-------
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
-------