
 GST/INLINE
  MODIFIED
TOTAL STORAGE
                JUNE-AUGUST
               JUNE-AUGUST
  JUNE-AUGUST
JUNE-AUGUST
JUNE-AUGUST
JUNE-AUGUST
               APRIL-OCTOBER
              APRIL-OCTOBER
 APRIL-OCTOBER
                                                       APRIL-OCTOBER
             APRIL-OCTOBER
             APRIL-OCTOBER
  SUSPENDED
    SOLIDS
                  ANNUAL
                 ANNUAL
   ANNUAL
                                                         ANNUAL
               ANNUAL
               ANNUAL
                JUNE-AUGUST
               JUNE-AUGUST
                                          JUNE-AUGUST
               JUNE-AUGUST
             JUNE-AUGUST
                                         JUNE-AUGUST
               APRIL-OCTOBER
              APRIL-OCTOBER
                                          APRIL-OCTOBER
              APRIL-OCTOBER
            APRIL-OCTOBER
                                        APRIL-OCTOBER
 BIOCHEMICAL
   OXYGEN
 DEMAND-ult.
                  ANNUAL
                 ANNUAL
                                            ANNUAL
                                           ANNUAL
                                                                      ANNUAL
                                                                     ANNUAL
                                                                        TOTAL INNER
                                                                        HARBOR LOAD
FIGURE
 5-lla(cont.)
DATE

 APRIL 1981
       COMPARISON of CSSA PORTION
of the TOTAL INNER HARBOR POLLUTANT LOADS
     UNDER the SEASONAL and ANNUAL
              LOADING ANALYSIS
                             SOURCE  ESEI
                             PREPARED BY
                                sTIEcolSciences
                               i^U ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
-------
The percent reductions in existing Inner Harbor loads resulting
from the CSO abatement alternatives would be up to 22% greater
during June through August than when annual loads are considered.
In conclusion, this sensitivity analysis indicates that impacts
from CSSA discharges are substantially higher during June
through August than during the rest of the year.  These larger
impacts could interfere with potential recreational activities
which are at their highest level during the summer.

3.0  GROUNDWATER IMPACTS OF CSO/PEAK WASTEWATER STORAGE
     AND CONVEYANCE FACILITIES

Since publication of the Draft EIS in November, 1980, the MMSD
has gathered a considerable amount of new geotechnical data
as part of its investigation of the feasibility of constructing
a deep tunnel system in the planning area.  The proposed system
would be built in the Niagaran rock formation in order to convey
and store captured CSO and the peak wastewater flows from the
separated sewer area.  These new data have greatly expanded
the information on the characteristics of the rock formations and
aquifers under the planning area.

In order to more thoroughly evaluate these new data and provide
response to public comment, a geotechnical consultant was
retained by EPA and DNR to independently evaluate the groundwater
impacts of the proposed deep tunnel plan.  The geotechnical
consultant's report (Attachment A) provides a description
of the three principal aquifers in the planning area, assesses
the potential for groundwater infiltration into and wastewater
exfiltration out of the tunnel system, identifies possible
mitigating measures, and recommends additional studies to
be undertaken prior to the final decision to design and
construct a deep tunnel system.


4.0  ERRATA

The following is a listing of corrections, clarifications, and
minor changes to be made to the Draft CSO Appendix.  All errata
are listed by page.

Page 1-1, Paragraph 1:

         Line 1:  Delete "Milwaukee".
         Line 24:  Change "450" to "560".

Page 1-1, Paragraph 2:

         Line 7:  Change "numerous methods of" to  "a Conveyance -
         Storage - Treatment  (CST) System for".
                                V-8
-------
Page 1-3, Paragraph 1:

         Line 9:  Delete "of those criteria".

Page 1-4, Paragraph 1:

         Line 2:  Insert "main"  preceding the  word "four".
         Line 16:  Insert "In addition,  combinations of the above,
         as well as No  Action, and innovative  and alternative
         approaches were considered."  at the  end of the paragraph.

Page 1-5, Paragraph 1:

         Line 13:  Delete "providing a 2-year" and the last two
         lines of the sentence.

Page 1-5, Paragraph 4:

         Line 2:  Change "study team" to "consultant".  This
         change will carry throughout the remainder of the  text.

Page 1-6, Paragraph 3:

         Delete the sentence, "The Remote Storage . .  . contrasting
         alternatives." and replace with the following sentence:
         "The Remote Storage and Jones Island  Storage Alternatives
         were included  in this figure to show  a fuller range of
         alternatives.   These alternatives were eliminated  prior
         to the development of final alternatives because they
         contained several adverse impacts, such as requiring
         soft ground tunnels in high risk areas.".

Page 2-3, Paragraph 2:

         Line 1:  Change "Metropolitan Intercepting Sewers  is"
         to "diversion  structures within the combined sewer
         system, by design, are".

Page 2-5, Paragraph 3:

         Line 1:  Insert "of portions" following "inspection".

Page 2-5, Paragraph 5:

         Line 3:  Change "some"  to "come".

Following p. 3-3,

         Figure 3-2: Change the status  of the Outer Harbor from
         "Variance" to  "Recreational Use, Warm Water Fish & Aquatic
         Life".
                              V-9
-------
Page 3-4, Table 3-1:

         Column 4;  Insert "Fish" following "Coldwater".

Page 3-7, Table 3-2:

         Column 3:  Change the Minimum Dissolved Oxygen Concentration
         from "3.0" mg/1 to "5.0" mg/1.

Page 3-18, Table 3-7:

         Superscript "Upstream" by "b"; superscript, all headings
         of "Average" by "c".  Add to footnotes:  "  Most
         concentrations were measured during dry weather
         conditions.  Wet weather conditions were taken into
         account when calculating upstream loads as presented
         in Chapter 5."  Add to footnotes:  "° Numerical
         Average".  Insert:  Upstream Lead Concentrations -
         average "0.038" mg/1; Range "0.002-0.266" mg/1.
         Change "Codmium to "Cadmium".  Change "Disdolved
         Oxygen" to Dissolved Oxygen".

Page 3-21, paragraph 0:

         Add the sentence, "The dredge spoil disposal area in
         the south part of the harbor restricts water movement
         between that area and the area within the rubble mound
         breakwater.".

Page 3-24, Table 3-8:

         Change Superscript on "95% C.I." from  ("a")  to
          ("b").  Add the footnotes on p. 3-27 to all pages
         of table.  Change CSSA Free Flowing Area, Milwaukee
         River, 95% C.I. from "136-211" mg/kg to "13.6-21.1"
         mg/kg.  Add to footnote b, the following, "The
         95% Confidence Interval Indicates that there is a
         95% probability that sediment quality characteristics
         will lie within this interval.".

Page 3-26, Table 3-8:

         Last Line:  Change "136-213" to "13.6-21.3".

Page 3-31, Paragraph 1:

         Line 1:  Insert "population" following "community".
                              V-10
-------
Page 3-35, Paragraph 0:

         Line 3:   Change "50" to "0".
         Line 6:   Delete "Occasional..."  to end of sentence.

Page 3-36, Table  3-10:

         Change "EXERPT" to "EXCERPT".

Page 3-42, Paragraph 5:

         Delete paragraph and insert new paragraph,  "As discussed
         in Section 3.7.2.2., the sandstone aquifer is also recharged
         from the Niagaran aquifer through the Maquoketa shale
         at a rate of 0.6 MGD.  However,  there are areas where the
         piezometric surface of the sandstone aquifer is higher
         than the piezometric surface of  the Niagaran resulting
         in some  groundwater movement from the sandstone to
         the Niagaran.".

Page 3-43, Figure 3-9:

         Change source  from "MMSD" to "SEWRPC".

Page 3-53, Table  3-14:

         Substitute with new Table 3-14 which follows.

Page 4-2, Figure  4.1:

         Line 6 of caption:  Change "protion" to "Portion".

Page 4-3, Paragraph 2:

         Line 2:   Insert "Based on that analysis,  the MMSD
         made the following conclusions concerning the abatement
         of CSO to the  Milwaukee River in a report entitled
         'Water Quality Analysis of the Milwaukee  River to Meet
         PRM 75-34 (PG-61)  Requirements'.",  in place of "Based
         on...Milwaukee River.".

Page 4-10, Paragraph 2:

         Line 1:   Change "basic CSO abstract" to "conceptual  CSO
         abatement".

Page 4-15, Paragraph 2:

         Line 5:   Change "six" to "seven".
                               V-ll
-------
 i
ro

W
Hi
05













cn
en ri!
3 en
w cn
US
>H
« <
< W
3 Dn
H H en
EH <3
3 W
D a
0 EH
CJ D
O
w cn
w
J*H W
D a


(d
C
•H
g
•H
, — |
CU
J_l
&<
^^



cu
4J
g

•P
CO
w







,--.
rH
id
•H
fa
— »






















(d
cu


rH
ro









CO CN
^3" CO
VO .rH
-P rH
•H -H
CJ >


t^
CO
cn
Ht
CN
ro
vo








ro
vo
vo
o
r»
vo









CN
r^
CO
r-
rH
r»




















cu
cu

3

[5
rH
•H
a

MH
0

^1
-P
•H
CJ
CN
^1*
co
«.
'S'
rH









VO
CO
CO
•*
rH










VO
f*^
in
in
rH


















t)
O
O
[5
CU
SH
O
X!
cn

HH
o

cu

(d
rH
rH
•H
>
co
r-
m
>.
0
vo
cn








vo
co
in
CN
rH
O
0
rH







cn
^3*
CN
•=?
in
o
>.
rH



















^*1
-P
(^
rj
O
CJ

CU
CU

3
rd

rH
•H
a
O
in
VO
•.
cn
CO
ro
^
rH






ro
cn
t^
vo
H
*3*
».
rH







"3*
CO
CO
co
o
"31
».
rH





















rf]
en
*eH
en

cu
cu
y
3

£5
rH
•H
a
[-*.
rH
00
•>
vo
in
r-
^
rH






rH
r^
00
cn
CO
t~»
^
rH







ro
CO
o
vo
in
r~
^
rH













G
•H
CO
G
O
U
CO
•H
J2

fl
s_i
CU
-P
CO
(d
cu
,£j
-P
3
0
cn
                                                                                                                    c:
                                                                                                                    o
                                                                                                                    •fH
                                                                                                                    -P
                                                                                                                    (d
                                                                                                                    M
                                                                                                                    -P
                                                                                                                    CO
                                                                                                                    •rH
                                                                                                                    c
                                                                                                                    •rH


                                                                                                                    I
                                                                                                                    -P
                                                                                                                    C
                                                                                                                    Q)
                                                                                                                     id
                                                                                                                     Ou
                                                                                                                     CU
                                                                                                                    a

                                                                                                                     C!
                                                                                                                    •H
                                                                                                                     U3
                                                                                                                     fi
                                                                                                                     O
                                                                                                                     O
                                                                                                                     cn
                                                                                                                    •H
 in
 3
 en
 fl
 CU
O

 Q)
.£
-P

VH
 O
                                                                                                                     cu
                                                                                                                     SH
                                                                                                                     3
                                                                                                                     CQ
                                                                                                                        CJ
                                                                                                                        cn
                                                                                                                    cn
                                                                                                                     cu
                                                                                                                     o
                                                                                                                     M
                                                                                                                     3
                                                                                                                     o
                                                                                                                     cn
                                                             V-12
-------
Page 4-23, Paragraph 5:
         Line 1:   Begin paragraph with the phrase "For the purpose
         of this  CSO Appendix,  the No Action...".
         Line 8:   Insert "It should be noted that a broader
         No Action alternative  is included in the main body
         of the EIS in order to properly address the affects  of
         bypassing from the separated sewer system."  following
         "violated.".

Page 4-25, Paragraph 1:

         Line 12:  Change "marginal costs versus marginal
         benefits." to "marginal benefits versus marginal costs.".

Page 4-30, Paragraph 0:

         Line 3;   Insert "residential" following "$4000 per".

Page 4-30, Paragraph 1:

         Line 1:   Change "this  cost and construction disruption"
         to "these costs and construction related disruptions".
         Line 6:   Change "CSSA.  No...required." to "CSSA with no
         private  property work.".
         Line 12:  Delete "was  cost effective.".

Page 4-31, Paragraph 3:

         Line 14:  Change "pipe invert" to "bottom of the pipe".

Page 4-35, Paragraph 0:

         Line 2:   Change "it was" to "the MMSD".
         Line 4:   Insert "This  is the design flow which formed the
         basis for the plan adopted by the MMSD  on June 5, 1980."
         following "700 MGD.".

Page 4-35, Paragraph 1:

         Line 10:  Change "greatly" to "enough to affect the
         design flow".

Page 4-42, Table  4-5:

         Change CSO SUBTOTAL from "$688.00" to "$668.00".
                               V-13
-------
Page 4-44:  Replace paragraphs 3,  4 and 5 and paragraph 1 on
Page 4-46 with the following:

         "The 360-inch diameter tunnel concept was originally
         developed as part of the  out-of-basin CST concept for
         the abatement of CSO.  The 2-year LOP CSO system was
         expanded to incorporate an additional 550 ac-ft of
         storage by extending the  tunnels to a length of 91,000
         feet.  The net storage capacity of the tunnels would be
         1075 ac-ft.  These tunnels would be constructed in the
         dolomite layer approximately 300 feet beneath the surface.

         In addition, CSO from 56% of the CSSA would be stored
         in the tunnels.   Sewers in this area would remain com-
         bined with all overflows  diverted to the tunnel system.
         A storage cavern would be constructed near Jones Island
         to provide an additional  465 ac-ft. of storage resulting
         in a CST system totaling  1540 ac-ft.  Because the
         combined sewers would convey runoff, screening structures
         would be provided prior to dropshafts to remove sticks,
         logs, and other debris.  Solids handling equipment
         would be provided in the  cavern to remove settled solids.

         In the remaining 44% of the CSSA, the sewers would be
         completely separated.  Almost 27,000 structures would
         require sewer modifications on private property.

         A cost estimate for this  alternative was developed and
         can be found in Table 4-8.  As stated previously, costs
         for the tunnels, caverns, and pumpout system would be
         divided between the CSO and clear water storage subtotals
         because these facilities  would be used for both purposes.
         The costs of these items  would be divided on the basis
         of required storage volume.  CSO abatement would require
         990 ac-ft. of storage or  approximately 64% of the total
         volume provided.  Clear water storage would require
         only 550 ac-ft. or approximately 36% of the total
         volume.  Accordingly, costs for the above mentioned
         items would be divided as 36% to clear water storage
         and 64% to CSO abatement.  This procedure would be used
         wherever facilities are jointly used.".

Page 4-47, Table 4-8:

         Line 14;  Change "263.53" to "259.15".
         Line 21:  Change "2.480"  to "2.884".
         Line 23:  Change "229.34" to "231.82".
         Line" 24:  Change "671.38" to "673.86".
         LTne 25:  Change "1,333.22" to "1,328.84".
                   Change "24.745" to "25.149".
                   Change "1,563.20 to "1,565.68".
                               V-14
-------
Page 4-53, Paragraph 1:

         Line 3;  Change "1405" to "1403".

Page 4-63, Paragraph 1:

         Line 9:  Insert "However, it is certain that solids
         removal equipment will be required at least on a
         temporary basis because,  under the proposed construction
         schedule, the tunnels would be completed prior to
         completion of the partial sewer separation.  Until partial
         sewer separation is complete, the  tunnels would receive
         combined sewer overflows." following "tunnel system".

Page 4-63 Paragraph 3:

         Line 10:  Insert "Partial separation would not reduce
         scouring of bottom sediments in the Inner Harbor.  It
         is possible that the frequency of  sediment scour could
         increase." following "Rivers.".

Page 4-64, Paragraph 5:

         Line 3:  Change "Approximatly" to  "Approximately".

Page 4-65, Paragraph 3:

         Line 2;  Change "50" to "58".

Page 4-79, Paragraph 2:

         Line 6:  Insert "near surface" following "total".

Page 4-83, Table 4-22:

         Substitute the following  numbers:


         Item

Screening
  structures
CSO SUBTOTAL
TOTAL

Page 5-1, Paragraph 1:

         Include "Sediment quality" in the  list under Natural
         Environment.
Capital
Costs
79.68
800.08
1484.27
Annual
O&M Costs
0.315
3.839
27.643
Net Present
Worth
79.94
814.03
1767.63
                               V-15
-------
Page 5-2, Paragraph 4:

         Line 10:  Change "Mainholz"  to "Meinholz" .

Page 5-4, Paragraph 2:

         Line 1:   Begin paragraph with the phrase  "Based  on
         the average annual flow conditions,  the volume...".
         Line 6:   Insert "(about 13 billion gallons  over  the
         planning area)."  following  "29.6 inches".
         Line 9:   Insert "(14.5 inches of rainfall)."   following
Page 5-4, Paragraph 3:
         Line 3 :   Insert "The total volume of combined sewerage
         overflow is estimated at 5.7 billion gallons annually."
         following "are implemented.".
Page 5-7, Paragraph 1:
         Line 5 :   Insert "Pollutant concentrations in CSO discharges
         which were used to estimate pollutant loadings were
         based primarily on measured data and were not specifically
         adjusted to account for first flush effects.  It is
         assumed that some measurements were collected during
         the occurrence of a first flush." following "phenomenon.".
Page 5-7, Paragraph 2:
         Line 20:  Insert the following additional paragraph
         "Combined sewerage overflow discharges measured during
         the Humboldt Avenue project indicated that some sewers
         may be surcharged, or at hydraulic capacity during
         the initial stages of an event.  Thus, as shown in
         Figure 5-3a, flow levels during the first flush may
         not be higher than flow levels during the remainder
         of the overflow event.  In these instances, higher
         pollutant loadings during the first flush period,  as
         shown in Figure 5-3b, are due to first flush concentrations
         (Figure 5-3) , rather than to flows (Figure 5-3a) .
         Under the conditions illustrated in Figure 5-3b,  about
         21% of the total BOD load generated during the first
         90 minutes of an overflow event is contributed during
         the first 15 minutes of the event.  About 40% of the
         load is generated during the first 30 minutes.".
                               V-16
-------
         CD
         O
         c!
         0:
                              \5              30

                                TIME (MINUTES) of OVERFLOW
      190


   LEGEND

O MEAN FLOWS


   STANDARD
_L DEVIATION
NOTE: BASED ON FLOW DATA FROM 79 STORM EVENTS COLLECTED
     at a COMBINED SEWER OUTFALL LOCATED at N. HUMBOLDT Avenue
     and E. WRIGHT Street, MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN
                          SOURCE'CITY of MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN, DEPARTMENT of PUBLIC WORKS, and
                                 CONSOER, TOWNSENDand ASSOCIATES, DETENT/ON TANK for COMBINED SEWER
                                 OVERFLOW, EPA-600/2-75-071, 1975; ESEI.
FIGURE
5-3a
DATE
APRIL 1981
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW VOLUMES (
DURING AN EVENT V
*
<2T>v SOURCE See above
P; A J PREPARED BY
T/tStelgn EcolSciences
S<_^L3^±/L=MJM ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
-------
   0.40 n
   0.30-
 QJ
 «X
 c 0.20 -
 Q
 O
 CD
    0.10-
    0.0
        0
      30                 60
TIME of OVERFLOW (MINUTES)
90
NOTE-- BASED ON BOD CONCENTRATIONS SET FORTH IN
     FIGURE 5-3 and FLOW DATA  SET FORTH IN FIGURE 5-3A
              SOURCE'CITY of MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN, DEPARTMENT of PUBLIC WORKS, and
                     CONSOER, TOWNSEND and ASSOCIATES, DETENTION TANK for COMBINED SEWER
                     OVERFLOW, EPA-600/2-75-071, I975-,ESEI.
FIGURE
5-3b
DATE
APRIL 1981
,<^ — . SOURCE See above
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND LOADING H^>\ P«E"«
DURING A COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW EVENT V //fs©F

tED BY
iTIEcolSciences
3L ENVIRONMENTAL. GROUP
SM
-------
Page 5-7, Paragraph 3:
         Line 7:   Insert "and storm runoff pollutant concentrations
         and flows." following "flows".
Page 5-9, Paragraph 1:
         Line 13:   Insert additional paragraph "Under each
         alternative, CSSA Flows were determined and the
         appropriate pollutant concentrations from Table 5-1
         were used to estimate annual pollutant loads from
         the CSSA.  For example, under the Complete Sewer
         Separation Alternative, an annual flow of 6.1 billion
         gallons and a concentration of 250 mg/1 for storm
         runoff were used to estimate the CSSA load of 12.7
         million pounds of suspended solids to the Inner Harbor.
         Upstream pollutant loads were also estimated and added
         to the CSSA loads to generate total Inner Harbor pollutant
         loadings.  Sources of upstream pollutant load estimates
         are presented in Table 5-la."

Page 5-10, Figure 5-4:

         Label the vertical axis of the graph "Percent of_
         No Action Load".

Following P. 5-10, Table 5-2:

         Insert "PREDICTED" prior to "ANNUAL" in the title.
         Change Complete Sewer Separation Copper Loads to
         "5.09" x 10J Ibs. for the CSSA and "50.9" x 10  Ibs.
         total.

Following p. 5-14, Table 5-3:

         Insert "PREDICTED" prior to "ANNUAL" in the title.

Page 5-17, Figure 5-5:

         Label vertical axis of the graph "Percent of No Action
         Load".

Page 5-22, Paragraph 1:

     Delete paragraph and insert new paragraph.  "Water
     flows and pollutant loads were assumed to enter the
     Outer Harbor from the following sources:

     1.   Jones Island WWTP effluent
                               V-19
-------











































£H
3

£H
3
h3
O CO
QJ H
< EH

i 
3 C -H
•H CO
T3 C C
(d C 0)
o «j x;
rH rH d)
&4 iH
rH ft
id O E
3 PH O
C K CJ
C 3-
0)
4->
id


^
0)

.,-f
PH

U
•H
C
c
•H
y
0
-H
C
c
•H
id Cd 
3 C -H
•H CO
T3 C C
 s-i
S (d T3  0 4J
C 0) CTl CTl Id
O >H H iH SH
u id ~ — 4-1

T)
0)
-a
G tn
8,3
CO rH
3 0
co co
T3
SH 0)
O1 01 0) T3 4J^l
OrH(dtd(DXJ'H Q)4-1CO-H ft
E P* ^ XI XI CO r^ ft rH PH T3
a) 04-1^-10 cns-iid a)^
^4CJ3tn 0)-H 3O O'Hrd
3 PJ O *H g 4-1 G 01 UH CO -H rH O
tnSrHTJOidC iTJCftrH
•^-^ id 3> fa ^3 "H O *O 3 C Pi
T3 XI 3 >-HldrH
 id P^H O *H PH G CO
4-144. id O- XI4J -HO
rH rO 0 rOCU4-irO ftffltDI^'Hn^
a) VIDSCCPII) d) coMa) 4-> Cd)ftCfl4-lCft4-l d)rHCM-HMO
C OcOdJrdnJaJftaJ XIOOOXI3X)
•H CJ3PiX!3:S(d3 EHtnS4-iEHinid
1
rH 1 U
T) 4-1 tn id T3 -H o
(UMiH 4->t3 0)4-1X1
COQid Od) 4JWft
Sftoi 4J4J >ico)tn
0) >i id • X! 0) O

4-i n3r> 4J-H CPiCOiH rHH3rH3
rl OSOO) 4HOIT3O-PC
3 -HWC03- ocnc indie
O 4-iCOD-^ OO id
id idT3 OTSM-HTST!
G ^6 Win -Hd)4-l4-ld)ldd)
O 4-1Q-OO 4-lt>01idrO!-lx:
•H C^4 73^^)4 T! PH
(d  o co-id
idODCO 4J~^OrH 4-> — »
•H r- G X3 C i^ -
— . ^4 E i E id w
0X0) 4-1 O
•H o Q ox:
03 EH Oi
V-20
-------

































EH
5
-r EH
TD O
m j
3 J
C O CO
•^ aw
JJ EH
C 2 rt
0 3 2
0 [d H
~ IX EH
. EH CO
< CO W
rH Q,
1 D Q
in <
Cl4 O
PT"| Q .J
03 H
< U
O
CO



































































(0
T3
0)
XI
tn
14
0)
4J
IB
3










































14
0)
•H
OS

U
•1-1
c
c
•1-1
.*
u
•H
c
c
• H
«







14
0)
>
-•4
OS

a)
01
c
g
o
c
O)
2












tl
0)
£>
•1-1
OS

0)
0)
^
3
10

r-l
•H
2
0)
0)
E
IB
)4
(8
a.
0) 0)
•O 01 0)
•H C ^C
rH Q JJ
0 £
0) 0 >H
C 0
*C CU MH
0) S
-a -c
C 0) 01
m c- rn
ftJJ 3
to
3 in 0
0) 0 0!
MH i-4
0 (B
JJ 13
0) tO
T3 CO IB
10 3 U
CU
^_j Q ^j
•H 01
CJ JJ >
XI  >i
•U T) XI
10 C

ft 0)
cu tn jJ
.C 3 10
EH CO £





1
CO
JJ ^
C r-
0) ^
3 • I
10 U
E: 3

C E
0 0
•H ^4
4J *H
ifl
14 01
JJ 14
C fB

U 'O CTi
c o) r-
0 tn CTI
U 3 r-l



^
10
0)
J


1
CO Q)
•H 0) 14
x; x; ft
EH JJ
T3
O 10
• JJ 0
14 I— 1
0) *D
> 0) 0)
•r4 •!—! rO
OS rH, -H
ft rH •
O ft 0 CU
•H (0 tn >
c o
C tO TD jQ
-H rti 0) i -0
(B 01 JJ 0
C 0) •*-*
O 0) JJ CO rH
•H ft c r* iO

2 in o) ••* c
h 10

•H Jj. rH 0)
.£ iO 10 XI
EH -n JJ JJ
01 iO JJ
•H TJ 01 01
• rH JJ
Cn -r4 T3 IB E
r^ jj -H IH -i-i
Cn i**4 i-H C JJ
rH 3 o 0 tn
*— ' £ CO ^ 0)


































   -H  T3
0

11 rH
JC 18
JJ
0)

O 0)
J^ 5
H j
^
CO 0)
c >
0 -H
•H as

iO 0)
14 CU
JJ C

QJ £
0 0

O CJ
U 2








to u

C M
QJ
g E
a. o
!M M
r-J q_,
U)
(i3 r**
d) r*-
£ ^
rH
C
o o

jj
(0 m
^4 P"-
JJ C^
C rH

O E

O H
U
•H
C

>P4
y
Q
•i-l

C
•H
<^

0)

Jj

14
0

^
T3 01
0) >
CO -H
3 OS





1

01
JJ
(0


Jj
0
rH
•H
PL,

^4
OJ

•r-i
OS

QJ
OJ

Q
E
o

(D
2^


1

3
CO

-.
m

0)
E
3
r4
0
>

k.
>
T3

JJ
CO

•a
01
r*
tn
































^^ ^
10
jj
(0
Q

01
C
•H
1-1
o
JJ
•rl
c
o


iH
0)
JJ
Ifl
s

0)
0
m
MH
1
(0

JJ 0)
C JJ
0) (0
0 H
C IB
O ft
O 0)
tn
0)

EH 14
01
^
.
TJ (0
0) JJ
CO IB
3 -a

UJ C
V4 0
0) -H
S JJ



































jJ fO
C JJ
01 iO
> -o
0
1 IS
C 0
0 rH


nD CO
c o
10 co
D
JJ
C T3
0) • 0)
> CO CO
0) T3 3
0

JJ ^4 iH
C 0) 0)
•H ft ?


0)
("I
JJ

g
o
iH
MH

03
c
0
•H
JJ
<8
M
JJ
c
0)
o
c
o
u








0)
JJ
c

E
0)
14
3

(0
cu
£

c
0
-H
JJ
(B
14
JJ
2
0)
o
c
U
0 U
tn -H
rH C
IB C
•H
01 .'"'
!H O
CU -
•H CU
OS XI
JJ
0)
0) M
C 0

g
O 'O
c cu
01 03
S 3






0)

U a)
a- 3
OS
S ^
Cd rH
CO

E 0*

14
MH jJ
14
in O

a> cu
>-4 OS
i
CO rH
^D 10
Ch O
i-H -iH
C
E *""-
o u
M-i EI



















*
^
0)
>
•H
OS










tn
10

(0
JJ
(8


S
o

M-J

QJ
g
ns
en

.
• 01
""O r*
0) 0
3 m




0)
[-^
jj

E
0
14
MH

CO
'O
<0
0
l—i

T3
C
(0

0)
3
0
UH

•o
01
JJ
10
rH
3
O
r4
IB
U

01
r*
JJ

«
S
iH
10
T3
C
3
0
XI

<
CO
CO
u
0)
E

            •O  0)
0)  01
J.I  ll

C  Q)
0)  ^

3*£
tn  en
10  rH
0)   i
C  CT*
O  rH

JJ
10  CO
14  O
JJ  CO
C  D
0)
u
c
0
E  T3
O   0)
'    CO
                                                            O  M-l  3
                >  c    »
                                                                E
                                                                14
                                                                O
                                                            rH  UH
                                                            10  -H
                                                            O  rH
                                                            CU  0
                                                            fc.  U
                                                                                    JJ   0
S
rH
JJ
O
IB
X
0)

JJ
m

0)
i-4
XI
IB
i-H
•H
IB
^
iO

JJ
0
C
01
14
01
s
iO
JJ
10
T3

S
0
rH
UH

)H
0)
jj
IB
^

01
U
c
• H
CO
<0
o
•H
JJ
IB
!H

01
XI
JJ

CP
c
•H
0)
P

*o
01
JJ
0)
3
•i — i
TJ
to
0)

0)
S
0)
JJ
•H
CO

CP
c
•H
rH
ft
E
10
CO

JJ
CO
cu
14
(0
0)
c






































•
<
CO
CO
u

0)
r"
73

MH
o

JJ
(0
E
•fH
JJ
rH
3

Q
o
a

0
JJ

T3
01
JJ
!H
CU
>
<^
O
D
CU
SH
Q)

0)
jj
c
a>
E
0!
^j
3
W
IB
1

in
Q
O
a

rH
fH
<
XI































rH
CO
cn
rH

..
H
CO
[V)



CU
O
iH
3
0
CO
V-21
-------
     2.   Inner Harbor (The Inner Harbor water quality
          values used are the average concentrations presented
          in Table 5-5, after sedimentation in the Inner
          Harbor occurs.)

     3.   Flows and loads from the two CSO outfalls which
          discharge directly to the Outer Harbor.

     4.   Lake Michigan (It is assumed, based on data from
          Bothwell (1977), that 75% of the total flow to the
          Outer Harbor comes from Lake Michigan).

Ninety-five percent of the particulate loads from Jones
Island, the Inner Harbor,  and the two direct CSOs are assumed
to settle out in the Outer Harbor.  None of the Lake Michigan
loads are settled out because it is assumed that the particles
are very small and would be kept in suspension.  The pollutant
loads not settled out in the Harbor  (i.e., 5% of the particulate
portion and all of the soluble portion of Jones Island,
Inner Harbor, direct CSO loads and all of the Lake Michigan
loads) are divided by the total flow into the Outer Harbor
to estimate average annual pollutant concentrations, as
shown in Table 5-7.  The quantity of water leaving the Outer
Harbor is assumed to be exactly the same as the quantity of
water entering the Outer Harbor.  The water quality con-
ditions leaving the Outer Harbor are assumed to be the same
as the water quality conditions within the Outer Harbor."

Page 5-25, Table 5-8:

     Insert "PREDICTED: prior to "ANNUAL" in the title.

Page 5-27, Table 5-9:

     Insert "PREDICTED" prior to "ANNUAL" in the title.

Page 5-29, Paragraph 2:

     Line 6:  Insert "Based on sediment settling tests
      (Meinholz 1976b), settling rates of 65% and 90% of the
     total particulate loads were selected for upstream and
     CSSA loads respectively, for the Inner Harbor.  Given
     the relatively longer hydraulic retention time of the
     Outer Harbor compared to the Inner Harbor, a settling
     rate of 95% of the particulate loads was assumed for
     the Outer Harbor.  The sediment loadings and sediment
     quality conditions predicted with this assumed settling
     rate are similar to measured loadings and sediment
     quality conditions, as shown in Table 5-13." following
      "...1979).".
                               V-22
-------
Page 5-30, Figure 5-6:

     Label vertical axis "Percent of No Action Loads".

Page 5-32, Table 5-10:

     Insert modified version of this table as attached.

Page 5-33, Table 5-11:

     Insert "PREDICTED" prior to "SEDIMENT" in the title.

Page 5-34, Table 5-12:

     Insert "PREDICTED" prior to "SEDIMENT" in the title.

Page 5-37, Paragraph 3:

     Line 3:  Delete "The estimated...alternatives." and
     insert "Sediment quality conditions under the Modified
     Total Storage Alternative are similar to conditions
     expected under the Modified CST/Inline Storage Alternative,
     Sediment concentrations of phosphorus and copper would
     be slightly higher under the Total Storage Alternative
     than under the CST/Inline Storage Alternative.  Lead
     concentrations would be reduced by the largest percentage
     by implementing the Modified Total Storage Alternative.".

Page 5-38, Paragraph 4:

     Line 5:  Insert "Lead loads are higher under Complete
     Sewer Separation than under No Action because total
     flows from the CSSA are higher under Complete Sewer
     Separation (6,100 MG/yr) than under No Action (5,400
     MG/yr).  The amount of storm water currently captured
     by the treatment plant is greater than the amount of
     sewage now contributed to the Inner Harbor via CSO.
     Therefore, elimination of CSO by Complete Sewer Separation
     results in the elimination of sewage flows to the Inner
     Harbor, but an increase in storm runoff flows.  The
     larger flow results in larger annual loads to the Inner
     Harbor and in larger loads being transported to the
     Outer Harbor.  The concentration of lead in storm
     runoff is very similar to the concentration in CSO.
     Therefore, a net increase in flow results in a net
     increase in loads.  The suspended solids total load to
     the Outer Harbor increases due to the increased suspended
     solids concentration of the Jones Island effluent.
     This increase in concentration (from the existing
     concentration of 28 mg/1 to the future permit limit of
     30 mg/1)  offsets the lower flow from the plant and
                               V-23
-------
 I
in
OQ
      co

      §
      H
      EH
      D


      S
      o
      3
      H
      Q
EH
Z
H
a
H
Q
H
CO

Oi
o
fa

CO

§
H
EH
DJ

D
CO

S







oi
O
ffl
<
E
Oi
H
EH
D
O









EH
3
W
D
J
fa
fa
W
Q
3
M
CO
H

co
w
3
O


tn

•HO

ra c.
4-1 -H
O Xi
EH S

M-l T3
O re

4-)
rd
0)
to




in in in in
in ro ^ . . . .
CFi rH CN CA CTt CTi (Ti






4-1
rd
rH
3
0
•H
4-1
i-l
rd
PJ



o ^r m o o o o
O rH CN rH rH rH rH
H

.
M
rB
i-l

Q
0)
rH
X!
rd
0>

4-1
4J
rd
CO
rd
S

M
0)
uo o^ r*** ^^ ^^ oo LO G
^0 CN ^* C^J rO OO H

0)
XI
4-1

•H
0)
4-1
rd
rH
3
O
•H
4->
iH
rd
PH

0)
rH
4J
O '3'OCOOCO^J' -P
o ^fi—i^oroLnin rd
tn

O
4-1

TJ


rd
0)

Q
rd
0)
rH
4-1
4-1
0)
to
0)
E
3
tn
tn
rd

O CNCT"ir<)r^'CNCn 0)
O^ CNi — I^CNin*^ ^1
rC
iH
Q)
4->
rd
0)
4J
rd

3
O
•H
4J

rd
PJ
3
E

O
o inrHooco<* 4-1
o CN CN c~~ n m m tn
H
<
CO
CO
O
rrH


rd

r-4
XI
rd
0)
rH
4J
4J
0)
CO
C
rd

O
01
a

O r^rHCOt^tMCTi G
0^ ^ <*Q *sD CN LO ^ O
V-|
M-l
to
•0
rd
O
0>
4J
rd
rH
3
O
• H
4-1

rd

rH

0)
4-1
O HCOkOOCO1* 

3
O

0)

4J
0
4-)

T3
0)
• 4J
O O
p a
in tn
rd C
ffi rd
i-l
rH 4-1
0)
c tn
C T3
H rd
0
0) rH
X!
4-1 rH
_c|

rd
0) E
rH
-P ^
4-> 0)
0) C
in c
H
o
4-1 0)
X!
*O 4-1
0)
£ ^3
tn rd
to *~*
rd
0) EH
M S
rd S

in T3
oi c
O rd
M i — 1
3 tn
O H
tn
tn
E 0)
0) O
M ^
4-1
tn o)
a x>
3 4-1

g g
O O
iM M
M-l M-l
in tn
tf T3
rd rd
0 O
rH i-l

0) 01
4-1 4-1
(0 rd
rH rH
3 3
O 0
•H -H
4-1 4-1
in ^H
rd rd
a a
0) 0)
C"j _f"|
4-1 4-1

M-l M-l
o o

A° dP
in in








































































•
o
43
M

0)
tn

O
-P

(U
£
3
in
tn
rd

0)
rH.









D1
c
•H
tn
D
u
O
rH

i-|
0)
>
o

0)
U
0)
CO

73
0>
C
•H
g
g
0
CJ
M-)
0

tn
4-1
0
rd
a
E

>i
O
•H
rH
rd
3


^|
01
4J
rd
[2

0)
X!
4-1
M-l
O

C
O
•H
4-1
rd
Q
.rH
M-l
.H
J*4
0)


,
CPi
r^-
G^
i— j
g
r-l
fl3
.p
0)

^
N
rH
Q
x:
c
•H
0)
25


,
r— i


• *
C/l
QJ
u
M
3
O
to























•
4-1
^_j
o
a
&

rO
0)

en
M
0)
4-)
rd
3

4->
O
i-l
•H

>i
rH

£
te
3
co

>t
•a
3
4->
CO

0


Jq
0)
>
•H
Oi

QJ
• QJ
o c
C O
l — | g
O
*O QJ
!M |2
Q
J—
X •
Q) CO
OH r-
cr>
(H
•
(Tj •
-P r-l
Q
-P
QJ QJ
E
•H
EH f^j
fO
rH i-l
rd C
Oj O



e
CN





































4-1
0)
0)
2

o
• 4-1
O
co !M
en o)
rH >
•H
Oi
.
C 0)
rd 0)
H M
a, 3
g s
0) rH
4-1 -H
tn 2
>i
co o)
XI
t 1 1 1
OJ
-P M-l
rd O

0) tn
4-J -H
tn to
S rH
rd
t5
-H
iH £>1
4-1 4-1
tn -H
•H rH
Q rd
3
QJ O^
0i
fd fn
^ QJ
QJ -P
s 
-P r^
•i-l 0^
I— | r-H
a .
O i~H
M fd
jj
rS dJ

QJ *•
QJ N
V* ,^.1
pJH r~!

(fl ^fj
3 C
rH -H
•H 0)



. •
m ^







































l

rd
4J
rd
Q
rH
rd
0
•H
1 1
>1
rH
rd
rt*

1

C
o
•H
4-1
rd
0
•H
M-l
•H
• M
0 3
H
- 4J
!-J -H
O ^H
C 1 *
x tn .
0) -H O
Oi Q CO


C ^-1 rH
0) CU 3
E S >D
S CO C71
•H r-
3 G cr\
0^ fQ """f
0) 4->

r— H O
— , O ^-l
rH a rrj
vO O S
1 (M
O -P -
""^ S C
03
^ QJ i — 1
I> OJ CO
I r*^ M
LO 3
ro f^ c/}
g 0)
a rH C
S -H O
P [ s ^"3


.
in















































.
^
^_j
rd
ft
^
0
o
M
X!
rd
4-1
tn
W

4->
rd

^|
QJ
>
a
QJ
QJ
>/
P
T3
3
H
•H
S

•h
Tj
jj
f^
Q
tn
QJ
Q
&-J
P

t/1
QJ
&

M
OJ
f^
[S

•
01
•
o
• h
W pi
• U
t^ &


.
^ r°*










310 OPn O 0) rd O-H ^^° ^ "5
CO EH ffltJOUN rdXlO
                                                           V-24
-------
     produces a slight net increase in the loading to the
     Outer Harbor sediments.  For the other pollutants, the
     storm runoff concentrations are substantially lower
     than the CSO concentrations and the loads exhibit a net
     decrease under Complete Sewer Separation." after "loads.".

Page 5-40, Paragraph 2,

     Line 15:  Replace "The mean... summer months." with
     "Although the mean dissolved oxygen level measured in
     the Inner Harbor is greater than 5 mg/1, this does not
     satisfy the warm water fishery and aquatic life standard
     of 5 mg/1 and the current DNR variance standard of 2
     mg/1, since both these standards are based upon minimum,
     rather than average, dissolved oxygen levels.".

Page 5-41, Paragraph 1:

     Line 15:  Delete "Although...average dissolved oxygen
     levels.".

Page 5-41, Paragraph 2:

     Line 7:  Substitute "are set forth in Table 5-13A." for
     "are:".

Page 5-42, Line 1:

     Insert Table 5-13A  (following) for concentration values
     of Lead, Cadmium, Copper, and Zinc.

Page 5-42, Paragraph 2:

     Line 9:  Insert "The IJC Criteria for metals analysed
     in this Appendix are also shown in Table 5-13A." following
     "other substances.".

Page 5-44, Paragraph 2:

     Sentence 4:  Delete the sentence and insert - "Based on
     sediment loadings of biochemical oxygen demand presented
     in Table 5-8, about 80% of the organic pollutants in
     the Inner Harbor sediments are contributed by combined
     sewer overflows under existing conditions.  Under
     future CSO abatement alternatives, the contributions of
     the total organic load from the CSSA sediments would
     decrease by between 76% and 82% when compared to the
     total organic load contributed from the CSSA under the
     No Action Alternatives.".
                               V-25
-------
                       TABLE 5-13A
       METAL CONCENTRATION CRITERIA AS ESTABLISHED
       BY THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
         AND THE INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION
Parameter
(mg/1)
Lead
Cadmium
Copper
Zinc
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
4.8
0.012
0.05
0.16
International
Commission
0.025
0.0002
0.005
0.03
Joint
D




 Criteria set forth in Quality Criteria for Water  (EPA, 1976}
 to protect fish and aquatic life.


 Criteria set forth in Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
 of 1978 (IJC, 1978) for Lake Michigan.
Source:   ESEI
                            V-26
-------
Page 5-44, Paragraph 3:

     Sentence 1:  - Delete the sentence and replace with:
     "All four CSO abatement alternatives reduce the
     sediment's organic load to a level which could be
     decomposed by aerobic processes, which is estimated
     at 25 to 33% of the existing organic load.".

Page 5-44, Paragraph 4:

     Line 7:  Insert "diversity and size of the benthic
     community" in place of "benthic population".

Page 5-45, Paragraph 0:

     Line 1:  Insert "unless the upstream copper concentration
     can be reduced." following "to be limited".

Page 5-45, Paragraph 1:

     Line 2:  Change "93%" to "101%".
     Line 3:  Change "metal storm water" to "metals
     in storm water".

Page 5-47, Paragraph 1:

     Line 3:  Insert "As shown in Table 5-14A, " prior to
     "The U.S. Army Corps...". Line 17:  Insert "Table 5-14B
     Line 17:  Insert "Table 5-14B sets forth sediment
     loadings and dredging costs under each CSO abatement
     alternative.  A dredging and disposal cost of approximately
     $25/yd3 for dredged materials was assumed.  It would
     cost an estimated $19.6 million to remove and dispose
     of all the sediments in the Inner Harbor.  Annual
     maintenance dredging costs would range from $0.9 million
     to $1.2 million.  If sediments are classified as toxic
     or hazardous, these costs may increase." in place of
     "This is..., 1980).".

Following page 5-47:

     Insert the following Tables 5-14A and 5-14B.

Page 5-47, Paragraph 4:

     Line 1:  The sentence is revised as follows:  "All four
     CSO abatement alternatives reduce the organic loads to
     the sediment to a level which could be decomposed by
     aerobic processes.  Based upon current information,
     it is estimated that aerobic processes could decompose
     25 to 33% of the existing organic load."
                              V-27
-------
                                 TABLE  5-14A

      SEDIMENTS DREDGED FROM THE MILWAUKEE  INNER HARBOR:  1968-1978
      1969
      1975
      1976

      1978
Location

Menomonee River
Kinnickinnic  River
Menomonee River
Kinnickinnic  River
Menomonee River
Kinnickinnic  River
Milwaukee River
Menomonee River
Kinnickinnic  River
      10-year Total

          1  Cubic Yard = 0.7646 cubic  meters

          Source:  U.S. Army  Corps of  Engineers
Amount Removed (cu.  yds.)

         65,575
         14,500
         44,500
         65,871
        173,109
        100,520
         85,258
         42,958
         22,284
        614,575
                                 TABLE 5-14B


            SEDIMENT  LOADINGS AND DREDGING COSTS  UNDER ALTERNATIVE
                   COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW ABATEMENT PLANS
                                                                     Modified
                                  c             c         c        c
                   Existing in   No     Complete   Inline  Modified    Total
                   Inner Harbor  Action  Separation  Storage CST/Inline  Storage
Sediment Load
 (yd )
Costs for Dredging
 and Disposal of all
 Sediments  ($xlO )
784,000a 46,900 45,900 45,100 38,000
36 , 300
   1.2
    MMSD CSO Facility  Plan, Appendix 6F.  Note: Based on U.S. Army  Corps of Engineers
    Records from 1968  to  1978, 61,500 yd /yr are removed on an average annual basis
    by maintenance dredging operations; see Table 5-14A.


    Estimated costs are to remove all of the sediments deposited in the Inner Harbor
    following the abatement of CSO including dredging, transportation and disposal
    costs.  The estimate  is based on $25/yd  (personal communication-J. Hochmuth,
    DNR 1/9/81)

   'Amount and costs under alternative headings represent annual loadings and
    maintenance dredging  to remove the amount of sediment deposited each year.


        1 Cubic Yard = 0.7646 cubic meters

        Source:  ESEI

                                     V-28
-------
Page 5-48, Paragraph 0:

     Line 11;  Change "expressed in" to "exerted on".

Page 5-48, Paragraph 1:

     Line 1:  Change "express" to "exert". Insert "but
     receiving wet weather bypassing" following "CSSA".

Page 5-48, Paragraph 2:

     Line 8:  Insert "Figure 5-7A presents a dissolved
     oxygen profile during and following a storm event for
     the Milwaukee River at St. Paul Avenue.  The dissolved
     oxygen concentrations were measured and simulated with
     Harper's water quality model.  Rainfalls of 0.21 inches
     and 0.57 inches occurred on August 4 and 5, 1977,
     respectively."  following "events.".

Page 5-49, Table 5-15:

     Insert modified version of this table as attached.

Page 5-50, Paragraph 3:

     Line 14:  Insert "than the Modified GST/Inline and
     Modified Total Storage Alternatives" following "impacts".
     Line 15:  Change "cause" to "allow".

Page 5-53, Paragraph 1

     Line 8:  Insert "Resedimentation rates under the Modified
     CST/Inline and Modified Total Storage Alternatives were
     estimated at 0.10 and 0.09 ft/ yr., respectively."
     following "in Table 5-8.".

Page 5-54, Paragraph 2:

     Line 10:  Change "Jones Island WWTP" to "Jones Island
     WWTP effluent".

Page 5-55, Table 5-16:

     Insert "PREDICTED" prior to "WATER QUALITY" in the
     title.

Page 5-62:

     Change "5.1.6.3 Kinnickinnic River Analysis" to "5.1.6.2
     Kinnickinnic River Analysis".
                               V-29
-------
             en
             E
             §
             Q
             UJ
             o
             V)
             V)
                 I4.0H
                 12.0-
                 10.0-
                 8.0-
                 60-
4.0-
                 0.0-
        MILWAUKEE RIVER

        at St. PAUL Avenue
                   2400   1200    2400   1200    2400   1200   2400   1200    2400   1200

                    I    4 AUGUST   |  5 AUGUST   I   6 AUGUST    I   7 AUGUST    | 8  AUGUST

                                          TIME
             NOTEi RAINFALLS OF 0.21 INCHES AND 0.57 INCHES
                  OCCURED ON AUGUST 4th and 5th, 1977, RESPECTIVELY.
                                                                  LEGEND

                                                             T MEASURED DISSOLVED
                                                             A OXYGEN RANGES

                                                             /SIMULATED DISSOLVED
                                                            ' OXYGEN CONCENTRATIONS
                                                              (HARPER'S WATER QUALITY
                                                               MOOED
FIGURE

   5-7a

DATE


 APRIL 1981
       MEASURED AND SIMULATED
  DISSOLVED OXYGEN  CONCENTRATIONS
 DURING  AND  FOLLOWING STORM EVENTS
             IN AUGUST, 1977
SOURCE ME1NHOLZ etal, I979a


PREPARED BY


      EcolSciences
      ENVIRONMENTAL  GROUP
-------
                           TABLE 5-15
           SEDIMENT OXYGEN DEMAND AND DISSOLVED OXYGEN
             RELATIONSHIPS FOR THE MILWAUKEE RIVER
                    UNDER LOW FLOW CONDITIONS
SOD
(g 02/m -d)

5.2  (existing)

5.2  (existing)

4.0  (projected)

4.0  (projected)

2.3  (projected)'

2.3  (projected)'
      River Flow
      (m /s)
          2.8

         11.3

          2.8

         11.3

          2.8

         11.3
% DO Loss
North Avenue Dam
to St. Paul Avenue

       72

       18

       55

       14

       32
Estimated DO
@ St. Paul Avenue
(mg/1)	

      1.9

      5.7

      3.2

      6.0

      4.8

      6.5
 A SOD of 2.3 g 0 /m -d was selected immediately upstream of the
 CSSA and therefore may indicate SOD conditions upon abatement of
 CSO.  However, because of increased urban runoff and the retention
 of sediments in the Inner Harbor, a SOD of 4.0 g 0 /m -d  (a mean
 of the existing and upstream values) is also presented to indicate
 potential future conditions and to show the sensitivity of DO to
 different SOD rates.
Assumptions:
Distance from North Avenue Dam to St. Paul Avenue is
3,476 meters.  Incoming DO-7mg/l.   (Based on summer
dissolved oxygen measurements collected for SEWRPC,
1964-1975.   At 25° C., this represents an 83%
saturation level).  Mean Cross Sectional Area - 325m  .
Mean depth 4.8m.  Mean sediment area - 2.35x10  m .
No Lake inflow.
Source:  ESEI, 1981
                                V-31
-------
Page 5-65, Table 5-18:

     Insert "PREDICTED" prior to "ANNUAL" in the title.

Page 5-69, Table 5-20:

     Insert "PREDICTED" prior to "Annual" in the title.

Page 5-71, Table 5-21:

     Insert "PREDICTED" prior to "SEDIMENT" in the title.

Page 5-72:

     Change "5.1.6.4 Seasonal Loading Analysis" to "5.1.6.3
     Seasonal Loading Analysis".

Page 5-73, Table 5-22:

     Insert "PREDICTED" prior to "POLLUTANT" in the title.

Page 5-75:

     Change "5.1.6.5 Storm Event Water Quality Analysis" to
     "5.1.6.4 Storm Event Water Quality Analysis".

Page 5-77, Paragraph 1:

     Line 3:  Insert "Measured storm event concentrations
     are also presented for suspended solids and lead.  The
     predicted concentrations compare reasonably well with
     the measured concentrations." following "in Table 5-
     23.".

     Change "5.1.6.6 Sedimentation Rate Analysis" to "5.1.6.5
     Sedimentation Rate Analysis".

Page 5-78:

     Insert amended Table 5-23  (attached)

Page 5-79, Table 5-24:

     Insert "PREDICTED" prior to "ANNUAL" in the title.

Page 5-82

     Change "5.1.6.7 Particulate Pollutant Loading Analysis"
     to "5.1.6.6 Particulate Pollutant Loading Analysis".
                               V-32
-------
                CU      CU
                •H      01
                <+-4  rH    0
                0  O  4->
                S  EH  to
                                           CN
                                           o
W
















on
l
in
H

ttj
EH







2
H
to
S
o
H
EH
g
EH
Z
W
O
2
0
CJ
EH
S
En1
D
h^
O
CU
Q
W
EH
O
H
Q
§
CU





EH
2

H

S
cS


C/)
<

s
s
a
Q

o



                w
                -H
                X
                w
                               o
                               ro
               CO


               in

2
H

to
S
o
H EH
EH 2
$ P
C
0
CU -H
4-1 4->
CU Id
rH M M
ft cu 
                                                                               
                                                                          co
                                                                          CTi
                                                                          W
                                                                          to
                                                                          w
                                                cu
                                                o
                                                tl
                                                3
                                                O
                                               to
                                                               V-33
-------
Page 5-83, Table 5-25:

     Insert "PREDICTED" prior to "SEDIMENT POLLUTION" in the
     title.

 Page 5-89, Paragraph 1:

     Line 23:  Change "for example," to "at a later date,
     after implementation of sewer separation,".
     Line 25:  Insert "above the costs presented above"
     following "or more".
     Line 37:  Insert "In addition, it should be recognized
     that nonpoint source control programs which rely on
     urban housekeeping practices may be more difficult to
     implement because they are more labor intensive than
     the other technology based alternatives." following
     "Separation.".

Page 5-90, Paragraph 1:

     Line 9:  Delete "Even".
     Line" 11:  Change "26" to "150".
     Line 13:  Change "only 8" to "35".
     Line 15:  Change "Comprise 16 and one" to "represents
     85 and six".
     Line 15:  Insert "non-point source" following "total".
     Line 18:  Change "less than one" to "about nine".

Page 5-91, Table 5-29:

     Insert revised table (attached).

Page 5-93, Table 5-30:

     Substitute with new Table 5-30 attached.

Page 5-95, Paragraph 2:

     Line 11:  Delete "and sandstone aquifers." and add
     "aquifer.".

Page 5-98, Paragraph 3:

     Substitute  the following paragraph for section 5.3.2.1
     Paragraph 1:
                               V-34
-------
                                                                O
                                                                •a
;  o  4) 01
  O W OT
                                                   01  in in 03 co
                                       f tJ  »
                                       ' C -O
                                        3 C
                        o    tr
                        &<    u
                                      g  g
                                      u*  &
                                      >  O Q -v
                                      I  i-H    Cfl
                                      • — c -a
5S'
 0 T3
                                                   C — 3 T3 — *~
                                                   HI UI 0  C 01
                                                   O TJ a 3 -O £
                                                   O CC^  O C U
                                                   U 3 O  O* 3 O
                                                   *J O r-tn  O >4-l
                                                   •^ a. — o a •-*
                                  r-t W
                                   3
      fl  U -H
      4J  O -U
      0  H r-t
      £*  03 D
                                                V-35
-------
00 "*
o *n
* en o <*i
t -H O O i
          m m o 04
















saansva
A*

^
"S S
CU Q
3
C 0 «
"H o 3
o
UE-* E-I
Z Z

O\ Q, Cd
f\i Z H
O <

m cc
O O
w Ci* tn
r^ 0
XI C/]
&S to S

II

8 §
Q

Q H
z a
5 z

z
E-1



j
2




















C
n
8,
o
z


















It
o

JJ
u
3
£
dP



O
4J
a
0
CJ
urce
S
4J
c
-rH
g
























c
*
c
Eu

01
H
cn
>
rt
|
M 0]




C
0
« -rt
JJ JJ
4) fl
rH W h
a a fl
s 3 a
o a> 01
o w «

fl
4J
g

13
0) 4)
Modifi
Storag





•o-S
Q) r-t
-H C
T3 E-
0 W
Z CJ







0)
OJ CP
c fl
-H >-l
-4 O
r-t tn






o
41 •<-*
JJ JJ
CU fl
rH U M
Q* 0) fl
0 J 8*
U W W






























o
o
o
§
(N







O
m
rH






O
o
o
o
in








O
3
O
m
*"*







o
o
o
0
m















fl

•H
O.
o
rH
nl
U
B
tn
S





o
o
o
§
CM
r-t





O
o
o
o






o
o
o
o
o
,-4







o
§
o
ro







O
o
o









c
o
-rt
JJ
fl
R
o
r-l
fl
3
C
C
*C
0)
fl

01



I-t




o
o
o

3





Q
fl
<•"»






O
o
o
o

*~^







o
o
o
o
V0
"







o
o
o
\D
(*»











JS
4J
k
§
o c
C 0)
fl [fl
C 1J
CD V4
C

E JJ
* g







O
O
O

!-t






0
0*






o
o
o
in
O
i— i







o
o
o
in








O
O
o
m













r-l
fl
3
C

4J
4>
>

3
tr
w


(N







-.* a
xfl OJ 0






(N fM "H
•-t in o






CO
r* r- fi
fM i-l O
i-H









^ m fi
CU O rH








O •fl1 T
2? *






0] (0
TJ T) -
C C TJ
3 3 C
•OOOfl
01 Qj fll £
fl O O Q — *
O tH *-( 111
iJ — ~ C TJ
gj C
JJ tfl 01 Oi 3
C TJ 3 > 0
fl -H U X 0,
3 0 -C 0
r-l Ul Q- rH rH
r-t 0] fl —
p, 0) J= H 1)
-a o. e jj
< C 0) fl
U3 Q, fl 0 -H
CJ 01 -JJ O JJ
.H 3 £ 3 3
C
5
i-H r-t




*?
i-t
O
-^Sr-ffll
10 10 O oi O f



fi

O
•3
CO CD O in CT» fl
O tN O O r-l ^




H
O
n X
« « 2 r4 « r4









O
i-H
in X
(N (N r-t







T
O
l-l
rH X
oj (N ^- r-t o) in
0» OJ r-t






01
T)
C
3
0 ~
CU en
fi jj
Ox- C
1-1 tn 3
— w en
•fl O 3
13
a)  01 -H
O 3
-C -U C
U 0) fl
fl JJ
o -
0 -H en
JJ h D
JJ HH
> en jJ
14 <1) -M
fl ^ >
u] -^
en - 4J
4) r-t O
U 0 <3
Of U
c JJ tn
c .*
tn o ^
woo
U 3
--. at
4J JJ O
o w -H
*4 S J2
a 3

rH 4)

-t O

c c >,
8fl O
c
k* CD
CO 0) -H
O JJ O
S-t 4-1 H
3 -p-t H-i
en CD

c S w
0 U 0
c o a
0 i-t S


«



%
•H
U
43
si
5 «
a a
" S
^ S.
*4 9
« V4
0 U
15
732
-S t
ta
•a T)
fl C
O fl
Llutant 1
lection,
red.
aO 4)
U TJ
0,-H
"* § ™
C <0 O
O rl
•rt JJ 41
O
3 - O
i4 -rJ fl
4-»
* O >i
O V fl
in rH g
f-t
CD o en
U U Q)
e «w w
•H fl -H
X OJ r-t
0 rH -H
U O
Q* C 'M
fl fl
.u
C - C
fl tr Q)
0) *H JJ
> C fl
OJ fl 4)
-rt co !H
O *O
fl TJ
C C
Q -H fl
^ fl a
>t ja a*
S ^= 2
tn o o
01 JJ JJ
at fl tn
U O
CU ^
C » 0)
cr v
01 C fl
aj •«-( i
•H 0) E

O J O
W Ul

0)
rH OJ •
O !- 41
U JJ CJ
JJ (0 C
§fl
•o c
O (U 0)
4) fl C
O 0) -H
3 O E
SC
•H JJ

C 3 k
& a en
O "rtJ C
2 — «a

j




j.,
o
«*4
C
•
tn o
O --*
0 CP

c c
3 -H
en
C C
O Q
O
n3 tn
OJ H
w S
5 c
kl
en 4)
01 JJ
jj en
§rS
.H J
4J JJ
01 3
tn
01 
-------
 I

in





















in
CO
r-H
,
to
3
0
H
CO
to
H
f£
w
z
o
H
CJ
D
PS
EH
CO
2
O
CJ

Q
2


H
Q
hH
5
l
>H
g
O
o




(0
4-1
o

•H
4J
<0
c
!H
0)
4-1
rH
n
ft

^~.
0)
n

0)
iH
0
c
H

<*>
tn
O
EH

C
•H

in
c
0
tn
w
•H
W

C
O

4-1
U
3
M
4->
tn
C
o
CJ
T3
CD ID
•H tn
<4H (0
•H M
T3 O
0 -P
S W



CO
0
"—*

rj
•H tJ
•O 1
0 C
S H






CO
o
"""^ '

CO
o
rH

("1 r~l
O (!)
C tn
•H tO
h3 iH
I 0

H CO
•
rH
**" '

^3*
^
rH



CN

•rH
rH
•H
O
(8
&4
0
cn
CJ
a
s
§
fcj
n
CN
1
CO
Q)
(~H
EH
C
(0
rH
ft
4-1
• H
rH
•H
O
(8
CM
O

CJ
a
s
§
fe!
                                                        I
                                                        o
                                                        •H
                                                                                                          0)


                                                                                                          CN
                                                                                                          r>
                                                                                                          O
                                                                                                          cr*
                                                                                                                 rH
                                                                                                                 CO
                                                                                                                 (Ti
                                                               H
                                                               W
                                                               CO
                                                               H
                                                                                                                  (1)
                                                                                                                  O
                                                                                                                  M
                                                                                                                  3
                                                                                                                  O
                                                                                                                 CO
                                                                          V-37
-------
     New sewers and near surface collectors would generally
     be located at or below the groundwater table.  Where
     these facilities are above the groundwater table or
     become surcharged, the potential for groundwater
     pollution via exfiltration would exist.  These components
     would be designed with hydraulic capacities equivalent
     to that produced by a 10 year intensity event to minimize
     surcharge events.  Components would be constructed with
     properly sealed joints designed to minimize the amount
     of wastewater exfiltration.

Page 5-99, Paragraph 0:

     Lines 6 and 7:  Remove "businesses, and residences"
     and add "and businesses.".

Page 5-103, Paragraph 3:

     Line 5:  Insert "April of" prior to "1980".

Page 5-105, Table 5-31:

     Change the Modified Total Storage costs as noted in
     errata for Page 4-83, Table 4-22.

Page 5-107, Table 5-32:

     Substitute with new Table 5-32 attached.

Page 5-115, Table 5-35:

     Insert into Complete Sewer Separation Alternative

          Extent                          Duration

          Building Separation within      1-3 days per structure
          all buildings

Page 5-119, Paragraph 2:

     Change paragraph to:  "Portions of the CBD are already
     served by separated sanitary and storm sewers.  Where
     these separated sewers exist, only new laterals would
     be required to be constructed within the public right-
     of-way. These sewers would minimize construction related
     impacts where they exist.".

Following Page 5-120

     Figure 5-14:  Change source from "M.M.S.D." to "Milwaukee
     County Transit System".
                               V-38
-------
CN
ro
 I
in

W
i-l
CQ
       CO
       H
       EH
       w
O
CO
U
       CO
       EH
       U
       <
       CM
       S
       M
       U
       CO
       H
       fa
o
CJ
CD
CD
3
c m
CD o 5
Ti 0 rH
J-l O -H
3 ->S
CQ O
m c
(0
3 tO CD
C g
COO
 £ (C
rfj 
                                                                    tn
                                                                    O
                                                                   U
                                                                                  J-i
                                                                                  CD


                                                                                  3
                                                                                  S
                                                                                  O
                                                                                  (0
                                                                                  o
                                                                                  tn
                                                                                  -H
                                                                                  Ol
                  g
                  O
                  J-l
                  <4-l

                  •o
                  CD

                  O
                  rH
                  CD

                  CD
                  •O

                  cn
                  (0
                  -P
                                                                                  G
                                                                                  tn
                                                                                  •H
                  CD
                  Cn
                  ra
                  J-i
                  O
                  4-1
                  co   •

                  CD  I
                  C o
                  •H 1^3
                  rH
                  C 2
                  H fa
                                       C J
                                                  ro
                                                                                            00
H
W
CO
W
 CD
 U
 J-l
 3
 O
CO
                                       V-39
-------
Following Page 5-120:

     Figure 5-15:  Change source from "M.M.S.D." to "Milwaukee
     County Transit System".

Page 5-121, Table 5-36:

     Change construction duration for near surface storage
     facilities from "3 years" to "1 to 3 years".

Pages 5-128 and 5-129:

     Delete first 9 paragraphs of Section 5.13, and replace
     with the following paragraphs:

     "There are numerous structures of historical or architectural
     importance in the Milwaukee area.  These structures
     represent irreplaceable landmarks, many of which are
     deeply rooted in the long history and cultural traditions
     of the city.  Therefore, it is important to identify
     any physical or aesthetic impacts that a proposed
     alternative may have on these sites.

     Presently there are no active archaeological investigations
     being carried out within the CSSA.  The EPA and the
     Milwaukee Department of City Development are considering
     the funding of a cultural resource inventory in the
     CSSA.  It would be premature to conduct archaeological
     surveys prior to the selection of the final CSO abatement
     alternative.  Once a particular CSO alternative has
     been selected, field surveys should be undertaken.

     There are numerous historically or architecturally
     significant structures within the CSSA.  Prehistoric
     and historic archaeological sites are less frequently
     found.

     Because of the preliminary nature of the present project
     plans, it is difficult to evaluate the nature and
     extent of the major impacts on specific structures.
     However, the MMSD, has made some generalizations regarding
     the impacts of the alternatives.

     Historic Structures:  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 State Historic
     Preservation Officer  (SHPO) should be consulted to
     determine the significance of these visual impacts.
                               V-40
-------
     Archaeological Resources:  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.

     All of the proposed dropshaft sites are located along
     the Milwaukee and Menomonee Rivers in areas of relatively
     dense concentrations of archaeological sites.  Construction
     activities for each dropshaft would disturb one-half
     acre and 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.

     According to the SHPO, a site specific analysis for
     each of the four final CSO alternatives is not feasible
     at the  time, for it is very probable that there are
     many prehistoric and historic archaeological sites in
     the CSO planning area that have not been identified and
     remain to be discovered.  Only after a final alternative
     has been adopted and an appropriate survey made of
     historically and archaeologically sensitive areas, will
     it be possible to determine the long-term impacts on
     archaeological and historical sites.  The eligibility
     of those properties identified in the survey for inclusion
     in the National Register will have to be evaluated.  A
     Memorandum of Agreement describing the steps necessary
     to avoid or mitigate any adverse effects will be required
     for any eligible structures.  If, after the completion
     of all actions necessary for compliance with Section
     106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966,
     previously unidentified resources are discovered,
     construction must halt until the requirements of 36 CFR
     Part 800.7 have been fulfilled.

     The SHPO should 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/
     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."

Page 5-147, Table 5-42:

     Change Annual Operation and Maintenance Requirements
     and footnotes to as follows:
                               V-41
-------
             CO
             EH
             SZ
             W
             s
             D
             O
             W
             Pi

             w
             u
              W
              EH
W
J
CQ
              is
              O
              M
              W
              CU
              o
                               X!
                              EH
                              W
tr
W  cn
    M
    CU
    d
    w
-po
-H  O
 O  rH
-rl

 rl  X
-P

 O  J3
 Q)  S
rH  ^

w  ""
                                     in
                                     o
                                     in
                 o
                 CTV
                                           VO
                                                  n
                                                         oo
     rH
rH
i — i td
0) Cn
CQ ^
CU
•rl rH
Q CU
0
I I in
1 I ro
rH

O
o
r~.
rH



C
O
-rl
-P
d
r)
m
QJ
0)
>
•r)
-P
(d
C
SH
0)
4J
rH
<:
cu
CO

cu
4J
CU
rH
CU
g
O
u







Q)
Cn
(d
rl
O
-P
CO

cu
c
•H
rH
C
H


CU
c
•rl
rH
C
M
\
EH
CO
CJ

^3
CU
-H
m
•H

                                                          G
                                                          CU

                                                          (D
                                                                                           O
                                                                                        (1)  CO
                                                                                        (U
                                                                                           w
                                                                                          -H
                                                                                       W  -P
                                                                                           G
                                  U   •
                                  C 
-------
Page 152, Paragraph 3:

     Line 10:  Change "Cadmium...runoff" to "The concentration
     of cadmium, copper, and zinc are not has high as lead
     concentrations in urban runoff.".
                               V-43
-------
ATTACHMENT A
-------
  REPORT ON THE EVALUATION OF
 THE POTENTIAL FOR GROUNDWATER
 POLLUTION CONTAMINATION FROM
    STORAGE TUNNELS IN THE
      NIAGARAN FORMATIONS
     MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN
              For

         THE USEPA AND
   THE WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT
     OF NATURAL RESOURCES
   UNDER A SUBCONTRACT WITH
       ESEI/ECOLSCIENCES
              BY
CONVERSE WARD DAVIS DIXON, INC,



         13 March 1981
    Project No. 81-07104-01
-------
81-07104-01	CONTENTS


1.   INTRODUCTION                                        1

2.   GEOLOGIC AND HYDROGEOLOGIC  SETTING                 1

3.   EXISTING CONDITIONS  IN AQUIFERS                     4

     3.a.  Sand and Gravel Aquifer                       4

     3.b.  Silurian-Devonian Aquifer                     5
           (Dolomite Aquifer)

     3.c.  Maquoketa Shale                               6

     3.d.  Sandstone Aquifer                             7

4.   INFILTRATION                                        7

     4.a.  During Construction - Unlined Tunnels         7

     4.b.  During Operation                             10

5.   CONDITIONS REQUIRED FOR EXFILTRATION               10

6.   RATES OF EXFILTRATION                              11

7.   "WORST CONDITION" SCENARIO                         12

     7.a.  Infiltration during Construction             12

     7.b.  Infiltration during Operation                13

     7.c.  Exfiltration during Operation                13

8.   PROBABLE FATE OF POLLUTANTS                        13

9.   FUTURE CONDITIONS OF THE AQUIFER                   14

     9.a.  With Inline Storage System                   14

     9.b.  Without Inline Storage System                14

10.  MITIGATION MEASURES                      I         15

     10.a.  Sand and Gravel Aquifer                    • 15

     10.b.  Niagaran Aquifer                            16

     10.c.  Sandstone Aquifer                           17

     10.d.  Monitoring                                  17



                             ii


                                  Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc.
-------
81-07104-01	CONTENTS


11.  FUTURE  STUDIES                                      18

12.  CONCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS                         18

REFERENCES                                                20

APPENDIX A - DOCUMENTS PROVIDED FOR REVIEW BY           A-l
              CONVERSE WARD DAVIS  DIXON,  INC.

APPENDIX B - GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY IN           B-l  to B-ll
              PROJECT AREA
                               ill

                                    Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc.
-------
81-07104-01
1.  INTRODUCTION

The Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewer District, in order to comply
with Federal and State Court Orders, has recommended the con-
struction of the inline storage of approximately 17 miles of
20-foot diameter CSO tunnels beneath its service area in the
City of Milwaukee.  Public concerns have been raised about the
possibility that the proposed construction may affect well
yields and wastewater within the tunnels may exfiltrate, which
may adversely affect the quality of groundwater.  The purpose
of this report is to review the information available for the
project with regard to geology, hydrogeology and other data,
and to present a preliminary assessment of factors controlling
the short and long term performance of the proposed construction.
A list of project documents reviewed is presented in Appendix A.
This report has been prepared by Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc.
at the request of the USEPA and the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources for the purpose of responding to concerns
expressed about the inline system during the public comment
period on the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for
the Master Facilities Plan adopted by MMSD.


2.  GEOLOGIC AND HYDROGEOLOGIC SETTING

The geologic and hydrogeologic setting of the project area and
the region in which the project area is located are described
in the various documents which were reviewed.  The planning
area corridors are shown on Figure 1. , For purposes of evalua-
tion, the generalized profile of hydrological units is shown
in Figure 2.  Basically, the surface deposit is glacial drift
of variable thickness up to as much as 250 feet.  Bedrock below
the glacial deposits is primarily dolomite, of either Devonian
age (present at some locations) or Silurian age (the Niagaran
formation, present throughout the area and up to 500 feet thick).
Underlying these formations is the Maquoketa shale, followed by
dolomite, limestone (Galena-Platteville formation), and sand-
stone of Cambro-Ordovician age.  The proposed tunnels are planned
to be situated in the Silurian aquifer and specifically in the
Niagaran Group.

The piezometric levels indicated in Figure 2 do not reflect^
localized areas of depression caused by historic pumping of
various aquifers.  In areas where the corridors traverse these
depressions (near Milwaukee County Stadium, and in some areas
of the northeast portion of the North Shore Main),  the piezo-
metric heads may be considerably lower than the levels indicated
in Figure 2 (see Appendix B).   Near the center of permanent
depressions, the piezometric level may be as much as 350 feet
below levels indicated in Figure 2.
                                   Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc.
-------
Q.
Q.
                                                                    SHOR£
                                                                    TERCEPTOR
.i -JONES ISLAND
   PUMPING STATION
                            ^CT^iljUjjIi-oIiiri.rfffiiS^
                            *r-fff;R .iflr-'-^&g.ii
                                                                  ,
                                                        NT£RCEPTbR;;i
                                                                   LEGEND
                                                                       PARTIAL SEPARATION AREAS
                                                                       TRIBUTARY TO LOCAL
                                                                   ^^ STORAGE  SITES
                                                                   BB COMPLETE SEPARATION AREAS
                                                                   j	1 PARTIAL SEPARATION AREAS
                                                                   	 TRIBUTARY TO INLINE STORAG
                                                                       DIVERSION STRUCTURE
                                                                       MINED CAVERN STORAGE
                                                                       PROPOSED TREATMENT PLANT
                                                                    0  ABANDONED TREATMENT  PLAN"
                                                                    •  PROPOSED LIFT STATION
                                                                    D  EXISTING LIFT STATION
                                                                    ... GRAVITY CONNECTION
                                                                       MIS EXTENSION
                                                                       RELIEF
                                                                   	PROPOSED FORCE MAIN
                                                                   ooooo EXISTING FORCE MAIN
                                                                   j   | MMSD LIMITS
                                                                   •B PROPOSED  TUNNEL ALIGNMENT
                               -
                                                                                  6,000
                                                                                        12,000
                                                                              SCALE IN FEET
                           BASED  ON  MMSD  DRAWING  -  "  RECOMMENDED
                           WASTEWATER SYSTEM  PLAN "
     GROUNDWATER POLLUTION EVALUATION
     STORAGE TUNNELS
     FOR THE USEPA 6 THE WDNR AND ESEI/ECOLSCIENCES
                          Proiecl No.
                          81-07104-
o
z
2
E
O
b.
Converse Ward Davis Dixon  Geotechmcai consultant,
                          Figure No.

                                1

-------
                                                                                                         o

                                                                                                         *r
                                                                                                         o


                                                                                                         o



CO
2
O
i-
UJ
CO
OLOGIC
HYDROGE








y
—
8
2 ~-
EVALUATIO
R ANOESEI
ER POLLUTION
INNELS
iPA 8 THE WON
2 < £
3 E *~
o o e
ffi i- O
O V* U.
1
*l
^
1
i
C
i
c

1
Q
d Davis
iverseWar
0

(*R
lx<*
VjV
                                                                                 u  S o
                                                                                 -J  S -j
                                                                                 353
!        3       !        8
-------
81-07104-01
3.  EXISTING CONDITIONS IN AQUIFERS

3.a.  Sand and Gravel Aquifer

Both artesian and water-table conditions occur in this aquifer.
The static water levels are closer to the ground surface in
some areas.  The depth of the seasonal high groundwater below
surface is indicated to be generally within 10 feet of the
ground surface near rivers and lakes and between poorly drained
ridges.  Otherwise, depth to groundwater is generally 10 to 30
feet below surface.

Based upon the I-series borings, the piezometric levels recorded
in overburden piezometers installed along the two corridors of
the inline system range from El. 578 to 652 feet above mean sea
level (MSL) for the North Shore Main (NS Main) and 574 to 684
feet MSL for the Crosstown Main (CT Main).

The groundwater in the planning area generally moves from west
to east towards Lake Michigan, which acts as the groundwater
sink for the area.  The eastward hydraulic gradient is about
0.004 ft/ft.  The sand and gravel aquifer is believed to be
hydraulically connected with the underlying dolomite aquifer
and is a source of recharge to the dolomite aquifer.  During
pumping tests reported in Document No.  8 in Appendix A, total
variation in piezometric level in overburden observation wells
was only 0.3 and 0.4 feet, which casts some doubt on the degree
of hydraulic connection with the underlying aquifer.  Considering
all the available evidence, the results reported (i.e. 0.3 to
0.4 feet)  are doubtful.  A possible explanation for such poor
hydraulic interconnection appears to be the possibility of
observation wells being installed in the sporadic silt and clay
lenses within the outwash deposits of sand and gravel; in all
cases it is not representative of the aquifer's characteristics.

Based on available data, the average hydraulic conductivity of
this aquifer is 3.85 gpd/ft2 with a standard deviation of 10.85
gpd/ft^.  Thus the coefficient of variation is 2.8, indicating
great uncertainties in using the average for evaluation.
Eliminating the extreme high and low conductivities, the average
is 0.71 gpd/ft2 and a standard deviation of 0.83.  Considering
the (average + one standard deviation)  as a conservative esti-
mate,  the range of hydraulic conductivities for estimating
purposes established for this aquifer is 0.7 x 10~4 cm/sec
to 6.8 x 10~4 cm/sec.
                                   Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc.
-------
81-07104-01
3.b.  Silurian-Devonian Aquifer (Dolomite Aquifer)

Based on I-series borings in the dolomite aquifer, the piezo-
metric surfaces recorded along the two corridors range from
El. 559 to 640 feet MSL in the NS Main and from 496 to 674
feet MSL in the CT Main.  Other references also indicate that
in the western portion of Milwaukee County, water level mea-
surements in four borings ranged from El. 631.90 to 673.37
feet MSL and in the eastern portion of the study area, water
levels in seven borings ranged from El. 553.40 to 593.20 feet
MSL.  Water levels in the seven borings are close to the average
water level of Lake Michigan (580.62 feet MSL) which is in
conformity with the hypothesis that Lake Michigan forms a
groundwater sink for the aquifers above the Maquoketa Group.
Generally the water levels are above the top of rock, but in
areas under the influence of the cones of depression created
by heavy pumping of high capacity wells, water levels have
dropped considerably and range from 12 to 112 feet below the
top of rock along the CT Main corridor and up to 90 feet below
the top of rock along the NS Main.

The groundwater movement is generally from west to east and
southeast towards Lake Michigan at an approximate gradient of
0.0028 ft/ft.  The potentiometric surface generally slopes to
the lake.  However, localized changes in direction of ground-
water flows and levels are observed in the zone of influence
of the cone of depression as discussed in Appendix B.

Hydrologic balance in the dolomite aquifer is not fully defined
due to lack of information.  Fragmentary information suggests
lateral flows on the order of 10 MGD and losses to the under-
lying aquifer on the order of 0.6 MGD.

The hydraulic properties of this aquifer are heavily impacted
by the network of joints and fractures in the rock mass.  On
a regional basis, there appears to be a hydraulic connection
between these discontinuities as indicated by the nearly uniform
piezometric surface at various locations.  Erratic well yields
and differences in piezometric surfaces are inferred from data
available for specific locations.  It also appears that conduc-
tivity is relatively more controlled by vertical fractures in
the upper portions of the aquifer, while conductivity in the
lower portions is perhaps more controlled by bedding planes.
The presence of faults of various widths has to be postulated
along the proposed corridors.  It is essential that such faults
(if they in fact do exist) be delineated with respect to geometry
and fillings before final tunnel alignment is established.  In
several case histories of tunnel excavations, large volumes of
flow have been attributed to tunnel crossing such discontinuities
(e.g. see Ref. 5) .
                                   Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc.
-------
81-07104-01
Based on reported hydraulic conductivity tests, the  following
ranges of hydraulic conductivities  (K) may be postulated  for
preliminary assessment:

    From piezometer data:

        Kav = 1.0 gpd/ft2

        Standard deviation a = 1.8  gpd/ft

        Kav +o=2.8 gpd/ft2

    From Packer Test:

        Kav = 3.2 gpd/ft2

        a = 11.9 gpd/ft2

        Kav + o = 15 gpd/ft2

    K from pump tests (3 tests)     2 gpd/ft2 - 14 gpd/ft2

It is clear that conductivities can vary greatly as character-
ized by a coefficient of variation of 1.8 to 11.9.  The choice
of average plus one standard deviation is justified for a
reasonably conservative estimate of flow.  It should be noted
that while the values postulated above may be used for esti-
mating purposes, such values should not be indicative of  flow
through large discontinuities such as faults filled with water-
bearing material.

All the available information on site hydrogeological setting
does indicate that there is hydraulic connection between the
dolomite aquifer and the sand and gravel aquifer  (S&G), gener-
ally by downward seepage from the S&G to this aquifer and in
some locations by upward flow from this aquifer to the S&G.
Furthermore, it appears that this aquifer is also hydraulically
connected to the sandstone aquifer through the Maquoketa shale
by means of downward flow through the shale to the sandstone
due to generally lower piezometric heads in the sandstone.

3.c.  Maquoketa Shale

This shale unit acts as a regional aquiclude and is a leaky
confining bed separating the dolomite aquifer from the sand-
stone aquifer.  It is hydraulically interconnected with both
aquifers with an estimated vertical conductivity ranging from
0.00001 to 0.00005 gpd/ft2.
                                   Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc.
-------
81-07104-01
3.d.  Sandstone Aquifer

Generally the piezometric surfaces of this aquifer are located
within the Niagaran Group with levels ranging from 415 to 438
feet MSL along the CT Main.  The surface slopes towards Lake
Michigan with an approximate gradient of 0.00085 ft/ft.  Varia-
tions in piezometric levels are observed in the areas of influ-
ence of the 350-foot deep cone of depression located near
Milwaukee County Stadium and other cones created in the study
area by heavy pumpage.

The hydraulic interconnection of this aquifer exists with the
overlying aquifers by the leaky nature of the Maquoketa shale
aquiclude, and most of all through deep wells open to both the
dolomite and the sandstone aquifers.  Localized cones of depres-
sion have induced recharge by lowering the potentiometric heads
of the sandstone aquifer.

The principal sources of recharge to the sandstone aquifer are
from the downward percolation through the Maquoketa shale and
deep wells, and from the direct recharge from Galena-Platteville
in those areas where the Galena-Platteville formation is exposed
to the surface, which are located west of the planning area
(Ref. Document No. 4).  Discharge from the sandstone aquifer
is principally to wells.
4.  INFILTRATION

4.a.  During Construction - Unlined Tunnels

The proposed tunnels are anticipated to be located entirely
within the Niagaran aquifer.  During construction, water will
infiltrate into the tunnel through bedding planes and fractures
with the infiltration rate expected to be primarily controlled
by flow through bedding planes.  Available data on tunnel con-
struction through the Niagaran aquifer in Chicago (Ref. 1) indi-
cate an infiltration rate up to 900 gpm for a 12-foot diameter
tunnel about 3 miles long.  For the high infiltration rate
situation, the corresponding flow for a 20-foot diameter tunnel
in the same area would probably be about 1500 gpm or 500 gpm/
mile.  Similar type data on Chicago tunnels are given in Ref.
2.  It was also suggested that high infiltration rates occurred
in sections near a quarry and opening of bedding joints (result-
ing from rock removal by quarry) contributed to the increased
rate of infiltration compared to other tunnels in the same
aquifer.
                                   Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc.
-------
81-07104-01
The problem of estimating  infiltration rate  into  tunnels
excavated in rock is too complex  for a simple  analysis, and
it is doubtful that detailed analysis can much improve  the
predictability of the flow.  Groundwater in  the Niagaran
aquifer is contained in near-vertical fractures and  in  frac-
tures along or parallel to the bedding, which  has a  very  low
angle of dip to the east.  The amount of water that  will  be
encountered during construction will depend  upon  the  fracture
frequency in 3-dimensions, the characteristics of the fracture
openings and the size, orientation and depth of the  structure.
Because of the lack of outcrops and excavations in bedrock,
the distribution of the fracture  frequency is  not well  known,
and the effect on the local groundwater cannot now be predicted
to a high degree of accuracy.

In order to estimate the order of magnitude  of the expected
infiltration rate under normal conditions  (no  major  faults
or fractures), we assumed  a homogeneous and  isotropic aquifer
with uniform permeability  with the tunnel located at various
depths, as shown in Figure 3.  The groundwater level was  as-
sumed at ground surface, which is consistent with piezometric
observations.  With these  assumptions, flow  nets were constructed
as shown in Figure 3.

Based on the above simplifying assumption and  the range of
hydraulic conductivities established in Section 3.b., the
estimated flow into the unlined tunnel in the  Niagaran aquifer
ranges between 1200 gpm/mile and  14,000 gpm/mile.  The esti-
mates are considerably higher than what can  be inferred from
the experiences in Chicago (Ref.  1).  However, other published
data (Ref. Document No. 7, Appendix A) suggest that the Niagaran
aquifer in Milwaukee may be more  than one order of magnitude
more conductive than the Chicago.  Thus, taking the available
evidence all together, the infiltration rates  estimated above
are perhaps conservative but are  also credible in the light
of available information.

Based on the flow net construction in Figure 3, the drop in
piezometric head varies depending on distance  from the tunnel,
being reduced by 1% to 3%  for a distance of  about 1000 feet
on both sides of the tunnel.  For shorter distances from the
tunnel, larger head drops  can be expected.   During operation,
tunnel lining would most likely reduce the amount of infiltra-
tion, and pre-construction groundwater oiezometric levels are
likely to re-establish themselves.

It should be noted that the above analysis is at best crude,
but it is likely to be conservative.  In actual construction,
the contractor may pre-grout, or grout during construction,
                                   Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc.
-------
J2
a
o
•o
a
a
           UJ
           z
        UJ
           ui
           z
           to
           z
           3
           u.
           o
           •x.
           o
                 NOTE:  |) PIEZOMETRIC LEVEL ASSUMED AT GROUND SURFACE

                      2) KNIAGARA"KTILL
                         GROUP
                       DISTANCE FROM CENTER OF TUNNEL (FT)

                    30% 50%  70%	90%      T	
50%
70%
                                                                   0
                                                                   80
                                                                   160
                                                                   240
                                                                   320
                                                                   400
                                                                   480
                                                                   560
                                                                   640
                               ''^480^640'
                                                                1440
                                                                  720
                       30%  50%   70%
                                               90%
              50%
                  0'"*"' 120"*" 240^'36Crw480'*Jr600 *  720' «"840 ^960 1080
                       30%   50%    70%
                                                    90%
                                                                  540
                                                 720' * 840^960^1080
                           FUDW NET CONSTRUCTION - MILWAUKEE TUNNEL
                                                                            LEGEND:
                                                                              	STREAM LINES
                                                                              	 EQUIPOTENTIAL LINES
                                                                              EXAMPLE (CASE  1)
                                                                AT A DEPTH OF 560 FT. AND
                                                                AT A DISTANCE OF UP TO
                                                                550 FEET FROM THE CENTER
                                                                OF TUNNEL, A DROP OF 10?
                                                                IN THE EQUI POTENTIAL
                                                                LINES IS INDICATED.
                                                                SI Ml LARLY AT A DEPTH OF
                                                                ABOUT 380 FEET AND AT A
                                                                DISTANCE OF 1,120 FEET
                                                                FROM CENTER OF TUNNEL A
                                                                DROP OF 3? IN EQUI POTEN-
                                                                TIAL LINES IS INDICATED.
     GROUNOWATER POLLUTION EVALUATION
     STORAGE TUNNELS
     FOR THE USEPA STHE WDNR AND ESEI/ECOLSCIENCES
                                                                                         Protect No.
                                                                                        81-07104-01
            ConverseWard Davis Dixon
                                                   Geotechnical Consultants
                                                                           Figure No
                                                                              3
-------
 81-07104-01                                               10
 to preclude significant water flow into the tunnel, and thus
 piezometric levels in the surrounding aquifer may not be
 significantly affected.

 During excavation of vertical shafts, pumping is anticipated
 to maintain a relatively dry excavation.  Based on the avail-
 able data, the rate of pumping is conservatively estimated
 to range from 49.0 to 666 gpm for a shaft diameter of 4 feet,
 and 130 to 1778 gpm for a shaft diameter of 48 feet.  The
 area affected (drawdown radius) would be about 200 for the
 center of the shaft.  Significant flow may be expected along
 the soil-rock interface.

 4.b.  During Operation

 Assuming that the tunnel will be lined with a 1 foot concrete
 lining, and assuming that concrete would have an average per-
 meability of 0.3 x 10~~9 ft/sec (see Ref. 3), the infiltration
 rate for a 20-foot tunnel would range from 300 to 600 gallons/
 year/foot of tunnel.  Assuming cracked concrete with a crack
 thickness of 1/1000 inch extending full thickness, the flow
 into the tunnel would be 788 - 1577 gallons/year/foot of crack
 length.  Because of the relatively insignificant amounts of
 infiltration into a lined tunnel, the effect on the aquifer
 is not expected to be significant, since the concrete is
 relatively impermeable compared to the jointed rock.  For
 quantitative assessment of order of magnitude of such an
 insignificant effect, a detailed analysis would be required.
 It should be noted that flow is a function of cube power of
 crack width.  Thus, for a crack width of 2/1000 inch, infil-
 tration would be 6307 - 13,666 gallons/year/foot of crack.


 5.  CONDITIONS REQUIRED FOR EXFILTRATION

 Exfiltration can occur in areas where the piezometric head of
 groundwater is lowered below the piezometric head of the fluid
 inside the tunnel by drawdown due to pumping, for example in
 areas of cones of depression, or where the piezometric head
 of the fluid inside the tunnel is higher than the piezometric
Jiead of the surrounding aquifer.   For exfiltration to occur, at
 least two conditions must be satisfied:  (a) the piezometric
 head of the fluid inside the tunnel must be higher than the
 piezometric head of the surrounding aquifer, and (b) the tunnel
 lining must be permeable.

 The piezometric head inside the tunnel is dictated by the level
"of the fluid in the drop shafts connected to the tunnel, and
 the tunnel depth.  If the elevation of the fluid in the shaft,
 for example, is +380, exfiltration would not occur in areas
                                    Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc.
-------
81-07104-01                                                11
where the piezometric head in the aquifer is greater than  380,
In areas of cones of depression, the piezometric head in the
aquifer may be as low as 300.  In this case, the first condi-
tion would be satisfied and the differential head would be
80 feet.  Since site-specific data are not available, the  80-
foot figure is only an example.

Concrete lining is permeable even when it is not cracked.  A
poured concrete lining is likely to have cold joints and may
crack, thus increasing the permeability.

A favorable factor which may be considered is the effect of
fluid particles plugging pores of concrete and surrounding
rock, thus impeding flow and reducing permeability.  Another
factor is the effect of the concrete lining on the quality
of the exfiltrated fluid compared to the qualities of the
fluid in the tunnel.
6.  RATES OF EXFILTRATIQN

Assuming that piezometric head in the tunnel is h^ and piezo-
metric head in rock is hr, then quantity of exfiltration, qe,
would be:
             ht - hr
        qe = —r	  ' kc (irD) per foot of tunnel
                C

        tc = Concrete thickness in feet

        kc = Permeability of concrete

         D = Tunnel diameter

    for tc = 1 ft, D = 20 feet and kc = 0.3 x 10~9 ft/sec

   then qe = (ht - hr) (18.84) (10~9) ft3/sec/ft of tunnel

        qe = 0.045  (ht - hr) gpm/mile of tunnel

For h*. < hr, exfiltration would not occur.  If piezometric
head in tunnel is at El. +380 and the lowest piezometric head
under the influence of the cone of depression is +300, then

        qe = 3.6 gpm/mile of tunnel

Assuming that the condition were to exist for one day, then
the total exfiltration would be

        3.6 x 60 min/hr x 24 hr/day = 5184 gallons/mile
                                   Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc.
-------
81-07104-01                                                12



and, for 3 days

        q = 15,552 gallons/mile

and, for 7 days

        q = 36,288 gallons/mile

The above analysis is conservative since it does not account
for reduced permeability induced by plugging of pores.

Assuming that there are cracks in concrete and the width of
the crack is b and 1 foot long, then exfiltration through  the
crack would be

        q = 30,000 (-J=-	-) b3         ft3/sec/ft of crack
                      fcc
        (Ref. Mo. 3)

    for b = 1/1000 inch, tc = 1 ft, ht  - hr = 80 ft

        q = 0.625 x 10~3 of crack length

Note that the above expression is quite sensitive to width of
crack.  For example,  if the crack width is 2/1000 inch, q would
be 5 x 10~3 gpm/ft of crack, or 7.2 gallons/day/foot of crack.


7.  "WORST CONDITION" SCENARIO

7.a.  Infiltration during Construction

The range of volume of infiltration estimated in Section 4 is
based on the premise that no major discontinuities will be
encountered during construction.  If such discontinuities are
encountered and if those discontinuities are water-bearing,
then larger volumes of infiltration may occur.  Such an even-
tuality, however, can be handled by a properly conducted fault
study and instrumentation during construction.  If volumes of
infiltration considerably higher than estimated do occur, then
the drop of piezometric heads in both sides of the tunnel will
perhaps be larger than estimated in Section 4.

The above analysis assumes that the contractor would not grout
to control seepage.  In actuality, such grouting may be neces-
sary and relatively large infiltration would be only for a
relatively short time.  After the tunnel is grouted and/or
lined, pre-construction groundwater piezometric levels are
likely to re-establish themselves.
                                   Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc.
-------
81-07104-01                                               13
7.b.  Infiltration during Operation

A worst condition scenario is to assume (1) that concrete would
crack through its full thickness, (2) that permeability of con-
crete is larger than assumed, and (3) that the piezometric level
in the aquifer will in the future be higher than the current
level.  All these events combined would produce larger infiltra-
tion compared to infiltration produced by a combination of two
of the three events.

7.c.  Exfiltration during Operation

A worst scenario is to assume (1) that the piezometric head of
the fluid in the pipe will be higher than anticipated, (2) that
the piezometric heads in the aquifer will be lower than antici-
pated, (3) that permeability of concrete is higher than assumed,
and (4) that concrete could crack through its full thickness.
The simultaneous occurrence of all four events will produce
higher exfiltration than if only two or three events occur
simultaneously.
8.  PROBABLE FATE OF POLLUTANTS

Assuming that exfiltration would occur and fluids characterised
as pollutants enter into the Niagaran aquifer, then the follow-
ing sequence of events may take place:

8.a.  Available evidence suggests that flow in the Niagaran
aquifer is heavily controlled by bedding plane joints.  If
pollutants enter the aquifer, such pollutants may travel
large distances in an east or southeast direction.  In a case
reported in Ref. 4, a tracer dye was injected into a water-
bearing zone of an observation well 175 feet from a pumped
well in the Silurian aquifer in Door County, Wisconsin.  The
leading edge of the dye moved into the pumping well and out
through 150 feet of discharge pipe in about 2 minutes, indi-
cating rapid movement with little or no concentration in
well-jointed dolomite.   (These data were for the upper portion
of the aquifer.  The condition in the lower portion may con-
ceivably not be favorable.)

8.b.  Available evidence suggests that only a small percentage
of the total discharge from the Niagaran aquifer enters the
sandstone aquifer.  Most of the flow is near horizontal  (along
bedding planes).  For estimating purposes, it may be assumed
that 6% of the total exfiltrated fluid would enter the sand-
stone aquifer.  The extent of the travel in the sandstone
aquifer is expected to be less than that for the Niagaran
aquifer due to less directed permeability.
                                   Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc.
-------
81-07104-01                                                14
8.c.  A third possibility is for exfiltrated  fluid  to be
collected and drawn back into storage before  it  joins the
aquifer.  This possibility can be viable with a  properly
designed and constructed collection  system.
9*  FUTURE CONDITIONS OF THE AQUIFER

9.a.  With Inline Storage System

      (1)  Piezometric Heads:  Assuming that  the tunnel  lining
will be functional throughout the  life of the  system,  the
effect on pie.zometric heads in the aquifer is  not expected
to be significant because infiltration into the tunnel through
the concrete lining is relatively  very small.

      (2)  Exfiltration;  If wastewater in the tunnel  is ex-
filtrated, the quality of groundwater will be  affected.  The
degree of groundwater degradation  will be determined by  the
amount of exfiltration, the characteristics of the exfiltrated
water and the distance it travels.  The fate  of the exfiltrated
fluid will be as described in Section 8.

9.b.  Without Inline Storage System

The future conditions of the aquifers in Milwaukee County and
particularly in the vicinity of the proposed  inline storage
system depend upon the pumpage of  the groundwater, its magni-
tude and the concentration of wells.  For a statistical  analy-
sis, it is necessary to prepare a  detailed inventory of  wells
and the history of groundwater pumpage from potentiometric
levels of various aquifers.  Based on such statistical analysis,
quantitative evaluation can be made on the future conditions of
the aquifers, especially the position of the  potentiometric
level.

Based on the available data, it appears that  in the planning
area:   (1) there are very few low  capacity wells in the  sand
and gravel aquifer, (2) there is a decline in  the use of ground-
water from the Silurian dolomite and it is usually on a very
limited basis, and (3) a large number of high  capacity indus-
trial wells in the sandstone aquifer have become inactive or
used only as a standby water supply.

Groundwater use has decreased in the City of Milwaukee and in
the nearby suburbs, while use has  increased in the outer sub-
urbs,  especially in Waukesha County.  This trend has decreased
groundwater use near Milwaukee and increased  its use in  the
outer suburbs.  Most of the industries in the  corridor of the
Crosstown Main have switched to municipal water supplies.  It
                                   Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc.
-------
81-07104-01                                               15
is also indicated that very few wells have been drilled in the
last 20 years for industries located in the Menomonee River
Valley, in which the Crosstown Main corridor is located.  This
decrease in drilling activity also tends to show a future de-
crease in groundwater use in the study area.

The westward shift in groundwater use is anticipated to in-
crease because of the increasing industries and population in
Waukesha County.  This is indicative that groundwater use will
tend to decrease in the planning area and tend to increase
westward.

Based on this, it appears that there is a general trend of
recharge of aquifers and rise in their potentiometrie levels
in the planning area.  Depending upon the future numpage in
the west, variations are anticipated in the hydraulic gradient,
direction of flow, and the hydrologic balance of the area.
Quantitative estimates are possible when statistical data on
historical, present and future use of groundwater are available,
10. MITIGATION MEASURES

From the review of the geotechnical data and the draft Envi-
ronmental Impact Statement, it has been concluded that the
construction of the inline storage system will have an impact
on the groundwater in the Milwaukee area.  The initial impact
will be as a result of construction of the system.  A secondary
impact will be from the operation of the system, over the years,
during its useful life.

10*a*  Sand and Gravel Aquifer

For construction of the near surface gravity sewers, conveyance
and storage facilities, and the droo shafts, oortions of the
sand and gravel aquifer will likely be dewatered as construction
progresses.  This would locally lower the groundwater table and
could affect the yield from local wells.  The extent of the
effect will depend on the time required to construct the facil-
ity.  Also, the amount of water that will have to be pumoed,
and therefore the regional effect, will also depend on the size
and depth of the structure.  The dewatering of the sand and
gravel aquifer may cause surface subsidence, which may result
in damage to buildings, streets and utility lines.  Dependincr
upon the local hydraulic characteristics of the sand and gravel
aquifer, the local effect of construction dewatering could
possibly be minimized by water flooding or injection into a
local well field.  These actions should be prooerly engineered
and monitored.
                                   Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc.
-------
 81-07104-01                                                16
The amount of water to be pumped, and the regional effect,
could be reduced by use of  sheet piling or by  freezing.  The
feasibility of applying either of these techniques will depend
on the location and size of the structure and  the proximity
of the structure to the well field that would  be affected.
Furnishing temporary facilities for  storage water and the
trucking of water to mitigate the drying up of a local well
field could be more economical than  piling, or freezing.  The
possibility of damage to surface structures from subsidence
as a result of dewatering would have to be evaluated for each
site based on site-specific hydrologic studies.

Possible contamination of the sand and gravel  aquifer during
construction can be controlled by enforcement  of contract
specifications for handling contaminants, and  the design and
implementation of clean-up  operations in the event of acci-
dental spills.

Following construction, and during operations, there is a
possibility of contamination of the  sand and gravel aquifer.
This probability can be related to the present operation of
the shallow sewer collection systems.  Broken  lines, open
joints, and cracked storage structures can leak contaminants
into the groundwater.  The  control of this type of contamina-
tion will depend upon a scheduled inspection and maintenance
program strictly enforced.

10.b.  Niagaran Aquifer

The Niagaran aquifer is hydrologically in direct contact with
the sand and gravel aquifer and inflow into structures in the
Niagaran aquifer will affect  the water table in the sand and
gravel aquifer.  The problems as described previously for the
sand and gravel aquifer could also result from infiltration
into the tunnels and drop shafts in  the Niagaran aquifer.

The inflows of groundwater  into the  tunnels and drop shafts
in the Niagaran aquifer can be reduced by pre-excavation
grouting.  This can work well for the drop shafts.   For the
tunnels, which probably for  the most part will be constructed
by tunnel boring machines,  pre-excavation grouting of the
heading would probably not  be practical.  The  feasibility of
grouting from the surface would have to be based on specific
tunnel alignment geotechnical studies.

During operation of the system, exfiltration from the tunnels
and drop shafts can occur due to lowering of groundwater levels.
The amount of exfiltration will depend upon the operating head
of the system in relation to  the elevation of  the groundwater
                                   Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc.
-------
81-07104-01                                               17
table, and the permeability of the lining of the structure,
including tunnels and the adjacent rock.  If it is assumed
that the drop shafts and the tunnels will be lined, and that
the lining will be grouted to the wall rock, the amount of
exfiltration under constant head conditions will depend upon
the permeability of the lining and the grout.  The permeability
of the lining will depend upon the type of construction, or
materials used.  A poured concrete lining will have cold -joints
and will crack, which will increase the permeability.  A cast
and joined concrete lining, grouted, if properly installed and
grouted in, would probably have a lower permeability.  A quan-
titative estimate of the amount of exfiltration could be made
based on a design for a lining and a grouting program, and an
estimate of the operation.  The design of a lining and grouting
program will require the acquisition of more geotechnical,
site-specific data.

10.c.  Sandstone Aquifer

The contamination of the sandstone aquifer could result from
contamination of the sand and gravel and Niagaran aquifers, and
the operation of the system.  Contamination of the sandstone
aquifer will be minimal if the contamination of the sand and
gravel aquifer and the Niagaran aquifer are minimized.  Contam-
ination of the sandstone aquifer will primarily occur through
uncased wells that penetrate the sand and gravel and Niagaran
aquifers.  If contamination from structures in the sand and
gravel and Niagaran aquifers is controlled, there should be
no contamination in the sandstone aquifer.

10.d.  Monitoring

To assure that there will not be any pollution of the ground-
water in the future as a result of the construction and opera-
tion of the inline storage system, a monitoring program must
be designed and strictly carried out as part of the operational
program.  After construction, a testing program should be
designed and carried out to be sure that under maximum head
conditions there would be no, or no known, exfiltration from
the system.  After operations begin, a strictly enforced
program of inspection" and maintenance of structure should be
designed.  An exterior groundwater monitoring system —
monitoring for both water level and quality — should be
installed and the program rigidly enforced.
                                   Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc.
-------
81-07104-01                                                18
11.  FUTURE STUDIES

In order to provide a better quantitative assessment of the
issues discussed in this report, the  following  is recommended:

a.  Review available geologic and hydrologic data from the
    Tunnel and Reservoir Project (TARP) in Chicago and determine
    on the basis of comparative geology and hydrology if  the
    data can be extrapolated to the Milwaukee environment.

b.  If the environmental conditions can be compared, compile
    the TARP data and integrate with  the geologic and hydro-
    logic data from the Milwaukee environmental studies,  and
    perform detailed mapping of faults.

c.  Analyse these data.

d.  Predict probable infiltration during construction.

e.  Site-specific studies that would  be required to predict
    quantitatively the infiltration during construction and
    possible future exfiltration, or  verify conclusions based
    on items a, b, and c above.  The  site-specific studies
    may include borings with oriented coring, electric logging,
    piezometers, pump tests, in-situ  stress measurements, and
    perhaps other site investigation  techniques.  It may  also
    be necessary to study the hydraulic properties of concrete,
    considering the nature of fluids  in the proposed tunnels.

f.  Engineering design and construction procedures based  upon
    the above recommended analyses that would minimize infil-
    tration during construction of the system.

g.  Design and construction procedures based upon the above
    recommended analyses that would minimize infiltration or
    exfiltration during operation of  the system.

h.  Design and implementation of a monitoring system (including
    inspection and maintenance of structures) to assure that
    any infiltration or exfiltration  will be detected in  a
    timely manner, and then-corrected.


12. CONCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS

The conclusions and opinions expressed in this report are
based upon available data,  and review and evaluation of the
data in a limited time period.  As a  consequence, these ef-
forts are not sufficient to develop quantitative findings
                                   Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc.
-------
81-07104-01                                                19
about all aspects and impacts of the proposed inline storage
system as discussed in this report.  However, the possible
impacts of the system during construction and operation  are
reasonably identified.  The feasibility of construction  of
the proposed system will be heavily influenced by economics.
Environmental effects, such as escape of pollutants, can be
mitigated in the final design, assuming that the economic
factors of such mitigation do not make the whole project non-
cost effective.  The future studies recommended should provide
a basis for assessing the economic feasibility of the proposed
construction.
                                   Converse Ward Davis Oixon, Inc.
-------
81-07104-01                                               20
                        REFERENCES
    Irons, J. and Westfall, D., "Rock Tunnels Recently
    Completed in Chicago."  Proc. 1st American Rapid
    Excavation and Tunneling Conference, Chicago, 111.,
    June 5-7, 1972.

    Bacon, W.V. and Painter, W.T., "Rock Tunnels to Control
    Pollution and Flooding."  Underground Rock Chambers,
    ASCE National Meeting of Water Resources Engineering,
    Phoenix, Ariz., January 13-14, 1971.

    Zanger, C.N., "Theory and Problems of Water Percolation."
    Engineering Monographs, United States Bureau of Reclama-
    tion, 1953.

    Sherrill, M.G., "Ground Water Contamination in the
    Silurian Dolomite of Door County, Wisconsin."  Ground
    Water, March-April, 1975.

    Sharp, J.C., Maini, Y.N.T. and Brekke, T.L., "Evaluation
    of Hydraulic Properties of Rock Masses."  Fourteenth
    Annual Symposium on Rock Mechanics, ASCE, 1973.
                                   Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc.
-------
*•

           81-07104-01                                              A-l
                                   APPENDIX A
                          DOCUMENTS PROVIDED FOR REVIEW
                       BY CONVERSE WARD DAVIS DIXON, INC.
1.   Draft Executive Summary, EIS, MMSD Water Pollution
    Abatement Program, prepared by USEPA and WDNR, Nov. 1980.

2.   Draft EIS, MMSD Water Pollution Abatement Program,
    prepared by USEPA and WDNR, Nov. 1980.

3.   Draft EIS, MMSD Water Pollution Abatement Program,
    Appendix V, prepared by USEPA and WDNR, Nov. 1980.

4.   Technical Report No. 16, Digital Computer Model of the
    Sandstone Aquifer in Southeastern Wisconsin, prepared
    by USGS, April 1976.

5.   Foley, F.C. et al., 1953, Ground-Water Conditions in
    the Milwaukee-Waukesha Area, Wisconsin, Geol. Survey
    Water-Supply Paper 1229.

6.   Appendix 4B, Geologic Conditions, CSO Facility Plan,
    March 1979.

7.   Appendix 4A, Regional Geology and Current Situation
    (Draft), Inline Storage System Facility Plan, Jan. 1981.

8.   Appendix 4B, Hydrogeologic Conditions  (Draft), Inline
    Storage System Facility Plan, Jan. 1981.

9.   Appendix 4C, Chemical Quality Characteristics (Draft),
    Inline Storage System Facility Plan, Jan. 1981.

Miscellaneous logs of I-series borings and E-logs, conducted
for the MMSD to support the preparation of the Draft Inline
Storage System Facility Plan.
                                              Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc.
-------
81-07104-01
                           APPENDIX  B

                   GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOOY
                        IN PROJECT  AREA
                                      Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc.
-------
81-07104-01                                               B-l
GEOLOGIC SETTING

Milwaukee is located in the Great Lakes section of the central
lowland physiographic province with characteristic low topo-
graphic relief.

The principal bedrock structure of the Milwaukee-Waukesha area
is a monocline with very low dip  (10 to 100 feet per mile) to
the east-southeast.  The sedimentary rocks that make up bedrock
in this area are a thick sequence of early to middle Paleozoic
origin.  This sedimentary sequence dips away from the regional
anticline known as the Wisconsin arch and dips towards a regional
syncline centered in the lower peninsula of Michigan known as
the Michigan basin.

Bedrock of the Paleozoic era in the Milwaukee area includes
dolomite, shale and sandstone ranging from the Cambrian to the
Devonian System and are underlain by the Precambrian igneous
and metamorphic basement complex.  Significant details of the
structure in the area are the faults in and around the apparent
fold that extends southwestward from the Lake Michigan shore at
Shorewood to the vicinity of West Allis.  The only fault in the
area that is definitely known is the longest fault shown trending
northeast through Waukesha.  The vertical displacement along the
fault is at least 30 feet and is reported to continue to Lake
Michigan.  A 3-foot wide crushed zone is associated with this
fault.  The structure in the City of Milwaukee is a fault or
faults rather than a fold.

The Wisconsin region is almost completely covered with glacial
sediments with variable thickness.  The glacial deposits contain
glacial outwash deposits left by glacial meltwater streams and
rivers.
SITE GEOLOGY

The site for the planned Inline Storage Corridors is generally
covered with glacial sediments representing the Quaternary
System, composed of Pleistocene glacial and Holocene alluvial
deposits .which occur as beds, lenses and stream channel deposits,
The major constituents, sand and gravel, often occur interbedded
with glacial till, clay and lake and surficial deposits.  The
sands and gravels contained in this system provide important
sources of groundwater.  The thickness of these sediments in
the planning area is reported to range from 5 to 242 feet,
averaging about 110 feet.

The Quaternary sediments are generally underlain by the sed-
imentary rocks representing the Silurian System, with the
exception of the northeast part of Milwaukee where Devonian
                                   Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc.
-------
81-07104-01                                              B-2
shale and dolomite wedges are encountered that overlie the
Silurian dolomites.  The dip of these strata appears to be
parallel to the regional dip (10 to 100 feet per mile).  Lim-
ited bedrock exposures and well log information indicate that
the western limit of this wedge is west of the Milwaukee River
and extends below Lake Michigan north of the Milwaukee River.
The dolomite unit of this system is generally thin bedded,
fine grained, conspicuously fossiliferous and bituminous, and
slightly porous.  The shale mainly found in the lower part of
the formation is thin bedded and slakes rapidly on exposure.

The bedrocks of the Silurian System are represented by the
Niagaran Group.  Niagaran bedrock is either in direct contact
with Quaternary sediments, or shale and dolomite of the Devonian
System lies between the Quaternary and the Niagaran as wedges.
It consists of more than 90 percent dolomite and dolomitic
limestone with small varied content of shale and chert.

From the available borings and well data and reports by others,
it is indicated that in the Milwaukee area, and particularly
in the corridor of the proposed inline system, the Niagaran
Group ranges in thickness from 45 to 530 feet, and is generally
over 300 feet, being thickest in the northeastern part of Mil-
waukee and thinnest in the western part of the County.

The bedrock appears heterogeneous in its hydrogeologic char-
acteristics and generally consists of fine to medium grained
medium bedded, hard dolomite and dolomitic limestone.  Within
the sequence there are occasional zones of thin shale beds,
partings, chert, and porous and vuggy rocks.

General observations of the rock in the Niagaran are:

     o  Grain size of the Niagaran is mainly fine (less than
        0.2 mm) or medium (0.2 to 0.5 mm).  Coarse grained
        rock is. encountered only in the upper Niagaran.

     o  Most of the Niagaran bedrock is medium bedded, the
        vertical spacing between bedding planes ranging from
        2 to 12 inches.  Thin bedding with a vertical spacing
        less tfian 2 inches is noted near the Maquoketa contact,
        in some parts of the middle Niagaran, and in the lower
        part of the upper Niagaran.  Thick bedding was noted
        in only one boring.  Many bedding surfaces reflected
        in these figures were identified by textural and color
        changes, but did not separate during drilling.

     o  Shale occurs in the Niagaran as discrete interlayers
        ranging from 1/8 to 2 inches, with a vertical spacing
        range from 1/2 inch to more than 2 feet.  The shale
                                   Converse Ward Davis Oixon, Inc.
-------
 81-07104-01                                              B-3
        content is generally  less than  1 percent in the upper
        and middle Niagaran.  The shale content in the lower
        Niagaran is generally greater than  1 percent.

     o  Chert in the Niagaran is found  mainly in the middle
        Niagaran.  Most of the chert occurs in irregularly
        shaped nodules, about  2 inches in diameter.  They are
        chalky on the  outside, very hard on the inside.

     o  The Niagaran dolomite is mainly dense, with scattered
        zones of pinhead  size to 1/4-inch pores.  Zones of
        small cavities, or vugs, were noted in the upper and
        lower Niagaran.

     o  The spacing of steeply inclined fractures or joints
        in the core samples ranges from less than 5 feet to
        more than 20 feet.  The joint spacing in most of the
        core is greater than  5 feet.  Joint spacing is less
        than 5 feet in a  major part of  Boring MI-5 and in
        scattered zones in other borings.  Most joints are
        relatively rough, tight fractures, apparently affected
        by groundwater solution or weathering.

     o  RQD is a core  logging rock quality parameter.  The
        RQD values show the percent of  each core run that
        yielded sound, unweathered rock cylinders 4 inches
        or longer.  Most  of the core has a good to excellent
        RQD,-75 to 100 percent.  A poor RQD rating, less than
        50 percent, was recorded in some runs in three of the
        borings.

The Silurian dolomites overlie unconformably the Ordovician
shales known as Maquoketa formations, which are followed by
the Cambro-Ordovician  System  that overlies unconformably the
Precambrian basement complex  and is generally composed of
sandstone with dolomite interbeds.
STRUCTURAL GEOLOGIC FEATURES

As indicated from the-available data, the bedrock strata dip
gently to the east (10 to 100 feet per mile), off the Wisconsin
arch and into the Michigan basin.  There are several faults
observed and postulated in the project area.  The largest fault
is observed on the two walls of the Waukesha Stone Company
quarry exposing 100 feet of rock.  These exposures reveal a
3-foot wide zone of crushed rock separating an eastern block
which has moved downward at least 30 feet relative to the
western block.  This fault is postulated to be the axis of
a syncline structure plunging into Lake Michigan.  Another
fault is indicated to extend from southwest Milwaukee to Lake
                                   Converse Ward Davis Oixon, Inc.
-------
81-07104-01                                              B-4
Michigan, crossing the study area in the vicinity of the con-
fluence of the Milwaukee and Menomonee Rivers.  Several other
narrow faults have been observed in the planning area with
crushed zone width of a few inches to 3 feet and vertical dis-
placements of less than 5 feet.
                              i
The available boring logs, data and outcrop maps indicate that
the bedrock typically contains three primary joint sets:  one
parallel to the bedding and essentially horizontal, and two
near vertical joint sets.  The strikes of the near vertical
joints are N 30° to 60° W and N 30° to 60° E.  Spacing of the
joint sets is 5 to 40 feet for the near vertical sets.

Data obtained in 1980 from the tunnel for the Hales Corner
Interceptor suggest that as many as 90% of the discontinuity
strikes may lie within 20° of the near vertical joint value.
The two discontinuities present in the area can be described
as steeply dipping with measured dips being R0° or steeper.

The discontinuity spacing data developed on the basis of infor-
mation gathered at the tunnel for the Hales Corner interceptor
show the northwest discontinuity set to have a median true
spacing value of 2.2 feet and the northeast set to have a me-
dian true spacing value of 5.0 feet; translating into true
frequencies of 0.45 per foot and 0.20 per foot.  Review of
the discontinuity frequency data from the borehole shows that
discontinuity frequencies decrease with depth in geologic
section.  The decrease is fourfold between the Devonian for-
mations and the uppermost Silurian formations.  The decrease
between top and bottom of the Silurian is about threefold.
Below the Silurian it is relatively constant, dropping some-
what in the Scales Formation and increasing in the Platteville
and St. Peters sandstones.

From the logs as well as from inspection of the above tunnels,
it appears that generally the discontinuities in the corridor
of the proposed inline system are filled with clay or healed
with secondary minerals, each type accounting for 30 percent
of the filled discontinuities.  The width of the discontinuities
is generally less than 0.01.:feet.  From the boring logs it is
indicated that two-thirds of the discontinuities are tight,
unfilled features.  Of the filled discontinuities, slightly
more than half are completely filled; 80 percent with mineral
and 20 percent with clay.  Solutioning and staining, evidence
of water movement, were observed on a small percentage of sur-
faces .

About 60 percent of the unfilled northeast striking disconti-
nuities are producing water by flow.  The same is true for
about 50 percent of the unfilled northwest striking disconti-
nuities.
                                   Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc.
-------
81-07104-01                                              B-5
Of the filled discontinuities, about 30 percent are producing
water by flow.

Water ingress was described qualitatively as damp, drip or
flow.  Nearly 85 percent of the water ingress descriptions
were dripping or flowing.  This percentage is approximate
for filled and unfilled discontinuities of both sets.

Virtually every discontinuity producing water is marked by
extensive iron oxide staining and occasional mineralization
on the walls of the Hales Corner Tunnel.
HYDROGEOLOGIC CHARACTERISTICS

The available data and reports prepared by others indicate
that the proposed project will be located in the southeastern
part of the Drift-Bedrock Province of Glaciated Central Ground-
water Region.  The Province is characterized by glacial deposits
of the Quaternary System and sedimentary rocks of the Devonian,
Silurian, Ordovician and Cambrian Systems.

Hydrogeologically, the formations are divided into four major
aquifers:

     o  The Sand and Gravel Aquifer

     o  The Devonian Aquifer

     o  The Silurian Aquifer (Niagaran Dolomite)

     o  The Sandstone Aquifer

The Maquoketa shale (confining bed)  that separates the Silurian
aquifer from the sandstone aquifer and serves as a leaky con-
fining bed.

Descriptions of these aquifers are available in project reports
prepared by others; brief summarized descriptions of each aquifer
are presented hereunder to provide an understanding of the
condition under consideration for revaluation of the potential
for groundwater contamination:

Sand and Gravel Aquifer

The aquifer is composed of interbedded glacial till, clay and
lake deposits and outwash sands and gravels of Pleistocene
glacial and Holocene alluvial deposits of Quaternary System.
The reported average thickness of these sediments ranges from
42 to 110 feet.
                                   Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc.
-------
81-07104-01                                              B-6
The primary source of recharge to this aquifer is downward
percolation of precipitation and downward percolation of sur-
face water from influent streams.  Influent stream conditions
are found along the Menomonee River  (in the corridor of the
Crosstown Tunnel) because groundwater pumpage lowered water
levels into the Silurian aquifer beneath the river, which caused
surface water to be induced into the groundwater.  Influent
stream conditions are not reported along the Milwaukee River
(the corridor of the North Shore Main).  In some areas which
are not defined in available documents, the upward movement
of groundwater from the underlying bedrock is reported as
also a source of recharge.  Annual recharge rate in the area
is reported to range between 48,000 and 191,000 gallons per
day per square mile (gpd/mi2) or about 1 to 4 inches.

Groundwater discharge is mainly into streams, rivers, under-
lying bedrock and Lake Michigan, which acts as a groundwater
sink in the area.  Discharge to bedrock occurs where hydraulic
connection exists and where potentiometric surface in the
bedrock aquifer is lower than that in the sand and gravel
aquifer.  Significant discharge to wells is possible but there
are very few wells within this aquifer.

Both confined and unconfined conditions occur in this aquifer
and hence both artesian and water-table conditions can be ob-
served.  The static water levels are closer to ground surface
with seasonal groundwater generally being within 10 to 30 feet
of the surface.

Generally the groundwater movement in the corridor of the pro-
posed project is from west to east or southeast with a gradient
of about 0.004 ft/ft.

The sand and gravel aquifer usually supplies low capacity
domestic or household wells which generally produce less than
75 gal/min.  There are very few domestic-wells located in the
corridor of the proposed project.

The measured hydraulic conductivity values of this stratum
range from 2.95 x 10~7 to 1.7 x 10"^ cm/sec and the specific
capacity is estimated to be 47.40.  The^piezometers installed
in both the North Shore Main and the Crosstown Main Corridors
indicate a potentiometric surface to range from 578 to 652
feet MSL with a general slope towards the east.  Local vari-
ations in this slope are observed in the areas under the
influence of cones of depression.

Silurian Aquifer

The Silurian aquifer, composed of the Niagaran Group and the
overlying Devonian formations, is mainly massive hard dense,
medium-bedded dolomite with thin shale interbeds.
                                   Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc.
-------
 81-07104-01                                               B-7
The recorded thickness of  the Niagaran  Group  ranges  from  220
to 590 feet.  The aquifer  underlies  all of  the  corridor of  the
proposed inline system.  It  is  recharged mostly by vertical
seepage through the Quaternary  deposits and by  surface waters
percolating through surface  deposits in a 20- to  30-mile  wide
belt along the western slope of Lake Michigan.  In areas  where
the potentiometric levels  in the  Silurian aquifer are lower
than the lake, the localized recharge occurs  from Lake Michigan,
Discharge is mainly into wells, streams, rivers and  Lake  Michi-
gan.  Well yields vary widely,  ranging  from 5 gpm to 1000 gpm,
due to irregular distribution,  type  of  rock fissures and  the
nature of well construction.

Both confined and unconfined conditions exist in  this aquifer
but most of the groundwater  is  artesian (confined).  The  intact
rock has very low porosity and  generally low  permeability.  The
permeability of the Niagaran aquifer is primarily due to  the
network of joints and fractures in the  rock mass.  In Door
County, Wisconsin, water occurs in the  dolomite in either ver-
tical or bedding plane joints  (Ref.  4).  Vertical joints  are
commonly small and discontinuous  and diminish in both size
and number with depth.  Vertical  joints, as water yielders,
are important in the upper part of the  Niagaran aquifer.  Bed-
ding plane joints, although  fewer than  vertical joints, are
larger and more continuous and  transmit most  of the  water mov-
ing through the Lower Niagaran  and Alexandrian  aquifers.  These
joints along the bedding plane  may have widened by solution
activity.  They are poorly interconnected vertically, so  that
they act as semi-artesian  conduits,  separated by nearly imper-
meable rock.  Similar bedrock characteristics are presumably
present in the planning area.   In areas where the Niagaran
is in contact with Quaternary sediments, open joints are  more
frequently noted in the upper 100 feet  due  to extensive wea-
thering and solution activities by downward moving water.
This has resulted in increased  secondary permeability.  The
open joints and fissures normally yield some  water to the
wells, but the amount of yield  is dependent on  the width  of
the joint and interconnection with other joints.  Interconnec-
tion of the joints on a regional  scale  is indicated  by the
uniform piezometric surface, high well  yields (greater than
100 gpm), and response to  aquifer during pumping.

It is indicated from the available data  that  the movement
of groundwater is generally  from  west to east (towards Lake
Michigan) at a gradient of approximately 0.0028 ft/ft.  The
potentiometric surface slopes towards Lake  Michigan with  ele-
vations ranging from 559 to  640 feet MSL in the North Shore
Main Corridor and 496 to 674 feet MSL in the  Crosstown Main
Corridor; being equal to Lake Michigan  in some  areas.  The
permanent cone of depression has  probably been  caused by  the
pumping of high capacity industrial  wells open  to both dolo-
mite and underlying sandstone aquifers.
                                   Converse Ward Davis Oixon, Inc.
-------
81-07104-01                                              B-8
Localized changes in direction of groundwater flow and in
levels is caused by pumping from the wells, particularly in
the areas of cones of depression.  The most prominent cone
of depression is observed along the Menomonee River near the
Milwaukee County Stadium, which is reportedly 350 feet deep,
and the other in the northwest section of the North Shore Main.
The deep and permanent cone of depression has caused the water
levels to be 12 to 112 feet below the top of rock along the
Menomonee River.  In another area along the Milwaukee River,
the cone of depression has lowered water levels as much as
90 feet below the top of rock.  The localized heterogeneous
character of bedrock and the poor interconnection of vertical
joints with bedding plane joints is manifested by the piezo-
metric levels and the response to pumping.

With storage coefficient values ranging from 1 x 10    to
1 x 10~3, rapid response to pumping in observation wells and
rapid recovery should occur.  However, the water levels in
piezometers and observation wells in the confined aquifer in-
dicate wide variations in their elevations.  Also water level
readings in multiple piezometers at the same location indicated
differences of up to 22 feet between adjacent piezometers sep-
arated by 170 feet of rock,- indicating the heterogeneous nature
of the rock and lack of continuity of fracture/joint systems
within the rock mass.

Aquifer tests performed at three sites indicated variability
in aquifer properties compatible with heterogeneous geologic
characteristics'.  The properties of the aquifer are summarized
below:

     o  Pumping rate (Q) - from 3 gpm to 500 gpm

     o  Transmissivity  (T) - from about 500 gpd/ft to 5000
        gpd/ft; extreme values being 140 and 12,000 gpd/ft
        at one site

     o  Storativity  (S) - from about 10~3 to 10~4

     o  Leakage factor - from^0.15 to 1.3 ft/ft

     o  Specific capacity (Q/s) - from 0.3 to 5.6 gpm/ft

     o  Hydraulic conductivities:
                                                             •j
         (1)  From piezometer test     range 1.0 to 2.8 gpd/ft

         (2)  From Packer test'        range 3.2 to 15.0 gpd/ft2

         (3)  From pump test           range 2.0 to 14.0 gpd/ft2
                                   Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc.
-------
~
1
I
           81-07104-01                                              B-9
The overburden observation wells were monitored during the
test and total variation in water level was on the order of
0.3 to 0.4 feet.

The Silurian dolomite aquifer has been used extensively as
an industrial water supply in the North Shore Corridor with
most of the wells producing 100 to 500 gpm.  The well inven-
tory shows a decline in use of groundwater in the North Shore
Corridor.  The Silurian dolomite is reported to be a better
aquifer in the North Shore Corridor than in the Crosstown,
where very few Silurian wells produce more than 100 gpm.

The hydrologic balance of the Niagaran aquifer in the proposed
inline corridor is not defined in the existing information,
but available fragmentary information indicates that lateral
flow is on the order of 10 million gallons per day (MGD), and
losses to the sandstone aquifer are on the order of 0.6 MGD.
This shows that horizontal hydraulic conductivity is predomi-
nant.

Maquoketa Shale
           Maquoketa shale is present within the corridor of the proposed
I          project,  separating the overlying Silurian aquifer from the
I          underlying sandstone aquifer.  It is a regional aquiclude with
           thickness ranging from 90 to 225 feet in the planning area.
           The vertical conductivity of the shale is estimated to range
T          from 0.00001 to 0.00005 gpd/ft2.  USGS Technical Report No.
I          16 (1976) indicates an average vertical hydraulic conductivity
           of about  0.00005 gpd/ft2.  The pump test at site No.  1 (Appen-
f          dix 4B) has indicated higher values of vertical conductivity
           (1.13 to  5.9 gpd/ft2) in the lower part of the Maquoketa Group.
           Both upward and downward transfer of water is indicated through
.          this unit.

           Sandstone Aquifer

           Located between the base of the Maquoketa Group and the top
           of the Precambrian basement are the Galena dolomite,  Platte-
           ville limestone, St. Peter sandstone, Eau Claire sandstone
           and the Mount Simon sandstone formation which, together,
           comprise  the sandstone aquifer.

           Reputed thickness in the planning area is at least 1,500  feet.
           This thick hydrogeologic unit is actually a series of separate
           aquifers  which were partially interconnected prior to the de-
           velopment of deep wells.  In the planning area the wells  pene-
           trate 295 feet to 1,275 feet of the aquifer.
                                             Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc.
-------
81-07104-01                                             B-10
The groundwater in the sandstone aquifer is artesian, with a
piezometric surface located within the Niagaran Group.  Recorded
levels range from 415 to 438 feet MSL along the Crosstown Main.
The surface slopes towards Lake Michigan with an approximate
gradient of 0.00085 ft/ft.  It has a 350-foot deep cone of
depression centered under the western part of Milwaukee.  The
coefficient of storage of the sandstone aquifer is reported
to be 0.0004, well within the artesian range.  The groundwater
in the sandstone aquifer is artesian, with the piezometric
surface located within the Niagaran Group.  The artesian head
ranges from 150 feet to 650 feet above the top of the aquifer.
The aquifer discharges into the Niagaran through the Maquoketa
Group in areas where the piezometric surface of the sandstone
aquifer is higher than the piezometric surface of the Niagaran
aquifer.  From USGS Technical Report No. 16  (1976) it is indi-
cated that the uppermost unit of the sandstone aquifer in the
recharge area is the Galena-Platteville unit.  Due to its lower
vertical conductivity (0.005 gpd/ft^), it controls the recharge
to the sandstone aquifer.

Recharge to the sandstone aquifer is (1) from downward movement
of groundwater from the Niagaran aquifer across the Maquoketa
shale due to the leaky nature of the Group,  (2) through wells
open to the overlying dolomite and the sandstone aquifer, and
(3) by movement of water through the aquifer from the west
edge of the Maquoketa shale outcrop.  Groundwater discharge
is mostly to wells.  Where the piezometric head is greater
than that of the overlying dolomitic aquifers, discharge into
the overlying aquifers occurs.  No estimate of the amount of
upward flow has been reported.

Reported well yields from the sandstone aquifer in the Milwaukee
area are up to 1,800 gpm.  Yields are less variable than the
Silurian, Devonian or sand and gravel aquifers due perhaps to
the more uniform permeability of the sandstone aquifer.

Hydraulic conductivity (K) of 74 wells in the sandstone aquifer
in Milwaukee County ranged from 0.43 gpd/ft^ to 30 gpd/ft2 and
averaged about 25 gpd/ft2.  It is reported that transmissivity
of the sandstone aquifer ranges from about 10,000 gpd/ft to
about 25,000 gpd/ft.  The average recharge rate is less than
3,000 gpd/sq.mi.

Wells, drilled into the St. Peter sandstone and the other
deep rock units, are high capacity and have diameters that
range from about 12 inches to over 20 inches.  Water produc-
tion ranges from 100 to over 1,000 gal/min.  Pumpage of the
sandstone aquifer was estimated to be 2.5 MGD in 1880, 19
MGD in 1949, 20 MGD in 1961 and about 18.5 MGD in 1972.
                                   Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc.
-------
           81-07104-01                                              B-ll
           The sandstone aquifer has been used extensively  by  industries
           in the Crosstown Main Corridor.  Most of  these high capacity
           wells are open to both the Silurian dolomite  and the sandstone
           aquifers, but most of the water is produced from the sandstone
           aquifer.  The well inventory has shown that a large number of
           these wells are now inactive or used only as  a standby  water
           supply.  Most industries in the Crosstown Corridor  have switched
           to municipal water supplies.  Very few wells  have been  drilled
           in the last twenty years for industries located  in  the  Menomonee
           River Valley.  The data indicate a general decrease in  drilling
           activity and also tend to show a future decrease in groundwater
           use in the study area.  There is also indicated  a westward
           shift in the groundwater use.  These observations are,  however,
           not confirmed and should be confirmed prior to final conclusions
           regarding the future use of groundwater.
i.
                                              Converse Ward Davis Oixon, Inc.
-------
ADDENDUM TO APPENDIX VI






  LOCAL ALTERNATIVES
-------
ADDENDUM TO APPENDIX VI - LOCAL ALTERNATIVES

1.0  INTRODUCTION

This addendum to the Local Alternatives Appendix of the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement  (EIS) on the MMSD Master
Facilities Plan  (MFP) has been prepared for two purposes.  The
first is to present new analyses in response to comments on the
Draft EIS.  The second is to list corrections, clarifications,
and minor changes to the draft appendix.

Comments on the Draft EIS identified only one area which required
additional detailed analysis.  This analysis, in Section 2.0 of
this addendum, examines the cost-effectiveness of regional versus
local wastewater treatment for the Caddy Vista, Germantown,
Muskego, New Berlin, South Milwaukee, and Thiensville areas.  The
corrections, clarifications, and minor changes to the draft
appendix are contained in Section 3.0 of this addendum,  entitled
Errata.

2.0  REGIONALIZATION VERSUS LOCAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT

2.1  Introduction

In the concluding sections of each local community discussion in
the draft appendix, the impacts of the final Local and Regional
System-Level alternatives for each local community were discussed
and compared.  In general, the comparisons centered around cost,
fiscal impacts, and water quality impacts.  Most other potential
impacts could be avoided or reduced by proper mitigating measures.

The EIS evaluation of the water quality impacts of the MMSD MFP
has been completely revised since the release of the Draft EIS in
November, 1980. A Final Water Quality Appendix has been published
in this volume of the Final EIS.  It should be reviewed for a
detailed explanation of the EIS analyses of the water quality
impacts of the various Local and Regional System-Level alternatives.
The conclusions of that appendix are summarized in Section 2.4 of
this addendum.

The issue of costs, first discussed in the draft appendix, has
also been reevaluated.  The principal shortcoming of the cost
analysis presented in the draft appendix was the apparent inequity
between local and regional costs when analyzed from a single
community's perspective.  Under a local alternative, the total
present worth cost included the costs to construct a wastewater
treatment plant  (WWTP), operate and maintain that WWTP,  and
rehabilitate the local sewer system.  Under the regional alterna-
tive, the total present worth cost included the costs to construct
an interceptor, operate and maintain that interceptor, and
rehabilitate the local sewer system.  The key difference between
                               VI-1
-------
these two costs was that the regional cost to these local
communities did not include treatment costs for the wastewater
flows being treated at the MMSD WWTPs.  The local costs did
include the cost of wastewater treatment.

Since the release of the Draft EIS, the authors of this EIS have
undertaken additional analyses to clarify the true costs to each
local community for the Local and Regional System-Levels.  These
analyses have included a review of the costs of both system-level
alternatives as well as the fiscal impact of each system-level on
the six local communities.  These new data, generated for this
addendum, have been used in conjunction with the revised water
quality evaluations, and the other impacts of the final system-
level alternatives in order to determine the EPA recommended
systems-level alternative.

2.2  Cost

In the June 5, 1980 facility plan the MMSD published total system-
level costs for the final Local and Regional System-Level alter-
natives.  The assumptions made by the MMSD in preparing these
costs are listed below.

0  The size and operational characteristics of the Jones Island
   and South Shore WWTPs are not measurably affected by the
   implementation of either system-level alternative because the
   expected 2005 total average daily base flow (ADBF) to the
   MMSD from the six local communities is 13.5 million gallons
   per day or approximately 6.5% of the total service area ADBF.

o  The MMSD Regional System-Level alternative assumed that the
   South Milwaukee WWTP would operate independently of the MMSD.
   The EIS Regional System-Level alternative assumes that South
   Milwaukee wastewater flows are tributary to the MMSD.  (Further
   reference in this addendum to the Regional System-Level alter-
   native assumes the EIS definition.  The MMSD Regional configura-
   tion is called the Mosaic System-Level alternative.)

0  The Inline Storage alternative with partial sewer separation in
   the combined sewer service area and 48% infiltration/inflow  (I/I)
   removal for the separated sewer service area was the MMSD
   preferred CSO abatement/peak wastewater flow attenuation
   alternative at the time of the June 5, 1980, facility plan.
   Subsequent preliminary Sewer System Evaluation Survey  (SSES)
   results indicate that an I/I removal of only 13% may be cost-
   effective.  Accordingly, the cost of the total program may
   increase because more storage may have to be added to the system
   in order to comply with applicable court orders, in addition,
   if another CSO abatement alternative besides the partial
   separation system used in the Inline Storage alternative is
   implemented, additional changes in total project cost could
   occur.  Nevertheless, all CSO/peak wastewater control alter-
   native cost changes would affect each system-level equally.
                                VI-2
-------
All MMSD costs have been reviewed by EPA, DNR, and the EIS con-
sultant during the preparation of both the Draft and Final EISs.
This review process is explained in greater detail in Chapter 3 of
the Final EIS (Volume 1 of this document) and in Chapter 2 of the
Draft Local Alternatives Appendix.  The conclusion of that review
was that the costs in the facility plan were reasonable and con-
sistent with published cost data.  However, as discussed above,
the comparison of local and regional costs for the six local
communities was not considered complete.  The updated EIS cost
analysis is presented below.

2.2.1  System-Level Costs

The total present worth of the Local System-Level is $1950.11
million.^'  The total present worth of the Regional System-Level
(which includes South Milwaukee flows) is $1896.06 million.D  A
breakdown of these costs is presented in Table A.  This table
shows that approximately 98% of each system-level cost is governed
by fixed costs needed to continue service to those communities
already served by the MMSD.  Although these costs could vary
depending upon the final selection of CSO abatement/peak waste-
water flow attenuation alternatives, the relative cost to connect
the six local communities would still be less than the cost to
upgrade existing WWTPs or construct new WWTPs.  Accordingly, from
a total planning area perspective, the Regional System-Level
alternative is the least cost program.

2.2.2  Local Community Costs

The possibility of allocating MMSD treatment costs to each of the
six local communities under the Regional System-Level alternative
was investigated.  It was concluded that the complexity of the
MMSD system made allocation of specific costs to individual
communities not feasible.  MMSD costs depend not only on the flows
and loads contributed by the various communities discharging to
its system but also depend  on how these flows in combination lead
to the need to rehabilitate various segments of the MIS or certain
processes at the Jones Island and South Shore WWTPs.   It was not
considered possible to allocate the cost of these various rehabil-
itation and expansion programs to individual communities in the
planning area.  Accordingly, the system-level cost analysis was
considered to be the most appropriate level for determining the
cost-effectiveness for the MFP.  Individual community costs were
best evaluated through the fiscal impact analysis.

2.3  Fiscal Impacts

Four different fiscal impact analyses are presented below as a
means of comparing the actual cost to each of the six local
communities under the final Local and Regional System-Level

1)   These costs assume the Inline Storage alternative with 48%
    I/I removal.
                               VI-3
-------
                             TABLE A

                 LOCAL AND REGIONAL SYSTEM-LEVEL
                        PRESENT  WORTH  COSTS
COMMUNITY

MMSD served

   communities

Caddy Vista

Germantown

Muskego

New Berlin

South Milwaukee

Thiensville
REGIONAL COST

Present Worth
($xl06)	

   1866.711
      0.58'
      6.31'
      5.48'
     12.21'
      3.21'
      1.56'
LOCAL COST

Present Worth
($x!06)
   1868.12
          1
                              1896.06
      2.64
     13.17'
     14.57'
     39.43-
      7.01'
      5.17"
                            1950.11
 Includes present worth cost of MIS relief sewers, MIS rehabilitation,
 local sewer rehabilitation for communities currently served by the
 MMSD, CSO abatement, Jones Island expansion and rehabilitation,
 South Shore expansion and rehabilitation, solids management.

 Includes present worth cost of local sewer rehabilitation, local
 share of connection sewers and MIS extensions required to connect
 to MMSD.

 Includes present worth cost of local sewer rehabilitation, new
 local WWTP.

Source:  ESEI, 1981.
                              Vl-4
-------
alternatives. The four analyses are based on the MMSD preferred
financing scenario  (district-wide financing) and three other likely
scenarios.  The four analyses are presented in detail in the
Fiscal/Economic Appendix Addendum (contained in this volume) and
Chapter 5 of the Final EIS  (Volume 1 of this document).  Additional
information may be found in the Draft Fiscal/Economic Appendix.
The four scenarios are briefly defined below.

Local No Funding - Under this scenario, the six local communities
remain separate from the MMSD.  They construct and finance their
own WWTPs by issuing 20-year general obligation (G.O.) bonds at
7% interest.  There is no outside funding.

Local Funding - The six communities remain independent of the
MMSD but receive outside funding which covers 36% of eligible
capital costs.  The remainder of the  project financing is done
by issuing 20-year G.O. bonds at 7% interest.

Individual Community Financing - For this scenario all members of
the MMSD and contract communities would share in the financing of
MMSD capital expenditures (MIS rehabilitation, Jones Island,
South Shore expansion).  The MMSD would receive funding for 36%
of its expenses.  The remainder of MMSD costs would be financed
by Milwaukee County through the sale of 20-year G.O. bonds at 6%
interest.  All communities would finance the rehabilitation of
their local sewer systems and would also receive 36% funding.
(Milwaukee and Shorewood would finance the rehabilitation of their
own CSO systems.)   The remainder of the local rehabilitation costs
would be financed with 7% 20-year G.O. bonds issued by each
municipality.  Caddy Vista,  Germantown, Muskego, New Berlin,
South Milwaukee, and Thiensville would also pay for connector
sewers to the MIS.  These sewers would be funded and financed in
the same manner as the local rehabilitation.

District-Wide Financing - Under this scenario the MMSD assumes
responsibility for financing all MWPAP capital expenditures.
These expenditures include costs to upgrade MMSD facilities as
well as local community sanitary sewers and combined sewers in
Milwaukee and Shorewood.  All MMSD member communities and contract
communities would finance the capital costs not covered by the
36% funding.  This additional financing would be financed by
Milwaukee County through the sale of 20-year G.O.  bonds issued at
6% interest.

The initial fiscal analyses showed that the fiscal impact to the
City of South Milwaukee would be very large if the City were to
connect to the MMSD under the Regional System-Level alternative
with district-wide financing.  The 1985-2005 average annual debt
service to South Milwaukee would be $1,841,000 compared to a local
no funding average annual debt service of $250,000.  For this
reason the Regional System-Level was no longer considered during
the fiscal impact analysis.   The Mosaic System-Level was substi-
tuted instead.
                               VI-5
-------
Table B was constructed based on further analyses of the four
financing scenarios for the Local and Mosaic System-Level alter-
natives.  Review of the table shows that, except for South
Milwaukee, either Mosaic System-Level financing option would have
less of a fiscal impact on the local communities than the Local
Systems-Level alternative with no funding.  However, if the same
(36%) funding is assumed for the local communities as has been
assumed for the MMSD under all fiscal scenarios, it becomes less
of a fiscal burden to Germantown to construct and operate its
own wastewater treatment system.  Although the average annual
debt service for the other four local communities is considerably
lower under the local funding assumption, the Mosaic System-Level
alternative would still result in lower average annual debt service

It should be noted that as MMSD capital costs increase, the
difference between Local and Regional System-Level alternative
fiscal impacts decreases.  However, the additional costs expected
as a result of achieving only 13% I/I removal are not expected to
make any other local community's debt service under the Local
System-Level alternative with or without local funding less than
either of the Mosaic System-Level alternative funding scenarios.

2.4  Water Quality Impacts

The number of effluent discharges under the final Local, Regional,
or Mosaic System-Level alternatives is approximately the same,
although the receiving waters vary between systems-level alterna-
tives.  Under the Mosaic alternative the Jones Island, South
Shore, and South Milwaukee WWTPs would discharge to the Outer
Harbor and Lake Michigan.  The Regional alternative would only
transfer the South Milwaukee discharge loadings to the South
Shore WWTP, which also discharges to Lake Michigan.  Accordingly,
the total pollutant load to Lake Michigan is not changed measur-
ably.  Under the Local System-Level alternative an expanded
Thiensville WWTP would discharge to the Milwaukee River, and an
upgraded Caddy Vista WWTP would discharge to the Root River in
addition to the Jones Island, South Shore, and South Milwaukee
WWTP discharges.  The final Local alternatives for Muskego, New
Berlin, and Germantown involve land application of effluent.

The impacts of the Local and Mosaic System-Level alternatives
with respect to both DNR Water Quality Standards and Recommended
208 Plan Standards are summarized in Table C.  It can be seen
from the summary that there are differences between the two alter-
natives, and the Mosaic System-Level would come closer to meeting
the recommended 208 Plan standards.  The most significant impacts
of both alternatives are the un-ionized ammonia levels in the
Outer Harbor.  This problem and mitigating measures that are being
investigated are addressed further in the Final Water Quality
Appendix, the Jones Island Appendix Addendum, and Chapter 5 of
the Final EIS.

Another common element of both system-levels is the impact to
water quality resulting  from various CSO abatement alternatives.
                                VI-6
-------
ro








































PQ

W
iJ
CQ
j*
fa*
EH




















































CN
tJ
w
>
w
,-q
1
2
W
EH
U3
>H
cn

u
H
<
• CO
rH O
W 2
u
H
>
«
W
CO CO
w
EH H
ffl EH
H H
Q 2
D
rJ 2
<: 2
D O
3 U
&
< J
<
Wi* ^
QJ
O O J
•< r3 W
« >
W W pq
> DC i-}
|< EH 1
s
in OS W
0 O EH
0 CM co
CN IM
CO
1
r-5
in i<
00 CJ
>
7 cn
-P C
Ui
•H
•H U
SH C
-P ro
cn c
•H -H
Q CM


ro
rji
C
•H
U
c
a
c
•H
CM
rH
rfl >i
3 -P
Ti -H
•H C
> 3

T3 I
C 0
H U




ro
C"
C
•H
T3
C
3
P
tM
rH
rO
O
O
^




Cn
C
•H
13
C
3
CM

O
3

rH
rd
O
O
iJ











><
-P
-rl
C
3
g
S
O
u




0 O
0 0
0 0
ȣi **
ro oo
^J












0 O
0 0
o o

f- rH
rr U3
r~-














0 0
o o
0 0
<£> CN
O CN
rH LTI


to-









co o
0 0
0 0
<^ ^
vr> in
<^> rH
rH 00













ro
•P C
tn 5
•H 0
> -P
C
>i rO
T3 g
n3 SH
(d CD
U U




0
o
O
ro
oo
m












o
o
0
^
<=r
r^
IT)














o
o
o
*.
r~
CTi
in












o
o
o
<^
ro
ro
o^

















O
Cn
0)
^
cn
3
2




o
0
o
U3
«*
V£)
^
rH










O
O
0
^
ro
CN
CN
K
rH












o
O
O
ro

cn
C
Q)
•H
£
EH
7
cn
cu
^
3
-P
•H
0-*
XJ
c
cu
Cb
X
CD

Q •
CO -P
2 cn
2 CD
M
(D
• -P
-P C
cn -H
0)
M OV3
CJ VO
-P
C -P
•H (0

C»P cn
r> T3
C
-P O
ro jq

cn c
T3 O
C -H
O -P
X2 <0
in
C -H
O rH
•H ^
•P O
rO
>-« i
CJ» i — I
•H ro
rH >H
X! CD
O C
CD
H O
rO
^i ^
CD fd
C CD
CD >i
U 1
o
!H CN
ro
CD >i
>I-P
1 C
o 3
CM O
U
.c
-p cu
•H 0)
5 -*
3
Cn (d
C 3
•H rH
O -H
C 2
rd
C £!
•H 4J
MH -H
5
rH
ro T3
a CD
•H O
u c
•H ro
C C
3 -H
2 UH
rH
































•
rH
rd
>
O
g
CD
SH

H
\
H

dp
CO
^r

£
-P
•H
3

(D
>
•H
-P
rd
C
SH
CD
-P
rH
rd

CD
Cn
rd
SH
0
-P
cn
Cn
CD C
G -H
•H t3
rH C
C 3
H 14H

CD *>
£, ^0
4-> ro

cn cn
CD CD
g g
3 3
cn cn
cn cn
< <
CN ro
























t
cn
0)
>
-H
4J
ro
C
SH
CD
-P
rH
fO

rH
r-H
(0

SH
(D
T3
C

cn
QJ
•H
-P
•H
rH
•H
U
ro
MH

CD
4->
rO
SH
id
a
CD
cn

cn
CD
-P
rO
in
cu
a.
o

CD
CD
X
3
rO
3
rH
•rH
2

£
-P
3
O
cn
T








































































•
rH
CO

rH

^.
(H
w
CO
w


• 4
-------
TABLE C
AIC SYSTEM-LEVEL WATER QUALITY IMPACTS
SOURCE DNR STANDARDS RECOMMENDED 208 STANDARDS
en EH
O 13
2 W

t—l t— J
f3* fo
2 Cn
H W
rH
T)
CD
4-1
rtJ
rH
O
•H
>
to
3
S-i
0
X!
CL
to
O
XI
a
CD
rH
rH
CD
n5

0
to
•H
r0

O
c
Cn







04
W
EH
rfj
g

O
J2
H
£>
H
W
CJ
W
04
$-1
CD
>
•H
04

CD
CD

3
(0
3

•H
2
4-1
rH
(C
4-1
iH
(0
Cn

•H
04

0)
CU
G
O
g
o
G

2
4-1
CD
rH
H

1
rH
•H
CD
Cn
S-l
03
XI
o
tn
•H
T3

O
c






CD
CD
S-l
U

to
SH
CD
C
S-l
O
U

tn
tn
Q)
EH
arge all met phosphorus violated
x;
o
tn
•H
T3

O
G













SH
CD
£>
•H
04

-P
0
O
04
land all met except no standards
for toxicity
levels for un-
to
H

to
CD
C
O
>~3











SH
O

SH
nj
vC

SH
CD
4J
£3
0
ionized ammonia
ore all met except no standards
Iwaukee possibly toxicity
levels for un-
ionized ammonia
XI -M


XI X!
-P 4J
3 3
O O
cn en










c
nj
Cn
•H
X!
O
•H
2

CD

(0
,H
CD
g
rH
rH
0)
rH
rH
ttj
CD
Cn
S-l
x;
u
tn
•H
rQ

o
c







OJ

(tJ
ij

o
Cn
cu
£4
tn
3
2

Cn
•H
CQ
cn
CD
CJ
SH
3
O
to

g
ITS
CD
SH
4J
to
a
3
O
4J

CD
3
rQ

C
o
•H
4-)
(Tj
H
O
•r-l
£>
rH
VI-8
-------
































^^
13
Q)
3
C
•H
-P
G
O
O
• — •



















in
EH
CJ
<
d,
s
M

>H
EH
M
J
<
D
O

P^
M
E-H
rtj
3

J
W
<
Q
2
<
EH
en

00
0
CN

Q
W
Q
2

s
§
O
U
W
«


r- 1
13
(U
4-1
(d
rH
O
•H
>

tn
3
SH
0
X!
QJ
tn
0
X!
a








in
Q
«
<
Q
j2


0)
G
-H
SH
O
H
XI
D













\
4-1
(U
g

rH
rH
id


rH
T3


tn
3
SH
0
X!
a
tn
0
X!
a































tn
13
SH
IT3
T3
G
(d
4->
tn

O
G


tn
rH
0)
>
0)
4-> rH
a
0) >1
0 -P
X -rl
0) U
•rl
•P X
0) O
g ^

rH SH
rH O
id 4n





























T3
OJ
N
•H
C
o
•H
i id
C -rl
3 G
O
rt g
O g
UH id










tn
13
SH
id
13
C
id
4-1
tn

O
C







4-1
a
0)
o
X
0)

4J
CJ
g

rH
rH
id


























>1
4-1
•H
O
•rl
X
0
4-1

>l
rH
X!
•H
en
tn
O




























 c
cu o
ft«H -H
CJ   W
W

03
YSTEM-
en

(_}

u
2
H
£>
H
W
CJ
W

rl
•rl

0)
0)
^*
3
id
5
rH
•H
s
SH
0)
•H
0!

OJ
0)
S
O
G
(1)
S

jg
0)
cu
^j
u

i_l
0)
0)
Q
X
0)
0)
SH
CJ
tn
fl)
C
(_l
0
CJ

tn
tn
0)
EH

(H
0)
>
•rl
OH

4J
O
0

 C
 id
rH
 tn
H

 in
 CO
 c
 o
                                                    rl
                                                    O
                                                    X!
                                                    SH
                                                    (d
                                                    ffi

                                                    SH
                                                    0)
                                                    -P
   
-------
However, this water quality issue does not affect the Local versus
Regional versus Mosaic decision.


2.5  EPA Recommendation

The EPA, in accordance with the provisions of the National Environ-
mental Policy Act (NEPA),  is required to select a recommended plan
as part of its EIS process.  Based on the impact analysis presented
in the Final EIS, the draft appendices and the summary presented
in this addendum, the EPA recommends the Mosiac System-Level con-
figuration for providing wastewater treatment in the MMSD planning
area.  This decision is based principally on the following reasons.

0  The Mosaic System-Level alternative has a present worth of
   approximately $50 million less than the Local System-Level
   alternative.

0  Although the Mosaic System-Level alternative is slightly more
   expensive than the Regional System-Level alternative  ($3.8
   million), the reduced fiscal impact to South Milwaukee, the
   minimal adverse effect on water quality, and the reduced con-
   struction impacts of the Mosaic alternative more than offset
   this small cost increase.

0  The Mosaic System-Level alternative is in conformance with the
   recommendations of the 208 Plan, which has been approved by the
   DNR, the Governor of Wisconsin, and the EPA.

0  Less energy and resources are required under the Mosaic System-
   Level alternative.

3.0  ERRATA

The following is a listing of corrections, clarifications, and
minor changes to be made to the Draft Local Alternatives Appendix.
All errata are listed consecutively by page.

Page ii:

     Insert;  "5-7  Muskego Regional Alternative Conveyance
     from Northwest to Northeast WWTP".

Page 1-2, Paragraph 3:

     Line 8;  Change "study team" to "consultant".  This change
     will carry throughout the remainder of the text.

Page 1-3, Paragraph 4:

     Line 8;  Change "goals" to "standards".
                               VI-10
-------
Page 1-4, Paragraph 1:

     Insert the following paragraph after paragraph 1;  "There is
     one other public WWTP in the planning area.  The Hales Corners
     WWTP serves a portion of the sanitary service area of the
     Village.  The plant is owned by the MMSD but is operated by
     the Hales  Corners'  Public Works Department.   Presently the MIS
     system is being expanded into the Village of Hales Corners.
     Upon completion of this interceptor expansion, the existing
     WWTP will be abandoned.  Accordingly, there will not be
     further discussion of this WWTP in this appendix."

Page 1-4, Paragraph 4:

     Line 9:  The final sentence of this paragraph should be
     modified to read, "The final Master Facility Plan upon
     approval by the EPA and the DNR can serve as a basis for
     amending the currently approved 208 Plan."

Page 3-1, Paragraph 3:

     Line 5:  Change "properly" to "property".

Page 3-3, Table:

     Line 9;  Change "6-7.2" to "6-7.4".

Page 3-9, Paragraph 4:

     Line 6;  Delete "treatment plants  (Jones Island and
     South Shore)".

Page 4-1, Paragraph 2:

     Line 4;  Change "form" to "from".

Page 4-1, Paragraph 3:

     Line 1:  The first sentence of the paragraph should be
     modified to read, "The Germantown WWTP is located to the
     west of the Old Village area of Germantown, at the west end
     of Main Street."

Page 4-5, Paragraph 4:

     Line 3;  Change both "AWT" statements to "AST".

Page 4-6, Table:

     Line 1;  Change "Treatment Capital Cost" to "Treatment and
     Conveyance Capital Cost".

     Line 7;  Change "10.00" to "19.00".
                                VI-11
-------
Page 4-6, Paragraph 2:

     Line 1:  Change "reasons" to "reason".

Pages 4-8 and 4-9:

     Pages should be exchanged.

Page 4-11, Paragraph 2:

     Line 5;  Change "children" to "infants".  The next sentence
     should be modified to read, "If high nitrate concentrations
     were found (the U.S. Public Health Service has set a 10 mg/1
     NC-3-N limit in the 1962 Drinking Water Standards) , the
     polluted groundwater could be pumped to the surface and dis-
     charged to a surface water."

Page 5-3, Paragraph 2:

     Line 6;  The following text should be added between lines
     6 and 7, "... is 13.7 days.  Waste solids from the clarifers
     are pumped to...".

Page 5-3, Paragraph 3:

     Line 1;  Change "Norhteast" to Northeast".

Page 5-6, Paragraph 1:

     Line 10;  Change "$3.20" to $3.77".

Page 5-8, Paragraph 1:

     Line 1;  The first line of the first sentence should be
     modified to read, "In conjunction with the nonpoint source
     controls of the 208 Plan, DNR water quality standards
     would...".

     Line 13;  Change "$0.205" to "$0.285".

Page 5-14, Paragraph 5:

     Line 5;  Change "5.83" to "$3.83".

Page 5-17, Paragraph 1:

     Line 9;  Change "agriculutral" to "agricultural".

Page 5-17, Paragraph 6:

     Change the second and third sentences to read, "The force
     main would run from the new plant northeast on Woods Road to
     its junction with Tess Corners Creek.  The construction of
                                VI-12
-------
     this force main would cause some traffic disruption on Woods
     Road."

Following Page 5-18, Figure 5-4:

     Replace with the attached Figure 5-4.

Page 5-24:

     This page was not included in some copies of the draft
     appendix.  Paragraph 2,  lines 20 and 21 have also been
     modified.  The entire page with corrections is as follows:
     "5.3.1.3  Feasible Alternatives

     5.3.1.3.1  Upgrade Treatment, Discharge to Tess Corners Creek:
     A new WWTP discharging to Tess Corners Creek would require
     mechanical bar screens followed by an aerated grit chamber,
     primary clarifiers, first stage aeration basins, intermediate
     clarifiers,  second stage aeration basins for ammonia removal,
     final  clarifiers, filters and chlorination and postaeration
     basins.  Solids would be anaerobically digested, mechanically
     dewatered and land applied or landfilled.

     The construction of the plant would cause short-term impacts
     due to noise and dust.  Because the plant would be located in
     a relatively isolated area, these impacts would be minimized.
     The plant could make the development of residential housing
     north  of McShane Road less desirable.  The new plant would
     meet WPDES effluent limits.  In conjunction with the 208 Plan,
     water quality standards would be met in this reach of Tess
     Corners Creek, except for occasional un-ionized ammonia viola-
     tions  which could occur during QV-IQ flow conditions, depend-
     ing on the temperature and pH conditions of the creek.  The
     increased phosphorus loads from the plant would contribute to
     the long-term eutrophication of Whitnall Park Pond and the
     Root River.   The MMSD concluded that 208 Plan recommended
     water quality goals for un-ionized ammonia and phosphorus
     would  not be met in Tess Corners Creek.  The conveyance
     system connecting the abandoned Muskego Northwest WWTP to the
     new Northeast WWTP would consist of 8,000 feet of 12-inch
     force  main,  5,250 feet of 24-inch gravity sewer, and a lift
     station.  The conveyance route would run from the abandoned
     Northwest plant northeast along Woods Road to Mystic Drive,
     south  on Mystic Drive to a point directly west of McShane
     Road extended, east across an easement, and then along
     McShane Road to the new plant.  Construction of the force
     main would be at a typical depth of 6 feet.  Gravity sewers
     would  be constructed by open cut methods at a depth of 21 to
     26 feet.  Construction impacts along the conveyance route
     would  be short-term and mostly along existing roadways.   In-
     convenience and disruption would be greatest during the con-
     struction through the housing area on Mystic Drive .  This
     conveyance route is shown in Figure 5-6.
                               VI-13
-------
VI-14
-------
     The total present worth of this alternative including the
     new WWTP, conveyance, and local sewer rehabilitation would be
     $16.72 million.  The annual O&M would be $0.448 million.

     5.3.1.3.2  Land Application - Infiltration/Percolation:  The
     impacts of an infiltration/percolation system for the new
     Northeast WWTP serving all of Muskego would be very similar
     to those for the infiltration/percolation system serving only
     northeastern"

Following Page 5-24, Figure 5-6:

     Replace with attached Figure 5-6.

Page 5-26, Paragraph 1:

     Line 2;  Insert "infiltration/percolation" after "sewer".

Page 5-28, Paragraph 2:

     Line 4;  Change "identical" to "similar".

     Line 5;  Insert "The connector would run along Woods Road to
     Mystic Drive, south on Mystic Drive to Roger Drive, and east
     along Roger Drive and Easy Street to the existing Northeast
     plant site.  The route is shown on Figure 5-7." after
     "Alternative B.".

     Line 10:  Change the second "to" to "of".

Following Page 5-28:

     Insert attached Figure 5-7.

Page 5-29, Paragraph 2:

     Line 4:  Change "$5.65" to "$5.48".

     Line 5;  Change "$0.044" to "$0.069".

Page 5-29, Table:

     Line 9;  Change "5.65" to "5.48".

Page 6-1, Paragraph 4:

     Line 2:  Change "282" to "782".

Page 6-5, Paragraph 4:

     Line 1:  Change "6.2.1.2" to "6.2.1.1.2".
                                VI-15
-------
•VI-16
-------
VI-17
-------
Page 6-13, Paragraph 2:

     Line 2:  Change "(AWT)" to "(AST)".

Page 6-13, Paragraph 3:

     Line 2:  Change "AWT" to "AST".

Page 6-14, Paragraph 2,

     Line 5:  Change "Greenfield Avenue"  to "Needham Drive".

Page 6-14, Paragraph 4:

     Line 6;  Change "interceptor" to "interceptors".

Page 6-17, Paragraph 1:

     Line 9:  Change "30-" to "27-".

Page 6-25, Paragraph 6:

     Line 2:  Change "Thiensville" to "New Berlin".

Page 7-1, Paragraph 5:

     Line 4;  Insert the following sentence after the second
     sentence in the paragraph.  "Phosphorus removal is
     accomplished by chemical addition prior to primary clarifi-
     cation. "

Page 7-1, Paragraph 6:

     Line 2;  Permit number should be "WI-0028819-2".

Page 7-6, Paragraph 4:

     Line 6;  Insert "South" prior to "Milwaukee".

     Line 8:  Delete "and the City of Milwaukee." from sentence
     2 of the paragraph.

Page 8-1, Paragraph 2:

     Line 2:  Change "18-" to "15-".

Page 805, Paragraph 1:

     Line 5;  Change "0+M" to "O&M".

Page 8-5, Paragraph 5:

     Line 2:  The second sentence of  the  paragraph should be
                                 Vi-18
-------
     modified to read, "The route of the connector sewer would
     start at the existing pump station located on Cedarburg Road
     (State Route 57) about 600 feet south of Friestadt Road
     (County Road M)."

Page 8-6, Paragraph 0 -

     Line 3;  Change "$2.04" to "$1.61".

     Line 4:  Change "$0.002" to "$0.001".

Page 806, Table:

     Line 14;  Change "2.04" to "1.61".  Change "1,600" to
     "1,200".

Page 9-2, Paragraph 1:

     Line 4;  Insert the following sentence after the second
     sentence of the paragraph.  "However, sanitary wastes are
     discharged only through outfall No. 9."

Page 9-2, Paragraph 2:

     Line 1;  Insert "were" after "WWTP".

Page 9-5, Paragraph 3:

     Line 5;  Delete the last two sentences,  Insert, "It should
     be noted that the City of Mequon plans to extend its local
     sewer system to a point where substantially less than 4,000
     feet of force main would be needed for the School Sisters of
     Notre Dame to connect to that local system.  The 208 Plan has
     recommended that the academy connect to the local public
     system at that time."

Page 9-7, Paragraph 5:

     Line 2;  Permit number should be "WI-0052272-2".

Page 9-8, Paragraph 5:

     Line 4;  Delete "on the northwest corner of the company's
     property".

     Line 7:  Insert "The owner of this land is amenable to
     leasing the land to the rendering company for land applica-
     tion."

Page 9-9, Paragraph 2:

     Line 6;  Change "6,900" to "9,600".
                                Vl-19
-------
Page 9-12, Paragraph 2:

     Line 1;  Delete first two sentences.  Replace with:  "The
     original WPDES permit (WI-0022977)  expired June 30, 1977.
     Since that date, ownership of the truck stop has changed.
     The new owners have not applied for a new discharge permit.
     Currently, litigation is underway by the DNR against the
     new owners of the truck stop for illegal pollutant discharge."

Page 9-14, Paragraph 2:

     Line 2;  Modify the second sentence to read, "This permit
     will expire June 30, 1982."

Pages 11-2 through 11-6, Table 11-1:

     This table has been updated with corrections and additional
     data.  See enclosed revised Table 11-1.

Following page 11-6, Figure 11-1:

     See attached modified figure for corrections.

Following page 11-6, Figure 11-2:

     See attached modified figure for corrections.
                                 Vi-20
-------
 \
H
P3
    O H
    CJ a)















Impacts






01
>
• H
JJ
flj
C

0)
JJ
^

rH
id
C
-H
fa



>
C
3
|
Q

x^
JJ
C
rH
C.
0 0)
M— I i j
-P rH
a o
(1) -H
0 >
X
0) T3 fd
M 0)
C 4J id M
10 o) t3 id 'U
s c r™*
cr id cr 3
C 0) 4J C 0
0 A Bl -H 3
rH C
10 ^ CO C ^
rH 3 Id O1
Short-term construction impacts.
Existing plant would be abandoned.
New plant would be built on existing property
area currently zoned as a recreational park.
Plant would meet WPDES effluent limits.
All existing DNR water quality standards wou
chlorine and phosphorus standards. Phosphor
due to discharges from WWTPs outside MMSD pi
> Bypassing of untreated or poorly treated sewa
be eliminated.
p Present Worth = $2.64 x 10 .











4J
~
£
tf 0
?* t.
£M 

Q. !H O
D Q OS

03
4J
w
•H


^^
IT?
-a
«
o

^
0)
•rH
OH *
u)
(1) CT
C ^
0 ^
0 >
C fli
(U _? .
^ 4J fQ
, rH
A 0
U
C >H
O 0)
JJ \
fO C
U 0
•rt -r(
rH JJ
a id
a M
< jj
f*H
•O -H
c y~i
3 £


g
o
JJ
c
id

^
0)
o







c
I
-p D
OJ 0
e w s
jj
-H '
D -H QJ

^ ftJ
rH 
id
rH JJ
0 id
0
c s-i tn
0 4) C
•H ft, 0
JJ \ 0
id c cr
O 0 id
•H -H J
rH JJ
Cu id T3
CU >H 0)
< JJ JJ
T3 -H U
C tn 0)
3C <
M *"•*
PQ
0)
O >
(1) JJ
fX id
w c
3 M
S 0)
JJ
rH
^

                                           Vl-21
-------
      to
      JJ
      o

-    I
4-1

0
U
H
i4
CQ
01
0)

•H
4J
      0)
      4-1
      o
      3



























4J
O
18
a,
£
HH





















OJ

•H
JJ
 d)
rH W
•H U
«-! tO
C
•H in
rH
d) rH

O C
(0 0

rH T3
• O
^^ -W
(8
r- u
0
ceo
(0 0) C rH
A C
C i-i X
0 T3 d) •
0 rH > >. P~
0* 3 tj^ u~)
<0 0 C O •
rH 3 -rl rH *T
0 rH
T3 tn T3 C 
0) T3 C -C
4J C (0 O II
<3 O rH d)
^4 a 4J *C
d) rH JJ
to c to dJ w
0 r4 > C
1) -H 3 -H 3
W 4J 4-1 4J
CJ fO rH ftj JJ
IB ^ 3 C C
0 O r4 0)
CN u •« o tn
(N t-l H 4J d)
0) tjl rH JH
< !i IB < a.

























0 —

0) 4-1

tfl 0
3 CJ
iS ^"*




0
01
(0
• £
A! C
a) T> o
0) rH -H
r-l 3 4J
U 0 10
3 U
X-l "*H
Q) 4J rH
0) HI Q,
a a
10
c •

en c
4J O (0 T3
0) rH rH 0)
* £ G
U5 O 0) 0
JJ m XJ £ TJ
tn jjj jj c
•r4 rQ . [^
X T, -H c XT XJ
 4) • XJ
O -iH •* T3 > JJ >•
IB 4J .. c c ja T>C
CwCfT-ifB^J-llO rHO
£d>Pf-^OrH17J 3rH
•H 4J jj & (1) 0
0 ,g rH C > 3 X

4J 0 JJ 4J 4J - ^"
4J rH JJ -H CU TI S CO
Ul rH -H )j g rH S ||
C O ^ IT O H-> 3 O
U 3 tu 3 £ JJ 4J
Vj Cr u-i 4J 4J a i-i
Ed) OTJCC cuo
V4 4J r-l QJ dj '"H T! CO 3

4j34-id)3C^(Ocr4J
1 T3 fl W O 0 d) C C
JJC ScjCD'OCQjJ *H d)
OOK (8 3 IB ••- 0)
W C! Q CD X2 tf Z C. Ci4 0.

C
0
4J
(0
>. rH
ja o
o
c ^
0 d)
•H CU
(fl C
U 0
•H -H
i-* 4->
O fQ
a M
< jj

T3 *H
C ^
m C

—
to
C r-l d)
•H 0 >
rH C -H
M 18 JJ
d) 2 (0
OP C
r-t SH
3 (0 0)
0) Cn JJ
2 d) rH
« <



a TJ
•H rH
3
JJ C \
gj 3 c
e o
rO -rH
0) 'c JJ "H
XJ 10 10 C
rH JhJ
r0 JJ C/l .
rH T3 -4 dJ JJ
3 d) -H V- C
O C M-l C 10
3 0 C 10 rH
N -H -a
tO C TJ
rrt ^^ ^ PO ^ C
• ^ rH Vj !N C 3
to to -HO 0 C
4-J rrjj (0 (0 C • ^
to c -i c "u c to
•H frt JJ CN d) 10 JJ
X 4J C . -D C J3 •-
d) (/] di co d) C 'O
COrHx. -H rHfO CO JJ
JJiOfj W (NO IOJJ (0
O -H -rj d) 0 J2 W_ •
ac^g cc — ao
EdJ-3 >U !Od)CrHtO>(Cm
•-*C_S (-1—0.3 DECT •'T
JJOti OH CCCOCC-
U •« S (Od)d!3-"3J-— 3c>
3JJ _j^^ COOC^
>H 3 .y, [1 IB en T! 4J >• c •
4J rH JH r-1 3HnOCCtOjC'O
CO^ 2jJQrHrHQQ)3
oa >- cna {X-HJJQ^
Og1 rHC r-J-3JJ
UCJ d)-r4d)C(Oi-cC
WjjJJd) iO T3 U -H D c tn -H — i 3

JjS'rj^ -|H rQ (0—»S!TlOS-"JJ
i>nxcj xdirH^HS cccuc
4-ICd) OdJ'COrH -fH i-t rTi Hi
>43 r-l UCCNCJ-HtOrHd) W
OC^dJ O rHiHWrj' '"H JJ 3 dJ


c
0
JJ
(0

0
o
C V-
0 d)
~H a
to c
0 0
•rt -r4
rH JJ
a 
•-I 01 -H
iJ. (8 4->
d) d) tO
03 ,C C
4_> ^
33d)
d) O 4-1
2 W H
f<£

                                                           Vl-22
-------
4-1


0
CJ
cq
 cn
4-1
 u
 ra


I

 cn
 0)

•H
4-1
 ra
 c
 iH
 0)
4J
1

















- cn
Impact





4)
•H
C
i^
4)

-
^

1 — 1
r»
5
t.



>.
c
3
6
o
4-J

"3
r^
o.


















.
impacts

ruction
4J
CO
C
0
0
c
• Short-ten



c
•rt
^

C


T3
18
a
X
u


41
rH
01
4)
•H

p"












Si

>J
o

0
4J
T:
c
18
rH
S
C.
0
0
4J
c

xpanded
4i
I
-^
• Plant wou!




o


41

SH
r3
o
01
Q


























CO
4J
rH
f fluent

•H
4-1
 rfl
 c
 SH
 01
                                                                                                 0
                                                                                                •H
                                                                                                4-1
                                                                                                 U
                                                                                                 01
                                                                                                 c

                                                                                                 o
                                                                                                u



























cn
•p
u
ra
c*
























• H
4J
ra
c
01
4-1
<
rH
(13
c
•rH

>
4J
•H
c
3
£
Q
0
^x
.u
C
(8
rH

01

| 1

O

CT1
C
cn
01
0
S-I
o

ra

CT1
C
•H
T3
3
rH
U
C
•H

CO
-P
O
ra
a
e
'
c
0
•H
4-1
0
3
M
4J
cn
c
o
o

a^_j
01
01 >
4-> -H
1 tX
4-1
SH -P
0 0
£ 0
CO K

Q
CO
s
2
O
o
01
G
C
O
U
ra
4-1
cn
•H
>

>1
T3
'O

0
























.
T3
0)
C
O

G
ra

0)
A

qrj
rH
3
0


Jj
c

rH
ft

Cn
C
•H
-p
cn
•H
X
w


































•
T3
01
4J
ra
q
•H
e
•H
H
4)

01
-Q

T3
rH
3
O

SH
0)
^
•H
K

4-1
0
O
CCi

O
4-J

0)
CT>

ra
-C
U
cn
•H
Q




















cn
0)
cn
M
m
o
cn
•rH
'O
£
(8
a>
SH
4->
CO
ft
3

O
^ 1

Cr'
3
r^J

T3
0)
4-1
ra
rH
o
•iH
cn

rH

rrj
C
n3
4-1
cn

CO
3
iH
0

ft
CO
0

ft

CA

















































.
ra
0)
ra
Cn
C
•rH
C
C
ra
i-H
ft

Q
w
y
§

UH
O

4)

•H
CO
4J
3
C




































•
-p
G
0)
g
-P
rO
0)
rH
4-1

0)
CT1
n3
3
0)
CO
^
UH
o

i-H
0

4J
C
0
o

rH
ra
0
0
rH

14-4
o

cn
CO
a



















































^
j
o
rH
X
CO
l/l
•
o
co-

ll

r\
4J
iH
O
5

4-1
G
01
cn
0)
SH
cu




















                                                                             VI-2 3
-------
4-1

0
o
ffl
     O
     03
     Oi
     01
     D
     03
     o
     •r-l
     4J
     U
     0)
     C

     O
     o





























•^
.LJ
U
J5
, S
t—i
























>
•H
4->

c
r-i
0)
-P
rH
p£

r-|

1
fa
U
3
cjj
0
t^J
\_
Jj
c
fl
C.
iH
0)
>
K
•
QJ Ul
OJ rH
C fT3
o o
e en
o
c «
1) 2
S Q

0) 4J
£ 0)
•P 0)
G E
•H  SH

• 0) rH K
cn c 3 a)
4J 0 0 0) 31
O T3 3 0) 03
03 C C 3
ft (0 01 O CD
£ X! T3 g 10 •
•H 03 SH 0  O rH
0 X! C S X
•H 03 rH rH
4-1 T3 -P 0) 0 ^
O r-t CO £ !-| •
33 4-1 4-1 ^
in 0 >i C 
4-i 3 4-> C O
01 -H -r-t U II
C 4-> rH
O C OS >, rH JS
O (0 3 4-> 03 4-1
rH P< -H O SH
g ft rH 0 0
H S-l 03 r-l 3
0) PI 0) 3
4-1 G 4-1 O1 M-l 4J
1 -H 03 0 C
4J 4J 3 S-l CD
S-( 01 0) Oi 01
0 -H PH 4-1 01 0)
£ X 2 03 O i-l
W Ed Q 3 J CM

Q

*?
2

0
•P

) i
O
0)
c
G
8

c
o
4-1
c
03

£J
0)
o



01
3
K 0 •
2 fC T3
P ft 0)
pi CO 4J
c 4-i o ta
•H 01 45 C
4-1 0) ft -H
(0 g E
C 01 -H
•H rrj 4-1 rH
g rH -HO)
•H 3
rH O T! 0)
01 3 C XI
03
» A! T3
0) 0) 0) 3 •
c H c o 4-i
0 U O 3 C
*"O ^ OJ
C 01 C 0) E
03 ,G 03 ^ 4J
XI EH XI 03 03
03 (0 i ~\ 0)
^
0) • 0) O 4-1

cn 0) 0) 0)
4-1 T3 0) ^ ^ CJl
U iH i-l rH 0] 03
03 3 tj 333-
ft O 0 IS Ci>D
E 3 01 3 oi o
•H iH tT1 rH
•p 0) • 4-1 -H 4-4
Gcc«i craox
0 03 SH t3 03
•HrH O^rH QrHCO
4J£ltO03fit4J 0^
U rO SH '
34-lCOG4-1014J^l
r4 01 01 03 CO T3 G ^*
4J rt3 0) -P Cl) 03 0
COCUSnO! 3OOII
ex; x; rn
O 4-1 O >i 4-1 rH £
OiH4-l4-)iHG034-l
O -H 0 OJ O i-l
SSoirHScyioo
SH 0) 03 O rH S
CU tji pi 3 tTi !H
-PCiHCTl4H4-l
1 -H 03 -H -r-i 0 G
4J 4-1 A !H 4-1 C 0)
SH 01 o o) cn cn cn
0 -H 01 4J -H T3 CO 0)
5 S 3 £ 3 § S £
• • ™ * "
p
^Tl
§
§

0
-P

-p
U
0)
c
G
8

o
0)

CO
3
2






^
0)
0)
£•4
o

0)
.c



.
01
T)
iH •
03 ^
13 a
G 0)
03 >,
4-J • •
W 0) T3 -P
x: o) c
>i 4-1 G 01
• 4-1 OS

0) rH 0 C 03
C 03 (00)
0 3 4J X! SH
T3 O"1 0) 03 4-)
• C O
CO 03 !-i g 0) 01
•p X! 0) X! CJi
O 03 4J >i 03
fH fO M "^3 15*0
ft 01 3 T3 rH 0) O
£ XI 3 CO rH
•H K T3 O
T3 S C 3 >*H X
C rH Q 03 O
O 3 CO rH
•H O -P 4J g rH CM
4-1 3 0) C 0) O •
O 0) 0) 4-1 SH CN
3 4J g 4J CO -P rH
S-l C 4-1 >i C 
4J (0 fQ -H 0) O
CO rH rH g O II
C CM 3 H U
O 0 0) -H rH JC
O CO 3 4-1 -P 03 4J
i-l C ft 0 i-l
£ 0 ,X -H 0) 0 O
)H C 0) 0) rH 3
0) 03 0) 0)
4-1 2 iH X! PI 4H 4-1
1 U GOG
4-1 rH t) -ft 0)
w (0 s-i iH r-i cn 01
0 PI 0) 3 -H cn o)
£ 0) 0) 0 03 0 in
CO PH Q S Cl-i rr-4 f^

Q
CO
s
s

0
4->

4-1
O
0)
c
G
0
U

C
•H
rH
SH
0)
CO

3
CU
J2


                                                     Vi-24
-------
4J
C
O
u
CQ
      tn
      4J
      u
      id
      ft
tn
01

•H
4-1
id

SH
0)
      O
     •H
      4J
      Q
      01
      G

      0
      U




























:±
^
, I"

























?
— '
2
£
0)
.p
rH
(^

01
rH
Q
• ^
tn
id
0)
Eu
U
c
3
E
£
0
CJ
^^
4-J
C
0
c_







•

















(
en
4J
u
id
ft
g
•rH

C
o
•rH
4-1
U
3
SH
4-1
en
C
0
o



01
4-1
1
4-1
SH
0
,C
01

Q
W
i
o
-P

_p
o
0)
c
c
o
u




01
rH
rH
•H

tn
c
cu
•H
^
CM

























•
TJ
0)
C
0

c



T)

3
O


1 i
G
id

ft

CJ1
c
-H
4->
en
•H
X
W































0)
4J
c
•H

4-1
5
• 0)

01

(d r— 1
G 3
•rH 0
g 3
•H
rH W
01 ^3
^
0) id
f"j r£J
G

rH 4-1
3 tn
0

4J
SH "H
01 r-H
> id
•H 3
« D1

0) !H
0) 01
^ 4-)
O 'O
id 3

rH OS .
•H S r)
S Q 01

O CT1 'H
4J C «
•iH
0) 4-1 0)
CTI en 0)
SH -H .M
id X 3
^H o) id
O 3
W rH rH
•H rH -r-t
Q 
0
O II

1 	 ( rG
id 4->
O SH
O 0
rH 3

MH 4J
0 C
01
tn en
en 0)
0 SH
i ] p |























































t
tn
4J
O
nj
ft
•H

C
0
•H
4-J
O
3
!H
4-1
W
q
0
Q

P
^
0)
4-1
1
4J
S«|
0
en

Q
CO
S
o
4J

4J
O
QJ
C
G
O
U




0)
0)
3
H
3
0
W

4-J
C
•H
0






























0)
0
en
f,
4J
3
O
01
,G
4-1

4-1
Id

T3
cy
4J
id
0)
SH
4J

01
,£3

rrj
rH
3
0
3
rl
01
4-J
id
3
0)
4-1
en
id
3

0)
0)
^
3
(3
3
r-H
•rH
2

,£
4J
3
0











































•
C
Q)
""0
M
D
,Q

rH
H
O
2

4->
C
01
tn
01
SH
CM






























                                                        Vi-25
-------
                                                                                   LEGEND
                                                                                 STUDY AREA BOUNDARY

                                                                                 COUNTY LINE

                                                                                 CORPORATE BOUNDARIES

                                                                             - --  WATER RIVERS. GREEKS, ETC

                                                                                 MAJOR HIGHWAYS

                                                                           .......  MMSO LIMITS

                                                                                 2005 AREA SERVED at M M S 0.

                                                                           n*«»xtj  COMBINED SFWER StRViCE AREA

                                                                                 PUBLIC TREATMENT PLANTS



                                                                                 PUMP STATIONS TO BE UPGRADED

                                                                                 NEW CONVEYANCE TO BE CONSTR'O

                                                                                 CONVEYANCE PRESENTLY BEING
                                                                                 DESIGNED OR CONSTRUCTED

                                                                                 CONNECTING SEWER
     •»x/"-
  GERMA&TOW
IS  •  7%
-\  Y\ "•
                                                                                         oOOU   iOOC
FIGURE
     ll-l
DATE

 APRIL 1981
     SERVICE  AREA and FACILITY MAP
      of the REGIONAL  ALTERNATIVE
                                VI-26
                                                                 SOURCE  MMSD
PREPARED BY
       EC
       ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
s'nEcolSciences
'""'I ENVIRONMENTAL  GROUP
-------
LEGEND

	
	
_- _-
—® —
	
dBE&SSj&il
i, ,.:j
lo»li*iJ
+
O
A
	
....
— —
STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
COUNTY UNE
CORPORATE BOUNDARIES
WATER DIVERS, CREEKS, ETC
MAJOR HIGHWAYS
MMSD LIMITS
2005 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
CONVEYANCE PRESENTLY BEING
DESIGNED OR CONSTRUCTED
CONNECTING SEWER
                        New
                        Berlin,   I,
                        Southeo.it. I
              —  ;—\-T~~  -— - - -»— A-^^
              -,-    ,,«,
                                                                   »01>tM p*

                                                                     'Hw South Milwaukee WWTP
                               RACINE   COUNTY    J     C	
                                                                         OpWisconsm Electric
                                                                            Power Co.
FIGURE

    11-2
DATE


 APRIL 1981
SERVICE AREA and FACILITY  MAP
   of the LOCAL ALTERNATIVE
                                                    SOURCE
PREPARED BY

      EC
       ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
BTlEcolSciences
^"« ENVIRDNMFNTAI RRnilB
-------
REVISED APPENDIX VII




   WATER QUALITY
-------
-------
                  TABLE OF CONTENTS

                      APPENDIX VII

                      WATER QUALITY


INTRODUCTION

1.0  Introduction                                       VII-1

1.1  Water Pollutants                                   VII-1

     1.1.1  Ammonia                                     VII-5

     1.1.2  Biochemical Oxygen Demand                   VII-5

     1.1.3  Cadmium                                     VII-5
                             \
     1.1.4  Chlorine                                    VII-6

     1.1.5  Copper                                      VII-6

     1.1.6  Dissolved Oxygen                            VII-6

     1.1.7  Dissolved Solids                            VII-6

     1.1.8  Fecal Coliform Bacteria                     VII-7

     1.1.9  Lead                                        VII-7

     1.1.10 Nitrogen                                    VII-7

     1.1.11 pH                                          VII-8

     1.1.12 Phosphorus                                  VII-8

     1.1.13 Suspended Solids                            VII-8

     1.1.14 Temperature                                 VII-8

     1.1.15 Zinc                                        VII-9

1.2  Inland Wastewater Treatment Plant Alternatives     VII-9

     1.2.1  Caddy Vista WWTP                            VII-18

     1.2.2  Proposed Franklin WWTP                      VII-18

     1.2.3  Germantown WWTP                             VII-18
-------
           1.2.4  Muskego Northeast WWTP                      VII-18




           1.2.5  Muskego Northwest WWTP                      VII-19




           1.2.6  New Berlin Southeast WWTP                   VII-19




           1.2.7  Regal Manors WWTP                           VII-20




           1.2.8  Thiensville and Mequon/Thiensville WWTPs    VII-20






 II.   WATER USE OBJECTIVES AND WATER QUALITY STANDARDS        VII-21




III.   INLAND WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS  VII-29




      3.0  Introduction                                       VII-29



      3.1  Stream Low Flow Water Quality Analysis             VII-29




           3.1.1  Methodology                                 VII-29




           3.1.2  Caddy Vista WWTP                            VII-31




           3.1.3  Franklin WWTP                               VII-33




           3.1.4  Germantown WWTP                             VII-33




           3.1.5  Muskego Northeast WWTP                      VII-36




           3.1.6  Muskego Northwest WWTP                      VII-38




           3.1.7  New Berlin Southeast WWTP                   VII-3o



           3.1.8  Regal Manors WWTP                           VII-41




           3.1.9  Thiensville and Mequon/Thiensville



                    WWTPs                                     VII-43




      3.2  Ammonia and Dissolved Oxygen Impacts               VI"




           3.2.1  Introduction




           3.2.2  Methodology




           3.2.3  Results




                  3.2.3.1  Caddy Vista WWTP



                  3.2.3.2  Franklin WWTP




                  3.2.3.3  Germantown WWTP




                  3.2.3.4  Muskego Northeast, Muske^




                           Northwest, and New Berl




                           east WWTPs
-------
                 3.2.3.5  Regal Manors WWTP                   VII-56




                 3.2.3.6  Thiensville and Mequon/Thiensville



                          WWTPs                               VII-58




     3.3  Inland Lake Water Quality Analysis                  VII-58



          3.3.1  Big Muskego Lake                             VII-61




          3.3.2  Proposed Oakwood Lake                        VII-66




IV.   LAKE MICHIGAN                                            VII-71



     4.0  Introduction                                        VII-71




     4.1  Jones Island WWTP and the Outer Harbor              VII-71




          4.1.1  Jones Island WWTP Outfall Relocation AnalysisVII-75




          4.1.2  Evaluation of Increased Ammonia Loads from



                 the Jones Island WWTP                        VII-83




     4.2  Direct Pollution Sources to Lake Michigan           VII-97




     4.3  Priority Pollutant Impacts                          VII-102




          4.3.1  Existing Conditions          ,                VII-105




          4.3.2  Future Conditions                            VII-106



     Bibliography                                              VII-107
-------
-------
                          CHAPTER I

                         INTRODUCTION

1. 0  INTRODUCTION

The potential to use surface waters for recreation, fish and
aquatic life, wildlife, industry, and public water supply is
directly affected by the quality of the water.  The quality
of many streams and lakes in the MMSD planning area has
declined as a result of human activities, including the
disposal of treated and untreated human sewage.  The water
quality impacts of pollution on a water body depend upon the
type and amount of pollutants contributed and on the pollution-
assimilative capacity of the water body.

Streams and lakes are dynamic, complex natural systems.
Specific water quality conditions at any one site or time
are influenced by the amount of dilution available, water
flow and velocity, sedimentation, deoxygenation and reaeration
rates, interactions with the bottom sediments, bacterial
die-off rates, temperature, biological processes, chemical
characteristics, and pollutant loadings.  Because of these
numerous interactions, certain simplifying assumptions
concerning the loading, transport, and mixing of pollutants
with receiving waters are used to provide reliable predictions
of water quality conditions.

The primary purpose of the Milwaukee Water Pollution Abatement
Program is to abate pollution of surface waters caused by
the discharge of untreated or inadequately treated sewage.
To assess the water quality impacts of alternative means of
wastewater treatment for the MMSD service area, it is appro-
priate to determine the degree to which the alternatives
achieve the goals set forth in the Federal Clean Water Act
and Chapter 147 of the Wisconsin Statutes.  The Federal
Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes the following National
goals for the restoration and maintenance of the Nation's
waters:

      Elimination of pollutant discharges by 1985.

      Achievement of water quality, where attainable, which
      provides for the protection and propagation of fish,
      shellfish, and wildlife, and which allows body-contact
      vater recreation by July 1, 1983.
                              VII-1
-------
Chapter 147 of the Wisconsin Statutes establishes the same
goals for the State's waters.  To provide for the achieve-
ment of these goals, the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources has established water quality standards to protect
intended water uses.  In addition, an areawide water quality
management plan, authorized by Section 208 of the CWA, was
prepared by the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning
Commission as an overall guide for water quality management
in Southeastern Wisconsin.  This areawide plan recommended
water use   objectives and supporting water quality standards
under future conditions.  Both the existing Department of
Natural Resources and recommended 208 water use objectives
and water quality standards are used to interpret the predicted
water quality data and to identify the water uses affected
by the plan alternatives.

This appendix evaluates the water quality impacts to inland
lake and streams of various alternatives for wastewater
treatment in the MMSD service area.  It also estimates
annual pollutant loadings for these alternatives.  Finally,
it assesses the impacts of direct pollutant discharges to
the Outer Harbor and Lake Michigan  from the Jones Island
and South Shore wastewater treatment plants.  Specific
issues for which public concern has been indicated,such as
the possible relocation of the Jones Island WWTP outfall
outside of the Outer Harbor, and the increased discharge of
ammonia from the Jones Island WWTP, are also addressed in
detail.  The water quality impacts of combined sewer over-
flow abatement alternatives are set forth in Appendix V,
Combined Sewer Overflow.

1.1  WATER POLLUTANTS

A comprehensive water quality analysis must include not only
a description of the water pollution sources, but also an
evaluation of the amount and type of pollutants contributed,
and the effects of these pollutants on the quality of the
water body.  Each pollutant affects the water in specific
ways, and the effects of any pollutant are highly dependent
on the amount of the pollutant present in the water, as well
as on the other constituents in the water.

Most pollutants are contributed by a variety of sources.
Table 1 sets forth common urban sources of water pollutant
The numerous sources require that comprehensive water qua
management programs be developed to provide sufficient w
quality protection.  This appendix deals primarily with
water quality impacts of alternative sanitary sewerage
systems.
                               VI I-2
-------
                                       TABLE 1
                            URBAN SOURCES OF WATER POLLUTION
Urban Pollution Source

Sanitary Sewerage
System Discharges and
Overflows

On-site Sewage
Disposal Systems
(septic tanks)
Industrial Water
Outfalls
Principle Associated Substances
	Containing Pollutants	

Treated and untreated sanitary
sewage or combined storm and
sanitary sewage

Surface runoff of effluent from
malfunctioning or improperly
designed septic systems
Process waters, including wash
waters, rinse water, organic
wastewaters, chemical wastes,
cooling waters
    Specific Pollutants
Contributed to Watercourses

Suspended solids, organic  sub
stances; phosphorus; nitrogen
bacteria; viruses;  metals

Viruses; bacteria;  organic
substances; nitrogen;  phos-
phorus; dissolved organic sub-
stances; suspended  solids

Oxygen-demanding substances;
dissolved solids; suspended
solids; toxic and hazardous
substances; corrosives; oil;
grease; detergents; heat;
metals
Storm Sewerage Systems
Storm Runoff From
Residential Areas
      Runoff From
   mercial Areas
           f. From
            reas
Street litter and runoff,
pet litter, lawn runoff,
and rooftop and parking lot
runoff
Lawn runoff, street litter,
rooftop and parking lot runoff,
garbage, degraded surface
coatings, vegetation
Loading dock and work area
litter, parking lot runoff,
refuse litter, fuels
Loading dock and work area
litter, runoff from materials
storage, parking lot runoff,
refuse litter, fuels, wood,
virgin and scrap metals, paper
plastic, salt, sand and gravel
organic deposits, flyash,
petroleum and chemical products,
corrosives, waste, chemicals,
brush, garbage, rubber, acids,
glass, ceramics, paint, glue,
solvents
Oil; grease; suspended  solids
dissolved solids; oxygen-
demanding substances; phos-
phorus; nitrogen; pesticides;
toxic and hazardous substance
bacteria; metals

Oil; grease; suspended  solids
dissolved solids; oxygen-
demanding substances; phos-
phorus; nitrogen; pesticides;
toxic and hazardous substance
bacteria; metals

Suspended solids, dissolved
solids; oxygen-demanding sub-
stances ; toxic and hazardous
substances; phosphorus;
nitrogen; bacteria; grease;
oil; metals

Suspended solids; dissolved
solids; oxygen-demanding
substances; toxic and
hazardous substances;
phosphorus; nitrogen; bac-
teria;  grease;  oil; metals
                                       VII-3
-------
                            TABLE  1  (continued)

                     URBAN  SOURCES OF  WATER POLLUTION
Storm Runoff From
Construction Areas
Storm Runoff From
Transportation Areas
 Source:   SEWRPC (1979)
  Building materials, pesticides,
  fertilizers, cement, fuels,
  petroleum products, soil par-
  ticles, garbage, litter, chemi-
  cals  (paints, glues, solvents,
  acids, concrete curing com-
  pounds, lime, flyash, salt)

  Fuel, oil, grease, hydraulic
  fluids, coolants, engine
  emission particles, rubber
  particles, litter, brake lin-
  ings , pavement particles, paints
  vegetation, deicing salts,
  cinders, spilled materials,
  chemicals, pesticides, carrion,
  soil particles
and ESEI
Eroded soil particles;
nitrogen; phosphorus;
oxygen-demanding substan
toxic and hazardous
substances; grease; oil;
Eroded soil particles;
nitrogen; phosphorus;
oxygen-demanding substan
toxic and hazardous sub-
stances; grease; oil; di
solved solids; suspended
solids, metals
                                  VI Is-4
-------
The following discussion addresses the physical, chemical,
and biological effects of various water pollutants and water
quality parameters.  The effects of ammonia, biochemical
oxygen demand, cadmium, chlorine, copper, dissolved oxygen,
dissolved solids, fecal coliform, lead, nitrogen, pH, phos-
phorus, suspended solids, temperature, and zinc are described.
Water quality standards established for some of these
parameters are addressed in Chapter II.

1.1.1  Ammonia

Ammonia is a compound composed of nitrogen and hydrogen and
is the principal product of the decomposition of nitrogenous
organic matter.  High concentrations of ammonia may indicate
pollution from sewage.  Ammonia may occur in the ionized
(NH4 +) form or in the un-ionized (NH^) form.  Un-ionized
ammonia is toxic to fish and other aquatic life, whereas
ionized ammonia has little or no toxic affects.  The amount
of un-ionized ammonia is highly dependent upon pH and temperature,
as well as on the concentration of total ammonia.  In the
presence of dissolved oxygen, ammonia is transformed by
nitrifying bacteria into nitrate.  High levels of nitrification
may result in severe depletion of the dissolved oxygen
content of surface waters.  See Section 1.1.4 of this appendix
for a discussion on the formation of chloramines, which are
formed by chlorination (disinfection) of wastewater treatment
plant effluent in the presence of ammonia.

1.1.2  Biochemica.1 Oxygen Demand

Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) is the quantity of oxygen
used by aerobic bacteria in the decomposition of organic
matter in a water sample usually at a temperature of 20°C.
Depletion of dissolved oxygen in a water sample is directly
related to the amounts of degradable organic matter in that
sample.  The BOD analysis is a commonly used method of
determining the biologically degradable organic content of
municipal wastewater or industrial wastewater.  Because a
laboratory cannot reproduce the natural physical, chemical,
and biological conditions of a stream or lake, the BOD test
is of limited value in measuring the total oxygen demand
 'aced on a stream or lake.   BOD ultimate is a measure of
   gen demand exerted over a 20 day period.  BOD5 is the
    en demand exerted over a 5 day period.

       Cadmium

        is an element which has no known biologically essential
        icial values.  It is toxic to animals and aquatic
         dmium may be involved in the development of tumors,
         "unction, hypertension, growth inhibition, and
          ish and certain invertebrates have been found to
           -e to very low levels of cadmium.  Increased water
           1 alkalinity have been demonstrated to decrease
             of cadmium.
                              VII-5
-------
1.1.4  Chlorine

Elemental chlorine is a gas that is very soluble in water.
Chlorine is not a natural constituent in water.  Free chlorine,
which is toxic to fish and other forms of aquatic life,
reacts readily with organic- or ammonia-nitrogen to form
chloramines, which are also toxic to aquatic and human life.
Together, free chlorine and chloramines constitute residual
chlorine.  In the water body, residual chlorine is reduced
to chloride, which is relatively harmless to aquatic life.

1.1.5  Copper

Copper is an essential trace element required in plant and
animal metabolism.  The toxicity of copper to aquatic life
is enhanced by lower alkaline conditions and higher water
hardness.  Other factors affecting the toxicity of copper
include pH and organic compounds.  Copper has been found to
be toxic to both fish and benthic invertebrates.  Copper in
sufficiently high concentrations inparts an undesireable
taste to water.  In humans, prolonged consumption of excessive
levels of copper may lead to liver damage.

1.1.6  Dissolved Oxygen

Concentrations of dissolved oxygen have historically been
used as a principal indicator of water quality.  Maintenance
of adequate dissolved oxygen levels is important for the
protection of fish and aquatic life and aesthetic qualities.
Insufficient dissolved oxygen levels may cause anaerobic
decomposition of organic substances, resulting in the
formation of noxious gases.  Anoxic environments are dominated
by generally undesireable organisms which are tolerant of
the stress conditions.  The dissolved oxygen requirements of
aquatic organisms differ between species, and for some
species, between the embryonic, larval, and adult stages of
development.  Some aquatic insects and other animals upon
which fish feed are intolerant of low dissolved oxygen
levels, although other, more tolerant inverterbrates may be
equally suitable fish food.  The presence of dissolved
oxygen prevents the chemical reduction and subsequent leaching
of iron and manganese, metals which can add taste to drinking
water and stain pipes and surfaces.  Dissolved oxygen can
also increase the disinfection efficiency of chlorination.

1.1.7  Dissolved Solids

Dissolved solids associated with freshwater systems con?
of inorganic salts, small amounts of organic matter, ar
other dissolved materials.  Adverse effects of unusual
high concentrations of dissolved solids include detec1
tastes in drinking water, possible physiological effe
from drinking water, fish kills, crop damage, and co
damage in water systems.  Dissolved organic solids
increase the demand for dissolved oxygen.


                               VII-6
-------
1.1.8  Fecal Coliform Bacteria

A number of pathogens Cdisease-producing organisms) inhabit
the intestinal tract of most warm-blooded animals and are
transmitted in feces.  These pathogens may contaminate water
and infect animals and humans through drinking water, food,
or direct contact, such as swimming.  Water borne diseases
include cholera, hepatitis-A, typhoid fever, salmonellosis,
giardiasis, and gastroenteritis (National Research Council,
1977) .   Fecal coliform bacteria are used as indicator organisms
for the presence of viral, bacterial, protozoan, and fungal
pathogens which may infect man and other organisms.  The
number of fecal coliforms present in the water is thus an
indication of the bacteriological safety of the water, and
the public health hazard associated with the use of the
water.

1.1.9  Lead

Lead is a toxic metal which accumulates in the tissues of
man and other animals.  The toxicity of lead in water, like
that of other metals, is affected by pH, hardness, organic
materials, and other metals.  Lead intoxication may result
in irreversible brain damage, anemia, neurological dysfunction,
and death.  Lead may also produce subtle effects due to low
level or long-term exposures, such as impaired neurologic
and motor development and renal damage.  Lead has no known
beneficial or desireable nutritional effects.

1.1.10  Nitrogen

Total nitrogen includes organic-,  ammonia-, nitrite-, and
gaseous nitrogen.  Organic nitrogen is contained in compounds
such as amino acids, proteins, and polypeptides.  The decom-
position of organic nitrogen and the nitrification of ammonia
consume dissolved oxygen from the water body.  Inorganic
nitrogen, mainly in the ammonia and nitrate forms, is utilized
as an essential nutrient by green plants during photosynthesis
and converted to organic nitrogen.  If other essential
nutrients are abundant,  excessive levels of inorganic nitrogen
 in stimulate algae blooms and excessive weed growth.  The
   ionized portion of ammonia is toxic to fish and other
    tic life.  Nitrite concentrations in surface waters are
    'ly low because nitrite is unstable  and readily oxidizes
     -.rate.  Although  .nitrites are toxic, they usually do
      *ur in large enough concentrations to present a
       hazard.


                              VII-7
-------
1.1.11  £H

In natural waters, pH is a measure of hydrogen ion concentration
which is commonly expressed as the acidic or basic property
of the water.  The pH of a water body affects the toxicity
of many chemical compounds, such as cyanide and ammonia.
The pH also influences the solubility of metals attached to
bottom sediments or to suspended particulates.  Treatment
processes many require raw water to be adjusted to a suitable
pH to prevent corrosion and to optimize treatment processes
such as chlorination and coagulation.

1.1.12  Phosphorus

Total phosphorus includes orthophosphates, polyphosphates,
and organic phosphorus.  In the form of phosphate, phosphorus
is an essential nutrient for plants.  Excessive phosphorus
concentrations in water can cause nuisance growths of algae
and aquatic weeds when other growth-promoting factors are
present.  Excessive aquatic plant growths can develop in
lakes at concentrations lower than the critical level for
flowing streams as a result of the accumulation of phosphorus
in the presence of other optimum growth conditions.  Fortunately,
phosphorus is a nutrient whose levels can be relatively
easily controlled by man.

1.1.13  Suspended Solids

Suspended solids include soil particles, organic particles,
and other particulate substances.  Suspended solids can
reduce water clarity and result in the sedimentation of a
lakebed or stream which can cause increases in stream velocities
and cause navigational problems.  Direct damages to fish
include abrasive injuries, obstruction of respiratory passages,
interference with feeding habits, and the covering and
destruction of eggs and spawning areas.  The decomposition
of organic particulates can consume limited dissolved oxygen
supplies.  Suspended solids may also act as important transport
mechanisms for nutrients, pesticides, metals, organic sub-
stances, and pathogenic organisms.

1.1.14  Temperature

The temperature of water affects the aquatic biota and the
suitability of the water for recreational use, human cons'
and industrial processes.  Temperature is one of the mos-'
important environmental parameters determining the type
species present in a water body, as well as their level
activity.  Metabolism, respiration, and reproduction o
aquatic organisms are directly influenced by water ter


                               VII-8
-------
The decomposition of organic matter increases with higher
temperatures.  Also as water temperature rises, the solubility
of oxygen decreases thereby making less dissolved oxygen
available to aquatic organisms.  Concurrently, the demand
for oxygen by these organisms increases because warmer
temperatures increase metabolic and respiration rates, which
could result in biological stress on the organisms.  Rapid
fluctuations in temperature also have adverse effects on
aquatic organismms.  The toxicity of certain organic compounds
and metals may also increase with increasing temperatures.
Temperature also affects the utility of the water for industrial
cooling processes and the survival and activity of bacteria
in wastewater treatment systems.

1.1.15  Zinc

Zinc is 'an essential and beneficial element in animal and
human metabolism at moderately low concentrations.  Zinc can
impart a bitter taste to water and therefore, must be
controlled in domestic water supplies.  In natural waters,
pH, hardness, temperature, and dissolved oxygen affect the
solubility of zinc and its resulting toxicity to aquatic
life.  Excessive concentrations of zinc have been shown to
cause adverse changes in the morphology and physiology of
fish, snails, aquatic insects, and zooplankton.

1.2  WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT ALTERNATIVES

The MMSD Master Facilities Plan evaluated three approaches,
or system levels, for providing wastewater conveyance,
storage, treatment, and disposal in the planning area.  The
three system levels - local, subregional, and regional -
each served the same portions of the planning area.  However,
the number, size and location of the various treatment
plants which make up each system level varied greatly.

In Chapter 3 of the Final EIS, various alternatives for
wastewater treatment for each system level were analyzed in
a two-step screening process.  The purpose of the screening
process was to identify the final wastewater treatment plant
'WWTP)  configurations in each of the system levels.  The
 :rst step of the screening process was preliminary screening.
   s screening eliminated those alternatives which were not
    ptable due to costs, legal issues, or severe environmental
     ts.  The results of that screening analysis are summarized
     >les 3.7, 3.8 and 3.9 of the Final EIS.
                              Vil-9
-------
The WWTPs which survived the preliminary screening analysis
were then labeled as "feasible" alternatives.  These feasible
WWTP alternatives were evaluated in detail as a means of
identifying the final configuration for the local, subregional,
and regional system levels.  The selection of the final
WWTPs in each system level was based on a detailed analysis
of each WWTP alternative using the 31 screening criteria
discussed in Chapter 3 of the Final EIS.  A summary of these
analyses is presented in Table 3.12.  The purpose of this
appendix is to present the technical background used to
prepare the EIS water quality impact analysis.  This analysis
in turn was used to select the final system level configurations
evaluated in the EIS.

Figures 1, 2, and 3 identify the locations of the local,
subregional, and regional WWTP alternatives which were
identified as feasible in Chapter 3.  The analysis of the
local and subregional alternatives is presented in this
chapter.  For the regional system level, the only WWTP
discharges were to Lake Michigan.  The water quality impacts
of the regional WWTP discharges are presented in Chapter IV
of this appendix.

Inland water quality impacts were identified at each location
where an existing WWTP could be expanded or abandoned or a
new WWTP could be constructed.  Each of these individual
impacts was evaluated in combination with the impacts of
other system level alternatives which discharged upstream of
the location of interest.  Accordingly, these analyses
included local, subregional, and no discharge combinations
for each watershed in the planning area.  In addition, a No
Action alternative was evaluated for each watershed.

Table 2 lists the No Action, local, subregional, and no
discharge combinations for the three major watersheds in the
planning area.  The Milwaukee River and Menomonee River
watersheds are relatively simple systems because no more
than one WWTP would discharge to any one of these streams
under any combination.  However, because of the many feasible
WWTPs on the Fox and Root Rivers, there are 11 local combinati'-
and four subregional combinations plus the No Action and no
WWTP discharge combinations.

Sections 3.1.2 through 3.2.3.6 of this Appendix evaluate t
specific water quality impacts of the individual inland
WWTPs which make up the various combinations of feasible
local, subregional, and no discharge alternatives.  No
Action and existing instream water quality conditions c
also presented as a means of measuring the relative im   cs
of the action alternatives.
                               VII-10
-------
                                                              LEGEND
                                                              STUDY AREA BOUNDRY
                                                              COUNTY LINE
                                                              CORPORATE BOUNORY
                                                              WATER:RIVERS, CREEKS, etc
                                                              MAJOR HIGHWAYS
                                                              EXISTING WWTP
                                                              PROPOSED WWTP
                                        OI>U«EE  COUNTT   J      I   _
                                        UIUMUKCE'COUNTY^f      r
                                                     V       \ i*Y»lO«
                                                      *       \
                                                         »ivt«  Y	
                                  -4-":       s^       j
                                   \ U          A
              NEW BERLIN SOUTHEAST
                             SKEQO NORTHEAST
FIGURE
     I
DATE
 APRIL 1981
LOCATION of  EXISTING and PROPOSED WWTPs
UNDER the LOCAL SYSTEM LEVEL ALTERNATIVE
                                 VII-11
SOURCE  MMSD and ESEI
PREPARED SY
       EcolSciences
       ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
-------
                                                                 STUDY AREA 80UNORY
                                                                 COUNTY LINE
                                                                 CORPORATE 30UNORY
                                                           	WATER'.RIVERS, CREEKS, etc
                                                                 MAJOR HIGHWAYS

                                                                 EXISTING WWTP

                                                                 PROPOSED WWTP
                                                                            •OOO  '2OOO
                                                    C.  I •unuiiMSOUTH M1LWAUKE
•2
FIGURE
     2
DATE

 APRIL  1981
—»-^^-t -i -» . i  -..
SE
\
     LOCATION of EXISTING and PROPOSED WWTPs
 UNDER the SUBREGIONAL SYSTEM LEVEL ALTERNATIVE
                                     VII-12
                                                                 SOURCE MMSD and ESEI
                  PREPARED BY
                         EC
                         ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
  "gflEcolSciences
  *~~f ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
-------
                                                              SCHOOU
                                                              SISTERS of
                                                              NOTRE DAME
                                              TMCMVIILI.^ •^VS
                                               i (-2^  U    £
                 i   S       ^J*»
                 W*
                    \.... s">   iLi,
                                                                LEGEND
                                                                STUDY AREA BOUNORY
                                                         — —-   COUNTY LINE
                                                                CORPORATE BOUNORY
                                                                WATER:RIVERS, CREEKS, etc
                                                                MAJOR HIGHWAYS
                                                                EXISTING WWTP
                                                                                           I
                                                                             UTH SHORE
                                                                                \
FIGURE
DATE
 APRIL 1981
          LOCATION of EXISTING WWTPs
UNDER the REGIONAL SYSTEM LEVEL ALTERNATIVE
SOURCE  MMSD and ESE!
PREPARED BY
       EcolSciences
       ENVIRONMENTAL  GROUP
-------
01
CP
a
  z
  o:
  w
(N

Ed

CO

EH
   EH
   Z
   03

   EH

















































q
o
•H
4J
a
•H
\4
O
tn
4)
Q


.
L.
CU

•H
05

CU
01
V
3
10
3
rH
•H
Z

CU
JS
4J

0

CP
q
•H
Cn

(0
r;
O
tn
•H
•a

p,
EH
2
2

01
rH
rH
• r4
>
tn
q
CU
•H
r!


rH
10
o
o
rJ



CU
£
-P

o


cn
q
•H
CP
M
10
x;
o
tn
•H
•a

CU
f_l
3

rH
10
q
O

Cn
0>

Q
3
U)

CU
rH
rH
-H
J>
tn
q
01
•H
rj
f.-,
\
q
O
3
CT
01
S

3
01
z












































•
1-1
CU

•H
05

CU
CU
.*
3
10
5
rH
•H
Z









&)
EH
2
2

01
rH
rH
•H

tn
q
01
•H
A
EH
CP
q
•H
4J
tn

X
CU

O)
(H
4J

(4_j
0

q
0
• H
4J
fO
Li
01
a
o

-a
CU
3
q
•H
4-1
q
0
u


























LI
0)
^
•H
05

CU
01
y
3
10
3
rH
•H
S

CU
r!
4J

0
4J

CP
q
•H
CP
Li
10
r;
0
tn
-H
13
CU
0)
3
3
rH
•H
s

0)
JC
4J

0
4J

CP
c
•H

J-l
10
JC
o
tn
•H

CJ
rH
rH
•H

tn
q
01
•H
s
EH

(•4
0

q
o
3
tr
0)
s

q
•H



a,
EH •

3 cu

0-^
2 05
onee River.
E
0
q
01
S
CU
ff.


0
4-1

CP
q
•H
CP
L[
10
,C
0
U)
•H
T3

EH

jg

q

O

q

£
0
O

rH
10
o
0

scharging to
•H
T3

0)
4J
tn

u
01
q

4-J
10

ft.
EH

§

rH
10
C
0

CP
CU •

J3 CU
3 >
W -H
05
q
3 CU
O 01
•u q
C 0
S O
u q

u s

3 01
CU J3
2 -U
EH
q
3
O
-U
q
£
J_)
01
o

Cn »
q vj
•H CU
•u >
tn -H
•H 05
X
01 01
01
01 G
X* O
•P E
0
*4-t C
0|
q
0 H

•P -P
10
M 0
01 4-1
a
o CP
q
01 CP
3 L|
q n)

4J O
q tn
0-H
CJ T3
omonee River
q
0)
•s.

01
5

o
4J

CP
C
-H
CP
H
10
r;
O
cn
•H
'O

q
3
0
q
10
E
^j
01
u

q
-H


G«
EH
3
3

0
2
   EH

   05
   H
   EH
   <


   I
   cn
   EH
                               IB
                               O
                                         rH 10
                                         rH C
                                         •H O
                                          > -H
                                          tn CP
                                          C CU
                                          O> 1-1
                                         •H ja
                                         J3 3
                                         EH W
                                         \

                                          o

                                          D1
                                             q
                                             o
                                             •rt
                                             0
                                             z
                                                     CU
                                                     CP
O
tn
                                                     (X
                                                     EH
                                                           O
                                                          z
                                    0)
                                    O
                                                                                                    10
                                                                                                    c
                                                                                                    o

                                                                                                    CP
                                                                                                    0)
                                                                                               3
                                                                                               cn
                                                  o
                                                  -H
                                                           o>
                                                           CP
s.
d
U
                    13
                    tu

                    tn
                    10
                         •H
                                                                                          01

                                                                                         •r-l
                                                                                         05

                                                                                          CU
                                                                                          01

                                                                                          0

                                                                                          o
                                     VII-14
-------

*


(N

CJ
en
10
OH

































CO
w
^
H
EH



U
EH
hj


^ H
12
yJ ^
(-3
5 OH
•rH
c ^
° 1









O
•rt
4-1
a
•rt
l-l
CJ
tn
CJ
Q
X
CJ
CJ

CJ

SH
CJ
CJ
Q

18
• rt
>

SH
0)

•rt
05

X
0
fa

CJ
JS
4-1

0
4J

Cn
C
•rt
Cn
i-i
IB
JS
O
tn
•rt
13

CH
EH
*g
3

01
(,
o

ro


frt
IB
en
OJ
K


en
c.
•rt
CnOn
M EH
to 2
JS 3
CJ
oi ro
•rt 4-1
•a tn
.rt
OH >

2 -^
2 13
13
4J ro
01 CJ
IB

JS X
4J CJ
>H CJ
O l-l
Z CJ

O 01
cn SH
CJ O
X C
01 SH •
3 O SH
2 U OJ
>
13 01 -rt
c 01 os
ro O
EH 4J
OH O
EH ro O
2 'rt K
3 >
CJ
•P SH JS
01 OJ 4J
0 >
3 -rt 0
JS 05 4J
4-1
o o c
Z O -rt
ttl O"1
0 *-•
0^ QJ fO
01 JS JS
X 4J CJ
0] 01
3 O -rt
2 4-1 13

*
x e
CJ O
CJ SH

CJ
IB tn
SH -H SH
0> > 01
OJ 4-1
Q SH ro
0 3
IB >
•H -rt CJ
> OS 0
IB
SH 4J H-l
OJ O SH
> O 3
•H 05 01
OS
0) O
X JS 4-1
0 4J
fa
o o>
OJ 4-1 Cn
JS M
4-1 en 10
C JS
0 -H CJ
4J en 01
rl -rt
Cn ro 13
C JS
•H O OH
Cn 01 EH
SH -rl 3
ro 13 3
JS
O OH O
in EH q
•H 2
13 3 ••
y
OH 4J OJ
EH 01 CJ
3 IB SH
3 OJ CJ
JS
01 4J 01
O O OJ
c z c
(0 M
S 0 0
01 CJ
rH 0)
10 X 01
Cn 01 to
01 3 fl)
« 2 EH




o
4J

Cn
c
•H
en
IH
ro
r;
CJ
OJ
•H
13

OH
EH

2

ro
4-1
01
•H
£>

^
13

IB
U

•.
OH
EH
2
2

4J
OJ
CJ
3
JS
4->
IH •
0 H
Z CJ
>
cn«
0)
^ Jj
01 0
3 O
2 OS

0 0)
JS JS


«.
X OJ
OJ JS
0) 4J
^
CJ 0
rtj 4-1
l-l -H
0) > en
0) C
Q IH -H
CJ en
ro > >-i
-H -rt <0
> OH JS
O
M 4-1 01
O 0 -H
!> 0 13
•rl OS
05 OH
CJ EH
X JS 2
O J-> S
fa
O 4-1
O 4J 01
js o
4-1 en 3
C JS
O -H 4J
4J Cn tn
14 O
Cn to z
C JS
•H 0 0
en 01 Cn
SH -H OJ
IB T3 X
JS 01
U OH 3
tn EH 2
•H 3
13 2 -
W
OH 4J O
EH 01 0)
2 ro IH
2 OJ cj
r^
01 4-1 tn
O O CJ
c z c
ro SH
200
cncj
r-l O
ra x tn
Cn 01 01
01 3 0)
05 2 EH



en
C
•H
Cn
SH
10
JS
CJ
01
• rH
13

OH
EH
^
3

ro
4J
01
.»4
>

>,
13
13
10
CJ

«
0)

rO
iJ]

O
en
o
X
01
3
S]
«
Cn IH
•H 
•H
10 05
•rt
O
VH O
0) OS
>
•rt 0)
05 JS
4J
X
o o
fa -P

^
y
0)
O 0)

O O 4-1

M ro I*H O
CJ -H 4->
o > in
Q SH Cn
SH OJ C
IB OJ 4J -rt
•H > rt} en
> -rt 3 ri
05 IB
IH OJ JS
CJ X CJ O
> O IB 01
•rt fa M-I -H
05 SH 13
0) 3
X JS 01 OH
04-1 EH
fa O2
O 4J 2
CJ 4J
js 
IH o
Cn ro 01 >i
C JS -H 13
•rt C) 13 t3
Cn 01 rd
^ -H OH CJ
ro T3 EH
JS 3 •
O OH 2 OH
01 EH EH
•H 2 0 2
HJ 3 C 3

OH 4J > 4J
EH 01 0) 01
2 IB X 01
S cy ta s
x: iJ x:
en -u -u
0 O Cn O SH
C Z O Z O
IB X >
2 0 01 O -H
en 3 en os
rH C) 2 C)
IB X X 4J
Cn 01 Cn 01 O
OJ 3 -rt 3 0
05 2 a 2 05

fc
A^ Ql
O C
0) -H
IH Cn
CJ IH
 EH 2

IH 3 10
0) 4-1
> 4-> 01
•rt 01 -rt
05 D >
3

O 4J T3
fa SH 13
O IB
o z cj

4J O -
Cn 01
o o x
•P X 10
01 H)
en 3
C 2 0
•rt en
Cn-o 0)
l-l C X
10 IB 01
JS 3
CJ OH 2
01 EH
•rt 2 en
13 3 -rt
03
OH 4J
EH tn ro
3 ro -rt
2 0 >

01 4-1 SH
SH IH OJ
O 0 >
C Z -rt
ro OS
S 0
en x
r-l 01 0
rO X fa
tji tn
0) 3 0
05 S 4J

































.
^
01
>
•rt
05

4J
o
0
OS

01

4J

o
4J

Cn
C
•rt
cn

(0

O
OJ
•rt
13
l-l
O
>
•rt
05
Cn
X 0) c
0 JS -rt
fa 4-1 Cn
SH
O O (0
JS 4J JS
4J 0
en 01
O C -H
4-1 -rt 13
en
Cn IH ro
C ro 4J
•rt JS tn
Cn CJ -rt
IH 01 >
(0 -rt
n T! s.
O 13
tn OH 13
•rt EH 10
13 2 CJ
2
OH
EH 4-1 X
3 01 0)
2 ro 01
0) IH
4J JS CJ
01 4J
ro SH 01
CJ O SH
JS Z 0)
4J C
3 O U
O Cn O
CO CJ CJ

C 01 01
•rt 3 01 •
rH 2 O IH
i-l EH C)
OJ - >
ffl X ro -rt
0) -rt OS
3 0 >
Z CJ SH 0
01 O
13 SH > 05
O 01 -rt
01 0) 05 CJ
0 Q JS
Q. 4-1 4J
0 IB O
IH -rt O O
OH > 05 4J
ii   s
CM
U
03
EH















'HH
g
05
W
EH
2
U
EH
§
U
OS
D
EH
£











rfl
>
•rt
•P
C
OJ
4-1
rH
rt










rH.
1

ro
O
S
                                   (N
                                    I
                                    IB
                                    O
                                    O
                               in
                                I
                                              10
                                              o
                                             S
CO
 I
            33

            rH
            IB

            8
              •o
              a)

              in
              M
              o
              4-1
              10
              2
                   en
                   IH
                   at

                   •H
                   05
O
a
o
fa
                          ,    VII-15
-------
 fl
 a.
01
3
C
•H
4J


0
U
ffl
<
EH
     §
     EH


     I
EH
2

S
EH
<
H
OS
EH

as
a
              c
              o
             •H
             4J
              a
             •H
              tH
              O
              01
              0)
             a
M
01
•H
OS
0>
XX!
o e 4J
Cm O
>H O
Ot UH -P
Xi
4-1 01 en
M C
O 01 -H
4-> 4J Cn
fl IH
Cn 3 fl
C X!
•rt 0) ffl
Cn 0 -H
M fl 13
fl <4H
x: M a,
0 3 EH
01 01 2
•rH 2
•a o
4-> (8
a< 4J
EH 01 0!
2 Cn-H
2 ^H £>
«
•P XI >,
0! O 13
fl 01 T3
OJ -H fl
X! T3 0

3 CU -
O EH ft.
CO 2 EH
2 2
C 2
•H 0
•H C -P
M 01
01 » fl
CD X 01
o) x:
3 01 4J
01 H W •
2 U 0 >H
2 01

01 0) O -H
01 0) Cn OS
o a 01
a x -p
0 fl 01 O
M i-( 3 0
a. > s: K

fe >,
* -a
~ 'd
4-1 fl
in o
fl
O> -

4J 01
>H 0)
O IH
z u

O 01
Cn •u
CD 4)
X C
01 M
3 O •
S U >H
01
13 01 >
C 01 -H
fl 01 as
EH
Cu 4->
EH fl O
3 -H 0
2 > OS

4-1 IH 01
01 01 X!
fl > 4J
01 -H
x: as o

3 -P
O O Cn
CO 0 C
as -H
C cn
•i-l 01 M
rH X! fl
M -P £
0) O
cn o 01
-P -H
3 ^
O> Cn
2 C 0.
•H EH

01 M S
Ul fl
o x; fl
a o -P
O 01 01
lH -H -H
ft. 13 >
•H
«
01
•P rH
O QJ Cn
0 4-> C
OS fl -H
3 en

X! 0) fl
•POX;
fl O
O M-l 01
•P VH -H
3 T3
cn 01
c cu
•H O EH

>H 3
fl 01
x: cn fl
O w P
01 fl m
•H X! -H
•O 0 >
in
CU -H >i
EH 13 13
2 13
3 CU fl
EH U
•P 2
cn 2 -
fl CU
01 0 EH
X! C 2
•P 3
3 -
O X -P
CO 01 01
0) fl
C M 01
•H u x; •
rH 4J IH
te 01 JH 0>
01 H O >
03 01 Z -H
c as
3 >H 0
11 O Cn 4->
2 U 11 O
X 0
T3 01 0! OS
0) 01 3
01 11 S U
0 EH JC
a g -P
O fl O
H -H ^ O
CU ^ *W 4-1
4-1
0
0
as
fl
•H 01
> X!

^
0) O
r> 4-1
• H
OS Cn
C
4J -rH
O Cn
0 in
OS 18
X!
1) O
X! 01
4-> -H
rrj
O

EH
Cn2
C 2
•H
Cn fl
r*-( 4J
fl 01
x: -H
0 >
01
•H >i
-a -a

CU fl
EH CJ
2
§ ^
V
4J 0)
01 0)
fl H
01 U
XI
4-> 01
H M
O 01
z c
IH
O 0
eno •
01 !H
x in 01
01 in >
3 0) -H
S EH OS
CL
EH

4J
in
fl
0)
x;
•P

0
Z

0
Cn •
0) rH
X 0)
01 >
3 -H
S, OS

E 4_)
O O
IH O
14^ pj

01 01
IH XI
01 4-1
4-1
fl 0
3 4J

01 cn
O C
fl -H
UH cn
i_i i_j
3 fl
M Xi
O
0 01
•P -H
T3
01
CnQn
H EH
fl 2
x; 2
O
0! fl
•H 4-J
TJ 01
•H
OH £>
^H
2 >^
2 T3
-a
O fl
z u







.
^1
01

•H
K

P
0
0
as

01
X!
4J

0


Cn
C
•H
Cn
Vj
fl
Xi
0
01
•H
13

OH
EH
2
2

C
• H
rH
x
£
fl
^1
fi.

13
0>
0)
O
a
0

Cu
fl
O
•H
Cn 01
01 H
>H 
 0)
•H EH
as
fl
•P -H
O >
o
as IH
0)
0) >
Si -H
•P OS

0 -P
•P O
o
Cnos
C
•H 01
enx:

fl
X! 0
0 4J
01
•H cn
TJ C
•H
a, cn
EH U
2 fl
2 X!
0
C 01
•H -H
r— 1 'O
^
CO
flj CU
-H EH

2
•a
0) 0
01 Cn •
o o) x
ax u
O 01 01
IH 3 M
CU S CJ
giona
Lake .
u
>H O
X) Cn
3 11

in
. 3
r< S
01
> Cn
•H -H
os m

4J fl
O -H
0 >
OS
IH
1) 1)
Xi >
4J -H
OS
0
4-1 X
0
Cn PH
C
-H 0)
cnx:

fl
x: o
0 4J
01
•H en
TJ C
•H
Cu cn
EH M
2 fl
2 x:
O
C in
•H -H
i-H 'O
^
CO
fl Cu
IH EH
b. 2
2
•a
01 o
01 cn
O 1)
ax
0 01
H 3
CU Z
EH


2



a


Cu
                   SI
                  ••-I
                  4J
                   01
                  4J
i-H
1
(0
m
i
m

r-H.
fl
O
S
10
1
o

rH
fl
O
O
J
C
o
•H
cn
0)
)-l
XI
3
CO
CN
1
fl
S
o
•H
£n
01
i-4
X)
3
CO
m
1
fl
C
0
• H
cn
0)
IH
XI
3
CO
                  •a
                   01

                   in
                   M
                   ai
                  4J
                   fl
                  01 —.
                  M T3
                  0> 01
                  > 3
                  •H G
                  as -H
                    4-1
                  4-1 G
                  O O


                  I"
                  X
                  o
                  CM
                           •   VII-16
-------
•o
0)

e
•H
4J
C
O
u
ca
<
EH
     CO
     w
     Z
     K
     w
     s
E-i
Z

5
(X

6-"
Z
id
2
EH
<



I
     W
     EH
     en
     EH
O
•H
4-1
a
•H
SH
o
Ifl
0)
a
                  •H
                  JJ
                  IB
                  C
                  LI
                   0)

                   in
                   M
                   II
                   JJ
                   IB
                       OJ ^
                       * -a
                  2.5
                     JJ
                  4J C
                  O O
                   X
                   o
                   Ex
ft
EH
£
O
Z
h
IH
0)

•H
05

JJ
0
O
05

41
x:
jj

o
jj

en
c
•H
tn
IH
18
A
0
en
•H
•a

ft
EH

2

C
-H
rH
.*
S
IB
IH
Eu

13
01
in
0
a
o
SH
ft
1
ft
EH

O
en
4)
X.
to
3
S

rH
10
C
O
-H
cn
0>
SH
XI
3
tn

E
0
SH
UH

to
IH
4)
JJ
IB
3

0>
U
(B
UH
Li
3
CO

O
JJ

U
CP
Ll
IB
x:
u
to
•H
•0
er Creek
4)
Q

18
•H
>

SH
0)
>
• rH
05

X
0
Eu

0)
x:
jj

o
JJ

Cn
C
•H
en
SH
(8
x;
o
to
•H
T3

ft
EH

|j

to
SH
O
S
10
s

rH
18
cn
CU
05
IB
•H
>

SH
a)

•H
05

JJ
0
O
05

0)
XI
JJ

0
JJ

en
e
•H
cn
IH
18
S.
O
en
•rH
T3

ft

2
2

JJ
tn
(B
0>
A
JJ
tH
O
Z

o
cr
1)
X
to
3
S
(U
x; cn
JJ C
•H
O CP
JJ SH
10
enx:
c
• H
cn
Ll
to
x;
o
cn
• H
T3

ft
EH

2

jj
tn
0)
3
X!
jJ
iH
O
Z

0
Cn
01
X.
cn
3
Z

h.
;*
01
01
IH
rj

cn
IH
0>

SH
O
>CJ

to
tn
o>
EH
O
CO
•H
13

ft
EH

2

IB
jj
en
•H


>,
T3
T3
IB
U

«
01
.X
(0
hJ,

0
Cn
0)
X
tn
3
S

Cn
•H
03

•IB
•H
>

IH
0)
>
•H
05

X
O
fe



































•
Ll
0>
>
•H
05

jj
O
0
05

01
X!
JJ

0
JJ
T3
0)
N
•H
rH
IB
L!
jj
C
01
O

Li
O
UH

Q
en
2
sj

>i
XI

01
o
•H
>
Ll
1)
to

LI
01
3
0)
tn

>i
LI
10
jj
•H
C
10
to

rH
(8
C
0
•H
en
01
05
harging
u
to
•rH
•o

tn

ft
EH
2
2

01
SH
O
Xi
en

A
JJ
3
O
cn

•o
c
10

TD
C
10
rH
tn
M

en
01
c
0
ID

jj
10

jj
c
0)
Q
JJ
(0
01
|H
JJ






































c
10
cn
•rl
A
o
•H
S

o>
.X
(B
J

O
JJ


.
tn
01
>
jj
IB
C
SH
4)
jJ
rH
<
rH
10
0
3
HH
>

x
•rH
•a
0)
a
a
<
c
'
c
01
>
•H
CP

O)
Ll
tB

tn
jj
e
10
rH
a

O)
x:
jj

,
n
01
ej
i>
Ll
0)
to
LI
a)
0!
to
1^1
IH
IB
JJ
•rH
C
10
to

UH
0

c
o
•H
tn
•H
>
O
SH
a

M
o

jj
c
4!
3 •
r-l CO
MH
UH ft
01 EH
2
UH 2
O
•a
e c
o 10
•H rH
JJ to
IB IH
0
•H 01
rH 01
a c
a, o
IS T3

T! SH
c o
IB
rH 01
Ll
co O
01 A
T3 W
3
rH X!
O JJ
C 3
•H 0
tn
01
tn 0)
iH A
* JJ
x;
O JJ
tn 18
•H
Q JJ
C
i ft 0)
EH S
2 JJ
S 18
01
O >H
Z -U


XI
JJ
to
IB
01
JJ
In
0
Z
0
cn
Q)
x.
tn
3
Z

0)
x;
jj
A
JJ
O
XI
JJ
10
•O ft
01 E-
JJ 2
<0 2
01
•n 0
•U Cn
01
>..*
rH tO
IH 3
0) S
SH rH
0 <0
UH C
o
•••H
18 en
0) 4)
SH SH
18 X!
3
01 to
O
•H -a
> 0)
Ll 10
1) O
to a
0
0 SH
en a
01
X IB
tn
3 JJ
S IB

41 t3
Xi 1)
JJ JJ
10
e u
O SH
SH JJ
UH
0)
O) XI
Cn
IB T3
3 rH
1) 3
cn o
3
rH
rH -
10 ft
EH
4) 2
> 2
•H
JJ JJ
<0 en
C O)
SH 3
01 A
JJ JJ
rH SH
< 0
Z
rH
10 O
C cn
O O)
•H X
cn tn
4) 3
SH S
XI
3 01
W A
JJ
01
X, 13
JJ C
10
IH
41 ft
T3 SH
C 2
D 2


O



















































































a
cn

•?

T>
c
IB

)_i
Ed
cn
w


,.
01
0
IH
3
0
cn
                                VII-17
-------
1.2.1  Caddy Vista WWTP

The Caddy Vista WWTP currently discharges to the Root River.
Under future alternatives, the Caddy Vista WWTP could
continue to discharge to the Root River or it could be
abandoned.  If the plant continued to discharge to the Root
River, the flow from the WWTP would increase by 55%.  The
Local A-l, A-2, A-5, A-7, and A-8 and Local B-l, B-2, B-3,
B-4, B-5, and B-6 alternative combinations for the Root
River include discharge from the Caddy Vista WWTP.  Upstream
flows and pollutant concentrations vary considerably under
these Local alternative combinations, thus affecting the
relative impact of the Caddy Vista WWTP on the river.  Under
the No WWTP Discharge alternative, the Caddy Vista WWTP
would be abandoned, and sanitary sewer service would be
provided by the MMSD at the South Shore WWTP.

1.2.2  Franklin WWTP

A WWTP would be constructed in Franklin under all of the
Subregional alternatives for the Root and Fox River watersheds,
as presented in Table 2.  The proposed Franklin WWTP would
discharge to the Root River.  Under the Subregional-2
alternative, a Muskego Subregional WWTP would also discharge
to the Root River, via Tess Corners Creek.  Under a No WWTP
Discharge alternative, sanitary sewer service would be
provided by the MMSD at the South Shore WWTP.

1.2.3  Germantown WWTP

The Germantown WWTP alternatives include continued discharge
to the Menomonee River, land application of sewage effluent,
or abandonment of the plant.  There are Local, Subregional,
No Action, and No WWTP Discharge'alternatives for the Germantown
WWTP, as presented in Table 2.  Under the Local alternative,
the Germantown WWTP would be upgraded and would continue to
discharge to the Menomonee River.  Under the Subregional
alternative, a new Germantown Subregional WWTP would be
constructed and would discharge to the Menomonee River.  The
three No WWTP Discharge alternatives include land application
of effluent from either of the Germantown Local or Sub-
regional WWTPs or the abandonment of the WWTP with sanitary
sewer service provided by the MMSD at the Jones Island and
South Shore WWTPs.

1.2.4  Muskego Northeast WWTP

Under existing conditions, the Muskego Northeast WWTP
discharges to the Root River via Tess Corners Creek.
Future alternatives for the Muskego Northeast WWTP include
continued discharge to Tess Corners Creek, discharge to Big
Muskego Lake, land application of sewage effluent, and
                               VII-18
-------
abandonment of the plant.  There are Local, Subregional No
WWTP Discharge, and No Action alternatives for the Muskego
Northeast WWTP.  Under the Local A-l, A-2 and A-5; Local B-
1, B-3 and B-5; and Subregional - 2 alternative combinations,
the Muskego Northeast WWTP would discharge to the Root River
via Tess Corners Creek.  Under the Local A-7, A-8, and Sub-
regional-3 alternatives, the Muskego Northeast WWTP would
discharge to the Fox River via Big Muskego Lake.  Under the
No WWTP Discharge alternatives, the effluent from the Muskego
Northeast WWTP would either be land applied or the WWTP
would be abandoned, with sanitary sewer service being provided
by the MMSD at the South Shore WWTP.

1.2.5  Muskego Northwest WWTP

Under existing conditions, the Muskego Northwest WWTP dis-
charges to Big Muskego Lake, and ultimately to the Fox
River.  Under future conditions, the Muskego Northwest WWTP
may continue to discharge to Big Muskego Lake, discharge to
Tess Corners Creek, utilize land application of sewage or be
abandoned.  The Local A-l alternative combination includes
discharge into the Root River via Tess Corners Creek, and
the Local A-5 alternative combination includes continued
discharge to the Fox River via Big Muskego Lake.  Under the
No WWTP Discharge alternatives, effluent from the WWTP would
be land applied, or the WWTP could be abandoned.  Under the
Regional alternative, sanitary sewer service would be provided
by the MMSD at the South Shore WWTP; under the Subregional
alternatives for the Root River, service would be provided
at a proposed Muskego Subregional or the Franklin Subregional
WWTPs; and under the Local-B alternatives, sanitary sewer
service would be provided at an expanded Muskego Northeast
WWTP.

1.2.6  New Berlin Southeast WWTP

The Local B alternatives include the construction of a new
WWTP in southeast New Berlin.  There are Local and No WWTP
Discharge alternatives for the proposed New Berlin Southeast
WWTP.  Under the Local B-l and B-2 alternative combinations,
the proposed New Berlin Southeast WWTP would discharge to
the Fox River via Deer Creek.  Under the Local B-3 and B-4
alternatives combinations, the WWTP would discharge to the
Root River via Tess Corners Creek.  Under the No WWTP Dis-
charge alternatives, effluent from the proposed New Berlin
Southeast WWTP would be land applied, or sanitary sewer
service would be provided by the MMSD at the South Shore
WWTP.
                              VII-19
-------
1.2.7.  Regal Manors WWTP

Under existing conditions, the Regal Manors WWTP discharges
to Deer Creek which is tributary to the Fox River.  Under
future alternatives, the WWTP may continue to discharge to
Deer Creek, or it may be abandoned.

There are five Local alternatives, one No WWTP Discharge
alternative, and one No Action alternative for the Regal
Manors WWTP.  The Local A-l, A-2, A-5, A-7, and A-8 alternative
combinations include upgrading the Regal Manors WWTP with
continued discharge to the Fox River via Deer Creek.  Under
the No WWTP Discharge alternative sanitary sewer service
would be provided either by the MMSD at the South Shore
WWTP or by the proposed New Berlin Southeast WWTP under the
Local B alternatives.

1.2.8.  Thiensville and Meguon/Thiensville WWTPs

The Thiensville WWTP currently discharges to the Milwaukee
River.  Under future alternatives, the Thiensville WWTP could
continue to discharge to the Milwaukee River, a new Mequon/
Thiensville Subregional WWTP could be constructed or the
Thiensville WWTP could be abandoned.  There are Local, Sub-
regional, No Action, and No WWTP Discharge alternatives for
the Thiensville WWTP.  Under the Local alternative, the
upgraded Thiensville WWTP would continue to discharge to the
Milwaukee River.  Under the Subregional alternative, a new
Mequon/Thiensville Subregional WWTP would be constructed and
discharge effluent to the Milwaukee River.  The existing
Thiensville WWTP would be abandoned.  Under the No WWTP
Discharge alternatives, the effluent from the Mequon/Thiensville
subregional plant would either be land applied, or the MMSD
would provide centralized sewer service at the Jones Island
or South Shore WWTPs.  Either way, the Milwaukee River would
receive no wastewater treatment plant effluent from the
Thiensville/Mequon service area.
                               VII-20
-------
                         CHAPTER II

      WATER USE OBJECTIVES AND WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
Water use objectives are designations of intended uses for
surface waters.  They provide a means for assessing the
water quality impacts of alternative wastewater treatment
plants and pollution control measures.  Water use objectives
for surface waters within the State have been established by
the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.  To determine
the degree of attainment of these water use objectives numeric
standards for certain water quality parameters have been
established.  These standards are set forth in Chapters
NR 102, 103, and 104 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code.

In addition, the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning
Commission  (SEWRPC) has recommended water use objectives and
supporting water quality standards for the year 2000.  These
recommended standards are presented in the 208 plan for
southeastern Wisconsin.  Water use objectives for waterways
affected by combined sewer overflows are set forth in
Appendix V, Combined Sewer Overflow.

Existing DNR water use objectives for surface waters in the
MMSD planning area are shown on Figure  4, and supporting
water quality standards are set forth in Table 3.  Of the
154 stream miles in the planning area, excluding combined
sewer overflows, 110 miles of streams, or 71%, are classified
for recreational use and warmwater fish and aquatic life.
In addition, Big Muskego Lake is classified for recreational
use, warmwater fish and aquatic life.  The mouth of Oak
Creek is classified for recreational use and for support of
a salmon spawning fishery and aquatic life.

Due to one or a number of conditions including:  the presence
of inplace pollutants, low natural streamflow, natural
background conditions, and irretrievable cultural alterations,
some streams are classified for uses less restrictive than
full recreational use and warmwater fish and aquatic life.
In some instances special variances in the Milwaukee area
are less restrictive than marginal and intermediate standards.
About 29 miles of streams, or 19% of the total stream miles
are currently granted special variances.  Indian Creek and
Lincoln Creek and portions of the Milwaukee River in the
Milwaukee River watershed; the Kinnickinnic River; and Honey
Creek and portions of Underwood Creek and the Menomonee
River in the Menomonee River watershed are currently granted
special variances.  For these 29 miles of streams, standards
have been established for fecal coliform, dissolved oxygen,
un-ionized ammonia nitrogen, temperature, and pH to support
the variance classification and prevent further degradation.
                               VII-21
-------
   LEGEND

RECREATIONAL USE, COLDWATER
FISH and AQUATIC LIFE, PUBLIC
WATER SUPPLY
RECREATIONAL USE, WARMWATER
FISH and AQUATIC LIFE
RECREATIONAL USE,  INTERMEDIATE
AQUATIC LIFE
RECREATIONAL USE, MARGINAL
AQUATIC LIFE
VARIANCE
RECREATIONAL USE, SALMON
SPAWNING FISH and AQUATIC LIFE
MMSO PLANNING AREA
STREAMS AFFECTED BY COMBINED
SEWER OVERFLOW. OBJECTIVES for
THESE STREAMS ARE SET FORTH
in APPENDIX V, COMBINED SEWER
OVERFLOW
FIGURE
4
DATE
APRIL 1981
/^-^ SOURCE DNR and ESEI
DNR WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES MV^i "'""
VII-22 YjX^ISfi

IEO BY
PflEcolSciences
3L ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
SM
-------
r5W



Sg

D H
04
H cn
a H

Z H

Ul CJ
z u
O 1-3
U m
Ul O
rH
3 U
  Ul


*-
X U

< <;


Ir.
w u
  <

  I

  Ul










































01
in
D


fO
C
O


18

14
0
_.































C
• H
^
10



0)
c

O
01
in
D

rH
10
c
o
-H

10

^
u
01
ce
in
rH
10

O
-H
4J
10
01

u
01
OS
•0
c
18

r;
CO
•H
Cu

M
0)
4J
(0
3
T3
rH
8




18
C
O
•r*
4-1
18
01

U
Oj
(2
















-H
OJ
rH

10
U
-H
rH
Q.
Q.

o
H
4J
10
3
cr
<

rH
a
c
H
cn
n
10
s

01

18
H
•D
5J
S

0)
4J
C
M


T:
c
18

0)
<4H
— 1
J

O
•H
4J
18
3
*
X
in
b
01
18



18
3


1)

D









^,
4J
•H

(8
a
rl
01
4J
3
£

01
01

3


r-l
•H













0)
»4H
• H
_J

0)

-H
J

O
H
4J
10
3
o1

rH
a

3*
Ul


01

18
3

0
•H
rH
XI
3
a.


£
•H
O

4J

3
cr


ti
c
18












cn

ramete
18
04
U
O
0 0
o

* — K

o
10 O O
1 1
1 v£ IN rH |








O
•o

o
1 •»

10 O O ^
Cfi • O «
CO ^D rH (NJ O




0
T3
cn o
o

X
to o o i^i
cn o •


c
o
Cl)
18
01
cn

cn
o c
-H -0
cn co
3 o
J3 t 10 ^f CN
a \ o
10 o in o o
cn o
co i^o co r^ CN o






o
T!

O
t T
X f-H
10 O O O
cn o •
co co m CN o
c c
0) -H
cn S in
>i u o
X 0 rH
V O 44 Si
V4 — -H U
3 M T3 rH
4J 4J 0) O — -1
18 -H > O rJ fl
rl C rH S3
01 D O rH 13
Cu in 18 o ••"<
£ T3 in o o cn
01 U -r4 0) rH 3J
EH 10 Q Ul ^^ Q*
01 "O ^^ O •• ^
S CnC SrH gtj S-H
3~ CiO 3\ 3IU 3\
•r4 o 04 Ul -HE -ri S -H £
x— — c— x-' x —
3 a 2 S s




cn
-r-i »
T w
o
1 1
O 1 1











cn

UH

1 1 1
1 1 1


-H

CD 1)
e 4J
E c
3 -H a>
in 3
u
0 0
• II











01 Si
o
in Cn
c^
CN \ V,
o o
O 1
O "1 1









cn
•r-l »
rr I*H
0
1 1
a i i
in
•D

.,H
o
Ul
T3 C
01 01 tj
N cn 0)
•HO >
C ^ rH
0 4J O
•H -H CO
I 2 in
C 1 -^ -H
D Ifl rH Q
£ C cn E rH
Si— E Cn IH
•HE ••HE 0)
x < x — .e
10 10 4J
S SO
               VII-23
-------
g
 a
 H
 D
 z

 EH
 Z
01
•r4
rH
0
•H
Jj
10
o1
jj
u
01
UH
fl
rH
01
iH
10
JS
JJ

01
01
o>
c
Ifl
JS
o


JJ
Ifl
iH
01
04
g
4-1
o
c


n

rH
10
JS
01
CD
V4
1)

t*

0
apply to Lake Michigan.

T3

Ifl
•O
C
ifl
JJ
01
01

Vi
10
JS
o
01
•rH
rH
1

01


rH
10
C
0
•r4
JJ
•H
n

<

J3
JS
4J
C
01
Ifl
o
o
0
rH
•O
01
01
11
JJ
o
c
rH
rH
IB
JS
01
rH
s
O
0
rH
8
Cu
JJ

O
o

S
iH
O
UH
•H
rH
0
o

10
0
01
UH
iH
u

•H
UH

11
1
iH
D
e

0<

H

o
00
O
c
ifl
JS
c
•H
0
o
0
IN
01
o
X
01
o
c
JS
JJ
c
a
0!
01
rH
ifl
01
in

JJ
iO

4J

01
in
01
rH
JJ
o
c
c
0
•o
0)
01
ja

e
10

e
o
Vi
Jj


0
0)
en










JS
JJ
c


>4
c
ifl

i1
•- *
r-l
3

w
OJ

t
TJ
01
i-4
r— I
fl

4-1
o


nt (MFFCC/100 ml) shall not exceed 200 as a monthly
3
0
Q

S
14
0
4-t
•H
r-*
O
0

4— 1
U
(U
0)
r-l
•H
4-1


C
VH
1


01

&

T3
<*>
O
C
Ifl
JS
JJ
D
r!
C
0
o
•o
01
01
o
X
01
JJ
0
JJ
c
0
s
s
Oi
01
01
10
01

c
Ifl
JS


01
01
01
rH

o
c
c
o
T3
01
01
(0

c
iO

6
u
•H
Vi
JJ


o
01












JJ
c


>,
c
10

Oi
c
•H
3
n

m
01

1
10
0!
rH
-H
Ifl

UH
O


•rH
JJ
JJ
Ifl
rH
	
O
T3
11
01
O
X
D
rl
O
c
Oi
Ifl
10
rH
JJ
C
10
ul
Ifl
rH
e

o
o


TJ
01
D
01

JJ
0
c

rH
rH
10
JS
01
01
T3
• H
rH
0
01
T3
rH
o
01
01
•rH
a

1)
nimum standards:
•H
S


C
•rH
3
O
rH
rH
O


JS


0)
01
rH
rH
10

01
01

0)
Jj
10


H
rH
<

UH
UH
O
>i
•o
3
UH
0
T3
D
01
JS
JJ
rH
O
01
JS
01
01
JS
jj
c
o
01
JJ
•H
01
a
n
D
rH
a
10
§
•rH
JJ
0
0)
•n
ja
o

0)
01
3
10
O

rH

3
jj
iO
JS
**
01
01
o
c
Ifl
JJ
01
1


,«,
ifl
*-'


in
iH
Ol
3
C
•rH
in
j-i
JS
rH
O
rH
o,
JJ
•H
01
r4
UH
rH
JJ
C
•H
O
JJ
01
Ifl
01
JJ
i
JS
o
3
01

C
•H


C
01
01,

a



-u
o
c
rH
rH
10
JS
01

iH
01
3







01
JJ
Ifl
1
01
c
•H
JJ
C
o>
01
1)
iH
a
JS
Jj
o
c
i-H
r>H
ifl
JS
01
rH
ifl
•H
rH
01
JJ
rl
O<
JS
JJ
O
iH
O
o
01
rH
-r4
o

fc
01
•H

ja
11
T3

•a
01
Oi

11
ja
3
• 01
01
JJ V4
10 o
jj
01 Oi
C
01 -i-l
JS JJ
JJ as
UHr-5
O fa


l--s
ja



s in waters of the state.
jj
JS
Ol
•H
iH

U
•rH
rH
•S


JJ
•H

U
iH
01
UH
01
JJ
e
•H
O
JJ
01
Ifl







taste or unsightliness shall not be present in such amounts
ts in waters of the state.
JS
- Ol
iH -H
O iH
TJ
o o
•H
- rH
in ja
o 3
rH a
o
o js
jj
c 3
•r4
O
3 11
T3 Vl
O 01
a M
01
01 JJ
rH C
10 -H
•r4
W O
D JJ
JJ
ifl 01
£ ifl


^^
0



ombinations which are toxic or harmful to humans shall not
o


o

01
c
o
•H
JJ
10

JJ
c
01
u
c
8
c
•H
Ul

O
C
ifl
4J
Ul
%
to


.«,
T3



of public health significance, nor shall substances be
ely harmful to animal, plant or aquatic life.
0)
a

o
jj

•o

o

01
JJ

Q
10
c
H
Jj
C
11
01
41
a
5








3
U


U
iH
Ifl
JS
o
•H
JS
3
Ul
jJ
|
ifl
c
•rH

JJ
C
HI
01
a)
iH
a







ermitted that alone or in combination with other materials
a

jj
o


ii

nj
01
1)
o
§
JJ
01
ja
3
in
"o

en
c
o
•rH
JJ
Ifl
JJ
S
01
u

0
0

Ol
01
UH
•H
rH
O
•H
JJ

o1
10

iH
0)


o
i4
o

JS
01
•H
UH
O
JJ
O

o
jj

iH
10
JJ
e
u
01
01

a


hat by appropriate treatment and adequate safeguards
jj

JS
0
3
01

11
rH
rH
•H
3
>»
rH
a
a
3
01
iH
11
JJ
Ifl
3
n
J4
jj
C
•rl

D

fr"

JS
Drinking Water Standards of 1962.
oi
o
•H
>
iH
1)
tfl

rH
(0
01

o
H
rH
•§
04
11
JS
JJ

Jj
m

rH
rH
•H
3

jj
•n


gen standard is currently accepted by the EPA for warmwater
conducting research on this subject and the final recommendations
ild be lower than the interim standard of 0.04 mg/1 un-ionized













c
01
Ol
S
•H
Z
1
Ifl
•rH
C

i


fcj
Q
&

•H

Vj
JJ
•H
C


-H
C

(0
T3
0)
N
-H
•H
1


fH

i1

^r


0)
.c
£-t

•r-i
j
>, o

jj _
c g
0) O


3 D
U £
01 VI

<« 2
o< •£
u o
CO 10
> •
01 "^ S


5 "2 S
G M
. -2 £
ui I C
•rj 3 rfl
IM ••-*
qj CJ C

w iw 1

tu 0 fl
















M
Ed
C.O
&4

tj
c
10

§


Oi
o
3
O
en
                                 VII-24
-------
A recreational use and marginal aquatic life classification
is assigned to Deer Creek in the Fox River watershed and to
a tributary to the Root River and a portion of Whitnall Park
Creek in the Root River watershed.  Marginal use classifications
are assigned to about seven stream miles, or five percent of
the total.  Standards to support the recreational use and
marginal aquatic life classification have been established
for fecal coliform, dissolved oxygen, temperature, pH,  and chlorine.

The remaining eight miles of streams, or five percent of the
total, are classified for recreational use and intermediate
aquatic life.  The streams classified for recreational use
and intermediate aquatic life include a portion of Whitnall
Park Creek and Tess Corners Creek.  Standards to support
this objective have been established for fecal coliform, chlorine,
dissolved oxygen, temperature, pH, and total ammonia.

In addition, all surface waters in Wisconsin shall meet
minimum standards which prohibit objectionable deposits on
the shore or bed of a body of water; floating or submerged
materials; substances producing color, odor, taste, or
unsightliness; and substances which are a public health
hazard or acutely toxic to other biota.

Lake Michigan is classified by the DNR for recreational use,
coldwater fish and aquatic life, and public water supply.
Standards established for Lake Michigan by the DNR are also
set forth in Table 3.  The Milwaukee Outer Harbor is classified
by DNR to support recreational use and warmwater fish and
aquatic life  (Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 103.06 and
July 3, 1980 letter from Mr. Duane Schuettpelz, DNR, to Mr.
Dale Leucht, US EPA.)  Although coldwater fish species do
enter the Outer Harbor, there is no requirement that the
water quality within the Outer Harbor be able to sustain
reproduction of the coldwater fish species.

For the year 2000, the areawide water quality management
(208)  plan adopted by SEWRPC has recommended water use
objectives and supporting water quality standards.  No
specific water use objectives were assigned for Lake Michigan
or for the estuary reaches of the Milwaukee, Menomonee, and
Kinnickinnic Rivers.  Figure 5 shows the 208 recommended
water use objectives and Table 4 presents supporting water
quality standards for the year 2000 for streams and lakes in
the planning area.
                              VII-25
-------
   LEGEND

RECREATIONAL USE, WARMWATER
FISH and AQUATIC LIFE
LIMITED RECREATIONAL USE,
WARMWATER FISH and AQUATIC
LIFE
LIMITED RECREATIONAL USE,
LIMITED FISH ond AQUATIC LIFE
RECREATIONAL USE, SALMON
SPAWNING FISH and AQUATIC LIFE
MMSD PLANNING AREA
STREAMS AFFECTED BY COMBINED
SEWER OVERFLOW. OBJECTIVES for
THESE STREAMS ARE SET FORTH
in APPENDIX V. COMBINED  SEWEfl
OVERFLOW. WATER QUALITY
OBJECTIVES WERE NOT ESTABLISHED
IN THE 208 PLAN  FOR THE INNER
HARBOR,OUTER HARBOR, OR LAKE
MICHIGAN.
FIGURE
DATE
APRIL 198!
s 	 . SOURCE SEWRPC
?0fl RFOOMMFNDFD /^fiA^ oc.«nrv.
WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES f VAj P"EP*AED B¥
FOR THE YEAR 2000 Y£j!©[S
0 EcoISciences
3U ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
w
VII-26
-------

Q
W
D
Z
W

g
Q

S

z
3
s

EH
Z
W
T E
«3
J rt
m z
rt rt
EH S


g_l
M
ij
a
Ol
ff|

£_t

3

Ed
Q

3
Ed.
2

































a;
O
in o
§0
0

Q ™
Z

cn a
cc
£ <
M [J
r5 Z
rt >H
D Z
01 Z
« 5
U 0.
EH
rt Q
3 cn

Q 2
Z
rt Ed

en E-
M
rH 1-1
EH
U &

n E-
n rt
0 3

H Ed
cn o
D rt

a 2
Ed D
EH cn
rt
2































er Fishery
4->
fl
fl
3











H
01

01
•H
b


01
u
fl

rl
fl
3














>•«
01

01
•H
fa
T3
U
4J

•H
J


















Ul
>,
IH
11
A
en
•H
b
Oi
C
-H
C
3
fl
a
cn
c
rH
fl
cn
<3
c
CM
•rl
J
O
•H
V
fl
3
a1

^j











«
cu

•H
J

O
•H
4J
fl
3
"*
<-3













tU

IW
•H
J

O
-H
4J
(0
3


<£












4-1
-H
rH
fl
11
4J
fl
3.
cn
en
3
rH
fl
C
o
• H
4J
fl
CU
U
U
&


•H
jj













01

ramete
fl
CK
o
0
O "
O 1
•«r CN i
ja \ o CN
fl O O O O rH
cn • o
co in CN o o o
U
u
O 'O
0 1
•T 1
\ rH CN
fl O 0 O 0 rH
cn • o
co m CN o o o
















cu

0 13
o
O 1 1
f 1 1
\ rH CN
fl o o o o
cn • o
oo m CN o o


















cu
O T3
O 1 1
0 1 1

fl O O in CN
a\ . o •



___
rH
\ 01
cn 3
6 -. •-! g rl
C rH fl ~- O
Q B S A
u u 13 c Oi a
H -H O -H — 13 CU 01 E
3 13 rHO 01 rH CUCH Ofl
4J 01 -^ OrH 0) X NO .C CU
fl >rH U KOl-Hrl Ot U
rl rH \ rl EC4J 4J
§001 rHCU rH ^ O-H iH 01
MS fl O< IB -H2 fl
01 — O 4J 11 1 4J 1
CU -H cuol OC fi ,
rH
•H
fl

rH
tB
VH
3
4J
tO
Z


CU
4H

rH
O
•H
4J
fl
3
Cf
fl

•y
u
01

fl
^
rH
CU
01
VI
Ol
>
T3
<0

rH
rH
IB
a
01

4J
2
4-1

01
01
tr>
q
S
u

cu

3
IB
H

g
11

O
C

cu
rH
rH
IB
01

CU
H
11

IB
°F.
imon reproduction is to be protected.
in fl
en
13
cu 13
0 01
u .*
X. U
u o

4, en

o
rH
rH rH
fl fl
£ H
01 3

CU fl
c c
0
N CU

Oi CU
C .C
•H 3
X
•H U

3
D 4-1
5 £
« S,
0 g
u
0) 4-1

•O C
01 -H

cu cn
JS 41
4J 01
rt
4J 01
fl M
0
11 C
en -H
•H
fl
01 -H
rl 0
3 -H
fl -H
rl 4->
O V4
a fl
1) 4J
4-1 C
fl
§0
•H

•a-s
§cn
•H
01
01
.C 4J
P 0
C

• cu
cu
C rH
•H rH
fl fl
4J r3
C 01
•H
fl CU
i!


s shall not be lowered below natural back-

<;
q

cj

nj
01

O


Ul
T3
-H
C
rH

(n

T3
 CU
rH >
O U
01 rH
01
•H TJ
01 0
g Ol

X)
c
fl
1
o
• H
4-1
0
cu
rH
4J
C
tB
O
C
4-1
C
1)
a
en
D
r-4
I
fl
en

cu

-H
U-l

c
fl
.c
4J

en
en
D
rH •
4J 4-1
O C
C Q

C
0 >.
C
13 iB
01
01 CT
5-5
rH 3
g T3

O 01
O D
rH rH
a
rH E
CU fl
a 01

0 rH
O rH
CN fl

>4H I4H
0 0

fl C
§01
u

•H ft

4-1 O
1) rH
O C
01 fl
0< A

rH CU
5 S
c s

g C
-H
fl
13 E
CU
cu O
0 0
X rH
01
4J d)
o a,
c
o
rH 0
rH *T
fl
cn o

o
x:
01
•H
0
4J
U
H
X
O
4J
CU
fl
4J
C
D
01
D
a
01
rH
IB
11
4J
a
g
D
A
O

4-1
H

C
O
•H
4-1
fl
C
•H
1
O
u

c
•H
14
o

cu
G
0
rH
tB

4J
fl
4J
•a
0)

4J
• H
g

CU
a

4-1
0
c

cu

fl

11
0
c
fl
4J
en

"3
en
>4H
O

01
C
o
•H
4J
fl •
rl CU
4J I4H
C "H
grH
C U
O -H
O 4-1
fl
13 3
01 tr
N fl
-H
0 o
A A
4J 4-1
3 O
fl
D O

•0
ns: Substances that will cause objection-
0
H
• H
13
C
0
0

3
0
rH
UH
^
rH
fl

14
CU
•o
C
3

13
C
fl

01


•fH
4J
rH
fl

4J
fl

01
"0
rl
iB

fl
4J
01

e

•H
C
•H
S

C
•H
C?
rH
rH
O

01
A
4-1

jj
01

g
rH
rH
fl
en

01
01
4J
fl
3
rH
rH

11
ts as to interfere with public riqhts in
present in amounts found to be of public
nimal, plant, or aquatic life.
C to
Q A 0
fl 4J
O r-
A C 3
U i£
3 rH g
01 rH >H
fl 10
C £ .C
•H yl
4J rH rH
C « 0)
CU -H 4J
en IH 3
CU 01 O
rl -U fl
£ CU
CU K
O. rl fl
CU
4J £ £
O 4J U
C 0 -H

r-1 M 3
rH O
IB 01
A - 4J
01 g C
3 3
rl U 0
cu ol E
4-1 fl
fl -
3 rH C
•H -H
UH O
0 4-1
» C
>« en cu
13 -H 01
0 in cu
a a >H
D O<
fl T3
11
**H 'O &
O CU
TJ *H D
CU 01 O

J2 fl
01 3 4J
x; cn oi

V4 3
C O 01
•H


0 -H fl
•p x:
CU to 01
rl O
O rH rl
£ fa 0
01 C

eu . -
A V 01
4J 4J U
fl C
C 4J fl
o en u
•H
en cu ^
4J .C -H
•H 4J C
en cn
a<4H -H
O CO
01
13 en A
M 4J
01 01 rH
rH 4J fl
fl 3 X


































































U
3
Ed
cn
„
01
Sourc


VII-27
-------
Of the 154 total stream miles in the planning area, 64
miles, or 41% are classified in the 208 plan for recreational
use and warmwater fish and aquatic life.  Fifty-five miles
of streams, or 36% of the total, are classified for limited
recreational use and warmwater fish and aquatic life, and 35
stream miles, or 23% are classified for limited recreational
use and limited fish and aquatic life.

The water use categories recommended in the 208 plan vary
slightly from the existing DNR categories.  In general, the
areawide water quality management plan recommends standards
which are equal to, or more stringent than existing DNR
standards.  Unlike the DNR standards, the standards recom-
mended in the 208 plan are not currently enforceable.

The DNR water quality standards and the 208 water quality
recommendations will be compared to the water quality conditions
which are expected to occur under various wastewater treatment
plant alternatives and pollution control measures.
                               VII-28
-------
                        CHAPTER III

   INLAND WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS


3.0  INTRODUCTION

This chapter evaluates the water quality impacts of the
local and subregional wastewater treatment plant alternatives
described in Chapter I.  Chapter IV evaluates alternatives
for the Jones Island and South Shore WWTPs and other direct
sources to Lake Michigan.  Presented for the local and
subregional WWTP alternatives are predicted water quality
conditions during critical stream low flow periods, an
analysis of the impacts of ammonia discharges, a qualitative
assessment of dissolved oxygen impacts, and an assessment of
WWTP discharges to Big Muskego Lake and the proposed Oakwood
Lake.  Both the existing DNR and 208 recommended water
quality standards set forth in Chapter II are used to identify
probable impacts of water quality conditions on intended
water uses.

3.1  STREAM LOW FLOW WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS

3.1.1  Methodology

The water quality of streams which receive discharges from
wastewater treatment plants  (WWTP) was estimated under
existing conditions and future WWTP alternatives.  The
analysis was conducted to evaluate stream impacts during low
flow conditions, when the WWTP effluent would comprise a
relatively large portion of the total streamflow.  The
lowest seven consecutive day flow having a probability of
occurance of once in every 10 years  (the Qy-10) was used for
the receiving stream.  Both existing DNR and 208 recommended
water quality standards are required to be achieved at flows
equal to or greater than the Qy-lO flow.  Although Appendix
V,  Combined Sewer Overflow, used average flow conditions to
evaluate water quality conditions, this section utilizes low
flow conditions because that is when the impacts from WWTPs
would be the greatest, and because water quality standards
must be met at all flows equal to or greater than the Q7-10
flow.

Under each WWTP alternative, the discharge was mixed with
the receiving stream to estimate downstream water quality
conditions.  It was assumed that the WWTP effluent and the
streamflow mix completely and that no degradation of pollutants
occurs within the area of mixing.  To calculate water quality
conditions  immediately downstream of the mixing zone, the
following formula was used:

          C = (CeQe)  + (CsQs)
                    Qe + Qs
                               VII-29
-------
     Where:

          C = pollutant concentration immediately downstream
               of mixing zone
          Ce= WWTP effluent pollutant concentration
          Cs= upstream pollutant concentration
          Qe= WWTP effluent flow
          Qs= upstream flow

The downstream water quality conditions calculated from the
formula were compared to existing DNR and 208 recommended
water quality standards to identify the impacts the WWTP
discharges would have on recreational activities and fish
and other aquatic life.

The discharge volume from each WWTP under existing conditions
was based on 1978 data from the DNR.  The designed average
daily capacities of the WWTPs, as reported by the MMSD
(1980) were used to estimate effluent flows under the No
Action alternatives because these flows were considered to
be the highest at which the existing WWTPs could consistently
meet their permit requirements.  These values were used for
all WWTPs except the Caddy Vista and Thiensville WWTPs.  For
the Caddy Vista WWTP, the estimated average daily base flow
for the year 2005 was used as the No Action flow because it
was lower than the current designed average daily capacity
of the plant.  In the case of the No Action Thiensville WWTP
alternative, the existing daily base flow was used because
this flow is already higher than the designed average daily
capacity.  The effluent flows used under the Local and
Subregional alternatives were the average daily base flows
for the year 2005 as reported by the MMSD (1980).


Under existing conditions, pollutant concentrations in the
effluent were based on measured data presented by the MMSD
(1980) or SEWRPC  (1978).  The existing pollutant concentrations
were also used for the No Action alternatives.  Under Local
and Subregional alternatives, pollutant concentrations in
the effluent are assumed to be the future WPDES effluent
limits proposed by DNR.  For those parameters which do not
have established effluent limits, the existing concentrations
are used for future conditions.

The existing low flows (Qy IQ) of the receiving streams were
determined from U.S. Geological Survey data.  Except for the
Milwaukee and Root Rivers, the existing low flows were also
used for future conditions for the various alternatives.
For the Milwaukee River, future low flows are increased to
account for increased flows from wastewater treatment plants
located upstream of the MMSD planning area  (SEWRPC, 1979).
Various combinations of WWTPs on the Root River required the
addition of WWTP flows to stream low flows for the analysis
of downstream plants.


                               VII-30
-------
The water quality of upstream flows was estimated based on
data from SEWRPC (1978), and the MMSD  (1980).  If no data
were available for the stream, water quality data from a
nearby stream with similar characteristics were used.
Chlorine concentrations were assumed to be zero.  Under
future conditions,  it was assumed that the upstream water
quality, if not affected by upstream WWTP discharges, would
meet the 208 recommended standards of 0.1 mg/1 and 200
MFFCC/100 ml for phosphorus and fecal coliform, respectively.
Since the 208 plan does not recommend a phosphorus standard
for the Menomonee River, the existing concentration was
used.

3.1.2  Caddy Vista WWTP

There are a large number of alternative conditions evaluated
for the Caddy Vista WWTP.  This is primarily because upstream
Root River conditions vary considerably due to numerous Root
River watershed discharge alternatives for the Muskego
Northwest, Muskego Northeast, New Berlin Southeast, and
Franklin WWTPs.  Table 5 sets forth downstream low flow
water quality conditions for the Root River under existing
conditions, a No Action alternative, five Local A alternatives,
six Local B alternatives, and a No WWTP Discharge alternative.
If the WWTP discharges to the Root River, the low flow of
the Root River would range from 1.3 to 12.7 cfs.  The resultant
concentrations of biochemical oxygen demand would range from
14% less than, to 45% greater than, the existing concentration.
Concentrations of total nitrogen would range from 95% of the
existing concentration to over 3^ times the existing level.
Concentrations of total phosphorus would remain about the
same as existing under any WWTP alternatives.  The concentration
of chlorine would range from 0.007 to 0.06 mg/1.  Under the
No WWTP Discharge alternative, the low flow of the Root
River would be reduced to 60% of its existing flow, and the
concentrations of biochemical oxygen demand, total nitrogen,
and total phosphorus would be reduced to 45, 47, and 44% of
their existing levels, respectively.

The existing DNR and 208 recommended fecal coliform standard
of 200 MFFCC/100 ml would be met under all future alternatives.
The existing DNR and 208 recommended standard of 0.01 mg/1
for residual chlorine is violated under existing conditions
and all future alternatives except the Local B-3 and B-4 and
No WWTP Discharge.   The 208 total phosphorus standard of 0.1
mg/1 is violated under existing and all future alternatives.
The phosphorus standard would be violated outside the MMSD
service area even under the No WWTP Discharge alternative
because of discharges from the Union Grove WWTP to the Root
River Canal in Racine County outside of the MMSD service
area.
                               VII-31
-------
































01
2
O
EH
M
Q
Z
O
tj

W
M
E-

*•»

U
£-H

*
o
o
CN

02


>•


















































0)
Ol

EH ro
3 -C

in
O -H
2 Q
•T

ffl

rH
id
O
m
1
ffl

rH
id
u
o
j
in
t
m
fc

i
ffl


co
8




CO &
1 1
< CO
^ „
r-- CN
i i
*3l CQ

f_4
rtj
U
3



I



CN
i


iH
fl
U
o
,_]



1


rH


•H
X


0
0

01

•H
f£

JJ
o
S
OJ

•H


-U

Q
0!



^
OJ

•H
p£

4J
8







S-4
0)

-H


JJ
O
&






iM

^
Ctf

4J

1


IH

^
-H
o;

s





0)
•H
jj


OS





01
id
3

C
•H
-H
01
U


O m o"i

0
I-H vo m o




Ol
m ir> o -^ o
l£> . . O C

0> rH CM rH O


O g

^ "*! ^ 0 0

M ~H CM rH O








O
«• rH rH O IN
m . rH O

^ iH CN (H O










O
r- m o o ^o
CN . rj\ m O
. rH
rH r— 1 i£ rH O









„ s
O in m ^ O

. r- CD <-* o
fN rH r^






O
m 
-H
a;
^
Q
Q



JJ
o
4J


U
Ol
id
o
in
•H
•a


)H
4J
C
01
•3
u


EH



(0

en
•H
>


S
3

01
g
Id
























































Cu


3
ra

in
•H


>i
r^

U
-j
r;
4J

14J
o
S
01

JJ
Ul
a.

01
o

01

01
c

a
0]



nj
•H



S
•H
U

JJ
S

0)
£
JJ






























E
O

"»
,— (
•H
r3
OJ

tO

OJ

(0
(U



tn
a
rH
a
^
o

^


0
rH

S
o
rH

U
id
0)
o
rH

»

id
T3
1
c—
01

4J

in cu
"S 1
rH
O 01
C £
fH 4J
A
                                       a
                                       o
                                       en
VII-32
-------
3.1.3  Franklin WWTP

The proposed Franklin WWTP would discharge to the Root
River.  The WWTP discharge would increase the low flow of
the Root River by up to 24 times.  The Subregional 1 and 2
alternatives include a WWTP flow about double the flow under
the Subregional 3 and 4 alternatives.  As shown in Table 6,
the low flow water quality conditions under all of the WWTP
alternatives are very similar.  If the Franklin WWTP was
constructed, the concentration of biochemical oxygen demand
during low flow conditions in the Root River would increase
by 137 to 143%; the concentrations of total nitrogen would
increase by more than 13 times; the concentrations of total
phosphorus would more than double; and chlorine levels would
increase from a negligible concentration to a level of about
0.5 mg/1.

The existing DNR and 208 recommended fecal coliform standard
of 200 MFFCC/100 ml would be met under all future conditions.
The existing DNR and 208 recommended residual chlorine
standard of 0.01 mg/1 is violated under existing conditions
and would remain violated under all future alternatives
which include discharge from the WWTP.  The total phosphorus
standard of 0.1 mg/1 recommended in the 208 plan is violated
under existing conditions and would be violated in the
future if the WWTP discharged to the River.

3.1.4  Germantown WWTP

Upon abandonment in the spring of 1981 of the two wastewater
treatment plants in the Village of Menomonee Falls, the only
plant discharging to the Menomonee River will be the Germantown
WWTP.  The Germantown WWTP discharges to an impoundment on
the Menomonee River, and sediments, nutrients, and organic
matter accummulate in this impoundment.  The impoundment
probably exhibits large daily fluctuations in dissolved
oxygen concentrations due to high algae growths.  The organic
matter contained in the bottom sediments may exert a large
sediment oxygen demand on the overlying water.

Table 7 sets forth low flow water quality estimates for the
Menomonee River under future WWTP alternatives.  Under the
No Action alternative, the low flow pollutant concentrations
would be slightly higher than under existing conditions,
except for fecal coliform.  Upstream fecal coliform sources
would be controlled by implementation of the 208 plan.  The
Local and Subregional Germantown alternatives are identical
and include upgrading and expansion of the WWTP.  The low
flow of the River would increase by 223% under these alternatives,
Concentrations of biochemical oxygen demand and total nitrogen
would be higher than existing, but levels of total phosphorus,
                               VII-33
-------
01
10
.c
u
tn
•H
Q


1
s
o
Z
rH
10
C
o
-H
tn
01

JQ
3






01


OS
o
Q
OS

Q)

'H
OS

JJ
O
Q
tn os



i
TJ
C
O
'en
0)
1
I

rH
(0
§
•H
cn
0)
j|
in
rH
rH
10
C
O
•r4
CJ>
0)

1
tn



^
11
-H
C£

O
a.



H
i
-H
as

o


01
1

JJ
o
Q
(2
.a
c
o
-H
JJ
O

o
z
tn
c
D> 0
C *rl
•-( JJ

M T3

X 0
H U







^i
01
JJ
Qi
i
10
H
10
Hi




i
1



0)


£

4J




14
1)
4J

3

D^
C
•rH
>





X o

vO • • 0
-i -10





01
fN \C
yj rsi 3^ <^ ^r

CN ^T \Q O O
i— * rH (N







<^
r^i ^o
^0 fM tTi ^ T
CN ^r \o o o
i-H i-H CN




CN
0
Lfl ^3« tJ> IT)
ty
CN ^r oo o o
rH CN



CN
|  U
 -<   o
 JJ  rH
 C
 3  rH
 U   &

 4J  t3
 o
 c
      01
 tn   cl
 oi   o
 O   rt
 T3   a

 &<   01
 Jt   ID
  C   01
  Kl   rl
             01
             CP
             TJ

             01
 0)

 10

 01




 in
 3
rH
 a
  i
 o
 in  cu



 P
 o   u
 C  J3
 HI  JJ
                               3
                               O
                               tn
-------
r~-
H
















2
O
H
M
Q
2
0
U

H

H
EH
H
EH
J
j-jj

in
o
CN

05
^
W
















0)
CT>
^_l
rd
U
91
•rl
Q

ft
EH
g

0
2


1
rH
C 3
O O
•H 4-J
CT> G
CD ro
rl g

3 CD
W O






C
3
0
-P
1 G
rH «!
rd g
O M
0 0)





G
O
•rl
4-1
O
>"C

0
2


SH
0)
•rl
O5 in
rH
01 •
0) 0
G

0
G

•rl CO
O5 O
CD <*

•H CO
« 0
0) -3-
01
c

G
o
c
0)
2
rl
CD
•rl
05
01 O
0) r~
C
0 rH
£
O
G
CD
s





O f> \D
0"> ^ rH
• • •
ro ro o








<7i O ro r~
in rH o cr\
<3* r*- 
                              4-1 -r!
                               tn T3
                              •rl  C
                               X  O
                              H U
•rl
05


•H
0)
O
(D
ftj





,-x
CO
M-4
O
" — '

J"j
3
O
rH
fa






•
4J
rH
3

1

Q
O
 —
Cn
g
^-*

01
G
•rl

O
rH
J3
U


g

O

•rl
rH
O
u

, — 1
rd
0

fa



^^
, — |
g

O
o
rH
\.
0
2



                                                                                                 ft
                                                                                                 EH
                                                                                                 3
                                                                                                 3
                                                                                                 4-1
                                                                                                 0
                                                                                                  0
                                                                                                  2
                                                                                                    ft
                                                                                                    EH
                                                                      •H
                                                                      ro
                                                                      13

                                                                      (1)

                                                                      rd

                                                                      o>

                                                                      rd
M
>
•H
0)
CD
G
£
0
c


tn
01
Cn
rl
(d
r]
O
tn
•rl


^
rH
4J
C
01
J^
3
o
ft
EH

§

C
3
0
Jj
C

£
^4
0)
0

£

£
k2»
C
0
rmant
0)
o
0)
,c
4-1
o
g
rd
0)
in
4J
tn
a
3

0)
0^
^1
fTj
x;
u
91
•H
^

0)

rd
CT>
C
•rl
C
c
fd
rH
a

0)
JG
4J

c
•rl
f~!
4J
•rl
3
M
3
i-H
a
M
g!
•r(
rl
0)
^
•^
1-1
O
^^
o
r~H
"
p^
01
- — '

3
0
rH
M-l

3
O
rH
ft
M EH
rO S
CD 3
1 0)
O ,C
rH -P
> g
>i 0
rd >H
^3 UH
1
r^ CD
CT*
0) !H
JG m
•p ^
o
tn w
0) -H
'O ^
3
i-H CD
u tn
G rd
H .Q
                                                                                                                                CD
                                                                                                                                H
                                                                                                                                H


                                                                                                                                I
                                                                                                                                O
                                                           VII-35
-------
chlorine, and fecal coliform would be lower.  Under the No
WWTP Discharge alternative, the low flow of the Menomonee
River would decrease to 12% of the existing flow.  Con-
centrations of all pollutants except fecal coliform would be
reduced to less than 30% of the existing levels.  Fecal
coliform numbers would be reduced to 62% of the existing
level.

All future alternatives would attain the existing DNR and
208 recommended fecal coliform standard of 200 MFFCC/ 100
ml.  All alternatives except No WWTP Discharge would violate
the existing DNR and 208 recommended residual chlorine
standard of 0.01 mg/1.

3.1.5  Muskego Northeast WWTP

Under the alternatives which include surface water discharge
of effluent, the Muskego Northeast WWTP may discharge to
Tess Corners Creek, as it currently does, or to Big Muskego
Lake.  The analysis of the combined Muskego plant under the
Subregional 2 alternative is also presented.  Impacts of
WWTP discharges to Big Muskego Lake are discussed in section
3.3.1.  The Muskego Northeast WWTP is the only plant which
currently discharges to Tess Corners Creek and under low
flow conditions the effluent comprises over 98% of the total
streamflow.  As shown in Table 8, under existing conditions,
the WWTP results in downstream concentrations of total
nitrogen, total phosphorus, and chlorine which are at least
10 times higher than the No WWTP Discharge concentrations.
The existing concentration of biochemical oxygen demand is
75% higher than the No WWTP Discharge concentration.  Under
future conditions, WWTP flows would increase by 27% under
the No Action alternative; by 150% under the Local A alternatives;
by 400% under the Local B alternatives; and by nearly 1,800%
under the Subregional 2 alternative  (combined Muskego WWTP).
Under the Local alternatives, the downstream biochemical
oxygen demand concentrations would increase by about 43%.
Under all future WWTP conditions, the concentration of total
nitrogen would approximately double; however total phosphorus
concentrations would be reduced due to improved operation
and maintenance of the plant.

The fecal coliform standard of 200 MFFCC/100 ml established
by DNR and recommended in the 208 plan would be met under
all future conditions.  The DNR residual chlorine standard of
0.5 mg/1 would be met under all alternatives; however, the
208 recommended residual chlorine standard of 0.01 mg/1
would be exceeded by all conditions except the No WWTP
Discharge alternative.  The 208 recommended total phosphorus
standard of 0.1 mg/1 would also be violated under all conditions
except the No WWTP Discharge alternative.
                               VII-36
-------


























r4
EH

H Ot
Q EH
•? J5

H EH
to
tn <
Z Ed
o as
H EH
EH C£
W O
Q Z

O O
°l
S §g
CQ Ei« S
<
EH 3 Ed
Ed O
3
5 2
S EH
H CO
M Z
< 3
si

OS
1

J5





















































CA
§
H

Q

§
U

h-
rf

1
S

tn
8
CN
a.

X











































ai
O. rl
EH n)

s o
Ul
0 -H
z a
CN
rH
10
C
o
• H


^
1

m
i
cn
-
i
CQ

rH
1
tn
r— I
Ifl
o
3


in
t
rtj

i
<
r-t
I

c

5 a) CD co 1*1 in c^
a) r* • • r^ ^* o
w -mm . .0
uiUO^H^H-^-iOeN
(n
0)
EH




01

ai

rl X CD
O cu rH r** ro ^ d
CJ CD vC • . r^ -«T O
ri in m • -m
WCJ OrHrHrHOCN
01






01
IH 3 ~
01 CM 6 rH
V 1) 0 rl g
<0 Oi UO
> , g e e -n i z
a) % 10 10 o 
•H
OS
jj
O
o
4-1

tn
•n

10
u

-H
13
>.

4J
C
cu

iH
3
O
0.

%



01
CO
CD

^
S
o
O!
l
4J

^
3
O

1
*
Z































a>
en
a
A

•H
It)
Ti

CD
'M
CD

S
4J
Ul
3
rH
o<

u
H
VJ

CU

0


c
r
P
2



0
rH


)H
10
CU
>1
1
o



>!
(0
1
CU

4J

Ul
CU
3
o
c






















































3
H












CX
EH

2

01
A

1
*u

tu
CT>
rl
£
Ul
-H
T3












































































H
U
to


CU
(J
rl
3
O
to
VII-37
-------
3.1.6  Muskego Northwest WWTP

The Muskego Northwest WWTP currently discharges to Big
Muskego Lake.  Under the alternatives which include surface
water discharge of effluent, the Muskego Northwest WWTP
would continue to discharge to Big Muskego Lake, or it would
discharge to Tess Corners Creek.  Impacts of WWTP discharges
to Big Muskego Lake are discussed in section 3.3.1.   Low
flow water quality conditions under the Local A-l alternative,
which includes WWTP discharge to Tess Corners Creek, and the
No WWTP Discharge alternative are set forth in Table 9.  If
the Muskego Northwest WWTP discharged to Tess Corners Creek,
the low flow of the Creek would be over 140 times the flow
if no WWTP discharged to the Creek.  The concentration of
biochemical oxygen demand would more than double, the con-
centration of nitrogen would increase by more than 17 times,
and the phosphorus level would increase by 10 times.

The existing DNR and recommended 208 fecal coliform standard
of 200 MFFCC/100 ml would be achieved regardless of whether
or not the WWTP discharged to Tess Corners Creek.  The
residual chlorine standard of 0.5 mg/1 currently enforced by
the DNR would also be met under both alternatives; however,
the 208 recommended residual chlorine standard of 0.01 mg/1
would be violated if the WWTP discharged to the Creek.  The
208 recommended total phosphorus standard of 0.1 mg/1 would
also be violated under the WWTP discharge alternative.

3.1.New Berlin Southeast WWTP

The proposed New Berlin Southeast WWTP would discharge to
either Deer Creek or Tess Corners Creek.  Since water quality
data were not available for either of these streams, water
quality data for the upper Root River were used to character-
ize upstream conditions.  As shown in Table 10, the estimated
water quality conditions under the No Action alternative are
identical to the No WWTP Discharge alternative; the conditions
would be the same as existing except phosphorus and fecal
coliform levels would be reduced by implementation of the
208 plan.  The estimated water quality conditions under the
Local B-l, Local B-2, Local B-3, and Local B-4 alternatives
are also identical.  Under the Local B alternatives, the
concentrations of biochemical oxygen demand are 125% of the
existing level; the total phosphorus levels are 555% of the
existing level; and the total nitrogen concentrations are
173 to 185% of the existing level.
                               VII-38
-------
ffl
1<
EH














w
z
o
H
EH
hH
Q
Z
O
U

w
>
H
>l
i-3
H
S
H
Q Oi
H EH
§ S
s! §
H
EH
to w
Z W
O 3
H ac
EH EH
H A
a o
z z
o
U O
0
3 W
O X
tj W
fa D
S
O H
J a
_ EH
OS
W fa
Q O
Z

^
>H H
EH K
H EH
J W
3 z
D 3
Oi O
Q
Oi
H
EH
<:
3
EH
<
2
U
EH
J
<

m
o
0
CN

Oi
r<
H
>H













0)
Cn
SH
03
r^
O
tn
•H
Q

p!
^
g

O
z
01
0}
rM
o

tn
SH
0)
C
SH
O
CJ
tn
tn
0)





y








rH
1

rH
03
0
Q
1-3
Ol
0)
iH
O

w
SH
01
c
in
O
CJ

tn
tn
01
PH




03







C
0
•H
4J
O
«.
0
z
0)

03


O

Ol

tn
3
S
Oi
•H
ffl




oi




tn
C
O1 O
C -H
•H 4-1
•P -H
tn T3
•H C
X O
H CJ
0)
03

O
O"*
QJ
^
Cfl
D
S

O1
•rH
m




rH CN O
O O VO rH
• • t •
o cr» rH o


















^3*
ro tn
^j1 ^f on cTi
* • • •
rH CN CO O
CN CM




















1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
















1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1





                                                                                          O
                                                                                          o
                                                                                          CN
                                                                                CTi
                                                                                          O
                                                                                          o
                                                                                          CN
                                             03
                                             S
•H

•rl
 0)
 O

S
                                                     tn
                                                    4H
                                                     u






*
•*-^
TJ

1

Q
O
PQ
tn
3
fi M
0) 0
•~Z 01 ^- x:
C1 0 rH ft
rn ^ ^ ^
2^ 4J Ol 0
-tH 2 r^
^ S -' CM
rH rH
03 03
4J 4-)
e s

*— »
rH
X^
^~ Oi
rH 6
\^ ^-*
Oi
s CD
^* c
SH
O
rH
CJ


e
SH ^
O rH
4_j g
•H
rH O
O 0
0 rH
\
rH 0
ol Z
U -*

                                                                                                         SH
                                                                                                         0)
                                                                                                         O  EH
0
z


CU

03

p.
Ol
0)
^
tn
3


Oi
•H
m
o
4-1

tn
01

j^
03
Q
in
•H
T3
§


tn
0)
>
<— :
4-1
O


o
Oi
0)
tn
3


Ol
,C
4-1

MH
O
e
rd
0)
4J
tn
ft
3
03
^H
0)
03

Ol
£
4J

tn
3
rH
ft
SH
0)
£>
•rH
SH

0)
•P

O

- — s
O
t— 1

[-*.
Oj

                                                                                                         C  !H
                                                                                                         
-------
m





















2£
^
<§
EH
CO
Z
3
O
O
cu
>< EH
r-3 S
H 3
EH
<; EH
M w
Q P£
i IH
M D
O
W Ul
z
O Z
M H
SS
Q W
Z CQ
O
CJ 3
H
3 Z
>-? Q
fa fd
to
3 0
O P-i
h4 O
tf
OH &
PJ
Q W
Z E
D EH

>H fa
EH O
M










CO
Z
o
EH
Q
Z
0
CJ

w

H
£-4
z
OS
Ed
EH

*C

in
O
0
CN

OS
^
w






























CD
SH
fB
O
tn
•H
Q

CU
EH
0
Z







^
CN ^
1 1
03 03

rH fl
1 1
03 03

rH
03
U
0









C
0
•H
4J
a

0
z









03
tn
c
Cn 0
C -H
•H 4-1
4-> -H
tn no
•H C
X O
(a u




i—l CN
X O O vO
CD ...
l
rH
4J
C
CD
S-l
3
O

4J
O
c

tn
cu
o


O-i
£-t
[g
[3

jj
tn
03
-------
The existing DNR and 208 recommended fecal coliform standard
of 200 MFFCC/100 ml would be met under all future alternatives.
The existing DNR residual chlorine standard of 0.5 mg/1,
which applies to both Deer Creek and Tess Corners Creek,
would also be met under all alternatives.  However, the 208
recommended residual chlorine standard of 0.01 mg/1 would be
violated under all of the Local B alternatives.  The total
phosphorus standard of 0.1 mg/1 recommended in the 208 plan
would also be violated under all of the Local B alternatives.

3.1.8  Regal Manors WWTP

The Regal Manors WWTP currently discharges to Deer Creek,
which is tributary to the Fox River.  The Creek is extensively
channelized and contains an abundance of cattails.  Low flow
water quality conditions for Deer Creek under WWTP alternatives
are presented in Table 11.  Compared to the No WWTP Discharge
alternative, the existing conditions exhibit higher concentrations
of biochemical oxygen demand, total nitrogen, total phosphorus,
and chlorine, indicating the current impact of the WWTP on
the Creek.  Under the No Action alternative, the WWTP flow
would increase, and as a result the existing low flow of
Deer Creek would more than triple.  Under the Local A-l, A-
2, A-5, A-7, and A-8 alternatives, the WWTP flow would
increase to more than 10 times the existing flow.  However,
because under existing low flow conditions about 97% of the
stream flow is effluent, the increased WWTP flow would not
greatly change the instream pollutant concentrations in Deer
Creek in comparison to those generally present.  However,
increased WWTP flows will increase total pollutant loadings
to Deer Creek.  Instream concentrations of biochemical
oxygen demand would actually be reduced because of improved
operation and maintenance of the upgraded plant.  The major
impact on the stream would be the increased flow volume.

The fecal coliform standard of 200 MFFCC/100 ml established
by DNR and recommended in the 208 plan would be met under
all future conditions.  The DNR residual chlorine standard
of 0.5 mg/1 would also be met under all conditions.  The 208
recommended residual chlorine standard of 0.01 mg/1 and the
total phosphorus standard of 0.1 mg/1 are violated under
existing conditions and would continue to be violated under
the No Action and Local A-l, A-2, A-5, A-7, and A-8 alternatives.
                              VII-41
-------





















rH
rH

H

pa
EH













J
H
EH
H
Q
W
§ Oi
S EH
H 3
3
W
2 w
O K
H O
EH 2
H <
Q S
2
O J
U <
p
fa fa
s
3 EH
O
i-4 fa
O
H S
Q <
2 W
D W
EH
EH 2
H 3
i-l O
*£ Q
D
0<
A
H
EH
3
Q
2
O
U

w
H
EH
m
o
o
CN

CJ
<
H

•H XI
CD IS
0 O
CD rH
Pi fa





CN O
O VD rH O
o o
CN rH O CN
rH












r~ co
Cn CTi
cn cn cn *>p o
o
CTi vD O O CN
CN CN




CN in
CTi Cn
^3* ["^ Cn ^ O
o
i— 1 lO O O CN
in CN





r- co
<3" rH Cn ^f \£
o
O vi) O O <•"">
m CN

cn
3 ~
C SH rH g
CnQCn rHO
rHg-HSx:gH 03
O Cn
0)
CD
0) CD
Q A
4-1
03
-rl MH
> 0
rH g
CD nS
> CD
•rl i-l
PS -u
cn
X Oi
0 3
fa
CD
0) Cn
XI rl
•P 03
rC
0 U
4-) cn
•rH
cn T3
0)
Cn 03
SH CD
03 SH
XI 03
0
in cn
•H G
^ *rl
C
?"* G
rH 03
4J rH
C 04
CD
SH 0)
SH x:
3 -P
O
c
04 -H
EH x:
3 4J
3 -H
s
cn
^_j
o tn
C P i
03 EH •
S 3 04
S EH
rH 3
03 ^ 3
Cn CD
CD x; cn
PH 1 J i-|
o o
CD C
x; o m
EH 2 S
i O
1 SH
O <4H
r-H
0)
<* cn
>i SH
oj 03
r^ . '"I
1 O
r- cn
•rH
CD t3
jd
4-1 CD
cn
cn 03
CD XI
3 ><
rH rH
U -H
C 03
H 73
                                                                     H
                                                                     §
                                                                     cn
                        VII-42
-------
3.1.9  Thiensville and Meguon/Thiensville WWTPs

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) .  Although these plants are located more than
five miles upstream of Thiensville WWTP, their combined
effluent flows account for about 50% of the existing low
flow of the Milwaukee River at Thiensville.  Under future
conditions, upstream WWTP flows are expected to account for
nearly three-fourths of the future low flow of the Milwaukee
River.  As shown in Table 12, the No Action and Local alternatives
exhibit low flow concentrations of biochemical oxygen demand,
total nitrogen, and total phosphorus which are very similar
to existing concentrations.  Under these alternatives, the
concentration of chlorine would be reduced by 25 to 33% due
to the increased dilution provided by larger upstream WWTP
flows.  Under the subregional alternative, which includes
construction of a Mequon/Thiensville WWTP, the concentration
of biochemical oxygen demand in the Milwaukee River would
remain about the same as existing; the concentration of
total nitrogen would increase by 88 to 96%; the concentration
of total phosphorus would be about 27% higher; and the
chlorine concentration would be about 4 times higher.

The existing DNR and 208 recommended fecal coliform standard
of 200 MFFCC/100 ml would be met under all future conditions.
The existing DNR and 208 recommended standard for residual
chlorine of 0.01 mg/1 is met under the No Action, Local, and
No WWTP Discharge alternatives; slightly exceeded under
existing conditions; and exceeded by six times under the
Subregional alternative.  Existing conditions and all future
alternatives exceed the 208 recommended phosphorus standard
of 0.1 mg/1.

3.2  AMMONIA AND DISSOLVED OXYGEN IMPACTS

3.2.1     Introduction

This section addresses the downstream impacts of WWTP effluent
discharges of ammonia and total oxygen demand on receiving
streams within the MMSD service area.  Both of these parameters
are non-conservative in that they undergo degradation and
various transformations within the receiving stream.  These
reactions are highly dependent on the physical, biological,
chemical, and hydraulic characteristics of the receiving
streams, and on the concentrations of pollutants within the
streams.  To the extent permitted by the limited data available,
the in-stream transformations were taken into account when
estimating downstream conditions.  Analyses were conducted
to determine the most extreme adverse impacts which could
occur.


                              VII-43
-------















Ul
z
o
M
EH
M
a
z
8

J>
M

>H
1
)-H
a
y

E Cu
H EH

Ul 3
Z
O U
M J
EH J
rH M
Q >
Z Ul
8Z
u

rH O EH

U b U
3 §g

^ 0


Q <
IS

X Ul
H Z
rH 3


5


1

S
§
w
1^3

u"i
o
0
CN

a,
td
*














01
cn
io
o
Ul
•H
a

04
^4

§

£
01
3

CO
1 C
rH 0)
tC -H


•H \
01 O
a a1
3 01
cn E


 CN O
d) « •• • * O O
CU «H O* CN O CM

3
(0
?
i— 1
•H
S

^
0)
> ^" rH
•H fl CO , CN IT) y3

. . . . o
ID r^ ^ Lnm o o CN
fl> rrj-
3 ^ VH
nj QJ aj
3 S jJ
-H £ C
•H 3 -H
-S CO J





41

rH
•H
1 CO
rH C
CO H
O -H

Sfs
01

•1-t

r«j GO r- o
 o
rii CN C^ fN O O CN
3 ^

3

S

u


c
o
-H

CJ
<
O
z
0)
1
01 CN 00
oi co r» r- o
^ rrj (-, ^rj CN O O
3 ... • . O
(0 CN 0* CN O O CN
rH ^

E







10
01
c

C -H
•H JJ
4J -H
cn T3
•H C
W 8
VI
J)

2

0) 00 CN
OJ CD CN r* t-t
^ f"* VD 0^ CN O H
t— t
•P
c
0)

r^
3
O

a.

|

01
rH
rH
-H

cn
C
01
1
0)


BJ
































Hi

2;
^r

0!
rH
-H
01
C
01
•H
S
EH

j-
4J
14H
O

S

01

4J
w
a
3

CO
u
cn
r*
«J

o
cn
-H
•a

10
0)



cn
c
•H
c
c
CO
rH

O

C
-H
J3
•H






























01
10
01
S
<0

F™
^

cn
3
a

5
•H

0)
•^
14H
0

£



oi


3
O
rH

3
Q
rH
w
"5
01

1
O
rH


HJ
13
1

01

4J

cn
41
1
rH
O
c
rH

.Q















































5


*





al

|

01
Si

e
o
M


01
cn
<0

o
01
•H
tl

01
cn
10
rH
<0
T3















































































H
U
Ul

§
V4
3
O
cn
VII-44
-------
Downstream ammonia-nitrogen concentrations are evaluated in
terms of achieving the existing DNR and 208 recommended
standards for total and un-ionized ammonia-nitrogen.  The
existing DNR standard to support warmwater fish and aquatic
life of 0.04 mg/1 un-ionized ammonia-nitrogen applies to the
Milwaukee River, the Menomonee River, and the Root River, as
presented in Chapter II.  Tess Corners Creek is classified
as an intermediate aquatic life habitat, and has a limit of
3 mg/1 total ammonia-nitrogen during summer, and 6 mg/1
during winter.  Deer Creek is a marginal aquatic life habitat
with no un-ionized or total ammonia-nitrogen limits.  The
208 recommended standard for un-ionized ammonia nitrogen is
0.02 mg/1 for all streams evaluated in this section.

WWTPs discharging to streams classified to support warmwater
fish and aquatic life have maximum effluent limits during
the summer of 2 mg/1 total ammonia-nitrogen and a pH of 7.2.
These limits also apply to all proposed WWTPs, such as the
Subregional plants.  The existing WWTP discharging to Tess
Corners Creek must meet a total ammonia-nitrogen limit of 3
mg/1.

Downstream oxygen demands are discussed in qualitative terms
only.  Application of quantitative models, such as the
Streeter-Phelps equation, are inappropriate for the relatively
low flow, shallow, irregular streams considered in this
analysis.  In streams such as these, dissolved oxygen
concentrations are strongly influenced by sediment oxycren
demands, algal photosynthesis and respiration, and reaeration
rates.  Insufficient data were available to quantify these
variables.

3.2.2  Methodology

Downstream pH, total ammonia-nitrogen, and un-ionized ammonia-
nitrogen concentrations were estimated using the low flow
CQy  10) conditions and effluent /stream mixing calculations
described in section 3.1.1.  Downstream pH conditions were
calculated as follows to reflect the fact that pH is the
negative log of the hydrogen ion activity:

     downstream pH = (10~pHs x Qs) +  (10~pHe x Qe)
                              Qs + Qe

    Where:     pHs = stream pH
               Qs  = stream flow
               pHe = WWTP effluent pH
               Qe  = WWTP effluent flow
                              VII-45
-------
This formula is valid to compute pH values when stream and
effluent pHs are less than 8.5, as they were in this eval-
uation.  At pHs exceeding 8.5, the buffering capacity of the
natural carbonate system must be included in mixing calculations.

Downstream ammonia-nitrogen concentrations were calculated
by the mixing equation.  The concentration of downstream un-
ionized ammonia-nitrogen, the ammonia form most toxic to
fish and aquatic life depends upon the stream temperature,
pH, and total ammonia-nitrogen concentration.  The un-
ionized ammonia-nitrogen concentration is most sensitive to
pH.  The summer stream temperature was assumed to be 21°C.
The downstream pH was calculated as described above.  The
total ammonia-nitrogen was multiplied by the following
equation:

     % un-ionized ammonia =      	100	
                                   1 + anti log(pKa-pH)

     where:  pKa = 0.09018 + 2729.92
                                T

                       T = °C + 273.2

     Sample Calculation:

          pH = 7.51 standard units
          temperature = 21°C
          ammonia-nitrogen = 0.655 mg/1
          T = 21°C + 273.2 = 294.2
          pKa = 0.09018 + 2729.92 = 9.34
                           294.2
          % unionized ammonia =    100                 = 1.46%
                                1 + antilog  (9.34-7.51)
          un-ionized ammonia-nitrogen = 0.655 x 0.0146 = 0.010 mg/1

Total oxygen demand was determined by adding the carbonaceous
demand and the nitrogenous oxygen demand.  The nitrogenous
oxygen demand was determined by multiplying the total oxidizable
nitrogen concentration by 4.57, which is required to properly
account for the relationship between ammonia-nitrogen and
oxygen in the nitrification process.  Total oxidizable
nitrogen includes ammonia-nitrogen and organic nitrogen.

The expression of an oxygen demand is dependent upon such
biological factors as kinetic rates of synthesis and assimilation
and such physical factors as available oxygen and stream
configuration.  Carbonaceous biological oxidation rates will
differ from nitrogenous oxidation rates.  As stated previously,
detailed data were not available for the calculation of
downstream dissolved oxygen concentrations based upon oxygen
                               VII-46
-------
demand loads.  It was also impossible to quantify how much
ammonia-nitrogen would be converted to nitrite or nitrate
(nitrification) downstream of a WWTP.  For this reason a
"worst case" approach was adopted.  When WWTPs discharged
upstream of another WWTP, the ammonia-nitrogen from the
upstream plant was assumed to be a conservative pollutant
for ammonia toxicity purposes, i.e. it was assumed that no
nitrification or ammonia assimilation would occur.  On the
other hand, when considering ammonia nitrogen from the
standpoint of oxygen demand, the ammonia-nitrogen was included
with the total oxygen demand and ammonia was considered as a
non-conservative pollutant, i.e. it was assumed that all of
the ammonia was oxidized.  Stream characteristics and hydraulic
travel times were determined from SEWRPC data and used in
the qualitative discussions of nitrification and oxygen
demand.

The EIS reviewed the MMSD approach to evaluating un-ionized
ammonia-nitrogen impacts (Appendix C SSDF-EA).  While it is
acknowledged that pH is the single most important variable
in determining un-ionized ammonia-nitrogen, there is not
enough information to support a conclusion that the frequency
of violation of un-ionized ammonia-nitrogen can be predicted
from the normal probability distribution of Menomonee River
pH values.

First, assuming independent variance of the stream and
effluent pH values, the variance in downstream pH values
would be the product of both the stream and WWTP probabilities.
For example, if the mean plus one standard deviation of both
the stream and effluent pH values would be exceeded 16% of
the time, then the probability of the mean plus one standard
deviation of both the stream and the WWTP occurring together
would be approximately 3%.   Second, using the stream pH
variance as the sole controlling factor when the WWTP is the
primary flow source is inappropriate.  Under low flow condi-
tions the WWTP effluent was the largest contributing flow in
the mixing calculations for all streams except the Milwaukee
River.

The EIS evaluates water quality impacts due to un-ionized
ammonia-nitrogen based on stream low flow, mean WWTP effluent
conditions.  These conditions define a "worst case" situation
without further predicting violation frequency during low
flow.
                              VII-47
-------
3.2.3  Results

3.2.3.1  Caddy Vista WWTP

The existing Caddy Vista WWTP discharges to the Root River.
The downstream Root River channel bed varies from gray
silty-clay loam to black silty-clay with irregular sides and
bottom.  The low flow water depths vary from a low of 0.2
feet under Existing conditions to a high of 0.7 feet under
the Local B-3 alternative.  The corresponding river velocities
range from 0.3 to 0.6 feet per second.

Downstream water quality under future alternatives varies
considerably depending upon the upstream WWTP discharge
load.  The low flow travel times from the upstream WWTPs
vary from 1.85 days for the proposed expanded Muskego Northeast
WWTP (alternative Local B-3) to 3.35 days from the Muskego
Northeast WWTP for Local A-2.

The water quality data for the Caddy Vista WWTP effluent and
immediately downstream of the WWTP are summarized by alternative
in Table 13.  Existing DNR water quality standards for the
Root River require un-ionized ammonia-nitrogen concentration
to be less than 0.04 mg/1 in the downstream surface water.
The 208 recommended water quality standard for un-ionized
ammonia-nitrogen is 0.02 mg/1.  The existing DNR standards
are not violated under any future alternative at the Caddy
Vista WWTP.  The 208 recommended standard would be violated
under the Local A-l alternative.  Under this alternative,
the Muskego Northeast and Northwest WWTPs would be discharging
into Tess Corners Creek  (and then to the Root River) at a
point approximately 21 river miles upstream of the Caddy
Vista WWTP.  The resulting low flow travel time is 2.8 days.
Approximately 72% of the upstream ammonia load originates
from these Muskego WWTP discharges.  Table 13 data are based
upon a "worst case" estimate of ammonia-nitrogen transport
within the river, i.e. no nitrification of ammonia discharged
from the upstream WWTPs.  However, it 'is likely that some
fraction of the ammonia-nitrogen would be oxidized to nitrite
given the long travel times and shallow water depths upstream
of Caddy Vista.  If 15% of the upstream ammonia-nitrogen
were oxidized during the 2.8 day travel time the downstream
un-ionized ammonia-nitrogen concentration would be within the
208 recommended standard of 0.02 mg/1.

Under all existing and future alternative conditions, the
potential oxygen demand in the reaches of the Root River
downstream of the Caddy Vista WWTP were most heavily influenced
by carbonaceous and organic nitrogen substances.  The downstream
ammonia-nitrogen oxygen demand accounted for 33% and 29% of
                               VII-48
-------
























v)
0.
£•1
2
Ul 3
l<

£ en

Q >
z
U Q

§<
U
ti W
nc
§£*

o

Q S
IS

tn 01
O 3
M Q
E- Q


E-> a

u «;
Z M
O Q
O U
< 2
M M
Z
O OS
S W
£ >
< M
a
W frt
N g
M O
z «
o
M U

Z EH
&
O
§
M
E-l

Q

O


M
EH
<

2
H
j
^

in
o
o
CN
H





























0)
nj
JC
o
en
•H
Q

1
g
i
m

rH
«
O
3
1
ffl

rH

0
o




rH
CN rH


rH P- O O


m
ro "3- I-H i-H
y? CN CO o

en P* "-HQ

CN
CO C* -H
P*- CN ^ O

fN r- rH O
rH



un
i^}
rH
)
m

i-H

u
3



i^l CO
^f V^ (HO
m in in o

^ P* O O





03 vD
r^ fN
1 l
< a

rH rH
(0 -0
u u
S3


P^ CN
("*• rH ' 0* 0*




*s
CN

^

rH
(Q
U
3


CT\ CO
O CO O O

CN P* O O








1 1
1 t



ro

4J -H
01 fl
•H C
X O
(j] Q
                     CO
                   o m
                   •H O
8.
0
IH
41
•H g
Z f8
1 (U
(0 rl rH
•H 4J fl
C U} 4J

s ^ H


•o
II
N
C
o
•H
1
C
D


C

3
rH
14H

a a
4J
a. o
E- P


•a

N
-H
C
o
•iH
1

"0
01
u
3
4J
10
rt
a
s
11
E-.


                                              U
                                              a
                                              3
                                              O
                                              0]
VII-49
-------
the Existing and No Action total oxygen demand, respectively.
The percent of the total oxygen demand required for the
nitrification of ammonia under the remaining alternatives
ranged from 7% for Local-B alternatives to 16% for the Local
A-7 and Local A-8 alternatives.  Given the shallow water
depths and velocities of the Root River downstream of the
Caddy Vista WWTP reaeration rates should be high.

3.2.3.2  Franklin WWTP

The proposed Franklin WWTP would be located approximately 9
river miles upstream of the existing Caddy Vista WWTP.
There are no alternatives under which both the Franklin WWTP
and the Caddy Vista WWTP would discharge to the Root River
because under the subregional alternatives Caddy Vista is
served by South Shore.  The Root River channel at the proposed
Franklin WWTP site is similar to the channel at the Caddy
Vista WWTP.  The channel is irregular in shape and the
substrate varies from silty-clay loam to black silty clay.
The low flow hydraulic profile is also similar to that in the
Root River near the Caddy Vista WWTP.

Only one alternative includes an upstream WWTP which influences
water quality upstream of the proposed Franklin WWTP.  Under
the Subregional-2 alternative, a proposed subregional Muskego
WWTP would be located approximately 12 river miles upstream
of the Franklin WWTP.  The calculated low flow travel time
from the Muskego WWTP to the Franklin WWTP would be 0.8
days.  Table 14 summarizes the flows, pH, and ammonia-
nitrogen data downstream of the proposed Franklin WWTP.
There is no WWTP at Franklin under the Existing, No Action
and No WWTP Discharge alternatives.  The Existing and No
Action alternatives include the upstream contribution of the
Muskego Northeast WWTP discharging to Tess Corners Creek.
The No WWTP Discharge alternative assumes no WWTP discharge
to the Root River from the MMSD planning area and serves as
a base line Root River water quality reference.

There are no violations of either the existing DNR or 208
recommended un-ionized ammonia-nitrogen standards under
any alternatives.  This is primarily due to pH control at
the Franklin WWTP discharge.  The stream pH would have to
increase to 7.4 before the 208 recommended un-ionized
ammonia-nitrogen limits would be violated and to 7.6 before
violating the DNR standard.

Approximately 88% of the potential downstream oxygen demand
from the Franklin WWTP is total oxidizable nitrogen.  The
remaining 12% is carbonaceous demand.  The ammonia-nitrogen
is less than 7% of the total oxidizable nitrogen and less
than 6% of the downstream total oxygen demand for the
                               VII-50
-------


























•^"
rH

3
CO
isC
P







































0.
t|
z
Cfl H
§ £
M Z
F-< rf
H S
Q b
§Q
U H
0]
3 0
O a-
J 0
b u
0,
§W
g
«
U fa
Q 0
g s
Ul U

O EH
M
EH Q
Z
U X
U .J
§M
EH
<
(H
< Q
H H
Z |
§ M
< a.
SI
Q >
U H
N a.
M
Z EH
0 C
i
5 K
oi
o
Cu
05
Z
o
M
&H
M
a

u
g
M
s
(4
5
L/^
O
0
rsi
(K
tf
U
>i




















A
0)
CT»
«
O
CO

a
a.
EH
O
z
^T
^
rn
1
13
C
0
•H
CT
0)
^4
•§
w




on
O ^DO
O CT* «-O
r-4 r- OO


n
^D  r-to
tN





rH
1
rH
(0
c
o
01
0)
M
.Q
2
W



m
CM CN i— (
P- OJ 
o
u
JJ
•H
Z
1
10




a
10
01
^


XI
13
01
N
-H
C
-< o


4J
c
s
rH
U-t
(w


fl
13
(U
M
•H
C
rH O
U
O
>H
CN
0
Ij
3
4J
it
U
1
e
J
a
4J
C

JJ
*
2
4J
0)
                                 3
                                 0
                                 W
VII-51
-------
Subregional 1, 3 and 4 alternatives.  Under the subregional-
2 alternative, approximately one half the downstream oxygen
load originates at the proposed Muskego Subregional WWTP,
which would discharge to Tess Corners Creek.  As with the
Caddy Vista WWTP, the low flow, shallow river conditions
should allow for relatively high reaeration rates downstream
of the proposed Franklin WWTP.  If dissolved oxygen problems
would occur downstream, they would most likely to be due to
the oxidation of organic nitrogen from the proposed WWTP.

3.2.3.3   Germantown WWTP

The Existing Germantown WWTP discharges into an impoundment
of the Menononee River.  For the purpose of this evaluation
it is assumed the WWTP discharge is relocated just below the
impoundment.

The Menomonee River at Germantown is a natural channel with
somewhat irregular side slopes.  The river bottom is fairly
even with a substrate of silty clay and silt loam.  The
downstream low flow water depth varies from 0.14 feet under
Existing conditions to 0.28 feet under the future Local
alternative.  Stream velocities under the corresponding
conditions range from 0.36 fps to 0.28 fps.

DNR and 208 recommended un-ionized ammonia-nitrogen standards
are violated under the Existing and No Action alternatives
but would be met under the future Local and Subregional
alternatives with pH control and with ammonia-nitrogen ef-
fluent limits of 2 mg/1 (see Table 15).  However, under the
Local and Subregional Alternatives, un-ionized ammonia-
nitrogen concentrations would be higher than under the No
WWTP Discharge alternative.  The higher total ammonia-
nitrogen concentrations under both Existing conditions and
future alternatives could act as a nutrient for downstream
algae growth.

The total oxygen demand from the Germantown WWTP for Existing
conditions and future alternatives should be readily offset
during low flow conditions by high reaeration rates in the
free flowing sections of the Menomonee River.  The total
ammonia-nitrogen from the Germantown WWTP represents less
than 2% of the downstream total oxygen demand.

3.2.3.4   Muskego Northeast WWTP, Muskego Northwest WWTP,
          and New Berlin Southeast WWTP

The only WWTP currently discharging to Tess Corners Creek is
the Muskego Northeast WWTP.  Tess Corners Creek is a tributary
to the Root River classified by the DNR as an intermittent
stream.  The primary source of water during low flow conditions
is the Muskego Northeast WWTP.  The channel is irregular in
shape with a substrate of black to yellow silty clay material.
                               VII-52
-------























in
rH

w
m

EH


























w
z
o
H
H
H
Q
2
O
CJ
3
S
fa

3
0
OS
pa
Q
2
D
en
2
O
H
EH
ss
EH
2
pa
u
2
O
CJ
<
H
2
O

i
a
pa
N
H
2
0
H
1
2
D




EH
2



2
fQ
^
2
pa
u
pa
EH

fa
0

pa
OS
EH



Q

>H

pa
EH

H
Q
H
2
2]
M
OS
H
£>
M
OS
w
ig
o
S
o
2
pa
2

H
SB
EH
OS
O
fa













CO
2
O
rH
EH
Q
2
O
O

pa
^>
H
EH

§
pa
EH
h5
in
O
o
CN

OS
^4
&a









0)
en
M
ro
O
en
•rH
Q

EH
3
3
0
2







in o
rH r-~
0 r^









r-H
rO
C
O
•(-i
en
D
iH
P
CO




CO rH
O CN
. .
•q- r-







rH
<0
CJ
Q
^
en
c
o
•H
1 j
o
<
o
2
tn
c
en o
C -H
•H 4J
4-1 -H
en T3
•H C
X 0
W CJ
CO H
O CN

^r r*-




r-
cn
en •
{& [***
r-H





vo [""*•
(N 0"^
1 «
rH f->


                     oo
                     HO
                                      ro
                                      i—I
                                  CN  O

                                      O
                        ro
                     Lf> H
                     ffi O

                     HO
    n
    i-i
CN  O

    o'
                        O
                     CM un
                     ro o
    P-
    in
                                      r-
                                      in
 tn
I+H
 o
fa

^-^
P
cn
^*-


ft
Nitrogen
i
rO
•H
C

P
|
rfl
0)
M
4->
en
C
3
S
rO
•a
0)
N
-H

rH
rfl
4J
0
EH

C
0
•H
1
C


luent
MH
4H
pa

ft
EH

(

rH
rfl
4J
0
EH

0
CU
N
•iH
C
0
• H
1
C
D

                                                                 P  fO
                                                                 C  0
                                                                 01  -H
                                                                 P  C
                                                                 H  £
                                                                 UH  O
                                                                 IP  cu
                                                                 0)  EH
                                                                 3  3

                                                                 C  W
                                                                 •H  -^
                                                                 en
                                                                 C  C
                                                                 0  O
                                                                 O  -H
                                                                 tn  4-1
                                                                 •H  CO
                                                                 3  -H

                                                                 C  0)
                                                                 "   T3
















•
CJ
0
rH
CN

Q)

P
4-1
rfl
M
cu
ft
S
cu
EH
0)
4->
en
ca
0)
J3
4->
P
0
co

cu
en
ro
i-l
CU
>
rO

cu
r^
4-1

C
0
ft
P

T3
0)
en
ra
m

r^
>H
ro
^
C
ro
4->
tn

01
c
o

cn
P
i— i
ft

en
c
o
•H
4J
rO
^.4
4-1
C
CU
U
c
0
u
                                                                                            ta
                                                                                            0)
                                                                                            CJ
                                                                                            &H
                                                                                            P
                                                                                            o
                                                                                            en
                        VII-53
-------
The creek is well shaded, which aids in controlling algae
growth.  An impoundment is located approximately 2.5 miles
downstream of the Muskego Northeast WWTP.  The impoundment
is not shaded and generally displays algae blooms each
summer.  The DNR has classified Tess Corners Creek as a
stream supporting intermediate aquatic life.  The DNR has
not established un-ionized ammonia-nitrogen standards for
this stream although there is a total ammonia-nitrogen limit
for the effluent of 3 mg/1 in the summer.  The 208 recommended
standard for Tess Corners Creek is 0.02 mg/1 un-ionized
ammonia-nitrogen.  The existing Muskego Northeast and Muskego
Northwest WWTPs were assumed to meet discharge limits of 3
mg/1 total ammonia-nitrogen for future Local alternatives.
The proposed New Berlin Southeast WWTP would be required to
meet effluent limits of 7.2 pH and 2 mg/1 ammonia-nitrogen
during the summer.

The downstream flow, pH, and ammonia-nitrogen data for
Existing conditions and future alternatives are given in
Table 16.  Under Existing conditions and the No Action
alternative only the Muskego Northeast WWTP would discharge
to Tess Corners Creek.  Under the Local A alternatives
either the Muskego Northeast and Northwest WWTP would both
discharge (Local A-l) or only the Muskego Northeast WWTP
would discharge  (Local A-2, Local A-3) to Tess Corners
Creek.  Neither WWTP would affect the upstream quality of
the other because they both discharge to small tributaries
of Tess Corners Creek.  Under the Local B alternatives the
Muskego Northeast WWTP would be expanded to accommodate the
wastewater loads formerly sent to both Muskego Northeast and
Muskego Northwest WWTP.  The proposed New Berlin Southeast
WWTP would discharge to Tess Corners Creek under Local B-3
and Local B-4 and to the Fox River via Deer Creek under
Local B-2.  Deer Creek is designated by the DNR as a marginal
aquatic life stream for which there are no ammonia limits.
The Deer Creek un-ionized ammonia-nitrogen limit under the
recommended 208 plan is 0.02 mg/1.  The Subregional alternative
would combine the wastewater loads from the Regal Manors
WWTP, the Muskego Northeast WWTP, and the Muskego Northwest
WWTP into one Muskego subregional facility discharging to
Tess Corners Creek.  All proposed Subregional WWTPs must
meet summer effluent limits of 2 mg/1 total ammonia-nitrogen
and a pH of 7.2.

The total ammonia-nitrogen limits established by DNR would
be violated under all Muskego WWTP alternatives for Tess
Corners Creek.  The Muskego Northeast and Northwest WWTPs
would violate the 208 recommended un-ionized ammonia-nitrogen
standard under all of the Local A and Local B alternatives.
Under low flow conditions, Tess Corners Creek is comprised
essentially of WWTP effluent.  The Muskego WWTPs would meet
208 recommended standards in Tess Corners Creek if their
discharge were limited to 2 mg/1 total ammonia-nitrogen
                               VII-54
-------
<0
x:
u
in

D


EH
   IN I
   X)
   3
   en
cr o
C -H
•H 4->
4J -H
W tJ
•H  C
X  0
H U
            o

            o'
                             03
                             O
                             O
                           & o

                           rH O
                                    O T-i

                                    O O
                        C^ O

                        CN O
                           CO U3
                           CJ\ O
                                    O O

                                    m' o
                                 O kO
                                 o o
                             en
                           co m
                           en o
                                    o o

                                    m o
05



O
                             o
                             o
                                 o r~
                                 o o
                                 Lfl O
                        
3
01

s
Q<
1
C
01
en
0

4J
•H
Z

10
•H
e


^





e
10
01
r4
4J
01
i










^
fl
u
g




«J
T3
QJ
N
•H
C
o
•H
1
C
3




•U
C
01
3
rH
MH
UH
Ed

a.

s


10

01
N
•H
C
rH O
10 -H
4-> 1
O C
£< 3

























d
0^

CN

01

3
4J
10


a.
s



10
ging to Tess Corners Creek under these alternatives
^4
10

O
01
•H
TJ

1
5
>,
c
o

01

4J

01
•H

JJ
01
10
01



0
Z

@

CD


3
£


X)
ification basins under these alternatives.
in
4-1

c

01
4J
fl
&
O
o

0)
3
C
•H
4J
C
0
o

AJ
en
10
01
x:


o
z

o
tj>
0>

en
3


O
•O
C
10

CN
1
CO


10
u
3
01
>
£J
10
c
n
01
4J

10

M
01

2


01
tjl

10

o
01
•H
T3

Z


'D


in
l
CQ

rH
10
0
o
en
>
^
10
c

01
4J
rH


14
0>
•a



0)

l^
10

u
in
•H


i


-------
and a pH of 7.2.  This would also decrease the nitrogen load
on the Root River downstream of the Caddy Vista WWTP under
alternative Local A-l, A-2, B-l, B-3, and B-5.  The impact
of the Muskego WWTP loads on the Root River upstream of the
Caddy Vista WWTP has been discussed in Section 3.2.3.1.

The total oxygen demand from these WWTPs could generally be
offset by high reaeration rates common to shallow streams.
However, the nutrient induced algae bloom in the Whitnall
Park impoundment may cause oxygen depletion through algae
respiration, die-off, and decomposition.  Oxygen depletion
through nitrification would account for less than 9% of the
total downstream oxygen demand under all alternatives.
Ammonia nitrification rates in Tess Corners Creek would
generally be quite high.  In the Whitnall Park impoundment
algae ammonia assimulation would be the primary form of
ammonia-nitrogen removal.

The discharge of the proposed New Berlin Southeast WWTP to
Deer Creek would meet the 208 recommended standard of 0.02
mg/1 un-ionized ammonia-nitrogen.

3.2.3.5   Regal Manors WWTP

The Regal Manors WWTP currently discharges to Deer Creek, a
small tributary of the Fox River.  Deer Creek has irregularly
sloped sides and a silty-clay bottom rich in decaying organic
matter.  The primary flow within the creek is the Regal
Manors WWTP effluent.  Water depths for the flows cited in
Table 17 vary from less than 0.1 feet under Existing conditions
to 0.2 feet under the Local A alternatives.

The Existing and future un-ionized ammonia-nitrogen concen-
trations downstream of the Regal Manors WWTP would violate
the 208 recommended standard of 0.02 mg/1.  There are no
existing DNR standards for total or un-ionized ammonia-
nitrogen for Deer Creek.  The estimated high ammonia-nitrogen
concentration of 14 mg/1 would also contribute to the nutrient
enrichment of the Creek.

Most of the downstream total oxygen demand under all Existing
and future conditions is due to total WWTP effluent nitrogen.
Approximately 38% of the Existing condition and No Action
alternative downstream oxygen demand would be due to ammonia
nitrification.  Nitrification of ammonia-nitrogen under the
future Local A alternatives would account for 42% of the
downstream oxygen demand.  Given the rich organic nature of
the Deer Creek sediment, it is likely that sediment oxygen
demand would also play a major role in the Creek's oxygen
budget.  Low flow oxygen sags could be expected despite the
relatively high reaeration rates of the shallow depths.


                              VII-56
-------
r-H

W
J
m
<
EH
O H









CO
2
O
H
EH
HH
Q
2
O
U
£
>
H
EH
<
W
EH
,1
rH
<
i ^
U 1
O
O
CN

os
<
w
>H







0)
Cn
I,
M
rd
^-»
AH
U
cn
•-H
Q
OH
EH
g

O
2





i— i
O
o









00
T3
C
rd
r~
m
CN
rH
1

rH
rd
U
O
J





m
o\
CN

'





C
o
•H
-P
o
<
o
2



CN
O
r-H

    tn
    C
 Cn O
 fi -H
•H +J
•4-1 -H
 en T3
•H  C
 X  O
W U
                                                           00
                                                        m o
                                                        CN O

                                                        o o
                 r--
                                                           in
                                                           r^
                                                       o> o

                                                       ro o
                                                       H
                                               LD
                                               r-
                                           o  o

                                           «»  o
                                    CO
                                    00
                                    CN
                                    cn    ^
                                    U
                                    fa
                                           tn
                                                           in
                                                           r^
                                                       CTi O

                                                       n o
                                              in
                                              r^
                                           o o

                                           rr o
                                                                     in
                                                                     r-
                                                                     O
    in
    r-
o  o

•"31  O
Cn
C
QJ
}-r
\J
O
M
-P
•H
2
1
rd
•H
C
g

£
<




e
03
QJ
SH
-P
tn
G
£
O
Q







rd
T3
Q)
N
•H

-P
G
QJ
3
iH






G 4-iQ
rH
rd
-P
O
EH


0
•H
1
C
D


4-4
W

OH
EH
S
S
rH
rd
-P
0
EH



rd
T3
(1)
N
•H
C
0
•H
1
C
D


                                                                                            o
                                                                                            CN

                                                                                             0)
                                                                                                      Q)
                                                                                                      CH

                                                                                                      QJ
                                                                                                      EH
 G   •
 O —
•H H
-P CN
 rd =a=
 M
-P -P
 C  H
 QJ  O
 u  a
 C  QJ
 O OS
 U
   rH
 (0  rd
•H  u
 C -H
 O  C
 e x;
 £  U
 rd  Q)
   EH
4->
 C U
 0! OH
 P S
rH W
4H CO
|| | s	t
 Q)
    C
OH  O
EH -H
S -P
S  rd
   •H
 C  >
-H  Q)
 tn T3
 C
 O 13
 O  iH
 cn  rd
•H t5
s  c
    rd
 C -P
 ri  cn
 QJ
-P  0)
 cn  c
 rd  O
 0)
£  cn
                                                                         O OH
                                                                         CO

                                                                         QJ cn
                                                                         -P -P
                                                                         rd G
                                                                         SH rd
                                                                         QJ rH
                                                                         > a,
                                                                         rd
                                                                            Q
                                                                         QJ CO
                                                                         X! §
                                                                         -P §

                                                                         C cn
                                                                         0 C
                                                                         Ch-H
                                                                                                   OJ U
                                                                                                   cn X
                                                                                                   rd QJ
                                                                                                   m —
                                                                                           (0
                                                                                                                          H
                                                                                                                          W
                                                                                                                          CO
                                                                                                                          w
                                                                                                Q)
                                                                                                O
                                                                                                !M
                                                                                                a
                                                                                                o
                                                                                                CO
                                                     VII-57
-------
Water quality conditions in terms of ammonia-nitrogen and
total oxygen demand would be consistently poor under both
Existing conditions and future alternatives and considerably
worse than the No WWTP Discharge alternative.

3.2.3.6   Thiensville WWTP and Mequon/Thiensville WWTP

The only WWTP discharging to the Milwaukee River within the
MMSD planning area is the Thiensville WWTP.  The Milwaukee
River downstream of the Thiensville WWTP is a natural channel
with somewhat irregular side slopes.  The river bed varies
from rocky to clay and sandy loam.  Unlike the other streams
considered in this section, the low flow conditions of the
Milwaukee River at Thiensville are considerably greater than
the WWTP effluent.  Downstream water depths during low flow
vary from 0.35 feet under Existing condition to 0.54 feet
under the Subregional alternative.

The DNR un-ionized ammonia-nitrogen standard would be met
under all alternatives (Table 18).  The 208 recommended un-
ionized ammonia-nitrogen standard would also be met under
all future conditons.  The primary difference between Existing
conditions and the No Action alternative is the increased
upstream flow due to increased upstream WWTP discharge.  The
proposed Subregional Mequon/ Thiensville WWTP would slightly
increase the downstream total ammonia-nitrogen concentrations.
However, due to the net decrease in downstream pH, the un-
ionized ammonia-nitrogen concentrations actually decreases.
Both Existing conditions and all future WWTP alternatives
have higher total and un-ionized ammonia-nitrogen concentrations
than under the No WWTP Discharge alternative.

Downstream oxygen demand under all WWTP alternatives would
be about 30% higher than the upstream oxygen demand.  This
oxygen demand can probably be assimilated by the Milwaukee
River without serious dissolved oxygen depletions.  The
rocky and sandy river bottom and shallow low flow water
depth would be condusive to both high reaeration and nitri-
fication rates.

3.3  INLAND LAKE WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS

Some of the wastewater treatment plant plan alternatives con-
sidered for the Fox River and Root River watersheds include
the discharge of WWTP effluent directly into an inland lake.
Under four alternatives, effluent would be discharged to Big
Muskego Lake, and under four alternatives, effluent would be
discharged to the proposed Oakwood Lake.  In addition, other
alternatives indirectly affect these lakes by discharging
effluent to river systems upstream of the lakes.  In this
section, the alternatives which directly discharge to a lake


                              VII-58
-------
co
rH


W
J
m
   Oi
   EH
        CO W
        2 J
        O i-3
        M CO
        Q 2
        2 H
        O H
        U 33

        3
        O W
        J K
H  «
Z  W
O  >
      PQ
3  fa  2
o  o  §
t-3     H

«  i  "

§  §
2  EH  „
D  W  CO

to  3  H

§g  d
H
EH
           J
        K H
        EH EH
        2 <
        IB H
        u a
§1  *
u  S  o
   W
Q  W
W  S
N  D
M  <

§3
H  M
 I  S

D  H

   EH









co
2
O
EH
M
Q
2
O
U

H
>
H
EH
<
§
W
s
.cj*
'"N
in
o
0
(N
A
<
W
>H








<1>
tn
t,
W
(d
(-•
A-i
o
tn
•H
Q
&
EH
O
2





i n
l*w
rH
"31







n
^rH
(d
C
0
•H
cn
a)
Vl
rQ
CO








•«•
.
r^
^r





rH
fd
o
0
t4


^
CN
•xT

C
0
•H
4-1
0
<
0
2
W
c
DI 0
C -H
•rH J-J
-P -H
W T3
•H C
X 0
H CJ



ro
.
CM
'xt*





r--
•
ro
CN

                                 co
                                 ro

                                 co
                                            & O
                                            O O

                                            o o
                                            r- i-H
                                            CTi i—I
                                            (N O


                                            O O
                                         CM
                                         ro

                                         CO
                                            rH [-
                                            rH r-\

                                            c^ o


                                            O O
                                 CN
                                 ro
                                 co
                                            r- r-
                                            O rH
                                            (N O


                                            O CD
                                 O
                                 ro
                                 CO
                                            ro o

                                            O O
                            tn
                            M-I
                            o
                            0
                                                          n

                                                       O -H
                                                       O O


                                                       CM O
                                                          ro
                                                       o en
                                                       co o

                                                       03 O
                                                          ro
                                                       o cn
                                                       co o

                                                       cd o
                                                          ro
                                                       O 
-------
are evaluated.  Indirect WWTP discharges to the Whitnall
Park Pond and other small ponds are not specifically add-
ressed.  However, the impacts of pollutant discharges to
small ponds are expected to be more severe than the impacts
on larger lakes.  Water quality impacts of WWTP discharges
to Lake Michigan are discussed in Chapter IV.

Compared to streams, lakes have relatively long hydraulic
residence times.  Therefore, lakes tend to accumulate pol-
lutants, and because of the decreased flow velocities, warm
surface temperatures, and exposure to direct sunlight, lakes
are more likely to exhibit certain water quality problems,
such as algae blooms, excessive weed growth, fish kills,
dissolved oxygen depletions, and undesireable aquatic com-
munities, than are streams.  Also, lakes are generally
subjected to high levels of recreational use.  Therefore,
water quality problems may also be more likely to directly
interfere with the beneficial use of the water.

The degree of nutrient enrichment of a lake, referred to as
its trophic status, is generally the direct or indirect
cause of most lake water quality problems.  Eutrophic, or
highly fertile, lakes tend to exhibit high weed and/or algae
growths which can make them suitable for only limited
recreational activities.  However, many eutrophic lakes
support very productive fisheries.  Oligotrophic lakes are
nutrient-poor lakes which usually support low levels of
aquatic plant growth.  These lakes offer excellent recreational
opportunities.  However, partly due to regional differences
in the morphology of lakes, there are relatively few oligo-
trophic lakes in southeastern Wisconsin.  Moderately-fertile
lakes are referred to as mesotrophic lakes.  Mesotrophic
lakes support moderate to high levels of aquatic plant
growth and often contain productive fisheries.  Most moderately-
fertile lakes are suitable for a wide range of recreational
activities.

Over the past several years, empirically derived water
quality models have been developed to estimate the trophic
status of lakes.  These models have been used as predictive
tools to describe the response to changes in the nutrient
loading to a lake.  Most of these models are based on the
assumption that phosphorus is the nutrient determining the
trophic status of the lake.

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has developed
a computer program, referred to as NEWTROPHIC, which consists
of three water quality models for lakes:  Dillon and Rigler
(1974), Vollenweider  (1975), and Vollenweider  (1976).  Using
either of these three models, a steady-state total phosphorus
concentration for a lake is estimated based on total phos-
phorus loading data, hydraulic information, and the lake's
physical characteristics.

                              VII-60
-------
In an actual lake, the steady-state phosphorus concentration
would be best represented during spring overturn, when
complete mixing is occuring.  Average summer algal
productivity (expressed as the chlorophyll-a concentration)
and water clarity (expressed as the Secchi Disc depth) are
then predicted as a function of the total phosphorus con-
centration. Chlorophyll-a is the photosynthetic pigment in
algae and is directly related to the algal biomass present.
A Secchi Disc is a black and white, 8-8inch disc lowered to
a depth where it is no longer visible from the surface.
Eutrophic lakes tend to have high chlorophyll-a concentrations
and low Secchi Disc depths.  Oligotrophic lakes typically
exhibit low chlorophyll-a concentrations and high Secchi
Disc depths.

Each of the three models assume that aquatic plant growth in
the lake is phosphorus - limited, and that, on a long-term
basis, the lake functions as a completely mixed flow-through
system.  It is also assumed that the input of  phosphorus is
constant, that phosphorus losses occur though internal
sedimentation and through the lake outlet, and that the net
sedimentation rate is directly proportional to the amount of
phosphorus contained in the lake.  The Dillon and Rigler
(1974), Vollenweider (1975), and Vollenweider (1976) models
differ only in the method by which the sedimentation rate is
estimated.  All of these models establish "excessive" and
"acceptable" steady-state phosphorus concentrations.  Lakes
exceeding the "excessive" concentration, which approximates
0.02 mg/1 total phosphorus, are generally classified as
eutrophic lakes.  Lakes with phosphorus concentrations less
than the "acceptable" concentration, approximately 0.01
mg/1, are classified as oligotrophic lakes.  Mesotrophic
lakes typically exhibit phosphorus concentrations between
0.01 mg/1 and 0.02 mg/1.  The Southeastern Wisconsin Regional
Planning Commission, in its 208 plan, established a total
phosphorus standard of 0.02 mg/1 during spring overturn for
lakes classified for recreational use, warmwater fish, and
aquatic life.

3.3.1  Big Muskego Lake

Big Muskego Lake is a 2,177 acre lake located in the City of
Muskego, Waukesha County.  The lake has a mean depth of less
than three feet and is highly eutrophic (SEWRPC, 1979).  The
lake is surrounded by wetlands and exhibits heavy algae
blooms during the summer.  These blooms have resulted in the
formation of a surface scum which severely restricts the
recreational potential of the lake.  The Muskego Northwest
wastewater treatment plant currently discharges to the inlet
stream to Big Muskego Lake.  Existing and future phosphorus
loads to Big Muskego Lake are set forth in Table 19.  The
future loads assume no WWTP discharge to the lake.


                              VII-61
-------





I
H
£
S
o
z
s






o
a.
a. z
I s
1 s
is
2 SI
i {!
-1
o
'i
P
u
i




•° P
U) £
§ -
2
° Is
2 5 •?
f-1

U) -H
8 f
O
2
O
I if
Mi
S
u
V
o
w


3
il
?!
*
i

t
4
•


1
5 i
I s
• i
3 -
W J
1 i
i 1
c
0 0 1^1 — ~ ""! , *



1 2 s 5 * s : I


s s •= s » 2 • a



^- °

1
w-
«

I


2
3
Z

a

I
u
i
9
5
i
*,
I '•
ii
•d E. M«d«poht to

"S -
ii
! i











1
*

s
j


5

~
§
£
E

a
e
1
3
\
a
i
0
I
i
i
1
•o
i
L M
"s
o
J
2






























O
X
s
IN
I
I
s
J
L.
a
SEWRPC Planning ft*
1
a
E
(i
a
a
1
41

•£
a.
M
C
1
j
i

c
§i
u O

£ e
V «

Je *J
*" §"

5 S
J" w
"JJ
0
« 5
5 s
1!
c S
if
c — •
M
Is
lource controls ii

e **
Include* no nonpoi
to th* provillon o
VII-62
-------
Under the Wisconsin Inland Lake Renewal Program administered
by the DNR Office of Inland Lake Renewal, a Big Muskego Lake
Protection and Rehabilitation District was recently formed.
Under this program, the Big Muskego Lake District conducted
a one - year feasibility study to assess the existing condition
of the lake and to evaluate alternative lake management
measures.  The data collection for the feasibility study for
Big Muskego Lake was completed in November, 1980.

Using NEWTROPHIC, the Dillon and Rigler  (1974), Vollenweider
(1975), and Vollenweider (1976) models were run for Big
Muskego Lake under existing conditions.  The predicted
total phosphorus concentrations, chlorophyll-a concentrations,
and Secchi Disc depths are presented in Table 20, and compared
to measured data collected under the recently completed
feasibility study.  Of the three models, the Dillon and
Rigler results provided the best comparison with measured
data.  Therefore, the Dillon and Rigler model was used to
predict lake conditions under future wastewater treatment
plant alternatives.

Under the Local A-5, Local A-7, Local A-8, and Subregional 3
alternatives, a Muskego wastewater treatment plant would
discharge to Big Muskego Lake.  After control of nonpoint
sources of pollution, as recommended in the areawide water
quality management plan, these WWTP alternatives would
contribute from 43 to 86 % of the total phosphorus load to
the lake.  As shown in Table 21, only the Subregional 3
total phosphorus load would exceed the existing load.  Under
the WWTP alternatives, the steady-state phosphorus concentration
would range from 0.035 to 0.121 mg/1; the chlorophyll-a
concentration would range from 12.4 to 76.1 ug/1; and Secchi
Disc depths would range from 0.72 to 5.70 feet. All of these
values are indicative of eutrophic lakes.  For example,
Tichigan Lake and Pewaukee Lake, which are eutrophic lakes
located in southeastern Wisconsin, exhibit average summer
chlorophyll-a concentrations of 38 and 11 ug/1 respectively
(Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 1976,1980).
Average Secchi Disc depths for Tichigan Lake and Pewaukee
Lake are 3 and 5 feet, respectively.

Under the No WWTP Discharge alternative, the selected model
predicts the steady-state phosphorus concentration to be
0.020 mg/1, the chlorophyll-a concentration to be 5.7 ug/1,
and the Secchi Disc depth to be 9.7 feet.  These values
would represent a mesotrophic lake.

However, it should be noted that Big Muskego Lake is a
large, shallow lake which undergoes a large amount of wind
mixing.  Therefore improvements in water quality may actually
be less than predicted under the No WWTP Discharge alternative.


                              VII-63
-------
                                       TABLE 20
                          COMPARISON OF PREDICTED WATER QUALITY
                     TO MEASURED WATER QUALITY FOR BIG MUSKEGO LAKE
           Parameter
Steady-State Lake
Phosphorus Concentration (mg/1)

Average Summer Chlorophyll
-a Concentration (ug/1)

Average Summer Secchi
Disc Depth (feet)
Measured
  0.23
 66.6
  0.90
	Predicted Existing Conditions	

Dillon and      Vollenweider   Vollenwei
Rigler (1974)        (1975)          (1976
    0.11
   70.3
    0.87
 0.09
49.4
 1.55
  0.31
293.
   Based on two total phosphorus samples, 27 chlorophyll-a measurements, and 30
   Secchi Disc depth measurements collected under the inland lake feasibility
   study conducted for Big Muskego Lake in 1980 by the Wisconsin Department of
   Natural Resources.
   Determined by application of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
   Lake Model, NEWTROPHIC, using three different techniques.


°  Because of excessive chlorophyll-a concentrations, the Secchi Disc depth could
   not be calculated.
 Source:  ESEI and DNR
                                          VII-64
-------
   01
   en
   .H
   ITJ
o
o
o
CN
O


O
                                       •a
                                       0
                                       (U
                                       £
C
0
•rH
CP c

0)


xi
3
01
      o
      o
o
o
       o
       o
       o
       o

       o

       o
                                       3
                                       Ed
                                       O,

                                       0
                                       rl
                                       4J
                                       3
                                       Ed
      o
      o
             o
             o
                    o

                    o
io in
u
       o
       o
       CO
o
o
in
                                       3
                                       a
                                       I
                   o

                   o
             o
             o
                                       x:
                                       a
                                       o
•o
"
01
3
rH
5
a
01
o
A
a.
a.


2


CO

\
01
1
&



orus Load
i,
01
o
£
01
3
rH
ID
JJ
0
£
Phosphorus
mg/1)

rl
CO
01
\
01
•o
&


01
1
01
JJ
CO
JJ
in
i
T3
cO
0)
JJ
lorophyll
rH
I
•— x:ca
0 c
c
o
H
JJ
C
o
o
c
0
M
1
3
tn
01
tr
CO
rl

C.
JJ
en
c
•rl
01
3

*
O
M
I
cu

P-
3

Z
^
rH
CD
T3

0>

<0
rH
01

CJ
rl
3
O
01
0)
a.

rH
CO

3
*J
Z

O
JJ
C

g
JJ

CO
0,
a
c
• rl
01

o
o

3
d]
j-
jj


O
j-
o
•H


O
•H
iH
a



XI
T3
01
C
•H
g
Ij
01
JJ
3

























































§
cr

C

u
4J


^
r*-

i— i
"•"'

o>

CT>

OS
'C



JJ

g
•H

'S

C

0
u
1)
^
01
CO

^

01
JJ
c
i
01
r— I

£
•H

0)
«
01

O
u

c
o
u

Q
O

3
0
01
JJ
c
•rl
o
a
0
c

01

c

01
01
JJ
0
aj
UH

>i
rH

O

01
•rH

01
-^
rJ

01
JJ


0
£
JJ
a
CD
13
g
3
g
•H
X
CO
£

0)

JJ
.
JJ
01
01
r~

en
o
jj

a,
3

01
Cn
c
CO

01
x:
4J
a

Q
o
01
•rl
a

-H

O
O
01
tn

•a
01
jj
u
•rH
01

a.

o>
jj



3
o

Jj
-------
The trophic status of Big Muskego Lake under alternative
WWTP conditions, as determined by the Dillon and Rigler
technique, is graphically illustrated in Figure 6.  Only the
No WWTP Discharge alternative would result in a mesotrophic
classification.  All other alternatives would result in a
eutrophic classification.  It is also apparent that the
Subregional 3 alternative would lead to further degradation
of the lake, and that there is only a small difference
between any of the Local alternatives.

3.3.2  Proposed Oakwood Lake

In 1966, the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning
Commission  (SEWRPC) adopted a comprehensive plan for the
Root River watershed which recommended the construction of a
permanent lake at the confluence of the Root River and Root
River Canal in the City of Franklin, Milwaukee County  (SEWRPC,
1966).  The lake would serve as a multipurpose reservoir
suitable for boating, fishing, low-flow augmentation, and
conservation.  That recommendation was reaffirmed in subse-
quent regional plans, including the areawide water quality
management plan adopted in 1979.  However, the areawide plan
noted that certain design features may need to be incorporated
into the construction and operation of the lake to prevent
severe water quality problems from developing  (SEWRPC, 1979).

In 1980, under the direction of the Milwaukee County Park
Commission, two alternatives for the Oakwood Lake site were
developed — one with, and one without a lake.  The feasibility
of transferring ownership of the site to the State of Wisconsin
was evaluated  (Brauer and Associates Ltd., Inc., and Donohue
and Associates, Inc., 1980).  The water quality analyses
included in this section are based on the lake design
specifications set forth in the feasibility study.

The lake designed  for the Milwaukee County Park Commission
would have a surface area of 150 acres.  Immediately upstream
of the lake, a 660 acre marsh, including 25 acres of
sedimentation basins, would be constructed to remove sediments,
nutrients, and organic matter from flows tributary to  the
lake.

Although the level of nutrient removal achieved by the marsh
is uncertain, the  feasibility study evaluated the effects of
the marsh removing either 60% or 85% of the inflowing  nutrients
These removal efficiencies were used to generate alternative
nutrient loads to  the lake in this appendix.  The lake would
have a mean depth  of 17 feet, a volume of 2,800 acre-feet,
and would flush relatively rapidly, about 30 times per year.


                              VII-66
-------
   10.0
                                       MEAN  DEPTH, (meters)
FIGURE
     6
DATE

 APRIL 1981
        PREDICTED TROPHIC  STATUS
          OF BIG MUSKEGO LAKE
UNDER ALTERNATIVE LOCAL WWTP CONDITIONS
                                                       ennBre Dillon and Rigler (1974),
                                                       SOURCE
PREPARED BY
      EcolSciences
      ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
-------
Although the Dillon and Rigler model was found to be more
accurate for Big Muskego Lake, it was concluded that the
Vollenweider (.1976) model would provide the best predictive
capabilities for the rapidly-flushing Oakwood Lake.  The
Vollenweider (.1976) model is the only method which accounts
for the relationship between the sedimentation rate and the
flushing rate.   Uttormark and Hutchins  (1978) evaluated the
Dillon and Rigler  (1974) , Vollenweider  (1975), and Vollenweider
(1976) models and concluded that the Vollenweider  (1976)
model yielded somewhat better predictions than the others,
because it accurately predicted the trophic status of 82% of
the lakes examined.

The proposed Franklin wastewater treatment plant would
discharge to Oakwood Lake, if it were constructed, under the
Subregional 1 through 4 alternatives.   It was assumed that
the WWTP discharge would not flow through the upstream marsh
system.  Since the construction of Oakwood Lake, is, at this
time, uncertain, the impacts of the proposed Franklin WWTP
on the Root River were also evaluated in section 3.1.3.  The
WWTP loads under the Subregional 2 through 4 alternatives
are identical,  and the WWTP load under  the Subregional 1
alternative is about double that of the other alternatives.
Under Subregional 1, the WWTP load would contribute from 83%
to 93% of the total phosphorus load to  the lake, depending
on the phosphorus removal efficiency of the marsh system for
upstream loads.  Under the Subregional  2 through 4 alternatives,
the WWTP would contribute from 71% to 87% of the total lake
phosphorus loads.  As shown in Table 22, under WWTP alternatives,
the steady-state phosphorus concentrations would range from
0.095 to 0.181 mg/1; the chlorophyll-a  concentrations would
vary from 53.5 to 136. ug/1; and Secchi Disc depths would
range from less than 0.1 to 1.39 feet.  All of these values
are indicative of eutrophic lakes.

Under the No WWTP Discharge alternative, the estimated
steady-state phosphorus concentration ranges from 0.014 to
0.037 mg/1; the chlorophyll-a concentration ranges from 3.24
to 13.4 ug/1; and the Secchi Disc depth varies from 5.46 to
13.9 feet.  Under a maximum level of phosphorus removal by
the marsh system  (85%) , Oakwood Lake would be classified as
a mesotrophic lake.

The trophic status of Oakwood Lake under alternative WWTP
conditions, as determined by the Vollenweider  (1976)
technique, is graphically illustrated in Figure 7.  Only
the No WWTP Discharge alternative, together with the maximum
assumed level of phosphorus removal by  the marsh system,
would result in a mesotrophic classification.  All other
alternatives would result in Oakwood Lake being classified
as eutrophic.


                              VII-68
-------

























Ul
Cd
H
Q
Z
D
a

Q


gg
0 0
M
a EH
a H
in Q


O O

0.0.
W 5
33 3

W
fa >
0 H

01 <5
EH 2
«S W
EH EH
Ul 1-5
rij
U
M
S
Oj
§
a



M
Q
a<
E-
S

Ed
§


g

S
s

ft.
































cu
Cf
rl
CO

U
01
a
1


o
z



CO
c
0
a
01
IH
.9
Ol


dP
in
CO





dP
0




dP
CO




dP
O
lO



0







O


o
0
CO
CN"



o
0
CO
CN
CN


m

rH
(0
eg ion
rl

3
01





CN

rH
CO
C
o
•rl
Ol
01

ja
3





dP
in
CO


o








df
in
CO




dP
O





O
o
CO

CN
CN
O
O
CO

CN
CN



O
O
CO

CN
CN


O
O
CO

CN
CN





rH

rH
CO
C
0
•rl
S
A
3
Ol






rQ
dP
in
CO


•0
dP
O







O
o
CN

in


o
0
CN

Ul
T


0
O
m





o
o
CN

01
0
o
m
VD*
CN


O
o
o
i C
TJ 01
IB O
0) C
S U
mmer Chlorophyll-
ation (mg/1)
3 >H
01 4J
C
01 11
cn o
CO C
i Q
< 10
miner Secchi Disc Deptha
larity) (Feet)
3 U
01
1) U
tjl 4J
CO 10
U 3
01 ~

J3
0)
3
4J
10
V
Ul
0
•H
O
rl
EH
0)
3
tr
•H
C
S
0
01
4J


vO

cn
rH


01
•a

0)
3
c
0)
rH
rH
0

0)

4J

cn
c
• H
01
3


U
M
I
a.
g

EH
3
[d
Z


rH
01
T3



01

CO
rH

01
0)
o
3
O

01
d

rH
CO
IH
3
4J
CO
Z

«4H
0

4->
C

4-1
rl
10
a
0)
a

c
•H
01
C
0
o
U]
•rl
3

01

4J
IM
O

c
o
-H
4J
10
O
•H
rH
a
a
CO

A
T3
01
C
•H
6

01
4J
S
fl











































































^B,

[^
CJ1
rH


C
O
Ul
rH
rl
CO
0

C

Tl
01
4J
C
01
0!
0)

a

X
O)
T3
C
H

01
4J
10
4J
01

O
-H
jr.
a
o
r4
EH
01
4-1

C
0

rrj
01
cn
CO
CO
;a










































•a
CU
4-1

rH
3
O
rH
CO
CJ

01
A

4J
O
C

•o
rH
3
O
O
J,
4J
a
01
Q

u
01
•H
Q

•rl
J— ;
U
o
cu
01

CO

01
c
5
•H
44

4-1
C
01
o
c
8

<0
1
rH
rH

"§.
O
-4
O
rH
Si
o

CU

•H
01
U]
CU
u
X
01
l*H
0

01
01
3
10
o
01
m
o
dP 01
O 01
O VO 01


01
CO rH
cu •
£ > 01
Cn cu OJ
3 rH U
0 -4
rl rH 3
JT, 0 0
4J i-4 01
4J
T3 C E
0) O CO
rl U 11
01 14
4J D 4-1
rl > 01

4-1 3
O1 rc3
j3 c e
rl O
13 i OJ •
4-> E rl  >.
Ul T3 01
cu 3 jr,
01 s: 4J "
>: 01 ui
3 rl 0
co rrj >i 4J
3 E 4J
rH -H >,
H Ul rH rH
2 H -H 4J
jr, ja o
r4 4J -H OJ
0 U) r4
VW >, CO -H
J3 01 T3
'O fa
oj -a T3

CO > X 4J
a cu co 3
D H .-) J3
-H JT. -H
a o ^ ^4
CO O -W
& r-4 3 0
•H co .* U
01 > 10
OJ Q O 01
T3 § -O
ilj OJ co
11 rl J^ O
^ 4-1 rH
10 Ul
rH 3 C Ol


oj j= jr. S
Ul Q, 4J
am M 01
o 0 jr.
0 x s-1 ^
n a
a 4J o
in OJ 4-1
4J O Ul
C >i
11 rH 01 rH
u  a
VH 11 * m
rH 01
4J C 4J
Ul OJ 0 Q
Q JS -H S
E ^ 0 0
CO 3 T3
4J -C 01 Ul
Ul -4 C
C M O

£ Lp 4-J
T3 CO O
OJ (U 3
t/] IM T3 'D
<0 U C 4)
33 (0 TJ i*<
T3
VII-69
-------
      -t*t-HJ
                            r Subragtonpl
                             LEGEND
                   Assumes  upstream  artificial  marsh  \
                   removes  60%  of  upstream
                   phosphorus  load.
               /\ Assumes  upstream  artificial marsh
                   removes   85%  of  upstream
                   phosphorus load.
.001
                                   10                             1.0

                                   FLUSHING RATE,(LAKE VOLUMES/YEAR)
FIGURE
7
DATE
APRIL 1981
PREDICTED TROPHIC STATUS /^
OF THE PROPOSED OAKWOOD LAKE f%
UNDER ALTERNATIVE LOCAL WWTP CONDITIONS \7
—^ SOURCE Vollenwelder ( 1975} and
i /vs. ESc!
, A A PREPARED BY
/f^^r^n EcolSciences
	 -1 *iCJJI ^ni 1 ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
™^^^ SM
-------
                         CHAPTER IV

                        LAKE MICHIGAN

4.0  INTRODUCTION

Lake Michigan is currently classified as an oligotrophic, or
relatively clean, nutrient-poor lake (International Joint
Commission, 1980).  However, some studies have indicated
that the water quality of Lake Michigan is slowly deter-
iorating.  This 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 those in 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 ac-
cumulation of excessive levels of pollutants in most areas.

In the MMSD service area, pollutant loads are contributed to
Lake Michigan from the Outer Harbor, which receives effluent
discharges from the Jones Island WWTP;  the South Shore WWTP;
the South Milwaukee WWTP; and three private WWTPs.  This
chapter discusses the impact of the Jones Island WWTP on
pollutant loadings to the Outer Harbor and the resulting
effects on water quality and sediment quality.  Evaluations
of the possible relocation of the Jones Island WWTP outfall
outside of the Outer Harbor and the increased ammonia dis-
charges from the Jones Island WWTP are presented.  Annual
pollutant loadings to Lake Michigan from the Outer Harbor
and from direct WWTP sources are also set forth.

4.1  JONES ISLAND WWTP AND THE OUTER HARBOR

The estuary reaches of the Milwaukee, Menomonee, and
Kinnickinnic Rivers are referred to as the Inner Harbor.
The Outer Harbor encompasses 1,445 acres of Lake Michigan,
enclosed by a breakwater.  The physical and hydraulic
characteristics of the Inner and Outer Harbors are discussed
in detail in Chapter 3 of Appendix V, Combined Sewer Overflow.
Pollutant loadings and sediment quality and water quality
conditions in the Inner and Outer Harbors under combined
sewer overflow abatement alternatives are presented in
Chapter 5 of Appendix V.  To discuss the impacts of the
Jones Island WWTP on the Outer Harbor,  the Outer Harbor
analyses presented in Appendix V are summarized below.
                              VII-71
-------
Pollutant loads to the Outer Harbor are primarily contributed
from the Inner Harbor, from the Jones Island wastewater
treatment plant, from two combined sewer overflow outfalls
which discharge directly to the Outer Harbor, and from Lake
Michigan inflow.  Annual loadings of suspended solids, total
phosphorus, biochemical oxygen demand, ammonia-nitrogen,
lead, cadmium, copper, zinc, and fecal coliform were estimated.
Pollutant loadings to the Outer Harbor are set forth in
Table 23.

Under existing conditions, the Jones Island WWTP is the
largest contributor of phosphorus, biochemical oxygen demand,
ammonia-nitrogen, lead, cadmium, and zinc to the Outer
Harbor.  While accounting for only 7% of the total flow, the
Jones Island WWTP contributes more than 20% of the total
load of all pollutants except fecal- coliform.

The pollutant concentrations within the Outer Harbor are
affected by pollutant loadings, hydraulic residence time
(flushing rate), and sedimentation rates within the Harbor.
In Appendix V, based upon data from Bothwell (l971j, it was
assumed that about 75% of the water in the Outer Harbor is
Lake Michigan inflow and that the hydraulic residence time
was about 6 days.  A recent study  (Lee et al, 1980) determined
that portions of the Outer Harbor have a hydraulic residence
time of only two days or less.  However, the study concluded
that the circulation of the harbor as a whole appears to
exhibit a double circulation pattern.  This circulation
pattern would retain water within the harbor for longer
periods of time than two days.

Based on sediment settling tests  (Meinholz, 1979), settling
rates of 65 to  90 % were determined for the Inner Harbor.
Because of a relatively longer hydraulic residence time of
the Outer Harbor compared to the Inner Harbor, a settling
rate of 95% of  the particulate loads was assumed for the
Outer Harbor.  Those pollutant loads which are not deposited
into the bottom sediments were divided by the total annual
water flow into the Outer Harbor to determine the average
pollutant concentrations.

The average flows and pollutant concentrations for the Jones
Island WWTP effluent and for the Outer Harbor under existing
conditions are  shown in Table 24.  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 to be
achieved, the concentrations of suspended solids and phosphorus
may increase slightly in the  future.  The ammonia-nitrogen
concentration in the effluent is expected to more than
triple, resulting in a corresponding increase in the Harbor


                              VII-72
-------












































m
fN

w
IH
S
EH








































10
U
&
>H
rtJ
X
(U
JJ





TJ
It)
3
rH
fl
g

IM
0
dr>







T3
10
S

COO
o o o
i-H ,-H rH




O CN (N
O • m
o T in
m
i-H
o
r*

m r- vo
r- CN







o \o r-
O
O 
C O 0) J3 U
n o w 'O a ti








fN \£ CN

rH O fN O O >-H in





in
rr O to O **"- <*» T
O LTI i— 1 O O f^ CO








in in CN -H (N r*- rn
^« r*- T T CN fo •
0




o o ^o f*i i"* t** T
n
co rH co **i r- fi o
rH » CN CN ^0
CN


Ti O ^ ^O fN ^ •«•
»3« rH f*1 CN f*l CN CT>





«• r* r* rH m tn
. r^ . . • -o
r- CN «H CN o o> m
rH (N "31 rp <-*

I
a
CVO
cu o
CT^ rH C
>1 ^^ 0
S? & — S —
O'OOl — ~ — ^MOl
4JUT3 01 01 01 01OJJ
rHr-l JJC 'O 513 HtJ T) «JC
idS ~H3rOS 3C U1C OC -H3
O ZO 103 -H3 &3 C3 rHO
•HI 04 01 O SO Q<0 -HO OO
s flja •§ a oo. NO, o
0} rn "**! ' id U in
£ C CO n U"i " m i-t-H
UldOrH O O O OfOO
OS Q^ ^ ^ r^ rHCJrH
.HOlS — — — — U —
m a < b
                                                     a)
                                                     >
                                                     O
                                                    •o
                                                    m
                                                    c
                                                     o
                                                     ol
                                                    •o
                                                     c
                                                     0)
                                                     X!
                                                     id

                                                     o
                                                     01
                                                     U
                                                     0
                                                     4J
                                                     13
                                                     10
                                                     o
                                                        01

                                                        a
                                                        c
                                                          H
                                                          01
                                                          Ed
VII-73
-------


a
CO

u s
Q) Q
3 co
O X
CD
4J n
3 W
fc. 'C c
C 01
CO g

"a C

M
tn
2) a,
se
n 5





^i
CO J5
3 £
r
•H
4J
M J-1
•H T3 C
X C 0>
H nj j3

"S
u
"i „
4 rH
fO X.
a en
\ rH rH *-'
q "m "tji
0 .§ £ **
rH 3
ca 01 »
cr> *o 3 i

C -H O T3
0 O J3 C
•H 03 ft rH CO
rH U] 13 S
rH 13 O 00)
1 « £ -£s
~ e a c
CU rH J= (IJ
2 Q, ct) U Cn
0 in 4j o >.
r< 3 o-^5<
* « H no
O tH r- CN
O O i-+ CN
U) O O O O
rH O O O O







p*

O O O rH

CO o C> O O
rH



m
o rH o\ r-
l£ rH O rH CN
m o o o o
o o o o o







00

CN O O O rH
tn o o o o






f^
rH ~»
>X tH *•*•
0> \ rt
e - gi -x —
-~ rH g Ol rH
1 x. ~- S \
CO1 *•" cji
cO 11 g g E
•H CP — 3 >•< >-
CO -HO)
o .j -o e a o
g 4J CO TJ Q4 C
E -H CD CO 0 -H
S Z 3 U O N



o
rH










o
O
CN






0
O
vO








0
O
CN






S
r-l
Fecal Colifo
(MFFCC/ 100ml)
                          3
                          4J

                          3
                             <

                             01

                             CO


                             O
                             4J
                             w
                             •o
                             c
                             a
                              m
                              oi
                              •a
                          a  5
                                          CD
                                          O
                                          ,4

                                          3

                                          O
                                          Ul
VII-74
-------
average ammonia-nitrogen concentration.  Although the total
flow to the Jones Island WWTP is expected to decrease by
at least 7 percent, the concentrations of lead, cadmium,
copper, zinc, and fecal coliform in the effluent are assumed
to remain the same as existing.

Dissolved oxygen levels are high in most parts of the Outer
Harbor (MWPAP 1980).  The large amount of algae (Bothwell,
1977} elevates the oxygen level even higher during the day.
The Jones Island WWTP effluent would be aerated, thus pre-
venting the depletion of dissolved oxygen at the outfall.

The Jones Island WWTP is a large contributor of some pollutants
to the bottom sediments of the Outer Harbor.  Table 25
indicates that under existing conditions, the Jones Island
WWTP accounts for from 18 to 78 percent of the various
pollutant loads to the Outer Harbor sediments.  Under future
conditions, assuming complete storage and treatment of
combined sewer overflows, the portion of the total sediment
loads contributed from the Jones Island WWTP increases to 20
to 90 percent.  Over half of the total sediment loads of
biochemical oxygen demand and cadmium are contributed by
the WWTP.  Although Jones Island WWTP flows are expected to
decrease in the future, the sediment loads of settleable
solids and lead will increase because of higher effluent
concentrations.

As reported in Appendix V Combined Sewer Overflow, the bottom
sediments in the Outer Harbor are currently classified
as heavily polluted based on EPA sediment quality guidelines.
Although sediment quality would improve under future conditions,
it would remain classified as heavily polluted.

4.1.1  Jones Island WWTP Outfall Relocation Analysis

In>'Chapter 5 of Appendix V, Combined Sewer Overflow,Section
5.1.6.1,a sensitivity analysis was conducted to evaluate the
impacts of relocating the Jones Island WWTP outfall outside
of the Outer Harbor.  The analysis included pollutant loadings,
water quality, sediment loadings, and sediment quality in
the Outer Harbor under the existing location and relocation
alternative outfall sites.  The Jones Island WWTP currently
discharges treated effluent south of the Inner Harbor mouth
into the central channel of the Outer Harbor.  The WWTP
discharge accounts for about 30 percent of the total upstream
(non-Lake Michigan) flow entering the Outer Habor.  Inflow
from Lake Michigan was estimated to contribute about 75
percent of the total Outer Harbor flow.  It was assumed that
the loss of the Jones Island WWTP flow to the Outer Harbor
would result in a longer hydraulic residence time.
                              VII-75
-------



















































un

3


EH

























































CO
9
cn

O
EH
a
• §
u
X
ctf r i
O H
§J
<
< o
K 01
0! EH
Cd Z
H Cd

O H
a
J Cd
< cn

O Q-
EH O
a |
EH 0!
Z Cd
^ EH

ft O
EH Q
z z

EH cn
< EH
Cd Z
3, Cd
EH S
H
os a
Cd Cd
EH cn


cn EH
< o
S to
i x


cn o
t-H EH
W rH
Cd

O Q
HJ <
S

EH
S
EH
D
J
J
O
CU
m

g









































u
z
W
EH
CO
HI
W


























a:
o
§


OS
Cd
EH
D
O

iJ

EH
g

c —
O >1 JJ
JJ TI CT
aj -H
in cn cy

C X
dl cn
U S
C —
o
CJ



A
CO
•a
c

* 0
Q Qj
O
r-H
"-*


o o co
(N O (*>
O O fN
1 "
i ra o>
m
i— i









O CN O r-*
O rH  a
•H H £

(0 "4
-H cn CD
•W X 3
C X
CD Cn
o e
C *— '
o
CJ

_
cn

c
•a D
CO O
Q Oi

0
^^





r^ o o CN
fl LO C3\ T









or*- o <*}
o ^ o
CN O CO

rH PO
f- t





O O O
CN O 0"\
•H O CN
1 - -
I CN ^r
^r
rH







O CO O rH
O 
rH Q *q" iH
* CO •. rH
GO Lfl











s

2
a


j
Ul
H

§cn


1-3





T3
J

(fl M

O AJ
** !o

0
o*> 0)

3
O



'«
T3
C
-O fl
rtj O

m
O
rH






CO **1 CO tT>
tN    i
                                                                             •rt  IT)
                                                                              C  jQ
                                                                              CD  CO
                                                                              4J  EH
                                                                              HI
                                                                              cn
                                                                              CO  -
                                                                             rH  CO
                                                                              co  cn
                                                                              •o
                                                                              0)  LO
                                                                              01  JJ

                                                                              3  r-H
                                                                              O  fl
                                                CU
                                                                                  10
                                                                                 ^
                                                                              3   "3
                                                                              dl
                                                                              M  O
                                                                                 CO
                                                                              •a  cj
                                                                              cu
                                               >4H  rH



                                               JJ  'M   .
                                                C  CU   3
                                                0)  T3   O

                                               4J  3  "4-t
                                                CO      H
                                                CD  CO   CU
                                                rl  C   >
                                               4J  0  O
                                                   -H
                                               T3  4J   M
                                                C  iO   CD
                                                CO  kJ   3
                                                   JJ   01
                                                CD  c  cn
                                                cn 01
                                                10  O  T3
                                                rl  C   01
                                                o  o   c
                                               JJ  U  -H
                                                CO     A
                                                                              CD
                                                   01
                                                a TJ >
                                                a  a
                                                OCX
                                                CJ  rH -rH
                                                   4J  C
                                                                                  CD  Q,
                                                                                  6  O,
                  BJ
                 cj
Cd
cn
Cd
cu
o
^i
3
O
U)
VII-76
-------
The water quality conditions in the Outer Harbor if the
Jones Island WWTP outfall is relocated are presented in
Table 26.  Table 26 also presents EPA water quality criteria
for the metals cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc.  Suspended
solids concentrations are similar for the Existing Location
and Relocation alternatives under both Existing and Future
conditions.  Relocating the WWTP outfall does not affect
suspended solids concentrations because of the large dilution
by Lake Michigan inflow.

The total phosphorus concentrations in the Outer Harbor
would be approximately 50% lower after relocating the WWTP
discharge.  The resultant 0.03 mg/1 to 0.04 mg/1 concentration
would still be 4 to 6 fold higher than ambient Lake Michigan
total phosphorus concentrations.  WWTP discharge relocation
would lower the BOD concentrations approximately 40%.  The
future ammonia-nitrogen concentration in the Outer Harbor is
approximately three times higher than the Existing concentration
when WWTP effluent is discharged to the Outer Harbor.
Relocating the discharge results in a future 10 percent
decrease in the Existing Outer Harbor ammonia-nitrogen
concentration.

The Outer Harbor metals concentrations were compared to EPA
Water Quality Criteria guidelines as published in the Federal
Register Volume 45, Number 231, pp. 79318 to 79379, November
28, 1980.  The criteria are intended to be used as guidelines
in evaluating water quality impacts.  All metals cited in
Table 26 were below EPA water quality maximum  (acute) con-
centrations under Existing and Future conditions.  Cadmium
and copper concentrations exceeded the EPA 24 hour (chronic)
concentrations under Existing and Future conditions.  The
location of the Jones Island WWTP outfall did not impact
the Outer Harbor metals concentrations in terms of achieving
or violating EPA Water Quality criteria for metals.

Fecal coliform are reduced from approximately 600 counts/100
ml under Existing conditions to 10 counts/100 ml under Future
conditions.  Assuming the continued reliable operation of
the Jones Island WWTP effluent chlorination process, the
location of the WWTP discharge will not impact Outer Harbor
fecal coliform concentrations.

The effect of relocating the Jones Island WWTP discharge was
also evaluated for sediment loadings and quality.  These
data are summarized in Table 27.  The WWTP currently dis-
charges approximately 28% of the estimated total settleable
solids load in the Outer Harbor.  Relocation of the outfall
would reduce the Existing load by 28% and the Future load by
37%.  Total phosphorus concentrations remain at approximately
2000 mg/kg when the WWTP discharge is in the Outer Harbor
and at 1600-1800 mg/kg after the WWTP load is removed.  All
of these concentrations lie within the range of heavily
polluted sediments based on U.S. EPA sediment quality guidelines,


                              VII-77
-------





















OH
0
<
EC

H
EH
D
°
H
X


22
Ifl H
CN
CO
W 2
J O
CQ H
3 EH
EH H
Q

O
CJ

^
EH
M
^
<
D
01

A
W
EH

3













































CO
2
o
EH
H
Q
§
CJ

pj
S
a
EH
D
fa

Q
2



OS
D
O
X
<*
CN





|









2
O
H
EH

O
S



3
EH
D
fa
OS





co

CN





O 2
2 O
H H
EH EH
co <

X O
H i4





CO

CN





2
O
H
EH

CJ
O
O
2
M
EH
CO
X
J
M
S







cTi
•
CN



O 2
2 O
H M
&H M
co <
H CJ
X O





co
*

tn
13
•H
r~^
o
co
OS
W
EH
pj
1
<
Cu
•a
CD
T3
C
s
3
CO
                                CN

                                CO

                                CN
                                O

                                O
                                                    CN
                                                    ro

                                                    O
                                O

                                rH

                                O



                                O
                                O
                                o
                                o
                                o
                                                    m
                                                    o
                                                    o
o

d
co

CN
                       CPi

                       rH
                       O
                       o
                                          o
                                          o
                                          o
                                                    o

                                                    o
o

o
                                o
                                o
                                o
                                o
                                          o

                                          o
o

o
CO


ro
                       CN


                       O
                                O
                                O
                                 co
                                 o
                                 o
                                 o
CO
o
 tn
 3

 O

•s,
 tn
 o -«
rH  E
 id ~--



I
                       in

                       d
                       o
                       rH
                       O


                       d
                                          o
                                          o
o

o
CTl
rH

O


o
 CD
 tn  •


 X rH

O  3
 03

 O TJ
•d  C
45  CD
 O  Q
 0


CQ
                       0

                       iH

                       4J

                       •H
                       f^
                 CT>

                 E
                                 T)
                                 o!


                                 %
                           01

                           g
                                          •H
                                           S
                                          U
 %
U


o
m
•sT
«
O











r^-
*vj*
o

o









ro
rH
0

o








CN
CN
0
•
O










CO
rH
O
1
o







r**
CN
O

o












^
rH
\^
Cn
g
O —
C
•H
N



1















1















O
rH











O
rH












O
^T
ID









O
0
\o








g

0
MH
rH
O
O

rH
fl
o
CD
fa


















































































^-^
rH
g

O
o
rH
CJ
0
fa
fa




.
CD
>
•H
4-)
ra
C

d)
-p
rH
^

CD
tn

^|
0
4J
CO

H

0

}H
CD
U
CD
tn

^
CD
C
•H
X)
g
o
o

I4_l
o

4-1
C

g
p

CD

P
T3
C


CD
tji
(d
M
0

tn

CD
P
CD
rH
OH
E
0
U
W
CD
TD
3
rH
O
C
HH
It)
>
X
•H
^
C
CD
a
G.


UH
O

^
rH
1
in

CD
rH
Q

•H
4-1
rrj
C
3*4

0 O
o
)H
>i CD
P 3
•H CD
rH CO
r8
3 T3
D1 CD
C

CD 43
P E
03 O
3 0

dness
^i
rd
XJ

j-j
CD
4->
rrj
3

^
O
XI

id
nC

3-|
CD
4-)
3
O
C
0
3

T3
CD
cn
rd
XJ
rH

^^
fd
^-**

^*
o
n

C
0
•H
P
O
CD
CO

v
4-1
O


^
CD
4-1
It)
3

C
-------
c
0
JJ
a co
c o
o o
•H rH
JJ CO
co o:




O
1 O
1 VO

iH
jj
c
CD
Ode
CCO
O -H -rt
O JJ JJ
01 CO
•rl O
X 0
a r4


0
1 CN
1 O

CN




C
o
01 -rl
1o "to
o o
r5 O
rH
rl CU
0 (2




rH m

ff\ O
rH m
.O
tj
CO
X
tj. c
H C 0
0) -H -H
JJ JJ JJ
3 01 co
O -H U
W 3



CN CN

s ^


C
o

JJ
rd (0
d u
0 O
•H rH
JJ CU






o
i O
1 CO

rH
JJ
C
0>
0 tr c
CCO
O -H -r)
CJ JJ JJ
01 <0
•H O
x 6
H J


o
! CN
1 r-t
(N



c
o
01 -r(
•O JJ
CO co
a 8
rH

O CM




c* m

[** o
CN in


IDO «.o 'S ao co
•H X rH d) rH (TJ O rH «H rH
moiw rJv u o^- N—'








. c
"a?
> -C
•fH 4J
4J iH
03 O
C *4H
4) JJ
•U OJ
rH !/l
^
a;
0 M
CT5 f3
(T3
rH [^
O GJ
jj >
jj
rH CO
CO C
JJ IH
o CD
EH jj
rH
•O cd
CD
•H JJ
UH C
•H CD

0 CD
E JJ
— ro
J3
01 CO
s
0 0
IJH CJ
rl
01 kJ
> CD
0 J=
JJ
rl O
CD
3 IH

01 'O
T3 3
CD
C 01 3
01 -r* C 0
•-I i 0 -I
01 S •* IJH
aj o -U k-i
.Q O rl CD
13 >
JJ CJH C O
J= 0 O
CP O XI
•H JJ CD
a> c >i i
i co JJ CD
g -H U]
> JJ rH
Wl to rO T3
nj CD 3 CD
-i a* c
en jj -n
^ jj i
\ T3 c e
O1 C CD O
E co E 0
•rl
C CD T3 »
•rl tjl CD >
CO 01
01 M X
ri o -a •*
co jj c "a
01 CO c
01 11
C 11 01 Q4
o jj a> a
•H 01 C <
JJ rH -H
co Q, T3 in
IH E co 0

C 0 H [>
d) rH
O 01 JJ 1
c CD c in
0 TJ CD
u 3 E cu
rH -rt rH
rH O TJ X!
rH C 01 CO
< H M EH
co ja























































































M
£d
tn
CU
o
IH
3
5
VII-79
-------
The WWTP contributes about 4 million pounds of BOD to the
Outer Harbor sediments annually.  Removing the Jones Island
WWTP load produces a reduction of about 68% under Existing
conditions and 90% under Future conditions.  Both Existing
location BOD concentrations are classified as heavily polluted
based on U.S. EPA sediment quality guidelines.  Under the
Relocation alternative the BOD concentrations under Existing
and Future conditions are classified as moderately polluted
and non-polluted,    respectively.  Therefore, relocation of
the Jones Island WWTP outfall would have a substantial
impact on the organic matter content of the Outer Harbor
bottom sediments.

Relocation of the WWTP outfall would reduce Outer Harbor loadings
of lead, cadmium, and zinc to the sediments by 23 to 67
percent.  Copper loadings would be reduced by 18 to 20
percent.  Based on U.S. EPA sediment quality guidelines, all
metal concentrations under all alternative conditions are
classified as heavily polluted.

If the water quality of the Outer Harbor improved but sediment
concentrations of metals and toxic substances remained high,
more relatively pollution intolerant fish and benthos could
migrate into the Outer Harbor and be affected by these toxic
pollutants.  Biomagnification of some substances could occur
which could impact the viability of the fishery and create an
additional risk to public health.

Since the Outer Harbor serves as a settling basin or buffering
area for pollutants discharged from the Jones Island WWTP,
relocation of the outfall would increase total loads of
settleable pollutants to the main body of Lake Michigan.
Based on Outer Harbor loading calculations presented in
Chapter 5 of Appendix V, Combined Sewer Overflow, from 9 to
95% of the pollutant loads discharged from the Jones Island
WWTP are settled out in the Outer Harbor, as set forth in
Table 28.  If the outfall was relocated, these pollutant
loads which are now deposited in the Outer Harbor would be
discharged to Lake Michigan, creating a localized area of
higher pollutant concentrations near the new outfall site.
The greater dispersion of pollutants could increase the
difficulty of monitoring programs.  Impacts from the WWTP
effluent could be less obvious and more difficult to detect.

The increased phosphorus load to Lake Michigan could accelerate
eutrophication of near shore areas.  Table 28 indicates that
about 13% of the phosphorus discharged from the WWTP is
retained within  the Outer Harbor by sedimentation processes.
Additional uptake of phosphorus in the Outer Harbor could
occur as a result of biological assimilation.  Relocation of
the outfall would increase the phosphorus load to Lake
Michigan from the Milwaukee area  (as set forth in Table 35)
by 5.4% under existing conditions.  Under future conditions,
assuming complete storage and treatment of combined sewer
overflows,the phosphorus load to Lake Michigan from the
Milwaukee area would increase by 4.0%.

                              VII-80
-------
                                      TABLE 28
                    RETENTION OF JONES ISLAND WWTP POLLUTANT LOADS
                  WITHIN THE OUTER HARBOR UNDER EXISTING CONDITIONS
Parameter
Total Annual Load
Discharged From
Jones Island WWTP
                                                Retained in Outer
                                                     Harbora
                       Discharged to Lake
                       	Michigan	
                                                Load
                                Percent
                                of Total
                       Load
                      Percent
                      of Total
Flow
  (10  gallons)
49,000
            0
            49,000      100
Suspended Solids
  (10  pounds/year)
  11.4
10.8
95
 0.6
Total Phosphorus
  (10  pounds/year)
   261
34.7
13-
 226
87
BOD ultimate
  (10  pounds/uear)
  18.0
 4.3
24
13.7
76
Lead
  (10  pounds/year)
  28.6
2.72
                                                           10
              25.9
           90
Cadmium
  (10  pounds/year)
  3.30
0.31
              2.99
           91
Copper
  (10  pounds/year)
                           27.7
                       2.63
                         25.1
                         91
Zinc
   [10  pounds/year)
  63.7
6.05
              57.6
           91
a.  The pollutant load retained in the Outer Harbor through sedimentation  of  the
    p~articulate • fraction, assuming 95% of the particulate fraction would settle out.
    Organic matter  (expressed as BOD) would also be oxidized to some extent.
Source:  ESEI
                                         VII-81
-------
Of perhaps more importance is the increase in ammonia
concentrations near the outfall.  The DNR establishes effluent
limits for un-ionized ammonia-nitrogen based on the acute
toxicity level.  These limits cannot be exceeded at the
point of outfall, i.e. in the effluent.  If the WWTP discharges
to the Outer Harbor, which is classified to support warmwater
fish and aquatic life, the acute toxicity level is 0.4 mg/1
un-ionized ammonia-nitrogen.  The standard for the Outer
Harbor itself, outside of a mixing zone, is 0.04 mg/1 un-
ionized ammonia-nitrogen.  However, Lake Michigan is classified
to support coldwater fish and aquatic life.  The acute
toxicity limit for un-ionized ammonia-nitrogen which would
apply to the effluent if it discharged directly to Lake
Michigan, is 0.2 mg/1.  The standard which applies outside
of the mixing zone is 0.02 mg/1.

As presented in the following section on Table 30, with dis-
charge to the Outer Harbor under maximum summer conditions,
the effluent would violate an acute toxicity level of 0.4
mg/1 un-ionized ammonia-nitrogen at a concentration of total
ammonia-nitrogen in the effluent of 15 mg/1 or greater.  An
acute toxicity level of 0.2 mg/1 un-ionized ammonia-nitrogen
would be exceeded at a total ammonia-nitrogen concentration
of 9 mg/1 or greater in the effluent.  Sufficient data are
not available to predict the mixing zone needed to achieve
the Lake Michigan standard of 0.02 mg/1 un-ionized ammonia-
nitrogen if the outfall was relocated.  It is anticipated
that the dilution of effluent within Lake Michigan would
occur in a manner similar to dilution of effluent from the
South Shore WWTP.  The effluent, being warmer than Lake
water, could rise to the surface and spread as a thin surface
layer.

The MMSD  (Summary Support Data File, Volume 2, 1980) in-
vestigated the possibility of public health hazards created
by the relocation of the Jones Island WWTP outfall.  The
study indicated that within 3 hours of discharge, 99% of the
fecal coliform bacteria discharged from the plant would die
off.  During normal operation, the relocated Jones Island
WWTP outfall would present a very remote risk to public
health.  However, during a worst-case situation of chlori-
nation failure at the WWTP and maximum wind attenuated water
currents, relatively high concentrations of fecal coliform
could occur at the Howard Avenue water intake and at Bradford
Beach.  However, even under this worst-case situation,
chlorination facilities at the water purification plant
would be expected to reduce fecal coliform levels to meet
drinking water standards.
                              VII-82
-------
4.1.2  Evaluation of Increased Ammonia Loads from the
       Jones Island WWTP

The purpose of this section is to evaluate the impacts of
increased ammonia discharges to the Outer Harbor.  Toxicity
and dissolved oxygen depletion effects will be quantified
under alternative effluent ammonia concentrations.  In-
dividual sections of the Outer Harbor, the Jones Island WWTP
effluent itself, and a mixing zone of effluent and Harbor
water will be considered.  This information should provide a
basis for establishing WPDES effluent limits for ammonia at
the Jones Island WWTP and for determining the treatment
processes needed at the WWTP.

Ammonia discharges to a water body may cause three general
types of effects:

1.   Nutrient Source.  Ammonia may be used by some aquatic
     weeds and algae as a nutrient, and increased ammonia
     discharges may increase aquatic plant growths if the
     plant growth was limited by the availability of nitrogen.

2.   Toxicity.  The un-ionized portion of total ammonia may
     be toxic to fish and other forms of aquatic life.

3.   Dissolved Oxygen Depletions.  The nitrification of
     ammonia to nitrate and nitrite consumes oxygen and may
     result in the depletion of the dissolved oxygen con-
     centration to a level harmful to fish and other aquatic
     animals.

The implementation of anaerobic digestion at the Jones
Island WWTP, as recommended by the MMSD, would approximately
triple the existing concentration of ammonia in the WWTP
effluent.  Under 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).
Following abatement of combined sewer overflows,ammonia is
the only pollutant evaluated which is expected to have
future loads to the Outer Harbor which are higher than the
existing loads.

In the Outer Harbor, increased ammonia loads are not likely
to significantly increase algae growths.  Since the water
clarity, as measured by the Secchi Disc depth,  is usually
less than 6 feet (Appendix v, Chapter 3), plant growth is
usually light-limited.   If and when limited by nutrients,
the algae growth in the Outer Harbor is usually limited by
phosphorus, instead of nitrogen.  The International Joint
Commission (1980) has determined that phosphorus is generally
the growth-limiting nutrient in Lake Michigan.   For inland
lakes, the ratio of nitrogen to phosphorus (N:P)  concentrations

                              VII-83
-------
is used to indicate which nutrient is growth-limiting.  N:P
ratios greater than 14 generally indicate that the water
body is phosphorus limited CWisconsin Department of Natural
Resources, 1976).  Ratios of less than 10 indicate that the
lake is probably nitrogen limited.  In the Outer Harbor, the
N:P ratio is usually larger than 14, averaging 28  (based on
data from the MWPAP Environmental Data Management System,
Support Data File, 1980).  Therefore, if and when limited by
nutrient availability, plant growth in the Outer Harbor in
general is most likely limited by phosphorus.  However,
measured concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus in the
central portion of the Outer Harbor which receives the Jones
Island WWTP discharge indicate that plant growth in this
section may be limited by either nitrogen or phosphorus.
The phosphorus concentrations measured in the Outer Harbor
average three to five times the critical concentration
needed to produce excessive algae growths (Vollenweider,1976).

To evaluate the toxicity and dissolved oxygen effects of
ammonia discharges to the Outer Harbor, the University of
Wisconsin-Milwaukee conducted a study comprised of three
parts  (Lee et al. 1980):

1.   Evaluate the circulation patterns and hydraulic residence
     time of the Outer Harbor,

2.   Define the nitrication processes in the Outer Harbor,
     and

3.   Simulate the nitrification processes under alternative
     ammonia discharge concentrations.

The study indicated that the Outer Harbor has an average
hydraulic retention time of about 1.5 to 2 days.  However,
the Harbor exhibits a very complex double circulation pattern
which  retains some water for much longer periods of time.
Hence  the estimate of 1.5 to 2 days is conservatively low.

The analysis of the nitrification processes indicated that
numbers of nitrifying bacteria are relatively low, due
primarily to rapid flushing of the Harbor (Lee et  al. 1980).
The nitrification rate was thus lower than would be expected
for a  highly polluted lake.  Most of the nitrification which
does occur is contained within the bottom sediments.  The
study  did not evaluate seasonal changes in nitrification
rates.

The dissolved oxygen  impacts of the nitrification were
simulated under five  alternative WWTP effluent ammonia-
nitrogen concentrations:  6 mg/1, 9 mg/1, 12 mg/1, 15 mg/1,
and 18 mg/1.  The 6 mg/1 effluent was assumed to represent
existing conditions and the 18 mg/1 effluent was assumed to
represent future conditions as a result of the plan recommended
by the MMSD.  The Inner and Outer Harbors were divided  into
five simulation areas.  The Harbor was simulated for an
approximate 6-day period in mid-September.

                               VII-84
-------
Simulated dissolved oxygen concentrations in the Outer
Harbor under the 6 mg/1 and 18 mg/1 ammonia-nitrogen effluent
alternatives are set forth in Figures 8 and 9, respectively.
The figures show that increasing the effluent ammonia-
nitrogen concentration from 6 mg/1 to 18 mg/1 has a negli-
gible effect on dissolved oxygen levels.  The dissolved
oxygen concentrations in simulation areas 3 and 4, which are
most affected by the effluent discharge, decreased only 0.1
mg/1.  All simulated Outer Harbor dissolved oxygen concen-
trations are well above the DNR's warmwater fish and aquatic
life standard of 5 mg/1.  The Lee et al. (1980) report
indicated that under the maximum effluent ammonia-nitrogen
level (18 mg/1), the dissolved oxygen consumption was only
0.2 to 0.8 mg/1 per day.  The oxygen demand exerted by
nitrification was therefore offset by oxygen production by
algae, reaeration, and lake water exchange.

Based on the simulation results, increased ammonia discharges
from the Jones Island WWTP in general will not noticably
affect the average dissolved oxygen content of the Outer
Harbor.   However, some low dissolved oxygen levels may
develop in both the north and south sections of the Harbor
due to the three-layered water current structure and to the
double-gyre circulation pattern in these areas (Lee et al.
1980) .

Figures 8 and 9 also present total ammonia-nitrogen con-
centrations simulated in each Harbor area.   With a WWTP
effluent discharge of 18 mg/1 total ammonia-nitrogen, the
simulated ammonia-nitrogen values range from 0.28 mg/1 in
area 1 which receives mostly Lake Michigan water, to 0.94
mg/1 in area 3 which receives the WWTP discharge.  The
simulated values for areas 3 and 4 are 81% and 57%, respectively,
higher than the existing concentrations set forth in Figure 8.
The concentration of un-ionized ammonia-nitrogen is a
function of the total ammonia concentration, pH,  and tem-
perature.  Increasing pH and temperature values increase the
un-ionized portion of the ammonia.  Using the simulated
total ammonia-nitrogen concentrations and the maximum summer
pH and temperature assumptions set forth in Table 29, un-
ionized ammonia-nitrogen concentrations were calculated.
The MMSD predicts that under both the existing effluent
concentration of 6 mg/1 ammonia-nitrogen, and the maximum
future effluent concentration of 18 mg/1 ammonia-nitrogen,
no general Harbor areas would violate the DNR's warmwater
fish and aquatic life standard of 0.04 mg/1 un-ionized
ammonia-nitrogen.
                              VII-85
-------
         LEGEND
A-N  TOTAL AMMONIA-NITROGEN*
UA-N UN-IONIZED AMMONIA-NITROGEN
 DO  DISSOLVED OXYGEN*
 ($)  HARBOR  SIMULATION
 w  AREA NUMBER
     PRIMARY NET WATER
     FLOW DIRECTION
                                         A-N 0.27
                                        UA-N 0.0072
                                          DO 8.6
                                               2) UA-N 0.0096
                                                   DO 6.9
                          JONES ISLAND
                            WWTP
                           EFFLUENT
                          A-N 6.0
                        UA-N 0.037
                           to 0.194
                                                   A-N 0.52
                                                  UA-N 0.014
                                                             A-N 0.47
                                                            UA-N 0.0126
                                                             DO 8.5
FIGURE
8
DATE
APRIL 1981
^— «
EXISTING AMMONIA and DISSOLVED OXYGEN flfr
CONCENTRATIONS in the OUTER HARBOR I 7^
\ SOURCE Lee,etal.(l980)and ESEI
~^ \ PREPARED BY
(=tefi!n EcolSciences
J'lg^Jl^Tn ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
S*»
-------
         LEGEND
A-N  TOTAL AMMONIA-NITROGEN*
UA-N UN-IONIZED AMMONIA-NITROGEN*
                      .#•
 DO  DISSOLVED OXYGEN
  y  HARBOR SIMULATION
     AREA  NUMBER
     PRIMARY NET WATER
     FLOW  DIRECTION
                                             A-N 0.28
                                             UA-N 0.0075
                                              DO 8,6
                                                    A-N 0.36
                                                    UA-N 0.0096
                                                     DO 6.8
                          JONES ISLAND
                             WWTP
                            EFFLUENT
                          A-N 13
                         UA-N  O.lll
                            to 0.581
                                                      A-N 0.94
                                                     UA-N 0.025
                                                       DO 7.3
                                                            A-N 0.74
                                                           UA-N 0.0198
                                                             DO 8.4
FIGURE
9
DATE
APRIL 1981
.^••••^
FUTURE AMMONIA and DISSOLVED OXYGEN fiff
CONCENTRATIONS In the OUTER HARBOR \T^
^ SOUHCE Lee,etol.(l980)and ESEI
fi \ PREPARED BY
fltefiin EcolSciences
j i^if-ij; sm ! ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
SM
-------
                                          TABLE 29
                           ASSUMED pH AND TEMPERATURE VALUES USED TO
                     CALCULATE UN-IONIZED AMMONIA-NITROGEN CONCENTRATIONS
Water
Body
Jones
Island
WWTP
Effluent
Outer
Harbor
Parameter

PH
(Standard
Units)
            Temperature
            ("0
                            Period
            PH
            (Standards
            Units)
            Temperature
            ("0
Mean Annual  July 1978-
September, 1980

Maximum Summer (June, July,
August) 1978 - 1980
                  August, Mean, 1977 - 1978

                  August, Maximum
                  1977 - 1978

                  Mean Annual
                  August Mean
Value

 7.1


 7.3



 23

 24


 7.9




 18
                                                                    Source
                                                                     MMSD Purification/Analyt
                                                                     Data, 1978 - 1980
                                       MMSD Purification/Analyt
                                       Data, 1977 - 1978
                                                         MWPAP Environmental Data
                                                         Management System, Suppo
                                                         Data File, 1980
                                       MWPAP Summary Support
                                       Data File, Environmental
                                       Assessment, Vol. 2,
                                       August, 1980
  Arithmetic means, rather than transformed means, were used for pH to provide
  a "high" estimate of pH, for a worst case analysis.
 Source:   ESEI
                               Vll-f
-------
The un-ionized ammonia-nitrogen concentration in the Jones
Island WWTP effluent was also calculated using the assumed
pH and temperature values shown in Table 29.  Table 30
presents the calculated un-ionized ammonia-nitrogen con-
centrations in the Jones Island WWTP effluent under alternative
total ammonia-nitrogen levels.  The Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources requires that the acute toxicity level,
0.4 mg/1 un-ionized ammonia-nitrogen, be met at the point of
outfall (Schuettpelz,  1981).  Using an average annual pH and
an average August temperature which are representative of
typical summer conditions, the concentrations in the effluent
are well below the acute toxicity level under all alternatives.
However, under maximum summer pH and temperature conditions,
the un-ionized ammonia-nitrogen concentration in the effluent
under the 15 mg/1 and 18 mg/1 alternatives would exceed the
acute toxicity level.   Thus, although the acute toxicity
level would usually be met,  it would be occasionally violated
during critical summer periods if the WWTP discharged total
ammonia-nitrogen at 15 mg/1 or higher.  The concentraion of
un-ionized ammonia-nitrogen is very sensitive to pH.  At a
total ammonia discharge of 18 mg/1, the acute toxicity level
of 0.4 mg/1 would be violated only when the pH exceeded 7.6.
Based on 1978-1980 WWTP records, a pH of 7.6 was exceeded
only four days during the three summers, or less than 1.5%
of the summer period.

At the request of the MMSD,  Lee (1981) also evaluated the
vertical distribution of the effluent plume in the Harbor,
characterized the effluent/Harbor "mix" ratio at a site
located 100 feet east of the outfall, and determined effluent
dilution at various distances from the outfall.  This information
allows the identification of mixing zones under alternative
effluent ammonia concentrations.  For the purposes of this
section, a mixing zone is defined as that area which would
violate the DNR's un-ionized ammonia-nitrogen standard of
0.04 mg/1.

Lee's (1981) study reported that the characteristics of
effluent plumes were largely controlled by the Harbor's
water temperature, and that the extent, shape, and vertical
distribution of the plumes varied greatly.  Of five dye
injection studies that were conducted, three exhibited
surface plumes and two had subsurface plumes.  The plumes
were usually tongue-shaped and angled north or south of true
east.
                              VII-89
-------
                              TABLE 30
              UN-IONIZED AMMONIA-NITROGEN CONCENTRATIONS
                   IN THE JONES ISLAND WWTP EFFLUENT
                             Un-ionized Ammonia-Nitrogen:Effluent  (mg/1)
Effluent Total
„.. , ... . Typical Summer
Ammonia-Nitrogen (mg/1) „ , . .
Conditions
6
9
12
15
18
0
0
0
0
0
.037
.056
.074
.093
.111
Maximum Summer
Conditions
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
194
291
388
485
581
a
   Based on pH and temperature assumption set forth in Table 29.
                                  VII-90
Source:  ESEI
-------
To characterize an initial dilution site located 100 feet
east of the outfall, Lee noted,based on dye studies, that up
to 85% of the water in the plume at this site was from the
effluent, with the remaining 15% contributed from the Harbor.
Since this was the extreme situation, a mix ratio of 50%
effluent and 50% Harbor water is also considered in this
section.

The mixing zone analyses were conducted to evaluate a
worst-case situation.  The surface plumes observed were
confined to the uppermost three to six feet of water.  The
dilution estimates based on dye studies represent dilution
only at the depth of highest concentration, usually at or
near the surface.  For surface plume conditions, ammonia
concentrations at deeper depths would be less than indicated
by the dilution estimates.  In addition, the maximum extent
of the plume was used to estimate dilution distances.  Since
the plumes were generally tongue-shaped, the measurements
thus represent the maximum distances to the specified dilutions.

Based on the dye studies and the above assumptions, Lee
(1981) established the relationships between distance from
outfall and dilution of sewage effluent as set forth in Figure
10. The most rapid dilution occurs beyond about 1500 feet
from the outfall.  This  relationship was used to determine
the mixing zones under alternative effluent ammonia concentrations

The total ammonia-nitrogen and un-ionized ammonia-nitrogen
concentrations were determined for the initial dilution site
established 100 feet east of the outfall.  Using the pH and
temperature assumptions set forth in Table 29 the concentrations
were calculated based on an 85% effluent: 15% Harbor water
mix ratio, and on a 50% effluent: 50% Harbor water mix
ratio.  Estimates were made under typical summer conditions
and maximum summer conditions.  The pH values were mixed by
converting the pH values to hydrogen ion concentrations,
calculating a flow-weighted mix, and converting the mixed
hydrogen ion concentrations back to pH standard units.  The
simulated total ammonia-nitrogen concentrations in Harbor
area 3, such as those shown in Figures 8 and 9, were used
for the Harbor concentrations.

The calculated total ammonia-nitrogen and un-ionized ammonia-
nitrogen concentrations at the initial dilution site are set
forth in Table 31.  Under typical summer conditions, the 85%
effluent:  15% Harbor water mix un-ionized ammonia-nitrogen
concentrations are about 25% higher than the 50% effluent:
50% Harbor water mix concentrations.  Under maximum summer
conditions, the un-ionized ammonia-nitrogen concentrations
for the 85%:  15% mix condition are about 75% higher.  Only
under typical summer conditions with an effluent discharge

                              VII-91
-------





































z
0
M

£
EH H

W &*

Z Cu
5 0
U -
z cn
o w

Pi EH
EH H
M 13
I ij
<* o <
M O (u
Z ri £H
O 3
lg°
< EH OH

i Q y 2
m U O 3

a w Q
J Z M Z
SO EH <
M M J
EH i cn in
Z H
3 Z
O cn
Q M U
Z EH Z
< 3 0
J n
Z H
&3 Q
8 n
gs
Z 1-4
1 Z
4! M
M
Z U

2 EH
J "*
rf;


s













































X
•r-t
s
0)
13
3


s
M
5


dP
O
m


..
.jj
c
0)
3
M-(

o*9
0
























X
•H
s


4J
10
3

^j
O



X
in



4J
C
3
rH

b]

*
in
00


















cu


jj

•o
I

m
H

D)
01
C
O



i
g
3
cn

e
s
e
•H
X

S





W
g

3
cn


10
o
• H
a

























M
3j


3
tn
s


X

s









3
tn
ifl
o

a.





























10

Q
*• .
4J
C
01
3 •

IM

a
"fc
0)
cr
o
jj
•O •*
01 Z
N 1
•H 10
C -H —
0 C rH

1 g Cn
C E g
D rt —


10
C
01
O
'H
4J
•O -H
o) z
N 1
•H 10
C -H ^^
O C rt

t c CT1
C £ g



10
c
a)

O
u
jj
•H
Z
I
*
•H ~-«
r~t C ^

•J^ § Cn
EH < —




ifl
0)

0


ot z
N 1
•H 10
C -H —.
o c H


C S g
3 < ~-



10
c
01

0

T3 -rt
N 1
'c -H ^^


1 E c?i



fl
C
01
Cn
0
4J

Z
1
ifl
•H *-*
rH C >H

0 B B
EH < ^^







i-(
Cn
C S
1) —

3 C
-i O
U -H
H 4J
Z 10
1 M
<0 4J
H C
" fl)
D 0
i c
18





v£ o r^1 fi co
Q^ ^i 02 ro p-
O «H "H CN CN

d d d d d













o ^j* cn ^r CD
ro ^- in r~ co
o o o o o

d d d o o













vo tN r- m r~
CN co ro cn «r

ro ^" \^ r^ cn















rj" tn m co GO
\O ^ CN O CO

00000













i- in m H cn
O O O O rH
o o o o o











CO ^ O O -fl1

. • . • •
in r^ o CN in
H -4 H




















\o 0^ oj in co
iH fH J-H















































Cn
C
•H
in
3

T3
01
10
3
U
l-H.
to
U
CD
W
0>
3

cn
c
o
•H
4J
10
w
JJ
c
0>
o
c
8

c
01
cr
0
ti
jj
-H
c
1

•rt
X V
ifl >H
E 3
^J
T3 fl
C h
10 0)
,t
0) 01
B -^

3 -o
in c
10
»H
n) S
u a,
•H
a o
>• -C
EH -U


10
                                        3
                                        O
                                        tn
VII-92
-------
of 6 mg/1 total ammonia-nitrogen is the warmwater fish and
aquatic life standard of 0.04 mg/1 un-ionized ammonia-
nitrogen achieved.  All other conditions violate the standard,
indicating that the initial dilution site would lie within
the mixing zone.  In addition, with an 85% effluent:  15%
Harbor water mix ratio and maximum summer conditions, the
initial dilution site would exceed the acute toxicity level
of 0.4 mg/1 if the effluent discharged at 15 or 18 mg/1.

The distance from the Jones Island WWTP outfall where the
un-ionized ammonia-nitrogen standard of 0.04 mg/1 would be
achieved was estimated with the initial dilution concentrations
presented above and with the dilution factors presented in
Figure 10.  The Harbor area within this dilution distance
represents the mixing zone.  Table 32 presents mixing zone
distances under alternative effluent total ammonia-nitrogen
concentrations and effluent/Harbor mix ratios at the initial
dilution site.

With an effluent discharge of 18 mg/1 total ammonia-nitrogen,
the maximum distance of the mixing zone from the WWTP outfall
under maximum summer conditions in the effluent is about 40%
larger than under typical summer conditions in the effluent.
To illustrate the extent of these mixing zones in comparison
to the total area of the Outer Harbor, concentric circles
representing various distances from the WWTP outfall are
shown in Figure 11.

The mixing zone under maximum summer effluent conditions is
probably more realistic than the typical summer mixing zone
because of high ambient pH values in the Outer Harbor.  Even
under typical levels of pH in the effluent, within the
mixing zone the pH would increase towards the average ambient
pH of 7.9 in the Outer Harbor.  The maximum pH in the effluent
of 7.8 is similar to the Outer Harbor pH.

In summary, under existing conditions, with an effluent
total ammonia-nitrogen concentration of 6 mg/1, acutely toxic levels
of un-ionized ammonia-nitrogen are not expected to occur in
the effluent.  Under typical summer conditions, the mixing
zone is less than 100 feet from the outfall.  During critical
maximum summer pH and temperature conditions, the mixing zone
extends up to 2,100 feet from the outfall.  With an effluent
total ammonia-nitrogen concentration of 18 mg/1, acutely toxic
levels of un-ionized ammonia-nitrogen would occur during
critical summer periods.  However, these critical periods
in the effluent would probably constitute less than two
percent of the summer period.  These acutely toxic un-ionized
ammonia-nitrogen concentrations could extend over 100 feet from
the WWTP outfall.  The maximum extent of the mixing zone would
be from 800 to 2,600 feet from the outfall.
                              VII-93
-------
(139* ooi x) mvdino  diMM QNVTSI  SBNOP WOHJ  30Nvisia
                                                                       s <
                                                                       o
-------




















CN
ro

W

CQ
irf
EH





















P,
EH
3
S
Q
Z

^J
CO
H

pa
z
o
^

[V|
EG
EH

PS
O


(0
CO
pa
0
z
r^
EH
cn
M
Q
pa

o
N

O
Z
M
X
M
S

en
Z
0
H
EH
P§
EH
Z
pa
CJ
z
0
o
z
pa
8
OS
EH
H
Z
1

H
Z
0

§
23

Q
W

H
Z
0
H
i
z
D

Z
0

Q
W
co

CQ
X
• H
2
!H —•

in <;





Q
3
6
•rH
X
cfl
S











rH
CO
O
• H
a
£*",
EH



X
2

J_j -— *.
0) P
4J 0)
(0 (U
3 MH

!H
O -> a






iH

£
£•
3
CO












^l
CD
£
g
D
t/3










r-l

0
O 1
rH
O
V 0
m












kO CT*














O
O
CN
CN

1

O
0

r-H








O
0
cn

i

0
o
^f






0
o
^p
CN

1

O
o
I •
rH







O
o

rH

1

O
0













CN
1— 1













O
O
ro
CN

1

O
O
in
rH







O
O
ro
rH

1

O
O
10






o
o
m
CN

i

o
o
CO
rH







O
o
r>
rH

1

O
o
oo












m
rH













O
O

CN

1

O
0

rH







O
o
r^
rH

1

0
o
03






0
O
CD
CN

1

0
O
0
CN







0
O
oo
rH

1

o
0
o
rH











co
rH












                                           rH

                                            3
                                            O  0)
                                           •H  £
                                           £  -P
 C -H
 rfl rH
i—I XI
 en  ro
H p
    en
 cn  aj
 H  cn

 g -H  OS
    c
 0)  I   rH
£  cO  fO
P -H  >H
    G  3
 cn  o  P
       §co
       Z
 0)  co
 O     4H
 C "0  O
 CO  CD
4-1  N  -P
 Cfl -H  C
•H  c  a)
T!  0  g
   •H  P
 01  I   iH
 c  G  a
 0  3  ft
 N     CD
      S
                                                                                 CO
                                                                                 0)
                                                                                 cv>
                                                                                 1-3

                                                                                 Tl
                                                                                 C
                                                                                 CO
                                                                                 cn
                                                                                 0)
                                                                                 CJ
                                                                                 >H
                                                                                 3
                                                                                 0
                                                                                 CO
VII-95
-------
              FEET
           1000  2000
        Approximate Scale: /' -2000
FIGURE

    II
DATE


 APRIL 1981
    OUTER HARBOR REGIONS
 WITHIN VARIOUS DISTANCES FROM
THE JONES ISLAND WWTP OUTFALL
                                             SOURCE ESEI
PREPARED BY
   sTIEcolSciences
   rril ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
-------
4.2  DIRECT POLLUTION 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 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.

Table 33 presents the concentrations of pollutants within
these pollution sources to Lake Michigan.  Concentrations of
suspended solids and phosphorus in South Shore WWTP effluent
are assumed to increase under future conditions to the
maximum level permitted by DNR.  The Outer Harbor concentrations
are influenced not only by the Jones Island WWTP, but also
by combined sewer overflows, other pollution sources to the
Inner  Harbor, and Lake Michigan inflow.  Concentrations for
the private WWTPs are primarily based on maximum permitted
levels and are expected to remain the same as existing.

Using the concentrations presented above, annual pollutant
loadings to Lake Michigan were estimated, as set forth in
Table 34.  The Outer Harbor and South Shore WWTP are the
largest sources of pollutants to the Lake, contributing over
98% of the total loads from these sources.  Future increases
in South Shore WWTP pollutant loads due to increased effluent
flows and concentrations are partially offset by future.
decreases in the loads of total phosphorus, biochemical
oxygen demand, lead, cadmium, and fecal coliform from the
Outer Harbor.  The largest increase in loads to Lake
Michigan is expected for ammonia-nitrogen.

Under both existing and future conditions, the South Shore
WWTP discharges total ammonia-nitrogen at a concentration of
about 16 mg/1 (MMSD, 1980).  As previously discussed in
section 4.1.2 for the Jones Island WWTP, the portion of
total ammonia which is un-ionized is dependent on the pH and
temperature of the water.  Under average summer conditions
of a pH of 6.9 and a temperature of 18°C in the effluent
(based on South Shore WWTP Operations Reports, MMSD, 1978-
1980), the concentration of un-ionized ammonia-nitrogen
would be 0.04 mg/1.  Under maximum summer effluent conditions
of    a pH of 8.1 and a temperature of 21°C, the un-ionized
ammonia-nitrogen concentration would be 0.79 mg/1.
                              VII-97
-------
o

















0


JJ
u
01

H

c
-H
01
c
o
u
tn
•H
3






01
,4

JJ
01
•H
tn




















0,

fj



CC
o
X
tn

X
EH
O
en








°§

S
J^J


«
g
§




















01

4J
13
C 0.
0 EH
4J 3
01
rH 01
io .«
S.3





,
CO
10 JJ
a c
e 10
0 -H
CJ Cn

u A:
01 01
3 01
O fH
a. o







ril dj O
O O O CO \ \ O
m . m Z z  2 Z CN tf

Oi
O
0
a,
g

01
01
3
X id
4-> 3
1 rH
0 H
tn S
-M
CO

-H O 0 0


01

tr>
c
-H
JJ
01

X
u
3

r- w
\o o o
in^D^Nv-OOOO *O
!-H . fH i— t » • OJ 2J
o o o c
•H
i
o
o
o

01

3
3
tu

r* »-i +J
>^ o o o c
ooor-\OOO<-* ^
r*j o ^r *H o o •£
01

4J


O^
c
•H
01
-H
X

m c
^H fl
CO VjD i-4 O O
CO O Cft U~) O O O W
« i • i • • i^O 9
(M O tn O O O <8
o
JJ
01

01 0)






u
01
JJ

u
m
a.
C rH V
a) ,Q a;
U) 01 CT1 C '"' * fl *""!
-o 3 >, ^ fH -H a
-H u x • en E £ -H £
*HOO4->O ^ t-O
O JG rH M OO>U
cn&'Hia.p >wo<
01 (0 -H -fH rH U1
T3OOIS ^^^a
OJ-^jS'-'-H ,.—.(,-. ^-. ^» OO 0 E
•O.-H 04^H £ rHflJrH pH SrH UO 2 3
C\ \0)'OXN.-H\ "X, 3 \ c^ m
HJO"1 f—^CJ* J^CpCD1 U> -HCT* "~^fe W
046 nJE U
-------
                                                     ft

                                                     z
N/A
                                                £
la
_i
m
       I
O X

us
JJ
u  *
0) >i
rH OT
W fl  J.
  Ot  C
C S  to
•H O  r->
01 U  0<

o n  x.
U 01  01
01 3  01
•r4 0  -4
3 a.  u
                      04
                  •H ^ 10
                  co o Q
Sou
                                 o
                                 0
                                       03


                                       O
o
o
o
o
o
                                 O
                                 o
Neg
                                                                  Oi
                                                                  41
                                                                  Z
                                                 41
                                                 H
                                                 A
                                                 CT>
                                                 01
                                                 z
                                                                  03
                                                                  O
                                                       O
                                                       O
                                                       O
                                                       O
                                                                        O

                                                                        o
01
14
3
JJ
3
b
0
o
o

CN



J3
Oi
C
•r4
JJ
01
r4
X
a
10
01
^4
3
JJ
3
b


o
o
0

o"


o
o
0


o



0>
C
•H
JJ
01
-H
X







r4
41
JJ
i
n
H
10
p-

o
0
o

r-t
o



01
c
o
rH
r-4
fl
Oi
uO
!* O
0) r-l

I~
0 0
r-4 l/l
fl







r-l 0






in
v0 ro
r-t






03


i^




Ul 01
•S- 2-
r-l 01 O 01
o -o j; T!

•00 O O
01 a j3 a
r|p 1^1
4) O r-1 O

01 «- JJ —
5 g
0
r-l








f*l
rn




in

f^
CN







tn

*y


c

&
o

rH
fl
U
r4
£
01
£
U
0
H
CO




































• 01
JJ 'U
•3 i
o
i a
•OkO
c o


Q
o a
o
rn rH
CN
in





O fl
o
o . m
* rH
^*


•» C3\
in
en o
* "31
31






r^- in
CN
03
m m



C
41
O! « ~*
on 01
U 13 T)
.t! § §
fa a
(0
r-TO rn
CO O
0 *H *O rH

1 S
m M

fN O







r*- m
r4 O




Ty m

^ O







CN
\O ^

r*« in





— S
01 U
""0 O
2 i-"
3 -H



































01
jj
C
3
O
arH U
o
S un
an r-

•e ^ u
(Tj D
O b
H
O
r-t


ab
Ava
No

§
H
JJ
(0
c
M
01
JJ
r-t


01
en
fO
o
JJ
t/1

1— t
nj
jj
g

T3

c
r4
JJ
01
•H
X
u

0}
10
g
10
01
41
J3
O
JJ
•o

g
3
01
01
10

01
c
o
•H
JJ
— 1
T3
C
o
O

01
u
3
JJ
3
b
lined to be abandoned under future
en
01
10

ui
•H

04
B

§


10

JJ
0
c
01
•*,
01
3

c.
e-.

3

OJ
-X
3
01
j;
jj
c:
0
jj
01
r-4
10
^
U

4)

^J

i4
0


10
JJ
to
•o
tn

M
jj
Ul
H
X
u














































































t
tn
c
o
H
U
•H
13
c:
o
u
                                                                                                                            3
                                                                                                                            O
                                                                                                                            Cfl
                                                          VII-99
-------
The effluent limit for the South Shore WWTP, which is based
on the acute toxicity level for coldwater fish and aquatic
life, is 0.2 mg/1 un-ionized ammonia-nitrogen.  Thus, the
effluent limit for un-ionized ammonia-nitrogen is met under
average summer conditions, but is exceeded by four-fold
under maximum summer conditions.  The concentration of un-
ionized ammonia-nitrogen is very sensitive to pH, and the
effluent limit of 0.2 mg/1 would be violated at a pH above
7.6.  Based on Operations Reports for the South Shore WWTP
CMMSD, 1978-1980) a pH of 7.6 in the effluent was exceeded
during 60 days in the summer of 1978.  However, in 1979 and
1980, a pH of 7.6 was never exceeded in the effluent.  The
continued prevention of high pH values in the effluent will
eliminate the violation of the effluent limit for un-ionized
ammonia-nitrogen.

The un-ionized ammonia-nitrogen standard established by the
DNR for Lake Michigan itself, outside of an effluent mixing
zone, is 0.02 mg/1.  The MMSD (1980) reported that an
effluent/Lake Michigan water mix ratio of 1:10 is achieved
during the initial dilution, generally within 100 feet of
the outfall of the South Shore WWTP.  This initial dilution
would achieve the standard for Lake Michigan under average
summer conditions.  Additional dilution to a concentration
which would achieve the standard under the most critical
summer conditions would occur within 4 hours of discharge
CMMSD, 198o).

Phosphorus has been shown to be a major nutrient controlling
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 es-
tablished a future target phosphorus load to provide for the
continued protection and maintenance of the Lake's water
quality.  Phosphorus loads from the Milwaukee area are
compared to total Lake Michigan loads in Table 35. Because
of increased discharges from the South Shore WWTP, the
proportion of the total phosphorus load to Lake   Michigan
contributed from the Milwaukee area increased from 4.5
percent under existing conditions to 5.8 percent under
future conditions.  These phosphorus loadings may cause
elevated algae levels along the Milwaukee near-shore area.

The South Shore WWTP discharges at four outlets located on
the bottom of Lake Michigan, 1800 feet northeast of the
plant.  Effluent, being warmer than lake water, often rises
to the surface where it spreads as a surface plume (MMSD
1979).  Some pollutants are carried less than a thousand
feet by winds and currents before being diluted to background
levels.  Plumes  from the South Milwaukee WWTP and the two
private wastewater treatment plants affect small localized
areas.

                               VII-100
-------
    to
    Q
    a  «: 5
       EH rtl
    CO  O O
    as     3
    O  EH CJ
    as  H H
    _  <
    as  EH
in  OH
CO
  (8
a  w
J  Ed
CQ  S
2
o
D O
EH EH
D
Pn CO
   Q
Q <

§3

O CO
2 D
H OS
EH O
   CO
_ H  CU
co x  co
H H  O
QJ     as
< O  CU

r
,— 1
T3 (8
(8 4-1
CU M-l
CU O
(8 C
3 CU
i-l U
•H S-i
S CU
CU
18
CD
G \
18 co
•H c
£ 3
0 0
•H a
s
CU G
^ (8
<8 tn
J 3
O
18 EH
4-1 ~
0

18
3
(8
tn cu
3 >,
0 CO
XI 'O
a g
tn 3
0 O
A a
cu
(8 G
0) r8
0) CO
(8 *G
!-( »-'
•H
•£ rO
nj
0
G
0
•H
4_]
•H

0
CJ







m co
. •










4-1
CJ
O"!
^4
rd
£

0 0
0 0
CN ^r
i-i 1-1















O <"1


Cn
C
•H CU
JJ V-l
tn 3
•H 4-1
X 3

                                                          4J
                                                          C
                                                          CU

                                                          •X

                                                       4J  CU

                                                       o  u
                                                       CO
                                                       S  >,
                                                       3  C
                                                          "3
                                                       oj  a
                                                       M  e
                                                       o  o
                                                       •C  CJ
                                                       en
                                                4->   S
                                                3   O
                                                O  &)
                                                co
                                                    o
                                                 » -H
                                                M   M
                                                O  4J
                                                ^2   O
                                                M  c
                                                (1)  -r-l
                                                4-1  tn
                                                3  G
                                                o  o
                                                   o
                                                cu  tn
                                                       e  -a
                                                       o  c
                                                       M  18
                                                       C
                                                       (8
                                                       Cn
                                                      •H

                                                       o

                                                      S
                                                   M  cu
                                                   (8  Vl
                                                   H) 4-1
                                                       o
                                                   O 2
                                                   4J
                                                      M-l
                                                   tn  0
                                                   T)
                                                   (8  tn
                                                   O  ^-i
                                                   rH  CU
                                                      4J
                                                   co  tn
                                                   3 -r4
                                                   ^ CO
                                                   0

                                                   C). pj
                                                   tn EH
                                                   O 2
                                                   J3 2
                                                   a
                                                       cu
                                                   tn  cu
                                                   cu ^
                                                   i^  3
                                                   3  (8

                                                   CJ iH
                                                   C -H
                                                   H S
                                                                        co
                                                                        H
                                                                 G
                                                                 (8

                                                                 G
                                                                 0
                                                                •rH
                                                                 tn
                                                                 tn
                                                                •H
                                                                        o
                                                                        U

                                                                        4-1
                                                                        C
                                                                        •H
                                                                        (8

                                                                        0
                                                                       •H
                                                                       4-1
                                                                        (8

                                                                        M
                                                                        cu
                                                                       4-1
                                                                        G
                                                                        cu
                                                                        o
                                                                        S-l
                                                                        3
                                                                        0
                                                                       co
                                                  VII-101
-------
The Outer Harbor contributes flow to Lake Michigan through
four openings in the breakwater.  However, flows from the
Outer Harbor are of a different nature than sewage effluent
plumes.  There is little temperature difference between Lake
water and Harbor water.  Instead of floating in a thin
surface layer, subject to dilution outward and downward, the
Outer Harbor water flows into the lake at all depths, sub-
ject only to outward dilution.  Therefore, the large volume
of Outer Harbor flow is less easily dissipated in the Lake.
Furthermore, the Harbor flow from the north and south openings
in the breakwater may be transported along the shore by
nearshore currents.

4.3  PRIORITY POLLUTANT IMPACTS

The EPA priority pollutant list given in Table 36 arose from
a June 7, 1978 court settlement involving the EPA and several
environmentally concerned plaintiffs.  This ruling became
known as the EPA Consent Decree.  As a result of the court
settlement, the EPA agreed to establish and attain compliance
with effluent limitations and guidelines for classes and
categories of point sources which require application of
best available technology economically achievable at the
earliest possible time {not later than June 30, 1983).  EPA
also agreed to establish new source performance standards
and pretreatment standards for 21 industrial categories.  In
addition the EPA chose to review priority pollutant con-
centrations found in the discharges from wastewater treatment
plants  CWWTP).  Following the Consent Decree, the EPA began
an intensive sampling and monitoring program of the 21
target industrial categories as well as 40 selected WWTPs.
In conjuction with this program, the EPA also published
water quality criteria for the priority pollutants on
November 28, 1980  (Federal Register Volume 45, Number 231 pp
79318 to 79379).  These criteria, which appear under Section
304  (a)  (i) of the Clean Water Act, are intended to be used
as guides in evaluating water quality impacts.

This section will discuss the water quality impacts of
priority pollutants on the aquatic life habitat of the
Milwaukee Inner Harbor, Outer Harbor, and near-shore Lake
Michigan.  The data for this section were taken from a MMSD
report on priority pollutant sampling  (Moser et.al., 1980).
These data are summarized in Table 37.  The Inner and Outer
Harbor samples were grab samples.  All other samples were 24
hour composites.  The samples were taken according to EPA
protocol for sampling priority pollutants.  Samples were
taken by MMSD personnel and analysed by a contract laboratory
according to EPA approved analytical methods.  Samples were
collected on August 27 and 28, 1980.  No rainfall was reported
in the MMSD area for the 7 days preceeding the sample period
and no rain events ocurred during sampling.

                              VII-102
-------
                                           TABLE 36
                                    PRIORITY POLLUTANT LIST
 1.  Acenaphthene
 2.  Acrolein
 3.  Acrylonitrile
 4.  Aldrin/Dieldrin
 5.  Animomy and compounds
 6.  Arsenic and compounds
 7.  Asbestos
 8.  Benzene
 9.  Benzidine
10.  Beryllium and compounds
11.  Cadmium and compounds
12.  Carbon tetrachloride
13.  Chlordane (technical mixture and
       metabolites)
14.  Chlorinated benzenes (other than
       dichlorobenzenes)
15.  Chlorinated ethanes (including 1,2-
       dichloroethane,  1,1,1-trichloroethane,
       and hexachloroethane)
16.  Chloroalkyl ethers (chloromethyl,
       chloroethyl,  and mixed ethers)
17.  Chlorinated naphthalene
18.  Chlorinated phenols (other than those
       listed elsewhere,  includes trich-
       lorophenols and chlorinated cresols)
19.  Chloroform
20.  2-Chlorophenol
21.  Chromium and compounds
22.  Copper and compounds
23.  Cyanides
24.  DDT and metabolites
25.  Dichlorobenzenes (1,2- 1,3-, 1,4-
       dichlorobenzenes)
26.  Dichlorobenzidine
27.  Dichloroethylenes (1,1- and 1,2-
       dichloroethylene)
28.  2,4-Dichlorophenol
29.  Dichloropropane and dichloropropene
30.  2,4-DimethyIphenol
31.  Dinitrotoluene
32.  Diphenylhydrazine
33.  Endosulfan and metabolites
34.  Endrin and metabolites
35.  Ethylbenzene
36.  Fluoranthene
37.  Haloethers (other than those listed
       elsewhere;  includes chlorophenyl-
       phenyl esters, bromophenylphenyl
       ether, bis(dichloroisopropyl)
       ether, bis(chloroethoxy) methane,
       and polychlorinated diphenyl
       ethers)
38.  Halomethanes (other than those listed
       elsewhere;  includes methylene
       chloride, methyl chloride, methyl
       bromide, bromoform, dichlorobro-
       momethane,  trichlorofluoromethane,
       dichlorodifluoromethane)
39.  Heptachlor and metabolites
40'.  Hexachlorobutadiene
41.  Hexachlorocyclohexand (all isomers)
42.  Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
43.  Isophorone
44.  Lead and compounds
45.  Mercury and compounds
46.  Naphthalene
47.  Nickel and compounds
48.  Nitrobenzene
49.  Nitrophenols (including 2,4-dinitro-
       phenol, dinitrocresol)
50.  Nitrosamines
51.  Pentachlorophenol
52.  Phenol
53.  Phthalate esters
54.  Polychlorinated biphenyls  (PCBs)
55.  Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
       (including benzanthracenes, ben-
       zopyrenes,  benzofluoranthene,
       chrysenes,  dibenzanthracenes,
       and indenopyrenes)
56.  Selenium and compounds
57.  Silver and compounds
58.  2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
       (TCDD)
59.  Tetrachloroethylene
60.  Thallium and compounds
61.  Toluene
62.  Toxaphene
63.  Trichloroethylene
64.  Vinyl chloride
65.  Zinc and compounds
Source:  EPA
                                                 VII-103
-------
   lO^avOiOvC^OvSv

     a o o o o o o
                                   O *
                                   O  •r
                  SI
                                      S-^ ^    o o f* t/i
                                    i  o •* * *•* « *  •
                             !dg!
                             i a a  i
ll
  §rfl J r- J  .4 ,
!  in a m a  Q i
^    at   ami
Q Q Q
a to en

A a
^ j
0) f-4 Q
iD ffl
*
VI

— »j >a *j
Sn Q
A A








0
4J
4) A
all
« J3 S
— l *J O,
3**
£ -1 N
O. >. C
-U 1)
Si!
u e >.
5 J. S
•a -a a
zs"
N A
« a
A
JV J J
=N a o
A A
J J
In S A
as a a
A A
'II

J J • w
£ 0

SQQQ QQ -aaaQ
AAA a 01 * m CQ aj a
Saaa aa -aaaa
a a a AAU^AAAA
,.i.iiui».

So Q a a a • Q a • a a
fflfBAAAOAAt^AA

H3"*JJ^J^J<3»JJJ
a Q a a -a .aaa
n AA CQ ai en r- A A a









c
Is
O 4) <
SS 4
£ *t -^
U 4) C
0) O *
y Vi g >
U 0 4) 4) § 3 U
t -^ C C 3 "* * -*
»OM DfiOi'^JtfU'O
-BJS5S8-583cMS
detection limit for
i_.
\.
»/i 0
O 4>
fi
CP
"1
O ID
!«
"«
. «
4J
HI
C »<
S8
35
U ~X
ll
« »
O C
N
01
4J >4

Detection
tection limi

±>
11

•s •
O "->
•H X.
.i n»
y 3
•w tn

1 •
A U
•«rf

ij
U
u
>,
i
*J
scientific infoi
imendations are based solely upon i
tse criteria recon
3

ection 304)
«

 «
s*
S|
u at

gulatory inp
state WQS, t
0)
U 4)
£
U
5°

•Q 4J


^ a
4J

O « --H
1 ^0
°* « 3
S S £





• effluent.
S
e
•a
o
g
o
&

a
0)




0

0
S
S
hi
2
•-•




•^
n
a
1
0

ardness of 1

14
S

u
c
u
i

c
c
1
•o
4)
a
a
A
**•







tration.

8
l
u

tt
o
u

1
u
a
a
1
0
tn








j
u
4J
§
u

o

X
0

s
u
a
5
'a
4J
u
£








u
Ul
u
•a
g
a
w



J
a
u
M
ource i Mos4
Ul

-------
The EPA water quality criteria cited in Table 37 are given
as 24 hour average  (the chronic toxicity level) and maximum
(the acute toxicity level) for freshwater aquatic life.  The
chronic and acute toxicity levels were compared to ambient
water quality conditions in the Inner Harbor, Outer Harbor
and nearshore Lake Michigan (at the water treatment plant
intakes).  The EPA water quality criteria, which are expressed
as maximum concentrations, are used to assess the impacts of
the discharges from the Jones Island WWTP and the South
Shore WWTP effluent on the nearshore Lake Michigan water
quality.

4.3.1  Existing Conditions

The organic compounds on the EPA priority pollutant list
which were found in the highest concentrations were the
phthalate esters (the first five priority pollutants listed
in Table 37).  The total phthalate ester concentration in
the Jones Island effluent was 78 ug/1, a value below the EPA
maximum water quality criteria.  Diethyl phthalate accounted
for 68 ug/1,  or 87% of the total phthalate ester concentration.
No phthalate esters were found in the Inner Harbor.  The
Outer Harbor contained 71 ug/1 of total phthalate esters, of
which 2-bis-(ethylhexyl) phthalate was the ester found in
highest concentration (.63 ug/1) .  Phthalate ester concentrations
in the nearshore Lake Michigan region nearest Jones Island
ranged from 34 ug/1 at the North Shore water plant intake to
270 ug/1 at the Howard Avenue water plant intake.  The
predominant phthalate ester was bis-2-(ethylhexyl) phthalate.

The South Shore WWTP contained 61 ug/1 total phthalate ester
concentration which was below the EPA maximum water quality
criterion concentration.  The highest phthalate ester concen-
tration (458  ug/1)  was reported in the sample taken near the
South Milwaukee water plant intake.

The high phthalate ester concentrations at the Howard Avenue
and South Milwaukee water treatment plant intakes may indicate
an unidentified localized source of pollution.  All the
Outer Harbor and nearshore Lake Michigan phthalate ester
concentrations are greater than the EPA 24 hour chronic toxicity
level.  The source of these impacts is currently under
study.

Eisenreich et al.,   (1981) have estimated that 60% to 90% of
the total load of PCB (a priority pollutant related to
phthalate ester)  to Lakes Superior and Michigan are contributed
by atmospheric fallout.   Data are not fully developed on
phthalate esters.  However atmospheric loads of phtalate esters
to Lake Michigan have been estimated at 22 metric tons/year
(Eisenreich et al., 1981).  This may explain the different
types of phthalate ester found in the Jones Island WWTP
effluent and the nearshore Lake Michigan waters.  If phthalate
ester loading sources are similar to those reported for

                              VII-105
-------
PCBs, reducing phthalate ester concentrations in the Jones
Island and South Shore WWTP effluents would have very little
impact on nearshore phthalate ester concentrations.  The
remaining organic priority pollutant concentrations were
below EPA water quality criteria levels.

All the metal priority pollutants were below the maximum EPA
water quality criteria for the WWTP effluent samples.
Copper concentrations exceeded EPA 24 hour average water
quality criteria for all nearshore Lake Michigan sampling
stations except Linnwood Avenue.  The sources of these
copper loadings are not known.  Copper was below detection
limits in the Inner Harbor, Outer Harbor, and South Shore
WWTP effluent samples.

The high chromium concentration of 300 ug/1 reported for the
South Shore effluent was in the form of trivalent chromium.
Chromium in the hexavalent form is much more toxic than
trivalent chromium.  MMSD has determined that the source of
this chromium is an industrial plant served by the South
Shore WWTP.

The total cyanide concentrations in the discharges from the
Jones Island and South Shore WWTPs were greater than the EPA
maximum water quality criteria for free cyanide.  It is
highly unlikely that the cyanide in the WWTP effluents is
all free cyanide since the effluent from the WWTPs is normally
not acidic.  Analytical techniques do not presently exist
which can routinely measure free cyanide.  Therefore, the
impact of cyanide in the Jones Island and South Shore effluents
cannot be assessed.  Total cyanide was below the EPA 24 hour
water quality criteria in samples for the Inner Harbor, the
Outer Harbor, and nearshore Lake Michigan.

4.3.2  Future Conditions

The MMSD industrial pretreatment program is assumed to be in
effect under all future conditions.  The primary intent of
the Consent Decree is to establish new source performance
standards and pretreatment standards for 21 industrial
categories.  Compliance with the pretreament standards,
promulgated by the EPA, will reduce the loadings of priority
pollutants to WWTPs.  Therefore, future priority pollutant
loads, which orginate from industrial sources and pass
through MMSD treatment plants are expected to be lower than
those presently occurring.  However, processes such as break
point chlorination for reducing high ammonia concentrations
in WWTP effluents, should be avoided.  High chlorine doses,
such as those used in breakpoint chlorination, have been
shown to form chlorinated hydrocarbons in WWTP effluents.
These compounds could impair the future water quality of the
Outer Harbor and nearshore Lake Michigan through increased
loadings of these types of pollutants.

                              VII-106
-------
                        BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bennwitz, T. "Calculation of Effluent Limits for Ammonia
     and pH for Discharges to Fish and Aquatic Life Streams"
     Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, December,
     1980.

Bothwell, M.L.  Studies on the Distribution of Phytoplankton
     Pigments and Nutrients in the Milwaukee Area, Special
     Report No. 25, Center for Great Lakes Studies, University
     of Wisconsin - Milwaukee, Sept. 1977.

Brauer & Associates Ltd., Inc. and Donohue & Associates,
     Inc. Oakwood Feasibility Study for Milwaukee County
     Park Commission, 1980.

Carlson, R.E. 1977, "A Trophic State Index for Lakes",
     Limnol. Oceanogr. 22(2):  361-369.

Dillon, P.J. and F. H. Rigler, "A Test of a Simple Nutrient
     Budget Model Predicting the Phosphorus Concentration
     in Lake Water", J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. Vol. 31(11),
     1771-1778, 1974.

Eisenreich, S.J., et al., "Airborne Organic Contaminates in
     the Great Lakes Ecosystem" ES&T, Vol. 15, January 1981

Finstein, M.S. and Strom, P.F., "Significance of Nitification
     in Stream Analysis", JWPCF, Aug. 1978.

Great Lakes National Program, Region V, EPA Lake Michigan
     Study Some Preliminary Findings, June 1978.

Holmstrom, B.K. Low-Flow Characteristics of Wisconsin
     Streams at Sewage Treatment Plants and Industrial
     Plants, U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources
     Investigations 79-31, March,  1979.

International Joint Commission, Menomonee River Pilot
     Watershed STudy, Volume 5, Simulation of Pollutant
     Loadings and Runoff Quality,  Draft, 1979.

International Joint Commission, Phosphorus Management for
     the Great Lakes, Final Report of the Phosphorus
     Management Strategies Task Force, July, 1980.

Lee, Kwang K.  Discussion of the Dilution of Sewage Effluent
     in Milwaukee Harbor, 1981.
                              VII-107
-------
Lee, Kwang K., Charles C. Remsen, and Arthur S. Brooks,
     An Analysis of Water Quality and Movement Associated
     with the Sewerage Effluent xn Milwaukee Harbor and
     Adjacent Lake Michigan.  Final Report to Milwaukee
     Metropolitan Sewerage District, University of
     Wisconsin-Milwaukee, December 1980.

Meinholz, T.L., W. A. Kreutzberger, M.E. Harper, and K.J
     Fay, 1979.  Verification of the Water Quality Impacts
     of Combined Sewer Overflow.  EPA-600/2-29-155.
     Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory,
     Cincinnati, OH.

Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District, Summary Support
     Data File - Environmental Assessment, 1980.

Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District, Wastewater
     System Plan, 1980.

Milwaukee Water Pollution Abatement Program, Environmental
     Data Management System, Support Data File, 1980.

Moser, J., et al., "Report on Priority Pollutant Sampling
     Program" MMSD Report, November 21, 1980.

National Research Council, Drinking Water and Health, 1977.

Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission Planning
     Report No. 9, A Comprehensive Plan for the Root River
     Watershed, 1966.

Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission Planning
     Report No. 30, A Regional Water Quality Management Plan
     for Southeastern Wisconsin:  2000, 1979.

Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission Technical
     Report No. 17, Water Quality of Lakes and Streams in
     Southeastern Wisconsin:  1964-1975, 1978"!

Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission Technical
     Report No. 21, Sources of Water Pollution in
     Southeastern Wisconsin:  1975, 1978.

Schuettpelz, Duane, Milwaukee Metropolitan Ammonia Limits,
     Memorandum to Steven Ugoretz, Wisconsin Department of
     Natural Resources, Jan. 14, 1981.
                              VII-108
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Quality Criteria for
     Water,  Washington D.C., July 1976.

Uttorinark, P.D., and M.L. Hutchins, Input/Output Models as
     Decision Criteria for Lake Restoration, University of
     Wisconsin Water Resources Center Technical Report Wis
     WRC 78-03.  April, 1978.

Vennie III,  J.G., Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources,
     Program Documentation of Department of Natural Resources
     and Inland Lake Renewal, NEWTROPHIC, 1978.

Vollenweider, R.A.,  "Advances in Defining Critical Loading
     Levels for Phosphorus in Lake Eutropication," Mem.
     Inst. Ital. Idrobiol.  33:  53-83, 1976.

Vollenweider, R.A.,  "Input-Output Models with Special
     Reference to the PHosphorus Loading Concept in
     Limnology", Schweiz.  2. Hydrol.  37:  53-83, 1975.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Data from the
     Tichigan Lake Feasibility Study, 1980.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Pewaukee Lake
     a lake water quality study conducted in cooperation
     with, and under contract to the Southeastern Wisconsin
     Regional Planning Commission, Draft, 1976.

Zison S.W. etc. al.   Rates, Constant and Kinetics Formulations
     in Surface Water Quality Modeling, EPA-600/3-78-105,
     December,1978.
                              VII-109
-------
ADDENDUM TO APPENDIX VIII






  INTERCEPTOR ALIGNMENT
-------
ADDENDUM TO APPENDIX VIII - INTERCEPTOR ALIGNMENT
1.0  INTRODUCTION

The new analysis which represents additions to the Interceptor
Alignment Appendix is the correspondence which resulted
in the issuance of a Finding of No Significant Impact  (FNSI)
for the Root River and Underwood Creek Interceptors
(Section 2.0).

Section 3.0 provides the documentation of an alignment
change to the Root River Interceptor.  Section 4.0 is the
Errata section.

2.0  ISSUANCE OF FNSI AND FACILITY PLAN APPROVALS

The following letters/memos provide documentation of the
resolution of issues which culminated in the issuance of
the Finding of No Significant Impact  (FNSI) and the
Facility Plan approval by EPA and DNR for the Root River and
Underwood Creek Interceptors.

The specific dates are:

Finding of No Significant Impact:  10/17/80 Underwood
                                   Creek Interceptor

                                   1/13/81 Root River
                                   Interceptor


Facility Plan Approval:            11/19/80 Underwood Creek
                                   Interceptor

                                   2/16/81  Root River
                                   Interceptor

These appear in Attachment A to this Addendum.
                            VIII-1
-------
3.0  CHANGES IN THE ROOT RIVER INTERCEPTOR ALIGNMENT

Prior to the Root River Interceptor Facility Plan approval
by EPA, a wetland area was identified south of Morgan
Avenue in the path of the proposed interceptor.  According
to the January 22, 1981 Addendum 1 of the Root River
Interceptor Facility Plan - EA, this wetland "consists
of a former agricultural field that is currently in a
stage of old field succession."  Although the MWPAP did
not technically define this area as a wetland, "left
undisturbed, this area might more closely resemble a low-
land forest wetland habitat."  The EA addendum does note
that future parkway development will also determine the
development of the area.  The addendum notes that, per
the MMSD design and construction master specifications,
"spoils from construction will not be spread over the
surrounding field, but will be used as backfill or be
disposed if in an environmentally sound manner per the
Wisconsin Administrative Code, Chapter NR 180."

Some documentation of this issue is enclosed in
attachment B to this Addendum.
                              VII-2
-------
4.0 ERRATA

Page 1-5

     The pumping alternatives require a 31.7 MGD lift station
     since the interceptor, as proposed now, will be built
     to handle existing, prerehabilitation flows.

Page II-9, Paragraph 5:

     Last Sentence:  "Alternatives 2, 3, 11, and 13 were also
     undesirable because of their projected environmental im-
     pacts."

Page IV-8, Paragraph 2:

     Line 7;  Add "not" after "were"

Page IV-17, Paragraph 6:

     Second Sentence:  "The least costly of the alternatives,
     the North Branch Alternative, had a total present worth
     of $3,261,000 and an equivalent annual cost of $305,000."

Page V-47, Paragraph 5:

     Line 3:  Change "270 units" to "250 units".

Page VI-6, Paragraph 5:

     Delete lines 4, 5, 6, and 7.  Add:   "Homes west of 124th
     St. on the north end of the route rely on groundwater.
     Also, many homes in West Allis now on city water originally
     used private wells, which are still functional and are used
     for lawn watering, etc.  There is a potential for minor
     impacts on well yields and groundwater quality."
                             VIII-3
-------
ATTACHMENT A
-------
>fto*7v
                                    UNITED STATES
                          ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                       REGION V
                                230 SOUTH DEARBORN ST.
                                CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 60604


                            UNDERWOOD CREEK INTERCEPTOR

        OCT 17  1980          FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT


      TO ALL INTERESTED CITIZENS,  ORGANIZATIONS, AND GOVERNMENT AGENCIES:
      Milwaukee MSn/MHwaukee/WisconsIn
        (City/County/State)
              C550879 01
             (EPA Project  Number)
      The purpose of this notice is to seek public input and comments
      on EPA's preliminary decision that an Environmental Impact Statement
      (EIS) is not required to implement the recommendations discussed in
      the attached Environmental Assessment of a wastewater facilities
      plan submittad by the municipality mentioned above.
      How were environmental
      issues considered?
      Why is an EIS not
      required?
      How do I get more
      information?
 The National Environmental  Policy Act
 (NEPA)  requires all  Federal agencies
 to include environmental  factors in
 the decision-caking  process.   EPA has
 done this by incorporating  a detailed
 analysis  of the environmental effects
 of the  proposed alternative's in its
 review  and approval  process.   An En-
 vironmental Information Document was
 prepared  by "he .municipality , as part
 of the  facilities  plan, and was review-
 ed by the State, which has  been dele-
 gated the responsibility  for  facilities
 plan and  Environmental Information
 Document  review.   The Stata prepared
 % preliminary Environmental Assess-
,*ent. «od~ our ovn review has found
 that th»  proposed  project doa*  not
        -the -pcepacat ion of  an £13.
 Our environmental review concluded that
 *4£nific«nt environmental impacts will
 nof result" "Tronrtne"proposed act ion .
 Any adverse impacts have either been
 eliminated by changes  in the facilities
 plan or will be reduced by the implementa-
 tion of the mitigative measures discussed
 in  the attached Environmental Assessment .

 A map depicting the location of the pro-
 posed project is attached.  The Environ-
                                   VJI.1,-7
-------
How do I submit
c omment s ?

•»*
• '»;•'
••.';
                                                mental Assessment, which is also included,
                                                presents additional information on the '
                                                project, alternatives that were con-
                                                sidered, impacts of the proposed action,
                                                and the basis for our decision.  Further
                                                information can be obtained by calling
                                                or writing the contact listed in the
                                                ,Environmental Assessment.

                                                Any comments supporting or disagreeing
                                                with this preliminary decision should
                                                be submitted to me at the letterhead
                                                address.  We will not take any action
                                                on this facilities plan for 30 calendar
                                                days from the date of this notice in
                                                order to receive and consider any comments.

                                                In the absence of substantive comments
                                                during this period, our preliminary de-
                                                cision will become final.  The municipality
                                                will then be eligible to receive grant assis:
                                                ance from this Agency to design and/or con-
                                                struct the proposed project.

                   Any information you feel should be .'Considered by EPA should be brought
                   to our attention.  Your interest in the NEPA process and the environ-
                   ment is appreciated.
What happens next?
Eugene I. Chaiken, Chief
Facilities Planning Branch

Attachments
                           VHI-i
-------
                       ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT



A •
                           ^^™

      il^Lm^e^ffetP^-fftfafPSe^erage District (MMSD)
     Wauwatosa, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin
     C55-0879-01
     For further information on this project contact:
                                   f     r
     William Baumann
     WDNR
     101 S. Webster Street
     Madison, Wisconsin  53707
    . (608) 266-3906

B.   Project Description

      The proposed project consists of  a 31.7 milljon gallon per day (MGD)
     lift station near the intersection of West Potter Road and Underwood Creek
     Parkway and about 13,500 feet of 30 inch diameter force main in
     Underwood Crejek Parkway and Watertown Plank Road to a new connection
     to the existfhg 96 inch diameter Metropolitan Interceptor Sewer
     (M.I.S.) at N 85th Street and Watertown Plank Road.  (See attached
     map.- recommended plan).
                                   *      *
     The project design flow is 31.7 MGD.   This is the anticipated peak
   .  flow which will occur between 1983 and 1986 prior to completion of
     the sewer rehabilitation program.   After completion of the sewer
     rehabilitation program (scheduled  to be completed by July 1,  1986),
     the peak design flow is projected  to be approximately 16.5 MGD.

     The Underwood Creek service area fsee attashment)  is.  currently served by a 39
     special  section M.I.S.  This sewer surcharges during wet  weather
     causing  basement back ups and overflows of sewage to surface  water.
     Without  construction of the proposed  project, the overflows and
     basement back ups and attendant health hazards would continue.
                                                  w*
     The Underwood Creek Interceptor Relief Sewer or a portion thereof
     may be eligible for either an EPA  or  Wisconsin Fund construction
     grant.   However, the extent of this  eligibility has not been  determined
     at this  time.

     In 1978  it was determined that an  evaluation of secondary impacts
     of the Underwood Creek Interceptor Relief  Sewer should  be included
     1n the environmental  impact statement (E.I.S.)  being prepared for
  -  ,the MMSD water pollution  abatement program.   However, it  has  become
  vjs/ apparent as a  result of subsequent analysis  performed as  part of
  '/'the E.I.S.  that there will  be no significant secondary  impacts from
  vi  the proposed relief sewer since  Its service  area is essentially
     fully  developed.   Therefore,  the proposed  project  will  only serve
     to relieve the existing MIS when it is  overloaded  during  wet
     weather  periods.
                                  VIII-9
-------
      It has become apparent in the process of preparing the draft EIS that the
      configuration of the Underwood Creek Interceptor Relief Sewer is not affected
      by any other portion of the Mf-'SD water pollution abatement proqram.  As a
      result of these considerations, and based on consultation with  the Office
      of Environmental Review and the Council on Environmental Quality, on
      Auoust 11, 1980 the subject relief sewer was deleted from the EIS.  Also, sine
      the  Dane County Stipulation requires the construction of relief sewers by
   .   July 1, 1983, it is necessary to proceed with this project as soon as possibl
      The  completion of this project, enhances the prospects of eliminating the
      pollution and health hazards resulting from the existing bypassing and baseme
      backups at an earlier date than would otherwise be possible.

C.   Population  Data
    •
     The 1978 sewered population of the service area was 19,373.  The
     year 2000 population projection is 25,251 (Southeastern Wisconsin
     Regional  Planning Commission (SEWRPC) estimate).  Year 2005 and
     2025 population  projections are 26,754 and 27,395 respectively.
     The year 2005 and 2025 projections are extrapolations of SEWRPC
     data done by  the MMSD and concurred with by SEWRPC.

     The service area of the proposed sewer is approximately three
     fourths urban and one fourth rural.  The urban area is predominatly
     residential  (65*)  with transportation being the next largest land
     use category  (22%)..   Commercial and industrial land use each comprise
     less than  2 1/2% of the urban area.

D.   Impact of Project on the Environment

     Completion  of the project will  Improve surface water quality
     and lessen  health hazards by providing adequate conveyance capacity
     during wet  weather periods and hence eliminating basement back ups
     and overflow  events.

     Construction  of  the  project will result 1n short term construction
     related impacts.   Construction activity may generate dust, but this
     can be mitigated by water spray application, chemical  treatment
     (calcium chloride),  or surface treatment with light petroleum or
     bituminous  material.  Any-chemicals, petroleum or bitumens must be
     used according to  manufacturer's Instructions and must be approved  •
     by EPA,  DNR and  USDA-SCS.

     Noise will  be generated by construction activity, but can be
     mitigated by  maintaining mufflers  on equipment, locating work sites
     as far as possible  from private residences,  providing  acoustical
    ^barriers, and by operating equipment only during specified daylight
    'hours.

     Project  construction will   disrupt ground surfaces along the
     interceptor relief  sewer route.  This can be .mitigated by using
     construction  techniques  which minimize the amount of surface disruption,
     and  by restoring  the original  topography and replanting native
     vegetation  after construction.
                                   VIII-10
-------
E.   Summary of Mitigative Measures

     The construction impacts identified in D atove can be mitigated as
     follows:

     'I.   Water spray application, chemical treatment, or other surface
          treatment to control dust.

     2.   Proper mufflers on construction equipment, judicious location
          of work sites, use of acoustical barriers, operation of equipment
          during specified daylight hours to control noise.

     3.   Using appropriate construction techniques, regrading and
          replanting disrupted land surface areas.

     4.   Minimizing exposed soil and removal of vegetative cover, use
          of berms, etc. to inhibit runoff, covering stockpiled soil to
          lessen rain induced erosion, and leaving an undisturbed vegetation
          band between construction sites and Underwood Creek to control
          sedimentation.

F.   Public Hearing

     A series of five public hearings was held throughout the metropolitan
     Milwaukee area during April 1980 on the fTMSD Master Facility Plan.
     The prefered alternative for the Underwood Creek Interceptor was
     presented at those hearings.  No significant issues involving the
     interceptor itself were raised.  Costs were presented1 for implementation
     of the entire master plan, although not for the Underwood Creek
     Interceptor by itself.  The local share of any MflSD system improvement
     1s expected  to  be financed on a district widp basis.

G.   Agencies Contacted During Plan Development

     INTERNATIONAL

     International Joint Commission

     Federal

     Army Corps of Engineers, Chicago District
     Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service
     Department of Commerce, Bureau of Labor Statistics
     Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census
     Department of Housing and Urban Development, National  Flood
          Insurance Program
    -Department of Interior, Geological  Survey,  Water Resources Division,
          Madison, Wisconsin
     Environmental Protection Agency,  Region V,  Chicago

     State

     Wisconsin State Historic Preservation Office
     University of Wisconsin - Madison
     University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
     University of Wisconsin - Stevens Point
     University of Wisconsin - Waukesha
                                  VIII-11
-------
      University  of  Wisconsin  Sea  Grant  College  Program -  Madison
      Wisconsin Department-of  Natural  Resources  -  Madison
      Wisconsin Department  of  Natural  Resources, Southeastern  District  -
           Milwaukee
      Wisconsin Department  of  Revenue
      Wisconsin Geological  and Natural History Survey
      Wisconsin Office  of State Planning and  Energy
      Wisconsin Public  Service Commission

      REGIONAL AND LOCAL

      City  of Brookfield
      Village of  Elm Grove
      Milwaukee County
      Milwaukee County  Public  Museum
      Milwaukee Water Works
      Northshore  Water  Commission
      Southeastern Wisconsin Regional  Planning Commission
      Southeastern Wisconsin Health  Services  Agency
      Milwaukee County  Parks Commission

      OTHER

      Great Lakes Basin Commission - Ann Arbor,  Michigan

 H.    Finding of  No  Significant Impact

      No  significant adverse primary or  secondary  impacts  have been
      identified  which  are  unavoidable or which  cannot  be  mitigated.

 I.    Precluding  Attainment of Significant Environmental Benefit

      The preferred  Underwood  Creek  Interceptor  alternative does not
      preclude attainment of any significant  environmental benefit nor
      does  it impact the choice of alternatives  for other  elements of the
      MMSD  master facility  plan.

 J.    Cost  comparison of alternatives.   Briefly  describe each feasible
      alternative.

      Alternative 1  is  the  "no  action" alternative and  has no costs
      associated  with it.   Feasible  alternatives are numbered 2, 4, 5, 7,
      and 9.  The alternatives  vary  in route  and in type of conveyance
      (gravity, force main, or  combination)   See attached  sketches of
      alternatives.

 Alternative      Capital     Yearly       State*      Local     Present
                  Cost    0/M Cost     Share       Share      Worth
- -"  *        -                •*
      2        .12,251,000    1.100    7,350,000   4,900,000  11,629,000
      4.        10,421,000       700    6,252,600   '4,168,400  10,000,000
      5        14,854,000    1,100    8,912,000   5,941,600  14,096,000
      7         5,355,000   33,200    3,213,000   2,142,000   5,447,000
      9         4,885,000 .. 33,200    2,931,000   1,954,000   5,021,000

 *No eligibility  determination  has been made  for the project.  The most
 likely source of funding is the Wisconsin Fund.   The 60S State share is
                     .  . ~....ns_>  __-* ..».•_.*-  f..~*. >. *. L- J««»\ ...ill
                                  VIII-12
-------
Environmental Impacts of Non-Selected Alternatives

Alternative 1 (no action) would result in a continuation of bypassing
and basement backups and continued deterioration of Underwood Creek
water quality.   The remaining alternatives have environmental impacts
similar to those of alternative 7 (the recommended plan) which were described
in "D" above.

One item of note is that alternatives 4 and 9 would be tributary to the
proposed Root River Interceptor.  Additional capacity would have to be
provided in the Root River Interceptor to carry the additional flow
from the Underwood Creek service area, and the incremental  cost
associated with this additional required capacity is not reflected
in the cost table in "J" above.  Including this incremental cost in
alternative 9 would increase its total present worth to approximately
$4.1 million more than alternative 7 (the recommended plan).
                            VIII-13
-------
               NOV 2 4  1980
         State of Wisconsin  \   DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
                                                                        Carroll D. Besadny
                                                                              Secretary

                                                                              8OX 7921
                                                                 MADISON, WISCONSIN 53707
November 19, 1980
IN REPLY REFER TO:   3420
Mr. Thomas Wolf, Acting Executive Director
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District
735 N. Water Street
Milwaukee, WI  53201
Dear Mr. Wolf:

              Re:  C55-0879-01, CEA/EID Approval
                   Underwood Creek Interceptor Relief Sewer
                   Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District
                   Milwaukee, Wisconsin

The Department of Natural Resources and the Environmental Protection Agency
have completed the review of your facilities plan.  The facilities plan is
hereby approved as meeting the requirements of federal and state regulations.
It has been determined that the proposed project will not be significantly
changed by 'the Sewer System Evaluation Survey or any subsequent rehabilitation
program.  We concur with the selected alternative which includes a lift
station near West Potter Road and Underwood Creek Parkway and 13,500 feet of
30 inch diameter forcemain in Underwood Creek Parkway and Watartown Plank Road.

Therefore the facilities plan submitted to us has been approved subject to the
completion of the Sewer System Evalution Survey and the rehabilitation program
in accordance with your implementation schedule pursuant to the provisions of
40 CFR 35.927-5(c).

The faculties plan is also aporoved in accordance with the provisions of 40
CFR 35.917(d).

As stated in 40 CFR 35.917-8, this approval action does not constitute an
obligation on the part of the United States to fund any Step 2 or Step 3
project, or combination thereof.

Relative to the completed planning tasks, if you have not already done so,
please submit a payment request for all allowable incurred costs.  Upon
receipt and review a grant can be processed by EPA.
                                      VII1-14
-------
Mr. Thomas Wolf - November 19, 1980
Pursuant to the EPA/DNR delegation agreement of October 4,  1978, this
represents final appproval of this document.  If you have any questions
regarding the Step 1 project, please contact this Department.

Sincerely,
Bureau of Wastewater Management
Gloria McCutcheon, P.E., Chief
Municipal Wastewater Section

cc: Richard Zdanowicz - US EPA         Environmental Enforcement - EE/5
    Jack Dawson - US EPA               Bureau of Environmental Impact - EI/3
    Bureau of Water Grants - IGP/3     U.S.  Fish and Wildlife Service -
    Southeast District                   Green Bay
    Permits File - WW/2                SEWRPC
    P. Marchese - MMSO                 Water Quality Pinning - WQP/2
    F. Meinholz - MMSO                 J. Hockmuth - OPA/5
    J. Ibach - MMSO
                                     Vin-15
-------
    14 1981
                              UNITED STATES
                    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                 REGION V
                          230 SOUTH DEARBORN ST.
                          CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 60604

                                                  I
                        ROOT  RIVER INTERCEPTOR

                       FINDING OF NO'SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
TO ALL INTERESTED CITIZENS, ORGANIZATIONS, AND GOVERNMENT AGENCIES:


                                            C  550673  01
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District
  Hi 1 wau kee/Wiscnnsin	
  (City/County/State)
                                           (EPA Project Number)
The purpose of this notice is to seek public input and comments
on EPA's preliminary decision that an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) is not required to implement the recommendations discussed in
the attached Environmental Assessment of a wastewater facilities
plan submitted by the municipality mentioned above.
How were environmental
issues considered?
Why  is  an EIS not
required?
 How do  I  get  more
 information?
                               The National Environmental Policy Act
                               (NEPA) requires all Federal agencies
                              • to include environmental factors in
                               the decision-making process.  EPA has
                               done this by incorporating a detailed
                               analysis of the environmental effects
                               of the proposed alternatives in its
                               review and approval process.  An En-
                               vironmental Information Document was
                               prepared by the municipality, as part
                               of the facilities plan, and was review-
                               ed by the State, which has been dele-
                               gated the responsibility for facilities
                               plan and Environmental Information
                               Document reviaw.  The Stata prepared
                               a preliminary Environmental Assess-
                               ment and our own review has found
                               that the proposed project docs not
                               require the preparation of an EIS.

                               Our environmental review concluded ch.it
                               significant environmental impacts will
                               not result from the proposed action.
                               Any adverse impacts have either been
                               eliminated by changes in the facilities
                               plan or will be reduced by the iraplcmnnta-
                               tion of the mitigative measures discussed
                               in the attached Environmental Assessir.unt .

                               A map depicting the location of the pro-
                               posed project is attached.  The Envii'on-
                             VIII- 16
-------
                             mental Assessment, which is also included,
                            'presents additional information on the
                             project, alternatives that were con-
                             sidered, impacts of the proposed action,
                             and the basis for our decision.  Further
                            . information can be obtained by calling
                             or writing the contact listed in the
                             Environmental Assessment.

Bow do I submit              Any comments supporting or disagreeing
comments?                    with this preliminary decision should
                             be submitted to me at the letterhead
                             address.  We will not take any action
                             on this facilities plan for 30 calendar
                             days from the date of this notice in
                             order to receive and consider any comments.

What happens next?           In the absence of substantive comments
                             during this period, our preliminary de-
                             cision will become final.  The municipality
                             will then be eligible to receive grant assist-
                             ance from this Agency to design and/or con-
                            1 struct the proposed project.

Any information you feel should be considered by EPA should be brought
to our attention.  Your interest in the NEPA process and the environ-
ment is appreciated.
Eugene I. Chaiken, Chief
Facilities Planning Branch

Attachments
                            VI11-17
-------
                            Environmental Assessment
A.  Project Identification

    Root River Interceptor Relief Sewer
    Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD)
    735 North Water Street
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202
    Project location:  New Berlin and West Allis, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin
    C55-0673-03

    For further information on this project, contact:

    William Baumann
    Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
    101 South Webster Street
    Madison, Wisconsin 53707
    (608) 266-3906

B.  Project Description

    The project will consist  of  a 14.0 million  gallon  per  day  (MGD) lift
    station at the intersection  of S. 124th Street  and W.  Needham Drive;  5,400
    feet of 20-inch diameter  force main  from- the  lift  station  south in
    124th Street  to Root River Parkway;  5,800 feet  of  42-inch  diameter  gravity
    sewer built in tunnel to  Root River  Parkway and W. Oklahoma Avenue; and
    9,570 feet of 42-inch diameter gravity sewer  built in  open cut to the
    existing 60-inch diameter Metropolitan Interceptor Sewer  (MIS) at
    103rd Street  amd W. Cold  Spring Road.  (See attached map - recommended
    plan.)

    The peak  flows that will  be  used  to  design  the  proposed  facility are  flows
    which exist prior to completion of the SSES rehabilitation program.   The
    peak design flow for the  lift station and force main will  be 13.9 MGD.
    Additional area  is tributary to the  downstream  reaches of  the proposed
    sewer and the anticipated peak flow  for  the southernmost reach will be
    31.0 MGD.  After completion  of the rehabilitation  program  to remove
    excessive infiltration  and inflow, the anticipated peak will be 12.6  MGD
    for the lift  station and  force main  and  22.7  MGD for the southernmost
    reach of  the  proposed sewer.

    The Root  River Interceptor Relief Sewer  may be  eligible  for either  an EPA
    or Wisconsin  Fund construction grant.  If the project, or  a portion of  the
    project,  is eligible  for  grant  funds,  the most  likely  source would  be the
    Wisconsin Fund.  The extent  of project eligibility has not been determined
    at this time.
                                       VI11-18
-------
        State of Wisconsin
February 16, 1981
                                   DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
                                                                       Carroll 0. Sesadny
                                                                             Secretary

                                                                             3OX 7921
                                                                MADISON, WISCONSIN 53707


                                                      IN REPLY  REFER TO:   3420
Mr. Thomas Wolf,  Acting Executive Director
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District
735 N. Water Street
Milwaukee, WI   53?01
Dear Mr. Wolf:
                        Milwaukee, Wisconsin
The Department of Natural Resources and the Environmental  Protection  Agency
have completed the review of your Root River Interceptor Relief Sewer
facilities plan.   The facilities plan is hereby approved as meeting  the
requirements of federal and state regulations.  It has been determined that
the proposed project will not be significantly changed by the Sewer  System
Evaluation Survey or any subsequent rehabilitation program.  We concur with
the selected alternative which includes a 14.0 million gallon per day (iMGO)
lift station, 5400 feet of 20 inch diameter forcemain, 5800 feet of  42 inch
diameter gravity sewer built in tunnel, and 9570 feet of 42 inch diameter
gravity sewer built in open cut.

Therefore the facilities plan submitted to us has been approved subject to the
completion of the Sewer System Evaluation Survey and the rehabilitation
program in accordance with your implementation schedule pursuant to  the
provisions of 40  CFR 35.927-5(c).

As stated in 40 CFR 35. 917-8, this approval action does not constitute an
obligation on the part of the United States to fund any Step 2 or Step 3
project, or combination thereof.

Relative to the completed planning tasks, if you have not  already done so,
please submit a payment request for all allowable incurred costs. Upon
receipt and review a grant can be processed by EPA.
                                      VIII-19
-------
Mr. Thomas Wolf - February 16, 1981
Pursuant to the EPA/DNR delegation agreement of October 4,  1978,  this
represents final approval of this document.   If you have any questions
regarding the Step 1 project, please contact this Department.

Sincerely,
Bureau of Wastewater Management
Gloria McCutcheon, P.E., Chief
Municipal Wastewater Section

cc: Richard Zdanowicz - U.S. EPA, 5WFP
    Water Quality Planning Section - WQM/2
    Bureau of Water Grants - IGP/3
    Southeast District
    Permits File - WW/2
    Environmental Enforcement - EE/5
    SEWRPC
                                            Jack Oawson - U.S.  EPA  5WCM
                                            Bureau of Envir.  Impact -  IE/3
                                            Jay Hockmuth - OPA/5
                                            U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service -
                                              Green Bay
                                            f. Meinholz - MMSD
                                      VIII-20
-------
ATTACHMENT B
-------
MILWAUKEE WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROGRAM
               CH2MBHILL
               In association with
               Donohue & Associates, Inc. • Howard Needles Tammen & Bergendoff
               Craef, Anhalt, Schloemer. anu Associates, Inc. • Polytech, Inc.
               ). C. Zimmei.nan Engineering Corp. • Klug and Smith Co.
MEMORANDUM
TO:

FROM:


DATE:

SUBJECT:

PROJ ID:

COPIES:
Reed Rodenkirch/MMSD

Linda Hoehne o£Vr
Al Sloan

6 January 1981

Meeting with DNR at Root River  Interceptor

M10P06.E2000
Bill Lutz/MMSD
Jim Morrissey/WDNR
Greg Pilarski/WDNR
Linda Hoehne
Al Sloan
Summary:   This meeting  was held at  the  site to  determine if the
present alignment of  the  Root River  Interceptor is  adversely
affecting  wetlands where  it crosses and continues  south from the
Morgan  Road/116th Street  intersection.   The Environmental Assess-
ment  did  not define this  area  as wetland.   The  area is abandoned
agricultural  fields which have  gone  into succession.  The species
composition  reflects  this  but the area  cannot  at present be
considered  a Type  2 -  Fresh Meadow  (DNR)  or Type  1 - Seasonally
Flooded Plains  or Flats  (U.S.  Department of Interior) by virtue of
its vegetative  species composition.   However, it can be considered
Type  2 (DNR)  by  virtue  of its high water table.   One of Jim
Morrissey's  concerns  was not about open  cut through the area, but
rather  the disposition of  spoils as  a result of open-cut construc-
tion.   We  informed Jim  that the MMSD's design  and construction
master  specifications  address spoil  disposal and erosion control.
We  also informed  him  that  the  present  alignment was  selected to
minimize any  adverse environmental effects on existing wooded
lands.   Greg Pilarski from the WDNR was also present  to  look at
the  two Root  River crossings to develop the DNR permits  for the
construction of those crossings.
phd
                              VIII-23
   Program Management Office • 743 North Water Street. Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202 414/276-0300
-------
        Milwaukee
        Metropolitan
        Sewerage
        District
                                        Memorandum
DATE:


TO:

COPY :
FROM:    Wm. Lutz

SUBJECT:  TASK ORDER NO.MO
8 January 1981

Patrick Marchese

Reed Rodenkirch
     I have talked to C. Burney of the WDNR about issuance
of a FONSI for the Root River project.  He has agreed to add
a rider to the body of the FONSI stating that an amendment
to the EA will be forthcoming concerning additional wetlands
to be affected by the project; but, also stating in the same
clause the mitigative measures that the PMO Master
Specifications provide for with regards to disposal of excess
excavation and erosion control.

     Chuck Burney had obtained from William Lutz all the
necessary data regarding PMO construction specifications by
the afternoon of January 5, 1981.  On January 6, 1981, W.
Lutz contacted Richard Zdanowicz of the Chicago EPA concern-
ing the Root River FONSI.  He had contacted C. Burney and was
aware of the fact that a revised statement was being prepared
but they did not expect to receive it sooner than Friday
morning.  It, therefore, appears that the Root River FONSI
will not be issued before next Monday, January 12, 1981.
                           VI11-2 4
-------
LEGEND
 A 14 MGD PUMP STATION
• • 20" FORCE MAIN
!• 42" TUNNEL
•• 42" OPEN CUT
fflfflSD
SCALE  IN FEET

      VIII-25
FIGURE  6-1
ALTERNATIVE  5A
ROOT RIVER INTERCEPTOR EA
-------
 ADDENDUM TO APPENDIX  IX






SECONDARY GROWTH  IMPACTS
-------
ADDENDUM TO APPENDIX IX - SECONDARY GROWTH IMPACTS

1.0  INTRODUCTION

This Addendum to Appendix IX consists of one new analysis:
The fiscal effects of the secondary growth impacts of the
proposed Franklin Northeast Interceptor  (Section 2.0).
This indirect fiscal analysis was performed to further
study the possible secondary growth impacts summarized in
Chapter 2 of Appendix IX (Secondary Growth Impacts).  It
complements the other indirect fiscal impact analyses per-
formed for Chapter 9 of the Appendix.  It is suggested
that the reader refer to the summaries of impacts on future
development in Chapter 2 of the Appendix before reading
the indirect fiscal analysis.

Finally, this indirect fiscal analysis for Franklin assumes
that the alternative of upgrading the pump stations will
have the same impact on the City of Franklin's future develop-
ment as the No Action Alternative.  The Action Alternative
is defined as construction of the interceptor.  For an ex-
planation of the basis for this assumption, please refer to
page 11-22 of Appendix IX.

The Errata Sheet appears as Section 3.0.
                               IX-1
-------
2.0  INDIRECT FISCAL EFFECTS - FRANKLIN

FRANKLIN

This section analyzes the public service costs and revenues
associated with the residential development patterns which
are projected to occur under the No Action and Action
Alternatives within the City of Franklin.

Since the projected total level of development for the City
of Franklin does not differ between alternatives, this analysis
can be based upon the methodology used for the indirect
fiscal impact analysis of the Oak Creek Interceptor, which
has similar secondary growth impacts.  This analysis is,
therefore, a qualitative assessment of the relative ability
of the City of Franklin and the Franklin School District to
accommodate residential growth in different portions of the
service area of the proposed interceptor.

Summary of Growth Development Patterns

The preliminary population presented in the 1980 U.S. Census
for the City of Franklin is 16,750.  Based on the 1970
Census and the Allied Construction Employers' Association
Monthly Dwelling Unit Reports during the 1970s, there were
approximately 5,400 households in Franklin as of 1980.  The
SEWRPC Regional Plan forecasts a population of 15,600 and
a housing unit count of 4,752 in Franklin in 1985.  Population
has increased at a faster rate than planned, but the household
formation rate has accelerated even faster.  This acceleration
has yielded a persons per household figure for 1980 of 3.09
(16,750 T 5,419), which is smaller than that of the 1985
planned household size of 3.28  (15,600 T 4,752).

By the year 2000, the Regional Plan expects a Franklin pop-
ulation of 38,600 and a housing unit total of 12,509,
producing an average household size of 3.09.

The market analysis of the demand for development in the
City of Franklin, which was prepared by the EIS consultant,
substantiates the Regional Plan's forecast for Franklin.
The market analysis projects a growth rate of 200 units per
year from 1980 to 1985, and 470-580 units per year from 1985
to 1990.  By 1990, this rate could potentially lead to more
than 9,300 households in Franklin.  The continuation of this
household formation rate would equal, if not exceed, the
12,509 household total forecast by SEWRPC for the year 2000.
                               IX-2
-------
There are approximately five square miles of vacant, re-
sidentially-zoned land outside the service area of the
proposed Franklin Northeast Interceptor, but which is within
the City Limits of Franklin.  This area is already served or
could be easily served by gravity sewers.  The central area
of Franklin is currently served by an 84-inch Metropolitan
Intercepting Sewer (MIS).  This land could accommodate all
of the more than 7,000 future housing units forecast for
Franklin by SEWRPC for the year 2000.  Because of this large
amount of vacant land tributary to the 84-inch MIS, it appears
that the same amount of growth would occur in Franklin with,
or without, the Franklin Northeast Interceptor.

Construction of the Franklin Northeast Interceptor would
release an additional 1 1/2 to 2 square miles for development.
As a result, the same number of future housing units that
would develop within a five square mile area without con-
struction of the interceptor, could be constructed over a 6
1/2 to 7 square mile area with construction of the interceptor,

Construction of the interceptor would enable future growth
to develop over a broader area.  For example, if No Action
is taken, about 15% (400 units) of Franklin's 1985 to 1990
future development is likely to occur in the interceptor
area.  If the interceptor is constructed, an additional 15%
would "shift" from the central area of Franklin,increasing
the interceptor area's share of Franklin's 1985 to 1990
development to 30% (about 800 units).  This distribution of
future growth within Franklin could result in less develop-
ment of the sewered or easily sewered vacant land, which is
tributary to the 84-inch MIS.

Impact of Residential Development on School Districts

Since the total level of development would not change with
construction of the interceptor, the assessment of the
school districts' ability to accommodate residential growth
in different areas is primarily qualitative.  A discussion
of this issue follows.

Public education in Franklin is provided by the Franklin
School District and the Oak Creek-Franklin School District.
About 82%, or 2,420,  of the 2,971 public school students are
members of the Franklin School District.  The remaining 18%
of the public school students  (551 of 2,971), live along the
eastern edge of the City of Franklin and belong to the Oak
Creek-Franklin School District.  Assuming that new development
occurs in proportion to the vacant land supply, 290 households
(.75 x 388) would be built in the Franklin School District
and 98 households (.25 x 388) would develop within the Oak
Creek-Franklin School District.
                               IX-3
-------
In 1980, there were about .55 public school students per
household (2,971 students for 5,419 households)  in Franklin.
If this student per household ratio is applied to the 1985
to 1990 residential development in the Franklin Northeast
Interceptor Area, 160 additional students would attend
Franklin schools (.55 x 290)  and 54 would be members of the
Oak Creek-Franklin District  (.55 x 98).

Franklin School District

The 1980 Franklin School District student enrollment is
2,420, which is 75% of the 1971 peak enrollment of 3,226.
The Franklin School District Superintendent estimates that
the district is currently operating at 20% below capacity.
However, the district does have a general contingency plan
to accommodate a student population increase if the projected
development occurs.  This contingency plan includes three
acquired sites for new elementary schools and an auditorium
for the high school, which would also increase classroom
capacity by about 200 students.

The redistribution of 160 or more students from the central
area of Franklin to the Franklin Northeast Interceptor Area,
between 1985 and 1990, is not likely to have any measurable
fiscal impact on the Franklin School District.  Bus trans-
portation is already provided to all students and, consequently,
there is no reason to expect an increase in student transportation
costs.  In fact, Pleasant View Elementary School, which is
operating at 62% capacity, and Franklin High School, operating
at 72% capacity, both lie within the Franklin Northeast
Interceptor Area.  The grade school could handle an additional
200 students and the high school could accommodate an additional
350 students without the proposed addition.

Oak Creek-Franklin School District

The Oak Creek-Franklin School District is currently operating
below capacity at the elementary, junior high, and senior
high school levels.  The 1980 district enrollment is 4,076,
which is down 22% from the peak enrollment of 5,220 in 1971.
The district does not anticipate any difficulty in accom-
modating additional students from new development anywhere
within the City over the next decade.  The district has no
plans to construct additional schools and has, in fact,
closed one elementary school as a result of declining
enrollment.
                               IX-4
-------
Because of the location of schools, the number of major
streets, and the lack of sidewalks, transportation is
provided for a majority of the students (85% of the students
in the district ride the bus to school).  School district
officials have indicated that, in the future, elementary
school boundaries will be redrawn, if necessary, to accom-
modate additional students from new residential development
anywhere in the City.

As mentioned previously, it is likely that about 98 of the
388 housing units expected to "shift" from the Central
Franklin area to the Franklin Northeast Interceptor Area
(between 1985 and 1990) would be built within the Oak Creek-
Franklin School District boundary.  If the current ratio of
public school students per Franklin household is applied to
this new development, the Oak Creek-Franklin School District
would receive at least an additional 54 students (.55 x 98)
between 1985 and 1990.  The Oak Creek-Franklin District
should not have any difficulty incorporating these additional
54 students.  One Oak Creek elementary school lies within
the interceptor area, and a second elementary school is
located nearby.  However, the Oak Creek High School is quite
a distance from the interceptor area.  If higher bus trans-
portation costs resulted, the expense could be mitigated by
redrawing the school district lines so that these students
would attend the Franklin High School, which is closer and
is currently operating at 72% capacity.

Impact on Municipal Services

The City of Franklin has anticipated construction of the
Franklin Northeast Interceptor since the early 1960s when it
was included in the MMSD sewer system plan.  In 1974, the
interceptor became part of the SEWRPC Regional Sanitary
Sewerage System Plan for Southeastern Wisconsin (Planning
Report No. 16).  In 1975, the interceptor was incorporated
into the SEWRPC Regional Land Use Plan - 2000 (Planning
Report No. 25).  Finally, the interceptor was numbered among
the recommended sewerage facilities in the Regional Water
Quality Management Plan for Southeastern Wisconsin - 2000
(SEWRPC Planning Report No. 30, 1979).

In expectation of the Franklin Northeast Interceptor,
Franklin has planned (with assistance from SEWRPC)  for eight
neighborhood units to develop in the interceptor service
area.  The City of Franklin has invested about $500,000 in a
16-inch water main to serve this planned future development.
In addition, the Franklin Director of Public works reports
that the Wisconsin Telephone Company has laid a telephone
cable to serve future development in the area.
                               IX-5
-------
The City, which charges each new housing unit a $400 water
connection fee, is depending upon at least 1,250  ($500,000
T $400) new units to finance the cost of the water main.
The EIS consultant projects that, if the interceptor is
constructed, about 1,250 housing units would be built in the
interceptor area by 1990.

Franklin has relatively high development standards, including
curbs, gutters, streets, storm and sanitary sewers, water
lines, a sidewalk on one side of the street, underground
telephone and electric lines, street lights, street trees,
street signs, a $400 sewer connection fee, and a  $400 water
connection fee.  The costs of meeting these standards are
initially borne by the developers.  These costs are then
passed on to new residents.  Because all of these develop-
ment costs are paid by the new residents, there should not
be any fiscal impact to the City  (regarding any of the above
cost categories) as a result of more development  in the
interceptor area and less in central Franklin.

The Franklin Police and Fire Departments, along with the
City offices, are located in the north central part of the
City, about three miles west of the interceptor area, at
92nd and West Loomis Road.

The Franklin Police Chief has indicated that it is difficult
to establish police patrol areas within the currently dis-
persed development configuration.  The pattern of the
development is more important to police service than the
location of new development.  If future development in the
interceptor area  (or anywhere else) occurs contiguously, the
police department does not believe costs will be  higher to
serve that area than to serve the more central part of
Franklin.  Because Franklin plans medium density, contiguous
development in neighborhood units for the Franklin Northeast
Interceptor Area, the cost of police service would not be
affected by the construction of the interceptor.

The development of 1,256 housing units in the interceptor
area under Action  (build interceptor) instead of  869 under
No Action is not expected to create any fiscal burden on the
Franklin Fire Department.  The increase in population may
increase the cost of firefighting service, but the shifting
of 15% of the future increment  (1985 to 1990) of  growth from
the central area to the northeast area  (approximately three
miles) should not be a cost factor.
                                IX-6
-------
Summary

Between 1985 and 1990, the construction of Franklin Northeast
Interceptor would facilitate about 400 additional housing
units that would otherwise have been built in the central
area of Franklin.  About 900 housing units would be built in
the interceptor area between 1978 and 1990 without the
interceptor and about 1,300 if it is constructed.

This "shifting" of some 400 housing units is not expected to
contribute to the fiscal burden of school or municipal
services for the following reasons:

     Both school systems that serve the interceptor area are
     operating below capacity.  Despite new residential
     growth in Franklin, K-12 enrollment has fallen 25%
     since 1971.  Also, the Pleasant View Elementary School,
     operating at 62% capacity, and the Franklin High School,
     operating at 72% capacity, are both located in the
     proposed Franklin Northeast Interceptor Area.

     The planned medium density development would not con-
     tribute to increased police and fire costs as would a
     scattered, low density pattern of development.

     All development costs, such as sewer, water, streets,
     and sidewalks are financed by the new residents in the
     price of the home and lot.
                               IX-7
-------
3.0 ERRATA

Paragraph 4:
     Line 6:   Change "Responsibility for the judgements made
     rests with the authors." to "The analyses performed for
     this Appendix and the judgements made were done so
     under the direction of the WDNR and the EPA."

Page 1-1

     Top of Page:  "Secondary impacts of a project are
     indirect of induced changes in population, economic
     growth and land use, and other environmental effects
     resulting from these changes in land use, population
     and economic growth." (USEPA, PGM #50)

Page 1-1, Paragraph 1:

     Line 1:   Change the first sentence to "Secondary impacts
     are a major concern of the Environmental Impact Statement
     CEIS) on the Milwaukee Water Pollution Abatement Program
     CMWPAP)."

Page 1-2, Paragraph 3 (last paragraph)

     Line 1;   Insert "potential" before the word "secondary"

Page 1-3, Paragraph 1

     Replace the entire paragraph with:  "The regulatory
     agencies, (.EPA and DNR)  will weigh the potential for
     secondary impacts along with other concerns; for example,
     engineering feasibility, cost, construction impacts (on
     traffic, noise levels, access to businesses), as well
     as the possibility of continued water quality discharges
     into streams in the Milwaukee area in making decisions
     related to interceptor construction.  The reader should
     also be aware that the proposed interceptors would also
     serve to eliminate wet weather bypassing of untreated sewage
     and basement flooding."

Page II-l, Paragraph 4

     Replace the first sentence with:  "The EIS consultant
     reviewed the trends  (and national literature on these
     issues)  and concluded that, given the assumptions made
     by SEWRPC, there is a risk that the SEWRPC forecasts
     for the 1990s are too high  (for a detailed discussion
     of EIS projections and SEWRPC forecasts, see Chapters
     III and IV of this Appendix)."
                               IX-8
-------
Page II-3, Paragraph 3:

     Replace entire paragraph with;  "1. Land Use Impacts of
     Not Building Facilities    (No Action).  The lack of the
     proposed facilities could have more severe land use
     impacts than if sewer service were provided.  This
     would occur if development "leapfrogged" outside the
     sewer service area to rural areas where septic tanks
     could be used.  Some sewered areas in the planning area
     have various restrictions on growth, which create fewer
     options for development within the MMSD.  However,
     under No Action, much of the development blocked from
     proposed service areas could occur in already sewered
     areas elsewhere in the planning area.  It is unlikely
     that much of this development will use onsite systems
     due to relatively recent improvements in septic tank
     regulation and enforcement.  Of particular importance
     is the recognition that certain seasonally wet ("mottled")
     soils, common to the region, were not suitable for
     septic tanks.  This was formally recognized by the
     State and soil testers in the fall of 1976.  Therefore,
     No Action generally should not increase septic system
     development of "leapfrog" development to areas beyond
     the planning area."

Page II-4, Paragraph 2:

     Replace second sentence with; "Restrictions on sewer
     availability may have contributed to increasing lot
     costs in the past and may contribute to future increases."

Page II-4, Paragraph 4:

     Line 14:  Change "dimninish" to "diminish"

Page II-5, Paragraph 2:

     Line 4;  Change "impact" to "influence "

Page II-6, Paragraph 1:

     Line 1:  Insert "expected"  before "secondary "

Page II-6, Paragraph 1:

     Line 7:  Replace entire sentence with "In only one
     case, Oak Creek, is a smaller capacity alternative
     considered."
                               IX-9
-------
Page II-6, Paragraph 4:

     Clarification;  The discussion of increases in households
     and population in service areas for incremental time
     periods (e.g., 1978-1985) can be confusing if only the
     incremental increase is observed.  For example, in
     Table II-l, page II-8, under the No Action increment
     from 1979-1985, the EIS consultant projects an increase
     of 200 households and 2,335 people.  This means that
     the total Mequon service area population will increase
     by 2,335 and 200 new households will be formed in the
     area.  It should not be interpreted as meaning 200
     households, at an average size of 11.6% persons, will
     be formed.  This arises because the average person per
     household figure will increase from 3.3 to 3.6 for all
     of Mequon.

Page II-9, Paragraph 1:

     Line 5:  Change "denisty" to "density "

Page II-9, Paragraph 3:

     Line 15:  "though the level of development..."

Page 11-10, Paragraph 5:

     Line 1:  Change "determined" to "estimated "

Page 11-13, Paragraph 2:

     Line 3:  Change "it is in conflict" to "there are
     differences "

Page 11-13, Paragraph 3:

     Line 1:  Change "policies" to  "objectives  "

Page 11-13, Paragraph 3:

     Line 5:  Change "this policy"  to "these objectives "
     Line 5:  Change "the" to "that "
     Line 6:  Change "would" to "may  "
     Line 8:  Insert "regional" before  "plan's  "

Page 11-13, Paragraph 4:

     Line 1:  Change "would" to "could  "
                                IX-10
-------
Page 11-13, Paragraph 4:

     Line 612:  Replace with:  "Alternatives which could
     mitigate some of the secondary impacts include a smaller
     local plant extension, a joint venture with Menomonee
     Falls or a smaller connection to the 57-inch interceptor.
     These may suffice through the entire planning period
     for a lower population forecast, or at least until the
     1990s.  Another institutional measure which could be
     considered is staged service area boundaries for 1985,
     1990, and 2000.  Some of these mitigation measures may
     require major revisions to the adopted 208 plan.
     Additionally, SEWRPC and the Village of Germantown have
     recently completed a land use plan for the Village
     which is fully consistent with the adopted regional
     plan.  The Village of Germantown has also adopted a new
     comprehensive zoning ordinance to ensure that new
     urban development occurs in areas designated in the
     plan.

Page 11-18, Paragraph 1:

     Line 7:  Change "develop" to "be developed "

Page 11-18, Paragraph 4:

     Replace entire paragraph with; "New Berlin could consider
     implementing growth controls which may reduce the
     overall level of development.  One institutional measure
     which could be considered is a staged sewer service
     area consistent with the regional plan.  This service
     area plan would be developed cooperatively between
     SEWRPC and New Berlin."

Page 11-19, Paragraph 1:

     Line 8:  Delete "but it was fully analyzed."

Page 11-23, Footnote to Table II-6:

     "Due to the similarity of the growth effects of upgrading
     lift stations to those of No Action, the numbers appearing
     in this table for No Action may also be applied to
     upgrading the lift stations."

Page 11-28, Paragraph 1:

     Line 3:  After "basis " add "that is, most alternatives
     supply nearly the same treatment capacity to similar
     service areas."
                               IX-11
-------
Page 11-29, Paragraph 1:

     Line 1:  Change "The" to This"

     Line 5:  Change "portions" to "areas"

Page 11-30, Paragraph 3:

     Line 8:  Change "the significant" to "these increased"

Page 11-30, Paragraph 4:

     Line 2:  Insert "of" after "margin"

     Line 3:  Change "as a result of" to "this results
     from "

Page 11-30, Paragraph 6:

     Line 1:  Change "From...perspective" to "From a perspective
     based solely on indirect fiscal impacts,"

Page III-l, Paragraph 1:

     Line 3:  Insert "treatment" after "sewage "

Page III-l, Paragraph 2:  (last paragraph)

     Line 5:  Change "EPA" to "Regulatory Agencies "

Page III-2, Paragraph 1:

     Line 2:  Delete "EPA "

Page III-2, Paragraph 2:

     Line 4:  Add the following:  "Also in regard to secondary
     growth impacts for cultural sites, the Regional Plan states
     that, As urbanization continues in the Southeastern
     Wisconsin Region, many historic sites and structures
     which provide distinctive, authentic links to the past
     may be expected to be threatened with destruction.  Once
     destroyed, such sites and structures cannot be replaced.
     Regional park and open space plans should recognize sites
     of historical significance and, to the maximum extent
     possible, should incorporate such sites into the park
     development and open space land acquisition process.
                               IX-12
-------
     To mitigate such secondary growth impacts, local com-
     munities and especially their historical societies
     should review and monitor all construction planned
     for their community in order to ensure preservation of
     historical and archaeological sites.  Preservation
     zoning should be considered as a tool for the protection
     of historic landmarks and districts.  The State
     Historical Society regards such local initiative and
     sentiment very highly.

     The State Historical Preservation Officer (SHPO) should be
     consulted during all phases of the facilities plan/
     environmental impact statement process.  By reviewing
     preliminary plans for all projects, SHPO can determine
     impacts on identified historical/archaeological sites
     in the early stages of the project and assist in miti-
     gating any adverse impacts.  By reviewing final design
     specifications, SHPO can assure compliance with federal
     regulations when unidentified properties are discovered
     during construction."

Page III-2, Paragraph 3:

     Line 3:  Change "The function of the EIS" to "One
     function of this EIS "

     Line 5:  Insert "potentially" after "consequences "

Page III-3, Paragraph 1:

     Line 1:  Reverse word order of "capacity conveyance "

     Line 2,3:  Change "the leapfrogging" to "a leapfrog
     pattern "

Page III-3, Paragraph 2:

     Line 3:  Insert "considered" after "interceptors "

Page III-3, Paragraph 3:

     Line 4:  Change "changes in the last ten years in septic
     tank regulation" to "changes in septic tank regulations in
     the last ten years."

Page IV—11:

     Line 5:  Change "would" to "may "
                               IX-13
-------
Page V-3, Paragraph 3:

     Line 4:  Change "SMSM" to "Milwaukee SMSA "

Page V-18, Paragraph 2:

     Line 12:  Change "casual" to "causal "

Page V-18, Paragraph 5:

     Line 1:  Change "system" to "systems "

Page V-19, Paragraph 0:

     Line 16:  Change "braking unsewered suburban development"
     to "slowing suburban-development in unsewered areas."

Page V-19, Paragraph 2:

     Line 10:  Change "essentially linked" to "attributed "

Page V-22, Paragraph 2:

     Line 1:  Delete "In" and "it is "

     Line 3:  Delete "is".

Page V-22, Paragraph 2:

     Delete last sentence.

Page V-22, Paragraph 3:

     Line 1:  Delete "There should be"

     Line 3:  Change "porbably1" to "probably".

     Line 3:  Add "appears to be needed "

Page V-22, Paragraph 5:

     Line 2:  Change "cummulative" to "cumulative".

     Line 3:  Delete entire line.  Replace with "population
     shortfall within the planning areas."

Page VII-1 to VII-5:

     Delete entire Chapter VII.
                               IX-14
-------
Page IX-58, Paragraph 3:

     Line 1:  Delete first sentence.  Replace it with,
     "Considering only indirect fiscal impacts, the No
     Action alternative is most advantageous."

Page X-l, Add this third paragraph:

     "This analysis assumes that local zoning and land use
     regulations will reinforce the land use outlined in the
     SEWRPC Regional Land Use Plan  (and consequently, the
     208 plan).   This would aid in prohibiting development
     in environmentally sensitive areas.  However, if local
     land use controls failed in implementing the Regional
     Land Use Plan, then secondary natural environmental
     impacts could occur."
                               IX-15
-------
ADDENDUM TO APPENDIX X






FISCAL/ECONOMIC  IMPACTS
-------
ADDENDUM TO APPENDIX X - FISCAL/ECONOMIC IMPACTS

1.0  INTRODUCTION

Several new analyses have been conducted for this Fiscal/Economic
Addendum to provide answers to many questions and comments con-
cerning the Draft Appendix.  These additional analyses include:

2.0)      An Individual Community Financing Alternative (no
         district-wide financing of CSO, sewer rehabilitation,
         or trunk sewer connections to the MMSD)

3.0)      A Worse Case Analysis (higher program costs, higher
         interest rates, and less funding)

4.0)      An Equal Funding Comparison  (between the Local and
         Regional Alternatives)

5.0)      Effect on the Milwaukee County Debt Level of the
         County's 1981-85 Capital Program and the MWPAP

6.0)      Financing the MWPAP after the County Debt Limit is
         Reached

7.0)      Assessed Property Values and Tax Rates

8.0)      Financing the Entire MWPAP without Bonds

9.0)      Fiscal Impacts on Renters

10.0)     Fiscal Impacts on Low and Fixed Income Residents

11.0)     Errata
                                X-l
-------
2.0  THE INDIVIDUAL COMMUNITY FINANCING ALTERNATIVE

Up to the time this addendum was printed (March, 1981), all
planning area communities have financed their own local sewer
rehabilitation efforts, CSO abatement projects, and trunk sewer
connections to the Metropolitan Intercepting Sewer System (or
Milwaukee County line).  However, on June 5, 1980, the Milwaukee
Metropolitan Sewerage Commission adopted the Master Facilities
Plan (MFP)  recommendation calling for district-wide financing of
all program costs.

With this MMSD recommendation, the EIS incorporated the district-
wide financing assumption into its fiscal analysis.  The EIS
fiscal analysis assumed that 1) Milwaukee County would issue
bonds to raise all of the needed capital for MWPAP implementation,
2) the contract communities' total annual payments would be sub-
tracted from MMSD's annual debt service, and 3) the remaining
annual MMSD debt service  (about 92%) would be allocated to
Milwaukee County property owners via the ad valorem property tax.

In September of 1980, a coalition of 15 suburbs filed suit against
the MMSD, challenging the constitutionality of district-wide
financing of 1) CSO abatement projects in Milwaukee and Shorewood
and 2)  local sewer rehabilitation in all communities served by
the MMSD.  Suburban communities have also written comment letters
on the Draft EIS, maintaining that the EIS fiscal analysis is
inadequate because of its district-wide financing assumption.

Furthermore, on December 4, 1980 the Southeastern Wisconsin
Regional Planning Commission concluded that its adopted 208 Plan
calls for the individual ^suburban municipalities beyond Milwaukee
County to be responsible for constructing the trunk sewers needed
to connect them to the MMSD.

The EIS is responding to these numerous public comments by provid-
ing a fiscal impact analysis of the MWPAP, assuming that it would
not be entirely financed on a district-wide basis.  Rather than
assuming that all components of the program would be financed
district-wide, this analysis assumes that only portions of the
MWPAP would be financed district-wide.  This financial arrangement
is referred to as the Individual Community Financing Alternative.
The following assumptions underlie this analysis:

1.)  Every community would  finance its own sewer rehabilitation
     with 20-year general obligation  (G.O.) bonds at 7% interest.

2.)  Each community joining the MMSD would finance its own
     connecting trunk sewer with 20-year bonds at 7% interest.

3.)  The City of Milwaukee  and the Village of Shorewood would both
     finance their own CSO  abatement costs with 20-year bonds at
     7% interest.  For the purposes of this analysis, CSO abatement
     costs consist of complete and partial separation, near-surface
                                 X-2
-------
     collectors, near-surface storage facilities, dropshafts, and
     some deep storage facilities.  This does not include costs
     for interceptors 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 an
     ad valorem property tax in Milwaukee County.

5.)  Grant funding would be distributed proportionally to all
     program elements, regardless of which municipality assumes
     the financing.

The first step in analyzing the Individual Community Financing
Alternative is to apportion the MWPAP projected cash flow.  Table 1
discloses the 1978-1992 cash flow, separated into the four component
parts necessary to conduct the analysis.

The second step involves incorporating funding assumptions.  As
mentioned above, grant funding is assumed to be distributed pro-
portionally to all portions of the program.  The amounts of money
needed to be raised locally, after having been reduced by the
funding percentage anticipated by the MMSD, appear in Table 2.
For example, Table 1 shows that the total capital required in
1983 is $233,652,000.  Assuming an annual funding ceiling of
$60,000,000, that year's expenditure is only 26% funded (60/233 =
.26).  Table 2 shows the cash flow, by component, after the grant
funded portion is removed.  These are the projected amounts that
must be raised locally.  For example, because only 26% of costs
in 1983 are grant funded, each component for 1983 in Table 2
represents 74% of its counterpart in Table 1.

The third step separates the program capital into two categories:
1) amounts to be raised by local communities and 2) the amounts
to be raised by Milwaukee County  (the district-wide financed
portion).   Table 3 presents the capital amounts each community is
required to raise for sewer rehabilitation, connecting trunk
sewers, and CSO abatement.  For each component, the total amount
and the non-funded portion of the total are given.  The non-grant
funded portion is the local share that is assumed to be financed
by the individual community by issuing 20-year G.O. bonds at 7%
interest.

The assumption underlying this alternative is that each community
would raise the needed local capital share (non-grant-funded) for
these components (see Table 3).  The remaining components of the
MWPAP would be financed by Milwaukee County and would be recovered
by an ad valorem property tax and the contract formula.

The average annual 1985-2005 debt service for each component, by
community, is shown in Table 4.  Columns 1, 2, and 3 are calculated
by assuming the individual community issues 20-year G.O. bonds at
                                 X-3
-------
                                 TABLE 1
               INDIVIDUAL COMMUNITY FINANCING ALTERNATIVE:
                      MOSAIC ALTERNATIVE CASH FLOW 1

YEAR
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1 + 2 +
SEWER TRUNK SEWER
REHABILITATION CONNECTIONS


$ 336 $ 72
6,224 951
17,751 2,069
25,922 12,519
23,259
10,219
1,492
—
—
—



3
CSO
ABATEMENT


$ 366
2,049
6,265
18,133
45,877
92,417
148,164
166,487
108,698
32,433



+ 4
MMSD
' ELEMENTS '
$ 23,568
38,234
52,549
79,934
136,410
177,078
200,715
137,048
61,321
21,689
3,911
46
187
909
907
5
PROGRAM
TOTAL
$ 23,568
38,234
53,323
89,158
162,495
233,652
269,851
239,684
210,977
188,176
112,609
32,479
187
909
907
TOTAL   $85,203
$15,611
$620,889  - $934,506   $1,656,209
 All costs in thousands
2
 These costs are subject to change depending on the results of the ongoing
 Sewer System Evaluation Survey.

 These costs are based on the Inline Storage Alternative with Partial
 Sewer Separation.
4
 MMSD elements include Jones Island, South Shore, Solids Management,
 Interceptors, and MIS Rehabilitation.
Source:  MWPAP MODEL ALE, ALC, ALCSS, FMEIS
                                   X-4
-------
CN

w

CQ

EH
 ••  2
W  O

H  2
EH  O
<  H
2  EH
OS  OS
W  O
EH  CM
O U
2 O
H J
CJ
try
    1
   S K
  . O cn
2 J
H fa Q
       W
fa

>H  cn
EH  <
H  CJ
2
D
    Q
    2

    fa
    I
    2
r. -^^
    W

a  H 2
o  :
u  <
    2
J  OS
(<  W
D  EH
Q  J
M  <;
Q  H
2  <
H  cn

    i
              in
              CN
                       rs
                        cn
                        EH
                        2


                     cn w
                     § ^
                     s w

                       ro

                       CN
                        EH
                         W
                         EH
                     O  <
                     cn  PQ
                     u  <
                 &  cn
                 W  3
                 5  O
                 W  H
                 cn  EH
                     o
                 w  w
                     tf O
                     EH U
                       CN
                         2
                         O
                         H
                         EH
                         >3
                         EH
                         H
                         A
                         H
                     Pd  «
                     w  <;
                     s  K
                     w  w
                     cn  K
                     Q
                     W  Q
                     a  w
                     D  Q
                         OS
                         <
                                                                             CNCN
                                                    CN
                               •10-
                                                        CN
                                                                  CN
                                                                         CNCN
                            •co-
                                                 on
                                                               in
                                      co
                                          rH O O
                                          00 00 (V)  I

                                               *   -  I
                                             rH CJl
                                                         I   I   I
                                                         I   I   I
                                      00
                                                    in r-
                                                    O 
c
•H
0
Cn
G
0

0)
x;
14-1
o

tn
4-1
3
cn
cu
SH
CU
x;
4-1

G
O
cn
C
•H
T)
G
(U
Q-i
cu



rC SH
cn cn
-p
tn G
O O
O -H
4-1
(U 3
Cn r-l
CU rd
XI >
EH H
CN


,
c
O
•H
-P
rfl
J-l
(T3
di
0)
cn

rH
rtJ
•H
4-1
in
rS
X!
-P
•H
5

(U
£»
•H
4->
C
!-(
(U
4-1
rH
-------
                                     TABLE 3
                  CAPITAL AMOUNTS WHICH ARE ASSUMED TO BE FINANCED
                          BY THE INDIVIDUAL COMMUNITIES 1
MILWAUKEE
COUNTY
COMMUNITIES

Bayside
Brown Deer
Cudahy
Fox Point
Glendale
Greendale
Greenfield
Hales Corners
Milwaukee
Oak Creek
River Hills
St. Francis
Shorewood
Wauwatosa
West Allis
West Milwaukee
Whitefish Bay
CONTRACT COMMUNITIES
Brookfield
Butler
Caddy Vista
Elm Grove
Germantown
Menomonee Falls
Mequon
Muskego
New Berlin
Thiensville
REHABILITATION

 Total    Non-
 Amount  Funded
$ 659
333
3,022
2,503
861
409
1,237
. 422
50,417
714
438
1,114
888
6,730
14,952
614
2,160
$ 461
583
2,115
1,752
603
286
866
295
35,292
500
342
780
622
4,711
10,466
430
1,512
     518
      65

     391
     185
     600
     374
     172
     501
     307
363
 45

274
130
420
262
120
351
215
             CONNECTOR SEWERS

              Total   Non-
              Amount  Funded
                                                                       CSO ABATEMENT2 ' 3
                   Total
                   Amount
Non-
Funded
                                             $602,260 $390,262
                                               18,627   12,670
$  400  $  280

 5,401   3,789

 3,045   2,120
 3,261   2,274
 3,050   2,124
   455     317
 All costs in thousands
2These costs  are subject  to  change  depending  on  the results of the ongoing Sewer
 System Evaluation Survey.

3These costs  are based  upon  MMSD WASTEWATER SYSTEM PLAN, Volume 1-D Table 12-6-1,
 "CSO Components".


Source:   MWPAP MODEL ALE, ALC,  ALCSS
                                             X-6
-------
                               TABLE 4

              INDIVIDUAL COMMUNITY FINANCING ALTERNATIVE
    1985 - 2005 AVERAGE ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE BY PROGRAM COMPONENT3
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
TRUNK CSO
SEWER SEWER ABATE-.. „
REHABILITATION ' CONNECTORS MENT ' '
$ 39
49
182
154
32
51
23
76
24
3,005 $32,717
41
28
65
55 1,054
406
898
36
137
CONTRACT COMMUNITIES
Brookfield
Butler
137
3
                                                               MMSD
                                                   PROGRAM
Caddy Vista
Elm Grove
Germantown
Menomonee Falls
Mequon
Muskego
New Berlin
Thiensville
22
11
35
23
11
30
19
$  26

  354

  198
  211
  198
   28
                                                               CHARGES3'5 TOTAL3
$ 428
856
1,099
768
953
1,722
1,165
1,795
450
23,856
1,522
231
448
856
3,850
3,562
616
1,077
$ 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
1,077
110
21
208
396
954
648
352
995
117
1,214
113
47
230
761
989
869
574
1,223
164
 All costs in thousands.

 Columns 1,2,3 financed by individual communities with 20-year G.O, Bonds at
 7% interest.

 These costs are subject to change depending on the results of the ongoing
 Sewer System Evaluation Survey.
\
 These costs are based on the Inline Storage Alternative.

 Column 4 financed by Milwaukee County with 20-year G.O. bonds at 6%.  Milwaukee
 County communities' numbers represent property taxes.  Contract communities'
 numbers represent contract charges which may or may not be raised by property
 taxes.

 This table  assumes 36% grant funded.
                                      X-7
-------
7%.  Column 4 of Table 4 represents the debt service for the
portion of the MWPAP which is financed district-wide.  For
Milwaukee County communities, column 4 represents the property
taxes levied in each community to finance the district-wide portion
of the MWPAP.  For communities outside Milwaukee County, the
numbers in column 4 are average annual contract charges.  Column 5
is the average annual cost to each community under this Individual
Community Financing Alternative.

In Table 5, the costs of this Individual Community Financing
Alternative are compared with the costs of the District-Wide
Financing Alternative for each community.  Major differences
between the two methods of financing are as follows:

1.)  Average annual costs to the City of Milwaukee and the
     Village of Shorewood are lower under the District-Wide
     Financing Alternative.  Milwaukee's costs decrease 30%;
     Shorewood's decrease 24%.  This decrease occurs primarily
     because, with district-wide financing, about $400 million
     for CSO abatement in these two municipalities is
     distributed to all planning area communities.

2.)  The average annual costs to each of the remaining MMSD
     communities within Milwaukee County increases under the
     District-Wide Financing Alternative  (relative to the
     Individual Financing Alternative).  This occurs because
     these communities share the cost of CSO abatement in
     Milwaukee and Shorewood  (see Table 5).

3.)  However, when all of the average annual costs for Milwaukee
     County MMSD communities from 1985-2005 are totaled, the
     sum of the District-Wide Financing Alternative is actually
     less than the sum for the Individual Community Financing
     Alternative.  This situation would arise because the bond
     interest rate for the District-Wide Financing Alternative
     is assumed to be 6%, whereas the local bond issues under
     the Individual Community Financing Alternative are assumed
     to be 7%.  The result:  an average of $84 million annually
     in debt service  (from 1985-2005) under the Individual
     Community Financing Alternative, as opposed to an average
     $79 million annually for the District-Wide Financing
     Alternative.

4.)  Each MMSD contract community  (i.e., those located outside
     Milwaukee County), except Germantown and Caddy Vista, would
     experience an increase in average annual costs under the
     District-Wide Financing Alternative relative to the
     Individual Community Financing Alternative.  Again, this
     increase would occur because these communities would share
     the cost of CSO abatement in Milwaukee and Shorewood.

5.)  Unlike the other contract communities, Germantown's average
     annual costs would decrease by 10% and Caddy Vista's by 23%
                                 X-8
-------
                             TABLE  5


   INDIVIDUAL COMMUNITY FINANCING VS. DISTRICT-WIDE  FINANCING1

            1985 - 2005 AVERAGE ANNUAL DEBT  SERVICE
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
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
Brookfield
Butler
Caddy Vista
Elm Grove
Germantown
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.
                               X-9
-------
     under the District-Wide Financing Alternative relative to
     the Individual Community Financing Alternative.  This
     reduction happens because, under the Individual Community
     Financing Alternative, the Germantown and Caddy Vista
     connectors to the MMSD would represent a significant portion
     of these two communities' total costs  (Table 4).

Average annual equalized tax rates for the program components for
the Individual Community Financing Alternative are given in Table 6
The average annual total tax rate for this alternative is compared
with the District-Wide Financing Alternative average annual total
tax rate.  The following observations should be noted regarding
this comparison.

1.   Contract communities do not use the property tax to
     distribute sewerage costs and the use of the property
     tax here is for analytical purposes only.

2.   The equalized tax rates would increase under district-
     wide financing (relative to individual community
     financing)  for all Milwaukee County communities, except
     Shorewood and Milwaukee.

3.   The Milwaukee and Shorewood tax rates per $1000 would
     decrease under the District-Wide Financing Alternative
     from $6.23 and $5.74, respectively, to $4.37.

4.   Except for Germantown and Caddy Vista  (discussed above),
     tax rates would increase for non-Milwaukee County
     (contract) communities under the District-Wide Financing
     Alternative.

Table 7 converts the equalized average annual tax rates for each
community into locally-assessed average annual tax rates.  The
table shows the assessed tax rate that would be added to each
community's current local tax rate.  For each community, the
comparison of tax rates corresponding to the two financing
alternatives is valid.  However, because no two communities have
the same assessed-to-equalized ratio, comparison of locally-
assessed tax rates among communities is not valid.  Only the
equalized rates from Table 6 can be used for comparison among
communities.

Average annual household charges by community are presented in
Table 8.  For Milwaukee County communities, 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 for determining the household costs in this table.

The greatest difference between the Individual Community
Financing Alternative and District-Wide Financing Alternative is
                                 X-10
-------
                                        TABLE 6
               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
Brookf ield2
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

                                                 /$1000
MMSD
CHARGES
                                             3.42
                                             3.08
COMMUNITY
FINANCING
ALTERNATIVE
TOTAL
DISTRICT-WIDE
FINANCING
ALTERNATIVE
TOTAL
2.50/$1000
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
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
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
                                                        1.39
                                                        1.32
                                                         .77
                                                        1.35
                                                        1.14
                                                        1.05
                                                         .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
             1.86
             1.73
             1.62
             1.72
             2.03
 All values are expressed in dollars per $1000 of equalized value.

 The tax rates for the contract communities (Brookfield through Thiensville)  are  based
 on all taxable property within the communities (e.g., only 40% of Brookfield's property
 is in the contract area).  For commparison purposes only, this table assumes  contract
 communities would use the property tax to pay the contract charges.

 These rates are subject to change depending on the results of the ongoing  Sewer  System
 Evaluation Survey.
4
 These rates are based upon the Inline Storage Alternative.

 Property value estimated.
                                              X-ll
-------
                        TABLE 7
INDIVIDUAL COMMUNITY FINANCING VS. DISTRICT-WIDE FINANCING:
       1985 - 2005 AVERAGE ANNUAL ASSESSED 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
CONTRACT COMMUNITIES'
Brookfield
Butler
Caddy Vista
Elm Grove
Germantown
Menomonee Falls
Mequon
Muskego
New Berlin
Thiensville
COMMUNITY
FINANCING
ALTERNATIVE
DISTRICT-
WIDE
FINANCING
ALTERNATIVES
$13.11/$1000
2.63
8. 71
5.98
9.15
9.93
12.94
14.41
16.10
7.47
14.03
4. 72
8.66
8.12
6.35
9.95
13.80
6.34
$20.91/$1000
4.34
13.04
8.56
15.45
16.83
22.17
24.22
26.74
5.24
23.85
7.28
13.19
6.18
10.06
13.89
22.84
9.83
  2.51
  4.15
   NA
  4.08
  3.04
  9.79
  6.40
  3.60
  6. 14
  2.86
  1.66
  2.62
   N/A
  3,
  3,
 ,40
 ,45
6.21
5.15
3.51
4.54
2.45
1981 NET
LOCAL
ASSESSED,
TAX RATE

S94.21/51000
 22.65
 67.59
 43.08
 76.41
 74.40
119.39
117.93
 21.67
 32.73
 17.05
 39.55
 78.60
 36.66
 51.27
 81.08
119.46
 53.81

 81.61
 37.23
   N/A
 16.934
 28.70
111.42
 69.56
 37.82
 69.71
 26.51
 All values expressed in dollars per $1000 of  assessed value.
2
 For comparison purposes, this table assumes contract
 communities would use the property tax to pay for
 contract charges.

3From Citizens' Government Research Bureau, Bulletin,  March  7,  1981,
 p.8.

4Net Local  1980 Assessed Rate.
                               X-12
-------
                            TABLE  8

  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,
                                       1,443
                                       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.
                               X-13
-------
the shifting of CSO abatement costs.  Assuming Milwaukee and
Shorewood finance their own CSO abatement, peak year  (1990) tax
rates would be $7.20 per $1000 equalized for Milwaukee and $6.65
(equalized)  for Shorewood.   These rates incorporate a propor-
tionate funding assumption for CSO abatement discussed above.  If
CSO abatement received no grant funding, these peak ta.x rates
would be $11.25 and $10.40 (equalized), respectively.

The average annual tax rates for Milwaukee and Shorewood under
this individual community financing assumption would be $6.23/
$1000 equalized and $5.74/$1000 equalized, respectively.

3.0  A WORSE CASE ANALYSIS

The accuracy of the MWPAP cost estimate, 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 MWPAP.  As Table 9 indicates, the
assumptions of the 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 levels of
deviation from the assumptions upon which the MMSD Recommended
Plan is founded.

Worse Case "A"

The sequence of expenditures needed to implement the $1.6 billion
MWPAP is technically referred to as the Project Delivery Analysis
(PDA).  The PDA is used to establish the annual budget for
implementing the MMSD Recommended Alternative and as a basis for
estimating project design costs.  The PDA will 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 MWPAP is $1.4 billion to $2.16 billion.
The worse case "A" in Table 9 makes an assumption that the MWPAP
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 anticipated
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 worse case "A" assumes that
the $1.9 billion would be only 25% grant funded.

Recently, interest rates on general obligation  (G.O.) municipal
bonds have exceeded the 6% rate assumed for the MMSD Recommended
Plan.  Therefore, this worse 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%.
                                 X-14
-------
CrH
•iH >i
JJ
0) C
JJ 3
ID 0
OS CJ
X 01
ID 01
EH A;
Cb IB
< S
CLt r—(
3 -H
£ 2
rn
Interest Rate
on Bond Issue;






en
U
w tn
SM C >1
1-3 -H -U
< T3 -H
01 Z C rH
< 3 -H
W fa X)
iJ U <8
CO W JJ rH
«< < C-H
EH U <8 18
^ >
EH 0 <
en
fy>
1-&
O
2



0
18
IH
0) 3
JJ O
IB O
e j«
C «<
-rjj

•4_) U-J
on o
W
rH
sg
ss









Q)
T3 -P
4) <8
N IH g
0) -H O
OlrH X U
18 18 IB UH
l-i 3 -P
(D tT O in
> 0) >iO O
IB -POO
rH 1-1 1— I (N
r- 18 ID to- 1
ro 3 (i in
. C 0 IH co
TT C M ID 01
t/> 10 CL CLrH

All MMSD bond
issues pay 6%


r** •
rH O T3
18 • • ID
3 C rH T3
C 0 to- C
e._j ^3
•rt -J
18 rH • UH
i~4 r^
JS -H rH JJ
•P E ID C
•f-l M 10
3 0 0) >H
IO > SJi
» X OP rH
in 10 vo -H
r~ g 1*1 XI




• *>
C in
O rH 01
•H I 01 JJ
f\ \ ' (tS

•H O O 3
XI O U
0) O
^O CHrH 10
10 C r-l
• ID < -a
1 tj «)


>1 • 3
*M O OP 01
O fO o w
I, p^ ^
JJ 3 -r
01 O 0)
O O O IH
U < JJ 10
•0
01
-i e
ID -H O
01 rH X IH
IB IB ro UH
SH 3 -P
Q) D1 o in
> 0) >iO O
IB -POO
rH S-| rH (V
O ID ID <«• 1
in 3 CL in
. C O IH co
VO C U 0) 01
tO- 10 CU 04 rH
* •
in So
T3 • O in
C r- IH •
O UH VO
XI >1 to-
10 01
D Cu (D D O
CO jj 01 jj
§01 10 to
SO) >H (D O
3 IH oo
rH 01 X O •
rH 01 18 C in
< -H EH -H to-
JJ
C IH
ID O
•H
0% . g
C o
~ a • JH
C -i-4 t) UH
0 rH Q)
•H rH T3 [/]
rH -H C m
rH X> 3 5
•H UH Jo .
XI !N n) o
•» -U n oo
oo • C o •
T rH ID gin
. tO- U -H t/>
t/> Oi
01 O
Vj • -P jj jj
O T3 O  C «> x •
in 3 m ID ^r
CN UH t- £H v>


.^
0)
01
• ID VO
C 01 VO
O M •
•H O rH
rH C t/>
rH -H
•rH C
XI C ID
O J3
O1 -H -P
. rH
rH rH Ll
tO--H 01
g x: •
UH Bl C
O 01 -H O
T J3 "H
JJ (N r-l
01 «• 00 rH
O in -H
CJ < rH XI




03
c
-. .2
< jl
JJ S
01 01 3
LI 01 01
i S 2
ID
T3 -P
ID ID
N M E
0) -H O
tj-lrH X M
18 18 18 UH
M 3 JJ
CD D1 o in
> ID >iO 0
(B -POO
rH Ll rH  to- i
in 3 Cu in
. c O IH co
m C IH 0) 01
-CO- 18 CU & rH
e r-
All MMSD bond
issues pay 8%
Tax rate
increases fro
$7.35 to $8.5
01
01
-P 01
C 18
18 (D
in U
-— DI U
Co C •
O co C -H in
•H . o m
rH rH C U ' •
rH  JJ r~
•H of a ov
XI m l-i
• co 0
vo T3 X JJ
ro 3) LI IB
•17 O EH r^
 C ^
3 •
U U-l C • T
0 O 13 v>
— 4J -H 
• M O
(N (D —
J3 ID ID •
UH Ol-P 01 C
0 -iH ID ID O
x; e CD -H
JJ -H lH rH
01 Of -P O rH
O 0 01 C-H
U n 4) -H XI




10
c
= -2
CQ jj
s a
JJ g
01 a) 3
H 01 01
O 18 01
S U <
0)
TJ jj
0) 18
a) N n e
(Jl-H O
18 rH X S-l
IH ID ID UH
0) 3 -P
> tr o in
IB a) >io o
JJ 0 0
IO rH 1J rH (N
CO ID Q)  1
• 3 CL in
IN C 0 SH oo
rH C U 0) 01
Vr ID d CUrH
.
T3 *
C 01 IE
o co
XI >, -H 1-1
10 u-i o
Q a. ID jj
en jj M
S 01 ID 



0 E
•H 0
rH (H
rH U4
-H
XI 01
-i •
3 O 0
UH C rH
• -H 
DC DO
-a ia jj -P
C IH 10
3 Cr> M r-
UH rn
JJ X •
CrP 0 (D T
o e &H «>




• ft.
c <
o Oi
•H 2
rH S IO O •
rH <£>** IB
jr to- a>
in jj c IH
UJ < O
(N U O C
 0) -H
J3 1) •
UH Q1JJ C C
O -H 18 O O
jr. g -H -H
JJ -tH rH rH
01 OP JJ rH i-H
O O 01 -H -H
rj in 0) xi g




0]
o
S -iH
0 -P
r ft
JJ B
01 01 3
^ 01 01
O ID M
S U <
                                                         01
                                                         c
                                                         -H
                                                         O

                                                         ID
                                                         C
                                                         0)
                                                         13
                                                         4J
                                                         01
                                                         •H
                                                         Q
                                                          3
                                                          01
                                                          in
                                                          18
                                                          (0
X-15
-------
To summarize, the worse case "A" analysis in Table 9 assumes
a 15% increase in program costs, 25% grant funding, and an
average interest rate of 7.5% on the G.O. bonds issued to
raise the capital.  The estimated cumulative effect of these
assumptions is a 49% increase in the Milwaukee County tax
rate.  That is, while the assumptions in the MMSD Recommended
Plan lead to an average annual equalized tax rate of $4.37,
the district-wide financing, the assumptions outlined in the
worse case "A" lead to $6.50 per $1000.

A Worse Case "B"

The worse case "B" assumes that the $1.6 billion estimate is
30% lower than what the final cost will be  (in 1980 dollars).
This would increase the $1.66 billion by $498 million to
$2.16 billion.

In addition, grant funding is assumed to be 15%.  Under
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/$1000.

However, if a worse case is assumed for the bond market, and
the bond issues average 8"%, the tax rate would increase an
additional 16% to $8.57/$1000.

In summary, the worse 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 MWPAP to increase 96% over the tax rate associated
with the MMSD Recommended Plan, from $4.37 to $8.57/$1000.

A Worse Case "C"

Worse case "C" assumes that the capital cost of the MWPAP
would be 50% higher than the estimated $1.66 billion.  Worse
case "C" further assumes 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 $1000.

The 1985-2005 average annual equalized Milwaukee County pro-
perty tax rate will likely be between $4.37 and $12.86 per
$1000, depending upon which of the possible combinations of
cost estimates, funding levels, and interest rates ultimately
occur.

All of these worse case scenarios assume district-wide
financing.
                                X-16
-------
4.0  EQUAL FUNDING COMPARISON:  LOCAL VS. REGIONAL ALTERNATIVES3

Table 53 in the Fiscal/Economic Appendix compares the average
annual costs to each community for a Local and Regional
Alternative.  It was noted in the text  (page 89) that a
contributing factor to the lower annual costs for the
Regional Alternative was the difference in funding assum-
ptions.  The average annual regional cost (MMSD charges) had
a 36% funding assumption built into it.  This occurs because
the MMSD was assumed to raise 64% ($1 billion) of the total
capital ($1.6 billion) needed for the program.  The local
communities  (with the exception of South Milwaukee), however,
were assumed to receive no grant funding because the Local
Alternative would not be in conformance with the SEWRPC 208
Regional Water Quality Plan.  For this reason, the assumption
of no funding for local alternatives was considered "realistic".

However, there is another way in which the situation could
be viewed.  An outlying community could not construct a
sewage treatment plant unless the 208 plan was first amended.
Therefore, it would seem reasonable to assume that a local
alternative would either not be constructed, or it would be
contructed in conformance with an amended 208 plan and thus,
be eligible for funding.  Table 10 was assembled to accommodate
this logic.  The table shows each community's average annual
cost for a Local Alternative that is 36% grant funded.  The
36% funded average annual cost for a Local Alternative is
compared to the 36% funded average annual cost of the Mosaic
Alternative.  The Mosaic Alternative is subdivided into an
individual community financing scheme  (CSO abatement, local
rehabilitation, and trunk sewer connections are not financed
district-wide) and a district-wide financing scheme.  Comparison
of the average annual costs by community under the Local and
Mosaic  (MMSD Recommended) Alternatives reveals the following:

0    Caddy Vista's annual costs under a Local Alternative
     are much higher than under the Mosaic Alternative.

0    Germantown's average annual debt service for the Local
     Alternative would be 24% less than if the Village
     connected under the district-wide financed Mosaic
     Alternative and 31% less than a community-financed
     Mosaic Alternative.
alt should be recognized that this analysis is being presented
 for comparison purposes only.  If the 208 Plan is amended to
 provide for construction of a local treatment plant, the
 corresponding community may receive grants of either 0, 60,
 or 75%, depending on its position on the Wisconsin Project
 Priority List.


                                X-17
-------
w

CQ
            W
   Z
W Pi
CJ W
H £H


PS <
W
CO J


EH U
CQ O
W J
Q
         
> u
M -H
EH M
i< 4-1
!Z cn
Pi -H
W D







O O O O O
o o o o o
o o o o o
*.«.*,*.«
^O ^}* CO i^o CN
C*O OO 00 ^* Cn
**Q LO **O rH
«.
rH
{/V





EH
u
H
cn
i
    (0


   T3
   •H
    >
    C
   M
 CT>
 C
•H
 U
 C
 (C
 c
•H
fa

 >1
4J
•H
 C
 3
       O
       u
       0)
                                   (0
                                   o
                                   o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
                                                      in
o
o
o
 ^>
m
CN
CN
o
o
o
•H
4J
(0
C
SH
CU
4J
rH
flj


o
o
o
«.
.
r»
CTi
in


0
o
o
«,
m
cn
oo


0
o
o
«.
00
CN
CN

•X
o
o
o
«.
o
<^0
rH
(0
•P
I>1
4J
•H




O
u
in
•H
^>

?*1
rfj
rQ
a
u

£3
J5
O
4-1
C
(TJ
a
rH
CU
O




O
CP
cu

cn
3
S

c
•H
•H
rH
OJ
DQ

3
cu

CU
rH
rH
•H
^>
cn
C
cu
•H
r;
EH
(0
U
rH
•H
^

c\
4-)
3
0
CO
                                                                                     O
                                                                                     U
                                                                                     a
                                                                                     CO
                                                                                     o\o
                                                                                     r-
                                                                                      C
                                                                                     •H
                                                                                      o
                                                                                      C
                                                                                      (0
                                                                                      c
                                                                                     •H
                                                                                     4-1
                                                                            a
                                                                            •H
                                                                            u
                                                                            •H
                                                                            C
                                                                                      (U
                                                                                     T3

                                                                                      d
                                                                                     4-1

                                                                                     o\o
                                                                                      0)
                                                                                      O
                                                                                      4J
                                                                                      3
                                                                                      cn
                                                                                      cn
                                                                             cn



                                                                            •H
                                                                            •P
                                                                             ITS
                                                                             C


                                                                             CU


                                                                            •H
                                                                             ft
                                                                                             C
                                                                                            •H
                                                                                             O
                                                                                             C
                                                                                             (d
                                                                                             C
                                                                                            •H
                                                                                               0)
                                                                                               U
                                                                                              •H


                                                                                               rH
                                                                                               0)
                                                                                               cn
                                                                      c
                                                                      £3
0)
Cn
tti
rH
0)
                                                                cn

                                                                CU
                                                                0)

                                                                3
                                                                ra
                                                                3

                                                               •H
                                                                s
                                                                             3
                                                                             o
                                                                            cn
                                                                             cu

                                                                            •rH
                                                                            4-1
                                                                             ITS

                                                                             SH
                                                                             (D
                                                                            4-)
                                                                                                         £3
                                                                                                         O
                                                                                                         •H


                                                                                                         cu
                                                                             cu

                                                                             rC

                                                                             4J


                                                                             rH

                                                                             CU
                                                                             CU

                                                                             U

                                                                             C


                                                                             C

                                                                            •H

                                                                            fa
                                                                             I
                                                                             4J
                                                                             O


                                                                             rH
                                                                             4->
                                                                             in
                                                                             •H
                                                                             P
                                                                                   O
                                                                                   O
                                                                                   o
                                                                                                               oo
                                                                                                      «•

                                                                                                      cu
                                                                                                      X!
                                                                 X-18
-------
0    Muskego's annual costs would be less if it connected to
     the MMSD  (under either financing scheme) rather than
     building a local plant; although the figures are nearly
     equal, and within the range of error.

0    New Berlin's annual costs are over $600,000 a year less
     if the City connected under a non-district-wide financing
     arrangement.  The costs are, however, much closer when the
     Local Alternative is compared to a district-wide financed
     Mosaic Alternative.

°    Thiensville's costs, under the 36% grant-funded Local Alter-
     native, are also quite close when comparing the Local
     Alternative to district-wide financing, but they are much
     less under a non-district-wide financed Mosaic Alternative.

0    Finally,  it would be 1000% more expensive for South Milwaukee
     to connect to the MMSD under district-wide financing than
     to upgrade their local plant.

5.0  THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT ON THE MILWAUKEE COUNTY DEBT LIMIT
     OF THE MWPAP AND THE MILWAUKEE COUNTY 1981-1985 CAPITAL
     PROGRAM

Table 12 in the Fiscal/Economic Appendix illustrates the impact
of the MWPAP and existing County debt on the Milwaukee County
debt level.  The objective of this table is to isolate the magni-
tude of the MWPAP costs and its impact on the County debt level.
The result is that the County debt limit would be exceeded in 1986.

However, it can also be assumed that Milwaukee continues to debt
finance (i.e., 20-year bonds at 6%)  other County projects as well
as the MWPAP.   Specifically, the 1981-1985 Milwaukee County
Capital Program can be incorporated into the debt level analysis.
Table 11 of this addendum, which includes the debt projected by
the Milwaukee County Planning Commission (second column) shows
that the County debt level exceeds the debt limit in 1985.  Thus,
the result of including the planned County capital projects in
the debt limit analysis is that the County debt limit would be
exceeded one year earlier; in 1985 rather than 1986.

All of the assumptions of the MMSD Recommended Plan remain un-
changed for this table, except that only $652 million is bonded
instead of $1048 million.  The 1985-2005 average annual equalized
tax rate decreases from $4.37 to $3.77 per $1000 because no
interest is paid on the $396 million that is not bonded.  However,
the impact of raising $396 million directly from the property
tax in a short, four-year period is reflected in the tax rate for
those years.  The average annual equalized tax rate for the period
1985-1988 is $8.78 per $1000.
                                X-19
-------
                                                [_^      I)

                                                   §-P -H

                                                   XI  g
                                                O  
                                                O  0)  0)
                                               U  Q r-3
                                           VO rH O  fl P- rH
                                           r- oo in  CN r- en
                                           rH r- ••g'  oo ^r r—

                                           [*» Cn U3  CN O rH
                                           00 tH CN  O rH 00
                                           rH CN f*i  in r~ oo
                               g
                               (C

                               Cn-P
                               O XI
                               ^  0) d)
                              CM Q rJ
                                                       o  in in en CN
                 OO CN  ^J* VD i—I VD
                 n rH  ^j« o cn ro

                 n CN  on on on co
                   •   .|   ,]   i   t p^
                        rH n m <^>
                                                  -d Q
                                                   -
                                                  rH  rH CN -H
                                           CO-
H


W
o o
u u  x
                     S crj
 Cn
 G
                        (U <0
                        en -P     M CM
                       •H en -P  O <
                        > -P X5 ,H  I
 (0  .p    -H
 5  G T3 oo
rH  3 G en
-H  o O r-r
2  U CQ —
                                     Cu
                           Cn       rtj
                           C     -H CM
                           •H     i 1-^5 Q)
                           11  11     ij

                           en  C  -P 0
                           -P  3  XJ t-i
                           3  O  CD cjj
                           O U  Q CQ
                                                                in o o o in
                                                                tH oo >H en fi
                                                                ^3* en vo c*^ o

                                                                o tH n m r-
                                                                CN CN CN CN CN
                 m o in o o in
                 ^j* ^* \@ Ln eo co
                 00 CN rH O rH CN

                 n r~ rH ^o rH r~
                 r~ in ^ CN rH en
                                            o tH CN  f*i ^r in
                                            oo oo co  co oo co
                                            en en en  en en en
                                            tH tH rH  rH rH rH
                                                                                               (0
                                                                                               -p
                                                                                              •H
U

in
co

H   .
 I  m
H ro
oo   •
en  Qi
•O -H

t3   •
 C rH
 
-------
6.0  FINANCING THE MWPAP BY DIRECT TAXATION  (PAY-AS-YOU-GO),
     WITHOUT BONDING, AFTER THE COUNTY DEBT LIMIT IS REACHED

Legally, the County cannot exceed its debt limit, which is
defined by state law as 5% of its equalized valuation.  Another
state law requires that capital improvements by the MMSD must be
financed through general obligation  (G.O.) bonds, or by a direct
property tax levy, or a combination of both methods.  Assuming
that the County reaches its debt limit, the only legal method
currently available to finance additional capital improvements
would be a direct property tax levy  (i.e., the issuance of no
bonds).

Table 12 of this addendum shows the average annual equalized tax
rate for Milwaukee County communities, excluding South Milwaukee,
assuming that a direct property tax is levied for any debt incurred
after the County's debt limit is reached in 1985.  That is, it
assumes that bonds will be issued for capital improvements up to
the debt limit, which is reached in 1985.  All capital improvements
beyond 1985 would have to be paid for by a direct tax levy on
Milwaukee County property.  These values are compared to the
equalized tax rates, given the MWPAP is financed with 20-year G.O.
Bonds at an interest rate of 6%.

Table 12 assumes that $652 million of the local portion of the
MWPAP is bonded at 6% between 1980 and 1985.  When this amount is
added to the existing County debt and the County's expected capital
program, the legal debt limit is reached.  The remaining $396
million, to be spent from 1985-1989, must be assumed to be raised
by direct tax levy, since the County debt capacity would have been
exhausted.  The result, as the table demonstrates, is a three "to
five-fold increase in the equalized tax rate between 1985 and 1988.
It should be noted, however, that a financing scheme that would
combine bonding with direct tax levy to raise the capital could
prevent substantial yearly variations in the tax rate.  This
approach also reduces the tax rates in the years 1988 to 1993 in
comparison to the tax rates resulting from bonding to raise
capital between 1985 and 1988.

7.0  ASSESSED PROPERTY VALUES AND TAX RATES

The EIS fiscal analysis used equalized property values and tax
rates exclusively so that valid comparisons among communities
could be made.  Comparisons among communities are not possible
with assessed values and tax rates because no two communities
assess at the same rate.  For example, a $100,000 house in Bayside
(full value) would be assessed at $20,900 while the same $100,000
(full value) house in Milwaukee would be assessed at $83,500.

However, public comments have indicated that it would be more
meaningful to taxpayers to see the tax rates in the assessed
form.  Therefore, Table 13 converts the equalized property
values and tax rates into assessed values for all Milwaukee
                                 X-21
-------
                                TABLE 12

FINANCING THE MWPAP BY DIRECT TAXATION AFTER THE DEBT LIMIT IS REACHED  (IS
         VS. 20-YEAR G.O. BONDS AT 6%:  MILWAUKEE COUNTY ONLY
             DIRECT TAXATION  (1985 and beyond)
     YEAR    	EQUALIZED TAX RATE	

     1980                $  .69/$10002
     1981                   .75
     1982                   .85
     1983                  1.30
     1984                  2.07
     1985'                  6.IS
     1986                 12.09
     1987                 10.63
     1988                  6.22
     1989                  3.59
     1990                  3.10
     1991                  3.07
     1992                  2.94
     1993                  2.92
     1994                  2.91
     1995                  2.90
     1996                  2.89
     1997                  2.83
     1998                  2.70
     1999                  2.70
     2000                  2.70
     2001                  2.65
     2002                  2.53
     2003                  2.06
     2004                  1.25
     2005                   .28
20-YEAR G.O. BOND
AT 6%
EQUALIZED TAX RATE

     $  .69/$10002
        .75
        .85
       1
       2
       4
       4.
       5
       5
  30
  07
2.94
3.73
  36
  89
  04
  04
5.01
4.87
4.85
4.83
4.81
4.79
4.72
4.70
4.58
4.57
4.52
4.40
3.93
3.12
2.15
      From P.46, Table 19 of EIS Fiscal/Economic Impacts Appendix.
      >
      "Per $1000 equalized property value.
                                   X-22
-------
CU
>
•H
JJ
10
u c
flj 0)
M jj
IS



















in
o
o
CN

{
m
CO
rH















U
•H
01
£




o»

^
CU
5











>

jj
«
e
rj
JJ
<





rH
3
C
5











o
o
CN

t

CD
cn
rH


•o
rH
O
01
W
3
S






•a

01
01
m
01
en
<

r- t
§
c
5
U3

X

in


X
5




f^
•*r

' )•

CN



CU
JJ


X
IS


rH
IS
CU
S rH in 0= m co ui * * in - ,n a, „ m * r- rH n

O I"1" (N ^* O\ (S ^ \O ff* P"* i-H O^Otv-rriO1jDfN^
VI-
•o

i
Q

g
M

d

8.
w
  CO
U H


II
M >

5e



II
a

§1
3 <

S en
£ M

8S
W f*i


aS
U5 EH


— W
  en

£2
M W

S3
BS
    u
    M

    <
                 01 r~
                 > on
                 < H
      TD  >i —

      cu  JJ

      (/]  rH

      01  CD 01

      CU  fl< 3

      01  0 rH
                   •a en >,

                   111 N JJ

                   01 -H Vj

                   CO rH 01 O

                   01 IS Qi 'H

                   01 3 O JJ
                   01 D1 rH IS

                   < W 0, £
                     c    O *
               .  .  --

               O  rH U>
               £  3 rH
                    •a,
                     V >i
                     N JJ
                 9)

                 S1
                 w  o< cr v< a
                 «: »H u a. >
                   S.3
                               ooooooooooooooooooo
                               ooooooooooooooooooo
                               cu
                               ><



••
>


a
u c
•H U
n) 01
O rH
£ i4




Q

CN

1

m
00
 O* IS
«* H EH
N
•H
rH
IS
O1
u

•










ori'nmcitnmminmmmr'ir'icin
^t^lHM^i^l^i^i^i^i^gl ^^Ml^

                           §§§8§8§§SS§8§§§§§§
                           *'
                           •H

                           N

                           2,
V
V
rH
•O
rH
«
:orners
U J<
01 01
to
rH
rH
.*4
m
-H
u
c
•a
o
lilwauXi
IS
01
                                                                 9 m
                                                                 is
                                     X«JCl)CUCl>rH>H
                                     t U (u 01 J3
                                      V   M JJ

                                     I >  • O 3 _ _ .

                                      •H JJ X O is HI tU

                                      « 01 05 Ul S 3 S
                                                               JJ JJ
                                                               01 01
X
IS
JJ
JJ
CU

0

a
1
0)
01
3

O
c
o
TJ

^*

10

01
C
01
o>

01
s:
jj
01
u
a
.
c
3

r*
01
o •
C 01
o
01 IT
O U
•H O
JJ X
-4 U

rj
SO
01
>1 »
JJ JJ

§ A


IM 01
O -rt
1 13
jj
o 2










t
a



0)
n

E-i


X
•H
•a
c
o
a
a

u

e
o
c
8
u

IS
o
01

hi

VI
VH

O]
1

iS
j>

jj
01
a
o
Cu

T)
9)
•H
^
id
3
W



C
o
-H
JJ
IS
3
rH
>
jj
^ .
8.S
O CTi
rl rH
a.
>w cu
O 3
c
JJ 11
It >
a*

Q£ IV4
o
rH
0) JJ
o c
JJ £
01 4J
-H rH
JJ IS
id a
JJ CU
u> o
Ofv C
at 01
•H C
o
H 0
O 01
r4 -H
01 -
0 C
•H -H
JJ 01
S g
O
•a 01
01 -H
N 2
rH *
§5
ffS
o
0 U
JJ
01
•O CU
01 X
01 3
01 IS
01 3
01 rH
33
                            X-23
-------
County communities.  The conversion of equalized values to
assessed values does not alter the average annual household
tax, as the table indicates.  A lower than full value pro-
perty assessment simply means a higher tax rate.

Table 14 of this addendum shows the locally-assessed average
annual tax rate for the MWPAP as an increase to each community's
existing assessed property tax rate.

Only Milwaukee County communities are displayed in these
tables, since the planning area communities outside Milwaukee
County do not distribute sewer charges for capital expenditures
via a property tax.  For the average household costs in the
communities outside Milwaukee County, with implementation of
the MWPAP, see the Community Tables in the Fiscal/Economic
Impacts Appendix (pages 51 to 88).

Table 15 shows the peak assessed property tax rates for com-
munities within Milwaukee County.  The MWPAP costs to
households would peak in 1989 and 1990.  The communities
cannot be compared in this table because the costs represented
are based on average assessed values.  The assessed tax
rates are derived from an equalized peak year tax rate of
$5.04 per $1000 equalized property value.

8.0  "PAY-AS-YOU-GO"'ANALYSIS

It is possible that, for some reason, the County may not
want or be able to issue bonded debt to finance the MWPAP.
Assuming the Mosaic Alternative is financed on a district-
wide basis, with a direct property tax levy  (no bond issues)
the annual equalized Milwaukee County tax rates'would be:

                    1980:  $   .76/$1000
                    1981:     1.67
                    1982:     5.86
                    1983:     9.92
                    1984:    11.99
                    1985:    10.27
                    1986:     8.63
                    1987:     7.32
                    1988:     3.01
                    1989:      .46

               Average:  $6.00

The average annual equalized tax rate for this ten-year
period from 1980-1989 would be $6.00 per $1000.  In comparison,
the average annual tax rate with bonding would be $4.37 per
$1000  (1985-2005).  With bonding, the average annual payment
is much lower, but payments continue over a  longer period of
time, increasing the total amount paid.  Without bonding,
annual payments are higher  (the peak is almost $12.00 per
$1000 equalized), but less money is required totally because
no  interest is paid.

                                X-24
-------
to
tO T3
CU  H  01
O  01
C  OJ
H  0]
    in  Q
jj  10  JJ <;
c  o  H 10
1-3 H
1-3 CO
< w
u <


O D
2 2

£ §
CO
H 63
x a

o2
o M

o> <
rH










rH Ul
rH 3
10 rH X
O 04 10
0 EH
i-3 0)
tji ifl 0)
0) -rl 01 CU
+ l I V fl\ ^r*
•*J fN y> w,
'x ^ < s
ro 63*0
~- 0) CU «H
g 01 cji o
E rH «1 10
3 10 0) >H 0)
rH JJ 01 Q) JJ
O O 01 > 10
CJ EH < 
O UJ -i-l
O JJ JJ
IN 10 10
rH K C
1 10 H
3 X CU
in C (0 JJ
CO C EH rH
Cft ^ i^
NI-ITJ
0) (1) O
C » tjl 01 -rl
6 04 iO w 10
rH Ol fl) W 0
O 3 £* W 2*
cj 2 < < —








rH
QJ
*J
iH PC
10
0 X
SlO
EH

 01
CJ -H: li






So»2rHO^™°SSooS^S?!?1?°
rH i-H rH rH r-l r-l












•0
CO
01
V
01
01


o
o
o
r-l
u>
^^
rH ^" ^* C^ O rH CO 00 rH fr) 00 00 O 00 CO LTJ ^ 03 0>j
Cf><*>OvninCX3r-l(NCOMCX5tN




•a
CU
0]
01
OJ
01
in
"*•
o
o
o
rH
•
r^r^r^
                                                                                                3
                                                                                                10
                                                                                                0)
                                                                                                IH
                                                                                                3
                                                                                                CQ


                                                                                                O
                                                                                                c  •
                                                                                                M O3
                                                                                                (U  •
                                                                                                >  a
                                                                                                   o
                                                                                                .  CO
                                                                                                01 CA
                                                                                                C rH


                                                                                                N  -
                                                                                                •rl ON
                                                                                                    Ifl
                                                                                                 »  3
                                                                                                r   >-l
                                                                                                C J3
                                                                                                •H  0)
                                                                                                4J b
   (V

0) Q


• >'
                          4J
                           C
                          -H
                                       •a
oj o
C 3)



C C  OJ  0)   Jj Jj jj
 .3  3  W CO -H
 O  (Q  Q) (D £
CO  3  S S S
                                                                                                   O
                                                                                                   Z
                                                        • • 00
                                                        0) U3
                                                        O
                                                        S-l   •
                                                        3 rH
                                                        O  O
                                                        W >
           X-25
-------
                          TABLE 15
         MOSAIC ALTERNATIVE (MMSD RECOMMENDED PLAN)
         PEAK YEAR ASSESSED TAX RATES BY COMMUNITY
Bayside
Brown Deer
Cudahy
Fox Point
Franklin
Glendale
Greendale
Greenfield
Hales Corners
Milwaukee
Oak Creek
River Hills
St. Francis
Shorewood
South Milwaukee
Wauwatosa
West Allis
West Milwaukee
Whitefish Bay
Column 1

Mosaic
Alternative:
Peak Year
Assessed Tax
Rate
C1989 or 1990)1'3

$24.11/$1000a
  5.00
 15.04
  9.88
 17.87
 19.38
 25.58
 28.00
 30.92
  6.04
 27.54
  8.40
 15.23
  7.13.
   .784
 11.59
 16.00
 26.39
 11.33
                                     Column 2
Average
Assessed
Property
Value
(1979)2

$24,000
 62,500
 17,300
 55,800
 19,300
 19,500
 15,600
 11,100
 11,000
 33,400
 10,600
 95,400
 15,700
 60,500
 41,700
 30,500
 19,200
  9,600
 40,100
             Column 3  (1x2)
Average
Peak
Year
Payment
(1989 or 1990) 3

$579
 313
 260
 551
 345
 378
 399
 311
 340
 202
 292
 801
 239
 431
  33
 354
 307
 253
 454
 per $1000 assessed value

 Derived from Table 19 in Appendix X.  Assessed to Equalized
 Property Value Ratios appear in the first table of this section.
 The Assessed tax rates are derived from a Milwaukee County
 Equalized Peak Year Tax Rate of $5.04/$1000 equalized value.

 From Table 13 of this Addendum.

 Impact of MWPAP only; not of other County expenditures.

 South Milwaukee's Average Assessed Value is given, but it
 represents the cost of upgrading the South Milwaukee plant.
                                X-26
-------
As indicated above, the peak year tax rate occurs in 1984  ($11.99
per $1000 equalized value), assuming that no bonds are issued  for
the MWPAP and it is financed with a direct tax levy.  Table 16 of
this addendum shows the peak year, 1984, assessed tax rates for
Milwaukee County communities, the average assessed property values,
and the resulting tax payment, assuming no bonds are issued.

The rates and payments in  this table should not be used for compari-
son among communities.

9.0  FISCAL IMPACT ON RENTERS

A geographically-balanced  sample of the 1978 Sales Analysis for
sales of multi-family dwellings in the City of Milwaukee was used
to calculate an average unit value.  Most of the buildings in  the
sample were 8, 12, or 24 unit structures.  The per unit price
ranged from $12,800 to $25,500.  The average unit price was
$19,000.  The City of Milwaukee's equalized property value
increased 10.5% from 1978  to 1979.  Therefore, in order to update
the 1978 figure to 1979 (the year used for property values in  the
EIS), it must be increased by 10.5% to $21,879.  For estimating
purposes, this 1979 average rental unit value for the City of
Milwaukee is rounded to $22,000.

Assuming that any increase in property taxes on a multi-family
structure would be passed  on to the renter in the form of increased
rent, Table 17 presents the fiscal impact which would result.
                             TABLE 17
                 MWPAP ESTIMATED IMPACT ON RENTERS
Equalized
Per $1000
Tax Rate

  $4.37
   4.37
   4.37
   4.37

  $6.50
   6.50
   6.50
   6.50
  Rental
Unit Value

 $15,000
  22,000
  30 ,000
  50,000

 $15,000
  22,000
  30,000
  50,000
Annual Tax
Passed On

  $ 66.
    96.
   131.
   218.

  $ 98.
   143.
   195.
   325.
(T  12)   =
    Monthly
Rental Increase

    $ 6.00
      8.00
     11.00
     18.00

    $ 8.00
     12.00
     16.00
     27.00
The table estimates typical monthly increases in rent for two tax
rates and four rental unit values.  The $4.37 rate is the 1985-
2005 average Milwaukee County property tax rate for the MMSD
                                X-27
-------
                               TABLE 16

     TAX PAYMENTS ASSUMING NO BONDINGS; PEAK YEAR ANALYSIS:  1984
Mosaic
Alternative :
Peak Year
Assessed1
Tax Rate
(1984)
$57.42/$1000
11.90
35.82
23.53
42.55
46.15
60.91
66.67
73.62
14.37
65.57
20.00
36.25
16.97
.78
27.59
38.10
62.83
26.97

Average
Assessed
Property
Value
(1979)
$ 24,000
62,500
17,300
55,800
19,300
19,500
15,600
11,100
11,000
33,400
10,600
95,400
15,700
60,500
41,700
30,500
19,200
9,600
40,100

Average
Peak
Year
Payment
(1984)
$1,378
744
620
1,313
821
900
950
740
810
480
695
1,908
569
1,027
33
841
732
603
1,081
Bayside
Brown Deer
Cudahy
Fox Point
Franklin
Glendale
Greendale
Greenfield
Hales Corners
Milwaukee
Oak Creek
River Hills
St. Francis
Shorewood
South Milwaukee
Wauwatosa
West Allis
West Milwaukee
Whitefish Bay

^Assumes no bonds are issued.  Property taxes must cover capital
 costs on a pay-as-you-go basis.
                                X-28
-------
Recommended Plan. The $6.50 rate represents a  "worse  case"
analysis  (Section 3.0) where costs are  15% higher, the
program is only 25% grant funded, and G.O. bonds are  sold at
7.5%.  The table also provides a list of rental unit  values
ranging from $15,000 to $50,000  (1979 full value) which
should encompass most rental units in Milwaukee County.
Depending upon the value of the apartment unit, a renter in
a multi-family complex could expect to  pay between $66. and
$325 in additional in annual rent as a  result  of the  MWPAP.
It should be noted that this analysis assumes  that landlords
will pass on to renters the full cost of all property tax
increases due to the MWPAP.

10.0  FISCAL IMPACTS ON LOW AND FIXED INCOME RESIDENTS

A 1979 Wisconsin Department of Revenue  publication, entitled
"Wisconsin Tax Burden Study", concluded that statewide,
residential property taxes, before the  Homestead Credit, are

     "sharply regressive for incomes up to $20,000
     falling from an effective rate of  just over six
     percent at the low end of this income range to
     about 2.5% (at the high end).  For incomes in
     excess of $20,000,  the tax was still regressive  but
     less so.   The effective rate dropped to around 1.5%
     for incomes of $100,000".    (The Homestead credit
     program reduces the regressivity of the tax somewhat
     for incomes under $14,000)

The impact of financing the MWPAP by the Milwaukee County
property tax will likely be most pronounced on fixed  and low
income households.   Fixed income households are more  severely
burdened by the property tax because as property values
increase and incomes do not, greater tax burdens result.
Not only will the MWPAP burden low and  fixed income households
with increased payments,  but because the property tax method
which has been a regressive tax,  will be used to finance the
MWPAP,  lower income households will devote a larger percentage
of their income to pay for MMSD improvements than will
higher income households.   To the extent that landlords pass
along higher taxes in the form of increased rent, low income
homeowners and renters will bear a disporportionate share
of the burden.

11.0  ERRATA

Page 103,  Paragraph 4:

     Line 14:   Change "32%" to "3.2%".

Page 97,  Table 56:

     Change Brookfield's  average annual house charges from
     "53,  34,  39"  to "131,  110,  95".

Page 132:

     Line  13:   Change "Volt" to  "Vogt".
                               X-29
-------