-------
In Febr uary 1973, the Rock County 3oard formally requested that an environmen-
tal imrpact statement be prepared for the Fifth Addition to the treatment plant.
In Ju'/y 1974, WISO proposed the establishment of a Facilities Planning Advisory
Commt ttesj to guide the conduct of a Facilities Planning Study. The proposal
included representatives from Rock County on the Commithee.
In September 1974, this Agency determined that the construction of the Fifth
Adr'jition could proceed without a formal environmental impact statement, how-
ever, a formal EIS would be required at the completion of the facilities Plan
f'or proposals beyond tho Fifth Addition.
At the saime time, USEPA funded the construction of the Fifth Addition to provide
secondary treatment for capacity of 50 MOD, including the abandonment of the old
trickling fi Iters. The capacity addition is necessary for any advanced waste
treatment al tsrnative and serves to improve treatment conditions during the
interim planning period.
3. Fj acillties Planning and Related EIS
On December !5I, 1974, MMSD was awarded a Step I Grant (Grant No. C550325-OI-02)
from UStlPA t: 3 prepare a facilities plan which would meet the requirements of
Wisconsin Po Mutant Discharge Elimination System Permit No. rtI-002541 I. The
fac! IItiles p Ian was to include documentation to determine the cost-effective
construction of advanced waste treatment facilities and disposal of effluent,
and handling and disposal of sludge from the treatment facilities.
In July I975i, the facilities planning effort was segmented into two portions,
(1) advancec I waste treatment and effluent discharge (Grant No. C550825-OI ) and
(2) solids Handling and disposal (Grant No. C550326-02). This segmentation
was done be< :ause of the need to expedite the solids handling portion of the
study.
In October I975, a Draft EIS was filed with the Council on Environmental Duality
on the soli ds handling and disposal portion of the facilities plan. A Final
EIS on the < organic solids reuse plan was made available to the public in June
I977. Desi gn work has been completed and the sludge facilities are under con-
struction. They are expected to be in operation in the spring of I932.
Therefore, this final EIS covers only the segment of MMSD's overall facilities
planning ef fort concerned with advanced waste treatment and effluenf discharge
issues.
Facilties p/anning documents include:
I976 Faci I ities PI'an and Environmental Assessment
8 vol umes
Prep; ared for the Madison Metropolitan
Sewe rage Distr ict by O'Brien and Geer Engineers
and CH2M Hill Engineers
1-4
-------
1980 Draft Facilities Plan Update
2 Volumes of technical memoranda plus summary volume
Prepared for the Madison Metropolitan
Sewerage District by CH2M Hill Engineers
The 1976 Facilities Plan proposed an alternative which included:
— Assumption of 50 MGD secondary treatment capacity from Fifth
Addition
— Rotating biological contactors for nitrification, a form
of advanced wastewater treatment for ammonia control
(treatment beyond the secondary level )
— Granular media filtration to control solids
— Breakpoint chlorination for nitrogen control and disinfection
— Dechlor I nation to protect stream life
Holding ponds for flow equalization
— Post aeration to increase dissolved oxygen
Improved effluent pumping system to Badfish Creek discharge
location.
The alternatives examined in the 1976 Facilities Plan had to meet treatment
levels established to provide for full fish and aquatic standards in the
entire length of Sadfish Creek. These discharge permit requirements were
(30 day averages):
30D5 3.0 mg/l
Suspended Solids 3.0 mg/l
Dissolved Oxygen 7.0 mg/l
Total Ammonia as Nitrogen O.I mg/l
Chlorine Residual O.I mg/l
pH 6-9
Present worth project costs were estimated to be $47.2 million for this alter-
native for the 20-year planning period.
C. EIS ISSUES
Water quality impacts are a concern of the downstream users of Badfish Creek
and the Yahara and Rock Rivers. Past effluent quality of the Madison effluent
has been low, because of undersized and inadequate treatment facilities. This
1-5
-------
led to stream deterioration. The volume of effluent is also large compared to
the natural flow of 3adfish Creek. Flooding has been a problem in some areas.
Water quality issues raised substantial public controversy over a period of
years.
Questions were raised about examining alternative discharge locations and
whether it was most appropriate to discharge to Badfish Creek. This included
potential impacts to the Upper Yahara River if the effluent discharge were
changed. Another concern was the economic bias towards continuing the 3adfish
Creek discharge that the existing discharge pipeline implies.
The Notice of Intent to prepare the EIS on this project was issued in September
1974.
0. DRAFT EIS
The Draft EIS issued in June 1973, examined a variety of discharge location
alternatives:
1. No action
2. Wisconsin River
3. Koshkonong Nuclear Power Plant reuse, plus Rock River backup
4. Badfish Creek
5. Yahara River
6. Split discharge between Badfish Creek and Yahara River
7. Land application/groundwater recharge
The selected discharge alternative was Badfish Creek. A variety of treatment
systems were examined for each discharge location.
Between the time the Facilities Plan was written and the Draft EIS was issued,
the stream classification of Badfish Creek was modified from full fish and
aquatic life throughout its length to distinctions between three segments
(see F igure I-2):
— Point of discharge to confluence with the Oregon Branch (about
3.6 miles) = effluent ditch
Oregon Branch to Highway "A" bridge (about 7 miles)
= intermediate segment
— Highway "A" bridge to confluence with the Yahara River
(about II miles) = full fish and aquatic life standards.
1-6
-------
Figure 1-2
NINE SPRINGS WASTEWATER
1 TREATMENT PLANT
'EFFLUENT FORCE MAIN
-EFFLUENT DITCH
CTH-B
SCALE IN MILES
OREGON
BRANCH
SAND HILL RD.
_ TOWN LINE RD.
STEBBINSVILLE RD.
CASEY RD.
Source: Summary of the Facilities Plan update
1-7
-------
The change in stream standards classification meant that a somewhat less highly
treated effluent could be released to Badfish Creek than was assumed in the
original Facilities Plan document. The new permit limits were (30 day average):
Dissolved Oxygen 6.0 mg/l
Total Ammonia as Nitrogen 1.0 mg/l (summer); 3.0 mg/l (winter)
300, suspended solids, chlorine residual and pri limits were unchanged by the
recI ass i f i cation.
The Draft EIS recommended a treatment alternative to meet the new effluent
Ii mits:
Assumption of 50 MGD secondary treatment capacity from the Fifth
Addition
Assumption of solids handling capacity, based on previous sludge
EIS
Rotating biological contactors for nitrification for ammonia control
(treatment beyond the secondary level)
No breakpoint chlorination/no dechlorination
— Granular media filtration to control solids
Ozonation for disinfection and to provide additional DO
— Holding ponds for flow equalization
Improved effluent pumping system to the Badfish Creek
Present worth project costs were estimated to range between $44.2-$47.2
mi I I ion.
E. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Events prior to the Draft EIS are summarized in Chapter 5 of the Environmental
Assessment volume of the Facilities °lan.
A Facilities Planning Advisory Committee was formed in the fall of 1974.
Representatives participated from MMSO, Dane County Regional Planning
Commission, Rock County, Rock Valley Metropolitan Council, Wisconsin DNR,
USEPA, and a citizen representative. This group provided assistance in
developing the Facilities Plan for Madison and contributed to public
partici pat ion.
The public hearing on the Draft EIS was held in two sessions on August 17,
1978, in Madison and Janesville, Wisconsin. Transcripts are availab'e for
1-8
-------
reference at USEPA, Region V, Wisconsin DNR, 3ureau of Environmental Impact in
Madison, and at the Janesville Public Library. The issues are summarized in
Chapter 6 of this document.
F. PROJECT HISTORY HIGHLIGHTS
First wastewater treatment in Madison
Original Nine Springs treatment facility built
Discharge prohibited to Madison Lakes
Discharge to Badfish Creek begun
Fourth Addition to the Nine Springs plant
Badfish Creek reclassified to meet fish and
aquatic life standards
Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS on sludge
facilities and advanced treatment facilities
Facilities Plan Document
Badfish Creek reclassified into segments
Draft EIS - sludge
Final EIS - sludge
Fifth Addition on line for additional
secondary treatment capacity
Draft EIS - wastewater treatment
and discharge
Public Hearing on Draft EIS for wastewater
Facilities Plan Update on technical issues
Final WPDES Permit Issued
G. RECORD OF DECISION
I890's
1923
1951
1953
1951
1971
September 1974
August 1975
October 1975
October 1975
August 1977
November 1977
June 1973
August 17, 1973
January 1930
Jul/ 1933
A Record of Decision on this Agency's final action and mitigativs measures pro-
posed project will be issued at least 30 days after the official filing date
of this Final EIS. A copy will be sent to those persons who receive a copy of
this Final EIS and to all others who request it.
1-9
-------
CHAPTER 2
ALTERNATIVES
A. DESIGN FACTORS AND ASSUMPTIONS
^ • jntroduction
In this Chapter we will present alternatives for the treatment unit components.
Detailed evaluation of the system alternatives and their environmental
impacts will occur in Chapter 4. Changes which have occurred between the
Draft and Final EIS will be highlighted in both chapters.
2• F|ow Design S i ze and Water Cgnseryat i on
Per capita flow projections have been derived from historical records dating
back to 1954. These flow data show an average annual increase in the per
capita flow rate of 0.8 gallons per capita per day. This historical increase
has been incorporated into the 20-year projection of future flows to the
wastewater treatment plant. Industrial flows have also been considered. The
result is the 50 MGD design value for the year 2000. Details on flow are
provided in Technical Memorandum 1-3 of the 1980 Facilities Plan Update and
in the Draft EIS. The 50 MGD value was used in the 1977 Fifth Addition for
secondary treatment capacity.
Madison has recently initiated a voluntary water conservation program which
has resulted in decreased water use. Much of the decrease has been in such
forms as reduced lawn watering, which will not affect sewage flows.
3. Wastewater^CharacterjsjMcs
The technical aspects of the Madison domestic and industrial influent have
been discussed in Technical Memorandum 1-8 of the 1980 Facilities Plan Update.
The wastewater character is predominantly domestic, with slightly higher 30D
and grease levels than in strictly domestic influent.
4• Sjudge Treatment FacM|t[es
Sludge issues have already been addressed in the 1977 Final EIS on solids
handling facilities. The new improvements should begin operation in the
spring of 1982.
^ • Land_Regujrements
A 72-acre land parcel, immediately west of the Nine Springs Wastewater Treat-
ment Plant, has been purchased by the MMSD. It will be used to provide expan-
sion area and to maintain a 500-foot buffer zone between the facilities and
a residential area.
2-1
-------
3. WATER DUALITY STANDARDS AND DISCHAR3E PERMIT
1. Water OualIty Standards
The following water quality standards have been developed for Badfish Cree«:
Table 2-1 Water Quality Standards for Badfish Creek
3adfish Creek (I)
Parameter
D0(mg/l )
Total Ammonia
as Nitrogen
pH (units)
o
Temperature ( F)
Coliform (No./lOO ml)
Value
Mini mum
Summer
Winter
Range
Maxi mum
Geometric mean (4)
Maxi mum
Reach 1
I
None
None
5.0-9.0
None
200
400
Reacn 2
3
3 (2)
5 (2)
5.0-9.0
None
200
400
Reach 3
5
Not Specified (5)
Not Specified
5.0-9.0 (3)
39
200
400
(1) Reach 1: Is the effluent channel, extending from the MSD outfall to
channel's confluence with the Oregon Branch.
Reach 2: Is from the confluence of the effluent channel with the Oregon
3ranch, downstream to County Trunk Highway A.
Reach 3: Is from County Trunk Highway A, downstream to the confluence
with the Yahara River (see Figure 1-2).
(2) Established in consideration of minimum dissolved oxygen requirement.
(3) No greater than 0.5 units outside natural conditions.
(4) More than 10 percent of samples in any given month shall not exceed this
value.
(5) Ammonia values will oe discussed in Section C of this chapter.
No substances which may bs chronically toxic to fish and aquatic life are
permitted in Reach 3. Table 2-2 contains water quality standards recommended
from a number of sources for protection of fish and aquatic life from such
chronic toxicity. In addition, the Wisconsin ONR Administrative Code states
that all three classifications of the receiving stream should meet the follow-
ing conditions at all times:
2-2
-------
Parameter
Color
Total Suspended Solids
Total Phenols
PCB's
Al
Ag
As
B
Ba
Be
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
K
Pb
Mn
Hg
Mb
Ni
Se
Sn
Va
Zn
Chlorides
Fluorides
Nitrites
Sulfides
Cyanides (free)
Total Combined Chlorine
References:
Table 2-2
Recommended Maximum
In-stream Concentrations _ References
10% Seasonal Change | ,3
25-400 mg/l I
I ug/l I, 3
0.001 ug/l 3
0.07 mg/l 2
0.003 mg/l 2
0.01 mg/l |
6250 mg/l 2
5.0 mg/l 2
I.I mg/l 2
12.0 ug/l -j
0.10 mg/l 1,3
0.01 mg/l |
1.0 mg/l 3
50 mg/l 2
0.01 mg/l |
1.0 mg/l 2
0.05 ug/l 3
54 mg/l 2
O.I mg/l I,
0.25 mg/l 2
1.2 mg/l 2
4.8 mg/l 2
0.01 mg/l |
400 mg/l 2
1.5 mg/l 2
50 mg/l 2
0.005 mg/l |
0.005 mg/l |, 3
0.05 mg/l |
I. National Academy of Sciences. Water Qualify Criteria, I97'2.
2. O'Brien and Gere, 1976 a; (From McKee, J. E.. and Wolf, H. W. Water Quality Criteria. 1963.)
3. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Qua.lity Criteria For Water, 1976.
Source: Facilities Plan Update
Technical Memorandum 2-D
WATER CXJALITY STANDARDS
FOR FISH AND AQUATIC LIFE
2- 3
-------
o Substances that will cause objectionable deposits on the shore or in
the bed of a body of water shall not be present in such amounts as to
interfere with the public rights in waters of the State;
o Floating1 or submerged debris, oil, scum, or other materials shall not
be present in such amounts as to interfere with public rights in waters
of the SV-ate;
o Materials producing color, odor, taste, or uns ight I i ness shall not be
present in such amounts as to interfere with public rights in waters
of the
o Substances in concentrations or combinations which are toxic or harmful
to humans shall not be present in amounts found to be of public health
significance, nor shall substances be present in amounts which are
acutely harmful to animal, plant, or aquatic life.
The classification of the three reaches of 3adfish Creek have been changed
since t'he or i ginal F aci I ities P I an was prepared in 1976. Formerly, all three
reaches were classified to maintain full fish and aquatic life. Now, Reach 1
is class; if ied as an e
-------
Table 2-3
Revisions to WPDES Permit Limits for Nine Springs Wastewater Treatment Plant.
7 Day Average 30 Day Average
80D5 (»ng/1 ) 20 19
SS (mg/l) 23 20
Total ammonia as
nitrogen
(summer - mg/l) 3.2 2.7
(winter - mg/l) 6.0
Note: These permit modifications were finalized October I, 1980.
2-5
-------
ionized and unionized ammonia. The relative quantities of each will depend on
the pH and temperature of the wastewater. Figure 2-1 shows +his relationship.
Increasing the temperature and/or increasing the pH will increase the propor-
tion of unionized ammonia present.
TKN; Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen is all the ammonia nitrogen, and organic nitro-
gen in a sample of wastewater. Past test results have shown the MMSD effluent
to contain an almost constant level of 3.0 mg/l of organic nitrogen. Therefore,
for any value of TKN, the total ammonia nitrogen can be found by subtracting
3.0 mg/l.
The chemical symbols (Nhb, etc.) for the various ammonia forms are not used
consistantly and can be confusing. In this EIS, therefore, the names will
be written out.
In addition to controlling the toxic unionized portion, it is desirable to limit
total ammonia levels. Ammonia exerts an oxygen demand, reducing the DO
concentration and can also be an aquatic plant nutrient, promoting undesirable
excess plant growth, see Technical Memorandum 2-8.
2. Draft EIS Vajues
The total ammonia limits for effluent in the Draft EIS were based on not exceeding
0.02 mg/l of unionized ammonia nitrogen in the reaches of Sadfish Creek below
Highway A. The 0.02 mg/l criteria was developed to protect fish life. The
effluent limit of total ammonia to achieve this in-stream value was determined
to be 1.0 mg/l (summer) and 3.0 mg/l (winter), as a monthly average. The effluent
values assumed a DO of 6.0 mg/l, minimum.
A number of questions were raised at the time of the Draft EIS about selecting
appropriate ammonia levels specifically for Badfish Creek. The in-stream limit
of 0.02 mg/l of unionized ammonia was based on EPA's 1972 "Blue 3ook" Water
Q£aJ^Jjfy_CrjJ;erj_a, (subsequently revised in 1976, "Red Book"). Those values
are based on nationwide studies and tend to be fairly conservative. A value
designed to meet the conditions of 3adfish Creek under its new classification
into three reaches was suggested. Another change since the initial Facilities
Plan studies was the operation of the Fifth Addition of the Nine Springs Plant.
This addition expanded the secondary treatment facilities, with an improvement
in the water quality of 3adfish Creek, see Chapter 3. Since the 1976 Facilities
°lan, the water quality model used by the WDNR to determine effluent limits
has undergone refinements and is utilizing fewer assumptions not based on actual
data.
^ • jtud|es Conducted
The Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District and the University of Wisconsin con-
ducted a series of bioassay tests to test the lethality of the Nine Springs
effluent on rainbow trout and bluegill sunfish. The 96-hour lethality value
to 50% of the population (96-hour LC ) was found to be 1.09 mg/l of unionized
ammonia. An extensive literature review accompanied the bioassay studies,
see Table 2-4. From literature values and test results, a new stream water
2-6
-------
Figure ?-l
RELATIONSHIP OF A1VMONIA CONCENTRATION, pH, AND TEMPERATURE
0.2
Source: Facilities Plan Update
Technical Msnorandum 2-B
2-7
-------
quality standard of 0.05 mg/l of unionized ammonia as nitrogen (7-day average)
was established for 3adflsh Creek. This standard has been accepted both
by WDNR and USEPA as valid for Badfish Creek. Technical Memorandum 2-C of
the Facilities Plan Addendum describes this work in detail.
Additional modeling work was performed to determine effluent limits to meet the
new 0.05 mg/l standard and to reflect the improved condition of Badfish Creek.
The values were to be achieved in the third reach of Badfish Creek (full fish
and aquatic life), taking into account the changes which would occur in the
upper two reaches. Technical Memorandum 3A presents a full discussion of the
model ing effort.
Stream surveys used in the modeling:
— Water quality data
1975 (I set)
1976 (2 sets)
1973 (2 sets)
1979 (I set)
— Diurnal water quality surveys (24-hour)
October 1978 - (see Technical Memorandum 3-8)
May 1979 - (see Technical Memorandum 3-C)
The mathematical water quality model used from this analysis, "Auto-Qual,"
simulated the one-dimensional steady-state distribution of conductivity,
dissolved oxygen, carbonaceous oxygen demand, and nitrogenous oxygen
mixing and transport, first order reaction terms for deoxygenation, nitrifi-
cation, settling, and reaeration, and sediment oxygen demand. Rate coeffi-
cients were adjusted to reflect inhibition of biological activity at low
concentrations of dissolved oxygen. This is the same model used in the 1975
Facilities Plan modeling.
The Badfish Creek model was validated against the six independent sets of
water quality survey data obtained under a variety of hydraulic, environ-
mental, and loading conditions. A consistent set of model coefficients were
used for all simulations, which attested to the versatility and reliability
of the model to simulate varied conditions.
After thorough validation, the model was used to evaluate water quality at
critical conditions in response to various levels of effluent quality. Simu-
lations were conducted for 1990, representing a time when the biology and
chemistry of the stream are expected to be in balance with the reduced effluent
loadings. Model coefficients in these simulations were properly adjusted to
reflect the projected improved water quality and wastewater effluent. Adjust-
ments were based on theoretical considerations, past research and special
laboratory and field studies. Simulations were also conducted for 1935 to con-
servatively reflect possible short-term conditions while the stream environment
is responding to improved effluent quality. In these simulations, model coeffi-
cients were not adjusted to reflect the improved effluent water quality.
2-3
-------
Table 2-4
LESS THAN 24 HR LC50 (NH3 in mg/l)
Item
1
2
3
4
5
Item
6
7
8
9
10
11
Item
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Item
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Item
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
LC50
1.34
1.15
1.02
0.79
0.61
LC50
2.91
0.70
0.50
0.47
0.36
028
LC50
3.55
2.79
2.04
0.73
0.73
0.57
0.56
050
LC50
8.98
8.50
7.29
3.76
3.64
2.43
1.82
1.58
1 51
146
1.34
1.16
1.06
1.05
1.02
0.97
0.94
0.92
0.87
0.87
0.80
0.59
0.55
0.52
0.49
0.39
LC50
182
0.50
050
0.50
0.49
0.49
044
042
0.40
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.24
019
Species
Gambusia
Brown Trout
Rainbow Trout
Rainbow Trout
Rainbow Trout
24 Hour LC50 (NH3 in mg/l)
Species
Channel Catfish
Rainbow Trout
Rainbow Trout
Rainbow Trout
Rainbow Trout
Atlantic Salmon
48 Hour LC50 (NH3 in mg/l)
Species
Channel Catfish
Blugill
Flathead Minnows
Rainbow Trout
Rainbow Trout
Rainbow Trout
Rainbow Trout
Rainbow Trout
96 Hour LC50 (NH3 in mg/l)
Species
Bluegill Sunfish
Flathead Minnows
Bluegill Sunfish
Channel Catfish
Channel Catfish
Channel Catfish
Channel Catfish
Bluegill Sunfish
Guppy Fry
Bass
Striped Bass
Bluegill
Bluegill
Bluegill
Stickleback
Bluegill
Bluegill
Striped Bass
Stickleback
Bass
Cutthroat Trout Fry
Bluegill
Coho Salmon
Cutthroat Trout Fry
Bluegill
Rainbow Trout Fry
THRESHOLD LC50 (NH3 in mg/l)
Species
Rainbow Trout
Bream
Carp
Rainbow Trout
Rudd
Rainbow Trout
Rudd
Roach
Trout Spawn
Rainbow Trout
Perch
Trout Spawn
Rudd
Rainbow Trout Spawn
Source Time (hr)
Hemens; 1966 17.0
Penaz; 1965 96
Lloyd, Herbert; 1960 8.3
Smart; 1976 20
Smart; 1976 50
Source
Robmette; 1976
Ball; 1967
Ball; 1967
Lloyd, Orr; 1969
Herbert, Shurben; 1963
Herbert, Shurben, 1965
Source
Sparks; 1975
Sparks; 1975
Sparks; 1975
Brown; 1968
Herbert, Shurben; 1963
Herbert, Shurben; 1964
Herbert, Van Dyke; 1964
Ball; 1967
Source
McKee, Wolf; 1963
McKee Wolf; 1963
McKee, Wolf; 1963
Colt, Tchobanoglous; 1976
Roseboom, Richey; 1977
Colt, Tchobanoglous; 1976
Roseboom, Richey; 1977
Roseboom, Richey; 1977
Rubin, Elmaraghy; 1977
Roseboom, Richey, 1977
Hazel, et al; 1971
Ruffier; 1978
Ruffier;1978
Ruffier; 1978
Hazel, et al; 1971
Roseboom, Richey; 1977
Ruffier; 1977
Hazel, et al; 1971
Hazel, et al; 1971
Roseboom, Richey; 1977
Thurston, et al, 1978
Roseboom, Richey; 1977
Buckley; 1978
Thurston, et al; 1978
Roseboom, Richey; 1977
Willmgham, et al, 1978
Source
Merkins, Downing; 1957
Ball; 1967
Vamos, Tasnadi; 1967
Herbert, Shurben; 1963
Wat Poll Res 1971; 1972
Lloyd, Herbert, 1960
Ball, 1967
Ball; 1967
Wuhrmann, Woker; 1948
Lloyd, Herbert; 1960
Ball; 1967
Wuhrmann, Woker; 1948
Wat Poll Res 1971; 1972
Danecker;1964
Source: Facilities Plan Update
Technical Memorandum 2-B
AMMONIA TOXICITY TO FISH
2-9
-------
Results of the water quality modeling for a critical instream temperature of
22 C, pH of 8.0, and a 7-day, 10-year low flow, demonstrate the following:
If no modifications are made to the existing channel aeration capacity,
then a daily pollutant limitation of 20 mg/l total 300 and 7 mg/l
TKN must be attained to satisfy the dissolved oxygen limitation in
the third reach of Badfish Creek. (Note: aeration modification options
will be discussed in Section F-5 of this chapter.) If the first cascade
aerators are replaced with U-tube aeration, then daily pollutant
limitations of 20 mg/l total 30D and 9 mg/l TKN must be attained to
meet the dissolved oxygen water quality standard.
If the existing cascade aerators are removed and ozonation is used as
the means of effluent disinfection, then daily pollutant limitations
of 20 mg/l total 30D and II mg/l TKN must be attained to meet the
dissolved oxygen water quality standard.
— Conservative model simulations for 1985 suggested that limited dissolved
oxygen violations may occur in the short term under critical conditions.
This may occur immediately after improved treatment, but prior to a time
when the stream biology and chemistry have adjusted to the improved
water quality and effluent. However, it is anticipated that the stream
biology will quickly establish a new balance with the reduced effluent
loadings, so such occurences will be short-lived.
— Model simulations also indicated that weeds must be controlled to prevent
dramatic diurnal variations in dissolved oxygen, which may cause water
quality violations. The District currently harvests weeds from Badfish
Creek on a periodic basis.
Modeling results and operating data from the Fifth Addition of the Nine Springs
Plant were used to determine daily, weekly and monthly effluent limitations.
The 30-day limit for total ammonia is 2.7 mg/l in the summer and 8.0 mg/l in
the winter. These values will achieve the 0.05 mg/l unionized ammonia nitrogen
vaIue instream limit.
4. Summary of Ammonij Conclusions Used for the Final EIS
30-day average
Instream: DO mg/l 5.0
(reach 3) Unionized Ammonia as Nitrogen mg/l 0.05
pH 5-9
Effluent: 30D mg/l 19.0
TSS mg/l 20.0
DO mg/l 5.0
Total Ammonia mg/l 2.7 (summer)
as nitrogen 8.0 (winter)
pH 6-8
2-10
-------
D. OVERVIEW OF PREVIOUS ALTERNATIVES
1 • FaciJJtjes_P^an
In 1976 the Facilities Plan examined 23 discharge sites, including surface
alternatives, groundwater recharge, and industrial or agricultural effluent
reuse, see Section 7 of the Summary Plan in the Draft EIS. These were narrow-
ed down in the preliminary selection to: proposed Koshkonong Nuclear Power
Plant (reuse), Badfish Creek, Badfish Creek and Yahara River, and Wisconsin
River. Section 3-3 of the Draft EIS indicated our reservations about several
aspects of this screening. The final screening of the Facilities Plan chose
the Badfish Creek alternative as the most cost-effective. System alternatives
were examined which would produce the necessary effluent quality for Badfish
Creek, as described in Chapter 9 of V . 2 of the Draft EIS. The selected system
has been outlined in Section 3-3 of Chapter I.
2. Draft EIS
The alternatives examined in the Draft EIS were based on our analysis of the
Faci I it ies P I an 's final group of alternatives. They were:
"No Actjon" Alternative
Continued discharge to Badfish Creek with no new or upgraded facilities beyond
those constructed as part of the Fifth Addition and as part of the Organic
Solids Reuse Plan (Sixth Addition).
Aternate #
Discharge to the Yahara River with effluent meeting the highly nitrified (low
ammonia) level defined as "Effluent II" in MMSD's Facilities Plan.
Ajternatjye #2
Split discharge to Badfish Creek and the Yahara River with effluent meeting
the highly nitrified level defined as "Effluent II" in MMSD's Facilities
Plan.
A|ternat|ye #3
Continued discharge to Badfish Creek with effluent meeting Wisconsin Department
of Natural Resources proposed limitations for discharge to Badfish Creek, 5.0
mg/l D.O., total ammonia as nitrogen 1.0 mg/l (summer) 3.0 mg/l (winter).
Each of the system alternatives and its wastewater treatment component alterna-
tives was evaluated for costs, ability to meet receiving stream water quality
requirements, environmental impacts, reliability and flexibility. The array
of treatment component alternatives differed slightly from the Facilities Plan
because somewhat less ammonia removal was required for a Badfish Creek dis-
charge after the stream reel ass i f icat ion in the fall of 1975. Chapter 3 of the
Draft EIS presents the final alternatives analysis in detail. Alternative 3,
2-1 I
-------
Badfish Creek, was selected. The preferred treatment system consisted of rotat-
ing biological contactors, granular media filtration, ozonation and holding ponds
for flow equalization. The discharge location analysis from the Draft EIS is
incorporated into this Final EIS. A Badfish Creek discharge will be used for
each alternative.
E. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BETWEEN THE DRAFT AND FINAL EIS
Additional facilities planning work was performed after the Draft EIS was re-
leased. Part of this developed more treatment component alternatives for the
3adfish Creek discharge. These studies reflect the changes in stream classifi-
cation and operating data from pilot studies on certain units. These studies
are presented in the technical memoranda of the 1980 Faciltities Qlan Update.
They will be a basis of our alternatives analysis, below.
F. ALTERNATIVE COMPONENTS - FINAL EIS
'• Innovat i ye-A]ternat i ye Incentjve
The 1977 Clean Water Act amendments contain new provisions, initiated in Octo-
ber 1978, to encourage the use of new types of sewage treatment technology.
It defines certain technologies as being innovative or alternative (I/A).
Special emphasis is placed on ideas that: reclaim or reuse water, recycle
wastewater nutrients, eliminate surface discharge, conserve or recover energy,
or lower total costs. Qualifying I/A portions of a project may receive 85£
Federal funding for capital costs rather than the usual 75$. In addition,
if an I/A alternative fails to meet design goals within the first two years
of operation, the Federal Government will pay 100/6 of the cost of replacing
or correcting the failed system. Components which may be potentially classified
as I/A will be indicated as such in the following discussions.
2. Ammgn i a Removal (Nj_tr i f i cat ion|
The technical reasons for the level of ammonia removal required for a Badfish
Creek discharge have been discussed in Section C. More detailed information
on the various systems and the nitrification process is presented in Technical
Memorandum 4-C of the Facilities Plan Update.
The following alternatives will be examined:
single stage nitrification using standard efficiency diffusers.
activated sludge followed by air drive rotating biological contactors.
SURFACT process
air/oxygen single-stage nitrification
Additional alternatives were previously examined in the 1975 Facilities Plan:
2-12
-------
Single-stage activated sludge
Two-stage activated sludge
Rotating biological contactors
Zimpro-3iophysical system
Activated bio-filter
These alternatives assumed the need for a slightly higher degree of effluent
quality. Elements of many of them are used in the current set of alterna-
ti ves.
The alternatives under discussion in this Final EIS assume the expanded
secondary treatment capacity now on-line at the Nine Springs treatment plant.
a. Single-stage nitrification with standard efficiency diffusers.
Single-stage nitrification is a suspended growth biological treatment system.
It relies on several nitrifying bacteria to oxidize ammonia in the wastewater
first to nitrite and then to nitrate. The system, as an adaptation of the
activated sludge process, must be designed and managed with enough solids
retention time to allow the bacterial population to reproduce. This ensures
the maintenance of an adequate ongoing bacterial population which is neces-
sary for effective ammonia removal. Solids retention at Nine Springs would
be promoted by increasing the aeration volume and by increasing the mixed
liquor suspended solids concentration. Although this is an adaptation of
the existing activated sludge process, treatment capacity would have to
be doubled to use it on a long-term basis.
This method has been sucessfully demonstrated at the Nine Springs facility
from November 1977 to March 1979. (see Appendix A of Technical Memorandum
4-C). Standard efficiency diffusers are a fully proven technology at other
wastewater treatment plants.
Capital costs: $ 10,510,000
Operation and Maintenance costs: $ 1,436,000 per year
of this $ 393,000 is for electric power
Present worth cost: $ 25,300,000
b. Activated sludge followed by air drive rotating biological
contactors (R3C)
The R3C process consists of a number of large diameter corrugated plastic media
assemblies mounted on horizontal steel shafts. The media rotate in a concrete
tank of wastewater. Bacteria grow on the media and feed upon organic matter
in the wastewater (see Figure 2-2). The system encourages the growth of those
groups which convert ammonia to nitrate. The bacterial population will be
sloughed off the media to be suspended in the effluent. These suspended solids
are removed in a subsequent treatment process. An air drive system alterna-
tive is suggested for turning the RBC's, if the system is to be used at
Nine Springs. The air drive system has the advantages of increasing dissolved
oxygen and reducing maintenance problems.
2-13
-------
Figure 2-2
MEDIA
AIR CUPS
MEDIA ROTATION
RADIAL PASSAGES
AIR HEADER
,CONCRETE TANK
Source: Facilities Plan Update
Technical Memorandum 4-C
AIR-DRIVE RBC UNIT
2-14
-------
While R3C's have been used for about 20 years for wastewater treatment, the
air drive variation is more recent and has been used at facilities smaller
than Madison. The process itself is well established.
Capital cost: $13,220,000
0 & M cost: $ I ,454,000
of this $ 889,000 is for electric power
Present worth cost: $28,500,000
c. Single-stage nitrification using high efficiency diffusers
This alternative is similar to a, discussed above. It substitutes energy-
saving high efficiency diffusers. This is a potentially innovative process
because of its energy saving features. This system has been tested at the
Nine Springs plant. Possible problems may occur with increased plugging of
the fine bubble diffusers (high efficiency) compared to the standard coarse
bubble diffusers.
Capital costs: $11,210,000
0 & M costs: $ 934,000
of this $ 489,000 is for electric power
Present worth costs: $20,600,000
d. SURFACT process
The SURFACT process places RBC's in an air activated sludge tank, (see Figure
2-3). A fixed film of bacteria grows on the rotating media while suspended
bacteria grow in the activated sludge. The biological activities of both
populations of bacteria treat the wastewater to a high degree. The existing
activated sludge tanks would be retrofitted with the R3C's.
One prototype facility is operating in Philadelphia. Its abilities for
nitrification must be tested. This is a potentially innovative system to
use for nitrification. Some energy savings may also be achievable with this
system.
Capital costs: $15,050,000
0 & M costs: $ 991,000
of this $ 521,000 is for electric power
Present worth costs: $25,300,000
e. Air/oxygen single-stage nitrification
This alternative modifies (c) by adding pure oxygen vent gas from an ozonation
disinfection system (see alternatives under Section 3, below) in addition to using
the high efficiency air diffusers.
Because this is a new approach to wastewater treatment, it is potentially inno-
vative. Some energy and sizing savings may be realized. Enough oxygen would
be generated by the ozonation system to be recycled and treat about 25 percent
of the effluent. About 75 percent of the flow would be handled by the high
efficiency air diffusers.
2-15
-------
Figure 2-3
RADIAL PASSAGES
MEDIA ROTATION
SHAFT
AIR CUPS
MEDIA
SUPPLEMENTAL AIR HEADER
AIRDIFFUSER'
AERATION TANK
Source: Facilities Plan Update
Technical Memorandum 4-C
SURFACT PROCESS
2-16
-------
Capital costs: $12,530,000
0 & M costs: $ 933,000
of which $ 437,000 is for electric power
Present worth costs: $ 21,900
Implimenting this system would be dependent on selecting ozonation for disin
fection.
3.
A successful degree of suspended solids removal is required to achieve the
20.0 mg/l limit of the discharge permit. This level is less stringent than
the 8.0 mg/l assumed necessary in the Draft EIS. Granular media filtration
was selected in the Draft EIS. Microscreen i ng and chemical treatment were
also examined.
Because of the permit changes a new group of solids removal alternatives have
been covered in the Facilities Dlan Addendum, Technical Memorandum 4-D.
They include:
Granular media filtration by low head gravity filters
— Granular media filtration by highhead gravity filters (deep bed)
Granular media filtration by pressure filters
— Advanced secondary settling
The Technical Memorandum provides more detailed information on these alterna-
tives, to supplement our discussion in this Final EIS.
Filtration involves the transport of the particle from the bulk liquid to the
surface of the filter media and attachment of the particle to the media sur-
face. The types of physical mechanisms depend on the size of the particle.
Certain sized particles can be difficult to capture. The filter cycle has
a filtration phase for particle removal and a backwash phase to rejuvenate
the f i Iter.
a. Granular media filtration by low head gravity filter
Low head filters have shallow mu I ti -compartmented filters. Individual cells
may be backwashed while the rest of the filter continues to operate (see
Figure 2-4). This type of system must be frequently backwashed for effective
results. Most of the removal occurs at the surface of the filter.
Heavy loading of the filters leads to frequent backwashing. Chlorination of
the influent is recommended to reduce accumulation of slime, algae or grease
in the filters. This type of filter has fairly widespread use.
Capital costs: $5,920,000
0 & M costs: $ 329,000
of th i s $ 11,000 is for electric power
Present worth costs: $9,900,000
b. Granular media filtration by high head gravity filters (deep bed)
Deep bed filters have a longer filter run and the entire unit is backwashed at
once, in contrast to low head gravity filters. Removal occurs throughout the
2-17
-------
Figure 2-4
SPENT
BACKWASH
TO HEAD END
OF PLANT
c
FILTER
INFLUENT
FROM
NITRIFICATION
FACILITIES
SPENT BACKWASH
TROUGH
WASHWATER PUMP
ON TRAVELING
BRIDGE
BACKWASH
PUMP ON
TRAVELING BRIDGE
FILTER
EFFLUENT
TO HOLDING
POND OR
PUMP STATION
Source: Facilities Plan Update
Technical Memorandum 4-D
LOW HEAD GRAVITY FILTRATION SYSTEM
2-18
-------
Figure 2-5
WASH THROUGHS
BACKWASH
GULLET
FILTER BASIN
FILTER
MEDIA
GRADED GRAVEL
PERFORATED LATERALS
FILTER FLOOR
COURTESY: NEPTUNE MICROFLOC, INC.
Source: Facilities Plan Update
Technical Memorandum
H£AD QRAV1TY FILTER CONFIGURATION
2-19
-------
filter (see Figure 2-5). Media are selected to be compatible with the
influent and the degree of particle removal desired. Dual media filters
have been used in past pilot studies at Nine Springs. High head gravity
filters are widely used in water and wastewater treatment.
Capital costs: $4,760,000
0 & M costs: $ 350,000
of this $ 32,000 is for electric power
Present worth costs: $3,200,000
c. Granular media filtration by pressure filters
Pressure filters operate in an enclosed structure, as shown in Figure 2-5.
3ackwashing is performed on the entire unit. Pressure filters have the advan-
tage of boosting hydraulic pressure in subsequent units of the wastewater
treatment system. Filter media are selected to provide the desired degree
of treatment. The pressure of the system can be adjusted to match influent
characteristics.
Capital costs: $5,460,000
0 & M costs: $ 339,000
of this $ 42,000 is for electric power
Present worth costs: $9,000,000
d. Advanced secondary settling by clarification or flocculation
These are potentially innovative treatment techniques. Chemicals such as
polymers and alum enhance natural flocculation patterns. This can be done with-
in existing or new clarifiers. A combination of new flocculating clarifiers
plus a retrofit of some of the existing clarifiers is proposed for the Nine
Springs facility (see Figure 2-7).
Capital costs: $2,690,000
0 & M costs: $ 73,000
of this $ 3,000 is for electric power
Present worth costs: $3,400,000
4. Djsinfect|gri
Effluent disinfection is required by the discharge permit to limit bacterial
contamination instream. The Facilities Plan proposed breakpoint chlorina-
tion-dechlorination for ammonia control plus disinfection. The Draft EIS
has determined that biological nitrification was preferable for ammonia
control.
Ozonation was selected over chI orination for effluent disinfection. Technical
Memorandum 4-E presents an additional planning analysis of disinfection
alternatives. These include:
— chlorination-dechlorination
— ozonation
— ultraviolet radiation (UV).
2-20
-------
Figure 2-6
50 PSIG PRESSURE
VESSEL-
I COUPLING
AIR RELEASE
MEDIA
Q Q O Q O O
12"* 16" MANHOLE
ON VERTICAL
OF TANK
FILTER SUPPORTS
AT 1/4 POINTS
10" FLANGE INFLUENT
/BACKWASH WASTE
Q O O O O O Q
2" FLANGE
SURFACE WASH
10 FLANGE EFFLUENT
AND BACKWASH
2 FILTER DRAIN
ELEVATION
8'-0"O.D.
DISTRIBUTOR
12% 16" MANHOLE
SURFACEWASH
FILTER MEDIA
SUPPORT GRAVEL
CONCRETE
UNDERORAIN
LATERALS
COURTESY: NEPTUNE MICROFLOC, INC.
SOURCE: U.S. EPA, JANUARY 1975
Source: Facilities Plan Update
Technical Memorandum 4-D
PRESSURE FILTER CONFIGURATION
2-21
-------
Figure 2-7
O—TURBINE FLOCCULATOR WALKWAY
PLAN
TANK SIZE
DRIVE UNIT
INFLUENT PORTS
WALKWAY
SECTION
COURTESY OF: GENERAL FILTER COMPANY
Source: Facilities Plan Update
Technical Memorandum 4-D
•• EFFLUENT PIPE
FLOCCULATING CLARIFIER
2-22
-------
a. Chlorination-Dechlorination
Chlorination is the most usual way to disinfect effluent. It may be followed
by dechlorination to protect aquatic life from the potentially harmful effects
of chlorine concentrations.
Presently the Nine Springs effluent is chlorinated. Much of the existing
disinfection equipment is old and must be replaced to meet the needs of the
20-year planning period. A new system is considered for this alternative.
When a chlorine solution is mixed with wastewater, hypochlorous acid forms. The
acid is effective in reducing the number of bacteria in the treated effluent.
Chlorine may be stored on-site. Dechlorination may be accomplished by activated
carbon or sulfur dioxide. Adsorption on activated carbon particles is the more
expensive dechI orination process. Sulfur dioxide will instantaneously reduce
chlorine to chloride in the wastewater. Reaeration is necessary after this step
to restore DO levels.
Capital costs $3,290,000
0 & M costs $ 283,000
of this $66,000 is for electric power
Present worth costs: $5,900,000
b. Ozonation
Ozone inactivates viral particles and bacterial cells in a two-stage process.
This makes it an effective disinfectant for highly treated effluent. It also
has the advantage of increasing the effluent's DO level. Ozone must be gener-
ated on-site, with comparatively high power use. Energy costs are reduced if
ozone is produced from oxygen rather than from air. Because of the quantities
of ozone needed for a 50 MGD facility, it is preferable to generate it from
oxygen. Both a once-through and recycled ozone systems were considered, with
the once-through system being less expensive.
Ozonation has been used for many years to disinfect drinking water supplies,
but its use with wastewater is more recent. Better results are achieved with
highly treated effluent than with more turbid effluent.
Cost estimates presented here do not assume recycling through an oxygen activated
sludge system. The costs have previously been calculated in the nitrification
alternati ves.
Capital costs: $3,780,000
0 & M costs: $ 340,000
of which $ 235,000 is for electric power
Present worth costs: $7,300,000
c. Ultraviolet (UV)
o
Ultraviolet light of wavelength 2500-2600 A, produced by a low pressure mercury
vapor lamp, has disinfecting action. The light physically disrupts the nucleo-
2-23
-------
proteins of bacteria and viruses, with lethal results. The effectiveness of a
UV system depends on having a high quality effluent so that good light penetra-
tion occurs. Some components of wastewater may form a film on the UV lamps.
This must be removed by a wiper system, or other means, for successful system
operation.
The use of UV light for wastewater disinfection is a new application, so it is
potentially innovative technology. It has been used for water supply and food
processing disinfection.
Capital costs: $3,190,000
0 & M costs: $ 275,000
of which $ 86,000 is for electric power
Present worth costs: $6,100,000
5• Post Aeration
Post aeration is used to increase the DO concentration of treated effluent.
The discharge permit mandates a minimum DO of 5.0 mg/l for effluent discharge
to Badfish Creek. This is less than the 6.0 mg/l required at the time the
Draft EIS was prepared. Post aeration could occur in the effluent pipeline,
effluent ditch, or upper reach of 3adfish Creek. A number of alternatives are
presented In Technical Memorandum 4-F of the Facilities Plan Addendum:
— Mechanical surface aeration
— Fine bubble diffused aeration
— Cascade aeration
— Ozone di ffusion
— Pressure aeration
a. Mechanical Surface Aeration
Surface aerators mechanically agitate water to mix air bubble in with it. Al-
though this is a simple system, part of the system can ice up in the winter.
Figure 2-8-A shows a suitable type of surface aeration system. It is not a
suitable method for instream aeration, and so will not be considered further.
b. Fine Bubble Diffused Aeration
Air is bubbled from tubes to aerate the effluent in this type of system. Figure
2-3-3 shows a static tube system, which is less subject to clogging than some
other fine bubble designs. It is also not a suitable method for instream aera-
tion, and so will not be considered further.
c. Cascade Aeration
A series of shallow waterfalls can also be used for aeration, as shown in Figure
2-8-C. No energy is required, but the amount of oxygen added cannot be regulat-
ed. Two cascade aerations have been in use in the effluent ditch since 1957.
No net gain in DO concentrations could be added by using additional cascade
aerators, so it will not be considered further.
2-24
-------
BRUSH AERATOR
Figure 2-8
STATIC TUBE AERATOR
/DRIVE
ROTQRN BRUSHES-^ ^MECHANISM
CONCRETE
BASE
AIR-SUPPLY
TUBING
A. MECHANICAL AERATION
B. DIFFUSED BUBBLE AERATION
CASCADE STEP AERATOR
C. CASCADE AERATION
U-TUBE AERATOR
AIR—.,
u
EFFLUENT
CHANNEL
D. PRESSURE AERATION
Source: Facilities Plan Update
Technical Memorandum 4-F
2-25
POST AERATION DEVICES
-------
d. Ozone Diffusion
If ozone is used for wastewater disinfection, it also has the benefit of increas-
ing DO in the effluent. This alternative has already been discussed under
disinfection alternatives.
e. Pressure Aeration
Oxygen under pressure is more soluble in water. 3ecuase of this, pressure aera-
tion can be used to add large amounts of DO to effluent. Air can be added
at the suction end of effluent pumps, at the effluent pipeline in U-tubes at
the outfall, or force main, see Figure 2-3-D.
The force main installation would require the least amount of construction for
an effective system. This is the preferable alternative, and because it is a
new application, may be potentially innovative.
Capital costs: $ 360,000
0 & M costs: $ 84,000
of which $ 65,000 is for electric power
Present worth costs: $1,300,000
6. Ef fIuent Pumping and_Transport
Effluent must be transferred from the Nine Springs plant to 3adfish Creek. The
existing facilities will be inadequate to meet the 20-year planning needs for
Madison. The Facilities Plan Addendum, Technical Memorandum 4-G, details six
alternatives:
a. This provides for renovation of the existing effluent pumping
station. The existing 54-inch effluent pipeline to 3adfish Creek
would be used to carry a maximum sustained flow of 75 MGD. The
difference between this flow and the maximum day flow of 95
MGD would be stored on-site in a peaking storage basin.
b. This would be similar to the first alternative except that a
second parallel 54-inch pipeline to Badfish Creek would be
installed, with the objective of reducing total pumping head.
c. This would require that the existing effluent pump station
be replaced with a new 75-MGD pump station. This alternative
would be implemented in conjunction with peaking storage.
d. This would be similar to the third alternative, but a second
parallel 54-inch pipeline would also be added to reduce pumping
head.
e. This would consist of a new 115-MGD pump station and a second
parallel 54-inch pipeline. No peaking storage would be required.
f. This would provide for a new 115-MGD effluent pump station,
and a second I 15-MGD booster pump station to be located at an
intermediate point in the effluent pipeline. No peaking storage
wouId be provt ded.
2-25
-------
Capital costs: 0 & M Costs: Energy Costs: Present Worth Costs:
a. $4,560,000 a. $392,000 a. $295,000 a. $8,400,000
b. $7,790,000 b. $297,000 b. $203,000 b. $9,300,000
c. $5,580,000 c. $389,000 c. $296,000 c. $9,400,000
d. $8,810,000 d. $296,000 d. $203,000 d. $10,300,000
e. $6,770,000 e. $312,000 e. $227,000 e. $3,700,000
f. $4,840,000 f. $474,000 f. $296,000 f. $9,400,000
' IzajMgn
The Draft EIS proposed flow equalization for a 12-hour retention period in
order to dilute tpxic pollutants prior to discharge, to equalize flow
throughout the wastewater treatment plant and to dampen diurnal flow fluc-
tuations to 3adfish Creek. Technical Memorandum 4-8 describes additional
Facilities Planning evaluations, including a dye study and flow equalization
analysis. The use of flow equalization basins (a) was compared to providing
capacity within the system, in the filtration and effluent pumping facilities,
to handle the peak instantaneous flow rate (b). The peak instantaneous flow
is 115-MGD compared to the average daily (design flow) of 50 mgd. Table 2-5
presents a cost comparison for the two flow equalization alternatives.
2-27
-------
Table 2-5
Cost Component With Equalization Without Equalization
Flow Equalization Not Applicable
Capital Cost 4,100,000
0 & M Cost 5,400,000
Salvage Value (200,000)
Total PW 9,300,000
H. H. Gravity Filters
Capital Cost 4,300,000(l) 4,800,000(2)
O & M Cost 3,700,000 3,700,000
Salvage Value (300,000) (300,000)
Total PW 7,700,000 8,200,000
Effluent Pumping , . (^\
Capital Cost 9,IOO,000U) 9,800,000W
O&MCost 2,700,000 3,300,000
Salvage Value (1,000,000) (1,000,000)
Total PW 10,800,000 12,100,000
Total Costs
Capital Cost 17,500,000 14,600,000
O&MCost 11,800,000 7,000,000
Salvage Value (1,500,000) (1,300,000)
Total PW 27,800,000 20,300,000
(I) Costs estimated for this TM based on filtration process designed for 95 mgd; apply to
Treatment Strategies 1-3 if preceded by equalization.
(2) Costs from TM 4D based on filtration process designed for 115 mgd.
(3) Costs estimated for this TM apply to 95 mgd effluent pump station with parallel effluent pipe.
(4) Costs from TM 4G; Alternative 5, for 115 mgd effluent pump station with parallel effluent
pipe.
Source: Facilities Plan Update
Technical Memorandum 4-B
FLOW EQUALIZATION COST EFFECTIVENESS
2-28
-------
CHAPTER 3
EXISTING ENVIRONMENT
A. INTRODUCTION
The discussion of the existing environment in the Draft EIS is in most cases ade-
quate for the analysis of this Final EIS. Please consult Chapter 2 of 1Lhe
Draft EIS for the following topics:
Item Section
Atmosphere/CIimate A
Land
Topography 3-1
Geology 3-2
3iological Resources
Habitat E-l
Fauna E-2
Sensitive Natural Areas E-3
Air
Air quality F-l
Noise F-2
Odor F-3
Land Use, Zoning and Development Trends
Existing Land Use in General Study Area G-l
Future Land Uses and Development
Trends in the General Study Area G-2
Land Use and Development Trends In
Vicinity of Nine Springs Sewage
Treatment Plant Expansion Site G-3
Sensitive Man-Made Resources
Historical and Archaeological l-l
Recreation and Open Spaces I-2
Agriculture I-3
Energy Resources I-4
3. SOILS
In addition to the information cited in Section C, Chapter 2, of the Draft EIS,
a 1973 published Soil Survey for Dane County is available from the Soil Conser-
vation Service.
C. WATER RESOURCES
This material will update Section D, Chaptor 2 of the Draft EIS with additional
data from 3adfish Creek.
3-1
-------
qn_Ef f I uant_jua
The Fifth Addition, to provide an increase in secondary capacity at tne Nine
Springs Plant-, went into operation in the fall of 1977. The resulting i mprove-
ments in effluent quality will aid in inproving instream conditions in 3adfish
Creek. Oafei for this discussion was provided by MMSO to E3A in August 1979.
Move-Tiber 1977-April 1979 was the test period for exper i Tiental I y operating
part of th?; plant as a single-stage nitrification system. Amnonia nitrogen
levels of I Tig/I (sun-tier) and 3 Tig/I (winter) were successfully achieved.
Additional capacity would be needed to continue this form of operation through-
out the 2 0-year planning period, as discussed in Section F of Chapter 2.
Figure 3,-!, prepared by the MMSO, shows 300 and suspended solids levels before
and after the Fifth Addition. 300 levels are higher than they would be from
only a nitrified effluent. This is because the nitrified
the ex perimental portion of the treatment plant was mixed
produced by the usual contact-stabilization process. The
effIuenf from
wi th the effIuenh
mixture resulted
in co/mbining ammonia from the contact-stabilization effluent to feed
nitrification bacteria in the nitrifying effluent. This resulted in
nitr ogeneous; oxygen demand, which affects the 300 test values.
the
a large
January 1975 until October 1977 the average percent removals of 300 and
suspended solids were 35. ll and 77.0?, respectively. Since the Fifth Addition
hr'as been completed, the average removals have been 33. OJ 300 and 91. 1 i suspended
solids. Further evidence of increased treatment stability can oe found by
examining the maximum daily 300 and suspended solids concentrations whicn
occurred each month:
Average Maximum ^onth I y Values
Jan 1975 - Sept 1977
Oct 1977 - July 1979
300
Ong/U
51
44
SS
(mg/l)
31
35
Although the Fifth Add!ton helped to reduce the average effluent 300 concentra-
tion, it had a nuch greater effect on the effluent suspended solids concentration,
Figure 3-2 shows the monthly averages of the pounds of 300 and suspended solids
entering and leaving the plant each day. The average loadings prior to and after
the Fifth Addition are shown below:
Loadi ngs
Plant Influent:
Jan 1975 - Sept 1977
Oct 1977 - July 1979
Plant EffIuent:
Jan 1975 - Sept 1977
Oct 1977 - July 1979
300
U_b/day_)_
53,530
55,330
7,755
5,375
SS
U_p_/day_)
41,990
47,475
9,305
4, I 10
3-2
-------
MONTHLY AVERAGE BOD AND SS CDNCENTRATIOSIS
Figure 3-1
Q
O
o
H
Source: MMSD
3-3
-------
BOD AND SS LOADINGS
Figure 3-2
Source: ^/IMSD
3-4
-------
These data indicate the average 30D and suspended solids loading to the treat-
ment plant increased 6.2,t and I3.lt, respectively, from the 21-month period pr iot
to the completion of the Fifth Addition to the time period after the Fifth Addi-
tion was on line. However, the 300 and suspended solids loading on the stream
decreased ll.5t and 53.IJ&, respectively, from the first to the second time
period. The decrease in 300 loading to the stream may not be representative of
the actual reduction of 30D. Because of the nitrifiers in the nitrification
plant effluent, a significant amount of nitrogeneous oxygen demand was being
exerted during the 5-day 300 test. This same nitrogeneous oxygen demand was
not being exerted during the 5-day 300's measured prior to the Fifth Addition.
Prior to the completion of the Fifth Addition about II MGD of plant inflow was
routed to the trickling filter system. After the Fifth Addition was placed on
line, the amount of flow sent to the trickling filters was reduced to about 5
MGD. This change is evident in Figure 3-3 which shows the total plant inflow and
the amount of flow to the activated sludge system.
With the construction of the selected alternative from the EIS process, the
trickling filter plant will be abandoned. The following data show the results
of the activated sludge systems for summer 1979. These data were collected
after the nitrification project had been terminated. They are probably
representative of the results that would be achieved if the trickling filter
plant were abandoned and no attempt were made to remove ammonia in the activated
sludge system.
Contact-Stabilization §tep_Aerat|ori
300 SS 300 ~ SS
(mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l)
May 1979 13 8 2\ 13
June 1979 20 3 23 I I
July 1979 13 _9 9_ 7_
Average 17 8 13 10
2. 3adfish Creek Surveys
Additional water quality surveys have been conducted in 1973 and 1979. Survey
data were later used to model ammonia in future instream conditions, see Chapter
2, section C-3. Table 3-1 summarizes survey results and compares these values
to earlier samples. Parameters sampled included total 5-day biochemical
oxygen demand (T30D ), total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), temperature, dissolved
oxygen (DO), and a diurnal (24-hour) oxygen survey. Values are presented
for the effluent ditch, the improved channel and the natural channel.
Water quality conditions observed in the six surveys had some similar character is-
3-5
-------
Figure 3-3
PLANT FLOWS
-U
3
Q
u_
:r:~
./
t \
:<^_
<
o
o
,> :
r?l__ ^__.
*$•'••
vo
\
o
o
p
Q
I
-O-
Plftf . 1*5.
• AI"I
' •^''U
—I **
.+. -
'11
r-
• ^x'
-------
Table 3-1
TBOD5
Range
(mg/l)
TKN
Range
(mg/l)
Temp
Range
DO
Range
(mg/l)
Diurnal DO
Variation
(mg/l)
May 1979 Survey
Eff. Ditch
Imp. Channel
Natural Channel
Oct. 1978 Survey
Eff. Ditch
Imp. Channel
Natural Channel
Summer 1978 Survey
Eff. Ditch
Imp. Channel
Natural Channel
Aug. 1976 Survey
Eff. Ditch
Imp. Channel
Natural Channel
July I 975 Survey
Eff. Ditch
Imp. Channel
Natural Channel
Oct. 1975 Survey
Eff. Ditch
Imp. Channel
Natural Channel
15.0-25.0
3.0-18.0
7.0-12.0
3.0-13.0
6.0- 8.0
4.0- 9.0
4.0- 8.0
4.0- 6.0
18.0-28.0
10.0-33.0
11.0-29.0
14.0-29.0
23.0-37.0
56.0-66.7
46.5-56.0
3.2- 9.5
2.1-7.2
1.4-4.3
6.7-12.5
2.9-10.5
1.8-4.1
4.1-5.9
0.9-5.7
2.1- 3.7
16.5-17.2
16.5-16.8
I 1.8-14.7
12.6-14.1
10.4-12.4
6.8- 8.9
15.5-19.1
I 1.6-14.8
6.9-10.3
16.4-20.6
15.0-22.0
15.2-22.0
16.5-17.5
12.0-16.0
10.5-13.0
19.0-22.0
18.0-21.0
19.0-20.0
20.8
21.0-22.0
18.2-21.0
20.0
21.0-21.5
12.0-20.0
20.5-22.0
15.0-16.0
14.0-17.0
1.3-9.0
1.2-12.5
4.7-9.5
0.1-0.7
0.5- 5.0
4.7-8.2
0.4- 4.3
0.6- 6.9
5.2- 7.2
0.9- 7.0
0.4- 1.2
0.5- 3.9
4.9- 6.7
1.4-3.5
1.6-4.5
0.8- 7.2
0.4- 2.4
3.4- 7.4
7.7
5.9-10.0
4.1
0.6
.0-1.7
.0-1.6
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Source: Facilities Plan Update
Technical Memorandum 3-A
3-7
WATER QUALITY
SURVEY DATA
-------
tics, as demonstrated in Table 3-1. Levels of T30D, TKN and conductivity were
high in the effluent ditch and decreased downstream due to decay, settling
and dilution. The T30D measurements for some surveys were erratic but this
was believed to be due to residual chlorine inhibition. Ammonia represented
over 90 percent of the observed TKN concentration. Overall, concentrations
of pollutants, particularly TKN and T300, varied widely among surveys depending
on experimentation being performed at the Nine Springs Plant. Instream dissolved
oxygen concentration also varied widely from survey to survey, but in general
showed a significant sag in concentrations in the vicinity of the improved
channel followed by recovery in the lower stream. Diurnal variations in
dissolved oxygen varied, although such studies are quite limited.
In May 1979, MMSD personnel conducted an intensive diurnal water quality and
loadings survey, as fully described in Technical Memorandum 3-C. Stream quality
and loadings were monitored for 24 hours at two-hour intervals. Measurements
were made of TBOD , TBOD , TKN, ammonia, nitrate, temperature, conductivity and
dissolved oxygen. Environmental conditions were partly cloudy, with moderate
stream flow and temperature. The Nine Springs Plant was operating under secon-
dary treatment during this time.
High concentrations of TBOO, TKN and conductivity were observed at the discharge,
while concentrations decreased downstream. No net instream loss of nitrogen was
observed as in some previous surveys, but a slight accrual of 300 was noted.
This may be a consequence of erosion and nonpoint loading, dredging activities in
Oregon Creek, or measurement problems. Aquatic weed densities were low to moder-
ate. Dissolved oxygen concentrations were, on the average, lower upstream.
Significant diurnal variations (4 to 10 mg/l) caused water quality violations
for brief periods throughout the stream.
The most intensive survey was conducted in October of 1973. This 24-hour survey,
as presented in Technical Memorandum 3-B, was similar in design to the May 1979
survey, but did not include long-term measurements of T30D. Environmental con-
ditions were cloudy with moderate stream flow and warm to moderately cool tempera-
tures.
Water quality conditions were again characterized by high concentrations of T300,
TKN and conductivity, which decreased with time of passage downstream. A net
loss of instream nitrogen was observed, probably due to denitrification. Up-
stream TBOD measurements were affected by residual chlorine, so these measure-
ments were discarded. Dissolved oxygen concentrations exhibited a dramatic sag
and recovery with near anaerobic conditions in the effluent ditch and improved
channel. A small (I to 2 mg/l) diurnal DO variation was observed.
MMSD also collected water quality data in the summer of 1973. During this
period, stream flows were moderate to high and temperatures were moderately high.
Nine Springs plant was producing a nitrified effluent during this survey.
TBOD, TKN, and conductivity concentrations were observed to vary widely, but
typically showed a significant sag in the vicinity of the effluent ditch and
improved channel, and a recovery downstream. No diurnal measurements were made.
3-8
-------
3. Demography and Economics
This section will supplement Section H, Chapter 2, of the Draft EIS. Data from
the 1980 census have not yet been refined. Preliminary results indicate a
slight loss from the City of Madison and a gain in outlying areas. Since the
Nine Springs facility serves much of the metropolitan population, these shifts
should not affect the earlier population projections presented in the Draft EIS.
3-9
-------
CHAPTER 4
ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
A. INITIAL SELECTION
I . Methgdojogy
Charts were prepared in the Facilities Plan Update to compare the treat-
ment component alternatives presented in each section of Chapter 2. The
factors evaluated include costs, engineering criteria, land required, and
the innovative/alternative classification. Such a matrix comparison is
appropriate for the preliminary selection process, and we will use it here.
-• Ammoni a Removal _j Nj.tr |f|cat|on|
Table 4-1 presents this comparison. All alternatives are retained for
subsequent detailed analysis as part of the system alternatives, because
of their diversity of advantages and disadvantages, see Technical Memo-
randum 4C of the of the Facilities Plan Update.
3. Suspended_Sgj|ds Reducti on
Alternatives comparisons are shown in Table 4-2. Two alternatives, high
head gravity filters and advanced secondary settling, are retained for
the system alternatives analysis. Advanced secondary settling is appeal-
ing for cost reasons. High head gravity filters are a more conventional
technology, with certain cost and operating advantages.
4. Dj_s i nfection
See Table 4-3 for a matrix on the disinfection alternatives. Chlorination
has potentially adverse environmental effects which make it unacceptable.
Ozonation and ultraviolet disinfection will be considered further system
aIternafi ves.
5• Post Aerati on
Several alternatives were ruled out in the Chapter 2 discussion. The
existing cascade aerators can be retained if needed, in the effluent
ditch. Ozonation may provide aeration benefits, as well as disinfection.
6• illlugDl_Purcping_and Transport
The matrix in Table 4-4 gives a comparison of these alternative components.
Alternatives e and f are the most promising. They would be capable of hand
ling the projected peak flows. No peak storage would be needed with these
alternatives. Construction of the improvements could be phased over the
20-year planning period.
Providing a flow equalization basin is much more costly than designing the
treatment units to be capable of accommodating peak flows. This makes treat-
ment unit sizing the preferred approach.
4-I
-------
Table 4-1
S&!
2£s
5~l/l y
ju C
tgiw
c u
-i8i§
sS-fe.^
Z u £ c
-S ft*
o c .t: «• E
*-*-:OXD
u'E"o ai^-s
5 5 °'5.« S.fc
•= x c
Utilizes
system,
replace
diffuser
in aerat
7 to IS.
UJ
BE
.25
2 °-Ki-
•"- S£
•TIM
"~ X *>
M O U
s .fc-Ei
85813
— 4! - O •=
o o i- •*- 5
••£«§«§
gs: « B-,
Po
nit
ho
an
da
existin
with
ent of
system
ion
to 15.
r
ati
7
Utilize
system
replac
diffuse
in aera
basins
Irt
LU
x| ALTERNAT
0
H
<
y
ul
E
z
.fx
Hie
*• S U V
en i/>.2~ «
Z ^ OMjIC
II ^s
"|S
id
dj
2I
«
§
s
s
,5Z^
•- 'c a; - o S J3 *- O S .
^KlSOoj'sOtes
3 n *" ^~ O *i ^ *~
si Sil *:
. o
it i =6 3 2
i. D C
C -Q —
°8
•
§U
'•Z U
a C .
i. O «
III
£•30-
s S S
I£oE „
•^n§o
s e
, w
^•s^
Utilize
system
replace
diffuse
in aera
basins
a
u
s
CT w u -jr
SS-ga
— ft) — *• O —
o s; M « tf o
X u
7 a;^^^,:
«; o o •= ^_ c
BgyfBs
~-z=o£°-
y v 3 o ~ a
E g-^M-.-r ?
§ ! .1 ° 11
"^3 ui |5 'vi "o> <^
«- ?{ S ±r •- r « E
If III
o*S,-sSs|
i- o c
-------
11
.2 •>
th V $•
.t c S £
&
.
i/>i5a..-Eu
« §
i^^
;OQ
oroi-:
OZ^n
LL. < (-
Q. OliJ
.
g
c
|
exists if additional
expansion is made.
g
t'
' X
c> _
1.1
Ji
c^
§
i
c
01
No effect on
present treatm
A temporary and
minor effect since
"E
0>
£
O fli
o *•
>£ *"
* z
2z
1
one or more aeration
basins must be remov
from service in order
to install the
I
^~
3
O 0^
Ltz
DO
QU
(A
01
supporting structures
for the media assemb
n\
6.2 acres for
additional syst<
3.5 acres for
additional system
E
•*-
fc X
O 10
•4-
v>
k x
O i/i
6.2 acres
additiona
CO
2
UJ
UJ
or
D
O
UJ
or
D
^
_j
requirements.
requirements.
.
c
Ot
L.
'5
CT
OJ
k.
«
•*-
£
u
1
0)
L.
E
requirenr
X n
Potential safet
problems due t<
pure oxygen
Little safety
problem.
x
**•
SE
01 0>
~-a
*• o
3S.
•J
*O c
« E
t o
X
01
Little saf
problem.
LO
g
^
or
>- Q
f— —
«rf O
CO (J
environment.
^
_o
E
i/i
Similar
k.
_D
1
to
k.
_D
E
In
L.
_o
E
i/l
_j
Z
UJ
^
O
£
2
UJ
u
o
CL
environmental
environmental impaci
o
R
_E
"o
c
01
I
>
5
u
R
E
"o
£
I
o
L.
'>
c
u
«
a.
E
o
6
environm
<
^
=
— -^ d) *o -n
.O £ £ 0)
I o '6 .c
High risk potential;
no proven design
criteria is presently
available. Alterna-
sis!
£ -1- .5 *"
O ~ 4j ^
it!i
"&•£ '? ^
±0-8 JJ
^TT3
.21! ^
•*- D •*-
C (/} d) O
0) C j* >
R «-~ o
lii.l
ill!
.*!
•° «"S
S.'s.'"' °
!!il
z
o
H
u
u.
<
U
^
i
" B °
jf £ 'i
c g, E 5 i
ill
five is therefore
potentially innovative
8 fi
0) .J
"- "0 £ X
u ° " „ =
sT c *~" Q) *•
l||||li
•g ^ g. = »» J» j
y o S! * < £ J
0>
<" • ^ "5
E'-E4(.= I
!cll§
Illli
X '
S g J!
?"* si
If*!
<
u
3
4-3
-------
IdDie "*-£.
s£«
f)< ^
;<|3
il
3^
>Ot-
->HW
i- *
o i-I
S?*S
w ° *•
e *- c c
" ±: ™ J
= : .
Eg
*^°£
£00..
6 * * n
V
x £•
,- k-
l&
••8
••§51
&it
"o '- v
"» if
fiii Is*
.„ *r. 6 o > x j=
•pop-0 Vi *• y
r>-cEs ^^£
-> u
v c
11
o |
-o o
V ~O
Generally i*
plonts when
i
*-
*^
&
«>
pomping is i
w
1
F
a
1^
x
in
X
V
1
o
U
i2
1
5
r
i-
«
L.
O
o
*-
n
OpCrGt'OI>c'
with autorp.
f
e-
a
(j
fe
rr-ort me'fK
M
t^-
i.
r_;
""
>
a
?•
J
t~ ita-
t ,p
*Z- ?
R
.„ v *- n vi O
E £
PI
!l|
a: »^
sl|.
"5 5 *'-8
Ififl
> x«5 ?
«2
«J n
§1
-J<
a:
a
o
8
JC
o •*>
I1??
.E c „-
8X I
en i! '
; c .e •»• '«
I •= » „ O
11^=5 is!81l
— t**-*~u. ,, •i-oi'O**-
io'-=o UouSe»i
o -«- a~
5|Ss|
.ellii.
«IlfI
82S£
8-§|
B* E
*~ ** k.
J?b
O $ u
T3 SB-2
E.t E £
I B-l c
s S B 8
111
l£
*> -^
IL
ill
52-8
z >•
•I
p!?
V tl *
UJ
iE
5
LJO
in —
UJ x
u.
»•«
4-4
-------
to
UJ
nl
<•>
4, —
J?
cs
eg
f ~
« c r W C
o i 11? |
^ - r: -i- o
III
o:
g
u
"V*
u*
IT)
a
& .
V £
- h
. a «
d t •* c «;
*^ -^ r ~) irt
• **- Pi L^ ^
--•J, 0 ^-_ 4,
-' •- C ^ >
O > . >3 — k.
o i> v * t,
^ • oo-^
r-' ^ V, E ^
•? c «j -^
2 - s 'I c
£ 6 ^ * 6
t 4- C. 0
'
«,• ^ i.
O* ty\
C c
xceot i
is used
lly duri
kwashi
Li
•^
ine i
periodical
itr t-oc
cMor
iod
e
0.
.*> -x
.
•8
38
Q
UJ
G
Z
It!
U1
LT)
U.
O
Z
c
I—
-
ff»v »
rnw
X J y
> =: J£ S
-
8 .
8 t
i ij — 0 >' -
t ,r £ .y 8 Si
"
UJ
5 t
'- C;
|l
li'r:
* ^
^^
Ul
ill
a;
Uj
Ci!
Q
? ~ •"
$3 S
Q .0 CL
w>
E
c
J3
O
7^
|-
*i!
> "o
o •"
rr °-'
v '£
A. •-
(Sl
-r
O
£-
<
a:
a
i^
~7
$.\
\,
(.-
V
t—
i.U
U_
r 2 o .5 £ ? ^
t: fi. ^ i. i « ««
JE^&=(£.E
T^.
1 1
n i/ 5
>^ c o^^r
0 "C 0 C
- E-2? ^
0 ^^ -C t
c c o-o £
| $ -y 6 .S
0 f o J2 •>
.£.£*• T5 o
0 £ S S "g
~c *~ 2 K o>
r" . ~ o aj u
O — u S. o
f-
U
<
CL
X
-J
<
t—
Z
UJ
g
o:
-N
tl >-
^ *
2.2
f
0 -^
^§
^.~
"3 £
f!
X
in
<(
0
4-5
-------
Table 4-3
-C * v.
D> £ ~ X
Performance inhibited by hi
suspended solids, turbidity,
and UV absorbing constituer
in the wastewater. Flexibih
by varying UV light intensit
to incoming flow.
X £ 4) C>
— 2 -7 C
Full-scale feasibility recent
demonstrated during a 15-rr
demonstration project at
Northwest Bergen County, t
Jersey. Also, currently bei
piloted at the Nine Springs
Plant.
c «-
•== a
Minimal operational and ma
tenance requirements, exce
when changing UV lamps.
!
Requires construction of
separate channels for the
placement of UV chombers.
Cannot utilize any of the
existing disinfection system
Si
8
Higher ozone dosages ( > 5
mg/l) required for effluent
having turbidities above
14 JTU's. Flexibility
by varying ozone dose
to wastewater flow.
Ozone disinfection is
presently in use at full
scale treatment plants up
to 35 mgd. Ozone disinfec-
tion piloted at the Nine
Springs Plant.
Sophisticated equipment,
yet relatively simple
mechanics of operation.
Requires construction of
two covered concrete contac
basins, housing for PSA
system and ozone generators.
Cannot utilize any of the
existing disinf ction system.
u
.
II §1.
c p 7: >
8 8 S " °
n
7 o 4i
1) *- TJ
m
3u
ttO
So:
HO-
X
-
o
a:
ID
UJ
Q,
o
1/1
"2.
0
U
<
ctz
a <
a
UJ
uj
G
o. uj
t-Z
Oa.
uo
3 uju.
4-6
-------
Ill
a* v a
ill
c
i
-c £
U> M
ti! 8
^ °«
«Js
x-O •£
£c jj
«; t) e
TJ
V
*l
llg
ft lil,
^
<
d
<
U1
UJ
•is
II
Is
s§
§1
u fr
8
I
c
is
"S -o
•pi
11*
111
Is I
Ji£Z
J?-i8
- « •
•M 15,61
-
LU
H
<
t3
LU
i
^2
Q
4-7
-------
Table 4-4
P6
U1
LU
<
K
LU
t-
<
U
51
a.
8
j -^ o a,
|2 0.9-
Z « S. a.
d
D
'ooe'o
9,300
.5 s
8
LU
>
I—
<
rr
LU
cc
0-
or
o
l/l I—
UJ IO
Lt O
a. u
vfl
ON
(M
r-T
H~
o
u
o
a:
LU
cals No chemicals
required.
E "D
*2
0 3
.i.
.•^ 4)
'c "° "S cn
*• «i ^ 15 •
•? c f o u
C •— ^ 4) Oi
S 0 XaS
*^ 2 ° o £
Inermittent
chlorine addition
may be needed
for peaking
storage.
Intermiltent
chlorine addition
may be needed
for peaking
storage.
1,
Intermittent
chlorine oddit
may be neede
for peaking
storage.
2
g
— D
11
uo
Equal flexibility
from a process
standpoint.
Equal flexibility
from a process
standpoint.
X
~ t
HZ "i
._ 41
£ X •
x ° •*-
-5! Q-'i
-°1
§ EC
o- ° °
LU «- w
1-
^ .
CO —
S|
1/5 ^
LU i-1
f )
CL<
Fully
ated. demonstrated.
t_
_>. o
"5 41
U. TJ
T3
i
'o
l_
(/>
-I
u=3
Fully
demonstrated.
Fully
demonstrated.
Fully
demonstrated
LU
(J
Z
Qor
LU lil
^
Lo "^
Ou
so
O Q.
p station Two pump stations
ghly to operate; although
d; no may be highly
i M automated.
:nts.
£ -C ^ •" g
j x o fc '5
.1 S
o_x «3 ^
a^-a ? g J
s"t||'5.c ?
New pump station
may be highly
automated;
additional O & M
requirements
with peaking
storage.
Existing pump
station requires
close maintenance
due to age;
additional O & M
requirements with
peaking storage.
0) X
* c 2 | «•
fflflll
vl S! S 5 -5 1
LLJ *vi O "D O u Q.
g
U. h-
o<
LU CC
LUO
ting pump Uses existing Pump
main- station as main-
acility; tenance facility;
torage effluent storage
ndoned. tanks abandoned.
.2 o "~ ,. _§
S 1 c 1 1
D*- U **• D
« *: 4) *:
d
I , x,-
a.c ^ en f
|pl|
Illli
Uses existing pump
station as main-
tenance facility;
effluent storage
tanks abandoned.
Uses existing pump
station for
intended purpose.
d
^ «5
2 <"
QL 0
Uses existing
station for
intended purp
u.
O
g i/>
< z t
f- x <
DLU u.
3 station Future growth can
vide for be accomodated
; due to booster
ipeline pump station;
nmodate However, growth
is limited by
existing pipeline.
c ° C n fe
E Jt 0 O
^PN
Jl&Ss!
£. > U Q. U CT
*I C TD
O 4) •- 5
« ^ « P
&Sctl
E i- o o
= a« -5 " jf
a-a c = H t
> ~r O o >
|°&§S2
Z J 4) d
El S
'c i 2
s a^
8
^
O Z^
u. <,_
z *-y
lit
Q- O LU
4-8
-------
Shutdown required Shutdown required Shutdown required Shutdown requin
during intercon- during intercon- during infercon- during intercon-
nection with new nection with new nection with new nection with nev
pump station. pump station. pump station. pump station.
c
Requires shutdow
of pump station
during pipeline
modifications,
i -a
> r-
ls?!S
Requires shu
of pump stat
during pipelii
modification
Z
g
zi- u
LU5 D
SZOK
>- — z*-
< h- £ u->
ujzcrz
aroDO
KUDU
interconnection
8
interconnect
with peaking
storage facilities,
and parallel
pipeline.
?
^
1
^
i
storage
facilities.
"5 b S
o Ir: **~ o
vo S .S3 •£
V)
5! D,
og|
^-in p
£">&«;
8-5feE
o IE "~ o
M> S.2-B
i/>
l-
Z
UJ
s
UJ
or
0
UJ
a:
Q
<
_i
X
5
o
V)
.H •
4-
lj
X
5
o
VI
_J)
•*-
lj
X
u
o
I/I
]5
t
0)
1
X
E 8
01 V 0
S. *" o
-* t
SO D
£ 3
CL vi -6
0)
o1
fe
ti
Ol
^c
15
1
u
II
0 4,
SO
.-^
~v
!i
•si
S(J
.- fe
LU
4-9
-------
{3. SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES
Six treatment strategies will DO examined in addition to the No Action
alternative. These were developed in the Facilities 3lanning Addendum
from the best of the various component alternatives. A land application
alternative has been previously discussed in the Oraft EIS and determined
to be impractical .
These alternatives are:
— No Action
No Federal funding of treatment Improvements
— Treatment Strategy I
Strategy I is essentially the existing plant, increased in capacity to
accomplish single stage nitrification. Following the expanded existing
plant, high head gravity filters are added to increase suspended solids
removal, and ozone diffusion is added to disinfect and oxygenate the effluent.
wastewater enters through the existing raw sewage meter vault, where
the influent flow is measured. Preliminary treatment is provided by aerated
grit chambers, followed by settleable solids removal in the 14 existing
primary clarifiers.
The primary effluent is split to 15 existing and 12 additional aeration
basins, where single-stage biological nitrification and carbonaceous 300
removal take place. All aeration basins use standard efficiency diffusers
for oxygen transfer to the wastewater. Mixed liquor from 15 existing aeration
basins enters 10 existing secondary clarifiers, while mixed liquor from
the 12 additional aeration basins enters II additional secondary clarifiers.
Nitrified flow from the secondary clarifiers is combined to enter high head
gravity filters, where more suspended and collodal solids are removed. Filter
backwash water is returned to the aerated grit chambers.
Ozone disinfection and oxygenation follow filtration. Ozone disinfection
effluent will have a high dissolved oxygen concentration, ranging from
15 mg/l to greater than 20 mg/l. A I 1 5-MGD pump station and integral wet
well conveys disinfected effluent through the force main to 3adfish Creek.
The existing outfall cascade aerator is to be removed to prevent deoxygenat ion
of the supersaturated wastewater. The downstream aerator, located in the
effluent ditch, will be evaluated after the Seventh Addition has been completed
to determine its effects on instream dissolved oxygen. These unit processes
are all classified as conventional. The system diagram is shown in Figure 4-1.
4-10
-------
Figure 4-1
INFLUENT
RAW SEWAGE
METER VAULT
^J
"I
GRIT GRIT C GRIT A_ GRIT
"*"" CHAMBERS 1 CHAMBER J~~ *"
(PUW
STA
,
SN ~'~mT' "
"
JUNCTION
BOXES
j
PS
^ i _
p A PRIMARY
t" U -R
— — i r
/SINGLE STAGE "\ SINGLE STAGE
WAS 1 NITRIFICATION \ NITRIFICATION
"" VSTANDARD EFFICIENCY/ (STANDARD EFFICIENCY
VDIFFUSERS) _S DIFFUSERS)
?
/ BLOWERS J
i
!
BL(
i
/MIXED LIQUOR\ MIXED LIQUOR
\HEADER J HEADER
,
1
WAS f SECONDARY V.?!5..-, SECONDARY
^ CLARIFIERS J CLARIFIERS
\
FILTER BACKWASH
.EGEND
J
j
/HIGH HEAD GRAVITY \
1 FILTRATION J
i -,
/ \ I
1 OZONE DISINFECTION \ 1
V ANDOXYGENATION 1 f
V s
^_ DIVERSION
i - STRUCTURE
_^ BYPASS
STRUCTURE
SN
AS
_____ WA£
3WERS
WAS
i
ADDITIONAL TREATMENT SYSTEM '
NORMAL OPERATION
LIQUID STREAM
EMERGENCY OPERATION
LIQUID STREAM
SOLIDS STREAM
SUPERNATANT/DECANT/BACKWASH
GAS STREAM
AND
.PUMP STATION
EFFLUENT DITCH
TREATMENT STRATEGY 1
Source: Facilities Plan Update, Technical Memorandum 5-A
4-11
-------
— Treatment Strategy 2
Strategy 2 compares closely to the original 1975 Facilities °lan and Draft
EIS recommendations. The existing plant is followed by 333 for nitrification
and high head gravity filters for additional suspended solids removal. Un-
like the original Facilities 31 an recommendation, breakpoint chlorination
is not provided since it is no longer needed to remove the last fraction of
ammonia in the effluent. Disinfection and oxygenation are as described for
Strategy I.
Preliminary and primary treatment are as described in Strategy I. Primary
effluent enters the 15 existing aeration basins where most of the carbona-
ceous BOD removal takes place. All aeration basins use standard efficiency
diffusers for oxygen transfer to the wastewater. Mixed liquor from the 15
existing basins enters the 10 existing secondary clarifiers, where much of
the suspended solids settle and are either returned to the aeration basins
or wasted.
Rotating biological contactors (33C) are used for nitrification. This unit
process consists of 176 air-driven media assemblies in 44 six-foot deep
concrete basins.
Nitrified effluent from the 33C process enters high head gravity filters for
additional suspended and colloidal solids removal. Since the solids concen-
tration entering the R3C process is usually equal to the solids concentration
leaving the process, solids loading to the filters should not be excessive.
Filter backwash water is returned to the aerated grit chambers.
Ozone is used both for disinfection and oxygenation of the filtered effluent.
A 115 MGO pump station and integral *et well conveys disinfected effluent
through the force main to 3adfish Creek. The existing outfall cascade aerator
will oe removed while the downstream cascade aerator will be evaluated after
completion of the facilities to determine its effect on dissolved oxygen
within the effluent ditch. This is a conventional treatment alternative.
Figure 4-2 presents it diagrammaticalIy.
— Treatment Strategy 3
Strategy 3 is very similar to Strategy I. However, it uses high efficiency
diffusers for single-stage nitrification. It also includes ultraviolet
irradiation for disinfection, which is being piloted at the plant.
Preliminary and primary treatment are as described in Strategy I. Primary
effluent is split to 15 existing and 12 additional aeration basins, where
single-stage biological nitrification and carbonaceous 30D removal takes
place. All aeration basins use high efficiency diffusers for oxygen transfer
to the wastewater. Mixed liquor from the 15 existing aeration basins enters
10 existing secondary clarifiers, while mixed liquor fr n the 12 additional
aeration basins enters II additional secondary clarifiois.
Nitrified flow from the secondary clat ifiers is combined and filtered, using
high head gravity filters to remove additional suspended and colloidal solids.
Filter backwash water is returned to the aerated grit chambers.
4-12
-------
INFLUENT
Figure 4-2
/
LEGENr
f
c=z
i
GRIT GRIT
CHAM
SN ^
PS
/
BLOWERS ».(
* L
( BLOWERS \»«
RAW SEWAGE
METER VAULT
_J
1
f GRIT >\_ GRIT
3ERS I CHAMBER J
J '
%
JUNCTION BYPASS
BOXES ~~* STRUCTURE
1
PRIMARY CLARIF1ERS
* ,
PRIMARY CK,
EFFLUENT m
HEADER
"I
DERATION BASINS j WAS
STANDARD EFFICIENCY • — !- — — —.»
3IFFUSERS)
1
MIXED LIQUOR
HEADER
* RASI
_ J
SECONDARY WAS
CLARIFIERS
1
/x s /'ROTATING "\
(BLOWERS } J g£?AG££s FOR )
V „ X V NITRIFICATION S
FILTER BACKWASH f
(
(
)
] EXISTING TREATMENT SYSTEM /
| ADDITIONAL TREATMENT SYSTEM \
LIQUID STREAM
— EMERGENCY OPERATION
LIQUID STREAM
|« .
HIGH HEAD GRAVITY\
FILTRATION J
|- 1
OZONE DISINFECTION^ •
AND OXYGENATION J j
V ^X
h DIVERSION *
STRUCTURE ' *"^
^- ™" ^^~^^v
LFFLUbNI STURAGE\
AND J
PUMP STATION 7
1
EFFLUENT
FORCE MAIN
SUPERNATANT/DECANT/BACKWASH
GAS STREAM
EFFLUENT DITCH
TREATMENT STRATEGY2
Source: Facilities Plan Update, Technical Memorandum 5- A
4-13
-------
Ultraviolet disinfection follows filtration. 'Disinfected affluent is then
conveyed through the effluent force main by a I I5-M3D pump station and inte-
gral wet well. The existing outfall cascade aerator and downstream cascade
aerator provide the necessary instrea-n aeration. This alternative combines
both conventional and innovative processes. See Figure 4-3 for a process
chart.
Treatnnent Strategy 4
Strategy 4 is a modification of Strategy 3, which mitigates the problems
associated with siting restrictions by placing R3C assemolies in the aera-
tion basins (SURFACT) to reduce the number of new aeration basins required.
It also reduces land area requirements by enhancing settling with tne use
of flocculating clarifiers, which would take the place of secondary clari-
fiers and high head gravity filters. Since these clarifiers may not reduce
the turbidity of the effluent to the level needed for UV irradiation, and
since UV irradiation requires more land area, ozone is suggested for effluent
disinfection and oxygenation. This strategy is the only one which may be
sited in the vicinity of the existing plant, leaving land area to the west
for any expansions needed beyond this 20-year planning period.
Preliminary and primary treatment are as described in Strategy I. Effluent
from the 14 existing primary clarifiers enters the SURFACT process where
biological nitrification and carbonaceous 300 removal takes place. The SUR-
FACT process consists of the existing aeration basins plus three additional
basins and 146 air-driven R3C media assamblies. AM aeration basins use high
efficiency diffusers for oxygen transfer to the wastewater.
Flocculating clarifiers replace secondary clarifiers and filters for this
strategy. Flocculating clarifier mechanisms are installed in existing
secondary clarifiers I to 4, while separate flocculating basins are install-
ed prior to existing secondary clarifiers 5 to 10. To provide the needed
capacity, 10 additional flocculating clarifiers are also required.
Nitrified flow from the flocculating clarifiers is combined prior to ozone
disinfection and oxygenation. A I 15-MGD pump station and integral wet well
conveys disinfected effluent through the force main to Badfish Creek. The
existing outfall aerator will be removed while the downstream cascade aera-
tor will be evaluated after completion of the Seventh Addition to determine
its effect on dissolved oxygen. This alternative also mixes innovative
and conventional technologies. It is represented in Figure 4-4.
— Treatment Strategy 5
Strategy 5 compares with Strategy 3, except that flocculating clarifiers take
the place of secondary clarifiers and high head gravity filters. JV disinfec-
tion is suggested, although its use in conjunction with flocculating clari-
fiers would have to be demonstrated during the current piolet study. If
incompatible, it .would have to be substituted Dy ozone disinfection and
oxygenation.
Preliminary and primary treatment are as described in Strategy I. Primary
effluent is split to the 15 existing and 12 additional aeration basins, where
4-14
-------
INFLUEN
Figure 4-3
T
,
(PUW
STA
,
'*
^ GRIT GRIT
^"" CHAMBERS
;
JUNC
BOXE
J
PS
j
"U1N J HEAD
T™ . i
* 1 J
X SINGLE STAGE \ SINGLES
WAS J NITRIFICATION A NITRIFIC
"I (HIGH EFFICIENCY I (HIGH EFF
VDIFFUSERS) J DIFFUSEF
t !
i
/MIXED LIQUOR\ MIXED
\HEADER J HEADER
,
J
^ WAS f SECONDARY \.^AS_^ SECON
^ CLARIFIERS J CLARI
,
FILTER BACKWASH
J
1
(HIGH HEAD GRAVITY^
(GRIT V.._ GRIT_
CHAMBER /^
SN
RAS
•*
WAS'
m
^_ ^^» -^
^—:
UV DISINFECTION
LEGEND
I I EXISTING TREATMENT SYSTEM
( ) ADDITIONAL TREATMENT SYSTEM
NORMAL OPERATION
LIQUID STREAM
EMERGENCY OPERATION
LIQUID STREAM
SOLIDS STREAM
SUPERNATANT/DECANT/BACKWASH
GAS STREAM
Q
EFFLUENT STORAGE
AND
PUMP STATION
EFFLUENT DITCH
TREATMENT STRATEGY 3
Source: Facilities Plan Update, Technical Memorandum 5-A
4-15
-------
Figure 4-4
INFLUENT
LEGEND
RAW SEWAGE
METER VAULT
1
GRIT GRIT r GRIT "\_ GRIT
~" CHAMBERS 1 CHAMBER J "~
* - Ls
RAS
4 ~~ ~ -
<""sTNGLE STAGE
NITRIFICATION
(HIGH EFFICIENCY
DIFFUSERS)
<~^^^
ROTATING BIOLOGIC
FOR NITRIFICATION
JUNCTION BYPASS
BOXES STRUCTURE
1
PRIMARY CLARIFIERS
1 .
PRIMARY
FFFLUENT •
HEADER
_I
*W "I
SINGLE STAGE I
NITRIFICATION 1 WAS
(HIGH EFFICIENCY --" — »
DIFFUSERS)
:AL CONTACTORS \
I
CcHEMrAL^ j* MIXED LIQUOR
ADDITION J MLAUtK
J , 1
WAS /" FLOCCULATING "N FLOCCUL
* ""I CLARIFIERS 1 ARIFIF
\^ NO. 11-18 y CLARIFIE
i ' \
/OZONE. DISINFECTION \
V AND OXYGENATION J
,
RAS I
RCU) S~ ~\
\ ADDITION /
V ,J
1
_____ DIVERSION _,_ i
STRUCTURE
1
ADDITIONAL TREATMENT SYSTEM
r-IORMAL OPERATION
LIQUID STREAM
EMERGENCY OPERATION
LIQUID STREAM
SOLIDS STREAM
SUPERNATANT/DECANT/BACKWASH
GAS STREAM
0
\.
bhl-LUENI SIORAGt
AND
PUMP STATION
5
EFFLUENT DITCH
-------
single-stage biological nitrification and carbonaceous 30D removal takes
place. All aeration basins use high-efficiency diffusers for oxygen transfer
to the wastewater.
Flocculating clarifiers replace secondary clarifiers and filters for this
strategy. Flocculating clarifier mechanisms are installed in existing
secondary clarifiers I to 4, and separate flocculating basins are installed
prior to existing secondary clarifiers 5 to 10. ^ixed liquor solids from
the 15 existing aeration basins enter these 10 modified flocculating clari-
fiers, while mixed liquor solids from the 12 additional aeration basins
enter II additional flocculating clarifiers.
Nitrified flow from the flocculating clarifiers is combined prior to UV dis-
infection. Disinfected effluent is conveyed through the effluent force main
to Badfish Creek by a 115-MGO pump station and integral wet well. The exist-
ing outfall cascade aerator and downstream cascade aerator provide the
necessary instream aeration. This is an innovative alternative and is shown
in Figure 4-5.
— Treatment Strategy 5
Strategy 5 is again similar to Strategy 3, except the flocculating clarifiers
take the palce of secondary clarifiers and high head gravity filters. Also,
ozone is used for disinfection and oxygenation, and the vent gas is used to
activate 4 new pure oxygen covered aeration basins in place of 5 new air acti-
vated aeration basins.
Preliminary and primary treatment are as described in Strategy I. Primary
effluent is split to 15 existing and 10 additional aeration basins, where
single-stage biological nitrification and carbonaceous 300 removal takes
place. All existing aeration basins use air with high efficiency diffusers
for oxygen transfer. The additional basins include 6 uncovered air activated
aeration basins that use high-efficiency diffusers for oxygen transfer
and 4 covered aeration basins that usa mixers for pure oxygen activation
and mixing. Each of the pure oxygen basins has three separate stages, with
a mixer for each stage.
Flocculating clarifiers replace secondary clarifiers and filtration for this
strategy. Flocculating clarifier mechanisms are installed in existing secon-
dary clarifiers I to 4, while separate flocculating basins are installed prior
to existing secondary clarifiers 5 to 10. Mixed liquor from the 15 existing
aeration basins enters these 10 modified flocculating clarifiers. Combined
mixed liquor solids from the new air and pure oxygen activated aeration
basins enter 14 additional flocculating clarifiers.
Nitrified flow from the flocculating clarifiers is disinfected and oxygenated
using ozone. Disinfected effluent is conveyed through the effluent force main
to 3adfish Creek by a I I5-MGD pump station and integral wet well. The outfall
cascade aerator will be removed while the downstream cascade aerator will be
evaluated after completion of the Seventh Addition to determine its effect on
dissolved oxygen. Figure 4-5 diagrams this innovative alternative.
4-17
-------
C
CHEMICAL
ADDITION
""""WAS""'
LEGEND
GRIT (
^ ' C
SN
«. PS
(PUMP "\_
... -r -^ ^AS
r *
^SINGLE STAGE >k
NITRIFICATION \
(HIGH EFFICIENCY I
^DIFFUSERS) y
"F
•
t
\
/MIXED LIQUOR\
\HEADER J
\
FLOCCULATING \
CLARIFIERS /
1
1*-
f UV DISINFECTIOf
F-
INFLUENT
J
RAW SEWAGE
METER VAULT
1
;RIT f GRIT
:HAMBERS I CHA/
JUNCTION
BOXES
\
1
PRIMARY \^
HEADER 1
^
SINGLE STAGE
NITRIFICATION
(HIGH EFFICIENCY
DIFFUSERS)
•
•
•
RS >..«;
i i
MIXED LIQUOR
HEADER
\
FLOCCULATING
CLARIFIERS"'
, C
Vs.
1
)l
\
DIVERSION
STRUCTURE
_» BYPASS
STRUCTURE
SN
tS
"T
h~p-—
~* WAS
1
CHEMICAL^
ADDITION J
+ i
>
ADDITIONAL TREATMENT SYSTEM
NORMAL OPERATION
LIQUID STREAM
EMERGENCY OPERATION
LIQUID STREAM
SOLIDS STREAM
SUPERNATANT/DECANT/BACKWASH
GAS STREAM
AND
PUMP STATION
EFFLUENT
FORCE MAIN
EFFLUENT DITCH
3
(I)
ADDITION OF FLOC. MECH. TO 1-4,
SEPARATE FLOC. BASIN FOR 5-10.
TREATMENT STRATEGY 5
Source: Facilities Plan Update, Technical Memorandum 5-A
4-18
-------
INFLUENT
Figure 4-6
^_GRIT
SN
PS
GRIT f GRIT \_ GRIT
CHAMBERS V CHAMBER 7~~" "~ "~ ~"
JUNCTION ^ BYPASS
BOXES STRUCTURE
i
f . — ^
( PUMP \ rTrLUERNT ^ SN
V. >'*"UN ) HEADER1" J
*• . * r.
f w •• ?
f SINGLE STAGE "\ /"SINGLE STAGE >.
I NITRIFICATION J f J^J™ ppA,TJ^,rY )
V (PURE OXYGEN) 1 V DIFFUSERS) J
• ••
i i i
t
/MIXED LIQUOR\
UHEADER }
\ WAS (
L RAS f t
f ~*\ WAS
^ _/ FLOCCULATING YSf1^ »
WAS ^ CLARIFIERS J
T ^ ...
i J* ~**1
SINGLE STAGE 1
NITRIFICATION | WAS
(HIGH EFFICIENCY ~T *
DIFFUSERS)
!
• BLOWERS
( •
MIXED LIQUOR
HEADER
1
FLOCCULATING -J WAS
CLARIFIERS
" *~ i
I CHEMICAL \
| \^ ADDITION )
(CHEMICAL \
ADDITION J
*--
— .. . ./OZONE DISINFECTION^ i
.... « ANDOXYGENA
TION ) i
S T
FrFr,r) "" U- DIVERSION m J
LEGEND f^ STRUCTURE
J EXISTING TREATMENT SYSTEM /^EFFLUENT STO
ZZD AODiriONAL TREATMENT SYSTEM U^psTAT|ON
'
LIQUID STREAM
EMERGENCY OPERATION
LIQUID STREAM
SOLIDS STREAM
SUPEKNATANT/OECANT/BACKWASH
GAS STREAM
EFFLUENT DITCH
(I>ADDITION OF FLOC. MECH. TO \-k,
SEPARATE FLOC. BASIN FOR 5-10.
Source
TREATMENT STRATEGY 6
Facilities Plan Update, Technical Memorandum 5- A
4-19
-------
C. EVALUATION OF SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES
' • Cost Coinpar i son
Dollar costs of projects provide one part of the cost-effective analysis.
Table 4-5 presents a summary of present worth costs for the system alterna-
ti ves.
The "No Action" alternative would not receive Federal funding. Cost break-
downs are shown in Tables 4-6 through 4-11.
Capital cost, operation and maintenance cost, salvage value, and present
worth are developed for each of the treatment strategies. All cost esti-
mates are order-of-magn i tude estimates, as defined by the American Asso-
ciation of Cost Estimators, having an accuracy range of -30 and +50 percent.
Capital costs for items supplied by manufacturers are based on quotations from
various manufacturers. Reinforced concrete costs are estimated from quantity
take-offs and a preliminary layout of each treatment strategy. A 40-percent
allowance was added to the capital cost for engineering, legal, administrative
and financing costs, and construction contingencies. Operation and maintenance
costs include labor, power, materials, and supplies. Annual operation and
maintenance costs include a 25-percent contingency. Salvage values are based
on a 20-year life for equipment and piping and a 50-year life for structures.
These values are estimated using straight-line depreciation and converting the
depreciated value to a present worth credit. The total present worth for each
treatment strategy is developed based on a 20-year life interest rate of 5-7/8
percent.
Since the improvements and modifications to the existing plant listed in
Alternative I are common to all treatment strategies, these are included
in each strategy, as derived from Table 4-12.
Alternative 5 has the lowest present worth costs. Since it is a project
using innovative technology, the innovative portions would be eligible
for 35? Federal funding while other eligible capital cost items would
receive the standard 75t funding.
'Between 5 and 10 additional areas will be needed for the new treatment
improvements. Alternative 2 uses the least land while Alternative I
requires the most. The MMSO owns over 400 acres at the Nine Springs
site, so the acreage for any alternative presents no special problems.
Treatment continuity during construction will be very good for any
alternative selected. All alternatives are comparable in this respect.
All alternatives are designed to meet the provisions of the W°DES dis-
charge permit for the Nine Springs plant. Certain alternatives present
4-?Q
-------
Table 4-5
8
V
I
o
fz
CO
4-
S*~
VO
CO
H-
m
CO
—
1
S
a
1 §
0 O
8 8
r- oo
r-T o"
CM (N
•CO
O O
80
0
»> *.
So
0
in —
in" o"
r»j (><
•co -co
§o
8
1 1
•» »*
ON —
Psl CO
O ON
CO PM
•CO •%
^5 C3
^5 c?
p^ aC
11
a S
1 •«
(J 0
o
o
o
o"
8
<**'
4S>
§
"»-'
•CO
1
8
r*
•CO
g
cT
o
^
•CO
M
8
ON
•CO
o
§
o
8
-
•CO
§
1 «
r-T
•*
•CO
|
00 00
^
S *:
o» •- G
5 oog
™2 ~w fli IR
^ »2 (2 c5!
o
u
S
u
o
LU
CO
H
S
S
13
d
s
4-21
-------
CAPITAL COST
ANNUAL OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE COST
PRESENT WORTH
Table 4-6
Common Modifications
Single Stage Nitrification Using
Standard Efficiency Diffusers
High Head (deep bed) Gravity Filtration
Ozone Disinfection and Oxygenation
(including removal of outfall
cascade aerator)
Effluent Pumping and Transport
Subtotal
Allowances for Engineering, Administration,
Legal, Financial, and Construction
Contingencies
Total Capital Cosl
Operations and Maintenance Labor
(including treatment of spent backwash)
Power Costs
Maintenance Parts and Supplies
Subtotal
Contingencies (25%)
Total Operation and Maintenance Cost
Capital Cost
Operation and Maintenance Cost
Salvage Value
Total Present Worth Cost
$ 1,150,000
7,510,000
3,400,000
2,720,000
4.840.000
$19,620,000
7,850,000
$27,470,000
$ 624,000
1,456,000
95.000
$ 2,175,000
544,000
$ 2,719,000
$27,500,000
$29,100,000
$(1.200,000)
$55,400,000
Source: Facilities Plan Update
Technical Memorandum 5-B
TREATMENT STRATEGY I COST SUMMARY
4-22
-------
Table 4-7
CAPITAL COST
Common Modifications
RBC System for Nitrification
High Head (deep bed) Gravity Filtration
Ozone Disinfection and Oxygenation
(including removal of outfall
cascade aerator)
Effluent Pumping and Transport
Subtotal
Allowances for Engineering, Administration,
Legal, Financial, and Construction
Contingencies (40%)
Total Capital Cost
ANNUAL OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE COST Operations and Maintenance Labor
(including treatment of spent backwash)
Power Costs
Maintenance Parts and Supplies
Subtotal
Contingencies (25%)
Total Operation and Maintenance Cost
PRESENT WORTH
Capital Cost
Operation and Maintenance Cost
Salvage Value
Total Present Worth Cost
$ 1,150,000
9,440,000
3,400,000
2,720,000
4.840.000
$21,550,000
8.620.000
$30,170,000
$ 633,000
1,452,000
104.000
$ 2,189,000
547.000
$ 2,736,000
$30,200,000
$29,300,000
$ (900.000)
$58,600,000
Source: Facilities Plan Update
Technical Memorandum 5-B
TREATMENT STRATEGY 2 COST SUMMARY
4-23
-------
Table 4-8
CAPITAL COST
Common Modifications
Single Stage Nitrification using High
Efficiency Diffusers
High Head (deep bed) Gravity Filtration
UV Disinfection
Effluent Pumping and Transport
Subtotal
Allowances for Engineering, Administration,
Legal, Financial, and Construction
/ Contingencies (40%)
Total Capital Cost
ANNUAL OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE COST Operations and Maintenance Labor
(including treatment of spent backwash)
Power Costs
Maintenance Parts and Supplies
Subtotal
Contingencies (25%)
Total Operation and Maintenance Cost
PRESENT WORTH
Capital Cost
Operation and Maintenance Cost
Salvage Value
Total Present Worth Cost
$ I,150,000
8,010,000
3,400,000
2,280,000
4,840,000
$19,680,000
7,870,000
$27,550,000
$ 626,000
903,000
192.000
$ 1,721,000
430,000
$ 2,151,000
$27,600,000
$23,000,000
$(1,100,000)
$49,500,000
Source: Facilities Plan Update
Technical Memorandum 5-B
TREATMENT STRATEGY 3 COST SUMMARY
4-24
-------
Table 4-9
CAPITAL COST
Common Modifications
SURFACT Process
Flocculating Clarif iers
Ozone Disinfection
(including removal of outfall
cascade aerator)
Effluent Pumping and Transport
Subtotal
Allowances for Engineering, Administration,
Legal, Financial, and Construction
Contingencies (40%)
Total Capital Cost
ANNUAL OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE COST Operations and Maintenance Labor
Power Costs
Maintenance Parts, Supplies, and Chemicals
Subtotal
Contingencies (25%)
Total Operation and Maintenance Cost
PRESENT WORTH
Capital Cost
Operation and Maintenance Cost
Salvage Value
Total Present Worth Cost
$ 1,150,000
10,750,000
1,870,000
2,720,000
4,840,000
$21,330,000
8,530.000
$29,860,000
$ 385,000
1,055,000
157.000
$ 1,597,000
399,000
$ 1,996,000
$29,900,000
$21,400,000
$ (700,000)
$50,600,000
Source: Facilities Plan Update
Technical Memorandum 5-B
TREATMENT STRATEGY 4 COST SUMMARY
4-25
-------
Table 4-10
CAPITAL COST
Common Modifications
ANNUAL OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE COST
PRESENT WORTH
Single Stage Nitrification using High
Efficiency Diffusers
Flocculating Clarifiers
UV Disinfection
Effluent Pumping and Transport
Subtotal
Allowances for Engineering, Administration,
Legal, Financial, and Construction
Contingencies (40%)
Total Capital Cost
Operations and Maintenance Labor
Power Costs
Maintenance Parts, Supplies, and Chemicals
Subtotal
Contingencies (25%)
Total Operation and Maintenance Cost
Capital Cost
Operation and Maintenance Cost
Salvage Value
Total Present Worth Cost
$ 1,150,000
8,010,000
I,920,000
2,280,000
4.840.000
$18,200,000
7,280.000
$25,480,000
$ 387,000
874,000
238.000
$ 1,499,000
375.000
$ 1,874,000
$25,500,000
$20,100,000
$ (800.000)
$44,800,000
Source: Facilities Plan Update
Technical Memorandum 5-B
TREATMENT STRATEGY 5 COST SUMMARY
4-26
-------
CAPITAL COST
ANNUAL OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE COST
PRESENT WORTH
Common Modifications
Air/Oxygen Nitrification System
Flocculating Clarifiers
Ozone Disinfection
(including removal of outfall
cascade aerator)
Effluent Pumping and Transport
Subtotal
Allowances for Engineering, Administration,
Legal, Financial, and Construction
Contingencies (40%)
Total Capital Cost
Operations and Maintenance Labor
Power Costs
Maintenance Parts, Supplies, and Chemicals
Subtotal
Contingencies (25%)
Total Operation and Maintenance Cost
Capital Cost
Operation and Maintenance Cost
Salvage Value
Total Present Worth Cost
Table 4-11
$ 1,150,000
9,020,000
2,070,000
2,720,000
4,840,000
$19,800,000
7.920,000
$27,720,000
$ 385,000
1,021,000
148,000
$ 1,554,000
389,000
$ 1,943,000
$27,700,000
$20,800,000
$(1,000.000)
$47,500,000
Source: Facilities Plan Update
Technical Memorandum 5-B
TREATMENT STRATEGY 6 COST SUMMARY
4-27
-------
GRIT REMOVAL
IMPROVEMENTS
Table 4-12
Grit Chamber
Grit Removal Mechanisms
Grit Washers
Grit Washing Pumps
$ 310,000
JUNCTION BOX
MODIFICATIONS
Bypass Control Modifications
Flow Control Gates
30,000
PRIMARY CLARIFIER
UPGRADING
AERATION BASIN
MODIFICATINS
SECONDARY CLARIFIER
IMPROVEMENTS
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
Refurbish Mechanisms
Influent Valve Modifications
Concrete Work
Wier Modifications and
Flow Measurements
Meter Modifications on Return
and Waste Sludge Pumps
Chlorine System for
Filamentous Control
Aluminum Gratings
40,000
40,000
110,000
150,000
SAMPLING EQUIPMENT
20,000
DEMOLITION OF
TRICKLING FILTER PLANT
450,000
TOTAL
$1,150,000
Source: Facilities Plan Update
Technical Memorandum 5-B
COSTS FOR COMMON MODIFICATIONS
4-28
-------
potential additional benefits, should effluent requirements become more strin
gent. Alternatives I, 2 and 3 utilize filtration, which is the most effec-
tive process for 300 and suspended solids removal, and so have a slight ad-
vantage for this consideration. Alternatives I, 2, 4 and 5 use ozonation and
will provide a high effluent 00 which is desirable.
4 . Land Use
MMSO owns sufficient property to provide a buffer zone around the treatment
plant for any of the alternatives. This will reduce adverse impacts to a
nearby residential area.
No wetlands will be directly affected by the construction of any new waste-
water treatment alternative under consideration in the Final EIS. The wetland
area adjacent to 3adfish Creek is the Green Lake wetland, located above the
effluent ditch. The wetlands no longer drain to the effluent ditch. The wet-
lands adjacent to the Nine Springs plant are by the sludge facilities and
will not be affected by the wastewater treatment expansion if proper construc-
tion practices are followed.
Section 5-E of the Environmental Assessment (v.2 of the Oraft EIS) discusses
the results of flood projections for Badfish Creek. Flood flows are not anti-
cipated to significantly increase with any of the proposed alternatives for a
Badfish Creek discharge. As the severity of the flood increases, the propor-
tion of effluent in the flood flow decreases. For the once-i n-ten-year flood,
no existing structures would be inundated. Most of the floodplain area is
used for pasture or is uncultivated. The Nine Springs Treatment Plant, itself,
is not located in a floodplain.
5 . Arcaeoocca and Historic Sites
Archaeological and historic surveys have found no evidence of sites in the
proposed construction area, see Section l-l of Chapter 2 of the Draft EIS.
Energy cost differences between the alternatives are influenced by the type of
aeration system used in the activated sludge process. The standard efficiency
diffusion system used in Alternatives I and 2 is more energy intensive. Alterna-
tive 5 has the lowest energy costs.
Alternatives I, 2 and 3 would require up to one ton of chlorine per year for
the filter backwash system. Alternatives 4, 5 and 6 would need up to 300 tons
of alum and 6 tons of polymer per year to operate the flocculating clarifiers.
Thus a filtration system would be somewhat less consumptive of chemicals than
a flocculation system.
4-29
-------
These engineering aspects of the alternatives are summarized in Table 4-13.
The R3C process is considered to be most stable and flexible since this pro-
cess separates the functions of carbonaceous 30D removal and nitrogenous BOO
removal. Various modifications of the single-stage nitrification process
are considered to be slightly less stable or flexible since the potential
for microbial "wash out" exists. Additionally, increased potential for
diffuser plugging is associated with the high efficiency diffusion system.
Stability and flexibility of filtration is considered to be approximately
equal to flocculating clarifiers. Filters respond better to mild changes
or plant upsets, whereas flocculating clarifiers can best respond to severe
upsets. UV irradiation has a higher dependency on low TSS concentration
for efficient performance than does ozonation.
process experience comparison relates closely to documented experience as
well as the amount of pilot testing performed for each process at the Nine
Springs plant. Therefore, Alternative I is considered to be superior since
all processes have been piloted. Flocculating clarifiers have not been
specifically piloted at the Nine Springs plant. The SURFACT process, Al-
ternative 4, has not been piloted anywhere for the purpose of nitrification.
Ease of operation reflects how closely the processes must be controlled in
order to attain the desired results. Therefore, the R3C process is most
favored because it is a two-stage process in which control is least critical.
As the need to control the solids inventory in the single-stage nitrification
process increases, the relative scores decrease. There are additional opera-
tional requirements of controlling chemical feed to the flocculating clarifier
alternati ves.
The ability to reuse existing facilities is relatively high for all strategies.
In some processes the standard efficiency diffusion system in the existing aera-
tion basins must be replaced with a high efficiency diffusion system. For all
strategies, a new pump station is to be provided and the existing pump station
is to be converted to an equipment maintenance building.
The filtration process alternatives have the advantages of being able to produce
even lower 300 and suspended solids concentration if lower levels should ever be
required in the future, while flocculating clarifiers are less flexible in this
respect.
Safety considerations focus on the use of ozone or pure oxygen as a part of the
treatment strategy. The safest alternatives use neither, intermediate alterna-
tives use ozone for disinfection and oxygenation, while Alternative 6 is con-
sidered the least desirable because of the inherent danger with the use of pure
oxygen.
0. FINAL SELECTION PROCESS
The Facilities alan Addendum used a numerical matrix to select preferred treat-
ment alternatives. This Final EIS will use a narrative analysis, based on the
4-30
-------
ENGINEERING COMPARISON OF TREATMENT STRATEGY ALTERNATIVES
Table 4-13
ALTERNATIVE
PROCESS
PROCESS STABILITY
AND FLEXIBILITY
DEMONSTRATED
PROCESS EXPERIENCE
EASE OF
OPERATION
UTILIZATION OF
EXISTING
FACILITIES
(I)
PHASING FOR FUTURE
GROWTH AND HIGHER
EFFLUENT STANDARDS
TSI
Single stage
nitrification with
std efficiency
diffusers, high
head gravity
filtration, ozone
disinfection and
oxygenation,
followed by
effluent pumping
and transport.
Good, except for
possibility of
microbial washout;
also, possibility
of filters blind-
ing during severe
upset; ozone dis-
infection less
affected by TSS.
All processes
proven elsewhere
and piloted at
Nine Springs
Plant.
Solids inventory
in single stage
system requires
close attention;
filtration and
disinfection
require little
attention.
All facilities
used for origi-
nally intended
purpose, except
pump station to
vehicle mainten-
ance and effluent
storage tanks to
filter backwash
tanks.
Capable of meeting
limits of 2.5 mg/l
NH^-N, 10 mg/l
BOD, 10 mg/l TSS,
and lower coliform
count; can be
phased for growth.
Slight disruption
for aeration
basin, filtration,
and pump station
connection.
Concern with
ozonation system.
Conventional.
s be demoli«h»H far /it
TS2
Activated sludge
process followed
by RBC process for
nitrification,
high head gravity
filtration, ozone
disinfection and
oxygenation,
followed by
effluent pumping
and transport.
Very good, due to
two stage system;
however, slight
possibility of
filters blinding
during severe
upset; ozone dis-
infection less
affected by TSS.
All processes
proven elsewhere,
except air drive
system on RBC
assemblies.
Mechonicardrive
RBC process
piloted at Nine
Springs Plant.
Two stage system
requires moderate
attention; filtra-
tion and disinfec-
tion require
llttl* attention.
All facilities
used for origi-
nally intended
purpose, except
pump station to
vehicle mainten-
ance and effluent
storage tanks to
filter backwash
tanks.
Capable of meeting
limits of 2.5 mg/l
NHft-N, 10 mg/l
BOD, 10 mg/l TSS,
and lower coliform
count; can be
phased for growth.
Slight disruption
for RBC and pump
station
connection.
Concern with
ozonation system.
Conventional.
TS3
Single stage
nitrification with
high efficiency
diffusers, high
head gravity
filtration, UV
disinfection,
followed by
effluent pumping
and transport.
Good, except for
possibility of
microbial washout
and diffuser
plugging; also,
possibility of
filters blinding
during severe
upset; UV disin-
fection more
more affected by
Tee
1 33.
Nitrification
process with high
efficiency dif-
fusers and UV dis-
infection not
fully proven;
filtration and UV
processes piloted
at Nine Springs
Plant.
Solids inventory
In single stage
system require*
close attention)
filtration and
disinfection
require little
attention.
All facilities
used for origi-
nally intended
purpose, except
pump station to
vehicle mainten-
ance and effluent
storage tanks to
filter backwash
tanks; existing
diffuser system to
be replaced in
basins? to IS.
Capable of meeting
limits of 2.5 mg/l
NH(,-N, 10 mg/l
BOD, 10 mg/l TSS,
and lower coliform
count; con be
phased for growth.
Disruption for
aeration basin.
filtration and
pump station
connection; also
for diffuser
system replace-
ment.
Little concern
with UV system.
Partially
innovative
TS*
SURF ACT process,
flocculating
clarifiers, ozone
disinfection and
oxygenation,
followed by
effluent pumping
and transport.
Expected to be
good, but addi-
tional experience
needed to docu-
ment; flocculating
clarifiers well
able to respond
to severe upset;
ozone disinfec-
tion less affected
by TSS.
SURF ACT, and floc-
culating clari-
fiers not fully
proven but some
experience with
each; ozone dis-
infection proven
elsewhere and
piloted at Nine
Springs Plant.
Solids inventory
less critical
because of fixed
growth; attention
to flocculating
clorlflers needed
for chemical
addition) disin-
fection requires
little attention.
All facilities
used for origi-
nally intended
purpose, except
pump station to
vehicle mainten-
ance, diffuser
system to be
replaced in basins
7 to 15, effluent
storage tanks to
to be abandoned.
Capable of meeting
limits of 2.5 mg/l
NH4-N, and
lower coliform
count; filters
required to meet
limits of 10 mg/l
TSS and 10 mg/l
BOD; all can be
phased for growth.
Disruption of
aeratin basin for
for RBC instal-
lation of clari-
fiers for instal-
lation of floc-
culating mech-
anisms, and pump
station connec-
tion.
Concern with
ozonation system.
Partially
Innovative
TSS
Single stage
nitrification with
high efficiency
diffusers, floccu-
lating clarifiers
UV disinfection,
followed by
effluent pumping
and transport.
Good, except for
possibility of
microbial washout
and diffuser
plugging; floc-
culating clari-
fiers well able to
respond to severe
upset; UV disin-
fection more
affected by TSS.
Nitrification
process with high
efficiency dif-
fusers and floccu-
lating clarifiers
not fully proven,
but some exper-
ience with each;
UV disinfection
piloted at Nine
Springs Plant.
Solids inventory
in single stage
system requires
close attention;
attention to
flocculating
clarifiers needed
for chemical
addition) disin-
fection requires
little attention.
All facilities
used for origi-
nally intended
purpose, except
pump station to
vehicle mainten-
ance, diffuser
system to be
replaced in basins
7 to 1 5, effluent
storage tanks to
to be abandoned.
Capable of meeting
limits of 2.5 mg/l
NH(,-N, and
lower coliform
count; filters
required to meet
limits of 10 mg/l
TSSond 10 mg/l
BOD; all can be
phased for growth.
Disruption for
aeration basin
and pump station
connection; also
replacement of
diffuser system
and installation
of flocculating
mechanisms.
Little concern
with UV system.
Fully
Innovative
TSS
Air/oxygen single
itage nitrification,
flocculating
clarifiers, ozone
disinfection
and oxygenation,
followed by
effluent pumping
and transport.
More stable and
flexible due to
added advantage
of pure oxygen
system, possibility
exists for micro-
bial washout and
diffuser plugging;
flocculating clari-
fiers well able to
handle severe upset)
ozone disinfection
less affected by TSS.
Combined air/
oxygen system and
flocculating clari-
fiers not fully
proven, but some
experience with
clarifiers; ozone
disinfection proven
elsewhere arid
piloted at Nine
Springs Plant.
Solids inventory
In single stage
system and pure
oxygen portion
require close
attention) attention
to flocculating
clarifiers needed
for chemical addition)
disinfection requires
little attention.
All facilities
used for origi-
nally intended
purpose, except
pump station to
vehicle mainten-
ance, diffuser
system to be
replaced in basins
7 to 1 5, effluent
storage tanks to
to be abandoned.
Capable of meeting
limits of 2.5 mg/l
NH4-N, and
lower coliform
count; filters
required to meet
limits of 10 mg/l
TSS and 10 mg/l
BOD; all can be
phased for growth.
Disruption for
aeration basin
and pump station
connection; also
replacement of
diffuser system
and installation
of flocculating
mechanisms.
Moderate concern
with ozone and
pure oxygen systems.
Fully
Innovative.
TREATMENT
CONTINUITY
DURING
CONSTRUCTION
SAFETY
CONSIDERATIONS
TECHNOLOGY ,,,
CLASSIFICATION "'
IIJ irlCKiing filter sys .
(2) Effluent pumping and transport conventional for all strategies.
4-31
-------
criteria of cost-effectiveness. The cost-effective alternative is the one
with the lowest costs which also meets the necessary social and environmental
needs. It is not necessarily the least cost alternative. Dleas8 rumember
that this selection process assumes the Badfish Creek discharge alternative
selected in the Draft EIS. Detailed environmental considerations were pre-
sented in that analysis.
As in the "Draft EIS the "No Action" alternative has been rejected because it
will not meet National water quality goals and because it would create severe
environmental impacts. Although water quality modeling was not completed
for the "No Action" alternative, we expect that the "No Action" alternative
would provide extremely poor water quality conditions in 3adfish Creek by
the end of the planning period. Without the construction of the proposed
advanced waste treatment facilities, Badfish Creek will be subject to severe
loadings of organic and inorganic pollutants. Population growth and land
use patterns in the Madison area could be severely impacted by the "No
Action" alternative if sewer hookups are restricted. If the Madison Metro-
politan Sewerage District chose a "build" alternative to fund entirely with
local monies, it would greatly increase the user charges because of the lack
of trie 75S-35t Federal contribution for eligible capital costs.
AM the remaining system alternatives are comparable in terms of construction
impacts, land use impacts, wetlands and floodplains, and archaeological and
historic sites. The differences between the alternatives are in costs, water
quality, energy and chemical use, and engineering considerations.
°roject present worth costs are straightforward, tanked from low to high, the
alternatives are 5, 5, 3, 4, I and 2. Since portions of Alternatives 3 and 4
and aven larger portions of Alternatives 5 and 5 are classified as innovative
technology, they would receive a 10$ bonus of additional Federal funds for the
eligible items. This would help to reduce the local user charges to pay for
the new system.
Tne water quality impacts will be satisfactory and will result in improvements to
Iddfish Creek and downstream rivers. The advantages of the potential for in-
creased 100 and suspended solids removal capabilities of the filtration process
of Alternatives I, 2 and 3 is significant for the future flexibility of the sys-
tem, should more stringent treatment ever be required. Immediate water quality
benefits would be comparable for either the filtration or the flocculation pro-
cess. The flocculating clarifiers have the advantage of being more resistant
to severe upsets than filters.
Drojected energy costs, ranked from low to high, for the alternatives are: 5, 3,
5, 4, 2 and I. Chemical use is slightly less for Alternatives I, 2 and 3 than
4, 5 and 5.
Engineering factors are more diverse. Those alternatives which are strong in
demonstrated process experience, I, 2 and 3, are not considered to be innovative
technology. Alternative 5 is relatively weak and Alternative 2 is relatively
strong in process stability and flexibility. All are considered acceptable.
Alternative 3 is the weakest at using existing facilities; while Alternatives
5 and 5 are more difficult to operate; Alternative 5 has the most serious
safety probI em.
4-32
-------
As a result of comparing the alternatives. Alternative 5 is the one preferred
It has distinct cost and energy conservation advantages and promotes innovati
technology. Water quality presents no problems. Engineering plusses are
utilization of existing facilities and safety. Its flexibility is sufficient
to meet future needs, although other alternatives are stronger in this area.
Careful operation will be essential for Alternative 5.
4-33
-------
CHAPTER 5
RECOMMENDED ACTION
A. THE PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE
Alternative 5 is the recommended treatment strategy. It consists of single-stage
nitrification, flocculating clarifiers and UV disinfection of the effluent.
Treated wastewater will be conveyed from the Nine Springs plant to 3adfish Creek
through the existing effluent pipeline with a II5-MGD effluent pumping station
and an intermediate booster pump station.
The existing facilities at the Nine Springs °lant will be used for preliminary
and primary treatment. The primary effluent will be split between the new and
existing aeration basins where single-stage biological nitrification and BOD
removal will take place. Suspended solids will be reduced in the flocculating
clarifiers, with chemical feed added for better solids sedimentation. A new
ultraviolet light disinfection system will treat the effluent prior to its being
transported to 3adfish Creek through an Improved, phased pumping system.
The component requirements for this selected '.aJftlflwH ye are- listed in Technical
Memorandum 5-A of the Facilities Plan Update. Jne efflu-ent booster pump may be
phased to be built about 1990, or as the need arises. Phasing Is not recommended
for the other components, which will be designed to provide for 50 MGD treatment
for the 20-year planning period.
Diagrams of the selected system have been presented fn Figure 4-5. Total capital
costs are estimated to be $25,480,000. Seventy-five -percent of eligible
costs and eighty-five percent of eligible Innovative costs will be covered
by Federal grant assistance. The system users must pay for the non-eligible
capital costs and the on-going operation and maintenance costs through the
user charge system. These are estimated to txe about $35 per year for each
household, in I9SO dollars. Municipal sewer service charges would be added
to the user's bill, as well, at an approximate- -cost of $16 per year. Larger
users will pay proportionately to their, volume 6f effluent.
3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
I . Overview
Impacts are unchanged from the Draft EIS analysis in many areas: climate,
topography and geology, soils, wafer quality management planning, groundwater,
biology, air quality, noise, odors, land use, population, historic and archaeo-
logical sites, open space, recreation and agriculture.
Surface water and energy use will be discussed in more detail below.
2 . Surface_Water
a. Water Quality and Hydrology
This section remains the same, except for an update on lake level manage-
ment. The City of Madison has adopted the recommendations on lake level
management froti the City-County Lakes Committed Report. The Dane County
Department of ^ublic Works is responsible for operating the locks to regu-
late lake levels. Thus the local support and initiative is in place to
5-1
-------
provide a coordinated system for lake level management. This program will
minimize low flows in the downstream segment of the Yahara 3iver. An operating
rules study has not yet been conducted.
b. Water DualIty
This section presents additions or alterations to the Draft EIS analysis.
Dissolved oxygen levels instream are affected by the total ammonia nitro-
gen level. 3y limiting the total ammonia nitrogen to 2.7 mg/l, a 5.0 mg/l
00 effluent will maintain the instream 5.0 mg/l instream standard for 00
The predictive modeling for 00 assumed a higher 5.0 mg/l total ammonia nitrogen
value. So this conservative ammonia value means that a sufficient 00 value
wi 11 be achieved.
Suspended solids concentration will improve as the effluent quality im-
proves with advanced treatment. Loadings decreased from 9,305 Ibs/day to 4,110
Ibs/day after the Fifth Addition was built to improve secondary treatment.
Even when the Nine Springs plant achieves its full design flow of 50 MGO, the
loading of 8,345 Ibs/day of suspended solids is a decrease from the 1973-74
load, prior to the Fifth Addition.
When the Fifth Addition was built, 300 loadings decreased to 6,875 Ibs/day
from 7,785 Ibs/day. Achieving the 50 M30 design flow will Increase the loading
to 8,345 Ibs/day. This is because the 300 concentration of 22 mg/l prior to
the Fifth Addition is close to the final permit limit of 20 mg/l.
Ammonia nitrogen limits have been extensively studied for the Final EIS, see
Section C of Chapter 2. The effluent limits are designed to achieve the
instream unionized amnronia nitrogen limit of 0.35 mg/l. Thus the warm water
fish population will be protected with the degree of treatment proposed
for this project. Ammonia nitrogen loadings will decrease sharply from the
1973-74 value of 5,220 Ibs/day. At design flow, the summer loading will be
1,127 Ibs/day and the winter loading 3,333 Ibs/day.
Section 3-b-l2 of Chapter 5 of the Draft EIS discussed the heavy metals issue
in detail. Substances of greatest concern were aluminum, copper, lead, mercury,
and zinc. Table 5-7 fro-n the Draft EIS is presented here as Table 5-1. The
background levels in some of the local streams exceed the Nine Springs effluent
value prior to the Fifth Addition. Improved suspended solids removal with
the new treatment facilites will tend to remove more heavy metals from the
effluent and concentrate them in the sludge. More importantly, MMSO has begun
its analysis of an industrial pretreatment program. This program will work
to identify and control any substantial industrial contributions of heavy
metals before they reach the Nine Springs treatment plant. Flow equalization
will be provided within the treatment plant units rather than in a separate
basin. This capacity for peak flow will also serve to dampen any momentariIy
high concentration of heavy metals.
3.
The analyses in Chapters 2 and 4 have itemized energy usa values for each
of the components and alternate systems. The selected alternative has the
lowest energy costs of the final group of alternatives considered, except
for the No Action alternative.
5-2
-------
Table 5-1
C.5
4J> >
«*•>
*£
2t
3*
*i
|i
£UI
3*
»i
-«
3 JO «Ui-
e IB
•r- |E c ia
X S 0 I.
*£-
V. O -r- 41
5 "3 -o i.
«^5o
£
IO Ol l/> J<
t. >j- 01
L-
S- CO
.c
I/I JC
w- *>
lr~ 3
1*
2*
US
0.0
JC -0
£ gg
•^ o m
a5 a:
^o «c
c o
•o c
*•"* fO
30O
oe
(A
JC S-
V> J* 41
i- 41 *»
l«l
-f-^
VI C
£3
src
v- O.M-
Z UI
I/I *J
•i cne
c c 01
skc
*"ui
1.
CM
1
CO
«
in
rH
CM
*
S
in
,
s
CO
^H
1
•
5
10
CO
1
IO
•u
(/)
rH
1
CO
CM •
to
O
rH
d
Cvl
rH
CM
r*
CM
1
1
8
o
in
o
i
CM
d
^
co
d
CO
d
*
?35
o
|
•r-
5
rH
O
d
O
O
«*•
i— I
0
J2
d
o
d
i
d
in
c
CM
d
i
CO
o
d
in
rH
d
in
rH
d
in
rH
C
u
S
O
S
S
d
o
o
V
rH
O
O
V
rH
O
d
V
rH
C
O
V
rH
O
0
V
rH
O
d
V
rH
O
d
V
rH
O
d
V
q^
o
0
•o
IO
01
CM
in
CO
^.
in
rH
S
rH
S
•
S
CO
CO
rH
IO
CM
1^
1
<**
CO
^
CO
CM
CO
CM
CM
CM
CM
=S
1
0
rH
d
CM
o
o
CO
o
o
^.
S
d
co
CM
rH
O
0
CM
m
o
o
o\
CM
r-4
•
o
52
^^
d
to
S
d
c
o
•r-
I y
N
•r-
tO Sw
O1 Q)
O 4J
O l«
S-
g
*>
41
3
U '•'
C
INI rH
B
Ol
3
C
•r*
VI
JC
u
i
>fc
S.
y
1
j_
o
•ft
0.
41
U
rH
1
•r-
VI
10 ai
IO i—
o 5
0? r-
3 ^
«0
E 01
S 0
4J
CM
C
•
tl_
X
•r~
1
«
1
^
"o
ai
iJ
1
5-3
-------
C. ADVANCED WASTEWATER TREATMENT REVIEW
I. Background
3oth EPA and Congress have been concerned about the high cost and energy
consumption of many wastewater treatment projects. Often these costs are
attributable to optimistic populatioa projections or sophisticated extra
unit treatment processes. Funding facilities with these conditions takes
limited grant funds from other projects and delays in accomplishing the
basic secondary treatment goal for all publicly-owned treatment plants.
High operation and maintenance costs can place a long-term burden on the
community.
The Congressional Appropriations Conference Committee has specified "that
grant funds may be used for construction of new facilities providing treatment
greater than secondary... only If the Incremental cost of the advanced treatment
is $1 million or less, or if the Administrator (of EPA) personally determines
that advanced treatment is required and win definitely result in significant
water quality and public health improvements."
A distinction has been made between two classes of treattient that is more
advanced than secondary. These are advanced secondary treatment (AST) and
advanced wastewater treatment (AWT) based on the following monthly averages:
Secondary AST AWT
BOD 30 mg/l - 29-H »g/l . 10 mg/l
or 35? removal
SS 30 mg/l
or 85? removal 29-11 mg/l , 10 mg/l
Total Nitrogen
(TKN + nitrite + I ess-than 50* removal
nitrate) 50% removal
Review criteria are less stringent for AST projects than AWT project.
The proposed improvements at HadI soft have been classified as an AST project,
with incremental costs of $17 million, and have been subject to a detailed
review by EPA.
2. AST Review Results
The AST review has been completed for this project and concured with the
appropriateness of the single stage nltrlfIcalton system. Adequate technical
studies have been conducted to justify the additional treatment costs to
protect 3adfish Creek by maintaining water quality standards.
5-4 -
-------
D. MITIGATIVE MEASURES
I . MonjJ^or jjig_Pro£r am
A stream quality monitoring program is planned by MMSD to determine the
compliance of the future Nine Springs effluent discharge with established
water quality standards. Both chemical and biological studies will be
conducted. Table-5-2 outlines the chemical sampling while the monitoring
station locations are shown in Figures 5-1 and 5-2. Additional studies
are designed to monitor the sludge facilities, but they are beyond the
scope of this EIS. The exact sampling location at each monitoring station
will be determined during a preliminary field survey of the receiving
streams.
The importance of monitoring many of these stations relates to assessing the
assimilative capacity of Badfish Creek. Also, some of the stations had been
monitored by the District before diversion of Nine Springs effluent to Sad-
fish Creek in 1959. Continued monitoring will be expected to show the im-
provement in the water quality with increasing levels of wastewater treatment
at the Nine Springs °lant. It will also detect special problems, should any
develop .
The two existing District monitoring stations on the Yahara River (9-Y and
10-Y) will be monitored on a temporary basis to assess the impact of 3adfish
Creek on water quality in the Yahara River. By similar reasoning, two sta-
tions on the Rock River ( I 5-r and I 6-r ) will continue to be monitored to
assess the impact on water quality of the Rock River. These stations should
be monitored until it is determined that the impact of the effluent discharge
on these streams is of reduced importance.
As shown in Table 5-2, sampling for many of the parameters will be on a monthly
basis to detect water quality changes over the long-term. In addition to
monthly grab samples, 24-hour continuous monitoring surveys will be conducted
in early spring and late summer to provide information on diurnal fluctuations
during these two different seasons. Parameters which were found not to vary
appreciably, such as aluminum, copper, mercury, and zinc, will be monitored
quarter I y.
Collecting and analyzing the water quality samples will not be the final step
of the water quality monitoring program. The water quality data will be ana-
lyzed and reviewed thoroughly to detect if there are any changes in water
quality that warrant early actions. Also, from the data analysis, decisions
can be made relative to modifications of the monitoring program, such as
changing the parameters monitored or sampling frequency. Data will be tabu-
lated or graphed to show any water quality trends and for comparison to water
quality standards. Also, ti ma-of-travel plots will be prepared from 24-hour
survey data to show the natural assimilative capacity of Badfish Creek.
In addition, a water quality index should be used for data presentation, as
developed in Technical Memorandum 2-D of the Facilities Plan Addendum. This
5-5
-------
Station
B-e
C-e
D-b
l-b
3-b
4-b
5o-f
6-b
60-5
8-b
9-Y
10-Y
15-r
16-r
18
19
20
Physical/Chemical Parameter
Physical/Chemical
Monthly
4
1
1
1
1
1
-
1
-
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
Groups:
Parameter uroup
Quarterly
—
1,2
1,2
1.2
'•2.
1,2
«,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
—
—
—
2
24 -hour
4
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
—
1,2
—
1,2
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
I Temp, DO, pH, TBOD^, TSS, VSS, Totol-P, ORG-N, NH.-N, NO,-N, NO,-N, Fecal Coliform.
2 AltCu,Hg,Zn. 5 4 2 ' 3 '
3 NH,-N, NO,-N, TBOD..
* DO" J 3
Source: Summary of the Facilities Plan Update
PARAMETERS AND SAMPLING
5-6
-------
Figure 5-1
UJ
NINE SPRINGS WA8TEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT
'EFFLUENT FORCE MAIN
-EFFLUENT DITCH
CTH-B
OREGON
BRANCH
SCALE IN MILES
0123
SAND HILL RD.
. TOWN LINE RD.
STEBBINSVILLE RD.
CASEY RD.
WALLIN RD.
EDGERTON x
LOCATIONS ON BADFISH CREEK,
YAHARA RIVER, AND ROCK RIVER
STREAM MONITORING STATIONS
5-7
-------
Figure 5-2
NINE SPRINGS
CREEK
LOCATIONS ON NINE SPRINGS CREEK
AND THE OLD EFFLUENT CHANNEL
Source: Facilities Plan Update
Summary
STREAM MONITORING STATIONS
5-8
-------
water quality index is a mathematical approach to combine data on two or more
water quality parameters to produce a single number. A water quality index re-
quires careful presentation and interpretation, but it is useful in presenting
overall water quality trends to the general public.
Table 5-3 presents values for a water quality index derived from the District's
monitoring data. It uses a slightly modified form of the National Sanitation
Foundation water quality index. These results are presented to illustrate how
a water quality index may be used to present water quality data. The indices
for individual monitoring stations could be plotted versus time to show trends
in water qua Iity.
Biological parameters are a useful tool in assessing the impact of a wastewater
discharge on the water quality of a receiving stream, because biological organisms
tend to respond to the entire historical record of water quality. In many cases
they can tell more about water quality than monthly grab samples analyzed for
physical/chemical parameters, which reflect only the moment of sampling. Different
aquatic organisms have different life cycles and different sensitivities to
various types of stress, such as low dissolved oxygen. These differences can
be used to assess the effects of water quality changes or habitat alterations.
In addition, the monitoring of aquatic organisms will verify the suitability of
the water quality standards for protection of fish and aquatic life.
The selection of biological parameters to be monitored is dependent on the objec-
tives of the stream quality monitoring program, as discussed earlier. Based on a
review of the literature on the effects of wastewater effluents on aquatic orga-
nisms, two biological surveys performed for the 1976 Facilities °lan, and
discussions with biologists, it was concluded that a biological monitoring pro-
gram should include an analysis of periphyton, (microscopic aquatic plants which
grow on stones, sticks, large plants, etc.), macrophyton, (large aquatic
plants), macroinvertebrates and fish. Selected parameters are indicated on
Table 5-4, and the time sequence and frequency for obtaining samples of various
biological parameters are presented in Table 5-5.
Biological monitoring stations were selected reference stations, stations
below discharges or tributaries, ecologically similar stations, and avoidance
of atypical habitats. The selected biological monitoring stations, located
in Figure 5-1, include C-e, D-b, l-b, 3-b, 4-b, 6-b and 8-b. Technical Memorandum
2-D of the Facilities Plan Addendum contains a discussion of various sample
collection and analysis procedures for biological parameters, such as the
use of a dredge sampler for macroinvertebrates or artificial substrates for
per iphyton.
There are no standard methods for presenting data from a biological monitoring
study. There are numerous methods for analyzing and presenting the data to deter-
mine the effects of an effluent on the receiving stream. Methods range from a
simple presentation of the number of species and individual organisms collected
5-9
-------
Table 5-3
tat ion
B-e
l-b
3-b
4-b
5a-f
6a-s
8-b
9-Y
10-Y
15-r
16-r
Location
Effluent Ditch
Badfish Creek
Rutland Branch
Badfish Creek
Frog Pond Creek
Spring Creek
Badfish Creek
Yahara River
Yahara River
Rock River
Rock River
Annual
!955-(3) 1972-
1958 1975
67 44
72 72
54 32
-
-
66 40
57 49
56 65
62 61
62 62
Average Water Quality Index* '
1976
35
44
75
34
-
-
38
53
66
64
62
1977
34
40
73
33
-
-
37
48
65
60
60
1978
40
49
80
44
74
74
51
60
72
71
67
1979
37
51
80
43
73
77
54
62
73
70
69
(I) Locations shown on Figure 2
(2) Index ranges from 0 to 100 as water quality increases
(3) Prior to diversion of effluent to Badfish Creek
Source: Using water quality data from Tables 2 through 11 in Appendix A and the Water
Quality Index developed by the National Sanitation Foundation (Ott, 1978), with the
following modified parameter weights:
D.O. 0.21
Fecal Coliforms 0.18 (Total coliforms prior to 1976)
pH 0.15
TBOD5 0.12
NH.-N 0.12 (linear sub-index from 0 at 25 mg/l to 100 at 0 mg/l)
Toftl-P 0.12
TSS 0.10 (Using turbidity sub-index in Ott, 1978)
Source: Summary Facilities Plan Update
WATER QUALITY INDEX RESULTS
5-10
-------
Table 5-4
Parameter
Periphyton
Macrophyton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Station
C-e
X
X
X
X
D-b
X
X
X
X
l-b 3-b
X X
X X
X X
XV V • /
/\
4-b
X
X
X
6-b
X
X
X
x<2)
8-b
X
X
X
X
(I) Limited to times when samples can be collected with the assistance of the Wisconsin
DNR.
(2) Sample location between station 4-b and 6-b in public hunting grounds.
Source: Suranary Facilities Pl*n Update B|OLOG|CAL MON.TOR.NG PARAMETERS
5-11
-------
Table 5-5
u
o
0.
UJ
(/)
u
u
a:
m
UJ
u.
0)
_
Q.00
,.
.£•• 5
u
o
« ^ .2
CL S u.
Source: Sunmary Facilities Plan Update
5-12
X
*
X
c
a
o
o
SAMPLING SCHEDULE FOR
BIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS
-------
to detailed interpretations of diversity. The use of a diversity index is
probably the best tool to use for measuring the quality of the environment,
and the effect of induced stress on the structure of biological communities.
Diversity indices assume that the greater the number of species present in
proportion to the total number of individual organisms, the greater the
stability and health of the system. The biological monitoring data, along
with any numerical indices, will be plotted on graphs to show any observable
trends.
2 • jndustr|a|_Pretreatnrient
Madison has begun its industrial pretreatment analysis, as required by the
provisions of their WPOES discharge permit. The entire analysis and
implementation program must be completed by March 1982.
The purpose of industrial pretreatment is to control high concentrations of
industrially-produced substances at their source, rather than having to
remove them at the municipal wastewater treatment system. This may help
control the heavy metals concentration entering the Nine Springs influent.
3. Construction Practjces_
Site construction practices can be planned to reduce construction erosion
and sedimentation. Erosion and sedimentation controls will be employed
at the Nine Springs site to avoid construction damage to the wetland
areas near the sludge facilities.
4. Other
Fencing selected residential areas along 3adfish Creek or the effluent ditch
can protect local children from the dangers of falling down the steep banks.
MMSO's aquatic weed harvesting program should continue. This will help to
reduce DO sags in Sadfish Creek.
The Record of Decision will present more specific details on implementing all of
the mitigative measures selected by EPA.
E. NEPA REVIEW OF IMPACTS
'• Adverse impacts whjch cannot be avoided
Short term: Construction disruption, noise, dust, some erosion and
sedimentation, and traffic.
Long term: Use of land and construction materials, consumption of
energy and labor; diversion of water from the Yahara water-
shed to a downstream point in that watershed; chance of
occasional odors at the treatment plant during system
upsets.
5-13
-------
2 •
Short term-Jong^term re I atignsh i p
Water quality of the proposed receiving stream would be substantially im-
proved from its existing condition upon implementation of the proposed
actions. The quantity and quality of the flow in the Badfish Creek would
provide ample habitat for fish, especially the downstream areas which have
not been channelized in the past. That portion of the Creek in Rock County,
in particular, has a variety of habitat areas (pools, swift currents, over-
hanging stream bank vegetation, etc.) which would provide the areas for
resting, feeding and reproduction required to maintain a good warm water
fish population.
Improvement of water quality parameters including dissolved oxygen, suspended
solids, and other chemical and physical properties of the Nine Springs efflu-
ent would provide for gradual change in the quality of 3adfish Creek, allowing
desirable fish species to make use of the existing habitat areas in the 3ad-
fish Creek. In conjunction with the proposed improvements to the treatment
facilities, some changes should be made in the local agricultural community
farming practices to reduce nutrient loadings from non-point runoff. This
problem is being addressed in the 208 °lanning effort. Many of these
benefits will help contribute to improving downstream areas of the
watershed in the Yahara and Rock fivers, as well as 3adfish Creek.
/^ith improved water quality in the 3adfish Creek, other recreational uses of
the Creek would be possible, such as canoeing. The development of the receiv-
ing stream, including provision for adequate public access and removal of
fences crossing the Creek, might be considered in the future.
These benefits will be obtained from the short-term costs of construction
impacts and the long-term costs of land, materials, labor and energy.
3 . I rr eyers i b I e or Irretr i eyab|e Commi tment of Resources _whi_ch_wguj_d be
jjwoTyed~|f the Proposed^ Act|ons^Shgujd belmpTemented
The proposed actions would have the following irreversible or irretrievable
commitments:
— Additional land at the Nine Springs plant site would be dedicated
to treatment facilities.
Labor and energy resources expended in the construction of the
facilities would not be available for other uses.
— Diversion of water from a portion of the Yahara River basin would
conti nue.
5-14
-------
CHAPTER 6
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS
A. COMMENT LETTERS
Copies of the letter are reproduced following our responses.
I. HUD 7/28/80
Response: Comments noted
2- Oscar Mayer Company 8/17/80
Response: a. Badflsh Creek discharge support
Comment noted.
b. Need for rotating bjojogleaj contactor questioned
The single-stage nitrification alternative has been
selected in the Final EIS.
c. Bjoassay for ammonia Mm!t
These studies were performed for the Final EIS.
d • Need for ozonat|on questioned
Ultraviolet light has been selected as a less hazardous
form of disinfection than either chlorination on ozonatlon.
e. Need for tertiary treatment guestjoned
Treatment levels have been chosen to meet the WPDES permit
requirements. A fu11 analysis of the greater-than-secondary
requirement is found in Section C of Chapter 5.
f• EH[uent equalization questioned
Separate effluent equalization has not been selected in
the Final EIS.
3. Norb Ho ImbI ad 8/21/78
Response: a. Herb[c|de Impacts
The letter in Figure 6-I explain the past program of
herbicide application along the discharge ditch. Use
of this particular herbicide, "silvex," was suspended
nationwide by EPA in 1979 except for use on rice fields
or range land. The training of the MMSD employees
in the proper application of another approved herbicide,
such as "roundup," should result in its application
according to instructions, with no resulting groundwater
polIution.
b. Jgwn of Dunn impacts
Planning is in progress for sewers in Dunn Township
6 - 1
-------
In *" *•' t~
'\ * " 0
CL v * c,
Y\ J ^
o
" 2
a i-
° £
VI u.
LJ UJ
K -"•
< §'i- P JQ
3 Sj^ > —
5 § K K K
Ul
is
oc J
1- 0
a oo
e«
^
B »
O c
O • r-
<" >S
S: j
3 -1
w t3
u CM" H
""" S Jj TO
*t^^* "T"^iL
RFP^
,_!
'73 Ffr 20.1
in
1 " '"''I'
CO -Q
Q fc
UJ
o
DC 1
jj! t s „
w II 1
7 , *
/) .O M -tf U
'o ,x u * ca
W ico 0 O N
CD IH ,2
•H v* n 4 a
4- -w « iq V,
:D « 41 az cu c
!VFO
^ 1 16
J . i Oi W | j
tn
M -H
O >H
C ^3
f* nj
i O
-H <
§ *
E oi
1 2
o m
- *M
e o
0) H
tn o
'H M ^
M 4J O
O C O
O O O U U
e o ^> c
O M o -H
•H 4-> U5 1M "
Ul U) 0) U
> C -P
•H t! tn 4-* » O
U O O -H
C O tT -P
. O 03 O ••-* -P
. OJ n-i j^ 4J
O
ao
g
4)
*O
U
tl
m
k->
ij
•|H
C
•f-l
E
T)
<
C
•i-t
C
0
u
in
•r-l
^
C
o
(A
g
41
A
4)
U
C
a
O.
y
)-•
g
E
O
01
01
•r-
e
^
M
id
&
•a
o
*J
«
u
4)
1-j
a
a.
(0
•H
41
•H
(0
0)
G,
0
ro
u
(X
tx
4)
00
C
c
V
u
c
o
V)
•a
i-i
M
*a
c
n)
4-1
t/1
r-i
n)
4J
c
4>
e
c
0
Irt
•l-l
.>
c
w
IM
* o
>,
i-t C
V 0
I-i -H
at n
c >
"* n
O
•H
H .
T.) 4JJ-3
o tn u
+J-H -P
W Q -H
SfTj
0
S4J G
(U
0 fl M
O »H «W
>i(X*M
01 0)
00
r^ o 'O
a* .C C
r-t 4-> 0}
<* C d>
rt^8
&!30
id U'.E
SOI 01
M -H
n on Feb
rmation
the Badf
01 »w ty*
•H E E
iD -H o
y r] in
E -H M
•H 9 0
•O 3 JJ
-HOE
0) >. O
£ O
01
E -rt W
•H > 3
•P O k4
0) r* J3
o a
E K
01 O
41 S U
•p P W
rt P S
*
c
"3 3
-Sfc ^ <-"
T\ 41 O
^X >r^ 41
i s"
CN"< •» O
^V< o ^
*O j^ >
U M
-W « 4»
O *> M
3
-Q ^ I?
3fca,'2
A «
O -on
^!!
M r-1
"x «
•H 1 rH O
U 3 a
— E O Id
O -rlt-l
O, -H H
Iri -P 0> -
Id < E
1 O 01
•H 1-4 rH
in rH O Id
a i
k Q-i -P 3
^ fl C
f^ « 4J EH
•H M
J5 U (0 •
4-> M a M
* i Q
JS O C • rH
tn o -H 4-) -t
*O U 4-*
C O -H fO O
* 0 Q) IH 01
(0 QJ fl> C
M >i Ed)
a^-i «> 3 o
u to -H
'O 0) C <-t
*J CL >, C *
tn nj jj Q) f j
•H -H TJ (]>
O 4-1 10 M
,C 4J U H O
E-" M m t-« [M
a
K
Q
V)
t
>N
,
U
*r
o
m
0
,-\
0
«
k4
4)
4J
«
o*
•o
a
£
O
1
•o
B
3
C
41
§
(M
O
4-)
I
a
a
g
•H
Ul
§
o
01
•rH
2
01
.p
M
IH
01
4J
01
Id
01
•H
01
01
3
O
0
1-1
1
(J
Id
4J
i
01
S3
•H
3
id
•H •
rH 01
O.TJ
IS
0
01
01 >
- -H
J-> 4J
U Id
-H M
the Dist
Adminis
B
B 01
•H E
4J 0
(Q U
U tQ
•H -H
T3 S
5.
O 1-1
H 0
3
O tfl
tn -p
01 E
« 01
rH 01
id M
M 'rf
3 3
.P tr
Id 01
z u
u
U NO
O i -P
-S 4 B
01 2 v •*
r< U 5<3 H Q
3 M <•*>. M
o ti _. 3 -a
S>iZ O *\^1 W E
gg ->5Z«
rH tH l>4 ^> • *H
2k; w -3 ij 01
OH SO)
8o< a * « E
O « H -H
B K ,—— Jwg DI
•H H f P
-------
that would go to the existing secondary treatment plant
at Stroghton. The Stroghton plant discharges to tha
Yahara River and has adequate capacity to accommodate
this additional flow. Modernization Improvements to the
Stroughton facility are under construction.
4- Corps of Engineers 8/28/73
Response: We do not anticipate that a 404 permit will be required
for this project. This portion of the Madison Nine
Springs Improvements will affect no wetland areas.
Those wetlands near the treatment plant are by the
sludge bed areas (discussed In the previous EIS on the
Organic Solids Reuse Plan) and are not near the treatment
area proposed for expansion.
5- Richard Wedepoh I 8/28/78
Response: a. AWT need
Treatment levels for the Madison effluent are determined
by the WPOES permit requirements and the special studies
of ammonia levels. A detailed analysis of the Justifica-
tion for AWT/AST treatment Is given In Section C of Chapter
5.
b . Results of Fifth Addition
»
The final EIS presents data on the In-stream water quality
Improvements In Section C of Chapter 3.
The water quality standards are designed so that 3adflsh
Creek can support a healthy warm water fish population.
d • Defin[t|gn of i mpacts
Water quality which does not support a balanced fish popu
lation would be a "severe" impact for 3adfish Creek. The
2.0 mg/l value for 00 would not sustain fish life. High
ammonia levels are toxic to fish and other aquatic life.
e • State jaw on costs and benefits
No hardship will be caused by the relatively low user
charges proposed for this project, see Section A of
Chapter 5.
Sg| [ Conservation Service 8/30/78
Response: Availability of the soil survey is noted in Section 3 of
Chapter 3.
5-3
-------
Dane_County Regional Plannjng_CgnrirTn ssjgn 9/1/78
Response: a. Nitrogen removal
Specific studies on ammonia limits for the 3adfish Creek
have been prepared for the Final EIS, see Section 3-2
of Chapter 2.
b . Project costs and benef its
Project costs have been reduced from the alternative ori
ginally proposed in the 1975 Facilities 3 1 an because of
the new stream classification and the custom-tailored
ammonia limits. Innovative portions of the proposed
facility will be eligible for 3555 Federal funding, also
easing the financial burden on local users. The Final
EIS proposes the most cost-effective solution to the
water quality limits Madison must achieve.
Yahara and
R|ver Improvements
Improvements to Badfish Creek, itself, will be signifi-
cant. This, in turn, will improve water quality down-
stream in the Yahara and Rock Rivers.
Financing arrangements
Comment noted. Achieving secondary treatment levels can
be painfully expensive for some communities, even includ-
ing Federal grant assistance. User charges for Madison,
however, are quite reasonable.
e. Water level manac
The status of lake
B-2 of Chapter 5.
level management is reported in Section
Department of the ]nter i or 9/7/78
Response: a. Yahara River data
The Draft and Final EIS are based on extensive amounts of
studies and data, not all of which can be workably
included in the EIS documents themselves. We are forward-
ing you a copy of this background data and will do so
for any other background information which readers need
to understand the EIS.
b. Di ssolved soli ds
)acts
As stated on page 5-30 of the Draft tIS, total dissolved
solids concentrations will remain at present levels when
the treatment project is completed. No effect is foreseen
6-4
-------
on macro! invertebrate populations, such as crayfish, from changes in total
dissolved solids. The concentration of total suspended solids will decrease,
which is favorable for invertebrate filter feeders.
Section 3-2-b of Chapter 5 covers heavy metals impacts. An industrial
pretreatment program will assist in limiting heavy metals before they
enter the Nine Springs treatment plant. Improved treatment will also result
in higher removal of heavy metals from the effluent, as the concentration
of suspended solids is reduced.
d. WgjM ands
e closest wetland to Badfish Creek is the Green Lake wetland, located above
oe effluent ditch. Construction measures have been taken to prevent drain-
age from the wetland to the effluent ditch. Because of differences in eleva-
tion, flooding should not be a problem. Other wetlands, adjacent to the
Yahara River and the treatment plant, will not be significantly affected
by this project.
Recrgat ion and Badf i sh Creek access
Dane County is acquiring land for a green belt around Madison. The Nine
Springs treatment facility area will be part of this area. Informational
ar as are being planned in the green belt.
Recreational access to the effluent ditch and Badfish Creek is limited, due
to private ownership. Some duck hunting occurs near the effluent ditch.
Canoe access is found adjacent to roads and bridges.
f. No Action a I ternat i ve
The most recent water quality data for Badfish Creek, after the Fifth Addi-
tion, is presented in Section C-l of Chapter 3. Treatment plant effluent
loadings have decreased during the experimental operation of the Fifth Addi-
tion as a single-stage nitrification system. However, as the flows to be
treated increase over the years, sufficient capacity for this process would
not continue and effluent quality would decrease to the secondary level.
More capacity is necessary to operate the facility in the single-stage nitri-
fication process for the 20-year planning period.
g. gzgnatjgn
Ozonation data would be developed from pilot studies. The 00 level for
any alternative is a minimum of 5.0 mg/l to support fish and aquatic life.
n • Ya h gr a R\_ ver _ f | g w
Flow augmentation plans for the Yahara are discussed in Section 3-2 of
Chapter 5.
' • Water con ser y at| on
Madison's conservation effort is outlined in Section A-2 of Chapter 2.
6-5
-------
Wjscons|n Department of Natural Resources 9/22/78
Response: a. Dissolved Oxygen
The 5.0 mg/l DO level is being used for Madison.
b • Water guaty_ standards
Water quality standards are affected both by point and
non-point discharges. 3oth kinds of discharges can have
significant impacts on instream water quality. However,
point sources, such as a wastewater treatment plant dis-
charge, are much easier to control than the diffuse non-
point sources, so a major effort is being made to clean
up point sources. Areawide water quality management
plans are being developed to help reduce the impact of
non-point sources to water bodies, so that water quality
standards can be met in all streams.
c. SI udge odors
This was covered in the previous solids EIS for Madison.
d • Stream standards
In the Draft EIS evaluations full fish and aquatic life
standards were assumed to be required for all reaches of
Badfish Creek. This was to keep the treatment require-
ments between the various discharge alternatives (Bad-
fish Creek, Yahara River, Wisconsin River, etc.) fairly
comparable, and to not immediately "tip" the analysis to
the 3adfish Creek alternative. Since this initial Draft
EIS analysis was conducted and 3adfish Creek recommended
as the discharge location on this basis, the stream stan-
dards have been somewhat relaxed in the upstream reaches
of 3adfish Creek.
e . Ammon i a limit
The additional work done on this topic is given in
Section 3 of Chapter 2.
f . Heavy metal s
See the response to item c of letter 3, above.
g. Water Qua I ity CNter^a book
The 1976 edition was not available when the 1975 Facil-
ities Plan was being prepared, which is the basis of
Volume 2 of the Draft EIS.
6-6
-------
h • Sj udgje_depgs|t i on
The level of suspended solids in the permit is 20 mg/l as
a 30-day average. This is considered to be a high level
of protection for the aquatic community, see page 5-21 of
the Draft EIS. The projected loading at the design size
of 50 MGO is 8,345 pounds per day of suspended solids.
This is less than the 9,805 pounds per day before the Fifth
Addition was built, for a 36 MGD flow, see Section C-1 of
Chapter 3.
i. Summary on Draft E|S Alternatives
This information was presented in Table 3-7 of the Draft EIS.
j• Advanced treatment costs and benefits
The AWT/AST review has covered these concerns, see Section
C of Chapter 5. Energy considerations are presented
in Chapters 2, 4 and 5. UV has less energy requirements
than the ozonation method selected in the Draft EIS.
10. Bureau of Land Management 9/25/78
Response: Comment noted.
6-7
-------
? S
U. •
u. 13
O "
X
u
s
9
1
4J
U
S
£
H
4
4J
S
i
•H
B >
B
«3
rn Street
i
»
3
O
X
u
3
O
w
<•
5
O
a
rH
rH
M
o"
M
S
«w
4)
"_
Ji"
•H
U
I
1
£
g
i-(
4J
S
1
4J
1
c
0
Preparati'
VI
M
U
X
CJ
>H
(Q
S1
•H
>0
rH
O<
4J
U
4J
ti
01
8
*J
«
*J
cn
4J
U
s
B
f-4
onmental
u
•H
Ed
u
UH
to
£
•H
h
01 *->
ff.3
n) Q
X
U 0)
(0 bC
•H IQ
Q IH
01
•g 2
n w
Treatment
ropolitan
nS
ss
CO C
3 g
4J iH
to -a
55
cnament on
IlscharRe.
H 4-t
CL CO
n 4J
*
B^
r & Co. 1
onmental
X 1H
i|
find that
thorough
UH
o
3 S
10 O
U 3
CA rH
iH U
3 S
» u
x
i «
(J CO
al
0 j,
iz
Distri
>sents t
00 U
h
01 >••
C 4J
« g
n «
4j g.
rH O
0.
*fi
g 2
co O
anents of the
his document
M
•H B
3 O
tr-
ot o
00 i-l
sz
-a iH
4J at
z:
O B
xS
opportunities
enure of
01
X 01
O 4J
JJ
00
Ifl C
IH iH
0.-O
ex
(0 CO
4J
«*"«
ach whereby tt
nts versus her
e appro
quireme
x r<
SS
to co
•H
0
CO
X CO
CO tO
0 .
"1
•H 3
§
60
t-,
a
u
B
0
e
overall j
0
t
i
o
o
UH
c
o
•H *
to
•O
01 '
u
0)
M .
•a
n
4J I
0)
S '
£
8.
co S
M
3
O f
i partial
ural condi-
w c
01 -H
C *J
01 CO
O 01
B 01
O> Q.
CA 0>
*•§
-^ O)
41 >
qj IH
H K
u
CD
X V4
CO CQ
CO
GO 0)
o-S
4-1
4-1 4J
X 0) 0)
X 3 60
A >*H (fl
I " jj
I1 Sri
5 2J^
U UH Ij
E O O
H
6
OI
00
x
K
O
•o
0)
o
CA
tn
01
m
IH
01
h
t4H
o
4J
1
O
D.
irable i
CO
o>
E
preclude
CO
fe
•H
4J
to construe
.ility. Curr
0> to
I
h
J B
w
o
£ -H
UH
|£
M
•8S
2 g
CO U
•H
1 *
•r4 00
O
X O
4J i-*
CO
B
O 60
•H B
4-1 *H
? *J
3 4J
OS
CM
to
Ot X
co H tn
T3 CA
3 V
*O -iH U
01 M 3
« Cfl
> «H CO
•H O
m x
u C
01 O
X X -H
to
B CA H
•H -H 0)
Cfl T3
O X CO
age nitrificat
partial plant
nts serious cc
CO r4
01 O tQ
00 "C3
C 01 X
CO 0) (0
rH X H
3 U tX
r success
s being £
; stage a[
rH rH
oo-a B
•H O TH
x 3 ca
a
01
g1
IH
•H •
B
to
|
i
01
V
o
o
a
g
•H r
B
0)
X *l
T
4J
^ approach
it.
rH 0> fi
10 B
O O J
U U 1
f
10 0) X
•H X U
i§J
T1 rH C
01 0) C
B B fO
O «
V-S'S
3 tH -H
4) e
•O X 0
p 4J ^H
M B
B 3
01 ^
CO 0) i— 1
t-J l-l Op
4J o IT
B X (N
CO O
1-4 «-« O
II-s
* S|
> o •a oi
> 01 rH
H rH tO l-(
H Ot M 0)
9 > 01 4J
OJ ^H nj
U rH O a
3 4J
3 CO 0) O
3 4J
3 o x B)
» 0> ki
cu UH eu
j x re 4j
2 » aS
/) i-t U X
a C x -H
U 4J -H CO
501 X 3
•o > o
r>
M O «H 4J
_•«!?! g *!
•a
illll
CVJ
? S"S
rt (X 4J cij t
o^o o +
U t-i « 3t (
O tX rH 0) «
tif-H E
6-8
-------
THE CAPITAL TIMES, Thursday, Aug. 17, 1978—21
Unchecked herbicides worry EPA
B) PETKRJ BKRNSTKIN
New house Nfwi StrvKC
ATLANTA — Kederal cinnonnicnt.il ofliculs arc on tin1 lookout for
adverse health effects of farmland vu-ed killeisspr.ivetl fiom the air
'I ho herbicides arc '2.4 I> ami 2,-) .'i T. the ^une cln-niitaK mice used by
the U S military as p.irl of tin- noloiiou*. \Kenl Oianne lo defoliate the
ju null's in Vietnam 'I tit1 IH fi-n -t1 Drnaitrnmt slopped Hie defolulion pro-
gram in J')70 after finding ih.U \^t;nt Oianyi- caused bn til defects in mice
and i .its
1oda> the herbicides are bemi; spi ayed on farm crops throughout the
.southeastern siaies with virtually no goveimm-nl saff^uaids Any
licensed pilol can sprav. thr iiiemicals without mfotrr nj; government
authorities in advance No feilual or stale permit i-, needed
"There's no health ha/ard if the stuff is applied proptrlj," said John
Pu^lise. chief of i he pesticides compliance section of the U S Knviron-
mcnt.il Protection Agency's regional headquarters here "But lher« could
be a problem If the chemicals drift Into rivers or lakes (hat supplj drink-
ing water," herald
The KPA u'lies on cili?cn.s to report any adverse effects from spray-
ing run i he agency has only six inspectors to cover an ci^M-stale region
of the Southeast
t'ontfiesh Jus passed legislation lh,il vvilJ shift responsibility lor moni-
loimg such aerial spr-ivm^ fiotn KPA to the states be^ilining uct 1 But
most slates in this leyion where the economic importance of herbicides
long has taken precedence over their potential dangers have yet to
develop effective ni'milonnj; s>Mems
The herbicides in question contain small amounts ofdioxins, a cliemi-
Cdt known lo cause birth defects and itill-births in laboratory animals
-Such dioxms occur in far greater quanlities in Agent Oiange*, which is a
mixture of 2,4 1) anil 2,4,5 T To hold down the level of dioxms, KPA re-
quirts that the chemicals be applied separately, never«as a mixture
5*
4-1 4-t
CO
£
1-" O
4-1 4J
cn
C
C i
3
; I-H v^
*w ^
(0
0)
o) -a
4^ C
n] -H
&
. -J
C 4-1
(0 CO
l-l
a^ "3
ra 01
C rl
O WJ
to
Ol -H
CO ^
CU
cx u
u ,c
u o
OJ
(0 -H
£ E
conteni
c
0)
00
o
-H
c
o
Ijj
4J
c
3
5
4-1
n)
0,
w
0
-C
c
•H
4-J
<9
lj
urces
o
CO
4J
CO
01
<4H
14-1
c
3
l-i
Ol
4J
rt
tJ3
tO
Ot
Ol
•H
co
c
O
U
C
O
C
J2 •
C
tO -H
D.
efflueni
>W
0
c
o
•H
CO
c
o
o
o
u
•H
CO
4-1
•a
ai
at
Ol
c
ai
u
•a
O
c
at
1-1
(0
(0
Ol
01
H
"*
CO
at M
CJ 01
c >
to 01
C r-l
01
£ g
ra
E a
•a 4-i
c
cD U-f
0
60
•H O
4J -l-t
CO 4-1
i-l (0
01 C
O B
S
•a X
cu o>
(0 C
01 O
M a.
c
at
Oi «
c tc
i-i u
•a to
C M
3 E
>*
q 4-1
fl jr
60
P H
O .-1
0) cO
to V1
•5 S
o
•a
01
c
o
a
•a
c
^
01
c
3
>*-i
01
03
a.
c
•a
c
QJ
o
0
ectlon
14-1
c
-o
.c
c
0
e
'cO
3
C
c
01
00
c
•H
3
O
4-1
(0
c
t-l
.c
u
c
01
3
•4-1
3 Oi
c cr
O Ol
t3 i-t
a
o
1-4
(0
t— 1
£"
«
•H
01
•o
0)
C
•8
CO
10
01
-C
o
CD
s
*n
U
•H
S *J
B 3
cr
rH *
0) -13
0) ra
CO CO
-H "^
0 0
•a c
01 0
a- 01
CO 4-1
3 O
01 0
OJ
4-t ty,
w
§ u
t-i ,e
C
H tfl
E cu
X (0
• c:
CO -H
u 01
rH O)
w-t ru
SS •
4J «H
CO **-*
O 0)
U C
at
at .a
(0
£ (0
4J O
<4-l
0 0>
o 5
U rl
3 O
4J
O •*-<
o o
n o
OJ 03
CO
"8 i
•H -a
>
o at
a 4)
5s
CO CO
t-> B
r-l
tfl CU
U Ol
C CO
CO 4->
•H -rl
£ *S
_>*
O
01
t— 1
c
c
CL
O
CJ
(0
|
O
0)
-C
CO
c
01
4J
-H
<4-l
Ol
X)
TJ
m
(0
4J
1 |
S I
41
4-i ex
- B
at g
> B
V O
9 u
O 01
01
TJ
3 U
cr 3
01 t-i
CO
-0 O
u
>>
at f-t
§•§
T-* (0
i-t C
>. 3
§^
•H 0)
4-1 E
m -5
3 .C
cr w
Ot
c
01 TJ
•-t -a
UJ C
*
e
o
o
oo
01
00
0
to
c
D.
C
ft)
c
M
ai
«J
t-
00
4-1
IJ
Ol
w
s
repre-
x *j
i— 1 -rl
tJ
CU 4-1
^D 3
-a
> c
O (0
Wl rH
0.
c
c at
at B
Ol
>— 1 4-J
-d
Q ^
(0
at
JZ 4-1
4-1 O
c
ni co
4-i
C
§4-1
n
O *-i
• .a
&u
CO *4-(
3 01
C *-*
r-l «
U
s
s
^J
m
CB
3
R
0)
4-1
00
c
r-(
M
c
4->
01
(-1
0
^
n)
o
ex
tx
•H
CO
•o
c.
I
cn
O- 01
O 4-1
O 01.
at
5 >,
J2 i~(
01 (0
. m
4n B
CO C
Q »M
Ol M
00 -H
S-o
w c
(0
e
•H 0)
rH C
O O
a, T-t-
O tfl
3 §
c u
-. c
4J O ^
tO 4J
l-t U "
oi at >-
•H o
W-l CX
O E
O r
to u J
CD
•rl
5
O
4-1
CO
(Q
at
to
•H
f-l
1
4-t
-1 CO
>* e
o
t-H
C
o
-a
-* OJ
H
0 iw
-1 CO
0 4-1
4-1
H O
a
u cn c ai
U rH O 01 •
3 Ifl
O 3
W TJ
0) •*
Q a*
U r-J
•t fr
4-1
c
*
§
•O C Ol
a at r<
Vl W 4-1
6-9
-------
I
u
LJ
Z
zi 5
C Ul o g
(Hi
*- e = §
b. O «> -.
o u K d
fefili
?s^
s^"
21uX
ai x:
«1 6 > 4J -
ice 30
1 1-1 o d o oo
C -H -H cj
i rH C 0) m ^3
CX. [ii 05 0)
at t-i
H H
(0 Ol
at 3
U O>
^ W)
O ££
en
•H I-i
£ °
en
o
o
10
TO
at
(U
(A
4J
Ot
o
u
<§
c
•H
01
d
o
•H
X
4->
§
3
c
a
„
4J
O
•H
l-i
CO
Q
at
00
TO
at
i/i
c
•H
TO
en
CM
O
01
C
01
B
TJ
C,
O)
B
TO
O-
E
at
4-)
O
,-J
o
d
o
•H
a
U-i
o
d
•H
c
Ot
B
O
z.
s
-H
•H
•H
3
r-i
-4
S
TJ
0)
(J
Ol
O)
Ul
B
01
01
00
J
(J
Ul
•H
•a
w
00
o
J2
5
<
4J
c
E
4J
4-1
W
Ol
4J
•a
Ol
tfl
O
a.
o
O-
•U
*
Ol
n
U)
-H
-a
s
o
4-1
a
(0
en
4-)
Ol
o
00
c
CO
g.
o
c
to
c
VI
•r-l
X
OJ
c
0)
eft
Ol
•H
•fl
•H
CJ
d
o
•H
CJ
c
o
CJ
•—1
o
c
•r-f
X
TO
E
•H
4-J
C
TO
a.
CD
4-1
TO
U)
4-J
C
E
Oi
O
SH
a.
•rt
(0
. OJ
QJ G.'i
4-1 t'
^H m
ej
4J I»
C -H
a. >.
OO TO
H O
x t-
OJ rj_
O H
c
0 -H
tfl Ol
0 H
CO Ol
•H 'O
4J
O H
(J
q
tn O
TO •<-!
CO -H
•O cj
C 03
TO OJ
*J "°
OJ *X3
3 C
CC
C
o c
o
tO --H
C 4-J
.n u
U -H
TO '*-(
O T-*
cj cQ
C "
Ot
J^
0
LJ
d
a>
CJ
•n
X)
rt
U
O
"O
c:
cO
QJ
O
CO
D
CO
^
^H
O VJ
01
TJ >
tO 04
ID
"O TO
M-i ca
o ^
4J
e
d
•5
ac
d
o
iH
TO
d
"O
V*
o
o
CJ
w
3
O
•H
a)
a.
c
TO
TO
O
d
CO
CJ
o
(A
•H
-d
H
WJ
3
C
>••
r-t
<\)
O
4->
c
-H
"O
d
TO
U
Ol
O
1-1
ex
4-1
CJ
a>
3
01
0)
4-1
^
o
c
QJ
•H
o-
t^
^
O
at
u
H
3
o-
d
•H
0)
J
at
3
o-
Ol
c
o
a,
en
d
•H
CO
d
•H
E
Ot
4-1
01
•a
at
en
4-J
•H
41
a
•H
O
<4H
o
.
d
0
•H
(0
a
w
d
o
•H
TO
01
a.
o
CJ
c
to
1-1
d ui
O l-i
CJ 4->
C TO
Ol
>. Ul
1-. 0>
O J2
4-1 4->
TO
--t 00
3 d
00 tH
« £
OJ
" O
to d
Oi O
c u
•H
X Ol
o
.9 °
en
• -H
i-i -d
S 4J
II
S ". i' 2 S
•> 5 «j 5 i i S 5
r *J J3 n c ^ — o
•« M £ c. Q « — -H M
-°"—-' >£2jss5 £SS.«
xi
V)
u |^
* ^
J.c
6-10
-------
II
Commis
9 Tel. SOS 261
O
tSj
"
11.
11
1|
*^
£|
a £
»!
|I
r^sljS r
^§11 $
Ml
Q;
e
b
3
E
o
.
. w
fc -
B? S
< a
0. u
lU V)
z
in 2
£ 5
fc*
g§
uiL £
li
CO
r-.
o»
o
CO
3
§
f—
,_.
S
C
Irt
C
o
u
3E
C
O
A3
s:
•o
o
UL
a?
Hammers!
o
**
>
C -rt
01 gj S
§4J \O
. $ 0
•H m « \o
4J • H
Id D 4J
00 M W «
r- 3 - -H
9\ X & J3 B 0
iH tH 4) O M C
r-1 O M U 1-4
S W CO <3 H
VI H 4)
41 V M CP O -
.3 e c o
g| S -• -H • ffi
3 u OJ \O
o o *~ o
•*- i. 4J \o
+J n. to
u
V OJ r~ C
oj to ra t. »/i
-r- 4-» O ••-
.C C -C C -TIO
O O 4J OJ i- C
•r- c E «» •*-
* 4J fO C ^ -»-» *
O OJ C C 3 O
3 1- -r- LU C O m
Q. C O CO ro
QJ C - -r- 0
C tO M CO O>O -r-
• OJ »-. r- . 4)
g|
1.2
u o
i
.jj
o
1
t-
J5
« t7> 41
* | «"§
5&15 .
*! -H f
•8 ° 5 •?.
> 5 TJ o
V * 4> W
> *> id
» e: a *o
e o M
m 8,
•H H U-l 0)
W 41 1-1 f
CO *> «J 4J
g ^ U> h
E 41 O
S B c
CTS id
S M
Scum
«1 5) -H 0)
•-4 E M -H
fl, S 4-1 4J
4J 0» -H
H M -H iH
Id 43 O -H
c to o
0 4) (d
pi 0 flj
4> 5 H U
Oi O< 4> £
S" O 4J S CO
O C 4J C
at -H o
0) I r-t -H
M C 3 O 4J
Q H O Q
y « > i *
4) J3 C 4t »W
Q H W X 0
4J
4-* U
« U*L
4J E 4-»
QJ a! a 3
** in O
o
•u t- c
4-> C 4-» O
Q.C *" 0*
f- r- O OJ
a. v> o>
c: «w E u
p to o>+-»
£-M (J i.
vi i.
•O -f- OJ
+* C Q»*-
«*- «O flj
TO -O t-
1. OJ C ••
T3 O> <0 C tn
£ 5 "c c3
+J O OJ O r-
»^ E O O
> oj £E 4->
•r 1 ^ • S
> at ^ ft
JL +J OJ C O
C *^ 3 U
0) 0) id O
> G go J
ne I— 3 O «-
last three
he Facilities
sh Creek.
t) -ri
5 -5 «
Tl"
0> 4) 0
> U 4->
|.
5 •" S
04 « "5
>i x en
4J *J -H
rH 01
id id -o
S g S
Q) «C
IQ 4> e
3: A 4!
4-1 « H
0 W 4>
O H 4J
4) A
Q 4J TJ
* *!
4J Id
(71 W *O
•H O
QI ^ IM
O flj O
M
•p 41 Q
S 4J
rH (A Id
p h c
C 4» X H
•H >i E-* &•
1
« > OJ
C OJ > •
3 S- l_ CO
5«o o> »~~
co r^.
OO CO
oj g. r- in
IO r— S- t— • '
O 32
i- £*£
o rtj's c
^1 US i. -r-
OJ "^ WO
"S"S *
*«£-
-o >> o» e
OJ CO O
r— i_ C Q£
^ 3 O
-C Z» QJ
c -i- s- i-
O O QJ Q
•r- t/l W>
4J C (rt
*W -D 0 t)
E OJ O C
C r- O p>
•r- .Q CO tl
V> D- C E ID
•r- o
QJ C **- l-
•«-» O OJ
IO U OJ -M
•0 Jrtr^ C
rJ 3 (0 O
3
g1
*s y
• S -H
i -c
2-3.2
«| §
4> a e
•HUB
•H
d£ S
38"e
Cu H fi
5 0>
0} -rl 4J
J5 e: 4i
•S'SB
ill
c in
a) ^ w
E o rc
i £ S
§-H
ni£
•s-l!
h tr u
Jjx'S
fH i
D1 V
.s "•a
o > c
01 °
d td 4-i
O o 4)
"O
QJ
t/l
i.
O.
OJ
.c
c
0
c
g
u
•o
1
o
4-*
3
O
o.
o.
o
QJ
ppreciate
on.
OJ U
Jl ID
H Q
3 V4 *5
6 o
O1
M -d 3
°$8
- C Q)
-.H X r-4
X 4J ^1
41 <-)
S S
X
!* 4>
(A ^
41 T3
•H rH
(j 3
g. i
•>H CO 4->
*+-i 4> n>
•a'i « u
fll -H £ 4t
in C id
§0 - rM
U <-t
•H id id
4J 4) >
•85 i *
8W w S
0S S'i
41 _ S1^
V4 V4
CU-rl g 4)
TJ "
istent with
pport the
is lacking
species
ities facing
(A3 G
C w a) £. |
CJ 4) <0 H I
» Q *w O
>t U
Id C «H -H 4-»
u 3 id * g
4) ^ > 3
C O* Q T3 O
&>! S"
« 2 M « §
-H rH C C fi
fi 4) O Q
& 0* '5 H
fi vj -H id
4k M 4-1 T) ^4
U H C 4)
01 4J C O >
> id U 4)
•ri 3 id in
fi > C 4) 4)
4> 3 i 3
4-1 0 fi 01
•H U >i H
4) C H £
1 C -H O H
id -D -H
2° S g .
W 0> cn 4J ,*
X 4t 4)
01 4J M C 4)
X 41 W
4J VM 4J trt U
QUO
•H (A -n 4J tn
C O -H -rl
TJ O U C «-t
4) -H & T)
^ 4J id S
O id 41 -H m
> TJ J5 C
id C 4J 0 0
4J 1 4J 3 4>
O O 4J
at o (o CP id
•r-» 4> C C -H
0 M 0 H fc
Vj -H TJ dt
Qi 4J W M O
4-1 -H Id W
o> «J > tr 04
-C M 4) 4) 3
4_>
VI
C
O
+>
1 I *•
l> OJ
<^ s- c
^ O IO
i_ . 4->
'/r~>r~* to
mmonia
nif leant
0) Ul
•H 4->
AJ 3
oo restric
ases witho
H £
U
in' -5
4->
0*
55
3
01 (0
JS
*4J C
id to •
4-> U
.gen limi
tations >
' benefit
U -H
v-t e
4J -rl
-H r-( r-
C
•H &
C 0
1 -H
ed questions
While state
ular project,
ed project.
•H • -r) O
* (A *.» Ji,
n e fc o
Id id w<
01 M Oj QJ
« »
X 0 tfl 0>
M -H £
id O1 *n
41 C V4 0
>1 -rl O
•a *w tn
i c 4J
«2 5 *S °
4J 4-1 C >M
o c id 4)
fi 41 JC
4) rH
01 M 41 fi
"** S
14 O O O
!> 0) H 4>
O -H fi £
tn o *J
c id
4 £ tt £
r-4 Q« 4) 4>
Hi E -H -H
41 O >
>i -H 4)
4-* "O r-4 U
•H C 0
rH fi Oj 0
3 »„"
OI 4) C 4-1
n fi C
01 -rH U) *J
4-> M E V4
nj o 3 g
S -H V4 Ut
4J tU CU IA
0 * « 4J
tr u -H
X C 1>
H .3 rrt ,-t
ST3 4) 41
M >M 0)
fi 4-1
M W T)
s a § s
<
6-12
-------
•H 4>J
f-4 t-H
•H
U
rt r-
vanced 1
inhabit
rt o
8!
c o
c
"4-t
"•8
4-1
S Ol
w w=
01 4J
(-
4-t
4J CQ
B 4J
fl tn
(0
CO 0)
a h
«
C* O
IH
6-S
B 3
i B
J3 >
= ij
'i
s *
4-» .C
.a*
IH
«l
u t.
:i
•H >4H
u tn
rt
*->
00 cj
C 41
> O
•H t-
•H a
tn o
C 4-t
4>
•H 01
4J U
•H C
CJ Ol
HH
rH
rt 4J
O rO
0
rH -O
0 3
:*
o e
•H fl
tn IH
4) 4J
>4«
•H O
4J
U 4J
U- 3
I rt
4-1
W 01
O 00
rt
4) rH
M
o tn
-t=
rt u
01 00
rQ C
O TJ
4-1 C
OJ
tn ex
rt cn
rC
0) ,0
u
-C «
4J J3
4J
>*,
rH cn
41 t-l
P 01
3 4J
t/3 «
- . U)
O
C 4J
r fl,
0>
4J cn
o> jr:
4-1
E
t-i C
children i
of improv]
c
0
cn
"O
X
u
o
H
U
fl
UH
4-J
reatmer
need wastewater t
>
fl
o
4)
§
taxpayer's
M
4J
IH
01
wastewat
it advanced
&
u
TJ
OJ
•H
a.
B
cn
U
S
j_i
41
cn
3
rt
0)
TJ
c
JH
a
c
o
J
^
rH
fl
cn
rt
3
M
M c/:
Oi
-C 4-1
4J fl
JT
te; tha
ession
cn a.
B
4-* *H
C
4) >.
cn S
41
u cn
D. *-.
.C M
0 •
4-J 4-1
C
e for a discharge
secondary treatmt
rt cn
cn
f
£1 3
4J cn
>, cn
rO OJ
>
01 4J
was requii
no altern*
V u
*- n
^ 'S,
1- C
he EIS r
Wise OPS
di
c ~
01 V.
t- 0
OJ
3 n
0 ^
LT\
TJ C
C
CD r-
-T
TJ rH
(TJ V-
OC 01
r- O.
rt
cn JT:
C OJ
•H U
C
>-, OJ
4-1 t-l
•H 4J
•H
X £
rH 3
ra
O rH
TJ a
1- C
4-- O
U- CJ
L; dj
CJ JT^
u C
c fy
C it
«* a
^ ^
E ex
r^ J=
i-n
^ C
O O
P -H
(T3
' , rH
.12 QJ
)H
TJ
01 CJ
f a person affec
re is no reasonab
: 4)
7] 4J
U
fl fl
4-1 _C
cn oo
5 C
J V-i
Resources
at the he<
ro
-traent s
TO
a
i)
"O
0)
-c
4-1
jbtaine
0)
o
u
cn
4-1
IM
Ol
C
Ol
J3
J=
TJ
fl
4-1
cn
o
rt
•H
a
0
cn
TJ
C
rt
:••
c
o
cn
01
a.
4-1
fl
JS
o
cn
01
•H
rH
a.
a.
rt
4-1
cn
0
«
4J
B
f
3
cn
X
<4H
•H
TJ
i
•H "ii
01 W'
C U
J3 -C
O) *H
*J TJ
TJ
TJ P-
.y identifi
Ischarge to
01 TJ
4-1
rt )-<
3 Oi
cr 4J
4) rt
2! that the EIS a
an advanced wastes
41
O
4-1 M
C
TJ
O 41
TJ C
T-
M «
-rQ
rt oi
| ^3
3 4-t
cn -C
w
At
P
O
k-
W.
rH
3
cn
Ol
u
fl
01
rH
U
TJ
3
n
j
CR
4-1
u
rt
environmental ici
0) 01
01 -H
> 4-1
cn c
- IH
0)
4J 4J
fl rH
J- fl
01 "c3
01 O
M -H
00 4-1
fl CJ
rt
hH
O
0 C
TJ :
r-
t
TJ
M
to
£
CO
r-.
a*
VH
00
(N
4J
CQ
<
TJ
rt
(§rH
M *H
01 3t
fl C
33 0
(A
H -a
3:3
1
OJ
C
0>
o
.
$
Section
•H
4J
n
w
u
^4-t
•H
U
>
OJ
a:
£
W
W
u
4J
Ol
Ol
t/)
t-l
Q
4-J
3
0
W
0
CN
Subject: Comments on the draft EIS
for the Madison Met
-,
4J
U
0)
jn
4-t
•H
is draft statement is that it does not adequately
dvanced wastewater treatment facilities, that it does
IH
00 O
•H
k- OJ
j:
onern
ess t
TJ
£•8
the "no action" alternative, nor does it adequately
that will be achieved should this proposed action
01
t-j
•o
4-J
aj
e
01
-u
ffl
t-t
c
4J
tl
J3
jr
4-1
01
_Q
•H
l-l
cn
OJ
TJ
T)
c
01
fcj
11
0,
Fi
4)
-O
>i
rH
rH
fl
•rH
W
S
cn
§
4J
i
4-1
fl
(U
M
u
0)
4-t
§
01
4-1
cn
5
TJ
O)
a
c
rt
TJ
«
n
o
<4-l
TJ
OJ
01
C
01
4-1
rt
cn
ppear
fl
4j
K4
to
I
4-1
M
01
>
•H
rt
c
IH
0)
4J
rH
fl
~C
O
•H
CJ
fl
O
0)
X
Ul
QJ
TJ
C
c/>
W
4)
rC
U
I4ni
0
r"i
0.
a
o
tj
"j
cn
cn
^
T1
TJ
rt
native was rejected because, quote, "it will clearly
4-t
rH
fl
.C
4J
c
01
ling had ever been completed for this alternative.
ater
3
g
It to understand how the judgement was made that severe
3
U
<4H
TJ
>>
>
4J
•rH
TJ
C
•rH
I'M
I-H
TJ
Ol
u
c
fl
n
o
0)
>
•H
4_l
fl
C
u
OJ
4J
i-H
fl
cn
•H
S
O
<4H
J
rH
3
cn
OJ
t-i
s
0
rH
U
TJ
rH
3
t
cn
o
fl
n,
K
4-t
r
Ol
a
c
o
i-i
•H
•>
Cl
i>
t Fifth Addition facilities may not be adequate at
r
41
cn
(ii
IH
n
r
jr
Ml
3
O
,r
4J
C
11
>
01
re, as was stated, I feel that it is very presumptuous
3
4->
3
J2
4-t
C
o
a
OJ
o
m
TJ
rH
3
tn
OJ
•H
4-1
•H
rH
•H
O
rt
"4-4
X
IH
CO
TJ
C
0
tn
TJ
cn
rt
01
VH
CJ
C
c
4-1
l-l
OJ
.c
4-1
rt
u
T-I
•n
01
4-1
fl
.C
4-1
Ol
n
3
Cl
tn
rt
o
4.)
S
rH
fl
O
4-1
TJ
TJ
rt
TJ
U
0)
Q.
X
OJ
cn
•H
J3
4->
rt
01
W
4-t
4J
?,
(fl
tn
J]
0)
CJ
C
dJ
^)
ot adequately describe the present conditions of the
c
cn
4)
0
w
OJ
j=
41
VI
rt
Ol
CQ
he Fifth Addition on-line) I find it very difficult to
4-J
.c
4J
•H
t
P
a-
u
cn
X
Ul
X
w
•H
LM
fl
m
lue judgements. For example,
fl
>
4J
c
rt
o
D.
u
•H
some
4)
^
g
e real improvement in the stream's fisheries resource?
x
4-J
0)
,0
•H
jt
4J
fl
§
rH
e>-
A!
CU
C
4)
~4J
U
o-
cn
fl
cn
•H
>^
1— (
ra
u
•H
ij-i
•H
CJ
41
D.
cn
4-1
fl
»
rH
(j
rt
rH
iH
B
•H
W
«"
rH
60
S
im
M-l
O
TJ
ra
41
4J
cn
iH
"•^
60
S
0)
rH
^3
d
rt
01
j3
4_l
rC
3
w
cn
cn
X
OJ
<0
a
R
•H
•>
OJ
cn
fl
cn
cu
TJ
J=
4J
tx>
C
•H
U
3
13
rC
CO
iH
IM
Ol
i
M
0
cn
0)
•H
CJ
01
a.
tn
u
•H
"4-1
•H
CJ
01
CL
tn
fl
O
cn
CO
OJ
t-l
4J
CD
UH
0
00
•H
c
4-1
1*
0
n M
O 41
O R
cn H
•o «
ent as to whether the proposed advanced treatment facili
E
41
00
TJ
3
4>
J*
3
u
O
C
fl
M
the present usefullness of the Badfish system. Is the
01
00
(0
,-H
tH
rt
TJ
fl
H
*H
•H
>
mounts of dollars and energy worth the "unknown"
m
OJ
rtfi
IH
i-H
14-1
0
4)
3
u
TJ
0)
X
0)
C"
(0
01
*H
4-1
•H
rH
•H
CJ
(0
14-1
I
%
IH
Uri
4J
3
cn
UJ
t-i
u
j£
-H
3
J=
u
-rl
f,
*J
oveme
M
r>,
B
•H
C!
O
-H
rH
iH
a
p»
*.r
rH
«>
TJ
-------
a:
u
c « 0) u-4
'-fise!:
, e
yor
tor
'«e , SS?
5 -5 o « o
» T! " w w o
.H 3 S
MO U ..
^ea sis
CM
'
00
^ H
•n ••
5
M
l!
• Q.
M G)
S ta
i i
•H M
;*
1 3
-g
« U
4-1
1W U
e -H
1!
S3
•H t)H
•3 S
SS
Cr ft
h 0>
S5
«£
S'S
o "8
§|
4-> U
* n
0) re
n
-5 H
4J ,-t
O D
IV U
O 4->
y b
ft re
a
x: *
4J
0 C
o
01 4->
° O
ft
0) 0
£ a,
•sS?
0) 3 >i 4J
gen o
4-1
>l *rH O "S
4J .H 0 tt)
S'S . S
S in c u
«7 1.5
S (N 4J d)
Q«. C £
C in M
•^ -H B >W
0
Ul m H d
0) U 4-> 0
S S 0) "rH
0 w w "1
§ 0 S B
u u m
"" «1 i
H ->H > re
V
H
tr x:
cn >
01 -o
-•H a>
4-* re
•H
4-> O
re o
4-1 Ul
re
V
4-< tO
It 4-1
u w
•H °
-ri 0
•H
U r-H
estimate
otal pul
P
>i
« x:
C 4J
*g«
.5 o •
rH C
01 tJ re
4-1 >,
* 1 4J
m oi -H
d O M
0) 0 It
en re
.-H 4-> S
re c
u 01 >i
O Ul 4-1
H £ i
XI W U
M
000
X) o
O V
4. Ci
4-t p q) . | 0> -H
O 0 MMC O 0)0>OV)
OIHCP4) 01 •d'dWMJi4Jts
di *orek4(j>i>>itt-'O C*H
3 4-1 01 0) U 0 V4OM'ai <-H
re-u.x-HCu.coin4)fl4)4j rent
,C-HnJOC3-HUlE01 rHCCf
• IrtJOOCQJ-irti-i'OO S 4J
0)OOQJnJ'OOnJPnie«4-> d
UPO)0)i-it3-u§SB'rJ>-i3 o
u-4-H >ki viv4rex'ao>i4-)xrec
reUX-UiH £X 4-1 4J 4-1 4-1 -H 0 V-H
£re4i(aM3oOGaireE at c re
M'Ol*Jfl'O£dP 4) P06U
X) -< C -— • 3 O C 6 4-) O >i 4->
^5;l«3fSssi::'lra slu
uiO U1CJO O^Oifl) O
g-OWU •HpU':HH4)OV4Q<
ItJOlX-POO Q 4)>1I4)0)
is
rl
C
"S "8
cn 4)
-H 0)
ft
istifiec
were e>
-n cn
0) QJ
f/3
>.«
i *
re
•a n
r-t re
8 5
4J O
o d
4-1
O 0
04 &
0) -H
^ 4J
re
8v,
V
-H fl
^13™
O >* 4)
01 ft
0>
»W -r( C
)t quan!
rovement
;. In r
c §•§
« -rt S
, «
* 3 2
B ui
«j M re
£ * g
M *w d
d 0) T3
o 41 re
•a
*O CO
3 x; x>
d 4J (3
S 4-1
0>
w -0 cn
« ° >
01 iH
in H 0
--. 0
1
•H
-H 4-1 0)
« fl § o x;
4J d p re
4) D1 E W
S tJ -H
T3 U-i -H
l-i 01 O T)
"2 -o u -a d
x re M a 4J
S r^ S * >.
4) O (0 4J
re 3 Q > *re
w oT '5 &
J3 d O (1)
d 4i a
5 S 5 re d
g * 4^ 2 "S
01 u ro 0)
O O ft nJ
H E ^ d
w cn M t
V4 H 01 x:
•H H 4J 4->
fn 4) -H 41
"re 1 jj c?
01 W 0 4J
+j o) x: E o
«w en ^ H ^
° rt 0 W 0
4-* d C «-J 4J
u re re re re
£ CJ 11 -' O
•a
a
0) C
Sc
01
4) C E
•rl rO 4J
4-1 -H re
C *!> £
o w re
r-l 2 "S
rH JH O
at O 0
C 0)
M
0) MH
§ D 4J
H t3 cn
4J rH O
cn 3 o
4) O
& .£
1) 4->
W 4-1 -H
d u
41 01 K
H 4J C
re re H
*H
in O
rH ^, IM
re IH
- ni Ul
m -o o
4) d cn
H O VJ
u u re
•H o> x:
rH U) U
ft 0) D
T! U
CT1 H -H
d > >
U i-t 4'
g a wi
4J 0) Ul
C V.
01 H r-t
HI p' (_)
r( 0» O
Ol M r-1
•H
d
a>
re
0)
4J
0)
^
tJ
0)
d
re
re
4)
0)
0)
§
M
ET»
a>
re
d
re
re
M
01
4)
d
H
-C
i>
Ul
x;
re i-»
cn
14 re
0)
(0 4-1
stream v.
I suppoi
§ 3
O O
-o s
•H S
U-4
o
d •
XI w
01
«w x:
O 4->
01 'H
d
K *-<
O w
a, IH
& re
--J O
o
H OJ
nj u
d
o> >
^) ft
** ai
« U)
'S x:
t] C
p' re
0) .C
M P
O
14-1
a
0
d
d
state 1
•g
m
rH
l-l
0)
T3
4>
DI
d
•H
P
asize
x;
b
cu
o
4-1
SS
U
•H
a
re
ui d
re o
3 0
•0 *
d o
HJ **H
1 S
^ §
O H
4)
re re
C P
0) 01
d -O
H d
'Jo
d k
HJ OJ
TJ
d oi
O «w
-t-i 0)
D. re
O X3
.§•
C 01
H -0
U 0
^ ^
*J TJ
r 5
8 .
U)
So
-<
P 4J
5-13
-------
re o at c re
i» *— JD at jc
4> O •«- 3 4-1
X) C L. i—
4) JC U H- C
lj_ U V> **- fc.
at flj a> oi
i- -M -o u
4) 4* 4) C
JC 0) -0 JC > 0
o ja re 4-1
*O C (0 1-
JC r- C -r- •— O
4-» •*- 4) 3 H-
•r~ <0 .* M E
* > «3 c 3 4)
IO 4-» O O VI
4-» '^3
£4-1 01 4-1 10
in JQ (o • u
4-> 4) J- 4>
v> j5 -a 4-» cn t.
•»- 3 r— C £. Ol
in 3 4) re 4J
§41 O O JC re
JC JC C 0 01
4-1 in o tn u
(J *r- Cn
4) 41 V) -O
JD k. QL.I— 10
41 41 « O
s-sss*^
E 1-
h C 0) O >i
s-5S£tg .
a. c •>- re a. m
a. o i- a> tn 4->
m u Q.JC v) — o
in p 4-J re at
4-) •«- £ at ••- 4J **-
§3 C.JC E 4)*4J
O. 4-> •*- E O>
E< i—
tn *r- 4) a» i—
41 O 41 « US
•o c -o T3 S jc e
o at at 03 4-> at
tfl •*- •*- fc. Z £
jc ic 'a. o ^- o C
J— r— Q.4-> *— 4->
3 re re in a>
en 4-» c -o
,: E.SfeJ!.2_
4) Q.4J 4-> 10
•g,3.£E*E5
•f- ••-
C C 4-> JO (J
O -O T- C 4>
> C f- C O O JC
41 (O O-i- 4J U 4-1
o
+J
U C 41
re ai cn
E 01
Sin 41 >
•a 4-1
&, £.31!
4J IO 4-* C
f— r— t/> «]
J3 4J r-
IO 01 r- 4-1
-2*S2
io in H-
> 4-> If- C
i- 0
in o>
xi t3 jc en
C C r- C
*O (O 'i-
f— -o
4-1 ^ • O
28S.2
t. •!-<*-
**- U 4~>
o u-o z
4) >O 41 O
tn jc w> •—
Ol 4-> -O IO H-
L- O> O> <
u i*- in w uJ
re 0 0 (J Q£
a. c o
o en o ••- ut
O c s- a:
tr> -r- o. tn
sis5
EH*- *f- •
i— H- O (O
ia"OO 0)
4> in i-
c id r-
O t. in CLJC
•r-j U 4) E 4->
-o c t.-«-
f<0 'r- <+-
>O tn O
-* -D tn
41 C tn 3 OI
Ot lO re (-> t+-
C. tfl-r-
QJ -a -o
JC V- 4-1 »—
in ••- o -D ••-
Illll
•Mr?
•s-s
£
+•> O
O >
i£
S' +J
£-
Q. 3 •
Jfif
+J i— V)
C >r- 3
l*a
if- VI r—
c at (O
~ > 1
«.'£.£
.= re £
•*j c re
.ie
Es;a
u. re i-
- § 5
10 >, -.r- *3
JC C Cm Ol
4-» UJ O C JC •*-
•r- 4J 4-1 O
•— - L. 4-1 4-> >> tn
voo oxt— "Ocncnc
*—•<*- 4) OJ •*- Ol C C o.
^--41 * O4->r-Cin
^-N4)4» U*Ort3'p-«J
OT-4JJC * to C •— X ••"
CSt t- IO 4-> •*-> <4- (O CX 4) 4-
O +-i C in -r-
cjci/^i~at*r- moioiu
O4J oE"4-» 4-1 D.
4-i n c > tn tn
O C in
4)»n ui-tncT-4>c
CO-OOCCXlOfO •*-•!-
C +J Ot E£ JC Otntf-
er 3 en--- i- a> •*- en
•r-tt- .« Cr--r-4JC
00 * O Q. -M C •—
«/> E f^- 4J Cn-r- O.''— 41 ^
OIOCT14-1 C4-> fO C^ O
4-1 t. r- (O •»- rtJ 3 •*- id
IQif. 4Jf— O4J4J ^*
4-» « V) Ot -r- JT i- 4-1
inmo i-^f— 4-1 o c in
4-» £o.4-ia.E «-•
r-*lOJ-cai«JrOO34-»
h% L. 4) >i— t- JC U3 4-1
Ot CnjD 4-1 4-1 4J O JO &•
r- EL-"C Ut3 «
at it o c re t- T3 m o.
C^£4-> O U O Q. VI -O
•r- ID CLr- -r- Ol 4-> tn «r- C
E 4) (O 4J IO JC IO
•O t/)O.rO4>t-Cr— r-
Ot 4-1 •>- 1- JC 4-> 41
-aoi-uai4->viQ. -a
c c a» t- 4-» -r- o = c
at 4-> c •"" v) c *
E ^~ **" 3 ra t/> *i— "o in
(O i— £C-^tn
«3 C *r- -Q « i- 41
in jc en QJ c c ^T o *^*
o 3 c S 4->
•»- C ••- 4) O -i-
"L. C *f- 4-> V) JC -r- 4-> i —
O O C -nr ^ 4-> *-> C -r-
O 4-> •*- S» VI V- CO QJ U •
uo ia en o -r~ o o 4* E *o •*-*
1 t- Ol 3 S 4J S- *3 M- C
csj 4-> JD • cr Ufa at
en vi >,U4-i*oa)Oir-E
•r-t.jJroCOJfc-l-'OQ.
S C T3 •- 4)4-1 4-> C 0
IO •>- 41 r- *E«3f— O'—
-JE>»*en4^ i. «T3-f-4»
T5 O.Cf04->*>-ai4->>
VI fO4)
•*- mtj-oi-ccoai-o
•— a» o -f- •— 4-> o o> O.I-
J3 JC wi C ••- E4-1OUI-
3 h- -P- 3 3 *4- 4JOL.OJO
Q. = VS-QO-OQ.Q.WM-
JC
4-* 4-1
C *«—
4-1 A3 >
in o
IO U ••- 4J
41 -r- r- C
r- 0- 01
XJ JD CL i
c =3 *o a.
»o a. o
jc c jc 'a)
4-» •!- 4-1 >
3 4J
O X) 41 "O
in r— >
O> 41 T3
4) JC T- c
Jd r- 10
4-» en a>
C JD en
O -f C
4-* Ol Ol -r-
J=> IX C
in c
12 .2
to « 41 Q.
i— tn
(/I 3 C
4J C ••-
ra O 4)
jc o o c in
4-1 en *o o ^
m a.-r- c
-O r- V) 4-> it»
4> (TJ i—
4-1 OJ C J.
3 en at at a)
•o o. ex. in
C 41 C
^ 0 tn c
** m re 4->
1- r- 41 VI
re a. k. -a at
a. o 41 T-
4-> O> 4-> U
4-> C t- O C
tn 4) 41 4)
re E t- i. en
.— *3 o -r- 41 3
en coo
re i- S jc jc
o_ o o in 4-»
§ , J!
-r- at o C
4-> C in i*~ en
u re •*- oj
re jc in xi •
•—»4J 4> in
O CM tn 41 C
c *«• o re j= o
S I 4-> J3 •*-»•*-
n in
4) 4-1 0 O 3
JZ • C C 4-» *—
4-> a. 41 - o
C 4-> 4-T C
en cn-f- 3 c o
C C 4-> jQ 0) U
•r- •»— L. E
^ Z 41 * QJ 0*
v. C> CL= 4~i m
re •— *o *o 01
CDt— 4-> 4) 4-> JC
at o c 4-> vi *J
t. «+- at o
in S a.'ia o
C rx 4-1 X C *4-
o ' re 4) •*-
.r- CO 4-1 = H- 4)
in in u
= £>>•£.£ £
0 J3 C OH- -0
c re ai 2 •?-
O 4-» > >
(j at a) « dj
C JC C
..->," 2?
4) "O I- in -r- -r-
> c re c en 4-1
•»— re OJ •(- L.
4-> z: re x o
re 4> 4-1 r- 0.
c u c. U a.
v. at • o « 3
O) J= C (J 4) in
4-> 0 r-
«C 0) +J ^- •»-
4-1 D.J3 01 re
§4) 3 4-1 id C
in in o
•r- 41 in 4) t/j o
4-1 i- re J= c
O D. 4-> O "O
in o c 4^ *3
o re •*- ts o
z >> -w j=
z at »— at u m
> c > at
•"^ -r- «r- O. ••
f*. 4J re 4-1 x 4)
i re E « 4) r-
"E^E.S
a> at at ai vi tn
cr>4-> in 4-1 01 m
re p— re ^- jc o
o_ re ja re +-i o.
UJ
U
« •°i.
s III
CO C3 = E
r-> m »• £
° or o f
Q- ^-H>
O
'S
•4-1
C
I—(
u
*->
v>_
O
4-1
U
° Us:
s s •
M
"t.
o
u
s
c
2 I
542
T3
•fel -
T the Department
tatement for the
County, Ki scons in
O crt
t~ 0)
^«S
c« wo
01 C
3 t!
+J 0)
*+- Ol
o> re ID
i/i t- i-
This is in respon
comments on the d
Metropolitan Sewe
£
^y
2
•o
c
rtJ
JC
in
he treatment of f
4->
C
Vt
41
nd inadequat
resources.
«*~ i—
rt3
S|
* +J
r— IO
gc;
4) U
C Ol
at i~
en
•u
c c:
--. 10
ILDLIFE
2
•<
3;
CO
u.
g •"?
i— c at tn ai
Sv> re TP
•T3 OJ 3 JD
O v) 'f* JQ C
•^ «r- xi L. a* at
4-» x> at JE en
f- I- JC ^- -O 4J >>
•o 4> L» 3 re x
•O £ T- O Oi tn o
of jt in 4-> *—
M- t. re re
L> C C <^- 4-1 *f
tn re at at c E
4-> JC E E T3 - u T3 -o re 3 T-
Ot JC fc- yl J3
4-» (- 4-1 4->
cn at re m 4-> T3
C C JC JC JO — C
•«- T- 4-i 4-1 re *o
CO r—
*. 4) C «f- 4-» •-- 4)
4> I- 10 O tn 4-> I-
U 3 re C 3
C 4-> O V) Qj 3 4-1
o re 4-1 c •—
u t- o a> -
i/> o. ai 4-» re re
i— E S- t- 3 =
1 O) 1- O 1- O"
co 4-j ai a. o a>
M- TJ
-o TJ 'a> 4-> » (a
c c t- c 4-1 c m
re re re c -i— E
in > ai in
**• c •*- 41 E m *i—
^-ai r- a» re c
i o> t- at 4-» re
oo X o> t. *a co cn
X-0 4-1 ^H t
m o re 4> tn LU o
0> O» JC
CUT) t i — i — ai o
re ai re jz -r-
C O4->CO<*- L.4-J 3
o in —. ai c cr
in a* uj ai X) O) re
e -F- m jc T- E
O"eJ34>4-»wOtE=
•f- re jc c 4-^ C
tnc(j4-ioo«3«J
in o O) .*-> o -M .c
3 JO >> tn
O 4J c Tl T3 4J
tnccnroatr-oio
•r-OICCX-OsJCC
-o 3 ••- £ c o +J
r— .^ O Ol J ^~
jc«^-reocxojo--
t~Olf~
ES8
4J .^- ^-* y
fO •*-»!—
4-J rtl ITJ
tn t- E
4-> tn
O) C
JC Ol L. 4)
4-1 U O
C *+- Ol
CO J=
•f- U Ol 4-1
U
C-— L. r— •
o oo 3 T- e
•/- a o ra 01
in •«— - oi in
3 -0 -0 >i
o m o in
tn x> o 01
•r- .^ «*_ C
Owe rt)
C C 3
-o 4J •»- cr
in a> i- ra
•-- > o in
•~ Q, tn a*
t S £ 3 -t
x: -r- c •<- c
1— T3 (0 -0 01
S
5s
4-* (Q
W) T3 C
-$§s
4-* O cr re
41 in S-
» in 4->
^->. ^ Of tn
r- O CJ>
^t- x en
1 JC 4) C
•rt O •*-
id en >
SE5-E
^-atia
*? *'e
in -o C cr
r— Ot •(-
• 3 0.
o. p o
0. $ 1- C
*— * o o
4-1 *- -r-
trt C 4-J
r— 0) 4» (0
tO 3 •— fc.
4J _ fg 4J
OJ M- C C
E I*- O dl
a» ~f- o
>, 4-1 C
> 41
c jc ia
OTr- H- +-1
!*.*
(.. >
OJ •*->•*->>
o a» ••- «
§ E.P^
t> r— I—
In the discussion
stated that severa
maximum allowable
appears to be that
i
original: Vater .
6-14
-------
c >% (t> ' —
3 ••
CJ O"
Assessment
Rt
4->
C
£
*V
C
UI
t— t
4->
t-
ta
Q.
s that with improved w<
portunities will incre*
4-*
U
C
x:
0-
QJ
O
*o
o
fO
£
u
f1
QJ
QJ
5-
x:
*-
might be considered ii
V?
QJ
O
O
O
XJ
3
CL
4->
cr
QJ
XJ
J-
tP
cn-i- c
c :* o
«3 4-> XJ
4->
4_> .,_
QJ O
l/l 4-> O
QJ c irj
i- QJ 1
0-+->CM
VI OS
*£$
XJ O -J
OJ (J
X)
3
O
C
CJ
XI
XJ
3
O
in
O
>
i_
QJ
3
i
CT
QJ
C
XJ
c
en
•T~
Q_
in
«3
£1
S
£
c
O-
c
.°.
uent ditch and pipelini
ng increased effluent <
4-
H-
QJ
QJ
_c
4->
C
-^
QJ
_c
4-
XI
cd
H- CLX: +J
(O
CO
>>
,"«
C
o
£
O.
f
U
QJ
t.
3
•r-
0
4-
QJ
O
QJ
S-
o:
j-
o
|
C.
o
as
4)
QJ
E
3
CA
4-J
C
QJ
CL
O
QJ
XJ
fO
J-
S-
<+-
4->
3
-
QJ
in
C
•g
XJ
G
O
u
QJ
i.
QJ
.C
t—
i.
o
XJ
o
(/I
«j
t_
4->
x:
4-»
S
XJ
QJ
"a.
3
O
(J
QJ
XI
XJ
3
O
O
. „
X)
t!
«j
.
£"'
o ^o
XJ
4-»
rt>
4->
'g
O
0
(J
x:
CL
CT
c:
+j
4-J
3
U
•o
QJ
QJ
2
XJ
C
o
+J
m
s-
(O
CL
QJ
i Of
i« ^^z.
U3-
nj O
a> * -M
+* en u
3 t- CL
srs
CJ flj O *J C fOrOVfC > l-t-'r- C CLI —
tO
Ol 4-» .C -r- > U L. 4->QJ •• t-Vi4->-i-4->C
4-> Vt <0 rtJ 4- r— 3 O 3 ' — TO — - -r- S- O S- • — QJ
ICT-E C 4) 43 O tsl V) -". QJ C C£ 3 X: QJ XI
C • i- S O C fO>S-tn o Q_"
1_ 4-> 4-> VI QJ QJ C rtJ ' — ' QJQJQJrtJininOCvlXJ
O>»-»CM- ^--t— 4JQit.ajt-O"*r—
4-> QJ > f— 4-> rtJ-r-QJ UJ i — •OnJi~QJUI3
r- 3 *r- «j tnx: xi — - S *C QJ x: XJ ro O
<«r-4-> M-CSVi mo ( — HJC'r-J- XI
»»- r— V C -r- VlXJ>i— >» -4-OO 'r-C4-CL
OO)QJt-X:COC-r-3i— O 4-CQJ40O VI
>
T- 4-J> "(JfO-Ml — QJ
4-* •• COQJQJViL. CO O ••— -4-J VI QJ i — ^a Q.^--
o O •t-Svr-4->v)4->c:o imcxcajs^-OLXJ
flj..Qj-OE 3i — O-C: LTJCL QJ4-> CC3"
f— a xj -c 3 E j_ nj-r-4-> E^Efouviajoo
OJl-"CJO. 4->3i- CL>«3T3CU-r-O4->Qi
x: •<— in x: QJ in CTQJ -r- >- tavii — ajc-*-1
•r- 4-JiTJXJ QJ QJ O CiT3aj''-n_-MO E3
C7I E C C 1~ JC rtj C -C tn*_> fTJtDC^I CfOrtJ CT^ CT
C O'O34-tEO*JCtJ QJ-*J-t->C'O 4— 3 QJ
•r- 4-> T- X: 4- -r- O X: QJ • " C O t_> VI rO XI
>ECCXlQJ CXI - — QJ ra r- Q QJ O CJ)
tt OQJ t/i -a O 4J t^- (/> * — • -t->c ajci/is-i — c:
r^O>I — ' QJ — C\J U -r~ £ .E: C
OCCTORJ3XI4-4-3*-1 OCTfCXJcc: QJ TJ
*f- QJ C *»- O in •!- (tJ +-> C QJ JT XJ +->-*->
t. 4-> *r- XJ •*-* S VI (/> C *4" fOC(OL.L.-MCCC:
4J-r-3>«'3'*-'. — i — OJ QJ 'CUE' — OEQJ E»O
t. C t/1 O V) >V>QJQJ ^— QJ (O 3 i/l •*-> QJ •»— E • —
l_ -T— i/) . . , — •> -a 3; •,- ia -f-1
OO4-*X3 XJ .QjOl-> — LT)C.O-*-1C4- »O -*->
•*"> 4-* (O QJ QJ O -C * O ••— T— tl •«— O QJ t. O C"
IO X:**-Xl4~*'-t->Q4- 4-Cin t-CX+->Q.)
E>»4-»O UQ 4-» XJV) tvCQJO f-
4-> OQJ ajcxjtj cc:i-Qjoc:l+-ajin-»-»
fOi-CM< — 4->i — CXlOIJ-t: raOO^JOOQjXZQJ"
f— • n a) QJO t-+-> r-'+-r-^m -_ 4-> -i- F
>,*r-i>Qjm XJ-MQJ ^T*J <;T--OQJ of--
r— Xi fO OJ > Ci — w-OQJ rou~o ^Qjxixrco
C QJ XI XI -r~- O 4~ V) 3 fl vx QJ Q Qi QJ 'r- cTi
(O *r» O. IT! ^- r— C 4J L> fl Q) VI QJ C t/l M r— fO ••—
O. O^^3O"3QJ C7i
4-> QJ
VI X
0
vi x:
QJ CD
> *
4-> O
[fl C^J
c -
i- «tf-
•i VI
m
O OsJ
^~ aj
(/I -r-
U W
C
4-J QJ
L- *->
-M J-
QJ >*-
V)
QJ "O
I- C
O
• - 0
r-- o
ro ro
QJ t\J
xi r-.
H- */V
4-> 3
0
i — V»
4->
V> >^
O U
o c
QJ O-
I- QJ
O S-
E O
vt
>»•»-
•— XJ
4-*
C V)
u JT
c =
CT *
C
vi m
QJ
I- >»
QJ O
> LJ
4-> QJ
c q
QJ
i — VI
F
0 «
XJ
*-> c
V) (U
o
o n
*fi QJ
>
6C
J-
4-> Q)
V> «i
4~>
QJ
E
•u
nj
in
C
£
QJ
4-1
C
X)
QJ
+J
(J
1-
1_
O
(J
X)
c
ret
O-
i-
3
CO
*~*
4J
fa
CL.
X? «J
cl
c
5 "*"
I/) 4->
U
-— -. QJ
CO U
-a r—
c i-
0)
•* o
«C X)
XJ
*— o
•~~ v>
VI >
iO •«- OJ
XJ in QJ
i — "O Xi
3 0
O O QJ
4- ^*
x:
I- •!-
u c:
QJ O J-
> QJ
(T3 +J (t3
C C
U Qj QJ
+J S-4->
< i- Oi
4- C
O 4J +->
in (O
'ro E f—
4-> QJ >
c x: QJ
QJ -M
0 t- -i-
CL O
u- c
CT O
C QJ •«-
•^ «/» 4->
XJ 3 »0
O XJ OJ
I — V>
QJ C
t"^ O U
E1
0
fO
c
0
4-*
CL
O •
QJ OJ
r—
-o
QJ
•o c
r GJ
c c:
O QJ
ex
in -i-
QJ O.
QJ
«— 3
.JH ^
C QJ
01
4-» QJ
a.4->
CT C
O S_ QJ
i- OJ E
«J O
QJ ••-
O CT >
t- C C
3'i-4)
O in
QJ F* -c
Ce 4->
4-»
s- «a o
QJ x: •*->
4J 4-J
^ XJ C
QJ -f-
r^ f4 CT
L. in E
Qj (Q fO
QJ CL
u_ E v>
cjj in
QJ
.C CO
r^. XJ
c o-> c
* * i_
t- *X> QJ
QJ d.
L C QJ
CJ O O
+J 4- C
C O QJ
Qj 4->
••-co
V) 41
QJ E V>
fc. QJ -^
CL +•>
4-1 i —
• •• VI 4-J
00 C
r— VI QJ
( 4-> T-
ro O O
r- QJ r-
CU O 4-
i- QJ
(A Q-
CJiXI i-
CL. fO E
> ••-
C 4->
*
= C
• O
VI -r-
4) 4->
4J >
r— 4)
•r- V>
U C
«J O
4-* t-
C QJ
QJ 4->
4-> J
S 4-
l- 0
C
fT3 4-1
•a
in L-
•r— "O
CL vi
3 0
r— QJ
C 5-
O 3
+-» 41
XJ *
(0 4-»
cn 41
c E:
•r- QJ
CL*-»
O t3
4) vi
QJ in
x> •*-
x:
ID
£o
r-i
Oi
CT\
C
O
<->
(/>
6-15
-------
e
i
«
CJO
£
UH
O
C
O S
£3
1
CM
01
M
3
M
iH
r*4
4J
O
d
i
CM
01
3
*tH
fc
"8
a»
H
rH
1
1
1
1
4)
00
cd
PU
with "the results of
t of the second
andable language.
M 4J
oo
0) 4J
00 4> B
cd J3 Ot
PH 4J M
01
4-1
41
rH
I-
o
CJ
B
•H
CO
•H
41
U
d
Ot
4-t
B
Ot
CO
n
•H
H
1
•H
rH
w
CN
CM
1
01
00
PH
ead nacroinvertebratt
M
•0
|
W
t
41
U
B
0)
4J
B
0)
ta
4J
CO
•H
O.
(0 •
li 0)
Ot 4J
CO tO
rl t-l
CO *H
arH
Ot
4-> 4J
0} W
« 4)
* iH
U-l O
t U
CM g
4>
00 4J
td o
d, d
emoval of sludge
c decomposition
0) O
4J 4>
O
o
0)
3 0)
•o cn
s s
3
1
4)
4_t
ta
B
rH
CX
u
cn
41
rH
O
4> 0) B
CO jO O
0) * O
ri co at oo
o. d u co
O <0 rH
0) O UH
^ 00 rl 4>
tO 3 00 •
§3 4J
4> U rH B
00 00 tt 4)
ta to TJ t»
rl ^ 3 01 fH
O O rH X CO
S4J « 4J 4)
CO t-l
01 00
I a> js d to
JS 4J -H 41
ro 4J on
S 3 cd
• B 0 T)
o o I-H at B
Z rl 4» r. 5
• u-i UH
ta « oo Q
00 4-1 O CX
« « a x x
PL, e o .e o>
he logic used by
standards would be
age this procedure
tives during the
4) 3 B
C UH o H
•H -r-t CJ 41
ffl rH C 4-t
rH Ot rH
CX O CO
K *H 41
41 *J ^f OO
CO B
O 3 -H
4-J O* * 4-J
4-t 41 3
C 73 4" rH
£ rt u £
O J= X
cx cn tn B
6 -H -H T*
-H U-t *4H
*o to
(0 4-1 (fl fl
4-t 4-t "4-4
M OX
00 B
1 B to <0
•rt 41
rH g X 4-)
45 I fl S
D. (0 41 -H
M C rH 0
t-i tfl
Rl p: 4-1
O. &5 B H
•4" "3 T3 U-4
1 B 4t 41
•H d
OJ C3 3 CO
oo t/5 cr
fl g 4! d
M
CO
T3 41
C X
in x
x >
-H cn
r— t -H
fl) .C
3 ^
cr
4J
t-i fl
41 £
CO
4> S
" §"
O
4-» -O
V 3
0 0
B »
fl
•H 4J
rl iH
CO
CO 4)
4)
rH CJ
X
CO -H
co UH
41 *O
CJ cO -
O CQ Ot
Q. rl -H
O 4-1
00 UH tO
B B
-H "O IH
B 41 41
d tn 4J
CO O rH
rH O. CD
a. o
CO CXrH
01 ,Q
•H d fl
4J 41 TH
•rt 4J
U t) CO
O ^
• 01
rH Ot
M 1
UH C_) B
0 0
4-t cn
-H IH tn
rH fl *J
1 W £
a ° g.
x « ex
§4t 3
£ 0)
Ot fl O
.C 41 4-i
4J iH
rH IH 41
at at >
41 CX -H
UH CX &C
3
X 4>
0) 4t rH
4-1 4J C
0
(ft 4-1 -rH
4> U 4-1
4J 0) CO
CO 4J *H
CJ O
•H (H O
T3 CX E
•H rH CO
<; -H
ex, a 4»
W rl
B at
1 41 X
OO H
rH O
Q, -H tO
rt E •»->
I-l U
oc re 0
CO -H UH
fl O 41
CX |
1 UH O B
•rt
4> rH Q CO
60^. O 3
CO 00 M rH
PH 6 UH cj
rrectly expressed
o
CJ
d
4)
00
o
•H
B
CO
•H
B
§
O
rH
>
at
rH
41
CO
M
1
CO
rH
**"* <>.
4) 4>
00 rl
fl 4)
I
B
C r-
C. *J
B
4h 41
t g
O
». M
C> -r4
U, >
B
cr Ot
cn cj
C( «H
tO
ai 3
f. tr
4J (0
cn 4i
4J
C3 4J
,1* CJ
r- 41
I UH
tO
x-^
t! O
^•' B
-^ rH
2 *S
•0 CO
IH rH
•0 fl
a 4J
ot
o
rH X
n to
at
"d 4-i
T-( U
" g
o
u tn
00 3
fl rH
111 U
xplained what the
ns of water quality
at L.
o>
X 4J
I—I
M B
fl tH
at
rH tA
V C
Ot 41
M B
Ot
Ot Ot
X> M
U
rH .B
3 01
O TH
-C UH
tn TJ
4-1 W
M
1 0
U-t
(j 0)
^•^ CJ
E
O -H
4J CO
0 >
at
cn -a
41
. w
0 O
1 O
CX
41
00 04
fl S3
&- Q
y a relatively small
n the fina] effluent
rH O
B
O U
u
O 0)
X 41
CX 4)
CXrH
tO 4J
O *H
4-> rH
tj V)
0) tO
T3 X
c
O 4-1
•H -O
cn to
•H
4) ^!
CJ 01
B 4)
fl p
•H t_j
tO rC
•H
0> U-I
X TJ
H fl
CQ
• UH
W O
IH B •
*a -H 4->
fl IH 0
4-1 O 'H
CO CX rH
^ s
•rt 13
o 5
t-1 O
O ki
»,,
CO
41
Q -J
£a
S>
. §
-r4 O
000 TH
SW "" 3 O
C O
00
CJ
t
4J
B
§4>
00
M
35
4-1 CJ
cn co
*H
u O
CJ
<0 T3
£•9
M
4J
•3 S
^B
g 3
C r<
O f-H
i! v.
> 0)
B *•*
u to
w «
4-> 01
UH 4J
co to
tH fl)
Q S
Ot
Cti
4J
CJ
•rt
rl
4J
tfl
TH
Q
4>
CO
CO
M
4)
t/3 E
•H
d cn
2 g
•H U
rH CO
O -H
CX ^
0
r* *
4-» X
* §
gcS
tn
•H 41
•O B
CO CO
K D
01
UH
0
above document and
0)
J2
4-1
U-(
O
I
-rt
5
rl
tn
u
•H
•a
0)
4J
4J
rH
ex
Q
o
u
CO
fl
X
d
4)
B
4-1
V
cO
CX
t>
p
CO
B
41
0 "
U B
4'
00 Q
B a
•rl O
> U
O
rH U
rH -H
O **4
CJ
V 41
X CX
<0
01
rl
•o
rH
3
O
tfl
d
•H
01
u
at
T)
01
d
T-4
CO
B
O
CJ
U
c
4)
6
4t
4
4-*
CO
Ot
iS
1
n
CX
tj
00
ra
CX
1
o
o>
X
rH
4-> CO
CJ CJ
IH 4)
0 X
U U
0
0) -H
J3 J3
4-t
CO
4-t CO
o
E 13
41
tfl X
-H -H
M
•a o
CO 01
6 "^
•a ai
&
B
at -o
00 rH
X 3
X 0
0 X
m
rH
tO V<
U 4)
-H 4-J
CJ) 4>
o n
rH «
O >H
iH «
CO CX
1 4)
X
-J H
X
to. •
rt Q
M O
60 P3
fl
crj O
O" UH
* at
O t-i
rH 3
1 4J
rt' 41
(Xj £i
CJ iH
rH 4-t ^
rH 4) B 4)
•H UH 4) CJ
M a rt
o cn rH
5 u «
*H 13 ^
UH 4J B
O CO cO tO
3
rH cr cn 4-1
^. CO T3 *H
00 IH O
B 4) fl CX
e -a ex
f> O B 3
co x u o
X 00 4J
4J 3 >,
O 4-J X
01 X -H IH
41 4J i-H fl
•rH rH ra cn
rH < 3 tn
cx cr 01
C u
•H • IH 0)
41 4) E
IH UH 4J
01 -H ct] tn
4-1
IW CJ "i—l
3 -H rH -^
UH 4-» ^-« DC
« 00 S
X 3 E
Q. CT" lO
M 4-t
00 UH UH Ul
fl o o rt
t-i 41
tO tO iH rH
CX E O*
W 0 S fl
iH UH r— 1
X 4-J
H 41 O fl
• rt fl
-a P 41
C T-t X 4-J
•a cn 4-J rt
§01 >H CJ
-a s T*
*j 41 n
c u > •-<
0) O -H
60 0 > rt
>, CX V- *-»
X 3 3 rt
O W (fl TJ
X
B
i
O
o
CJ
•H
fl
3
cr
c
V:
U 1
a) UH
4-1 4-1
01
X
4-J OO
-H C
i— i "H
rt 4>
3 X
cr
4-1
t-> o
4> C
4-t
tQ 41
3 S
4-J
B tn
a -a
cn )H
a> fl
M -a
CX C
CO
UH J~>
o cn
B X
O 4-1
-H -H
tn rH
cn fl
3 3
o cr
cn
•H t-j
T) 41
4-J
41 ra
X S
4-J
4-J
E rt
-H f.
4-t
1
tn
t; c
o o
•1-4 -H
A-l tT
U D
tn (J
- O
^ 03
QJ 4)
U) C
13 Oi
r- oc
O 41
)_(
41 fl
4" T3
3 M
rH rt
UH TJ
E B
•H fl
4-J
at cn
x:
•*-" X
X
o s
c
4-1 -H
o ra
0) i-H
.1— j CX
X X
3 41
tn
o
o
c ai
T3
g g
rt
a 01
u x
4-1
tn ts
rH
E 3
-H 0
X
C cn
Oi
> 4-1
O M
O
» 14H
'J) UH
t-i 41
*-' C
at <
D
fl
fl 4»
CX 00
O X
CJ
tj tn
9 •*"*
£'
j n
?1
rt 5J
B
4)
standards are not
x
u
3
cn
C
4)
X
3
«
E cn
O )H
-H 01
4-1 4_l
ra fl
u 3
>H
C -O
-r-t 01
rH O
c
4-1 Ol
E 3
OJ ^-1
n UH
rH E
14-1 -H
0) 4J
c
O 01
i-l p
id UH
-H Ol
"H E
C O
CX C
fl
c
00 0
c
Ot 1)
X (-1
6-16
-------
00
r-*.
o»
CM
CM
!
CA
1
J<
«H
U
!
£
« *j
•J B
•:
4-1 *J
S «!
S £
O *4
fH
•O V
B «
a u
S n
5«
-< .
u a. a
portunity to
Statement.
n our comment
&s °
« |g
X S 0
4J M VH
4J
M H CO
O « 4)
**H 4J 3
3 g ^
Ml
|sj
P W X
4J
u
!
fH
«
4J
B
|
K
T-I
>
£
«
>»i*-i
•3 °
h 9
V 4)
•all
n) S d
tH 3
flj X 4)
M *-• H
4 co
ex e
-H 4)
00 £=
345
o cd
0) g
O **H B
SO (3
4J rH -O
d *-. oi
4) 60 N
n B -H
*J .-H 0
CO *H
« 4J C .
•H cd 3 d
X 0
41 4-» y-t *H
X o w
t-t bO 3
d f-H rH
' "3 ~60 d
.-* 0 0 0
irt X U
rt en -j
T-S o en
d • *H
B 0 0 X
O "rt 4-1
•H *J O
up d
4) M 4J -H
en o c *-»
Uj-l 41 M
• d rH 0
fl -rl fl CX
m > ex
I » -H 3
M X o- "
v cy itf
« fXj CO CO
PL, W «H TJ
cd
CO
^ ^
Sot
X
o
§ g
U X
O 01
M-l *4H
•H
CO rH
en cj c-
03 -H tn
X- *J rH
Cd 4)
41 3 >
X 0- 4>
*J CO rH
41 d 13
4-1 O 4>
08 13
4-> 4-1 C
tn y 01
O) 4-1 B
(fl U-l O
CO 41 U
01 4)
CM C
O 4)
1 u X
•H 4J
*~* <4-l
r-. -H d
cd d cd
•^ 60 X
•H U
d to
0 W
•rl O 4)
CJ OQ
4) 4> -H
c/j X X
fo -H cd
I >
4t fH
60 01 4-i
(2 ^ B
£Hr
•H 01
i— t 4J
41 CO *H
* rl >
d 4) 4-1
0 *J -H
•H CO rH
CO ^ CO
CO 3
3 M O
O -H
(0 M
•rt d 41
•O O 4J
60 *-> S
•rl 3 \0
•O ^H r*.
41 Cd ON
01 > rH
d
o
•H
0 01 4J
O 4J CO
3 03 d 3
Cfl -H 41 rH
O) 41 41 >
4J -H
t-. 4) en
4-1 O t-t -H
3 OX
O >> B *-"
00 -H 01 H
3 rH X 0
o rt *J «*-i
M 3
.c er 4-> 4)
H - O
1J d r<
1 41 tn 3
4J ffl O
9
CX JJ X 0
« o U d
J-i U-l 41
td 13 -41
VJ D C-J
rt w r-
CX 3 O^
rH
* 01
CNI cj rt
t d TH
tj 4)
4) «; w
iaO w-J TH
nj 41 t-
P< Ui U
4)
tn
•y
4)
tn
T3
4)
}.
Oft >
•H
U-l ft'
o
0 n
CX rj
^
0>
U X
JJ
«-< O
0
01 01
•CJ 4.
S U
(0 JC
— i eo
C M-.
O tJ
iJ BO
S d
C -rl
o d
:: o
•H
•H U]
o
X D
a 41
tO 41 «
rt 3 41
CX-H B
CO fl
* o
*•-• d u
f-i O
\ • .-)
T) VJ
ton c:
rj o 4*
P« tn u
•8
£ § S
CJ ^H 4)
4J ^
en § co
•w 0 !>
•o y-i TH
CQ TH (0
O >> t-i
rt 4-1
4-1 e I-H
d g td
§5
to o
£ - 2
41 4) I-i
Sat
X
O > *J
o o
01 X
60 4*
X >
O iH >•,
en *j x
•a d
41 41 -rt
4J .-H 4J
n) 41
4-1 -O
rt 4-i
X to o
4J 4> 4J
41 13
4) 41 41 •
rl X T3 41
60 4J 3 -H
tn oi u rt
•H X d \*
U U 4) 4)
d to
O Cd rH CO
13 4) 3
a. o *•»
41 CX X O
"^
_;
•o
§
g'g
f-l
4-i tn
as
s «
o to
U 01
o
•a en
3 41
4-1 TH
O) 4J
•H
U >— 1
•H -H
4-1 O
4) rt
41
4-* 0)
tn s
O 4J
u rt
0)
4-J
d
•rt 4)
rt o
4-1 d
d rt
o >
"•8
T3
rH 4)
3 X
O *->
X
O
rl d
o o
CX *H
la
CO U
en -H 41
41 T3 IH
ex w 4i
x to
4J 41 O
X a
60 4J
•H 4J 4)
su rt *-»
41 X rt
13 *J tJ
•H CX
CO 4-1 3
d d
o rt d
CJ> 4J rt
O 4)
4J 0 -H
> -H >
-H 0
to en t-i
d -H ex
01
U 4-1 "O
d -H rH
•H 3
• 0
>. d x
00 o en
tj TH
41 4-1 en
d rt M
01 > W
V4
.X 4i 01
)-. to X
41 d 4J
> o
oi ° d"
rt 60 -rl
tn 41 -H
j_> rt
tn t-i
he
lorinati.4
4-> X
X 41
*J -O
•rt
* ^
•o
o *o
X 41
4-» >
4) O
£ rH
d o
O «*H
4-> d
a o
tU -H
•H d
en *H
,-H
d x
o o
•H
to d
d ^H
o o
N ex
0 ^
«
4) 41
X rl
IfS
•H d
i-i d
CO to
CX rH
U CX
O
tn rH
•H OCX
rt TH *-»
cfl B
to
3
UH
0
d
•H
4J
cd
o.
41
CX
4>
X
4-1
o
t)
41
to
3
to
rt
X «
o B
** O
r M
4> CX
3
TH rt
d M
X 41
U >
a* D
4-1 tn
60 CO
d oi
•H 4->
4J 4)
X !-•
(fl O
- *J
4) CO
X V*
r* *O
M
rH
i
i
-S i!
> -H
41 01
d T3
co d
e n
CO T3
rH CO
ex o>
CO
41
•rH
4-1
-H
•H Z
CO T-
4) •
O
en
4) 4->
U *H
d
4) 41
4) cd
M-i g
I-I 4J
d
& 0
41 en
x to
H rt
•
£.
DO
d
4)
•o
d
cd
60
d
•H
en
3
d
o
u
41
CO
•H
j-l
(J
3
'o
ex
d
4)
X
H
•
g
R
O H •
rH 5
T3 4>
•-H -O
3 d
^
41 U
X TH
H CX
4> 4)
ex t-»
ex o
6-17
-------
the Intenor
^^
o
partment
ET
Q
%
5
2
LJ
U
LAND MANAi
b.
O
Ul
C
Hi
U
« STATES OFf
tf
bl
M
ul
tl
1
<
E
«
«
a
U
1
o
1
(B
"fr
*
X
i.
V)
1
00
CD
CM
UJ
oo
•B
»j
o>
iH
rH
3
£
*J
C
U
Hi
£
S
O
c
0)
4?
C
o
•H
0
o c
M 0
*> 'w
a 01
w £
4J '
0>
o>
t-t
4J
V)
t
o
,O
»j
«
«
i/i
O
<*> J
< J t
t-t
h
O
Ss
O
4-i
60
C
I
0)
•H
0>
•o
4J
t-l
0
&
o
VI
^
0)
;*
M
4)
5
0)
4-1
CO
tal Impact Statement cone
c
01
E
C
£
•H
C
£
rt
Q
£•
C
O
n
e
o
U
0)
•H
3
s
0>
C
•H
0)
00
o
U)
o
d
c
gj
e
41
M
•o
s
c
U-l
C
01
«
01
*H
00
ce
o
T-t
"§
&
O
, o
^ c
U
(Q
&
M
(0
I
o
l-l
•H
C
4J
M
3
O
3
0)
•H
0)
O
tff
00
•r-i
g
tH
r-H
03
t-l
O
0
^
TO
fi
??
Sincerely youi
4J
C
•V
a
Ol
M
i <$t4
6-18
-------
3. PUBLIC HEARING
Sessions were held at Madison and Janesville on August 17, 1973.
Complete hearing transcripts may be viewed at USEPA, Region V, Chicago.
Following is a hearing summary and the responses of USEPA. (C = comment and
R = response).
1. Jim Nemke, Director, Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District
C - The additional bioassay studies recommended for use in evaluating a less
strict ammonia limit are not necessary; basis of past tests at the treatment
pI ant.
R - The bioassay work has been completed and the results have been used to
develop new ammonia limits for the Final EIS.
C - Costs for additional ammonia removal may not be necessary.
R - Ammonia levels have been redefined for the Final EIS, see Section 3 of
Chapter 2.
C - Supports District monitoring of Badfish Creek before and after the new
faci Iities.
R - This is appropriate for this project, and is described in Section D of
Chapter 5.
C - Should also look at using marshlands along the effluent ditch for pol-
ishing and equalization of flow; an innovative alternative.
R - Grass Lake is the major wetland area available for this type of treat-
ment alternative. Considerable acreage would be necessary to treat the
50 MGD design flow. Grass Lake is included in the first priority group of
the 1974 Dane County Wetlands Study. It is one of the few healthy deep
water marshes in the County, with considerable wildlife value, and ought to
be preserved as a natural area. The high volume of effluent would destroy
this resource. While innovative alternatives can be extremely valuable,
this particular one is unfeasible and undesirable.
C - The secondary treatment addition is on line; treatment results have been
good and should be considered.
R - See a presentation of treatment quality improvements from increased
capacity of the Fifth Addition in Chapter 3.
6 - 19
-------
2- Dave Ho I man, Environmental Protection Director, Rock County
C - Implement the Facilities Plan immediately for a five year period.
R - Since the Public Hearing, the Facilities Plan has been revised. In the
meantime the Fifth Addition for secondary treatment capacity has gone on
I i ne.
C - Insufficient information is available now to make long-range predictions
of water quality impacts; a monitoring program is necessary for future evalu-
utions.
R - The monitoring program is recommended in Chapter 5.
C - Need for an implementation plan for flow augmentation before the treat-
ment plant goes into operation.
R - The "City-County Lakes Committee Report", issued in November 1973
addresses lake level management above the Yahara River as one of its top
priorities. Section 3-2 of Chapter 5 explains the local effort being under-
taken to work on lake level management. Streamflow augmentation would be
one of the goals of this program.
C - Need for compliance with the mitigation provisions developed in the EIS.
R - Implementation responsibilities for the mitigation measures are outlined
in Chapter 5.
C - A dissolved oxygen and ammonia monitoring program is critical to comply
with water quality standards and to protect stream life at all times.
R - A monitoring program is one of the EIS recommendations, described in
Chapter 5.
C - If water quality plans don't work, Rock County is prepared to take legal
act i on.
R - Comment noted.
'• Peter Ruffjer, Sanitation Department, University of Wisconsin
C - Has worked on the Madison ammonia bioassay project; fish can survive
0.02 mg/l of unionized ammonia; increased removal would not increase the
potential for fish and aquatic life.
R - Our analysis of this bioassay work is presented in Section 3 of Chapter
2.
4. Adr i an Freund, Dane County Regional Commission.
C - The Draft EIS alternative is generally consistent with the Dane County
Water Qua Iity Plan.
R - Comment noted.
6-20
-------
C - Ammonia limits not be stricter than necessary or the costs will be ex-
cessive; costs will be borne by local residents.
R - This is why we are seeking the cost-effective solution. Section 3 of
hapter 2 covers the latest findings on ammonia and Section C of Chapter 5
presents the AST/AWT review process.
C - Impacts to the Yahara and Rock Rivers should be addressed more thor-
oughly.
R - The Draft EIS analysis showed that this was difficult to do, except for
total dissolved solids (TOS) concentrations. Because the Yahara and Rock
Rivers have much larger flows, the impacts of Badfish Creek become more
dilute and specific impacts are difficult to quantify. Improving water
quality in Badfish Creek will have beneficial, although less measurable,
downstream impacts.
C - Some of this money might better be spent on non-point source control.
R - Both point and non-point programs are important, as the Clean Water Act
recognizes. Funding, however, is not interchangeable under the Act.
C - Water quality, including dissolved oxygen and ammonia, should support a
warm water fishery, livestock watering, and body-contact recreation; past
trout habitat was marginal; other stream alterations would eliminate restor-
ing even a stocked trout fishery.
R - Warm water fishery and full-body contact standards are being used for
the Madison WPDES permit.
C - Upstream residents pay for advanced waste treatment while downstream
users get the benefits; funding policy should be changed to make this more
equ i tab Ie.
R - This policy change would require major alterations of the existing regu-
lations and is beyond the scope of this EIS. Downstream residents are
responsible for their own communities' wastewater treatment systems.
^• Chris Beebe, Cooksville, Wisconsin resident
C - Badfish Creek borders his property; local farmers don't like the present
stream condition; need to clean up and not pass the problem downstream.
R - Past water quality in the Badfish has been poor, as documented 'n Chap-
ter 3. Recent capacity improvements at the Madison treatment plant, the
Fifth Addition, have already improved water quality. Chapter 5 describes
further improvements that are planned as a result of the EIS process.
of Madison
C - Resolution supporting the advanced waste treatment alternative chosen
in the Faci I i ties ° I an.
R - Comment noted.
6-21
-------
7. Don Hana, Director, Rock Valley Metropolitan Council
C - Need to proceed rapidly with advanced waste treatment construction.
R - Advanced waste treatment Is one of the major conclusions of the EIS.
C - Need to monitor the new system after 5 years to see If It works, at that
point, do more, If necessary.
R - Section D-l of Chapter 5 describes the monitoring program.
8. KaN Gutknecht, Cooksvllle, Wisconsin resident
C - Badflsh Creek Is presently In poor condition. Contamination of water-
fowl and Impacts to the food chain fears genetic mutations; damage to live-
stock.
R - Comment noted.
C - Continued discharge to Sadflsh Creek would mean continued chemical
damage to the stream and would prevent Its use for recreation.
R - The present discharge to Badflsh Creek Is substantially Improved, com-
pared to the effluent of past years. This results from the Increased
secondary treatment capacity already on line from the Fifth Addition.
Additional Improvements will result from the advanced waste treatment Indi-
cated by the EIS. Ammonia and pathogens will be reduced to safe levels for
warm water fishery and full body contact. In addition, an Industrial pre-
treatment program will be used to control many substances before they reach
the municipal treatment facility.
C - Pollutants may contaminate the groundwater during flooding.
R - If wells are properly designed and installed as required by the State
of Wisconsin, there should be no contamination of wells during flooding.
Future effluent will receive a much higher degree of treatment than it has
In the past, as well. Advanced waste treatment will keep the nitrate/nitrite
concentration at safe levels.
C - The environmental impacts may have high costs; afraid of the situation
and its impacts to health.
R - The quality of effluent proposed is near the state-of-the-art levsl in
wastewater treatment, in order to improve stream conditions and protect
public health.
C - The Draft EIS is difficult to understand; it hides the truth from the
public.
R - The layered Draft EIS format was necessary to condense the eight volumes
of background facilities planning information and to be compatible with our
EIS preparation resources. While all of its cross-references can make for
choppy reading, it is not intentionally designed to be confusing. We will
be glad to help clarify items within it. The Final EIS uses an issue-
oriented format to focus on the most important new developments.
6-22
-------
9* Chrjs Beebe, Cooksville, Wisconsin resident
C - 3adfish Creek borders his property; foul water; never freezes; little
stream life.
R - Comment noted.
C - Effluent would certainly be higher quality if it had to be discharged
to one of the Madison lakes; the problem is being shunted downstream; a
false economy.
R - Streams can assimilate wastewater more readily than lakes. This is
because lakes trap buildups of nutrients, resulting in greater water quali-
ty problems. Lake discharge is generally unadvisable if there is a stream
alternative and was prohibited many years ago for Madison. In recent years
a great deal of effort has gone into examining and expanding the hydraulic
capacity and sludge handling facilities at Madison, improvements which are
now being built or are in operation. This EIS seeks to resolve the advanced
wastewater treatment issues in order to complete necessary improvements at
Madison. The planning is necessary to spend Federal and local funds on the
necessary improvements in the most effective way.
C - The stream is channelized in Dane County; natural meanders are in Rock
County.
R - Channelization and agricultural drainage programs were initiated on Bad-
fish Creek within Dane County in the early I900's. Additional widening to
accommodate the new volume of flow, occurred after the effluent diversion
in the 1950's.
10. Mr. Gutknecht
C - Could the thermal pollution in Badfish Creek be a problem like with
nuclear power plants.
R - Higher water temperatures are a result of alterations of the natural
condition of the stream. This has arisen from removal of streambank vege-
tation, channelization and the input of treated effluent. Since diversion,
water temperature has increased 5.5 C upstream and I.5 C at the mouth of
3adfish Creek.
One of the greatest problems from thermal pollution from power plants arises
when the warn water source fluctuates on and off, so that the stream is
alternately warm and cool. This change makes it difficult to maintain the
biological population. Since wastewater flow occurs every day, though, the
temperature changes in the stream will not be rapid.
In addition, the new treatment measures proposed in this EIS increase water
detention time at the plant. This should bring the effluent one to two
degrees closer to the ambient air temperature, resulting in more natural
stream temperatures after discharge.
6-23
-------
11 . MrJ._3eebe
C - What is the condition of the effluent from the Oregon treatment plant;
what is its impact to the 3adfish.
R - The Village of Oregon has a 0.4 MGD activated sludge-trickling filter
wastewater treatment plant. Its discharge permit's secondary effluent
limits of 30 mg/l biochemical oxygen demand (300) and 30 mg/l suspended
solids (SS). In recent years the facility has generally met these limits.
Upgrading may be planned to meet future, stricter requirements.
The Oregon Branch of 3adflsh Creek flows discontinuous Iy, so the Oregon
effluent can be a major part of the stream flow. It has a comparatively
low volume of effluent compared to Madison (0.4 MGO vs. 35 MGD and so has
little influence on water quality once the Madison flow enters Badfish
Creek.
'2. Car] Larson - Cooksville, Wisconsin resident
C - Erosion problem along the iBadfish in Rock County; no maintenance pro-
vided like in Dane County.
R - The meandering pattern is the natural configuration of the stream.
This involves a shifting of the channel within the stream's floodplain,
over a period of many years. This shifting occurs by erosion along the
outside curves and deposition of the eroded sediments along the inside
curves. The increased flow of 3adfish Creek has accelerated this natural
process.
C - Effluent from Madison is aggravating the erosion problem.
R - See above. The downstream channel will enlarge to accommodate the
'ncreased flow.
'3« Norbert Hum I and, Dunn Township resident
C - His property is adjacent to the discharge ditch; last year herbicides
were used along the ditch right-of-way; is there a potential ground water
polIution probI em.
R - Response given to Mr. Humland's comment letter, Section A.
6-24
-------
Chapter 7
FINAL EIS DISTRIBUTION LIST
A. FEDERAL
Les Aspin, U. S. House of Representatives
Robert Kastenmeier, U. S. House of Representatives
Gay lord Nelson, U. S. Senate
William Proxmire, U. S. Senate
» Council on Environmental Quality
U. S. Department of Agriculture
So!I Conservation Service
•* U. S. Department of Commerce
U. S. Department of Defense
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare
U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
U. S. Department of the Interior
National Park Service
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U. S. Department of Labor
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
Water Resources CounciI
3. STATE
Attorney General
Chamber of Commerce
Department of Health and Social Services
v Department of Justice
« Department of Local Affairs and Development
Department of Natural Resources
Department of Transportation
Governor, State of Wisconsin
Great Lakes Compact Commission
Public Service Commission
State Clearinghouse
State Historical Society
Soil and Water Conservation Districts Board
7-1
-------
- 2 -
C. LOCAL
Jonathan 3. 3arry, Stats Representati va
Peter Bear, State Senator
David E. Clarenbach, State Representative
Timothy Cull an, Stats Senator
Harland E. Everson, State Representative
Thomas A. Loftus, State Representative
Marjorie M. Miller, State Representative
Mary Lou Blunts, State Representative
Fred A. Risser, State Senator
Carl W. Thompson, State Senator
Wayne W. Wood, State Representative
City ot 3eloit
City of Janesvi I Ie
City of Madison
Consolidated Koshkonong Sanitary District
Dane County Health Department
Dane County Public Works Department
Dana County Regional ^Manning Commission
Janesvi Me Public Library
Madison Public Libraries
Rock County Department of Environmental °rotection
Rock County Dlanning and Zoning Department
0. CITIZENS AND GROUPS
This list is available upon request from USE^A.
7-2
-------
List of EIS Preparers
Catherine Grissom Garra
M.R.P. Regional Planning
6 years of EIS preparation experience
Cynthia Wakat
B.S. Biology
9 years of EIS preparation and facilities
planning experience
Gene Wojclk
M.S. Mater Resources
7 year of EIS preparation and facilities
planning experience
Additional technical Input and review has been provided by USEPA Region V
staff.
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1980-750-406/45
7-3
-------