United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
February 1983
Water Division
'EPA Environmental Report
Middle Door County, Wisconsin
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
905R83105
Pholo LEE BRA6M
jj"*-
' >v
-------
905R83105
Final Environmental Report
Middle Door County, Wisconsin
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
US Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Impact Section
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
February 1983
U.S. lavironmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, Library (5PL-16)
830 S. Dearborn Street, Room 167(1
Chicago. IL 60604
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Purpose of and Need for Action
This Environmental Report (ER) is a resource document which provides
information concerning wastewater treatment system alternatives, including
an analysis of cost-effectiveness and environmental impact, for the commu-
nities of Egg Harbor, Fish Creek, Ephraim and Baileys Harbor in middle Door
County, Wisconsin (Figure 1). Because this document is an ER, the evalua-
tion of alternatives is intended to provide guidance on the types of waste-
water treatment options that appear to be favorable based on cost-effec-
tiveness and associated environmental impacts.
Because of unique geological conditions and high water tables in many
parts of the middle Door County area, there has been concern that existing
onsite wastewater treatment systems may be contributing to the contamina-
tion of ground and surface waters. In 1978, the Town of Gilbraltar (in-
cluding Fish Creek), acting on behalf of the Town of Baileys Harbor and the
Villages of Egg Harbor and Ephraim, received a planning grant (Step 1) from
the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) through the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). This grant provided
funding for the preparation of a Facilities Plan for the four communities.
The individual jurisdictions contracted with three engineering firms to
prepare the Facilities Plan. At that time, USEPA determined that an Envi-
ronmental Impact Statement (EIS) would be needed because of the sensitive
natural resources present in the project area and the potential for im-
proved wastewater facilities to induce development and population growth.
The EIS was to be prepared concurrently with the Facilities Plan.
In October 1980, the Facilities Planners submitted the Facilities Plan
to the local communities for their review. The Facilities Plan addressed
the wastewater treatment needs of the four communities and concluded that a
combination of onsite systems and centralized wastewater treatment systems
would be most cost-effective. The Facilities Plan also concluded that
S-l
-------
individual treatment plants would be the most cost-effective alternative
for each community. The Middle Door County Facilities Plan was submitted
to WDNR and USEPA in October 1980 for review. A review of the Facilities
Plan indicated several areas where additional information was needed before
it could be approved by WDNR or USEPA.
Fish Creek currently is the only community that is proceeding with the
additional work necessary to produce an approvable Facilities Plan. It
formed a Sanitary District that included the most densely populated areas
of Fish Creek and hired a consultant to prepare an Addendum to the original
Facilities Plan for the Sanitary District. The Addendum was submitted to
WDNR for review. Approval of the Addendum is pending.
The EIS cannot be completed until the other communities (Egg Harbor,
Ephraim, and Baileys Harbor) have completed their portions of the Facil-
ities Plan. It is not known whether the remaining communities intend to
complete the Facilities Plan, or what the schedule would be for its com-
pletion. Because the entire Middle Door County Facilities Plan may never
be finished, or funded by USEPA, the completion of the EIS on wastewater
treatment needs for the four communities is doubtful.
In order to adjust to the changing scope of the project, to help
resolve outstanding environmental concerns, and to provide interim guid-
ance for environmentally sensitive wastewater treatment alternatives, USEPA
initiated the preparation of this Environmental Report. The ER is intended
to serve as a guide to the four communities, their facilities planners,
government agencies, and citizens by outlining environmentally sensitive
solutions to the wastewater treatment problems of the communities.
The ER evaluates the wastewater management alternatives presented in
the 1980 Facilities Plan and the 1982 Addendum, plus several additional
alternatives for each commmunity, for cost-effectiveness and environmental
impacts. Significant issues discussed in the ER are the potential for
groundwater contamination by existing onsite systems, and the potential for
centralized wastewater facilities to induce population growth and cause
secondary impacts on the environment in the project area. Other issues
S-3
-------
that are discussed include impacts to wetlands, prime farmlands, threatened
or endangered species, and archaeological or historical sites; economic im-
pacts on local residences; the ability of local governments to finance
improvements; and secondary impacts.
Existing Conditions in the Natural and Manmade Environment
Natural Environment
The ER presents information on the natural environment in the project
area including: air quality, geology, soils, surface water, groundwater,
and terrestrial and aquatic biota. The major elements of the natural envi-
ronment that will affect decisions concerning continued use of onsite
systems - or the need for centralized wastewater collection and treatment
systems - are the geology, groundwater, and surface water.
The geology of the project area is characterized by dolomite bedrock
overlain by shallow unconsolidated glacial deposits. The bedrock slopes
from the ridge of the Niagra escarpment along the Green Bay coast to the
Lake Michigan shore, with outcrops at numerous locations. The shallow
bedrock has a major impact on excavation costs. The surface bedrock is
primarily Niagaran dolomite with many natural crevices, fissures and,
joints at the surface. The soils and bedrock are moderately permeabable
and most precipitation percolates to the groundwater aquifers in the dolo-
mite bedrock.
Approximately 26 percent ot the soils in the project area are under-
lain by dolomite bedrock at an approximate depth of 3.5 feet and in general
have a depth to bedrock of less than 5 feet. The surficial deposits over-
laying the shallow bedrock consist of dolomite fragments, silt or clay.
Other surficial deposits include alluvium, marsh and lake deposits con-
sisting of silt, clay and organic matter; outwash, beach deposits and sand
dunes consisting of well-sorted sand and gravel; and ground moraines, end
moraines and drumlins consisting of till (intermixed clay, silt, sand,
gravel, and boulders).
S-4
-------
In general, the soils in the project area exhibit considerable vari-
ability in composition and characteristics. The depth to the water table
ranges from zero to greater than 6 feet, and the slope ranges from zero to
18 percent. The SCS has given many of the soils in the project area a
"severe" rating for soil absorption systems. The primary limitations are
near surface bedrock, high water table, and steep slopes.
The primary water supply source for the project area is groundwater
from private wells. Most of the wells drain from the surficial unconsoli-
dated materials and the dolomite bedrock. The principal water bearing
zones are in vertical and bedding plane joints in the dolomite bedrock.
The dolomite aquifer has a high contamination potential because of the
shallow soils cover, the permeability of the soils, and the fractured
condition of the bedrock.
The surface waters of concern in the ER are the coastal bays and
harbors along Green Bay and Lake Michigan. Existing water quality infor-
mation for these areas is unavailable but general information indicates
that Lake Michigan is slightly eutrophic. Green Bay is more variable in
alkalinity, ph and ionic composition. In many locations the Lake Michigan
shoreline is characterized by a slight bottom gradient, rock shoals and
considerable bottom deposition. In contrast, the Green Bay coast has a
sharp bottom gradient along the escarpment.
Manmade Environment
The ER presents information on the manmade environment of the project
area including land use, population, economic conditions, recreation and
tourism, personal and governmental finances, and cultural resources. One
of the major elements of the manmade environment that will affect decisions
concerning wastewater management is the existing and projected populations
of the four communities.
For several decades prior to 1970 the population of Door County and
the project area had been declining. Between 1970 and 1980, however, the
population in the project area increased by 26.1 percent. This population
S-5
-------
increase is consistant with recent national trends of net migration from
urban areas to rural areas. The current trend of population increase is *
expected to continue because of the recreational attraction of Door County
and its popularity as a retirement area.
Population projections for the year 2000 were made for permanent,
seasonal, and seasonally transient populations. Projections for the per-
manent population were based on historical population statistics and the
fertility rate. The permanent population is expected to continue to grow,
but at a decreasing rate. The seasonal population is expected to continue
to grow at a substantial rate based on the 1970-1980 increase in seasonal
housing units. The 1982 seasonally transient population was estimated
based on the number of cottages, motel units and campsites available in the
project area. The seasonally transient population was assumed to remain
constant over the planning period because the limited information available
precluded the identification of trends. Population projections for the
four communities are presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Population projections for Egg Harbor, Fish Creek, Ephraim and
Baileys Harbor.
1980 2000
Egg Harbor
Village
Fish Creek
Community
Ephraim Vil-
lage
Permanent
238
224a
319
Seasonal
606
a
375
1,029
Seasonal ,
Transient
473
540
728
Permanent
369
278
466
Seasonal
802
610
1,505
Seasonal ,
b
Transient
473
540
728
Baileys Harbor
Community 3133 1Q& 473 536 212 473
b1979
1982 estimated cottage, motel and campsite population.
S-6
-------
Wastewater Treatment Options
Needs Documentation
Onsite systems are the predominant means of wastewater treatment in
the project area. Most of the onsite systems utilize soil absorption of
septic tank effluent, or holding tanks.
Onsite systems that fail to function properly can cause backups in
household plumbing, ponding of effluent on the ground surface, groundwater
contamination that may affect water supplies, and/or excessive nutrients
and coliform levels in surface water. USEPA Guidance requires that docu-
mented pollution problems be identified and traced back to the causal
factors. Projects may receive USEPA grants only where a significant pro-
portion of residences can be documented as having or causing problems.
Eligibility for USEPA grants is limited to those systems for which there is
direct evidence that indicates they are causing pollution, or those systems
that are virtually identical in environmental constraints and in usage
patterns to documented failing systems.
Information on existing systems was gathered from Door County Health
Department records. Interviews with Health Department personnel also were
useful in assessing environmental conditions in the project area and the
suitability of septic tank and soil absorption systems for treating waste-
water. A septic leachate detector survey, color infrared aerial photo-
graphy, and a mailed questionnaire also were used to assess the effective-
ness of the existing treatment systems and to document direct evidence of
onsite system problems.
The results of these investigations indicate that certain areas ex-
hibit a combination of site limitations, history of replacements, and
documented water quality problems that appear to require offsite treatment.
In general, these areas encompass the downtowns of the four communities.
They have concentrations of commercial uses, small lots, and constraints
for soil absorption systems, such as shallow depth to bedrock, cobble, or
water table. These areas have a concentration of holding tanks both for
S-7
-------
new structures and as replacements for septic tank and soil absorption
systems.
Several well sampling programs have been conducted in the project area
and contaminated wells have been documented. However, in most cases the
contamination was found to be the result of insufficient well casing,
inadequate grouting, or some other feature of the installation or operation
of the well. Similarly, the septic leachate detector may have identified
some groundwater plumes containing nutrient concentrations above background
levels, but the origin of the plumes could not be determined. As yet, no
documented evidence exists which links contaminated groundwater in the
project area with failing onsite systems. The potential for such contami-
nation is clear, because of the shallow soil cover and fractured bedrock,
but direct evidence of groundwater contaminated by onsite systems is lack-
ing.
Wastewater Management Alternatives
The project alternatives considered in the ER serve all the subareas
identified in the Facilities Plan for the four communities. For each
community a no action alternative, several alternatives utilizing centra-
lized collection and treatment (including alternatives equivalent to those
recommended in the Facilities Plan), and an alternative utilizing only
onsite systems for the entire service area were evaluated.
The No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative implies that neither USEPA nor WDNR (except
through the Wisconsin Fund where eligible individual systems can be funded
for upgrades through NR 126.30) would provide funds for wastewater treat-
ment systems. Wastewater would be treated in existing onsite systems and
no few facilities would be built except on an individual basis to replace
obviously failed systems.
The need for improved wastewater management in each community is not
well documented. The cost of pumping existing holding tanks appears to be
S-8
-------
a major impetus for centralized collection and treatment systems. The
number of onsite systems experiencing failures or backups is small. The
potential impact of onsite systems on groundwater quality is a major con-
cern but problems with properly constructed wells appear to be minimal and
have not been traced specifically to onsite systems.
The No Action Alternative was rejected for all four communities be-
cause it does not provide an administrative mechanism or funding to provide
adequate inspection of existing onsite systems unless there are obvious
problems. As a result, there is a potential that environmental problems
associated with existing onsite systems would persist and result in ground-
water pollution. Furthermore, no project would be instituted to mitigate
the high cost for businesses to pump holding tanks. The result would be an
increasing number of holding tanks that have high operational costs.
The Build Alternatives
The service area for each community was divided into a sewer service
area and an onsite service area for alternatives providing centralized
collection and treatment. In each community, two sewer service alterna-
tives were evaluated; one with sewers with the same extent as that recom-
mended in the Facilities Plan and another with a more limited extent. The
smaller sewer service areas primarily include the downtown areas and are
based on primary inferred evidence from the needs documentation.
Upgrading of onsite systems was evaluated using available information.
The onsite technologies considered were septic tanks, seepage beds, mounds,
and holding tanks, although other technologies may be appropriate on a
limited basis. The number of systems to be upgraded was estimated conser-
vatively. The systems that were not obviously causing a direct effluent
flow to the bedrock were not included in the estimate of the number of
systems to be upgraded. Compliance with Wisconsin code was not used as a
criterion for estimating the number of systems to be upgraded. It was
assumed that the district or village will assume management and maintenance
responsibilties for the onsite systems within the service areas.
S-9
-------
Collection systems evaluated for the sewer service areas include
conventional gravity, septic tank effluent (STE) gravity, and STE pressure
sewers. In general, conventional gravity systems were the least costly.
STE gravity sewers were used in conjunction with alternatives including
treatment systems utilizing treatment and disposal of septic tank effluent.
The centralized treatment and disposal alternatives included WWTPs
with bay or lake discharge for all four communities, WWTPs with land or
wetland disposal, and cluster drainfields or cluster mounds for individual
communities where appropriate and technically feasible. Cluster drain
fields are seepage soil absorption systems designed to serve more, than one
home. Cluster mounds are similar to cluster drainfields except that the
seepage system is constructed in a raised bed (mound) to overcome limita-
tions of shallow soil depth and a shallow water table. WWTP treatment
alternatives evaluated for each community included the treatment process
recommended in the Facilities Plan as well as an aerated lagoon.
For the alternatives with bay or lake discharge, the outfall from the
WWTP would discharge at a minimum depth of 25 to 30 feet, as recommended by
the US Fish and Wildlife Service, to minimize the impact on fish spawning
areas.
Village of Egg Harbor Alternatives
Alternatives considered for the Village of Egg Harbor include: the no
action alternative (Alternative 1), three alternatives for the larger sewer
service area (Alternatives 2A, 2B and 3), three alternatives for the smal-
ler sewer service area (Alternatives 4, 5 and 6), and onsite system up-
grades for the entire service area (Alternative 7) . A description and
ranking of the total estimated present worth costs for each alternative are
presented in Table 2.
The least cost alternative for Egg Harbor is Alternative 7, upgraded
onsite systems for the entire service area. Alternative 2B (conventional
gravity collection in the larger sewer service area, a rotating biological
contactor (RBC) WWTP, discharge to Green Bay, and upgraded onsite systems
S-10
-------
•
r-s
o
o
o
rH
•>
rH
to
cr\
rH
r4
E
01
u
e
to
01
>
•H
4-1
C
U
0>
4J
rH
CO
b
D
J3
U
£
itf
Li
0
H4
CO
4J
to
0
u
j;
•M
r4
S
4J
C
OJ
to
01
M
O.
•o
0)
4J
o
4j
CO
01
*M
o
X
u
5
CM
V
J3
CO
H
e
0) rH 01
00 CO rH -H
n 3 co 4.
•J B s> a.
41 E -H 0
> W 3 c.
sO
•
•er
rH
tM
sO
cc
4J
i2
r-
so
rH
CM
4J
C
01
C
g
i
01
4-1
•H
CO
<§
rH
CO
CO
o
o.
•H
Q
CO
CO
sO
in
CM
m
rH
4-(
C
4-1
cd
CI
u
H
C
E o
O -H
•H CO
4-1 CO
O T> -H
01 C g
rH CQ 00
rH C
0 CO
4J
CO
O
*&
r^
sO
SO
CO
01
&
4-1
to
C
u
OJ
*J
3
to I
01 C JO
M 01 3
J3 E V4
3 O 0 "4-1
to o o
00 O
b CO 4-1 w
O rH 0)
>*J 01 -o
T3 CO C
** co j= i
03 kJ CJ 01
X 01 ID ki
CO CO -H
•a w
BO O
0 4J -3 s5
•H E
<-> B CO CO
00 E
OJ i-l - 0)
r- 1 CO W *•*
rH CO so CO
O «-) -H
> 4J H OJ
CO C
b "-» O
CM T3
rH • V
CO -0 O TJ
B B o) m
C o eg to u
O -H 00
•H 4J . = ex
4-1 C PQ -H 3 •
O OJ rH CO
•< > &. .. CC
O O < 5 CO V4
Z U rH 5 « to
,
• ^
rH CN
CO •«
OJ 01
u • -a
CO 0 0
WO 01 M
3 CO 00
to tx
B 3
U -H
o •-
H itj
§1"
» CO §
X ^ CD
CO Oi U
CJ
E o
0 w 0
S c ~
O O 01
CJ "H o£
rH CO l-l
rH » ecj
0 -H J=
u e u
to to
x e .H
4J CO T3
•H I-l
co e
rJ - CO
00<
CN »
C C CM
o ce a:
-r<
4J - Z
E 05 O
> H
g<*
O -H CV
.
CD
CM
m
CN)
in
CSI
rv
C5
m
CM"
fn
CO
r—
so
m
•
CM
rH
CN
CO
h^
00
f^
f^
SO
00
•
CO
01
CO
J3
3
to
o
u
0)
B
i
p
^
0
CO
CO
X
to
o>
1-(
CD
B
0
•>
cc u
rH r^
CN
-tT05
CD m
ca t-i
01
Ul rH
3 •
CO CJ
o
o
•r4
01
4-1 4J
CO T-<
X to
to
o
E «-!
o
X e
4J C
CJ -H
01 CO
rH CO
l-J *H
o e
U CO
e
x
u <
00 CM
w -e
N 6
« CO
»
*n
00
cw
0
CM
r*.
r^.
O
CM
en
00
r-.
>£>
CM
<*•
CO
-*
1 "
CM
ul
CO
CO
Lo
U t3
0 C
CO T-l
to B
rH S
*rn
O U
DO 0
*M
0) (C
*-" B
a> 5
3 *J
^H 03
O -^
CD
C
a) m
00 C
0 0
a
00 13
•H 0)
•"•g
c oo
CO O.
3
4J
e .. .
yen
E S CO
4J «J 01
Ct CO M
0) X «3
M CO JO
" B g
•3 0
6 -< >M
B *" O
CO
a
eu c B
n o 01
« O 01
J3 00 r4
3 CO 0
tO rH
o
O sV
UH 4J OJ
a oo
gt-i W«
01 CO
4-1 tO J^
CD U
X 0 CD
CO 4J -H
T3
B E
O O T3
•r-t -^ E
4J 00 CO
U CD
OI -H *
rH CO SO
o e to H
CO <
M CN -3"
00 . ex.
C 2 L»
8 -t s
•
**
• e
ct en 01 •-
u < K B •
OOCN 4-1 sV 10
4J 01
W T3 T3 to 0»
H E E X r4
co cc co m «
•
>n
00
•
CM
O
CN
SO
1-^
O
CN
O
CT>
CN
- CO '•"
« to O
U < E "H
00 CM O
•H O
-0 4J B
r-l C CO S
CO CO O 4J
E •>"» to
O * rH X
•H tA CX CO
4J CO CX
E -H q O
0) *>
•. .-0 i-l
E Z C CO
0 < CO C
O — ( r-t O
•
SO
-»
m
so
rH
rH
o
so
rH
rH
o
r*
SO
rH
1
1
1
1
CO
ce
cu
rJ
5
3
rH
rH •
« CD
J-w
ki O]
vS X
(B 0
E CM
*J W
v v
X >
00 O
V M
*J t/*l
^H CM
(C vO
g
T3 *J
V <8
•o
» -o
u u
00 N
a, i-t
r-D AJ
U
r^ --H
S-ll
-------
in the remainder of the service area) is equivalent to the recommended
alternative in the Facilities Plan and is the most expensive of the build
alternatives.
Treatment plant locations were selected based on the site recommended
in the Facilities Plan (Sec. 24 T30N R26E) and a general area (Sec. 31 T30N
R27E) where a cluster drainfield or a land application system would be
feasible. An aerated lagoon and a RBC WWTP were evaluated for both sewer
service areas. The RBC system was recommended in the Facilities Plan
although the aerated lagoon was less costly. In this analysis, the aerated
lagoon was deemed to be technically feasible and the least cost system.
The aerated lagoon also was utilized as the treatment process for the land
application system option.
Community of Fish Creek Alternatives
Alternatives considered for the Community of Fish Creek included: the
no action alternative (Alternative 1), one alternative for the larger sewer
service area (Alternative 2), four alternatives for the smaller sewer
service area (Alternatives 3, 4, 5 and 6), and onsite systems upgrades for
the entire service area (Alternative 7) . A description and ranking of the
total estimated present worth costs for each alternative are presented in
Table 3.
The treatment plant locations that were evaluated were the recommended
site of the Facilities Plan Addendum (NENW Sec. 33), the site investigated
in the Addendum for a cluster mound (SWNE Sec. 32), and a general site
where a cluster drainfield or land application system may be feasible (Sec.
3). Because the Facilities Plan Addendum for Fish Creek recommended an
aerated lagoon, this analysis included only the aerated lagoon for waste-
water treatment options that require surface discharge.
The least cost alternative for Fish Creek is Alternative 4, STE gra-
vity sewer for the smaller sewer service area with treatment and disposal
in a cluster mound, and onsite upgrades for the remainder of the service
area. Alternative 2 (conventional gravity sewers for the larger sewer ser-
S-12
-------
c
«> ~4 01
00 CO r-t -^
O 3 W 4.
U C > K
01 C -H O
> « 3 O
< f
CO
03
o
esT
o
o
4-1
e
0)
c
•H ai
O DC
a
1-1 -a
Bex
tn a o
c to
a
n
\o
in
co
co
co
CM
VO
o
II
a
a
e
t<
a)
4J
r-l
a
CO
o
00
o
rK
u
o
OI
1-1
.0
c
o
1-1
u
<
o
z
^
al gravity collection system for sub-
A, and 3B, transmission to aerated
c en
o
•H -
4J CM
C
OI 09
> CO
C 01
O t-l
U CO
CN
P in NENW Sec. 33, and discharge to
upgraded onsite systems for remain-
areas.
M •» V*
5 to co
n
C u-i
o e o
O 0)
DO 01 ki
CO M O>
i-l O -o
al gravity collection system for
and 3A, transmission to aerated
T in NENW Sec. 33, and discharge
c
o
1-1
a
01
c
"
pi
CM f-l
3
CO 3
to
v e
u o
A 00
3 a
C/3 r-(
ay; upgraded onsite systems for
of subareas.
CQ
U
C 0>
01 T3
01 C
H i-l
O 03
e
0 01
4-> U
y collection system for subareas
transmission to site in SWNE Sec.
eatment and disposal in cluster
raded onsite systems for remain-
areas.
4-1 M
•H - 4J
y- <
O ft tj
U S
oo-o co
H CM
to CM m
^
C* JO
CX 3
3 10
•o" o
C
3 U
e -o
y collection system for Subareas
transmission to site In Sec. 3
4J
t-i •
n ro
DO -o
H
to CM
in
and disposal in cluster drain-
raded onsite systems in remain-
areas.
4J
C
I
to
01
4J
DO .A
CX 3
3 CO
• ft 144
T3 O
,-t
01 U
•H 01
*4-l T3
al gravity collection system for
and 3A and transmission to and
e CM
o
-H CO
4J CO
e oi
01 U
>• CC
C -C
0 to
0
at a land application site in
graded onsite systems in re-
o.
4J 3
C
S fi
4J
e •
01 CJ
Ui 0>
4J CO
subareas.
IM
O
0)
•d
c
to
00
e
01
3
CO
^
CO
p
o
i
01
00
00
0)
•H
OD
B
O
0)
«
00
CX
^
•
m
i-i
cd
OJ
>%
o
OJ
01
o
«
m
es
r-.
+j
al
T3
at
N
-H
*J
u
.— t
S-13
-------
vice area, aerated lagoon WWTP, discharge to Green Bay, and onsite upgrades
for the remainder of the service area) is equivalent to the recommended
alternative presented in the Facilities Plan Addendum, and is ranked 4 of
the 6 build alternatives.
Vi1lage o f Ephraim Alternatives
Alternatives considered for the Village of Ephraim included: the no
action alternative (Alternative 1) , one alternative for the large sewer
service area (Alternative 2), three alternatives for the smaller sewer
service area (Alternatives 3, 4, and 5) and onsite systems upgrades for the
entire service area (Alternative 7) . A description and ranking of the
total estimated present worth cost of each alternative are presented in
Table 4.
The treatment plant location was based on the Facilities Plan recom-
mended site (Sec. 24). The wastewater treatment option recommended in the
Facilities Plan, an aerated lagoon, also was evaluated. The locations of
the discharge or disposal sites are slightly different from the Facilities
Plan. The Green Bay outfall was extended to the 30-foot depth and this
necessitated re-routing the outfall force main considerably north of the
location presented in the Facilities Plan in order to keep the underwater
outfall length as short as possible. An alternative wetland discharge site
was evaluated near the center of Sec. 25. A new alternative includes a
cluster drainfield located on a site in Sec. 24 where the soils and hydro-
geologic conditions appear to be suitable.
The least cost alternative for Ephraim is Alternative 6, onsite up-
grades for the entire service area. Alternative 2 (conventional gravity
sewers for the larger sewer service area, aerated lagoon WWTP, discharge to
Green Bay, and onsite upgrades for the remainder of the service area) is
equivalent to the recommended alternative in the Facilities Plan and is the
most expensive of the build alternatives.
S-14
-------
.
tg
O
0
T-t
•
fH
00
CT\
,-J
t-i
u
G
u
0)
G
s-"1'
00
0)
>
1-1
+J
to
c
tw
o
rH
a
a
B
U:
1
Ui
o
U-i
QD
4J
tfi
O
o
rr
4-J
M
§
4J
B
01
to
O)
u
Q.
•e
u
4-*
4_>
to
01
UH
o
!>,
Iw
9
e
6
3
CO
TT
tu
t-l
•5
H
01
c
E
S
*J
5
Ol rH rH rH
oo eg eg 4J
C! 3 > CO
l-i E tJ o
OJ 6 3 O
> co er
< OJ
eg
4->
o
f->
4->
E
01
c
u
0)
4J
to
<§
•H
03
to
O
a
CO
T-»
Q
*J
c
4-1
re
V
u
H
B 01
O 0
w C
O T3 IX
01 B 01
r-i tg >
t— 1 E
<3 8
to
to
>
•H
CO
E
i_i
01
4-1
,—1
•<
±A
TO
TJ
•H 0)
rH 4J
(0 CC
t-i Of
° «
e2
0)
CO 0
>-> t-l
CO CO
to
E t-l
0 6
0 cd
OJ 1-
•— 1 4-1
r-l
o -
o •»
X iO
4-* ft)
•H 14
ffl .0
COW
r-4 4->
tg a.
E O o
0 t-l X
•H 4-> Q)
4J B
CJ 0) CO
B S
O O t-i
z u a
,
rH CN
in
r-l
VC
00
in
OS
CO
!-(
m
m
c^
°"
CM
0\
r^.
v£>
-?•
a\
(^
•
tu
t-i
o •
Or tO
00 V
u u
r* j^
O 3
CO CO
•O t-i
o
13 l*-l
c
« (0
»s
CM CO
X
• to
o
-H
E CO
•H E
O
H t3
goon WW
upgrade
I i
|JS
t3
jj CU
O "
14-1 CO
§o>
(0
4J
03 0
>. "
to
E
E 0
0 TJ
•?-( ro
4)_t {0
0 *H
OJ B
rH K
r- 1 £
0 tO
O J-1
4-1 -
•^ (N
>
« -o
W C
&0 <0
tc cc
C i-l
o
Convent
area 1A
t
m
•*
•»3-
CM
O^
n
*c
CM
VD
O\
rT
•0
r**
«D
.-(
»
S 0
CJ »4-l
X
T4 DO
•O B
01
E to
« 5T
-T V
CM W
• CO
U C
$ °
•o
E 01
^2
f-i 00 to
2 o. eg
^ 3 4>
t-i
B •- eg
0 X.O
O cC 3
00« CO
1
3
CO T3
OJ
01
S *
* 0
CO *J
10 o
B -^
0 «
4J -H
o e
qj (0
iH C
^ to
O (-(
o *-»
>-N •
4-> CM
v4
u- at
M
r-i CO
a) .-*
C
o -
^ <
Convent
areas 1
9
-*
CO
0t
rH
m
r-l
-3"
*n
\£J
ro
\o
pT
sO
rH
r^
-iT
14-1
M • B
J3 CJ CJ
3 W u
^:
O Q,
14 ( fj> 4J
*• CO
6-^3
01 tO rH
4-> U
0) O
CO tH
E 0 rH
O t-i eg
-H CO tO
4J 10 o
CJ tH D.
tu B IK
rH CO tH
rH C -0
o eg
CJ M T3
4-1 E
x a
4J *
•H CM 4-»
> E
eg -g 01
00 3 4J
cc
W . c
H ta M
CO rH 4J
B
m
CM
rH
•
in
n
n
e^
p">
00
en
en
O
CO
1
\o
m
CM
en
rH
1
3
to
0
u
OJ
•o
E
•H
eg
§
E
^
CO
§
4-1
CO
>-,
to
01
4J
tH
O
E
O
•a
upgrade
areas.
rH
O
rH
C*
CM
lA
OO
ro
o\
CM
IT)
00
ro
ON
CM
1
1
1
(C
o
V
.0
S
T-J
(0
^J
0
UH
CO
i
4J
to
u
OJ
4-f
tH
to
E
O
T3
Upgrade
,
v£>
B
>,
E
rl
Zu
&
•H
to
(D
4J
to
O
0
t-l
t-l
CO
1
o
0)
(_)
3
"O
41
T3
3
S
S
• .*
2 5
"> "5
« •"
*• UH
0 0
M C
" -H
2 u
° S
u
« o
in *•«
^ S
4J ^
eg H
lortized
more not
•S •*
-H CM
S-15
-------
Community_of_Baileys Harbor Alternatives
Alternatives for the Community of Baileys Harbor include: the no
action alternative (Alternative 1), three alternatives for the larger sewer
service area (Alternatives 2A, 2B, and 3), two alternatives for the smaller
sewer service area (Alternatives 4 and 5) , and upgraded onsite systems for
the entire service area (Alternative 6). A description and ranking of the
total estimated present worth costs for each alternative are presented in
Table 5.
Treatment plant locations were selected based on the recommended site
in the Facilities Plan (Sec. 17) and sites near the proposed discharge
areas (Sees. 7 and 8). Because the recirculating sand filter was the
treatment alternative recommended in the Facilities Plan, this analysis
includes the sand filter as an alternative component, in addition to the
aerated lagoon WWTP. An outfall to Baileys Harbor was presumed to be un-
acceptable, based on contacts with the US Fish and Wildlife Service and
WDNR. For that reason, the outfall was extended to Lake Michigan. Soils
that are potentially suitable for a cluster drainfield or a land applica-
tion system are located only at a considerable distance from the community.
Thus, no alternatives that incorporate these components were developed.
Two wetland discharge locations were considered. One site in Sec. 8 was
recommended in the Facilities Plan but that site is adjacent to the Mud
Lake and Ridges Sanctuary National Natural Landmarks and has the potential
to adversely impact these areas. Therefore, a second discharge site was
considered in Sec. 7.
Alternative 6, upgraded onsite systems for the entire service area, is
the least cost alternative for Baileys Harbor. Alternative 2B (conven-
tional gravity sewers serving the larger: sewer service area, recirculating
sand filter WWTP discharging to a wetland site in Sec. 8, and upgraded
onsite systems for the remainder of the service area) is equivalent to the
recommended alternative in the Facilities Plan and is the most expensive
alternative.
S-16
-------
o^
i-l
0)
-Q
E
0)
u
0)
a
to
0)
>
•H
4-1
CO
C
l-i
U
4-J
f-H
re
o
1-1
re
;n
CO
X
O)
-H
re
CO
Ll
o
4-1
CO
4-1
en
o
CJ
0)
00
Li
CO
J=
o
en
•H
o
4-1
c
QJ
4-» E
C *->
01 re
c 01
O Li
an
E
0
CJ 0)
o
a) re
-H re
CO >-,
\ D
4-1 >
4-* C
0 0
o
c
o
-H
u
O>
rH
O
CJ
G
O
•H
O
1
£
CO
CO
c
o
•H
4-1
O
0>
O
CJ
>^
4-1
•H
re
CO
-H
re
c
Q
•H
£
01
C
o
o
0
4-> O
4J
e
o at
-H oo
CO Li
CO CO
•H .r:
E o
CO CO
C -rl
4J T3
vD
C-
TJ H
e 3
re 3
o
co o
re oo
0) CO
Ll I™ 1
re
3 at
CO 4J
0 01
u-i cO
0)
4-1
-r-l
CO
c
O
0)
•o
LI
00
a.
3
CO
a
0)
c
•H
TJ
C
re
(—1
a)
3
CO
QJ
Li
-O
3
U)
O
Ll
at
-o
e
•H
re
E
01
Ll
1^
O
t/)
e
at
4-1
CO
CO
CO
0*
Li
re
3
CO
0
X
•H
rfl
M
00
rH
re
c
o
•H
4-1
C
a)
c
o
CJ
00
c
4->
CO
3
U
CJ
at
o
fj
c
o
•1-1
CO
•H
E
CO
c
T3
4-1
„
^O
cB
o
Q)
00
Li
re
"o
•H
T?
C
re
CU
H
^5
j^
OJ
-H
•H
4-1
C
re
CO
0)
•H
CO
C
O
TJ
T3
Li
00
ex
GO
CJ
OJ
C
•H
~
cC
0)
CO
re
at
re
3
CO
o
01
•o
c
CO
l_<
Vj
o
4-1
CO
at
LO
en
(
en
CO
C
o
•H
CJ
01
O
J>-1
4-1
•
4-)
re
u
o
c
o
CO
TJ
0)
"O
re
Li
bO
a
3
a)
C
^
re
4-*
OJ
3
O
4-1
at
00
"u
,
3
CO
UH
O
Li
O)
•o
c
m
0)
Li
Li
O
4-1
E
at
4_(
CO
CO
at •
4-J CO
•H re
co at
o re
i
CO
CO
o
•H
CJ
at
T— I
o
u
>,
•r-l
>
re
00
.—I
re
£
o
-H
C
C
8
0
4J
Q
CO
E
C
Li
4-J
at
Li
C1
3
l_i
O
4-1
E
1
CO
*H
TJ
T3
C
>"*-
CJ
cu
CO
c
•H
C
O
o
si
CO
cu
4-1
CO
Li
0)
re
T?
0)
"O
re
00
Cu
3
C
60
•rH
X
U
•H
j£
0)
_J
O
4-J
0)
00
"u
4-4
O
Ll
at
T3
C
•3
0)
%j
o
UH
CO
E
4J
CO
CO CO
cO
at at
4-J Ll
•H re
CO X)
C 3
O CO
1
w
X
en
c
o
•H
4-»
CJ
.-4
O
CJ
^
4-1
•H
>
re
50
re
c
o
•H
C
C
3
O
4-J
C
o
•H
CO
CO
i!
c
re
LI
4->
m
co
cu
Li
re
3
o
4-t
E
a>
o>
00
re
CJ
CO
•1-1
TJ
TJ
C
re
H
3
c
O
o
00
re
t— i
cu
4-1
M
0)
cfl
1
C
0
"O
cu
TJ
re
00
3
p^
CJ
0)
C/l
c
T3
re
4-t
CU
3
Q
4_l
I
.a
3
CO
4-f
O
OJ
c
•H
m
E
cu
Ll
O
4-1
E
0)
4-1
CO
>v
en
•
a> re
4-1 CU
•H Li
co re
Li
CO
r-l
t— 1
re
o
4H
CO
E
at
CO
en
0)
•H
CO
c
0
"C
0)
CO
3
S-17
-------
Septage and holding Tank Waste Disposal
In 1981, an estimated volume of 225,000 gallons of septage and 10
millon gallons of holding tank wastes from within the study area were
disposed of by land application. Nearly 9 million gallons of holding tank
wastes were from institutions and businesses, primarily restaurants, mo-
tels, cottages and condominiums. The remainder of the holding tank wastes
and the septage were from the permanent and seasonal residences.
The different wastewater management alternatives presented in the ER
would produce varied volumes and proportions of septage and holding tank
wastes. If the alternatives that feature continued use of onsite systems
for all subareas were implemented, 275,500 gallons per year of septage and
30 million gallons per year of holding tank wastes would be generated. If
the alternatives that feature conventional gravity sewers for the larger
sewer service areas were implemented, 182,000 gallons per year of septage
and 7 million gallons of holding tank wastes would be generated. Other
combinations of alternatives would generate volumes of liquid wastes that
range between these quantities. If all the communities were to have septic
tank effluent gravity or pressure sewers, the volume of septage produced
would be slightly greater than that shown for the full onsite alternatives.
Safe land application rates for septage and holding tank waste dis-
posal are based on total nitrogen loadings. The nitrogen loading criterion
used in this study to estimate the land area required was 300 pounds per
acre per year. The resulting land application area requirements for the
ran>=.e of alternatives are:
Alternative
Existing onsite systems
All onsite systems for
plannin^ period
All centralized gravity
Septage Holding tank wastes Total
4.8 ac 45 ac 50 ac
5.2 ac
3.4 ac
131 ac
30 ac
136 ac
34 ac
There is considerable area suitable for land application of septage
and holding tank wastes within the study area. No problems are anticipated
in identifying suitable land application sites.
S-18
-------
Environmental Consequences
The ER discusses the construction, operational, and secondary environ-
mental impacts associated with implementation of the alternatives, and
presents mitigative measures that can be applied to eliminate or reduce the
environmental impacts.
Construction and Operational Impacts
The construction of centralized collection facilities would have
considerable impacts on the right-of-ways where the sewers are located.
Construction would be difficult because the extensive shallow bedrock
requires blasting and because many right-of-ways are narrow and tree lined.
Dewatering and blasting for deep sewer excavation and pump stations could
affect shallow wells in the vicinity of the construction zone.
Construction of a lake or bay outfall would have construction impacts
similar to those for collection systems, except that, additionally, the
lake or bay environment would be temporarily disturbed resulting in an
increase in turbidity, decreases in dissolved oxygen, and possibly some
fish mortality.
The treatment facilities discharging to the lake or bay would be
required to meet the effluent requirements established by WDNR. Water
quality would be altered, but not seriously degraded.
Treatment plant effluent that is discharged to land application sites
or wetlands also would be required to meet the effluent requirements estab-
lished by WDNR. Both should result in minimal operational impacts because
the effluent should be of relatively high quality. Possible operational
impacts from land application are mounding of groundwater under the site
and nitrate buildup in the groundwater. The possible operational impacts
of concern with wetlands are alterations to the existing flora and fauna
regimes due to changes in the hydrologic conditions of the site, and flush-
ing of solids into surface waters in the spring and fall. Changes in the
vegetative and hydrologic regimes of the wetland sites could represent a
S-19
-------
significant impact because of their species diversity, uniqueness, and
local and regional significance.
The centralized collection, treatment and disposal facilities, and/or
the onsite upgrades would have a positive effect on groundwater quality by
eliminating existing onsite systems that could be contaminating the ground-
water. Onsite upgrades and management of onsite systems would replace
inadequate onsite systems with appropriate new systems or holding tanks.
Financial and Economic Impacts
The costs of implementing a project in one of the project area commu-
nities could be apportioned between the State of Wisconsin and local resi-
dents. Grants of up to 60 percent of the eligible costs of implementing a
wastewater improvement action could be available from the Wisconsin Fund.
Because of their position on the State priority list, it is unlikely that
the communities in the project area will be eligible for any Federal fund-
iny under Section 201 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act for con-
struction of wastewater treatment facilities. The local construction costs
and the entire costs of the system operation and maintenance would be borne
entirely by the system users.
Even with State grants, many of the project alternatives could have an
adverse financial impact on community residents, as measured by their
ability to afford the estimated average annual user costs. The capital
costs of some of the alternatives also could have a significant negative
impact on the financial condition of the individual communities. The
financial burden imposed by the additional debt that would be incurred
could limit the ability of each community to engage in other capital im-
provement projects and potentially could impact their ability to provide
other public services (e.g., police and fire protection) at a level consis-
tent with that which is currently being provided.
Secondary Demographic Impacts
Facilities planning in the middle Door County project area has not
been based on the underlying assumption that sewers may be needed to accom-
S-20
-------
modate projected growth, but that there may be a need to correct an exist-
ing problem; i.e., the potential for groundwater contamination as a result
of inadequate onsite systems.
The proposed sewer service areas in each of the communities essent-
ially are "built-out." Some additional infill development could take
place, but it cannot be concluded that the absence of sewer systems is
inhibiting growth from taking place. However, the availability of sewer
systems could possibly increase the attraction of the communities for
year-round residences.
If sewers are constructed in a community, it is possible that the
sewered area might "capture" some of the projected growth at the expense of
unsewered areas. However, it also is possible that because of the density
of existing development within the proposed sewer service areas, the limi-
ted amount of buildable land within the sewer service areas, and the funda-
mental attraction of the area as a recreational and retirement area, the
sewered areas might not offer any particular competitive advantage over
unsewered areas. It also is possible that induced growth could be an
important factor in one community, for a variety of reasons, and of little
consequence in another community.
As discussed previously, high population growth rates were experienced
in each of the four communities between 1970 and 1980 in spite of the lack
of centralized wastewater collection and treatment facilities. Continued
high growth rates are projected for the area over the next twenty years.
The major factors influencing continued growth include favorable land
costs, site and locational amenities, and variations in demand between
permanent and seasonal dwellings. The construction of wastewater collec-
tion and treatment facilities in the project area communities could lead to
additional growth in excess of that which is all ready projected, but the
factors outlined above probably will have a greater affect on population
growth.
S-21
-------
Conclusion
The least cost alternative for each community from both an economic
and environmental impact perspective is as follows:
* Egfe Harbor; Alternative 7 - Upgraded onsite systems for the
entire service area.
* Fish Creek: Alternative 4 - Septic tank effluent gravity
collection for the smaller sewer service area, transmission
to site in SWNIi Sec. 32, and treatment and disposal in
cluster mound; upgraded onsite systems for the remainder of
the service area.
• Ephraim: Alternative 6 - Upgraded onsite systems for the
entire service area.
• Baileys Harbor: Alternative 6 - Upgraded onsite systems for
the entire service area.
These alternatives are the least cost based on the population pro-
jections and available needs documentation. For Fish Creek, the year 2000
population projection used in the ER is less than that used by the Facil-
ities Planner (Foth and Van Dyke and Associates, Inc. 1982). The use of a
larger year 2000 population projection could result in the least cost
alternative for Fish Creek (Alternative 4) becoming technically unfeasible.
In that case, Alternative 5, STE gravity collection system with treatment
and disposal in a cluster drainfield in Sec. 3, appears to be the least
costly, technically feasible alternative.
The cost estimates for onsite system upgrading for Egg Harbor, Ep-
hraim, and Baileys Harbor are highly sensitive to the number of holding
tanks required. The need for a holding tank is based on the soil condition
of each individual property at the location of the onsite system. The
assumptions contained in the ER concerning soil condition were based on
limited information. When soil data becomes available for each lot, the
number of holding tanks required may be greater than estimated here, and a
collection and treatment alternative for Egg Harbor, Ephraim and/or Baileys
Harbor could then be the least cost alternative. Should this be the case,
the alternatives that are the most likely to be the least costly are as
follows :
S-22
-------
• Egg Harbor; Alternative 5 - STE gravity collection system
for the smaller sewer service area, transmission to site in
Sec. 31 T30N R27E, and treatment and disposal in cluster
soil absorption system; upgraded systems for the remainder
of the service area.
• Ephraim; Alternative 5 - STE gravity collection system for
the smaller sewer service area, transmission to site in Sec.
24, and treatment and disposal in cluster drainfield; up-
graded onsite systems for the remainder of the service area.
• Baileys Harbor: Alternative 5 - Conventional gravity collec-
tion system for the smaller sewer service area, transmission
to aerated lagoon WWTP, and discharge to wetland in Sec. 7;
upgraded onsite systems for the remainder of the service
area.
CONCLUSION
The ER reviews in detail the existing information about the natural
and manmade environment in middle Door County, Wisconsin that is pertinent
to evaluating the adequacy of existing onsite treatment systems and alter-
native wastewater treatment systems. The shallow soil cover, high ground-
water table and fractured bedrock indicate that there is a potential for
groundwater contamination from inadequate septic systems. However, a
review of the available groundwater test data from wells in the area cannot
show an undisputable connection between groundwater contamination and
existing onsite systems. A review of available information on installation
and replacement of onsite systems indicates that outside of the downtown
areas of the four communities, few residential onsite systems have required
replacement or appear to be experiencing problems. However, the downtown
areas have concentrations of commercial uses and small lots, and as a
result have a concentration of holding tanks both for new structures and as
replacement onsite systems. The impetus for planning alternative waste-
water management systems for these communities is derived from perceived
problems concerning groundwater contamination and the cost of holding tank
waste disposal, especially for commercial systems.
The ER reviews a number of wastewater management options for each
community, including the recommended alternative presented in the Facil-
ities Plan. Particular attention is given to management systems that
S-23
-------
provide for upgrading existing onsite systems with obvious or potential
problems. For Egg Harbor, Ephraim and Baileys Harbor, upgrading onsite
systems and maintaining them with a management district is identified as
the least costly alternative over 20 years. For Fish Creek, a centralized
collection system with treatment in a cluster mound is identified as the
least costly alternative, primarily because of the high number of commer-
cial holding tanks in the downtown area.
The cost estimates and ranking of alternatives could change, though,
depending on the number of new or replacement holding tanks that are re-
quired. Additional investigations are needed to refine these cost esti-
mates and to determine if, in the case of the three communities where
onsite system upgrade alternative are identified as most cost effective,
such an approach can adequately provide for the wastewater treatment needs
of the communities over the planning period.
S-24
-------
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT
MIDDLE DOOR COUNTY
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
DOOR COUNTY, WISCONSIN
Prepared by the
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION V
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
and
WAPORA, INCORPORATED
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
FEBRUARY 1983
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
COVER SHEET i
TABLE OF CONTENTS ii
LIST OF APPENDICES vi
LIST OF TABLES. . , vii
LIST OF FIGURES xi
1.0. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 1-1
1.1. Project History , 1-1
1.2. Legal Basis for Action and Project Need 1-4
1.3. Study Process and Public Participation 1-9
1.4. Issues. 1-9
2.0. DISCUSSION OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES 2-1
2.1. Existing Wastewater Treatment Systems 2-1
2.1.1. Existing On-Site Systems... 2-1
2.1.2. Summary of Data on Existing Systems 2-3
2.1.2.1. County Health Department Permit File Data.... 2-3
2.1.2.2. Mailed Questionnaire 2-17
2.1.2.3. Septic Leachate Survey 2-24
2.1.2.4. Aerial Survey 2-27
2.1.2.5. Water Well Information 2-28
2.1.3. Problems Caused by Existing Systems 2-34
2.1.3.1. Backups 2-34
2.1.3.2. Ponding 2-34
2.1.3.3. Groundwater Contamination 2-35
2.1.3.4. Surface Water Quality Problems 2-36
2.1.3.5. Indirect Evidence 2-37
2.1.4. Identification of Problem Areas 2-38
2.1.5. Septage and Holding Tank Wastes Disposal Practices.. 2-55
2.2. Identification of Wastewater Treatment System Options 2-57
2.2.1. Design Factors 2-57
2.2.1.1. Wastewater Load Factors 2-58
2.2.1.2. Effluent Requirements 2-58
2.2.1.3. Economic Factors 2-58
2.2.2. System Components 2-61
2.2.2.1. Flow and Waste Reduction 2-61
2.2.2.1.1. Water Conservation Measures 2-62
2.2.2.1.2. Waste Segregation 2-65
2.2.2.1.3. Wisconsin Ban on Phosphorus 2-66
2.2.2.1.4. Summary 2-68
2.2.2.2. Wastewater Collection System 2-68
2.2.2.2.1. Gravity Sewer System 2-69
2.2.2.2.2. Pressure Sewer System 2-70
2.2.2.3. Wastewater Treatment Processes 2-74
2.2.2.4. Effluent Disposal Methods 2-74
ii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
2.2.2.4.1. Bay Discharge 2-75
2.2.2.4.2. Land Application 2-75
2.2.2.4.3. Wetlands Discharge 2-79
2.2.2.4.4. Reuse 2-80
2.2.2.5. Sludge Treatment and Disposal 2-81
2.2.2.6. Onsite Systems 2-82
2.2.2.7. Cluster System 2-86
2.2.2.8. Septage and Holding Tank Wastes Disposal 2-87
2.2.3. Centralized Collection System Alternatives 2-93
2.2.4. Centralized Wastewater Treatment Plant Alternatives. 2-94
2.2.5. Regional Treatment Alternatives 2-95
2.3. System Alternatives 2-101
2.3.1. Alternative 1-No Action Alternative 2-101
2.3.2. Village of Egg Harbor Alternatives 2-102
2.3.3. Community of Fish Creek Alternatives 2-110
2.3.4. Village of Ephraim Alternatives 2-116
2.3.5. Community of Baileys Harbor Alternatives 2-124
2.3.6. Septage and Holding Tank Wastes Disposal 2-131
2.4. Flexibility and Reliability of System Alternatives 2-133
2.4.1. Flexibility 2-133
2.4.2. Reliability 2-135
2.5. Comparison of Alternatives and Selection of the Recommended
Alternatives 2-140
2.5.1. Comparison of Alternatives 2-140
2.5.1.1. Project Costs 2-140
2.5.1.2. Environmental Impacts 2-144
2.5.1.3. Implementability 2-147
2.5.2. Conclusions 2-150
3.0. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3-1
3.1. Natural Environment 3-1
3.1.1. Atmosphere 3-1
3.1.1.1. Climate 3-1
3.1.1.2. Air Quality 3-2
3.1.1.3. Noise 3-3
3.1.1.4. Odor 3-3
3.1.2. Land 3-3
3.1.2.1. Geology 3-3
3.1.2.1.1. Physiography and Topography 3-3
3.1.2.1.2. Bedrock Geology 3-4
3.1.2.1.3. Surficial Geology 3-7
3.1.2.2. Soils 3-9
3.1.2.3. Terrestrial Biota 3-12
3.1.2.3.1. Vegetation 3-12
3.1.2.3.2. Wildlife 3-21
iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
3.1.3. Water 3-24
3.1.3.1. Surface Water 3-24
3.1.3.1.1. Setting and Flow 3-24
3.1.3.1.2. Surface Water Quality 3-29
3.1.3.2. Groundwater 3-31
3.1.3.2.1. Setting and Flow 3-31
3.1.3.2.2. Groundwater Quality 3-33
3.1.3.3. Aquatic Biota 3-36
3.1.3.3.1. Vegetation 3-36
3.1.3.3.2. Fishes 3-37
3. 2. Manmade Environment 3-39
3.2.1. Land Use 3-39
3.2.1.1. Existing Land Use 3-39
3.2.1.2, Development Controls 3-42
3.2.1.3. Prime and Unique Farmlands 3-45
3.2.2. Demographics 3-50
3.2.2.1. Population Distribution and Density 3-50
3.2.2.2. Population Characteristics 3-53
3.2.2.2.1. Household Size 3-53
3.2.2.2.2. Median Age 3-55
3.2.2.2.3. Mobility 3-55
3.2.2.3. Housing Stock Characteristics 3-56
3.2.2.4. Population Projections.. 3-59
3.2.2.4.1. Permanent Population Projections 3-61
3.2.2.4.2. Seasonal Population Projections 3-61
3.2.3. Economics 3-63
3.2.3.1. Local Economic Characteristics 3-63
3.2.3.1.1. Basic Sector 3-63
3.2.3.1.2. Service Sector 3-69
3.2.3.1.3. Employment Multipliers 3-70
3.2.3.1.4. Labor Force 3-72
3.2.3.2. Recreation and Tourism , 3-73
3.2.3.2.1. Facilities.. 3-73
3.2.3.2.2. Hospitality-Recreation-Tourism
Industry 3-73
3.2.3.3. Local Financial Status 3-76
3.2.3.3.1. Income Levels 3-76
3.2.3.3.2. Local Government Finances 3-78
3.2.4. Transportation. 3-79
3.2.4.1. Highways 3-79
3.2.4.2. Airport Facilities 3-83
3.2.5. Energy Use 3-84
3.2.6. Cultural Resources 3-85
3.2.6.1. Archaeological Sites 3-85
3.2.6.2. Historical and Architectural Sites 3-87
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (concluded)
4.0. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4.1.1. Construction Impacts
4.1.1.1. Atmosphere
4.1.1.2. Soil Erosion and Sedimentation
4.1.1.3. Surface Water
4.1.1.4. Groundwater
4.1.1.5. Terrestrial Biota
4.1.1.6. Wetlands
4.1.1.7. Demography
4.1.1.8. Land Use
4.1.1.9. Prime and Unique Farmlands
4.1.1.10. Economics
4.1.1.11. Recreation and Tourism
4.1.1.12. Transportation
4.1.1.13. Energy Resources
4.1.1.14. Cultural Resources
4.1.2. Operation Impacts
4.1.2.1. Atmosphere
4.1.2.2. Soils
4.1.2.3. Surface Water
4.1.2.4. Groundwater
4.1.2.5. Terrestrial Biota
4.1.2.6. Wetlands
4.1.2.7. Land Use
4.1.2.8. Demographics
4.1.2.9. Economics
4.1.2.10. Recreation and Tourism
4.1.2.11. Transportation
4.1.2.12. Energy
4.1.3. Public Finance
4-1
4-15
4-15
4-15
4-16
4-16
4-18
4-18
4-19
4-19
4-20
4-20
4-22
4-22
4-23
4-23
4-23
4-25
4-25
4-27
4-29
4-35
4-40
4-40
4-53
4-53
4-53
4-54
4-54
4-54
4-54
4.2. Secondary Impacts 4-66
4.2.1. Demographics 4-66
4.2.2. Land Use 4-68
4.2.3. Surface Water 4-69
4.2.4. Recreation and Tourism 4-69
4.2.5. Economics 4-70
4.3. Mitigation of Adverse Impacts 4-71
4.3.1. Mitigation of Construction Impacts 4-71
4.3.2. Mitigation of Operation Impacts 4-74
4.3.3. Mitigation of Secondary Impacts 4-76
4.4. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 4-76
4.5. Irretrievable and Irreversible Resource Commitments 4-76
5.0. LITERATURE CITED 5-1
6.0. GLOSSARY OF TECHNICAL TERMS 6-1
-------
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A WASTEWATER DISPOSAL QUESTIONNAIRE AND RESPONSES TO QUES-
TIONS 5 and 15.
APPENDIX B SEPTIC LEACHATE SURVEY - DOOR COUNTY, WISCONSIN
APPENDIX C CASE HISTORY OF BACTERIOLOGICAL CONTAMINATION OF GROUND
WATER IN DOOR COUNTY
APPENDIX D REPORT ON INVESTIGATION, DOOR COUNTY WELLS WITH LIMITED
CASING
APPENDIX E COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA
APPENDIX G AIR QUALITY
APPENDIX H SOIL CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF PERMEABILITY CLASS
APPENDIX 1 SCIENTIFIC EQUIVALENTS OF COMMON NAMES OF PLANTS
APPENDIX J UNOFFICIAL LIST OF ENDANGERED AND THREATENED PLANTS IN
DOOR COUNTY
APPENDIX K AMPHIBIANS, REPTILES, BIRDS, AND MAMMALS WITH RANGES THAT
INCLUDE THE PROJECT AREA
APPENDIX L WATER QUALITY DATA
APPENDIX M AQUATIC PLANTS
APPENDIX N FISH SPECIES PRESENT IN THE PROJECT AREA
APPENDIX 0 RECREATIONAL RESOURCES
APPENDIX P ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AND FIELD SURVEY INVESTIGATION
APPENDIX Q SITES OF HISTORICAL OR ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE
vx
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
2-1 New and replacement wastewater systems for single family resi-
dences, by subarea in Egg Harbor Village and Town and part of
Jacksonport Town within the project area 2-5
2-2 New and replacement wastewater systems for raultifamily and com-
mercial structures in Egg Harbor Village and Town and part of
Jacksonport Town within the project area 2-6
2-3 New and replacement wastewater systems for single family resi-
dences by subarea in Fish Creek, Town of Gibraltar, and Village
of Ephraim 2-8
2-4 New and replacement wastewater systems for multifamily and com-
mercial structures in Fish Creek, Town of Gibraltar, and Vil-
lage of Ephraim 2-9
2-5 New and replacement wastewater systems for single family resi-
dences by subarea in the Town of Baileys Harbor and parts of the
Towns of Liberty Grove and Jacksonport 2-13
2-6 New and replacement wastewater systems for multifamily and com-
mercial structures in the Town of Baileys Harbor and parts of
the Towns of Liberty Grove and Jacksonport within the project
area 2-14
2-7 Individual wastewater treatment systems from the wastewater
questionnaire responses 2-18
2-8 Responses to wastewater questionnaire item No. 5: Does your sys-
tem adequately serve your residence 2-20
2-9 Responses to wastewater questionnaire item No. 15: Are there
any wastewater problems in your community you think need cor-
rection 2-21
2-10 Septic leachate survey groundwater plume identification 2-25
2-11 Numbers of soil absorption systems identified by aerial photo-
graphy 2-29
2-12 Wastewater load factors projected for Fish Creek, Egg Harbor,
Baileys Harbor and Ephraim for the year 2000 2-59
2-13 Service factor 2-60
2-14 Economic cost criteria 2-61
2-15 Suramary of all estimated treatment and transmission costs of re-
gional alternatives 2-100
vii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Page
2-16 Summary of estimated present worth costs for Egg Harbor alter-
natives 2-107
2-17 Summary of estimated present worth costs for Fish Creek alterna-
tives 2-114
2-18 Summary of estimated present worth costs for Ephraim alterna-
tives 2-122
2-19 Summary of estimated present worth costs for Baileys Harbor
alternatives 2-130
3-1 Lithologic characteristics of rock units in Door County 3-5
3-2 Wisconsin Scientific Areas located in the project area 3-17
3-3 Species of plants occurring in Door County that have been desig-
nated as threatened or endangered by the State of Wisconsin.... 3-22
3-4 Species of animals known to occur in Door County that have been de-
signated as threatened or endangered by the federal government or
the State of Wisconsin 3-25
3-5 Characteristics of the lakes in the project area 3-27
3-6 Characteristics of streams in the project area 3-28
3-7 Selected chemical analysis of groundwater from wells in the
project area 3-35
3-8 Land use acreage in the project area in 1975 3-40
3-9 Prime farmlands in the project area 3-46
3-10 Orchard acreage in the project area in 1975 3-48
3-11 Historic population growth in the project area between 1860 and
1980 3-51
3-12 Percent change in the population of the project area from 1860
to 1980 3-52
3-13 Selected population characteristics in the project area in 1970
arid 1980 3-54
3-14 Project area housing summary for 1980 3-57
3-15 Selected housing stock characteristics for the project area in
1970 3-58
viii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
3-16 Percentages of Door County population residing in the project
area minor civil divisions in 1950, 1960, and 1970.... 3-60
3-17 Permanent population projections for the project area in 1985,
1990, and 2000 3-62
3-18 Seasonal population projections for the project area in 1985,
1990, and 2000 3-64
3-19 Combined permanent and seasonal population projections for the
project area in 1985, 1990, and 2000 3-65
3-20 Seasonally transient population estimates for the project area in
1980 3-66
3-21 Door County employment trends, by sector, in 1971 and 1979 3-68
3-22 Door County employment trends, by service sector categories, in
1971 and 1979 3-70
3-23 Percent change in Door County and Wisconsin employment, by sector
1971-1979 3-71
3-24 Unemployment rates in Door County and Wisconsin 3-72
3-25 Hospitality-recreation-tourism industry gross sales in 1976 and
1977 3-74
3-26 Per capita income in the project area 3-77
3-27 Assessed valuations, full valuations, and statutory debt limita-
tions for the project area municipalities and the Gibraltar and
Sevastopol school districts during 1980 3-78
3-28 Selected financial characteristics for the project area munici-
palities and school districts in 1980 3-80
3-29 Criteria for local government full-faith and credit debt analy-
sis 3-81
3-30 Project area values for local government full-faith and credit
debt analyses during 1980 3-82
3-31 Seasonal traffic count data for combined State Trunk Highways
42 and 57 3-84
4-1 Potential major primary and secondary impacts from the construc-
tion and operation of wastewater treatment facilities in the
Middle Door County project area., 4-2
ix
-------
LIST OF TABLES (concluded)
Page
4-2 Projected effluent loads to offshore harbor areas on an average
annual basis 4-31
4-3 1980 Population Equivalents (PE) for Egg Harbor, Fish Creek,
Ephraim, and Baileys Harbor service areas 4-56
4-4 Annual user costs for alternatives 4-57
4-5 Egg harbor debt as a percentage of full equalized value, by
alternative, with and without State grant 4-59
4-6 Fish Creek debt as a percentage of full equalized value, by
alternative, with and without State grant 4-60
4-7 Ephraim debt as a percentage of full equalized value, by alter-
native, with and without State grant 4-61
4-8 Baileys Harbor debt as a percentage of full equalized value, by
alternative, with and without State grant 4-62
4-9 Average annual user costs by alternative for permanent residences
as a percentage of median household income 4-65
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
1-1 Middle Door County project area 1-2
2-1 Subareas for Egg Harbor 2-7
2-2 Subareas for Fish Creek 2-10
2-3 Subareas for Ephraim 2-12
2-4 Subareas for Kangaroo Lake 2-15
2-5 Subareas for Baileys Harbor 2-16
2-6 Septic tank maintenance frequency 2-23
2-7 Examples of strategies for management of segregated human
wastes and residential graywater 2-67
2-8 Septic tank effluent gravity sewer layout 2-71
2-9 Pressure sewer versus water main 2-72
2-10 Types of pressure sewer systems 2-73
2-11 Septic tank - soil absorption systems 2-83
2-12 Septic tank - lift pump - mound 2-85
2-13 Regional treatment Alternative 1 2-96
2-14 Regional treatment Alternative 2 2-97
2-15 Regional treatment Alternative 3 2-98
2-16 Regional treatment Alternative 4 2-99
2-17 Egg Harbor - Conventional gravity collection system for Alter-
natives 2A and 2B, STE collection system for Alternative 3, and
force main to WWTP and WWTP for Alternatives 2A, 2B, and 4 2-103
2-18 Egg Harbor - Conventional gravity collection system for Alter-
natives 4 and 6, STE gravity collection system for Alternative
5, and force main to treatment sites for Alternatives 3, 5, and
6 2-104
2-19 Egg Harbor treatment plant and outfall locations 2-106
2-20 Fish Creek - Conventional gravity collection system for Alter-
natives 2, 3, and 6, and STE gravity collection systems for
Alternat ives 4 and 5 2-111
xi
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
Page
2-21 Fish Creek treatment plant and outfall locations 2-112
2-22 Ephraim - Conventional gravity collection system and WWTP lo-
cation for Alternative 2 2-118
2-23 Ephraim - Conventional gravity collection system for Alterna-
tives 3 and 4, STE gravity collection system for Alternative
5, and WWTP location for Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 2-119
2-24 Ephraim treatment plant and outfall locations 2-120
2-25 Baileys Harbor - Conventional gravity collection system for
Alternatives 2A, 2B and 3 2-125
2-26 Baileys Harbor - Conventional gravity collection system for
Alternatives 4 and 5 2-126
2-27 Baileys Harbor treatment plant and outfall locations 2-127
3-1 Bedrock geology 3-6
3-2 Surficial geology 3-8
3-3 General soils associations 3-10
3-4 Areas with near surface bedrock 3-13
3-5 Areas with seasonal high water tables 3-14
3-6 Areas with steep slopes 3-15
3-7 Scientific areas 3-18
3-8 Vegetative types 3-19
3-9 Class 1 wildlife habitats 3-23
3-10 Water table of the Silurian dolomite aquifer system 3-34
3-11 Land use 3-41
3-12 Zoning 3-43
3-13 Prime farmland 3-47
3-14 Unique farmland 3-49
3-15 Cultural sites 3-86
xii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (concluded)
Page
4-1 Theoretical phosphorus build-up relationships for Eagle Harbor
under various WWTP effluent loading regimes 4-33
4-2 Baileys Harbor wetland associations, approximate outfall loca-
tions, and natural area boundaries 4-42
4-3 Ephraim wetland associations and approximate outfall location.. 4-43
xiii
-------
1.0. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION
1.1. Project History
The project area encompasses approximately 100 square miles in the
central portion of the Door County, Wisconsin peninsula and includes the
Towns of Baileys Harbor and Gibraltar, and the Villages of Egg Harbor and
Ephraim (Figure 1-1). Portions of the Towns of Egg Harbor, Jacksonport,
and Liberty Grove also are included. The Door County peninsula is charac-
terized by an upland ridge of bedrock, the Niagaran escarpment, that ex-
tends the length of the Green Bay coastline. The project area contains
numerous natural features and sensitive areas such as Kangaroo Lake,
Baileys Harbor Swamp, Ephraim Swamp, the Ridges Sanctuary, and Peninsula
State Park.
On-site systems are the predominant means of wastewater treatment in
the project area; the only centralized wastewater treatment systems cur-
rently in use in the project area are at Peninsula State Park and the
Baileys Harbor Yacht Club. The unique geologic conditions present in much
of Door County generally are not conducive to on-site systems. Bedrock is
present near the surface in many areas, high ground water tables also are
present, and fractures in the bedrock can result in direct percolation of
wastewater into the aquifers that are used for water supply. Because there
are no public water systems in the project area and area residents use
wells to obtain their water, there has been concern that existing on-site
wastewater treatment systems may be contributing to the contamination of
ground and surface waters.
Until the 1960s, public control over septic tank system installation
was nonexistent or only advisory. During the 1960s and 1970s, the State
government and local health departments formulated and implemented pro-
cedures for preconstruction approval of septic tank systems. These pro-
cedures and standard design requirements have reduced the occurrence of
surface malfunctions and plumbing backups for new systems. In 1971, the
communities of Baileys Harbor, Egg Harbor, Ephraim, and Fish Creek each
received an order from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR)
1-1
-------
to provide adequate wastewater disposal facilities to abate contamination
of groundwater. The pollution abatement orders were issued following a
well sampling program conducted during the summer of 1971. Well samples
were taken from 460 wells in the project area and more than 15% (71) were
found to be bacteriologically unsafe. Unsafe samples were found in each of
the four communities. In 1972, Becher-Hoppe Engineers, Inc. completed the
Door County Comprehensive Sewer and Water Plan which contained preliminary
recommendations for wastewater collection and treatment alternatives in
each area of Door County having significant population concentrations. The
WDNR pollution abatement orders also required that each of the four com-
munities prepare preliminary engineering reports. To achieve compliance
with these orders the following reports were prepared:
Village of Ephraim Water and Wastewater Facilities. 1972. Owen
Ayres and Associates, Inc.
Water Distribution System and Wastewater Collection and Treatment
Facilities - Baileys Harbor, Wisconsin. 1973. Donohue and Asso-
ciates, Inc.
A Preliminary Report on Sanitary Facilities to Serve the Communities
of Egg Harbor and Fish Creek, Wisconsin, nd. Becher-Hoppe Engineers,
Inc.
Because of a number of circumstances, including a lack of construction
funds and differing recommendations within the preliminary reports con-
cerning regional cooperation, no actions toward construction were taken.
Although attempts were made to resolve the issues surrounding the pre-
liminary reports, policy changes by the WDNR and US Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (USEPA) and changes in water quality laws rendered the
preliminary reports inadequate for implementation. In 1977, the four
communities and three engineering firms agreed to prepare a Facilities Plan
for the middle Door County area on a cooperative basis. In 1978, the Town
of Gibraltar (including Fish Creek), acting on behalf of the Town of
Baileys Harbor and the Villages of Egg Harbor and Ephraim, received a
planning grant (Step 1) from USEPA for the preparation of the Facilities
Plan. At that time, USEPA determined that an Environmental Impact State-
ment (EIS) would be needed because of the sensitive natural resources
present in the project area and the potential for improved wastewater
facilities to induce development and population growth. The EIS was to be
prepared concurrently with the Facilities Plan.
1-3
-------
In October 1980, the Facilities Planners submitted the Facilities Plan
to the local communities for their review. The Facilities Plan addressed
the wastewater treatment needs of the four communities and concluded that a
combination of on-site systems and centralized wastewater treatment systems
would be most cost-effective. The Facilities Plan also concluded that
individual treatment plants would be the most cost-effective alternative
for each community. The Middle Door County Facilities Plan was submitted
to WDNR and USEPA in October 1980 for review. The agencies' review indi-
cated several areas where additional information was needed before it could
be approved by WDNR or USEPA.
Fish Creek currently is the only community that is proceeding with the
additional work necessary to produce an approvable Facilities Plan. It
has formed a Sanitary District that includes the most densely populated
areas of Fish Creek and has prepared an Addendum to the original Facilities
Plan for the Sanitary District. The Addendum recommends constructing
collector sewers within the Sanitary District and an aerated lagoon for
wastewater treatment. Effluent from the aerated lagoons is proposed to be
discharged into Green Bay. WDNR has reviewed the Addendum and provided the
Sanitary District with comments concerning the recommended alternative. An
application to the State for grant assistance from the Wisconsin Fund for
the proposed project is pending. A public hearing on the Addendum was held
in Fish Creek in August 1982.
1.2. Legal Basis For Action and Project Need
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires a
Federal agency to prepare an EIS on "... major Federal actions significant-
ly affecting the quality of the human environment ..." In addition, the
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has established regulations (40 CFR
Part 1500-1508) to guide Federal agencies in determinations of whether
Federal funds or Federal approvals would result in a project that would
significantly affect the environment. USEPA has developed its own regu-
lations (40 CFR Part 6) for the implementation of the EIS process. As
noted above, USEPA Region V has determined that pursuant to these regu-
lations, an EIS was required for the proposed Middle Door County project.
1-4
-------
The State of Wisconsin has a similar statute, the Wisconsin Environ-
mental Policy Act (WEPA; Section 1.11), which is patterned after NEPA.
Under WEPA, state agencies must consider the environmental implications of
all its proposals. Before proceeding with any major action significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment, state agencies also must
prepare a detailed statement concerning the environmental effects of the
proposed action. If a proposed project includes both Federal and state
involvement and has potential significant environmental impacts, a joint
EIS can be prepared by the state and lead Federal agency to satisfy the
requirements of both NEPA and WEPA.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (FWPCA, Public Law
92-500), as amended in 1977 by the Clean Water Act (CWA, Public Law 95-217)
establishes a uniform, nationwide water pollution control program according
to which all water quality programs operate. WDNR has been delegated the
responsibility and authority to administer this program in Wisconsin,
subject to the approval of USEPA. However, the authority for determining
whether proposed actions are subject to NEPA is retained by USEPA.
Federal funding for wastewater treatment projects is provided under
Section 201 of the FWPCA. The USEPA will fund 75% of the grant eligible
costs for conventional sewers and treatment. For alternative collection
systems and treatment systems (e.g., pressure sewers, septic tank effluent
sewers, septic tanks, and soil absorption systems), the funding level
increases to 85% of the eligible costs. The costs for conventional sewers
in which USEPA will not assist in funding are land and easement costs,
sewers for which less than two-thirds of the planned flow originated before
28 October 1972, pipes in the street or easements for house connections,
and building sewers for connection to the system. The costs for alterna-
tive systems that the USEPA will not assist in funding are easement costs
and building sewers for connection to the septic tank. The grant eligi-
bility of the on-site portions of alternative systems varies depending on
their ownership and management. Publicly and privately owned systems
constructed after 27 December 1977 are not eligible for Federal grants.
Grants of up to 60 percent of the eligible costs of a pollution abatement
program also are available from the Wisconsin Fund, a state program de-
signed to assist in financing pollution abatement projects.
1-5
-------
The dispersal of Federal funds to local applicants is made via the
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Works Construction Grants Program adminis-
tered by USEPA. Prior to the amendments of 1981, the program consisted of
a three-step process: Step 1 included wastewater facilities planning; Step
2 involved the preparation of detailed engineering plans and specifica-
tions; and Step 3 covered construction for the pollution control system.
The Municipal Wastewater Treatment Construction Grants Amendments of
1981 became law (Public Law 97-217) on 29 December 1981, and significantly
changed the procedural and administrative aspects of the municipal con-
struction grants program. The changes reflected in these amendments have
been incorporated into Construction Grants-1982 (CG-82) Municipal Waste-
water Treatment (Draft - March 1982) and an interim final rule implementing
the 1981 Amendments was issued by USEPA on 12 May 1982 (Federal Register
(47) 92). Under the 1981 Amendments, separate Federal grants are no longer
provided for facilities planning and design of projects. However, the
previous designation of these activities as Step 1, facilities planning,
and Step 2, design, are retained in the CG-82. The term Step 3 grant
refers to the project for which grant assistance will be awarded. The Step
3 grant assistance includes an allowance for planning (Step 1) and design
(Step 2) activities that is reimbursed to the community at the time of the
grant award.
The CG-82 states that projects which received a Step 1 and/or Step 2
grant prior to the enactment of the 1981 Amendments should be completed in
accordance with the terms and conditions of their grant agreement. Step 3
grant assistance will include an allowance for design of those projects
which received a Step 1 grant prior to 29 December 1981. A municipality
may be eligible, however, to receive an advance of the allowance for plan-
ning and/or design if the population of the community is under 25,000 and
the state reviewing agency (WDNR) determines that the municipality other-
wise would be unable to complete the facilities planning and design to
qualify for grant assistance. The communities in the Middle Door County
project area, excluding Fish Creek, currently are in Step 1. Fish Creek
currently is proceeding with Step 2.
1-6
-------
Communities also may choose to construct wastewater treatment facil-
ities without financial support from the state or Federal governments. In
such cases, the only state and Federal requirements are that the design be
technically sound and that the WDNR is satisfied that the facility will
meet discharge standards. Any applicable local ordinances would still have
to be me t.
If a community chooses to construct a wastewater collection and treat-
ment system with USEPA grant assistance, the project must meet all require-
ments of the Grants Program. The CWA stresses that the most cost-effective
alternative be identified and selected. USEPA defines the cost-effective
alternative as the one that will result in minimum total resource costs
over the life of the project, as well as meet Federal, state, and local
requirements. Non-monetary costs also must be considered, including social
and environmental factors. The cost-effective alternative is not neces-
sarily the lowest cost proposal. The analysis for choosing the cost-effec-
tive alternative is based on both the capital costs and the operation and
maintenance costs for a 20-year period, although only the capital costs are
funded. The selection of the most cost-effective alternative also must
consider the social and environmental implications of the alternative. An
alternative that has low monetary costs but significant environmental
impacts would not be preferred over an alternative with higher monetary
costs but lesser social and environmental impacts.
Wisconsin was required by the Federal Clean Water Act (PL 92-500) to
establish water quality standards for lakes and streams and effluent stand-
ards for discharge to them. Federal law stipulates that, at a minimum,
discharges must meet secondary treatment requirements. In some cases, even
stricter effluent standards are subject to USEPA approval and must conform
to Federal guidelines.
A new wastewater treatment facility also is subject to the require-
ments of Section 402 of the FWPCA, which established the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. Under the NPDES
regulations, all wastewater discharges to surface waters require an NPDES
permit and must meet the effluent standards identified in the permit. The
USEPA has delegated the authority to establish effluent standards and to
1-7
-------
issue discharge permits to the WDNR. The USEPA, however, maintains review
authority. Any permit proposed for issuance may be subject to a state
hearing, if requested by another agency, the applicant, or other groups and
individuals. A hearing on an NPDES permit provides the public with the
opportunity to comment on a proposed discharge, including the location of
the discharge and the level of treatment.
Even when the Facilities Plan for Fish Creek is completed and ap-
proved, the EIS could not be completed until the other communities have
completed their portions of the Facilities Plan. It is not known whether
the remaining communities intend to complete their Facilities Plans, or
what the schedule would be for their completion. In addition, because of
their position on the state priority list, it seems unlikely that the
communities in the project area will be eligible for any Federal funding
for construction of wastewater treatment facilities. The level of funding
currently available from the Wisconsin Fund is not known.
In order to adjust to the changing scope of the project, to help
resolve environmental concerns, and to provide interim guidance for envi-
ronmentally sensitive wastewater treatment alternatives, USEPA and its EIS
consultant (WAPORA, Inc.) have prepared this Environmental Report (ER).
The objective of the ER is to provide guidance to the agencies, facilities
planners, and citizens by outlining environmentally sensitive solutions to
their wastewater treatment problems.
This ER will also provide information and background material for the
preparation of any future environmental documents for wastewater projects
in this facilities planning area. At such time as the other communities
decide to proceed with their facilities plans and depending upon the avail-
ability of Federal funding, USEPA will make a decision as to what type of
environmental document should be prepared, e.g., an EIS or an Environmental
Assessment. If the communities decide to complete facilities planning
using the Wisconsin Fund, the WDNR will make the decision on the type of
environmental document to be prepared. If the communities decide to com-
plete their facilities planning without any Federal or state funding, the
communities will be subject to any applicable local requirements as well as
requirements of the NPDES permit program, etc.
1-8
-------
1.3. Study Process and Public Participation
Participants in the wastewater planning process during the past four
years have included: USEPA; WDNR; WAPURA, Inc. (EIS consultant); Becher-
Hoppe Engineers, Inc., Donohue and Associates, Owen Ayres and Associates,
Foth and Van Dyke and Associates, Inc. (facilities planners); Town of
Gibraltar (grantee); Town of Baileys Harbor; Village of Egg Harbor; Village
of Ephraim; and other Federal, State, local, and private agencies and
organizations. USEPA sponsored three public meetings to facilitate public
involvement during the preparation of the EIS and a Citizens Advisory
Committee (CAC) was formed. Four informational newsletters also were
prepared, not including the newsletter that was disseminated in conjunction
with this Draft ER.
The major work efforts in the preparation of this Draft ER occurred
during 1979, 1980, and 1982. Since 1979 when WAPORA, Inc. began work on
this project, various interim reports have been submitted to USEPA, includ-
ing the "Existing Conditions" chapter of the Middle Door County Environ-
mental Statement (April 1980). The "Existing Conditions" report describes
the features of natural and manmade environment in the project area that
could affect, or be affected by, improvements in wastewater treatment. The
interim reports previously submitted to USEPA have been incorporated into
the ER.
1.4. Is sue s
Based on a review of USEPA's Notice of Intent (to prepare an EIS), the
Directive of Work to WAPORA, Inc. (including subsequent modifications), and
the Facilities Plan, the following issues have been determined to be signi-
ficant and are addressed in the Environmental Report:
Potential for wastewater treatment facilities to induce growth
and to cause secondary impacts that could alter the highly
valued and diverse recreational opportunities available in the
project area
Controversy over proposals that may stimulate development and
increase the rate of population growth
1-9
-------
Potential impacts to the extensive, high quality wetlands and
other natural areas present in the project area
Possible effects on prime and unique farmlands, including large
fruit orchards
Potential impacts to threatened or endangered plant and animal
species
Possible disturbance of archaeological or historical sites
Water quality and fisheries impacts from effluent discharges
Documentation that existing onsite systems are, or have the
potential to be, a health hazard
Relationship between the performance of existing onsite systems
and groundwater quality
Cost-effectiveness of various methods of wastewater treatment,
including alternative technologies
Economic impact of the capital and monthly operating costs of
wastewater treatment improvements on local residents
Ability of local governments to finance the costs of improve-
ment projects
Type and extent of secondary impacts resulting from proposed
treatment alternatives
Examination and analysis of local zoning and subdivision ordi-
nances, and land use regulations that could mitigate the nega-
tive impacts of improvement actions
Commitment of resources including, but not limited to: con-
struction materials, financial resources, and labor and energy
resources.
1-10
-------
2.0. DISCUSSION OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
2.1. Existing Wastewater Treatment Systems
Onsite systems are the predominant means of wastewater treatment in
the project area. Most of the onsite systems utilize soil absorption of
septic tank effluent or holding tanks. Information on existing systems was
gathered from Door County Health Department records. Interviews with
Health Department personnel also were useful in assessing the environmental
conditions and suitability of septic tank and soil absorption systems for
treating wastewater. A septic leachate detector survey (K-V Associates,
Inc., 1980), color infrared aerial photography (USEPA 1979), and a mailed
questionnaire (Becher-Hoppe Engineers, Inc. 1980) also were used to assess
the effectiveness of the existing treatment systems.
2.1.1. Existing Onsite Systems
The majority of the structures within the project area use septic tank
and soil absorption systems for wastewater treatment and disposal. The
remainder rely on holding tanks, although a few prives remain in use. The
Baileys Harbor Yacht Club utilizes a small sewage treatment plant. Septic
tanks are constructed of either precast concrete or bitumastic-coated
steel. Cast-in-place concrete is used for large septic tanks. Soil ab-
sorption systems are primarily seepage beds. Mounds and seepage trenches
are also utilized. Some of the older systems use dry wells. Prior to
1970, the design and installation of onsite systems was not regulated.
Since 1970, a permit has been required from the Health Department for the
design of on-site systems. Until 1980, the onsite permit records did not
indicate whether a system was inspected and installed according to the
permit. In some cases inspections were made, but they were not routinely
performed. Thus, accurate counts of what types of systems that have been
installed, and their location, cannot be made. Since 1980, Wisconsin
Administrative Code (WAG) has required counties to inspect onsite systems
following installation.
2-1
-------
Prior to 1980, the Department of Health and Social Services was re-
sponsible for the regulation of onsite systems. In 1980, this responsi-
bility was shifted to the Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations
(DILHR). The Department is specifically responsible for reviewing and
approving designs for large systems, for mounds, and for holding tanks.
The Wisconsin Administrative Code Chapter H63 governs private sewage sys-
tems.
The "Wisconsin Fund" was authorized to assist in funding of onsite
systems. Each county must become qualified to administer the monies and
apply on behalf of the individual homeowner. Door County is qualified to
administer the funds. Funding is available at a 60% level or a maximum of
$3,000. The residence, in order to qualify, must be occupied more than 51%
of the year. Participation in the program in Door County has been low,
primarily due to lack of publicity and to the three month processing time
for each application (Personal communication, John Teichtler, Acting Door
County Sanitarian, to WAPORA, Inc., 12 April 1982).
Few failing onsite systems have been identified within the project
area. Those that have experienced failure are usually old, inadequately
sized systems. Most upgrades of existing systems occur when an inspection
of the existing system is necessary for a building permit for remodelling
projects. Most replacements have been for commercial structures, primarily
restaurants and motels.
Within the project area, it is estimated that 50% of the systems in-
stalled under the permit program are holding tanks. About 30% are conven-
tional seepage beds, and 20% are mound systems. The State directs that a
soil absorption system be installed where it is feasible. Thus, the use of
holding tanks illustrates the general unsuitability of the area for soil
absorption systems. The Health Department is not authorized to issue
permits for soil absorption systems that would require a variance from the
State rules. For example, no credit is allowed for water conservation or
seasonal use, and no variances for isolation distances from lot lines and
structures are allowed. Holding tanks appear to be specified for seasonal-
ly occupied residences much more readily than other systems even though,
2-2
-------
for example, a mound system or a soil absorption system that necessitates a
variance may be installed. Because the certified soil tester is hired by
the landowner and the county sanitarian may not inspect each lot, the
homeowner has some latitude in system selection.
2.1.2. Summary of Data on Existing Systems
Data on existing onsite systems are fragmentary. A 100% sanitary
survey would be necessary to fully characterize the systems in the project
area. From an operational viewpoint, homeowners could provide data on
regularity of pumping and overloading of the soil absorption system that
results in surface breakout of effluent or backups in the residence. Data
on the wastewater purification capability of the systems generally are not
available except by way of the well water quality testing programs and
individual sampling conducted over the last 12 years.
Four types of surveys for evidence of failures have been conducted:
well sampling programs, a mailed questionnaire, a septic leachate detector
survey, and an aerial photographic survey. Failure evidence is positively
identified by backups in the dwelling resulting from inadequate seepage
from the soil absorption system, surface breakout of septic tank effluent
over the soil absorption system, or contamination of groundwaters or sur-
face waters from inadequately treated effluent. These surveys are dis-
cussed in the following sections in addition to the discussion of the types
of onsite systems that have been permitted within the project area since
197b. The Draft Facilities Plan also contains detailed information con-
cerning existing onsite systems that will not be reproduced in its entirety
in this report.
2.1.2.1. County Health Department Permit File Data
Information concerning recently installed systems (dating back to
1976) has been extracted from the permits filed with the County Health
Department. Although general conclusions can be drawn from the permits,
the information cannot be used to develop a definitive analysis of existing
systems. Difficulties include standards revised over the period of time,
2-3
-------
the lack of initial and final inspections, the recent availability of mound
soil absorption systems, inadequate location descriptions, and the absence
of information on the reasons for repairs and replacements. The informa-
tion from the permit records was tabulated for the redefined subareas
within the project area.
Egg Harbor
The permit records for Egg Harbor are summarized in Table 2-1 for
single family residences and in Table 2-2 for commercial and multifamily
structures. The subareas are shown in Figure 2-1. The records show that
few systems have been replaced (2 systems for commercial structures). Of
the 23 new systems for single family dwellings within the subareas, six
have been holding tanks, fifteen have been septic tank and seepage bed
systems, and two have been septic tank and mound systems. For multifamily
and commercial structures, septic tanks and soil absorption systems also
predominate.
Fish Creek
The permit records for Fish Creek are summarized in Table 2-3 for
single family residences and in Table 2-4 for commercial and multifamily
structures. The Fish Creek subareas are shown in Figure 2-2. The records
show that numerous systems for commercial structures have been replaced
since 1976, nearly all with holding tanks. Most have been replaced when
applications for remodelling permits are filed, in which case an onsite
system inspection is conducted by the County Sanitarian. Some systems,
though, have been noted as failing when the replacement is installed.
Thirteen new systems for single family residences have been permitted
throughout the subareas. Of these, 11 have been holding tanks. Only two
existing soil absorption systems have been replaced (with holding tanks)
within the Fish Creek subareas.
Ephraim
The permit records for the Village of Ephraim are summarized in Table
2-3 for single family residences and in Table 2-4 for commercial and multi-
2-4
-------
4-1
a
60 3 rH
60 O cO
W CJ 4->
0
C V4 H
•H Q
cfl (3
01 -^
H
&J OOOOOOOOlO rHCOrHO O|m .«
CU| ^
pq I d
1 cfl
4-*
s , y
CU CNinOCMOrHmc30 CO vOCNOco r-H CM vH
K CM CM rH
V"t ' f^4
ct) cfl cu
J2 CU . CD
n) V>J
03 CO
^> 4"^
,£> cj H
CU Pd
CO O
Q) iJ
O ft
a
• 1
OJ OOOOOOOOl O rHrHOO O| CM
0)1 H
pi| VI
~3
15 C
0) O r-H O rH r— 1 3
a r-l Q
CU 01 B
3 4-1 1
CO t>-\
01 Cl rH
t-l -H C
A O
rH -rl H
•rl 5 C/3
e
•1 S
rH .
pJ ooooooooo oooo o|o
CU 1 ^4
pi e
1 3
ft
CO C
1 1 1 J> J_J
O
01 H
rH S
60 +J
rj j_j -f.
•H Q
03 ft Ou
C rJ
u o
o to
o
• 1 U-l
rH | I *rl
pJ ooooooool o oooo o|o iH
CD 1
pcj 1 1
0-1
K-J
J>
CU OOOrHOOOrHJCN rHCNIOO O|CO •••
o
03 CO P
S *-> 4-ICfl H
CO O • C/3
co 4-1 ca pq
(-1 T3 C/3
M cfl ^
OJ ft O +
4J CJ
cO t3 01 Cu
S fl l-i hJ
.1 M
OJ OOOOOOOO| O OrHOO O| rH
01 1
D^ 1
.
I*
0) Ol— lOrHOOrHrH
CO g -rl
5 O S
H 01 rl
4-1 ft H
c! T3 C/3
0) C! 4J --.
S cfl C PQ
01 01 C/3
o cu 6
Cfl 60 4->
rH CO M
ft OOOOOOO o| O O rH rH O O| CM
1
^
01 CMoOoOO^ ^Ol rH O o
'•rj CO ^D
C t-l .C 0) CO CO
CO O 4-> 10 1 1 CO vO
J2 rH Ctf CO CTi LTl 1 d 1
>i-ICO -H CirHrHCMr-H?-*
CU CO 01 rH 3 O
zrarri -ri OOOOOHO
t> H 0) 01 01 01 CU
C/3 C/D C/3 CO 4-> C/3
• t-l rl VJ
rH Cfl O O ^^ 1^* ^^ *^ O ^^
| 0)^3 .nCMCMCMCMftCM
CM l-i (-1 i-IP^Q^Crf^^pd
cO cfl _cp O
Ol rDflj rH SOOOONCOaSrH
rH 3
ft
CU 60
0) C
CO -rl
TJ
1 rH
O
M pCJ
H
W 1
FQ H
C/3 33
• •
CO
c
o
•H
4-1
CO
•H
J>
Ol
t-l
cfl
2-5
-------
o
00
X
o
ON
X
O i
o
o
o
o
in
01
00
CO
m
H
co
o
o
o
o to
O CO
KH
^-' en
o +
+ o
—I o
O X O
m o NO
r-~ m ro
H CO H
S co co en
+• o + + +
o. o o o o o
jo -o o o
O rH -H O NO
•f rH CM NO *3" f>
H H H H H H O
co z 3: to en co CM
rH CO +
O rH
NO x o o
X CM 00 O
o o eo m
CM rH rH rH
kl
S
X
o
moinomooo
CMOOCMO!-~OOO
NO NO f~ in o o o
rHI^rHrHH^NOrH
H H H H
CO CO CO 33
H H H
co K en
H
en
co *~,
41 co
$"2
4J O
O O
3 OJ
kl IH
3*3
33
0
s:
I
H
"O
E
a
§
•H
CO
3
pa
u
u
B
01
•o
CO
01
ki o.
**
co
X 01
i! /«i2
vJ -H o "I CO CO CO
OCoS^EEE
CO 3 ^ ^4) _3 3 ^3
CT> "§ C -H C E 6
00^^ CO -H O -H fH -H
C? S « a E B
CO
•H 6 6
B 3 3
CO O
ON rH rH
Ill
•o -a
01
00
to
o.
01
01
•8
00
CO
Q.
3
O
kl
I
* &
to eo
6 e
O
•o cu ~<
C 00 01
CO ki U
Q.3£
Tj en
en -H
U-i ^
eo o ^,
•« Jl rH 4J j!
kl M -H iH CJ
aasgcS
01
00
01
•g
ErH
• CO rH
0 CL. 0
O en -o
J
41
iH
U CO
T-l 3
CO 0
tJ *-*
Ol rH
CO
oi en
CO
B ey
S S
derness
•E
to
c-
01
41
00
OOH
&
m
in T
CM -H
O U
01 41
CO CO
CM CM
OS CXi
O ON
H H
gi
O
So
cuc-i
Ji CM
CJ H
2-6
-------
& «-<
"•H
£ E
01
e a
•H
a c
01 CO
u g
« t-1
a to
1C Q.
x<3
J3
CO 4-1
01 r-l
U 10
c oi
oi a
3
CO +•»
01 C
H 3
iH ki
6 0
01
^5
5 2
» £
o
>4-l lu
O
(0
§01
00
£ 5
CO i-l
10 Tl
>
b
2H
0.' .
4J U
CO 10
§3
«
*-" *-i
C ,0
e o
U MH
« o
01 §
M o" •
•O CO
C • •«
a x u
01 O
9 01 o
££2!
n
i
01
iH
^
eg
c
r-4
CO
O
H
* *
OJ Oinoooool in CMCM t*>| r* o<-OrH^4i-4O tH| oo o ^ o ol IH
jOil ej
' "^
a.
* m a
H
H
Oj O CM O O O O Ol CM O i-J Ol ^ Ot*lOi-*OOOOl -* OOO Ol O T3
oT] c
as s
1 o
e
9 . .1
0) CM CM CN CM »-4 -^ r-< ^ inoOOO »^ Hfi^OiHCMe^O -H —I J
H
e
H g.
OJ OcnOOOOOl to .-lO-^ IN OOOOOOOOl O OOOOlo
t-t
E
+
o.
OJ OOOOOOOl O OOO| O OOOOOi-IOOl •-< OOOOlo
1
a> o o o o o o ol o -H-^-O m oooo^oo o| *™*
-------
0)
00
«
r-4
f-H
Tl
1
b
B
rH
•H
CJ
O
1
,
0)
01
CJ
J=
^_J
££.
=
Permitted
g
0)
»
CO
4J
B
§
0)
o S
B 01
cu m
a: co
b
o
3
O 0
O 0
8SQ
/-> pa
H H CO CO
33 33 CO ^
O + -r O O +
*£• O + in
oooooo moorHoo
« o o o • O *^" o *n — m m
»H m m \o co C* »n CM CM rH rH CM
35 ;fl PC 33 W CO 9G 32 SB 31 CO 2;
o-
I-H rH I— 1 r-l rH rH rH i— 1 «H
a a. 3 3 o. e. a a, a a a 3
oS <3 Is z <§ iS f§ 3 iS S <3 55
0
o
o
§
•H
g
3
z
o
0
o
en
H
3
O
o
m
CM
E-4
33
3
S
O
O
o
m
[3
3
•
a
no
r— vo
co1 ^
in CM m
r*.
M pa en
H CO
to E-I
+ o+ B
0 .-* 4.
§0 0
• cy\ m
CM o en r-
CM rH CJS
H E-> co H
w as -^ s
I—I |H r-l
CU CU O. 3
(S 0? (S S5
in
X
00
o
in
r-l
S
?
CO n . - _.
rH iH m in r-4
o o
88
»n co
CM
o
J
CM
IS
00 +
o o o
oo m o o
- -o o
O\ r* »O
rH r-l CM ,H
CO CO
in in
X X
oo
oo
oo
mtn
HH
aoe
33 0.3333330. 33333333
•J
3
b
CO
r-l
—4
'J
S)
3
O
o
a
"3 •
a co
•o
>% b
-1 O
•H U (D
a u a
•Ob oi
IH e
4-< Tl 00
3 0)
b °*
O 4-*
" I
§ b
'Ji CU
oo a
wastewa ter
nty Health
ure
3 «
4J Q CJ
SO 3
01 b
§ S S
U 0
B g
0,
11 a
b T!
"3 M
CU CU
U
3
3} >**
-a-
I
01
r-l fl
-2 J3
a 3
H co
0) 0.
CO O <-\
3 x a a
O 00 0) 4-1
01 J3 O Tl
00 4J Tl B
"B b TJ B 00 O >* S-*
^-* y> a co a ^
T;c04-l4J'rJ "^ 3v^4J CO
01 T-l C C fl WBO rH BB T|
^BSS^ o.>^w 03 B
Q CT> ^ «~4 a) @ CS Oj OJ 0) 0) C rH 00
3 30 -3033X S
Br-lrHr-IBb 0)BTtaB4J OrH rH CO
c04j4J4jato ooob«co*B 'Swo'*!' o*
S5S3lSlS COlScOlSlSlS cS^COjS M
00 1 0)
O O 09
a. TI 3
t-4 01 S Q
01 r-4 -0 00 OS
4J o» j! B a o -4
SXQ O B 4Jb4JCOrH
2 CIOI O r-IOOTlOl
g b >,3BJ> Sb4J T|
r- * HH CU O*4-* 0)OJO)>^CQB Tl 2 CO
Oojb 3u Dr^rio-rlb Bo)-b 10
CJB O -TlO O 4JOfTlQoafl J3
4^4-1^3 ^01^ ^ OICOTjBOjb Tl
ScSta o&Io0S£
J3 m b
» 4J 4J
Tf X3 00 CO
-i a j! u
50 3 CJ b
3 i5 a £
^o
CO
1
CM
CJ
co1
f^
CJ
ai
•H
en
H
jm^
V
a
3
0)
0 a
JS
00
O 01
b 50
U B
OJ 4J
B O
oJ °
a
•H <
Si
01
CO
o.
0
"5
TJ
^^ B
CO B
+J
B a
9 4J
Tl
CM a 3 at
N^ 4J 4J
a rH B •^ B
§B 3 3
a a
Tl O 4J OO
B >n-f B CM
§ IrH SrH
•^ 9) H
O T3 4J 0)
x> e B w
B * i £
S rH 3
oi b a
u a\ 4j 0 oi
x a o Q, b
U 3 £ 4J < O
a T. . B js
>• B b B • co
a "a " s to a
•H 0 g B -H
a TJ S 4J b a
b B 0) 09 B b
!§•" 3 " cS p?1
a
4J
Tl
B
3
F*.
a
B B Tl
B a B
338
a a o
00 00 "S
iS iS c3
a
3
B
Restaurant
Cottages
bor Condoml
i §f
« b r-l
3 co 3
a
^^
a
4->
B
3
CM
r-4
a
a
Tl
B
§
"c?
Q
§
•3"H
B a
S "a
"S JJ
3*
0)
0) CO
dson
erson
J •§
o
jM^
a
4-1
a
3
O B
^ 3
4J 03
S S
4J
B
B
o's restaur.
CO U
00 M
23
4J
CJ jjj
m
4J 4J
B B
a a
3 3 ^^'oo"oo'
B B M 4J 4J
a co T) B B
01 01 B 3 3
CM CM
a B xx
O» CU CU O. rH rH
W ^ « W S (S
s*
Si
£3§
o
00
B 01
Ti 09 x a
So) b oi
o) oi a
3 JS rH 3
"Oi: SJ
^&3T:§
O B ** 01 O
O ^ 4H
a CJ B TI
•Ob- B
co"iS 5 S ="
»
• M
B
4-t
CJ
Tl
0.
01
u
H
CO
Cu
B
3.
+j
*w
•H
.-*
1
Oi
(J
^T
u
e
V
b
+j
0)
01
01
00
1
01
00
B
CU
0)
01
a
I
£
CO
CO
a9
B
O
Tl
B
•H
b
,0
B
2-9
-------
family structures. The subareas for Ephraim are displayed in Figure 2-3.
The records show that within the "downtown" area, most of the new commer-
cial and multifamily structures are on holding tanks. One condominium
complex has replaced its septic tank and soil absorption system with a
holding tank within the past 6 years. Eight new (or expansions of) motels,
condominiums, and restaurants have been granted permits within the "down-
town" area. Subarea 5 (STH 42 east of the "downtown" area) has experienced
some commercial development in the past 5 years and permits for wastewater
disposal have been issued for five new restaurant and shopping complexes
and two duplexes. All except three of these were holding tank permits.
Within the subareas in Ephraim, 24 permits for wastewater disposal
systems for single family residences have been issued. The majority of
these permits have been for soil absorption systems on the bluff east of
the downtown area. In addition to the permits for new systems, eight
permits for replacement systems have been issued; these are equally divided
between holding tanks and soil absorption systems.
The areas within the Village that are outside the numbered subareas
(Figure 2-3) have had greater numbers of permits issued for single family
residences than the numbered subareas. Most of these permits have been
issued for Section 12, the area north of STH 42. Four permits for holding
tanks have been issued; the remainder (23) have been for septic tank and
soil absorption system.
Baileys Harbor
The permit records for the Town of Baileys Harbor and parts of the
Towns of Liberty Grove and Jacksonport are summarized in Table 2-5 for
single family residences and in Table 2-6 for commercial and multifamily
structures. The subareas for Baileys Harbor are displayed in Figure 2-4
and Figure 2-5. The records indicate that the majority of permits within
the subareas have been issued for the west shore of Kangaroo Lake and the
north shore of Baileys Harbor. Septic tank and soil absorption systems
predominate around Kangaroo Lake and holding tanks predominate around
Baileys Harbor. Within Subarea 1, permits for 23 new septic tank and soil
2-11
-------
O rH rH O O CO O|
0)
rd
p
•H
cfl
CU
J_(
cfl
1
^
X>
CO
cu
o
0
01
3
CO
0)
rJ
K*1
rH
•H
e
MH
CU
W>
d
•iH
CO
M
0
M-l
CO
•M
CO
r^%
CO
J_|
0)
p
cd
3
0)
P
CO
cd
3
p
a
01
o
cd
rH
cx
01
^
*"O
d
cO
Jj
0)
in
I
CM
cu
rH
Pi
cd
H
CO
f-i P
0 O
O H
^^
p
0)1
oS 1
£
01
la
SJ
O
CM
d
o
CO
*^
0 H
to K
1-5
-O
d
CO
• i
rHj
SI
Jj
d)
S3
>
O !>i
o d
o
P H
M Cfl
• |
,__j 1
oJ
5J1
Pi|
cu
3
"4-1 S
O
CO
S CM
oco
H •
s~*^
H
cJ
01
2
rt
cO *->
d
H 0)
o a
to 4-1 ^j
rJ M H
cd cd cfl
a a, -^
Oi pq
CO O Cfl
0) X:
rH P
•
rH
PJ
1
^
01
J2
•H rH
cd cd
pq o>
33
O >M
P
d d
3 3
0 O
H O
CO
CU
cfl
XI
3
rH
CU
M O Cfl
S O oo
CM
!0 >, OS
0) rH M rH
rH
ex
e
rj
CU
p
4-^
•rl
rH O rH rH
1
Q-,
rJ
O O| vO "•
J3
O
d
0)
S-l
+j
0 0| 0
cu
60
0 0| rH
rH O CO
vO C^ O"N
^~
^o
CO
1 CO
CM d 1
CM 9 rH
o
OHO
cu cu
Cfl P Cfl
r^«. o r^»
CM CuCM
os d os
o
O CO 0\ rH
CO ^ CM Cfl
H 0 H P
cO 0
1-3 H
cfl
Cu
0)
01
CO
— ^.
T3
01
Xi •
X
oi a
00 CO
cfl P
cx
Ol bO
ai d
CO -H
•a
1 rH
o
&•*
Cfl |
"« H
cfl 33
• •
CO
d
o
•H
P
CO
•H
£>
CU
S-l
X!
cd
2-13
-------
A
4J
U-l
O
n
4-1
ki
cd
0.
•§
Cd
ki
O
J3
kl
s .
cd
0) ^-,
x to
01 -0
-H kl
•H O
3 °
CO 01
UH
0 4J
•H
§e
C
O 01
H a
01 4J
*i
ta
e **
1-1 u
cd
co a
£cS
3
U «J
3 — !
ki cd
a S
-4 >\
es «
•H B
U 3
M 5
01 0
S
B kl
0 0
0 &
•o ^
B
CO CO
CU
X ki
^ ec
•r4
B w
ce u
u-l 0)
•rt TI
4J O
*-4 kl
3 a
0)
kl £
0 *J
M-l
c
CO *H
§J=
<->
*> Tj
m 3
X
CO 4J
kl
kl O
oi a.
4-" B
cd O
9 CO
01 ,*
4J O
CO CO
S"1
«•&•
B a
01
§01
>
0 0
,3S
o.
oi x
M 4J
^l
•a u
B f
"3
3
01 *H
Z 0
vO
1
n
en
m
CO
+
a.
j
+
0
o
0
CM
H
CO
B
01
4-1
CO
X
CO
•
i-i
a.
S
kl
cd
Ji
•0
B
cd
CO
4J
CO
«
•H
CO
3
PP
•H
B
3
en
4J
kl
0
CO
S
cu
01
kl
3
o
2
•M
CO
00
•o
3
X
-D
CO
.-(
rH
S
ki
o
J3
kl
S
a
01
ki
cd
.3
3
M
CO
X
01
dr-4
cd
n
in
CN
O
-»
.
o S3 >n £
\O EN
(S + & +
m o f"J cu
O »J
sa m «
CO CX CO +
»J
O +• 4- in
o + r»-
Wl O O O O O m
• o ooo o m *
cso in m o m m m
r-tesi rs.cs!.-* rg CM ,_i
H H H H H H H H
sc w to ce co rc £ w
,
<~i
a. ;* ? £ s ? 3 »
S;g £S£ £££
CU
CO
3
o
Jfi ,-N
CO
t) 01
C -M
Q -H
CO
'— N C
BO ,-s &OO
*J » 1-1 -H m
•^ *J 60 ,C +J H
Cl -H C CO a) -—•
SB -H M *J
3 I-* 01 CD -O
o 3 M d
-$• as *J *-* (0 V 3
'—"»-' .U U t
-5
H ki
CO Ou
3 3
££ ^
C
oj
4J
if
^H
3
i— (
o
J=
1
H
3=
• •«
•s
3
1
s
0) •*
4J t) X
CM C
to at cct
r-t
o »-•
o o
££
^
5
rO
4-> M
c a
,3
CU CD
[>^
X 01
M H
M ft
0) (Q
X CO
CJ
*w
t-i O
Jg
£5
§CN
^ en
0 i-( 1
H 1 O
iH en
ki
o u u
^ CO 0)
kl CO CO
B 00 00
CM CM
CO 04 Ctf
X
oi o o
.-4 en en
•H H H
CO
fO
1
H
CO
ex
B
I
4J
*^4
•H
r-4
1
a.
fj
1
0)
ff
a
01
01
CO
I
pa
CO
,,
§
o
•H
V
o>
•H
>
Q>
U
J3
XI
<;
co
2-14
-------
absorption systems have been issued. For that same area, only one holding
tank permit has been issued for a new system and three have been issued for
replacement systems.
In comparison with Fish Creek and Ephraim, few commercial and multi-
family structures have been developed in Baileys Harbor Township. Within
the subareas, seven commercial or multifamily structures have been issued
wastewater disposal permits. Four of these were located on CTH F (Subarea
6) and three of these permits were for septic tank and soil absorption
systems.
In the outlying areas of the Town of Baileys Harbor and the contiguous
areas of the Towns of Liberty Grove and Jacksonport, permits have been
about equally divided between septic tank and soil absorption systems, and
holding tanks. Holding tank permits predominate along the shorelines of
Lake Michigan, particularly for the shore areas of Moonlight Bay. The
commercial and multifamily wastewater permits in these outlying areas have
been minimal.
2.1.2.2. Mailed Questionnaire
A Wastewater Disposal Questionnaire (Appendix A) was distributed to
all property owners in the participating communities (Towns of Gibraltar
and Baileys Harbor, and Villages of Egg Harbor and Ephraim) by inclusion in
the 1978 tax bills. Approximately 3,400 questionnaires were distributed and
about 700 returned questionnaires were useable. The results of the ques-
tionnaire are presented and discussed in the Draft Middle Door County
Facilities Plan and will be only highlighted within this section.
The responses are displayed in Table 2-7. Most respondents (90%)
indicated that they utilize a septic tank that discharges to some kind of
soil absorption system for wastewater treatment. Seepage beds or trenches
dominated (73%), followed by drywell or tile line (10%) , mound (less than
1%), and unknown (17%). Holding tanks constituted 7% of the wastewater
systems (this percentage is increasing, based on recent permits issued).
Privies were utilized by 2% and chemical or composting toilets by less than
2-17
-------
•
CO
CU
co
C
O
ex
co
cu
14
cu
•H
CO
c
c
o
•H
4J
CO
cu
3
cr
cu
4-1
CO
U
O>
4J
CO
g
cu
>4-t tO
o >•>
01
p4 1— 1
3 *H
O cO
H PQ
<4-i
O
cu
00
CO
,_!
•H
>
CO
CO
CU
3
<4-l
o
e
a
C/D
iH
cfl
4-1
O
H
^"N /^N /"N X-S
CO tO vO s**'/ O **^ **H
vO "»d" N»-^ ?~1
VO
o
^--i ' s— s
CO
^~s y~\ V~N /-^\
CM CT* CO ^^ O\ CO t-t
•^" C*J ^^^ *»— ^
oo
,-t
cO
•G
H
CO
/^~N /*™\ '""N /**\
CSJ ON i-H ^^ CM
rH ^-^ ^^ ^-*
Q^
CO
r-l
cu
r ^ /• \ ^^^ /^^\
r^.OOiOCMCM-J'O'— IOO
CO CM ^-^ "*-* *~*
N^X
CM
W
CO
Cu
OCMCMOOOO
CM
o
oo
-d
•rl
•H
•o
a
M
CM
S
Q)
4J
0}
^*l
CO
M-l
O
cu
a
H
J^J
a
CO
H
o
•rl
-o
01
•H
Cx-t
CU
60
CO
O.
CU
01
CO
4J 0
CuH
01
CO
cu
u
J>^
H
£5
V-l
o
cu
c
)-J
01
r-<
•H
H
o
H
CO
*^
CO
•a
c
3
S
O
H
t\j
C
cO
a H
o oo
J83 »
S "T3 ^
O M
J^j |S |
CU
00
CO
f!
O
CO
*,-{
Q
4J
O
01
•H
n
•H
o
H
60
•H
4-1
CO
O
cj
Q
c_>
~^^
J-^l
co a
o ?
•HO r-l
S C co
v 3 4J
6CJ O
P H
cu
o
c
cu
•H
CO
cu
t-l
4J
a
cu
c
££]
J^
cu
Cu
II
Cu
CU
0
a
cu
•^
•H
co
cu
1-1
i-H
cO
c
o
CO
CO
CO
II
CO
2-18
-------
1%. "Direct discharge" was noted by 1% of the respondents as their disposal
method. Another 1% did not know what method of disposal was utilized on
their property.
A significant number of residents utilized ancillary methods of dis-
posing of some household wastewaters through other than their primary dis-
posal system. Laundry wash water constitutes the largest source with dish-
water, lavatory basins, and water conditioner brine also discharged else-
where. Water conditioner brine may bypass the disposal system as long as it
does not cause a nuisance or hazard. The graywater sources (laundry and
sink wash waters) must, by code, be disposed of in an environmentally
acceptable manner. Discharges to the ground surface of these graywaters
totaled 9 (out of a total of 628 systems). Permanent residences appear to
have the majority of these discharges, which may be due to socioeconomic
factors (where they live and their disposable income) rather than inade-
quacy of their primary disposal system. Also, a much smaller percentage of
seasonal residences probably have laundry facilities.
The perceptions of the property owners concerning the adequacy of
their disposal system was obtained in the questionnaire (Table 2-8). The
question, "Does your disposal system satisfactorily serve your residence?"
was answered positively by 95% of the respondents; 2% indicated that they
experience problems, and 3% did not respond. The respondents indicated
that their problems were seasonal or were satisfactorily handled by reduc-
ing water use. No one community had a greater concentration of problem
systems than another.
Another questionnaire item attempted to discern whether the respon-
dents perceived wastewater problems in their community. The question: "Are
there any other wastewater problems in your community you think need cor-
rection?" can be misleading because many respondents may have one single
problem in mind. In the open-ended comments accompaning the questionnaire,
few specific problems with on-site systems were mentioned. Certain "prob-
lem areas" were mentioned (Appendix A); specifically the developed areas
along the waterfront in Fish Creek and Ephraim, and the Main Street area of
downtown Baileys Harbor. Land disposal of holding tank wastes and septage
also was frequently mentioned as a perceived problem. Given these qualifi-
cations, the responses from the various communities are displayed in Table
2-9.
2-19
-------
c~-
cu
CJ
C
CU
•H
CO
CU
^j
3
O
CU
^
^
cu
CO
>s
1-1
0)
4-1
CO
3
0-
CU
Ifl
6
CU
CO
CO
^
3
0
CO
Ol
o
p
m
*
o
e
cu
•I-l
•1-1
cu
)_l
•H
CO
a
c
o
•H
CO
01
3
o-
i-i
0)
^_j
CO
5
cu
+J
CO
JO
o
•M
CO
cu
CO
a
o
a,
CO
Pi
•
00
CM
01
i~H
X>
CO
H
CO
CO
CU
M
<^
M-4
O
e
3
CO
H
•M
o
H
O 1-1 in CM os r-s.
*«O • r-H • r— ) •
^^ in CM CM
OS
CO
CM SO CM in
M
=0
+J
rH
cfl
M
o
•H
O
M-l
O
rj
£E
O
H
r—i
$
0
H
o o m oo -3- CM
i-l in CM CM
OS
CO
CO I"*""" "^t" O"N ^J *^
CO • • •
I-H m CM ,-H
OS
Cu
1-1
CO
•M
O
H
r-~ m i— i m CM o
CO • • •
CM CM in
OS
Os os CO 1^- 00 ^3"
vO • •
•-H CO iH -3"
OS
CO
\o *^ co os so r^«
OS • • •
rH CM m
OS
O-i
CO CO O 1 CM \O
1 — • 1 •
r^ CM
OS
V^
O
XI
t-l
A
5£
OJ
PJ
4-1
0
Q)
OJ
cO
i— i
T_
«r-
£>
, — I
nj
4->
o
H
ON CM o i in oo
OS • 1 •
m -*
OS
CO
-* m o i ~* m
CO • 1 •
-^- m
OS
Cu
o oo o I — ' CM
CO • 1 •
vD CO
OS
x-x'+J ^-v'+j' ^-v 4J
i-i a M a n a
OJ Ol QJ Ol 0) CU
XJ O XI O (-1 X3 O
@ *-i s M oi e u
3 01 3 CU ? 3 Ol
a a. pi p, co e ex
v_^v/ ^ ^ g ~~^ ^^
CO
-------
3
O
£>>
tj
•H
C
3
B
B
0
O
O
^N
•H
CO
e
CD
rH
O
M
a.
}_l
0)
4-1
0)
4-1
CO
cd
5
>>
pi
cd
o>
M
0>
f\
•M
QJ
l_t
CO
CU
3
a'
^j
01 o.
+-1 a
cd o
CD p
4-1 (J
CO Ol
§ ^
o
0 o
4-1
CO Ol
Ol Ol
(3 ^
o ^
a, 0
CO -H
CU f!
pi -t-J
*
ON
CM
01
f,
cd
H
CO
cd
01
M
«^
14-1
O
e
3
CO
rH
cd
4->
O
H
m
OO
CO
m
m
CU
o
CO
CO
^
01
rH
•H |-l
cd o
PO ,0
M
"3:3
r«
3
O
H
C8
4-1
O
H
ON
i-H
CO
CM
rH
04
r^.
B
•H
cd
r*,
a
M
MH
O
CU
60
C8
rH
rH
•H
>
^
cd
4J
O
H
00
CO
CO
CO
CM
Cu
m
•-I
M
cd
4-1
rH
cd
M
,0
•H
O
*-W
o
i
o
H
1—1
4-1
O
H
vO
CM
CO
00
rH
Oi
00
M
O
V4
jrt
p3
M
If
H [
o
01
60
cd
rH
rH
•rl
>
rH
cd
4->
0
H
CM
CO
Cu
CM
O
x~\
CU
1
N«^
CO
01
^
•
.^
i-l
O
•
*^-
rH
O
•
^o
rH
ro
•
rH
1-1
,_)
•
rH
[•^
«
rH
rH
\D
•
CM
CM
CO
•
r*^
rH
O"\
•
CM
"*
O
*
in
rH
o
•
00
rH
O
•
rH
rH
OO
•
CM
ON
•
CO
1
1
4-1
a
0)
o
Ol
V— '
CM
^J-
CO
m
CO
CM
p —
O
^
CM
rH
O
00
^>
^]-
\0
I--
<^
VO
CM
rH
O>
00
CO
in
o
CO
ro
m
00
CO
m
rH
X-N
Ol
n
£
o
o
•
ON
m
o
t
o
VC
o
•
f-^
to
^
•
^-
^
rH
•
^
CO
•
CO
^
CM
•
m
CO
•
-d-
CO
^f
*
1-1
m
o
•
CO
m
CO
•
CT\
-------
Generally, the residents of the Village of Egg Harbor and the Town of
Baileys Harbor have little perception of wastewater problems in their
communities that need correction (3% and 11%, respectively). Greater
percentages of the respondents from the Town of Gibraltar and Ephraim (15%
and 23%, respectively) perceive a need for corrections to wastewater prob-
lems. These percentages indicate that few people perceive the current
wastewater problems to be serious.
Another question dealt with the frequency of pumping of the septic
tanks. The property owner was asked to identify how often in the previous
five-year period the septic tank had been pumped. The required frequency
of pumping varies greatly and depends upon the number of users, the organic
loadings, the loading of refractory compounds, and the size of the septic
tanks. Some septic tanks used seasonally and with small annual loadings
may require pumping only once every 20 years. Other septic tanks for
residences occupied year-round and subject to large organic loads may
require annual pumping. The generally recognized guide for a four-person
household (larger than average) is once every two to five years. Smaller
households and seasonal residences could have much longer pumping intervals
because the interval between organic decomposition and loading is greater.
The questionnaire results are presented in Figure 2-6 for permanent and
seasonal residences.
The percent of permanent residents who indicated that they have not
pumped their septic tank in the last five years ranges from 16% to 25%.
This indicates that these residents do not pump their septic tanks based on
a regular, recommended interval but may rely on a clogged soil absorption
system to indicate that the septic tank needs to be pumped. Between 55%
and 65% have their septic tank pumped at regular intervals (one to four
times during the five-year period). A somewhat higher percentage, between
12% and 24%, had their septic tank serviced five times or more in the
5-year period. No reasons were provided for the short pumping intervals,
but it may be indicative of problems with the system.
For seasonal residences, 5% to 7% had pumped their septic tank five or
more times within the 5-year period.
2-22
-------
10
t
CM
UJ
tr
- O
UJ
o
CM
O O
UJ a.
0% £
£ w <
^L T£ ^"
ofcl
y 2 o-
i- °
z
o
h-
Q.
O
Q.
UJ
z
a:
UJ
a.
x 1
m £C
~ X
Q.
UJ
10
(0
mmmmwm
s
*
N
UJ
UJ
CO
in
z.
o
-------
This is probably not indicative of any problems. Good preventive mainten-
ance procedures would probably call for the septic tank to be inspected and
pumped once every 5 years.
The Wastewater Disposal Questionnaire results were not tabulated by
community subarea, thus, conclusions as to location of specific problem
areas cannot be made. For this reason, the questionnaire does not support
the need to construct collection and treatment facilities. In addition, it
is not known whether multifamily and commercial structures are included
within the questionnaire results or what bias these could have on the
results.
2.1.2.3. Septic Leachate Survey
The Septic Leachate Survey was conducted by K-V Associates, Inc.
(1980) and is included in Appendix B. The components of the survey includ-
ed the continuous monitoring of the shoreline by the recording leachate
instrument (Septic Snooper) and water quality analyses of identified stream
or shore bottom plume sources for evidence of domestic wastewater break-
through of excessive nutrients and coliform bacteria. The methodology and
the results are presented in Appendix B. The survey covered shoreline
areas in Egg Harbor, Fish Creek , Baileys Harbor, Eagle Harbor, Sister Bay,
Moonlight Bay, North Bay, and Kangaroo Lake where the density of develop-
ment would be most likely to result in significant pollution problems.
Low-density, single unit development characterizes the more exposed, rocky
coastline, while high-density cottages and business establishments charac-
terize the sandy inner shores of the harbor areas.
A summary of the dormant and erupting groundwater plumes is given in
Table 2-10. Erupting plumes dominated in all of the survey areas except in
Kangaroo Lake where no groundwater plumes (either erupting or dormant) were
identified. Although no discharges were observed along the periphery of
Kangaroo Lake and all of the samples had low total phosphorus content, a
problem situation could not be confirmed because of the late season survey
of the shoreline. In addition, there were no dormant plumes identified at
2-24
-------
Eagle Harbor, Fish Creek and Tennison Bay, or Sister Bay. It should be
noted that throughout much of the project area, the fissured dolomite
substrate causes an atypical transport, dilution, and attenuation of septic
leachate and an atypical manifestation of plumes.
Table 2-10. Septic leachate survey groundwater plume identification (K-V
Associates, Inc., 1980).
Number of Groundwater Plumes
Survey Location
Baileys Harbor
Eagle Harbor (Ephraim)
Egg Harbor
Fish Creek and Tennison Bay
Kangaroo Lake
Moonlight Bay
North Bay
Sister Bay
Erupting
5
4
3
4
0
4
4
2
Dormant
4
0
1
0
0
4
1
0
Plumes were tested for water quality parameters only. (The collection
of groundwater flow direction and velocity data was limited by the bedrock
and shallow soil conditions characteristic of the project area.) The water
quality parameters that were analyzed were: nitrate nitrogen (as combined
NO , NO » and N), ammonia nitrogen (NH -N) , total phosphorus (TP) , and
conductivity (umhos/cm). In addition, water samples from stream outlets to
harbor areas, drinking water wells, probable plume areas identified by the
septic leachate detector, and several special sources such as the com-
mercial laundry at Baileys Harbor were analyzed for fecal coliform count to
confirm the presence of surface runoff or soil shortcircuiting from mal-
functioning systems. Elevated nutrient levels were measured, but in few
cases were the levels high enough to identify any strong breakthroughs of
2-25
-------
nutrients from soil absorption systems. Elevated fecal coliform levels
were measured at two locations in Baileys Harbor, one in Sister Bay, and
one in Eagle Harbor.
The amount of phosphorus that actually enters the lake from septic
tanks would depend on the ability of drainage field soils to immobilize the
phosphorus. When subsurface disposal systems are built on proper soil and
are located at proper distances from the receiving water body, there is
nearly 100% removal of phosphorus from the septic tank effluent by the
soil. However, when the distances between the disposal system and lake are
limited or when the drainage field has failed, a high proportion of the
phosphorus from the system moves into the groundwater, or into the lake or
river. While this situation characterizes the traditional cause of septic
system failures, this is not completely relevant to the situation in the
project area. A major cause of septic system failure in the project area
is the too-rapid drainage of the septic fields into the fissured bedrock.
To better understand the nutrient contribution of septic tanks to shoreline
areas, the comprehensive septic leachate survey was performed in October
1979 by K-V Associates, Inc. Water quality analysis of identified ground-
water plumes detected by the septic snooper supplied evidence of some
domestic wastewater infiltration into the shoreline area. Additionally,
high bacterial populations were associated with a few of the plumes.
Significant organic contamination was found to be associated with wetland
discharges elsewhere in the project area. The following conclusions were
drawn from the survey:
• A total of 39 locations exhibited noticeable effluent plume
characteristics. Five of these related to surface streams
draining wetlands and passing through populous areas. The
fractured dolomite substrate tended to fragment plumes so
that the individual peaks would not necessarily indicate
singular sources.
• A general correlation existed between the frequency of
confirmed wastewater plumes and the dissolved solids content
of background surface water samples in harbor areas. For
example, Eagle Harbor and Baileys Harbor with background
conductivity over 270 umhos contained numerous fragmented
plume sources compared to the low levels of incidence in Egg
Harbor and Tennison Bay (ca. 250 umhos).
2-26
-------
• The strongest effluent source plumes were associated with
surface discharges in harbor areas, one in the rear of Fish
Creek Harbor and at the least three in Eagle Harbor, while
separate BOD discharges, such as observed with the Mud Creek
inflow in Moonlight Bay, represent additional nonpoint
sources of nutrients.
• A number of plumes were found with fecal coliform bacterial
levels exceeding 200 colonies/100 ml of water, two locations
at Baileys Harbor, one in Sister Bay, and one in Eagle
Harbor.
• Due to the bedrock and shallow soil conditions, on-site
groundwater flow measurements were not particularly instruc-
tive.
• Of 25 wells sampled, no significant nitrate contamination
was recorded. Three wells tested for bacteria showed no
evidence of coliform contamination.
2.1.2.4. Aerial Survey
The USEPA Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory acquired aerial
color infrared photography and multispectral scanner imagery of the project
area on 16 May 1979 (USEPA 1979) . The photography was examined for appa-
rent septic system drainfield malfunctions. The multispectral scanner
imagery was computer-analyzed to assess the thermal patterns, turbidity,
and current mixing zones in the shoreline waters of the project area.
The technique requires detection of variation in color tones of vege-
tation resulting from septic effluent rising to or near the surface. Be-
cause the survey was conducted during the mid-morning hours when there was
a low sun angle, shadows were created around some structures which some-
times limited the aerial view of each residential lot. Also, because the
survey was conducted in mid May, many of the summer seasonal residences
would not show septic system failure characteristics.
The analysis categorized the discernable onsite septic systems and
identified these systems on enlarged photographs. The category and number
of systems are presented in Table 2-11. Only two systems were identified
as probable failures and 63 discernable systems were identified as possible
failures. During a field inspection, 25 of the identified systems were
2-27
-------
inspected. Of these, two had definitely failed and 15 would require fur-
ther testing and monitoring.
Surface breakouts of septic tank effluent from permanent residences
occur rarely in the planning area since none were identified by the aerial
photography. Those that do occur are repaired quickly. Because the photo-
graphy that was analyzed was obtained in May, the study is much less con-
clusive concerning surface breakouts from seasonal residences and from
older residences under tree canopies.
2.1.2.5. Water Well Information
Unsafe water from domestic and commercial wells has long been a matter
of concern in Door County. The dolomite bedrock is creviced and fractured
and has solution cavities that may extend great distances. In addition,
the bedrock often has little or no glacial cover so that pollutants can
easily enter these openings and travel great distances quickly and with
little attenuation. Wells in bedrock are typically constructed with a
casing that is seated in the rock and extends to the ground surface. Below
the casing the hole is left open in the rock.
With bedrock wells of this type the primary problem is contaminated
surface and near-surface water percolating down the casing and entering the
well cavity. Thus, the quality of grout seal between the casing and rock
is important for construction of a safe well. Also, percolating water can
enter and contaminate the well unless the entire unsaturated section is
sealed off by the casing.
Prior to 1951, sufficient casing to hold the hole open was installed;
beginning in 1951 a minimum of 40 feet was required. In 1957, the code was
again revised and specified a 100-foot casing requirement because the
previous 40-foot casing requirement was insufficient to prevent wells from
being contaminated. Variances from the 100-foot casing requirement were
allowed if the water table was near the surface. Follow-up water quality
surveys indicated that the well casing should extend at least 30 feet into
the water table to prevent bacteriological contamination. Because the
2-28
-------
Table 2-11. Numbers of soil absorption systems identified by aerial photo-
graphy (USEPA 1979).
Political Jurisdiction
Egg Harbor Village
Egg Harbor Town
Jacksonport Town
Fish Creek
Gibraltar Town
Ephraim Village
Liberty Grove Town
Baileys Harbor Town
Subarea
1A
2C
4
Total
2
4
5
Total
1C
3
4
5
Total
Outlying area
1
2A
3
4
5
6
Total
Outlying areas
Number of Identified
Soil Absorption Systems
1
1
_!
3
3
1
1
2
2_
5
20
1
1
1
_4
7
2
2
1
1
3
1
_2
10
15
2-29
-------
depth to the water table can be as much as 140 feet in some areas, differ-
ent casing requirements for parts of the county were instituted in 1971.
The casing requirement for much of the upland portions of the project area
is now 170 feet or 30 feet below the static water level (whichever is
greater).
Numerous investigations of well water quality have been conducted over
the years, many of them in response to specific health problems. These
early surveys are detailed in the Facilities Plan and in the WDNR Private
Water Supply Section report of the history of well regulations and investi-
gations (Appendix C). These sampling programs are briefly summarized below:
• Wieniewski (1942) reported that more than 70% of the wells
tested in the township 15 miles south of the project area
were unsafe.
• A US Public Health Service water quality study was conducted
in the summer of 1955. Samples of 27 private wells supply-
ing water for public consumption (hotels, restaurants, and
parks that were licensed by the Hotel and Restaurant Divis-
ion of the State Board of Health) were tested weekly. Some
wells that had tested safe in the spring were found to be
unsafe at some point in the summer. Of the 273 samples
collected, 20% (representing 52% of the wells) tested posi-
tive for the coliform group. Accurate details were not
obtained nor was well construction correlated with unsafe
samples.
• State Board of Health follow-up sampling was conducted in
1957. Two additional wells were tested and accurate con-
struction details were obtained. Of the 310 samples col-
lected, 13% (representing 18 wells) were bacteriologically
unsafe. The survey showed that the unit chlorinators (spe-
cified for the "unsafe" wells) were not effective for a va-
riety of mechanical and operational reasons. A strong
correlation between bacteriological water quality and age of
the well and its conformance to code was found. At that
time, the 100-foot casing requirment for new wells was in-
stituted.
• State Board of Health water quality surveys were conducted
in 1959, 1960, and 1961 to evaluate the 100-foot casing re-
quirement. A relatively high number of wells produced
bacteriologically unsafe samples duirng the 1959 survey (9
of 45 wells). For wells with less than 100 feet of casing,
3 of 6 had unsafe samples. In 1960 and 1961, the proportion
of unsafe samples was considerably smaller (14 of 180).
This was attributed to increased surveillance of well drill-
2-30
-------
ing, particularly the grouting procedures, by the Drilling
Division of the State Board of Health. Of the 19 wells with
less than 100 feet of casing, eight produced unsafe samples
on one or more occasions.
• Migrant labor camp surveys were conducted by the Board of
Health in the early 1960's. Several camps were closed
because they had bacteriologically unsafe water supplies.
Unsafe water supplies were discovered at other camps
throughout the late 1960's.
• A Milwaukee Journal reporter collected 30 water samples (20
in August 1970 and 10 in March 1971) from public establish-
ments. Of the 30 samples, 14 were bacteriologically unsafe.
• The DHSS and DNR undertook a cooperative water quality
survey in the summer of 1971. The DHSS sampled wells at
mobile home parks, and at establishments licensed by the
Hotel and Restaurant Section. The DNR sampled quasi-public
places, such as service stations, taverns, marinas, and
airports. A total of 2,204 water well samples were tested
and 15.5% were unsafe. The wells with less than 100 feet of
casing, or an unknown casing length constructed prior to
1957, produced approximately double the percentage of unsafe
samples as those with 100 feet or more casing or those with
less than 100 feet of casing constructed since 1957 under
the variance procedure. Frequently, wells that tested safe
would at another time test unsafe. The sample results indi-
cated that unsafe conditions were intermittent, although, as
the summer progressed, it appeared that a greater number of
the samples tested unsafe.
• The League of Women Voters also collected data on well water
quality during the summer of 1971. It is not known whether
this data represents a completely independent sampling or
includes data from the previously described DHSS and DNR
sampling program. Private well owners were encouraged to
submit water samples for testing and provide information on
the characteristics of the well. The results for 312 wells
tested within the project area jurisdictions (out of a total
of 764) are reported below.
Project area Total Percent
jurisdiction tested Unsafe unsafe
Baileys Harbor 85 17 20%
Gibraltar 29 1 4
Egg Harbor 76 10 13
Ephraim 90 13 14
Fish Creek 32 9 28
Because the samples were collected by the homeowners them-
selves, it could be anticipated that some were contaminated
2-31
-------
during sampling. Also, the sampling results probably demon-
strate well construction problems as much as groundwater
contamination. The League report also stated that of the
228 wells with more than 100 feet of casing, 31 were report-
ed as unsafe.
Sherrill (1978) reported on aquifer tests conducted in 1972
and 1973, including detailed data on certain wells within
the County. One of the wells was located in Peninsula State
Park about 350 feet north and 750 feet east of the entrance
at Fish Creek. Another was located in Baileys Harbor,
although its exact location was not detailed. The Fish Creek
well was pumped and sampled in an uncased condition on 28
September 1972. Fecal coliform tested low initially but
rose to greater than 10 colonies per 100 ml after 5 hours of
pumping (2 samples). No explanation as to the coliform
source was proffered, although the nearest on-site systems
were about 400 feet distant. The well was subsequently
deepened and cased to 100 feet. During a 21-hour test, no
appreciable fecal coliform were detected, indicating that
the casing was effective in preventing entry of contaminated
water into the well. Evidence that contaminants can move
rapidly through bedrock fissures is also presented. Dye
introduced in one well travelled to a pumping well in a
matter of minutes. One conclusion of the report was that
contaminants which enter the bedrock may travel rapidly to
pumping wells unless the "zone of contamination" is cased
off.
The private Water Supply Section kept a record of the bac-
teriological quality of water from new wells from September
1971 to July 1978 (Appendix C). These samples are typically
gathered by the well driller when the well is being tested.
It is not unusual for bacteriological contamination of the
well to occur during drilling and pump installation. The
initial tests of 1,216 new wells showed that 79 (7%) were
unsafe. Retest results of 42 of these unsafe wells indicated
that 17 (29%) were still unsafe. Third tests on 7 previous-
ly unsafe wells showed 2 unsafe wells. These results demon-
strate that the present casing requirements are successful
in providing safe water for consumption.
The 1975-1976 survey of 40 private wells serving the public
in establishments licensed by the Hotel and Restaurant
Section of the DHSS showed no unsafe water supplies and
three major well code violations. In most cases these same
wells had produced unsafe samples in 1971 but had major well
code violations at that time.
The 1977 survey of eleven additional private wells serving
the public produced one unsafe well water sample that in a
retest was safe.
2-32
-------
• In 1978, the DNR undertook a sampling program of wells with
less than 40 feet of casing that had been constructed be-
tween 1936 and 1950 for which construction reports were
available (Appendix D). A total of 48 wells were sampled.
In the initial testing in May and June, 6 produced unsafe
samples (12%). After disinfection and resampling, one well
continued to test unsafe (one unsafe well was not disinfec-
ted and resampled). The wells were resampled in August. Of
the 41 resampled, 13 (32%) were unsafe. Many of the wells
producing unsafe samples had major pump installation viola-
tions that could allow recontamination of the well after the
initial sampling (Appendix D). Of the wells sampling during
this survey five were in Baileys Harbor and all tested safe.
Two were in Liberty Grove and both tested safe. Nine were
in the Village of Ephraim, of which six tested safe on both
sampling dates. Two of the wells tested safe initially and
unsafe in August. One tested unsafe in May or June and then
tested safe after disinfection and resampling in August.
The other jurisdictions in the project area were not repre-
sented in the study.
• In conjunction with the septic leachate survey (Appendix B)
24 well water samples were collected and tested for conduc-
tivity, total phosphorus, ammonia (NH.-N), and nitrate
(NO -N). Well construction information was not included;
thus whether groundwater contamination exists cannot be con-
cluded. Ammonia levels did not exceed 0.3 mg/1 and the
greatest nitrate concentration measured was 2 mg/1. Other
than the three Egg Harbor wells, no other wells tested
within the project area had nitrate concentrations exceeding
1 mg/1.
Although no comprehensive sampling programs have been conducted in
Door County since 1978, periodic sampling of private wells serving public
places continues. Few samples with unsafe results are recorded. Most
inspections of wells with unsafe samples reveal that well and pump instal-
lation codes are not met.
2.1.3. Problems Caused by Existing Systems
Onsite systems that fail to function properly can cause backups in
household plumbing, ponding of effluent on the ground surface, groundwater
contamination that may affect water supplies, and excessive nutrients and
coliform levels in surface water. The USEPA Guidance and Program Require-
ments Memorandum (PRM) 78-9 and 79-8 in effect when this project was initi-
ated requires that documented pollution problems be identified and traced
2-33
-------
back to the causal factors. The USEPA Region V Guidance on Site Specific
Needs Determination and Alternative Planning for Unsewered Areas provides
guidance on how to satisfy these PRMs. Projects may be funded only where a
significant proportion of residences can be documented as having or causing
problems. USEPA Region V's interpretation of these regulations is that
eligibility for USEPA grants is limited to those systems for which there is
direct evidence that indicates they are causing pollution or those systems
that are virtually identical in environmental constraints and in usage
patterns to documented failing systems. Sections 2.1.3.1. through 2.1.3.4.
discuss the types of direct evidence of onsite system failure that are
eligible for funding under the above referenced guidance.
2.1.3.1. Backups
Backups of sewage in household plumbing constitutes direct evidence if
it can be related directly to design or site problems. Plugged or broken
pipes or full septic tanks would not constitute an evidence of need. No
comprehensive information on backups within the project area has been
collected as yet. Some suggestions of recurring backups may be inferred
from the Wastewater Disposal Questionnaire for those respondents who indi-
cated that they have pumped their septic tanks five times or more in the
previous five-year period. Of the respondents with septic systems, 10%
indicated that they are in the category of frequent pumping. Specific
locations of these respondents were not identified.
2.1.3.2. Ponding
Ponding of effluent above or around the soil absorption systems con-
stitutes direct evidence of failure. The aerial photography was intended
to identify these systems. The photographic analysis did not identify any
systems with effluent ponding on the ground surface. The location of
wastewater disposal areas was identifiable on some lots but no conclusions
could be made whether they constituted failures. The disposal areas were
identified by the signature of lush vegetation over the beds or trenches,
probably due to effluent rising to the soil surface. In Door County this
signature could be caused by improper installation, hydraulic overload
2-34
-------
(sized improperly), organic solids overload (inadequate maintenance), or
intentional installation close to the surface in order to maximize the
separation distance from bedrock or groundwater. Some systems under con-
struction or recently completed also were identified. Groundwater ponding
on the soil surface and effluent pipe discharges are presumed to be minor
evidences of failures within the project area. The wastewater disposal
permits rarely identified, systems as failing. In addition, the Wastewater
Disposal Questionnaire responses do not indicate problems with surface
ponding.
2.1.3.3. Groundwater Contamination
Contamination of water supply wells constitutes direct evidence of
soil absorption system failure where concentrations of nutrients greatly
exceed the background levels of groundwaters in the area for primary drink-
ing water quality standards. In order for well sampling data to qualify as
direct evidence of failures, specific well information must be collected.
This information includes the depth of the well, its orientation with
respect to soil absorption systems, and the degree of protection from
surface contaminants. Because the wells are located in fractured bedrock,
and detailed well and water sampling data are incomplete, specific failures
of on-site systems cannot be identified.
Bacteriologically unsafe water well samples can be attributed to
improper well construction, improper pump installation, or groundwater
contamination. Of the three, groundwater contamination seems to be the
minor cause. Aside from the well water analyses conducted in conjunction
with the septic leachate survey, few well samples have been tested for the
constituents, primarily conductivity, chlorides, ammonia, and nitrates,
that would aid in identifying whether septic tank effluent is adversely
affecting well water quality.
Contamination of the groundwater most likely occurs where contaminated
water has direct contact with bedrock fissures. These contact locations
could be where bedrock is exposed directly to contaminated water or where a
coarse aggregate is adjacent to bedrock.
2-35
-------
Sources of bacterial contamination may be filtered septic tank ef-
fluent, surface runoff, or infiltration of animal wastes. Some soil ab-
sorption systems may be constructed within bedrock where the gravel en-
velope around the effluent distribution system contacts fissured bedrock.
In some areas, particularly Fish Creek, the drain beds or dry wells may be
installed in the cobble material that has direct contact with the bedrock.
Usually, nearly all the bacteria and viruses are filtered from the effluent
at the gravel and natural soil interface in a soil absorption system.
Animal wastes may enter the bedrock through direct infiltration below
cattle yards or through infiltration of surface runoff into fissured bed-
rock (Personal communication, Mr. Sam Hagedorn, District Conservationist,
to WAPORA, Inc., 13 April 1982). Other contaminants, such as road salt,
oil, gasoline, fertilizers, and a wide variety of wastes, (Sherrill 1978)
may be affecting groundwater quality in localized areas.
2.1.3.4. Surface Water Quality Problems
Surface water quality problems directly attributable to onsite systems
must be serious enough to warrant taking action. Problems with public
health implications, that is, high fecal coliform counts, are serious
enough to warrant attention. However, nutrient inputs must be analyzed in
terms of their contribution to water quality degradation and whether water
quality would be significantly improved by an improvement action. A va-
riety of means for evaluating the contribution of septic tank effluent to
water quality problems are available and have been applied within the
project area.
The septic leachate detector survey (Section 2.1.2.3.; Appendix B) was
conducted to locate and quantify the nutrient inputs from septic tank-soil
absorption systems. When the septic leachate plumes were located, surface
and groundwater samples were taken at that point. The results (Appendix B)
indicate that most plumes of septic leachate had low levels of phosphorus
and nitrate in them compared to the typical levels in unattenuated septic
tank effluent. Coliform counts were rarely elevated; elevated counts were
obtained only where surface flows from streams entered the bays or lakes.
Fecal coliform in streams typically originates from animal sources.
2-36
-------
The water quality analyses for Moonlight Bay indicate a difficulty in
identifying pollution sources. The groundwater sample at the Mud Lake
outlet stream contained ammonia-nitrogen concentrations of 23 mg/1. A
groundwater sample at a plume location a short distance to the west had a
concentration of 26 mg/1 (typical levels measured in wells in the area are
less than 0.1 mg/1; Appendix B). Thus, the source of the ammonia at the
stream is probably decaying organic matter and it probably accounts for the
high ammonia at the other plume location as well. A number of plumes in
the project area may have elevated nutrient concentrations from marsh
sources. This particularly could be the case for the plumes registered in
Eagle Harbor.
Water quality concerns in surface water focus primarily on bacteri-
ological contamination rather than nutrient enrichment. The bacteriolo-
gical contribution to surface waters from on-site systems is minimal,
according to the septic leachate detector sampling. The greatest con-
tribution of coliform to surface waters was from stream discharges, the
Baileys Harbor laundry, and the Baileys Harbor Yacht Club treatment plant.
Lush growth of macrophytes, algae, and zooplankton serve as indicators
of nutrient enrichment. The septic leachate detector surveyors noted few
places where evidence of nutrient enrichment was occurring. Mapping of
aquatic biota provides a general indication of the level of nutrient avail-
ability but numerous sources may contribute to productivity. Specific
connections between productive areas and septic tank effluent must be
identified in order to determine the need for a project. None of the
aquatic sampling programs have made those specific connections.
2.1.3.5. Indirect Evidence
Indirect evidence that correlates with known failures can be used as
an initial screening device for locating areas where failures are probable.
Site limitations that infer failures are:
• Seasonal or permanent high water table
2-37
-------
• Lack of isolation distances for water wells (depending on
well depth and presence or absence of hydraulically limiting
layers)
• Documented groundwater flow from a soil absorption system to
a water well
• Slowly permeable soils with percolation rates greater than
60 minutes per inch
• Bedrock proximity (within three feet of soil absorption
system where bedrock is permeable)
• Rapidly permeable soil with percolation rates less than 0.1
minutes per inch
• Holding tanks, not in themselves, but as evidence that site
limitations prevent installation of soil absorption systems
• Onsite treatment systems that do not conform to accepted
practices or current sanitary codes including, but not
limited to, cesspools, the "55 gallon drum" septic tank, and
other inadequately sized components.
• Onsite systems in an area where local data indicate exces-
sive failure rates or excessive maintenance costs.
These indirect evidences can be utilized to categorize residences as likely
failures or as likely to be operating properly. Because this project com-
menced before the Region V Guidance was developed, the needs documentation
relies heavily upon indirect evidence and past needs for replacement of
drainfields for verification. Near surface bedrock is a primary factor in
coliform from septic tank effluent reaching groundwater. Thus, bedrock
proximity is a key determinant in establishing need. The use of holding
tanks is another main indication that soil absorption systems cannot be
installed in compliance with code.
2.1.4. Identification of Problem Areas
Certain areas exhibit a combination of site limitations, history of
replacements, and documented water quality problems that appear to require
offsite treatment. In general, these areas encompass the downtowns of the
four communities. They have concentrations of commerical uses, small lots,
and constraints for soil absorption systems, such as shallow depth to
bedrock, cobble, or water table (as determined from Soil Conservation
2-38
-------
Service data [SCS 1978] and soil borings along roadways presented in the
Facilities Plan [Foth and Van Dyke 1982]). These areas have a concentra-
tion of holding tanks both for new structures and as replacements for
septic tank and soil absorption systems. The septic leachate detector may
have identified groundwater plumes and the associated water quality testing
has likely identified somewhat elevated concentrations of nutrients in the
groundwater.
Each subarea within the four communities is briefly described in the
following sections. Figures 2-1 through 2-5 depict the subareas. The
subareas presented herein are equivalent to the subareas in the Facilities
Plan (and Addendum) for Egg Harbor, Fish Creek, Baileys Harbor, and Kan-
garoo Lake. The subareas presented for Ephraim encompass essentially the
same area, but the boundaries have been slightly modified. In all com-
munities, the subareas have been broken down further than in the Facilities
Plan (i.e. Subarea 1A, IB) to facilitate discussion of the problem areas
and, in Section 2.3, the areas served by the collection systems.
Egg Harbor - Subarea 1A
This subarea encompasses the properties along STH 42 south of its
intersection with CTH G. Numerous commercial structures are located in
this subarea as well as a number of residences. Two new septic tank and
soil absorption systems for residences have been installed since 1976. One
replacement soil absorption system was constructed for a bar and restau-
rant. Depth to bedrock may preclude soil absorption systems on some lots.
Egg Harbor-Subarea IB
This subarea encompasses the land along STH 42 north of its inter-
section with CTH G, and along Church St. One new soil absorption system
has been constructed and four new holding tanks were installed for resi-
dences. Permits for one replacement and two new soil absorption systems
for commerical structures have been issued. The dominant land use in this
subarea is residential. Depth to bedrock is a major impediment for con-
struction of soil absorption systems.
2-39
-------
Egg Harbor-Subarea 2A
Subarea 2A includes the lakefront properties along Whitecliff Road up
to CTH E. Two condominiums and a motel are included in this subarea; the
remainder are residences. No wastewater permits for residences have been
issued in recent years. Holding tank permits for the town park and a
condominium have been issued. The septic leachate detector did not iden-
tify wastewater plumes along the shoreline. An occasional residential lot
may be unsuitable for a soil absorption system because of shallow depth to
bedrock.
Egg Harbor-Subarea 2B
This subarea encompasses the shoreline along Whitecliff Road north of
CTH E almost to the village boundary. Only residences are located within
this subarea. Two permits for soil absorption systems have been issued for
new residences; one a lift pump and seepage bed permit and the other a lift
pump and mound permit. No effluent plumes were identified by the septic
leachate detector survey. Isolated individual lots may be unsuitable for
soil absorption systems.
Egg Harbor-Subarea 2C
Subarea 2C encompasses the shoreline area along CTH G between White-
cliff Road and the Alpine Resort. Residential use is the only land use
within this area. No wastewater permits have been issued since 1976. No
wastewater plumes were identified within this area. An occasional individ-
ual lot may be unsuitable for soil absorption systems.
Egg Harbor-Subarea 3
The Alpine Resort and approximately three residences occupy this
subarea at the southern shore of the bay. One holding tank permit for a
residence has been issued for this area. The septic leachate detector
survey identified three erupting plumes apparently related to wastewater
directly adjacent to the Resort (Appendix B) . Water quality analyses of
2-40
-------
these plumes, though, did not reveal significantly elevated nutrient concen-
trations. The one holding tank permit was issued for an area where depth
to bedrock is limiting. Most of the subarea should be suitable for soil
absorption systems, although mound systems likely are required in some
areas.
Egg Harbor-Subarea 4
This subarea consists of the North Point subdivision and the Rocky
Shores Condominiums. Permits for four soil absorption systems (all within
one area) and one holding tank have been issued for new residences. The
Rocky Shores Condominiums have had soil absorption systems installed.
Depth to bedrock in part of the North Point subdivision may limit on-site
wastewater systems to holding tanks. One dormant plume was identified by
the septic leachate detector.
Harbor-Subarea 5
This subarea encompasses the shoreline along CTH G and Mariner Road
and includes Alpen Lane. Residences and one resort are located within the
subarea. No plumes were identifed along the shoreline. Permits for soil
absorption systems for new residences totalled eight, including one mound.
Shallow bedrock and excessive cobble in the soil may require holding tanks
on some lots.
Egg Harbor-Outlying Areas
The Town of Egg Harbor exclusive of the Village of Egg Harbor has some
shoreline on Green Bay north of Subarea 2B and south of Subarea 5. The
remainder of the area consists primarily of agricultural land at the higher
elevations. Permits for 40 soil absorption systems and 15 holding tanks
have been issued. Along the shoreline, depth to bedrock has required
installation of holding tanks for about one-half of the recent permits. On
the bluff, depth to bedrock in some locations has prevented the issuance of
permits for soil absorption systems.
2-41
-------
Fish Creek-Subarea 1
Subarea 1 consists of the Cottage Row properties between the bluff and
the shore. All the properties are in residential uses. Two permits for
holding tanks for new residences have been issued. No plumes were identi-
fied by the septic leachate detector (nearly all the properties are occu-
pied seasonally). Two well water samples did not reveal unusually high nu-
trients and the two "background" surface water quality samples also were
typical. A few individual lots may not be suitable for soil absorption
systems due to shallow bedrock and slopes.
Fish Creek-Subarea 2
This subarea encompasses the downtown area of Fish Creek from the
creek west to the shore of Green Bay. It includes the Hidden Harbors
Condominiums currently under construction. Permits for four holding tanks
have been issued for residences, two are replacements for soil absorption
systems. Three residences have had their septic tanks replaced with new
ones. A large number of businesses (7) have had the septic tank and soil
absorption system replaced by holding tanks. Of those seven, four are
restaurants and two are motels. The one new motel has installed a holding
tank. The current wastewater permit issued for the Hidden Harbors Condo-
minium is a large holding tank. The septic leachate detector survey iden-
tified two erupting plumes and the water quality analysis performed on one
of them showed considerable nutrient enrichment (total phosphorus - 1.19
ppm; ammonia-nitrogen - 5.8 ppm). In addition, the bacteriological analys-
is of the groundwater indicated coliform levels of 75 colonies per 100 ml.
Another groundwater sample collected in the vicinity showed elevated nu-
trient concentrations (total phosphorus - 0.4 ppm; ammonia-nitrogen - 3.1
ppm) . (Typical groundwater nutrient concentrations in wells for total
phosphorus and ammonia-nitrogen are 0.01 ppm and 0.03 ppm., respectively;
Appendix B.) The primary reason holding tanks have been installed is that
insufficient area is available on-site for a soil absorption system. Some
have been installed because the depth to bedrock or cobble is insufficient.
Along the bay, the depth to the water table also is insufficient. Some
soil absorption systems may be constructed within the water table, result-
2-42
-------
ing in insufficient nutrient and bacteria removal (evidenced by erupting
plumes). Some dry wells that permit direct passage of effluent to the
cobble layer may be present within this subarea.
Fish Creek-Subarea 3A
This subarea encompasses the low-lying properties along STH 42 east of
the creek and including the Gibraltar School. Numerous commercial pro-
perties and some residences are included. One new soil absorption system
and two holding tanks for residences have been issued wastewater permits.
Two commercial structures, including one motel, have holding tanks required
in the permits. The water samples, surface and ground, taken in conjunc-
tion with the septic leachate detector survey in the mouth of the creek are
inconclusive with respect to groundwater quality. Ammonia-nitrogen concen-
trations are somewhat elevated but the concentrations of phosphorus and
nitrates are not. The source of the ammonia cannot be established. In-
sufficient lot area for soil absorption systems has been a factor in selec-
tion of holding tanks. In addition, much of the subarea has water table
depths such that mounds would be required. Some of the older structures
may have the soil absorption system constructed within the water table,
resulting in inadequate purification of the effluent. A water sample taken
from the well at the Edge of Park Cottages exhibited no elevated concentra-
tions of nutrients. The USGS drilled and tested a well in the park to the
north of this subarea (Sherrill 1978). Testing of the well showed that
bacteriologically unsafe water was entering the well. The Gibraltar School
currently utilizes a holding tank. Previously they operated a treatment
plant on the property that discharged into the creek. Concern for contami-
nation in the harbor resulted in abandonment of the treatment plant.
Fish Creek-Subarea 3B
Subarea 3B encompasses the intersection area of Spring Road, STH 42,
CTH F, and Gibraltar Road. The structures are about evenly divided between
residential and commercial uses. Two holding tanks for residences and one
for a motel have been required on wastewater permits. Depth to bedrock is
identified as the limitation that necessitates holding tanks. The soil
2-43
-------
borings conducted for the sewers indicated that certain lots may have
sufficient soils for soil absorption systems.
Fish Creek-Subarea 4
This subarea encompasses the properties along CTH F for one-half mile
beyond the intersection with STH 42. Nearly all the parcels are occupied
by residences. One new residence is served by a holding tank. Depth to
bedrock is the major limitation that necessitates holding tanks. Nearly
all of the older residences likely have soil absorption systems in an area
of shallow, fissured bedrock. Some lots may have soil absorption systems
that have a minimum of soil cover and may function satisfactorily.
Fish Creek-Subarea 5
The properties along Gibraltar Road for one-half mile east of the
intersection with STH 42 constitute this subarea. The primary land use is
residential. One new residence has a holding tank. Shallow depths to
bedrock generally characterize the soils and preclude soil absorption
systems. Soil absorption systems are likely the principal means of waste-
water treatment for existing residences. Some of these systems are likely
constructed in insufficient soil to prevent untreated effluent from enter-
ing the bedrock.
Fish Creek-Subarea 6
This subarea encompasses the properties along Spring Road for one-half
mile south of the intersection with CTH F. The properties are primarily in
residential use. Permits for one soil absorption system and one holding
tank have been issued for new residences. The soil cover over bedrock is
generally insufficient for soil absorption systems. Most of the residences
are older and likely have soil absorption systems for wastewater treatment.
Some may have insufficient soil thickness to prevent inadequately treated
effluent from entering the bedrock.
2-44
-------
Town of Gibraltar
The remainder of the Town has considerable shoreline development along
Green Bay south of Fish Creek Subarea 1. Residences predominate over
commercial structures. Most on-site systems for which permits have been
issued have been soil absorption systems (68) while permits for 32 holding
tanks have been issued. Permits for holding tanks have been issued pri-
marily along the Green Bay shoreline and on the bluff overlooking the
shoreline. Depth to bedrock is the primary limitation for soil absorption
systems for the area where holding tanks are required. Away from the
bluff, soil absorption systems are the predominant means of wastewater
treatment.
Ephraim-Subarea 1A
This subarea encompasses the downtown area of Ephraim. Few single
family residences are located within this subarea; motels, condominiums,
restaurants, and shops predominate. One holding tank permit for a new
residence has been issued. Six permits for holding tanks for new com-
merical developments have been issued. The septic leachate detector did
not identify any plumes along the shoreline. Surface and groundwater
samples at one location did not identify any elevated nutrient concentra-
tions. Two well samples, collected in conjunction with the septic leachate
detector survey, did not show elevated nutrient concentrations. The well
sampling program conducted in 1978 on wells with less than 40 feet of
casing included two wells in this subarea. Both wells tested bacterio-
logically safe on both sampling dates. While most of the new commercial
structures are on holding tanks, many of the older structures are on septic
tank and soil absorption systems with no apparent detrimental effect on
groundwater quality. The soils are gravelly sandy loam in the surface and
gravel below. Holding tanks are required because lot areas are insuffic-
ient for soil absorption systems.
Ephraim-Subarea IB
This subarea encompasses the south shoreline of Eagle Harbor. The
area includes the properties along STH 42 to German Road. Structures are a
2-45
-------
mix between single family residences, rental cottages, condominiums, and
some shops and restaurants. One replacement permit for a soil absorption
system has been issued and six holding tank permits (including three re-
placements) have been issued for single family residences. Holding tank
permits have also been issued for a condominium project and a restaurant.
The septic leachate detector survey identified four erupting groundwater
plumes within the subarea. Water quality analyses of these plumes showed
slightly elevated phosphorus and ammonia concentrations. One groundwater
sample contained 240 colonies per 100 ml fecal coliform. (Maximum drinking
water level is 1 coliform bacteria per 100 ml Wisconsin code NR 109.30)
The stream samples contained generally normal levels of fecal coliform, al-
though one stream may be influenced by concentrated animal or human wastes.
The two wells sampled in conjunction with the septic leachate survey re-
vealed no elevated nutrient concentrations. One well that may be in this
subarea was tested in the survey of wells with less than 40 feet of casing.
The well tested bacteriologically safe in the first sampling period and
unsafe in the second sampling period. Many wells were not sealed against
surface contamination, although the ones that were not sealed are not
noted. Thus, groundwater contamination is not definitely established at
the location. The soils within the subarea are generally sands without
limitations for soil absorption systems. Away from the bay, depth to water
table may limit on-site systems to mounds. The residences between STH 42
and the bay are generally located on small lots that have insufficient area
of suitable soils for a soil absorption system. Many of these residences
have soil absorption systems near or within the water table and within a
short distance of the bay.
Ephraim-Subarea 1C
Subarea 1C includes the shoreline along STH 42 below the bluff and
borders of Subarea 1A on the south. Aside from an occasional commercial
structure, residences dominate the land use. One new soil absorption
system permit has been issued for a new residence and a replacement permit
for a holding tank has been issued for a condominium. The septic leachate
detector survey identified no plumes and no water samples were collected.
The survey of wells with less than 40 feet of casing included one well in
2-46
-------
this subarea that tested unsafe, safe, and safe in three respective tests.
The soils of most of the subarea are deep and well drained and present
minimal limitations to installation of soil absorption systems.
Ephraim-Subarea 2
This subarea encompasses the properties on the hillside to the east of
the downtown and includes some shoreline along STH 42 between Subarea 1A
and Subarea IB. Single family residences predominate, although some motels
and institutional structures are also included. One soil absorption system
permit has been issued for a new residence. Two holding tank permits have
been issued; one for a new residence and one as a replacement. A permit
for a holding tank for a new motel also has been issued. The short shore-
line section revealed no plumes and no water quality samples were taken.
The survey of wells with less than 40 feet of casing tested one well that
may be in this subarea; it tested safe in both samples. The properties
along Moravia Street are characterized by exposed and shallow bedrock. The
remainder of the subarea has bedrock at depths such that soil absorption
systems, either seepage beds or mounds, could be permitted for a majority
of the lots. Steep slopes, limited lot area, and shallow bedrock would
likely preclude soil absorption systems on some lots.
Ephraim-Subarea 3
Subarea 3 encompasses the properties on the bluff between Orchard Road
and the bluff. The subarea is nearly completely residential. Eight soil
absorption systems have been issued permits (one is a replacement) and two
holding tanks permits have been issued. The soils in most of the area are
suitable for soil absorption systems, either mounds or conventional sys-
tems, where lot area is sufficiently large.
Ephraim-Subarea 4
The area on the bluff east of the downtown constitutes Subarea 4.
Residences are the only wastewater producing structures within the subarea.
Four soil absorption systems for new residences have received permits and
2-47
-------
one replacement mound has been permitted. Three holding tank permits have
been issued. Occasional lots may not have sufficient soil depth for a soil
absorption system, although it is likely that soil depth is adequate for
the majority of lots. Mound systems may be required on many of the lots
due to depth to bedrock limitations.
Ephraim-Subarea 5
Subarea 5 encompasses the properties along STH 42 from Orchard Road to
the Village boundary. Few residences are located in this subarea; the
majority of structures are in commercial use. No permits for wastewater
systems for single family residences have been issued. Permits for holding
tanks for four new shops have been issued. One new shop and two duplexes
have received permits for septic tank and soil absorption systems. Depth
to bedrock is the limitation that requires that holding tank permits be
issued. About 75% of the properties within this subarea may require hold-
ing tanks.
Ephraim-Subarea 6
This subarea encompasses the properties along STH 42 between the bay
and Middle Road, along one-quarter mile of Middle Crossing Road, and along
the shoreline west of STH 42. A few commercial properties are included but
most are residential properties. One replacement soil absorption system
permit and one holding tank permit for a new residence have been issued.
The septic leachate detector did not identify any plumes along the shore-
line. Three wells within or near this subarea were tested in the survey of
wells with less than 40 feet of casing. All three tested bacteriologically
safe at both sampling times. The soils on the shoreline lots appear to be
suitable for soil absorption systems. Throughout the remainder of the
subarea, depth to bedrock limitations may preclude construction of conven-
tional soil absorption systems. In some areas mounds may be permitted;
otherwise holding tanks may be required. The existing residences probably
have soil absorption systems installed over shallow fissured bedrock.
There is no evidence, though, of any environmental contamination from them.
2-48
-------
Ephraim-Outlying areas
The outlying areas of Ephraim consist primarily of low density resi-
dential areas and open space. A total of 23 soil absorption permits have
been issued and four holding tank permits were issued, all in Section 12.
Limitations of depth to bedrock have necessitated the holding tank permits.
Most areas are suitable for septic tank and soil absorption systems. Iso-
lated individual lots may not be suitable where depth to bedrock is insuf-
ficient. One well was tested during the survey of wells with less than 40
feet of casing. The well tested safe in the initial sampling and unsafe in
the follow-up sampling. Because the well was in an isolated location, it
is unlikely that the groundwater in the area typically is unsafe.
Liberty Grove Town
The portion of the project area within the Town of Liberty Grove
includes some shoreline area along North Bay and rural estates. The pro-
perties are, for the most part, on large parcels. A total of 21 soil
absorption system permits have been issued, most of which were for seepage
beds for new residences. Six holding tank permits have been issued for
residences. Two businesses had holding tanks specified for them. One
large campground had a septic tank and mound system installed for waste-
water treatment. The septic leachate detector identified one dormant
plume. Two locations were sampled for surface and groundwater. None of
the water samples identified elevated nutrient concentrations. Four wells
were sampled in conjunction with the septic survey and none showed elevated
nutrient concentrations. Two wells with less than 40 feet of casing tested
safe in both the May-June and August testing dates. About 50% of the area
has depth to bedrock limitations that preclude soil absorption systems.
The lots along North Bay are generally small and have water table depths
that should require mound systems. Many of these properties probably have
soil absorption systems constructed just above or within the water table,
yet no evidence exists to show that environmental contamination is occur-
ing.
2-49
-------
Baileys Harbor-Subarea 1
Subarea 1 consists of the west shore properties of Kangaroo Lake.
Nearly all structures are residences. Permits for on-site systems have
been numerous; 28 have been issued since 1976. Permits for soil absorption
systems have totalled 24, and four holding tank permits have been issued
(three for replacements). The septic leachate detector survey identified
no plumes. One groundwater sample from the lakeshore showed slightly
elevated nitrate-nitrogen, although the source could not be identified.
The well water tested in association with the leachate detector did not
indicate significant concentrations of nutrients. Some individual lots do
not have sufficient area of suitable soils for soil absorption systems.
Most lots, though, have sufficient area of suitable soils for construction
of soil absorption systems.
Baileys Harbor-Subarea 2A
This subarea encompasses the south and east shoreline of Kangaroo Lake
south of North Kangaroo Lake Drive. Most lots are occupied by single
family residences. Three resorts are also located within this subarea.
Permits for three soil absorption systems and five holding tanks have been
issued. In addition, a holding tank permit was issued for new units at one
of the resorts. No plumes were identified by the septic leachate detector
along the shoreline. One water sample of shallow groundwater had a slight-
ly elevated ammonia concentration. Soil conditions on about 60% of the
subarea are generally suitable for soil absorption systems. High ground-
water and shallow bedrock are the principal limitations. Even where site
limitations are severe, soil absorption systems have been installed in the
past. Although no evidence exists to indicate that they are seriously
affecting the lake, it is likely that they do have some effect on the lake
as a result of nutrient input.
Baileys Harbor-Subarea 2B
This subarea includes the east shoreline of Kangaroo Lake between CTH
E and North Kangaroo Lake Drive. One condominium development and a cottage
2-50
-------
resort are located in this subarea and the majority of structures are
single family residences. Two permits for holding tanks for new residences
have been issued. No plumes were identified by the septic leachate detec-
tor. A shallow groundwater sample contained slightly elevated ammonia
concentrations. In conjunction with the septic leachate survey, two wells
were tested, but neither had elevated nutrients. Soil limitations to soil
absorption systems are severe due to a high water table over about 75% of
the subarea. Many of the residences have soil absorption systems that
would not be expected to adequately treat the effluent, yet no evidence
exists to demonstate that the lake or groundwater is adversely affected.
Baileys Harbor-Subarea 3
The downtown area of Baileys Harbor constitutes Subarea 3. It in-
cludes the area between the bluff and the shore, from the intersection of
STH 57 and Ridges Road on the north to the intersection of STH 57 and
Summit Road on the south. Most structures along STH 57 are in commerical
use and include motels, shops, and restaurants. The back streets have
residences located along them. No soil absorption system permits have been
issued for this subarea. Holding tank permits for four new residential
structures, including three on-site systems replacements, and one motel (a
small holding tank was replaced) have been issued. In addition, another
three businesses are known to have holding tanks. The septic leachate
detector survey identified three erupting plumes and one dormant plume
along the shoreline. One surface water sample at the Baileys Harbor Laun-
dry holding tank had elevated phosphorus concentration and high bacteria
count. Lush algae growth also was present in the area. The other surface
and shallow groundwater samples did not have elevated nutrient concentra-
tions. The two wells that were sampled with the leachate detector survey
did not contain elevated nutrients. The 1978 survey of wells with less
than 40 feet of casing included three wells that may be within this sub-
area. None of the wells had bacteriologically unsafe water at either
sampling time. All three wells were on the western boundary of the sub-
area; thus, they may not be typical of the water quality at the shoreline.
The water sample testing conducted for the non-community public water
supplies has consistently produced safe samples. The subarea has shallow
2-51
-------
bedrock, as mapped by the Soil Conservation Service. The bedrock depths
should preclude soil absorption systems on most of the lots within the
subarea. Many of the older structures do have soil absorption systems
that, as they are upgraded, are replaced with holding tanks. Only one
incident has been recorded where on-site system failure has been related to
a public health problem (noted in the Facilities Plan) and that was a
number of years ago.
Baileys Harbor-Subarea 4
This subarea is located on the shoreline of Baileys Harbor south of
the downtown. It extends as far south as the Lawrence University faci-
lities and extends west to STH 57. Aside from the University facilities,
the structures are predominately residential. Two permits for holding
tanks for new structures have been issued. Also, three septic tanks have
been replaced. The University dormitories have recently constructed soil
absorption beds. The septic leachate survey identified no plumes and no
wate samples were taken. The 1973 survey of wells with less than 40 feet
of casing included one well in this subarea. At both sampling dates the
well was bacteriologically safe. The bedrock is shallow in this subarea
and soil absorption systems would be precluded, according to Code require-
ments, on many of the lots. The majority of the structures have soil ab-
sorption systems, yet there is no evidence of bacteriological contamina-
tion.
Baileys Harbor-Subarea 5
Subarea 5 consists of the properties along Bluff Road west of the
downtown. The area has residences on large lots. One permit for a soil
absorption system and three permits for holding tanks have been issued for
new residences. The soils map indicates that the entire area is charac-
terized by shallow bedrock such that holding tanks are generally required.
Individual lots may have sufficient area suitable for soil absorption
systems, each soil absorption system would need to be examined to determine
if sufficient soil material were present to preclude bacteriological con-
tamination of the groundwater. The great depths to groundwater (more than
75 feet) virtually assures protection of the groundwater.
2-52
-------
Baileys Harbor-Subarea 6
This subarea encompasses the properties along CTH F west of the down-
town to its intersection with CTH EE and the properties south of CTH F.
Several commerical structures are located along the north side of CTH F and
residences are located throughout the remainder of the subarea. Permits
for wastewater systems for residences include two soil absorption systems
and four holding tanks. The soils map indicates that some areas, particu-
larly north of CTH F, are suitable for soil absorption systems. Most of
the subarea, though, is unsuitable for soil absorption systems because
bedrock is found at shallow depths. Isolated lots do have adequate depths
of soil as indicated by permits for soil absorption systems. No other
information concerning operational and environmental hazards are available
for this subarea.
Baileys Harbor-Subarea 7
Subarea 7 encompasses the properties along STH 57 and CTH Q from the
intersection of Ridges Drive and STH 57 to approximately one mile north.
Most properties have residences on them, although a few commerical struct-
ures are included. One permit for a holding tank for a new residence and
one permit for a replacement soil absorption system have been issued.
Generally, suitable areas for soil absorption systems may be found on most
of the lots. Depth to bedrock limitations preclude soil absorption systems
on some lots and depth to groundwater may require that holding tanks be
installed on some other lots. Some of the existing soil absorption systems
may not have sufficient thickness of soil between the seepage bed and
bedrock or groundwater to ensure that no contaminated effluent reaches
useable groundwater, although no evidence exists to indicate whether that
is the case.
Baileys Harbor-Subarea 8A
The north shoreline of Baileys Harbor along Ridges Drive constitutes
Subarea 8A. Only residences are located in this subarea. Nine holding
tank permits for new residences and two holding tank permits for replace-
2-53
-------
ments have been issued. One mound soil absorption system permit was is-
sued. The septic leachate detector survey identified one erupting plume
and three dormant plumes. A background water quality sample taken from the
groundwater 100 feet from shore in the harbor had a slightly elevated
ammonia concentration. The ammonia could be derived from drainage from the
extensive marsh areas in the Ridges Sanctuary. This subarea occupies an
old beach ridge that consists of sandy soil material. Depth to groundwater
is the limitation that precludes utilization of conventional seepage beds.
The shoreline lots have depths to groundwater that also preclude mounds.
The older residences probably have soil absorption systems and the erupting
plume likely derived from these systems. One failing soil absorption
system was replaced by a holding tank in 1978 (the potential source of the
erupting plume). The backlots (lots north of Ridges Drive) may or may not
be suitable for mounds depending on the depth to groundwater.
Baileys Harbor-Subarea 8B
The eastern shoreline of Baileys Harbor constitutes this subarea. The
Baileys Harbor Yacht Club resort and condominiums dominates the shoreline.
Residences are located both north and south of the Yacht Club. No permits
for wastewater disposal have been issued in this subarea since 1976. The
Yacht Club has a sewage treatment plant that discharges to a small wetland
that empties directly into the Harbor. The septic leachate survey identi-
fied one erupting plume along the shoreline where residences are located.
The effluent from the Yacht Club treatment plant contained phosphorus
concentrations of 2.5 ppm (no standard). The fecal coliform count in the
effluent was 460 colonies per 100 ml (monitoring requirement only). Data
from WDNR files indicates that the Yacht Club well produces consistently
safe water. The shallow bedrock along nearly all of the shoreline pre-
cludes installation of conventional seepage beds. Some lots may have
suitable soils for mound systems. The existing residences have soil ab-
sorption systems, most of which likely do not meet code requirements for
depth to bedrock and depth to groundwater, yet little evidence has been
assembled to show that contamination of groundwater and surface water is
occuring.
2-54
-------
Baileys harbor Town
The Town of Baileys Harbor contains considerable shoreline along North
Bay, Lake Michigan, Moonlight Bay, and Baileys Harbor in addition to con-
siderable inland areas. The shoreline areas are generally characterized by
shallow bedrock or by low beach ridges. Seasonal residences are common on
these shorelines. Most permits for wastewater systems have been issued for
these shoreline areas. A total of 49 permits for soil absorption systems
for residences, and 41 permits for holding tanks have been issued. The
holding tank permits predominate along the shoreline and soil absorption
systems predominate inland. The septic leachate detector survey included
the shoreline of North Bay and Moonlight Bay. No effluent plumes were
noted on the North Bay shoreline in the Town of Baileys Harbor. In Moon-
light Bay, four erupting plumes and four dormant plumes were identified.
With the exception of one plume that was accompanied by Cladophora (a
colonial form of alga), these plumes appear to be associated with marsh
discharge through the groundwater. Ammonia-nitrogen concentrations of
greater than 20 ppm and low phosphorus concentrations indicate this also.
Soils within the town are generally unsuitable for soil absorption systems
in the areas east of STH 57 due to limitations of depths to bedrock or
groundwater.
2.1.5. Septage and Holding Tank Wastes Disposal Practices
Septic tanks and holding tanks are pumped when homeowners contract
with septage haulers for service on a by-call basis. Several commercial
and private septage haulers operate in the area. The haulers are licensed
and inspected by the State Bureau of Solid Wastes under the provisions of
Chapter NR 113 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code.
The number of holding tanks serving residences within the study area
totals about 200 (the number of permits granted since 1976 totaled 162) for
the entire study area. The businesses with holding tanks number approx-
imately 48. The volume of holding tank wastes currently pumped within the
study area is approximately 6,000 gallons per residence per year for a
total of 1.0 million gallons from residences and approximately 9 million
2-55
-------
gallons from businesses. The commercial haulers must submit monthly re-
ports detailing what holding tanks they have pumped and what volume they
have pumped from each one. The private haulers who handle up to one-third
of the total pumped volume must submit quarterly reports.
Septage volumes are difficult to determine because each residence
produces septage at considerably different rates. The rule of thumb for a
permanent residence is 65 to 70 gallons per capita per year (USEPA 1977b).
The annual septage production from seasonal residences is assumed to be 15
gallons per capita per year. From residences, approximately 240,000 gal-
lons per year of septage is produced from the study area. The volume of
septage pumped from businesses is relatively small in comparison, estimated
as 15,500 gallons per year.
The haulers dispose of holding tank wastes and septage on land or at
sewage treatment plants. The haulers each have inspected sites where they
may apply the wastes to the land. The Bureau of Solid Wastes has statutory
authority over these licensed disposal sites. The option of local control
over the land disposal sites has been exercised by the towns of Liberty
Grove and Gibraltar. The County Health Department performs periodic in-
spections on the disposal sites in these towns. In the other towns within
the study area the Bureau of Solid Wastes inspects the site for the initial
licensing but does not inspect subsequent operations. The land disposal
sites are distributed throughout the study area but most lie between the
communities of Baileys Harbor and Ephraim. The septage and holding tank
wastes are surface-applied to the land throughout the year. The regu-
lations specify that no surface spreading of these liquid wastes may occur
within 1,000 feet of a residence (500 feet if the homeowner grants per-
mission), it must be spread on lands with at least 36 inches of soil, it
must satisfy the separation distances from drainageways and wells, and it
must be applied at a rate of less than 30 gallons per 100 square feet per
day. During the winter some haulers periodically dispose of the liquid
wastes at either the Sister Bay or Valmy sewage treatment plants. The
Gibraltar school hauls all its holding tank wastes to the Sister Bay treat-
ment plant.
2-56
-------
Disposal of the holding tank wastes and septage have been the subject
of concerns raised by residents near the disposal sites. The files of WDNR
contain several complaint letters (telephone complaints are not recorded)
from nearby residents (Personal interview (Mr. Terry Hegeman, Bureau of
Solid Wastes, to WAPORA, Inc., 21 April 1982). Most complain}: calls are
directed to the Door County Health Department (Personal interview, Mr. John
Teichter, Door County Health Department, to WAPORA, Inc., 12 April 1982),
although they have authority for inspection in the Towns of Liberty Grove
and Gibraltar. Most frequently the complaint letters address spreading of
wastes too close to residences. Other concerns have been odors, cattle on
the site, and potential groundwater contamination. The files indicate no
complaints or concerns from runoff from the sites. Also, while groundwater
contamination is a concern, no contamination of groundwater has been shown
(no sampling programs specifically targeted to these sites has been con-
ducted) .
While local residents have raised concerns about spreading these
wastes on the approved sites, no contamination of groundwater or surface
water has been shown. Each hauler has approved land disposal sites for the
volume of wastes that are spread on the sites. Occassional problems at the
respective sites are generally related to operational deficiencies (Per-
sonal interview, Mr. John Teichtler, Door County Health Department, to
WAPORA, Inc., 12 April 1982).
2.2. Identification of Wastewater Treatment System Options
2.2.1. Design Factors
Three categories of factors must be considered in the design of a
wastewater treatment system: the present and projected wastewater flows in
the study area, the effluent requirements established by Federal and State
authorities, and economic cost criteria (duration of the planning period,
interest rate, service factor, and service life of facilities and equip-
ment). Each of these factors is discussed in the following sections.
2-57
-------
2.2.1.1. Wastewater Load Factors
Wastewater flow projections for the Middle Door County proposed sewer
service areas were developed based on a projected year 2000 design popula-
tion (Section 3.2.2.4.), an average daily base flow (ADBF) of 70 gallons
per capita per day (gpcd) (which includes residential and commercial flows)
and design infiltration of 10 gpcd. A determination of the design flow to
the year 2000 is shown in Table 2-12.
The organic loads were projected on the basis of the accepted design
values of 0.17 pounds of BOD per capita per day and 0.20 pounds of sus-
pended solids (SS) per capita per day (GLUMRB 1978). These values were
applied to the projected year 2000 population. The BOD and SS influent
wastewater loading and influent wastewater concentrations are summarized in
Table 2-12.
2.2.1.2. Effluent Requirements
The effluent limits for municipal wastewater discharge to Green Bay
and Lake Michigan in Door County are as follows (By telephone, Mr. Edward
Lynch, WDNR to WAPORA, Inc., 21 October 1982):
Carbonaceous BOD 30 mg/1 as a 30 day average
Total suspended solids 30 mg/1 as a 30 day average
pH 6.0 to 9.0
Total chlorine residual 0.5 mg/1
Fecal coliform bacteria monitored only
Total phosphorus as P 1.0 mg/1 for flows with a
volume greater than 2500 pop-
ulation equivalent (no limit
for smaller communities)
Wisconsin is currently evaluating the prospect of replacing the 2500 popu-
lation equivalent with a 1 mgd flow. Variations from these requirements
for discharge to land application and wetlands are discussed in Section
2.2.2.4.2. and 2.2.2.4.3. respectively.
2.2.1.3. Economic Factors
The economic cost criteria consist of an amortization or planning
period from the present to the year 2000, or approximately 20 years; an
2-58
-------
Table 2-12. Wastewater load factors projected for Fish Creek, Egg Harbor, Baileys Harbor and Ephraim,
for the year 2000.
Larger Service Area Smaller Service Area
Parameters
Fish Creek
Subareas served
Design year population .
Average daily design flow
Peak flow ,
BODj design loading
BOD^ influent concentration
SS design loading
SS influent concentration
Egg Harbor
Subareas served
Design year population
Average daily design flow
Peak flow
BODj design loading
BOD- influent concentration
SS design loading
SS influent concentration
Baileys Harbor
Subareas served
Design year population -
Average daily design flow
Peak flow
BODj design loading
BODj influent concentration
SS design loading
SS influent concentration
Ephraim
Subareas served
Design year population „
Average daily design flow
Peak flow
BOD5 design loading
BODc influent concentration
SS design loading
SS influent concentration
Units
mgd
mgd
Ib/d
mg/1
Ib/d
mg/1
mgd
mgd
Ib/d
mg/1
Ib/d
mg/1
mgd
mgd
Ib/d
mg/1
Ib/d
mg/1
mgd
mgd
Ib/d
mg/1
Ib/d
mg/1
Notes:
1. Seasonal residents plus seasonal
2. 80 gpcd - based on average daily
Permanent
„_
127
0.010
0.033
21.6
255
25.4
300
145
0.012
0.038
24.6
255
29.0
300
— .»- .
316
0.025
0.082
53.7
255
63.2
300
271
0.022
0.070
46.1
255
54.2
300
transients
base flow
(based on maximum permissible infiltration
3. Peak factor 3.25. Based
4. 0.17 Ib/c/d.
5. 0.20 Ib/c/d.
on accepted design
Seasonal
2.3A.3B
1079
0.086
0.281
183.4
255
215.8
300
1A.1B.2A
465
0.037
0.121
79.1
255
93.0
300
3,6
457
0.037
0.119
77.7
255
91.4
300
1 »2 , 3, _> ,6-
1952
0.156
0.508
331.8
255
390.4
300
70 gpcd plus
rate of 200
Total
_____
1206
0.096
0.313
205.0
255
241.2
300
610
0.049
0.159
103.7
255
122.0
300
773
0.062
0.201
131.4
255
154.6
300
2,223
0.178
0.578
377.9
255
444.6
300
design
sal /inch
Permanent
115
C.009
0.030
19.6
255
23.0
300
65
0.005
0.017
11.1
255
13.0
300
259
0.021
0.067
44.0
255
51.8
300
126
0.010
0.032
21.4
255
25.2
300
infiltration
Seasonal
2,3A
1046
0.084
0.272
177.8
255
209.2
300
1AN.1BS.2AS
187
0.015
0.049
31.8
255
374
300
3
319
0.026
0.083
54.2
255
63.8
300
U1 T) 9
9 itJ t f.
1352
0.108
0.352
229.8
255
270.4
300
10 gpcd
Total
..____
1161
0.093
0.302
1Q7.4
255
232.2
300
252
0.020
0.066
42.8
255
50.4
300
578
0.046
0.150
98.2
255
115.6
300
1478
0.118
0.384
251.2
255
295.6
300
- diameter /mile /day.)
values (GLUMRB 1978)
2-59
-------
interest rate of 7.625%, and service lives of 20 years for treatment and
pumping equipment, 40 years for structures, and 50 years for conveyance
facilities. Salvage values were estimated using straight-line depreciation
for items that could be used at the end of the 20-year planning period. An
annual appreciation rate of 3% over the planning period was used to calcu-
late the salvage value of the land. Operation and maintenance (O&M) costs
include labor, materials, and utilities (power). Costs associated with the
treatment works, pumping stations, solids handling and disposal processes,
conveyance facilities, and on-site systems are based on prevailing rates.
Annual revenue-producing benefits, such as lease of land application sites
for crop production, are subtracted from O&M costs.
Costs are based on the USEPA STP Construction Cost Index of 411.6, the
USEPA Complete Urban Sewer System (CUSS) Construction Cost Index of 226,
and the Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index of 3,725 for
the fourth quarter of 1981 (December 1981) . The total capital cost in-
cludes the initial construction cost plus a service factor. The service
factor includes costs for engineering, contingencies, legal and adminis-
trative, and financing. The service factors used for different alternative
components are summarized in Table 2-13. The economic cost criteria are
summarized in Table 2-14.
a
Table 2-13. Service factor .
Conventional Collection Pressure Sewer, Cluster,
Item and Treatment System and Onsite Systems (%)
Contingencies 10 15
Engineering 10 13
Legal & Administrative 3 3
Financing 4 4_
Total 27 35
a
A service factor is applied to the construction cost to compute the capit-
al cost. Interest during construction is not included.
2-60
-------
Table 2-14. Economic cost criteria.
Item Units Value
Amortization period years 20
Interest (discount) rate % 7-5/8
STP construction cost index - Chicago, December 1981 - 411.6
Sewer (CUSS) construction cost index - Chicago,
December 1981 - 226
ENR - construction cost index, December 1981 - 3,725
Service Life
Equipment years 20
Structures years 40
Conveyance facilities years 50
Land years
Permanent
Salvage value
Equipment % 0
Structures % 50
Conveyance structures % 60
Land % 103
2.2.2. System Components
2.2.2.1. Flow and Waste Reduction
Economy in the construction and operation of sewage collection, treat-
ment, and disposal facilities can be achieved in many localities by con-
trolling waste flows or the amounts of impurities carried in the sewage.
This economy is generally recognized in the short-term monetary savings
that result from the reduced design capacities of facilities or from the
long-terra savings realized when facility expansion or replacement is ren-
dered unnecessary. Other savings can be achieved throughout the life of
the facilities by a reduction in operational costs. In addition, miti-
gation of some of the environmental impacts may be achievable through waste
reduction measures. Methods of flow and waste reduction considered for use
in the study area include water conservation measures, waste segregation,
and a detergent phosphorus ban.
2-61
-------
2.2.2.1.1. Water Conservation Measures
Clean water for many years has been taken for granted. Concerns over
water supply and wastewater disposal and an increasing recognition of the
benefits that may accrue through water conservation are serving to greatly
stimulate the development and application of water conservation practices.
The diverse array of water conservation practices may, in general, be
divided into these major categories:
• Elimination of non-functional water use
• Water-saving devices, fixtures, and appliances
• Wastewater recycle/reuse system.
Elimination of Non-functional Water Use
Non-functional water use is typically the result of the following:
• Wasteful water-use habits such as using a toilet flush to
dispose of a cigarette butt, allowing the water to run while
brushing teeth or shaving, or operating a clotheswasher or
dishwasher with only a partial load
• Excessive water supply pressure - for most dwellings a water
supply pressure of 40 pounds per square inch (psi) is ade-
quate and a pressure in excess of this can result in un-
necessary water use and wastewater generation, especially
with wasteful water use habits
• Inadequate plumbing and appliance maintenance - unseen or
apparently insignificant leaks from household fixtures and
appliances can waste large volumes of water and generate
similar quantities of wastewater. Most notable in this
regard are leaking toilets and dripping faucets. For ex-
ample , even a pinhole leak which may appear as a dripping
faucet can waste up to 170 gallons per day at a pressure of
40 psi. More severe leaks can generate even more massive
quantities of wastewater.
Water-Saving Devices, Fixtures, and Appliances
The quantity of water traditionally used by household fixtures or
appliances often is considerably greater than actually needed. Typically,
toilet flushing, bathing, and clotheswashing collectively account for more
2-62
-------
than more than 70% of the interior water use and waste flow volume of a
household (Siegrist, Woltanski, and Waldorf 1978). Thus, efforts to accom-
plish major reductions in the wastewater flow volume, as well as its pol-
lutant mass, have been directed toward toilet flushing, bathing, and
clotheswashing. Some selected water conservation/waste load reduction
devices and systems developed for these household activities include:
• Toilet devices and systems
Toilet tank inserts - such as water filled and weighted
plastic bottles, flexible panels, or dams
Dual-flush toilet devices
Shallow-trap toilets
Very low volume flush toilets
Non-water carriage toilets
• Bathing devices and systems
Shower flow control devices
Reduced-flow shower fixtures
• Clotheswashing devices and systems
Waste flow reduction may be accomplished through use of
a front loading machine which requires less water or a
clotheswasher with a suds-saver attachment. The selec-
tion of suds-saver cycle when washing provides for
storage of the washwater from the wash cycle for subse-
quent use as the wash water for the next wash load.
The rinse cycle remains unchanged.
Wastewater Recycle/Reuse Systems
These systems provide for the collection and processing of all house-
hold wastewater or the fractions produced by certain activities for subse-
quent reuse. A system which has received a majority of development efforts
includes the recycling of bathing and laundry wastewater for flushing
water-carriage toilets or for outside irrigation.
Other Water Conservation Measures
One possible method for reduction of sewage flow is the adjustment of
the price of water to control consumption. This method normally is used to
reduce water demand in areas with water shortages. It probably would not
be effective in reducing sanitary sewer flows because much of its impact is
usually on luxury water usage, such as lawn sprinkling or car washing.
2-63
-------
None of the luxury uses impose a load on a sanitary sewerage system and on
onsite systems. Therefore, the use of price control probably would not be
effective in significantly reducing wastewater flows. In addition, because
all the residents in the project area obtain their water from individual
wells, the only cost savings associated with reduced water use would be as
a result of lower power costs for pumping and less chemical use for condi-
tioning or treatment of the water by the individual homeowner.
Other measures include educational campaigns on water conservation in
everyday living and the installation of pressure-reduction valves in areas
where the water pressure is excessive (greater than 60 pounds per square
inch). Educational campaigns usually take the form of spot television and
radio commercials, and the distribution of leaflets with water and sewer
bills. Water saving devices must continue to be used and maintained for
flow reduction to be effective.
Results of Water Conservation Measures
Wastewater flows on the order of 15 to 30 gpcd can be achieved by in-
stallation of combinations of the following devices and systems:
• Replace standard toilets with dual cycle or low volume
toilets
• Reduce shower water use by installing thermostatic mixing
valves and flow control shower heads. Use of showers should
be encouraged rather than baths whenever possible
• Replace older clotheswashing machines with those equipped
with water-level controls or with front-loading machines
• Eliminate water-carried toilet wastes by use of in-house
composting toilets
• Use recycled bath and laundry wastewaters to sprinkle lawns
in summer
• Recycle bath and laundry wastewaters for toilet flushing.
Filtration and disinfection of bath and laundry wastes for
this purpose has been shown to be feasible and aesthetically
acceptable in pilot studies (Cohen and Wallman 1974; Mc-
Laughlin 1968). This is an alternative to in-house com-
posting toilets that could achieve the same level of waste-
water flow reduction
2-64
-------
• Commercially available air-assisted toilets and shower heads
using a common air compressor of small horsepower would
reduce sewage volume from these two largest household sourc-
es up to 90%.
Impact of Water Conservation Measures on Wastewater Treatment Systems
Methods that reduce the flow or pollutant loads can provide the fol-
lowing benefits to a wastewater management program:
• Reduce the sizes and capital costs of new sewage collection
and treatment facilities
• Delay the time when future expansion or replacement facili-
ties will be needed
• Reduce the operational costs of pumping and treatment
• Mitigate the sludge and effluent disposal impacts
• May extend the life of the existing soil absorption system
that is currently functioning satisfactorily
• May reduce the wastewater load sufficiently to remedy a
failing soil absorption system in which the effluent is
surfacing or causing backups
• May reduce the size of the soil disposal field in the case
of new onsite systems.
The pretreatment process of the onsite systems should be maintained at
full-size to provide the necessary capacity to treat and attenuate peak
flows. Potential benefits to the community of flow reduction, as well as
the usefulness of methods, analysis procedures, and examples are provided
in the document entitled Flow Reduction (USEPA 1981a).
2.2.2.1.2. Waste Segregation
Various methods for the treatment and the disposal of domestic wastes
involve separation of toilet wastes from other liquid waste. Several
toilet systems can be used to provide for segregation and separate handling
of human excreta (often referred to as blackwater), and, in some cases,
garbage wastes. Removal of human excreta from the wastewater serves to
eliminate significant quantities of pollutants, particularly suspended
solids, nitrogen, and pathogenic organisms (USEPA 1980a).
2-65
-------
Wastewaters generated by fixtures other than toilets are often refer-
red to collectively as graywater. Characterization studies have demon-
strated that typical graywater contains appreciable quantities of organic
matter, suspended solids, phosphorus, and grease. The organic materials in
graywater appear to degrade at a rate not significantly different from
those in combined residential water. Microbiological studies have demon-
strated that significant concentrations of pathogenic organisms such as
total and fecal coliforms, are typically found in graywater (USEPA 1980a).
Although residential graywater does contain pollutants and must be
properly managed, graywater may be more simple to manage than total resi-
dential wastewater due to a reduced flow volume. A number of potential
strategies for management of segregated human excreta (blackwater) and
graywater are presented in Figure 2-7.
2.2.2.1.3. Wisconsin Ban on Phosphorus
Phosphorus is frequently the nutrient that controls algal growth in
surface waters and is, therefore, an important influence on lake or stream
eutrophication. Enrichment of the waters with nutrients encourages the
growth of algae and other microscopic plant life. Decay of the plants
increases biochemical oxygen demand and lowers the amount of dissolved
oxygen in the water. The addition of nutrients encourages higher forms of
plant life, thereby hastening the aging process by which a lake evolves
into a bog or marsh. Normally, eutrophication is a natural process that
proceeds slowly over thousands of years. However, human activity can
greatly accelerate it. Phosphorus and other nutrients contributed to sur-
face waters by human wastes, laundry detergents, and agricultural runoff
often result in over-fertilization, over-productivity of plant matter, and
"choking" of a body of water within a few years.
To reduce phosphorus concentrations in wastewater, Wisconsin legisla-
ture had banned the use and sale of domestic laundry detergents containing
more than 0.5% phosphorus by weight, although the ban has expired as of the
summer of 1982. The ban appears to have had a positive impact on surface
water quality in the Great Lakes Basin, primarily by reducing phosphorus
2-66
-------
Human Wastes
Compost Toilet
Disinfection
Soil Amendment
Very Low-Volume
Flush Toilet
Closed Loop
Recycle Toilet
Incinerator
Toilet
SEGREGATED HUMAN WASTES
Soil Absorption
Alternatives
Surface
Water
Discharge
Figure 2-7.
RESIDENTIAL GRAYWATER
Example strategies for management of segregated human wastes and
residential graywater.
2-67
-------
levels and algae in tributary and near-shore waters (Hartig and Horvath
1982). The preliminary assessment of the effects of the ban concluded
that:
• Based on a survey of 58 major wastewater treatment plants in
Michigan, influent and effluent total phosphorus concentra-
tions decreased by 23% and 25%, respectively
• The phosphorus detergent ban resulted in a 20% reduction in
total phosphorus loadings to the Great Lakes.
There would be no cost savings or cost increase for onsite systems if there
were a phosphorus ban. It is possible, although not confirmed or quanti-
fied by previous research, that a reduction in phosphorus discharged to
soil absorption systems would result in a considerable reduction in the
amount of phosphorus transported by groundwater from the soil disposal
system.
2.2.2.1.4. Summary
To reduce the waste loads (flow volume and/or pollutant contributions)
generated by a typical household, an extensive array of techniques, de-
vices, and systems are available. Because the amounts of water estimated
(approximately 70 gpcd) for the centralized treatment alternatives are
relatively small, and the current population of different sewer service
areas is less than 10,000, water conservation measures would be marginally
effective in reducing wastewater flows. Because the efficacy of water
conservation is complex and must be determined on a case-by-case basis, a
comprehensive water conservation alternative is not proposed in this docu-
ment. However, residents with holding tanks under the onsite component of
the system alternatives proposed in Section 2.3 would realize operation and
maintenance cost savings if water conservation measures were used.
2.2.2.2. Collection System
Two types of collection and conveyance sewer systems are proposed: a
gravity sewer system and a pressure sewer system. Both types of collection
systems are briefly described in the following sections.
2-68
-------
2.2.2.2.1. Gravity Sewer System
The gravity sewer system generally consists of gravity sewers, pumping
stations, and force mains. Usually it will also carry whatever industrial
wastes are produced in the area that it serves. A gravity sanitary sewer
carries wastewater by gravity (downslope) only.
Apart from pumping facilities sometimes required at sewage treatment
plants, the principal conditions and factors necessitating the use of
pumping stations in the sewage collection system are as follows:
• The elevation of the area to be serviced is too low to be
drained by gravity to existing or proposed trunk sewers
• Service is required for areas that are outside the natural
drainage area, but within the sewage or drainage district
• Omission of pumping, although possible, would require ex-
cessive construction costs because of the deep cuts required
for the installation of a trunk sewer to drain the area.
The pumping station pumps wastewater under pressure through a pipeline
known as a force main. For the sake of economy, the force main profiles
generally conform to existing ground elevations.
Gravity sewers that carry raw sewage are termed conventional gravity
sewers in this report. In these sewers, sewage should flow with sufficient
velocity to prevent the settlement of solid matter. The usual practice is
to design the sewers so that the slope is sufficient to ensure a minimum
velocity of 2 feet per second (fps) with flow at one-half full or full
depth. Pumping stations within the conventional gravity sewer system must
be designed to handle the solids in raw sewage, either by grinding them or
by screening larger material and passing smaller material through the pump.
Force mains are generally designed with adequate velocity to prevent depo-
sition of solids at minimum flow. Solids will not settle out at a velocity
of 2.0 fps, but solids that settle out when no flow occurs (pumps are
operating discontinuously) require a velocity of 3.5 fps to resuspend them.
2-69
-------
Gravity sewers that carry septic tank effluent are called septic tank
effluent gravity sewers in this report (Figure 2-8). Other terms commonly
applied to them are Australian sewers and small diameter sewers. Because
only clear effluent from septic tanks is carried, a minimum velocity of 1.5
fps can be designed. Also, a minimum pipe size of 4-inch diameter is
sufficient. Cleanouts, rather than manholes, are recommended so that less
dirt enters the pipes (Otis 1979) . Pipes do not need to be laid at a
constant slope nor in a straight line (Simmons and Newman 1979). Other
advantages of using septic tank effluent gravity sewers are that pumping
equipment does not need solids handling equipment and force mains do not
have minimum velocity requirements. Because septic tank effluent is odo-
rous, special measures must be taken to ensure that odorous gases are not
allowed to escape to the atmosphere near residences.
2.2.2.2.2. Pressure Sewer System
Essentially, a pressure sewer system is the reverse of a water distri-
bution system. The latter employs a single inlet pressurization point and
a number of user outlets, while the pressure sewer embodies a number of
pressurizing inlet points and a single outlet, as shown in Figure 2-9. The
pressure main follows a generally direct route to a treatment facility or
to a gravity sewer, depending on the application.
There are two major types of pressure sewer systems: the grinder pump
(GP) system and the septic tank effluent pump (STEP) system. As shown in
Figure 2-10, the major differences between the alternative systems are in
the onsite equipment and layout. There are also some subtle differences in
the pressure main design methods and in the treatment systems required to
reduce the pollutants in the collected wastewater to an environmentally
acceptable level. Neither pressure sewer system alternative requires the
modification of household plumbing, although neither precludes it if such
modifications are deemed desirable.
The advantages of pressure sewers are primarily related to installa-
tion costs and inherent system characteristics. Because these systems use
small diameter plastic pipes buried just below the frost penetration depth,
2-70
-------
BuiIding
sewer
V dia. effluent 1 ine
Effluent
sewer
Precast septic tank
Figure 2-8. Septic tank effluent gravity sewer layout.
2-71
-------
(
0
H
;
0
]r
,
1
ji
|
H
i
(
H
^^ 1
col
\f
.
" 1
CO!
I
H
(
0
f
F
•s
.
\
N
3
/
;
)
^
H
i
>i
i
r-1
'
H
^f
Pressure sewer
- Water main (under pressure)
P ) Pressure sewer pump
U Housing unit
Figure 2-9. Pressure sewer versus water main.
2-72
-------
^-•Pressure
O sewer
BuiIding
sewer
Junction box
and alarm
water level alarm
" 9 discharge 1 ine
To existing soil absorption system
Grinder Pump
BuiIdi ng
sewer
LLevel
controls
Precast septic tank
GRINDER PUMP LAYOUT
Junction box
and alarm
Road
Pressure
sewer
•To existing soil absorption system
Hi ghwater
level
Tump ^-Level alarm
controls
Precast septic tank
SEPTIC TANK EFFLUENT PUMP LAYOUT
Figure 2-10. Types of pressure sewer systems.
2-73
-------
their installation costs can be quite low compared to conventional gravity
systems in low-density areas. Other site conditions that enhance this cost
differential include hilly terrain, rock outcropping, and high water ta-
bles. Because pressure sewers are sealed conduits, there should be no
opportunity for infiltration. The sewers can be designed to handle only
the domestic sewage generated in the houses serviced, which excludes the
infiltration that occurs in most gravity systems. The high operation and
maintenance costs for the use of mechanical equipment at each point of
entry to the system are the major disadvantage of a pressure sewer system.
Most of the dwellings in the study area have existing septic tanks.
Therefore, the septic tank effluent pump (STEP) system is proposed for the
collection system alternatives described in this document.
2.2.2.3. Wastewater Treatment Processes
A variety of treatment options were considered in the facilities plan.
In general, wastewater treatment options include conventional physical,
biological, and chemical processes and land treatment. The conventional
options utilize preliminary treatment, primary sedimentation, and secondary
treatment. These unit processes are followed by disinfection prior to
effluent disposal. Land treatment processes include lagoons, slow-rate
infiltration or irrigation, overland flow, and rapid infiltration.
The degree of treatment required is dependent on the effluent disposal
option selected (Section 2.2.2.4.). Where disposal of treated wastewater
is by effluent discharge to surface waters, effluent quality limitations
determined by WDNR establish the required level of treatment (Section
2.2.1.2.).
2.2.2.4. Effluent Disposal Methods
Four effluent disposal options are available: discharge to receiving
waters, discharge to wetlands, disposal on land, and reuse.
2-74
-------
2.2.2.4.1. Bay Discharge
WDNR permits effluent discharge to Green Bay and Lake Michigan from
secondary treatment plants meeting the effluent limitations presented in
Section 2.2.1.2. The outfall discharge point must be at a 30 foot water
depth to avoid any negative impacts on lake whitefish and lake trout spawn-
ing areas (By letter Mr. Ronald G. Spry, Acting Field Supervisor, U.S.
Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Green Bay, to Mr. Joe
Magdol, Municipal Wastewater Section, WDNR, 20 January 1981).
2.2.2.4.2. Land Application
Land application or land treatment of wastewater utilizes natural phy-
sical, chemical, and biological processes in vegetation, soils, and under-
lying formations to renovate and dispose of domestic wastewater. Land
application methods have been practiced in the United States for more than
100 years and presently are being used by hundreds of communities through-
out the nation (Pound and Crites 1973).
In addition to wastewater treatment, the benefits of land application
may include nutrient recycling, timely water applications, groundwater
recharge, and soil improvement. These benefits accrue to a greater extent
in arid and semi-arid areas, but are also applicable to humid areas.
Secondary benefits include preservation of open space and summer augmenta-
tion of streamflow.
The. components of a land application system include a centralized
collection and conveyance system, some level of primary treatment, possible
secondary treatment, possible storage and disinfection, and the land appli-
cation site and equipment. In addition, collection of the treated water
may be included in the system design along with discharge or reuse of the
collected water. The optional components may be necessary to meet state
requirements or to make the system operate properly.
Land application of municipal wastewater encompasses a wide variety of
2-75
-------
possible treatment processes or methods of application. The three prin-
cipal processes utilized in land treatment of wastewater are:
• Overland flow
• Slow-rate or crop irrigation
• Rapid infiltration.
In the overland flow process, the wastewater is allowed to flow over a
sloping surface and is collected at the bottom of the slope. This type of
land application requires a stream for final disposal. Overland flow
generally results in an effluent with an average phosphorus concentration
of 4 mg/1. Phosphorus removals usually range from 40% to 60% on a concen-
tration basis (USEPA 1981b).
In the slow-rate method partially treated wastewater is applied to the
land to enhance the growth of vegetation. The vegetation performs a major
role in removing nutrients through vegetative growth. Water is applied at
rates that may range from 0.8 to 3.1 inches per week. The upper 2 to 4
feet of soil is where the major removals of organic matter, nutrients, and
pathogens occur. Some processes involved are filtration, chemical pre-
cipitation, and adsorption by the soil. The applied wastewater is either
lost to the atmosphere by evapotranspiration or percolates to the water
table. The water table must be naturally low or be maintained at a reason-
able depth by wells or tile drainage. The surface soil must be kept aero-
bic for optimum conditions for removals to occur.
The rapid infiltration method involves high rates (4 to 120 inches per
week) of application to rapidly permeable soils such as sands and loamy
sands. Although vegetative cover may be present, it is not an integral part
of the system. Cleansing of wastewater occurs within the first few feet of
soil by filtration, adsorption, precipitation, and other geochemical reac-
tions. In most cases, SS, BOD, and fecal coliform are removed almost
completely. Phosphorus removal can range from 70% to 99%, depending on the
physical and chemical properties of the soils. Nitrogen removal, however,
generally is less significant, unless specific procedures are established
to maximize denitrification (USEPA 1981b).
2-76
-------
In rapid infiltration systems, there is little or no consumptive use
of wastewater by plants, and only minor evaporation occurs. Because most
of the wastewater infiltrates the soil, groundwater quality may be af-
fected. To minimize the potential for groundwater contamination, the
minimum depth to the water table should be 10 feet. Due to rapid rates of
percolation, the permeability of the underlying aquifer must be high to
insure that the water table will not mound significantly and limit the
usefulness of the site.
Land Suitability
Limited areas of land are suitable for slow-rate irrigation of ef-
fluent. Some areas may be suitable for rapid infiltration, although con-
cern about non-degradation of groundwater would effectively rule it out.
Overland flow treatment can have adverse groundwater impacts if the perme-
ability of the soils is greater than that of clays. Few areas in the
Middle Door County study area have soils of low permeability necessary for
an overland flow system.
The site screening for slow-rate irrigation areas was based on cri-
teria such as depth to bedrock or water table greater than 5 feet, suf-
ficient area of nearly level to level soils, high percentage of cropland
and proximity to the communities. In the vicinity of Egg Harbor about 100
acres are likely to be suitable for land application based on SCS soils
maps in Sections 30 and 31 T30N R27E. In the vicinity of Fish Creek about
180 acres in four areas may be suitable for land application in Sections 3
and 4. The Ephraim area has no land areas of cropland that are readily
apparent as suitable for land application. Soils that are mapped as suf-
ficiently deep for the depth to bedrock and groundwater requirements are
present in Section 24 but this area is steeply sloping and has an extensive
tree cover. Forest irrigation may be feasible in this area although runoff
would likely be a problem. Because it is unlikely that a suitable system
could be constructed in that area, no land application alternative will be
developed for Ephraim. In the vicinity of the community of Baileys Harbor
only small, irregularly shaped areas of suitable soils are mapped. Thus,
no land application alternative will be designed and costed for Baileys
Harbor.
2-77
-------
Extensive testing of the soils in these areas would be required in
order to establish that these sites are indeed suitable, and to determine
actual design criteria for the irrigation system and groundwater collection
system, if necessary. Because groundwater contamination concerns are
issues in the study area, it is anticipated that complete hydrogeological
reports on the sites would be required if the land application appears to
be cost-effective.
The discharge limitations to the land disposal system are given in the
Wisconsin Administrative Code, Section NR 214.07. The applicable discharge
limitations are summarized as follows:
• There shall be no discharge to a land disposal system except
after treatment in a sewage treatment system that includes a
secondary treatment system
• The BOD concentration in the discharge to the land disposal
system shall not exceed 50 mg/1 in more than 20% of the
monitoring samples that are required during a calendar
quarter
• The discharge shall be alternately distributed to individual
sections of the disposal system in a manner to allow suffic-
ient resting periods to maintain the absorptive capacity of
the soil
• The geometric mean of the fecal coliform bacteria counts for
effluent samples taken during a calendar quarter, or such
other period as may be specified in the permit for the
discharge, shall not exceed 200 per 100 ml.
Treatment of Wastewater by Land Irrigation
Treatment of wastewater by the land irrigation process requires a re-
latively small area of active cropland soils that have a moderate perme-
ability. Excellent removals of all pollutants, except highly soluble
salts, can be expected (BOD and SS, 99%; phosphorus 95% to 99%; and ni-
trogen 70% to 90%). Based on an application rate of 2.0 inches per week
and an annual application period of 17 weeks, the Egg Harbor land applica-
tion area would need approximately 10 acres of irrigated area, and the Fish
Creek land application area would need approximately 20 acres of irrigated
area.
2-78
-------
The principal soils characteristics required for an acceptable appli-
cation site is a permeability that will allow reasonable drain tile spacing
and still dewater the site. Under these conditions, farm equipment can be
operated on the site within one day of irrigation without traction or
compaction problems. In addition, it is essential that the application site
does not have a slope that will erode as a result of effluent applications.
The acceptable slope varies according to the existing plant cover and the
rate of infiltration. For example, cropland irrigation would be limited by
slopes exceeding 6%, whereas forest irrigation would be feasible on slopes
of up to 20% (Powers 1978) .
Artificial drainage may be required on all sites unless the water
table is naturally low. Artificial drainage can be advantageous because it
allows control of the applied effluent. The outlet point can be designed
to minimize any excess seepage.
During the winter effluent would be stored. Some land irrigation
projects in northern climates are operated throughout the winter but the
operational difficulties are considerable. Generally, it is recognized
that inclement weather storage is necessary (USEPA 1981b). The storage
ponds should be located on naturally fine-textured material to minimize
seepage. Soil surveys conducted in the area have not identified any soils
that could function as a natural sealant. A pond constructed in this area
would need to be artificially sealed.
2.2.2.4.3. Wetlands Discharge
Wetlands, which constitute approximately 3% of the land area of the
continental US (USEPA 1977a), are hydrologically intermediate areas. Wet-
lands usually have too many plants and too little water to be called lakes,
yet have enough water to prevent most agricultural or forestry uses. The
use of wetlands to receive and satisfactorily treat wastewater effluent is
a relatively new and experimental concept. In wetland application systems,
wastewater is renovated by soil, plants, and microorganisms as it moves
through and over the soil profile. Wetland systems are somewhat similar to
overland flow systems in that most of the water flows over the soil surface
2-79
-------
and the renovation action is more dependent on microbial and plant activity
than on soil chemistry.
The wetlands application option is included in the systems alterna-
tives for Ephraim and Baileys Harbor because extensive wetlands are near
the communities and because lengthy outfalls for bay discharges would be
required in both communities. A detailed investigation of wetlands dis-
charge proposed in the Facilities Plan for Baileys Harbor was conducted as
part of this study. The alternate locations for Baileys Harbor and the
Ephraim wetlands discharge have not been investigated with respect to the
assimilative capacity of these wetlands to treat wastewater. However the
large areas available indicate that the available wetlands have sufficient
capacity to accept treated effluent from the respective communities.
The discharge limitations for a wetlands disposal system for the State
of Wisconsin were obtained from WDNR (By telephone, Mr. Steve Skavroneck,
Water Quality Planning Section, WDNR, to WAPORA, Inc., June 1979) and are
summarized as follows:
• The concentrations of BOD^ and suspended solids (SS) in
discharge to the wetlands disposal system shall not exceed
20 mg/1
• Disinfection is required prior to discharge to the wetlands
disposal system
• Storage shall be provided to store the treated effluent from
the WWTP for the winter months.
2.2.2.4.4. Reuse
Wastewater management techniques included under the category of treat-
ed effluent reuse may be identified as:
• Public water supply
• Groundwater recharge
• Industrial process uses or cooling tower makeup
2-80
-------
• Energy production
• Recreational turf irrigation
• Fish and wildlife enhancement.
Reuse of treatment plant effluent as a public water supply or for
ground water recharge could present potential public health concerns. There
are no major industries in the area that require cooling water. The avail-
ability of good quality surface water and groundwater and the abundant
rainfall limit the demand for the use of treated wastewater for recreation-
al turf irrigation. Organic contamination concentrations also are potential
problems. Direct reuse would require very costly advanced wastewater
treatment (AWT), and a sufficient economic incentive is not available to
justify the expense. Thus, the reuse of treated effluent currently is not
a feasible management technique for the study area.
2.2.2.5. Sludge Treatment and Disposal
Some of the wastewater treatment processes considered will generate
sludge. The amount of sludge generated will vary considerably, depending
on the process. A typical sludge management program would involve inter-
related processes for reducing the volume of the sludge (which is mostly
water) and final disposal.
Volume reduction depends on the reduction of both the water and the
organic content of the sludge. Organic material can be reduced through the
use of digestion, incineration, or wet-oxidation processes. Moisture
reduction is attainable through concentration, conditioning, dewatering,
and/or drying processes. The mode of final disposal selected determines
the processes that are required.
Aerobic digestion and land application of the liquid sludge to farm
land are the processes suitable for this project because of the small total
volume under consideration.
In the case of aerated lagoons, the long detention time would result
in a high degree of decomposition of the organic solids. Inert solids that
2-81
-------
are not biologically decomposed would remain in the lagoons and may require
cleanout and removal once every 10 to 20 years.
2.2.2.6. Onsite Systems
The onsite systems proposed for use in the study area are those that
are being utilized at the present time. Some modifications of the existing
designs are suggested to improve the operation of onsite systems. The pre-
sently utilized systems are described in detail in Section 2.1.1.
The septic tanks presently being installed in the area are considered
adequate both in terms of construction and capacity. The continued use of
750-gallon tanks for small residences and 1,000- and 1,500-gallon tanks for
larger residences are recommended. Septic tanks should have an exposed
manhole or inspection port to monitor the contents of the tank. If, during
pumpouts and inspections, certain septic tanks are found to be faulty or
seriously undersized, these tanks would then be repaired or replaced. The
number of these would be expected to be a small percentage based on septic
tanks that have been replaced since 1976.
The seepage beds and seepage trenches (Figure 2-11) currently being
installed in the County have a 20 year design life, although they would
likely function satisfactorily for a considerably longer period. The
seepage beds commonly installed range from 250 square feet (sf) to 1,000 sf
for single family residences. The size is dictated by Wisconsin Code based
on the number of bedrooms and water using appliances and soil permeability.
No changes in the design procedures are anticipated as necessary to provide
adequate sewage treatment. At the present time no reduction in the area of
the seepage bed is allowed even though water conservation appliances may be
installed. Existing residences that have failing soil absorption systems
may receive a permit for a replacement soil absorption system only if
variances for water conservation practices are allowed. A variation on the
standard seepage bed is the seepage bed installed in a filled area. Over
bedrock, the natural soil must be at least 30 inches thick. The seepage
bed is then installed in the natural ground and partially in the fill. Al-
though a number of filled systems are reportedly installed within the study
2-82
-------
^
•
f\
O-
A.
•\ r
01
a
a.
Z
(Q
3
•o
Q
(/)
> r
c
0
4-(
T
>
(0
o
X
0)
^_
o
in
4_l
"i
^ t
A.
f ^»
re
> >
re
0
X
a)
u-
0
(A
4-1
"i
_j
B _ ;
^ ^
z
u
pd
_ H
c
^ Id
rn
"• - ~
w ro
c *
° -v
4-* *""
a *o
° 1
in >«J
Q
Cd
CO
C Id
*%
o. 2
u
td
w
y ^ .>
^ .3£
O
m
" ^
«
L.
3
•S r
1 /
\l
\L
T
a:
a.
to
§
W
CO
>>
CO
S-l
o
CD
O
CO
a
•H
4-J
P<
a)
CO
CM
a)
3
00
2-83
-------
area, the permit records do not clearly designate which systems are fill
systems.
The mound soil absorption systems (Figure 2-12) are constructed ac-
cording to detailed design standards given in the Code to overcome limi-
tations of primarily shallow depth of soil over bedrock but also shallow
water table. Mound systems have pressure distribution systems that must be
supplied by pumps. The design standards incorporate flow rates that are
consistent with the flow rates for seepage beds. The number of mound
systems permitted for existing residences are not limited but for new
residences the number is limited by court order. In the meantime, holding
tanks are utilized for those residences that are on the waiting list.
The dry well soil absorption system (Figure 2-11) is currently in use
for some structures and may have very limited application on some lots. No
dry wells have been installed within the study area over the past six
years. Depth of unsaturated permeable material must be sufficiently great
so as to provide separation from bedrock and the water table. Dry wells
may be installed only where insufficient area is available for a seepage
bed.
Holding tanks do not strictly constitute onsite treatment because the
treatment of the wastes must occur away from the site. Holding tanks are
utilized where soil absorption systems cannot be installed because of site
limitations. Since holding tanks for seasonal residences often are pumped
three or fewer times per year, they can be the most cost-effective on-lot
system. Holding tanks must have capacity to store the volume of sewage from
five days. For residences the required volume is about 2,000 gallons.
They are equipped with pumping connections and high water alarms. Approx-
imately 50% of the onsite systems that have been installed under the permit
program have been holding tanks within the Middle Door County study area.
Blackwater holding tanks may be appropriate for existing residences
with soil absorption systems that fail because the absorption beds lack
sufficient area. Components of the system include a low-flow toilet (2.5
gallons per flush or less), the holding tank for toilet wastes only, and
2-84
-------
i
O
f
a.
3
o
•H
4-J
CX
d)
CO
CM
I
CM
(30
•H
2-85
-------
the existing septic tank-soil absorption system for the remainder of the
wastes. These systems are appropriate only where sufficient soil is avail-
able to protect the groundwater from pathogenic organisms in the septic
tank effluent. When the toilet wastes are diverted from the septic tank -
soil absorption system, that system has an opportunity to function properly
and considerably reduced loading to groundwater would occur. Significant
reductions of organic loads, 20 to 40% reductions in phosphorus loadings,
and 80% reduction in nitrogen loadings to the septic tank-soil absorption
system occur when toilet wastes are excluded. Blackwater holding tanks are
recommended if the lot has insufficient area for any other soil absorption
system. While blackwater holding tanks may be appropriate for numerous
residences, the existing information was insufficient for a reasonable
estimation. Therefore, standard holding tanks were estimated where black-
water holding tanks may be applicable. The Wisconsin Code has no regular
provision for them and approval must be obtained from the Department
(H63.09 (2)b). With a 1,000 gallon tank, pumping may be necessary fol-
lowing each month of occupancy.
2.2.2.7. Cluster System
The cluster system designates a common soil absorption system and the
treatment and collection facilities for a group of residences. The common
soil absorption system is used because the individual lots are unsuitable
for onsite soil absorption systems. An area of soils suitable for a common
soil absorption system must be available in order to consider this option.
In the vicinity of the four communities only a small percentage of the area
would be suitable for cluster soil absorption systems. Thus, where off-
site treatment is required, cluster soil absorption systems may be feas-
ible.
It was assumed that the existing septic tanks, with some replacements,
are adequate for pretreatment. Septic tank effluent could be conveyed by
small-diameter gravity sewers or pressure sewers to the soil absorption
system sites. A cost-effectiveness analysis could establish which col-
lection system to use for a particular area. A dosing system is typically
required on large drain fields in order to achieve good distribution in the
2-86
-------
field. Where the collection system uses pressure sewers, a separate ac-
cumulator tank and lift station is required. The wet well and lift station
on the septic tank effluent gravity sewers can perform that function.
Cluster soil absorption systems are usually designed as three or more
seepage beds, trenches, or mounds. One would be rested for a one-year
period while the others would be dosed alternately. The soil absorption
systems must be designed based on the requirements of the Wisconsin Code.
The trench bottom or bed area requirements are sized in a manner comparable
to single family residences.
Although the present soils information and topography indicate that
cluster soil absorption systems may be feasible for Egg Harbor and Fish
Creek, further field investigations would be needed before final designs
could proceed. The depth of permeable material must be determined in order
to show that groundwater mounding into the soil absorption system would not
occur. Also, the characteristics of the proposed site soils must be exam-
ined sufficiently enough to verify the soil mapping of the SCS at a more
detailed level than the present mapping.
The operation and maintenance requirements of the system are minimal.
Periodic inspections of the lift stations and the soil absorption systems
are essentially all that is necessary. The septic tanks and the lift
station wet wells would require occasional pumping of solids. Maintenance
of the collection piping is expected to be minimal (Otis 1979). Once a
year the rested soil absorption system would be rotated back into use and
another one rested. Blockages of the collection systems should occur only
rarely because of the use of clear effluent. Lift stations are entirely
dependent on a reliable power supply. Thus, only community power outages
will affect operation of the system. Since wastewater generation is also
dependent on power for pumping well water, the potential for serious envi-
ronmental effects are somewhat mitigated.
2.2.2.8. Septage and Holding Tank Wastes Disposal
The use of a septic system requires periodic maintenance (3 to 5
years) that includes pumping out the accumulated scum and sludge, which is
2-87
-------
called septage. Septage is a highly variable anaerobic slurry that con-
tains large quantities of grit and grease; a highly offensive odor; the
ability to foam; poor settling and dewatering characteristics; high solids
and organic content; and a minor accumulation of heavy metals. Typical
concentration values for constituents of septage are as follows (USEPA
1980b):
Total solids 38,800 mg/1
BOD 5,000 mg/1
COD'' 42,900 mg/1
TKN 680 mg/1
NH 160 mg/1
Total P 250 mg/1
Holding tank wastes are relatively dilute as compared to septage but
is about twice as concentrated as raw sewage primarily from water conser-
vation and from no infiltration in sewers. The extended detention times
would cause the wastes to become anaerobic and odorous. Assuming that
holding tank wastes have double the concentration of raw sewage, typical
concentration values would be as follows:
Total solids 625 mg/1
BOD 540 mg/1
COD^ 1500 mg/1
TKN 160 mg/1
NH 90 mg/1
Total P 35 mg/1
Septage and holding tank wastes disposal regulations have been es-
tablished mainly in states with areas that have a concentration of septic
tanks. Wisconsin has established rules regarding disposal of liquid wastes
particularly concerning the wastes to be disposed of on land. The general
methods of septage and holding tank wastes disposal are:
• Land disposal
• Biological and physical treatment
• Chemical treatment
• Treatment in a wastewater treatment plant.
2-88
-------
Land Disposal
The two basic types of land disposal are:
• Methods which optimize nutrient recovery such as application
of the liquid wastes to cropland and pastures
• Methods of land application in which there is no concern for
the recovery of nutrients in the liquid wastes such as
landfills.
Septage can be considered a form of fertilizer because of its nutrient
value when applied to the soil. Nitrogen, phosphorus, and micronutrients
are contained in septage. The septage application rate is usually depen-
dent upon the amount of nitrogen available to the crop. The die-off of
pathogens in septage which is surface spread is quicker than that of patho-
gens in septage injected into the soil. Where septage is incorporated into
the top 3 inches of the soil, generally 99% of all pathogens will die off
within one month (Brown and White 1977).
The advantages of direct cropland application of septage and holding
tank wastes are: the recycling of nitrogen and phosphorus; the low tech-
nology, maintenance, and cost of the systems; and the hostile environment
which the sun and soil create for pathogens and parasites. Disadvantages
include possible odor or water quality problems if the wastes are not
spread properly and a possible inability to apply wastes when the ground is
very wet.
Spreading septage and holding tank wastes on the land surface should
be accomplished according to the requirements of the State of Wisconsin.
The potential amount applied, though, should distinguish between septage
and holding tank wastes because the concentrations of constituents in
septage is about five times those of holding tank wastes. The nuisance
conditions that are attributed to surface spreading can be minimized by
subsurface injection. A summary of the regulations on surface spreading of
liquid wastes on soils follows:
• Depth to bedrock or high groundwater must be at least 36
inches
2-89
-------
• Disposal is not permitted on land used during the current
growing season for pasturing livestock or for vegetables
intended for human consumption, or on land used for growing
forage crops during the eight weeks preceding harvest
• Disposal is not permitted on land with greater than 12%
slopes
• Disposal on land with 6 to 12% slopes is limited to areas
greater than 500 feet upgrade from a drainageway
• Disposal on land with 0 to 6% slopes is limited to areas
greater than 200 feet upgrade from a drainageway
• Disposal is limited to areas greater than 50 feet from any
property line
• Disposal is limited to areas greater than 200 feet from a
potable water well or reservoir
• Disposal is limited to areas greater than 1,000 feet from a
residence or area frequented by the public (500 feet if
written permission is obtained from the owner)
• The rate of disposal shall not exceed 30 gallons per 100
square feet per day.
The regulations are slightly different if the liquid wastes are im-
mediately plowed or knifed in. The distances from a residence may be 500
feet and from a drainageway may be 100 feet on land with 0 to 6% slopes.
Direct septage disposal on land may not be possible during certain
times of the year. During period of heavy rainfall field access may not be
possible on heavy soils. Heavy snow cover or frozen ground can also pre-
vent field application. Some haulers dispose of the wastes at the Sister
Bay or Valmy treatment plants during these periods.
The Wisconsin regulations virtually prohibit application of septage
and holding tank wastes to active farmland by the length of the period
prior to harvest that application may take place. Nearly all application
sites are abandoned farmlands that do not have the nutrient removal cap-
abilities of cropland. The greatest volume of liquid wastes are produced
during late summer subsequent to the period when application to farmlands
would be permitted.
2-90
-------
Extensive acreages are suitable for application of liquid wastes in
the Middle Door County study area. Many of these areas, though, are cur-
rently farmed and are thus unavailable for land application during the peak
tourist season.
Biological and Physical Treatment of Septage
Septage may be treated biologically in anaerobic lagoons, aerobic
lagoons, or digesters. Some advantages of aerobic treatment are that it
reduces the offensive odor of the septage, produces a sludge with good
dewatering characteristics, and produces a supernatant with a lower BOD
than anaerobic supernatants. The major disadvantage of aerobic treatment
compared to anaerobic treatment is the higher operation and maintenance
cost. Advantages of anaerobic treatment systems are that the waste under-
goes stabilization of organic solids and they have relatively low operating
and maintenance costs. A disadvantage of anaerobic treatment is the high
BOD of the effluent and the potential for nuisance odors.
Chemical Treatment of Septage
Treatment of septage involving the addition of a chemical is used to
improve the dewaterability, reduce the odor, or kill the pathogens. Chemi-
cal treatment processes include addition of coagulants, rapid chemical
oxidation, or lime stabilization.
Some of the advantages associated with the chemical treatment of
septage are:
• Good reduction of the pollutant concentration can be
achieved
• Dewaterability of septage is improved so the waste can be
dewatered on sand beds
• Effective control of the pathogenic organisms is possible.
Disadvantages of chemical treatment of septage are:
• High costs are usually associated with chemical treatment
and in many instances these alternatives are only feasible
where relatively large quantities of septage are produced
2-91
-------
• Large quantities of chemicals are needed
• Relatively high level of technology is needed.
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Holding tank wastes can be disposed of in any kind of sewage treatment
plant since the characteristics of the wastewaters are similar. Special
care must be exercised during discharge of the holding tank wastes into the
waste stream because they are anaerobic and odorous.
Septage can be adequately treated at a properly operated WWTP. Both
the activated sludge or the fixed media type plants are used to treat
septage. Septage could be discharged into the liquid stream or sludge
stream. Since septage is handled as a slurry, the possible addition points
at a WWTP are the upstream sewer, the bar screen, the grit chamber, the
primary settling tank, or the aeration tank. Discharge into the upstream
sewer allows solids to settle out in the sewer, particularly at periods of
low flow.
Septage can be treated easily at WWTPs that feature long detention
times, such as facultative lagoons, aerated lagoons, or oxidation ditches.
These plants are less susceptible to upsets from shock loadings and could
easily accomodate septage as long as the additional organic load was in-
cluded in the plant design.
The septage addition points in the sludge handling processes are the
aerobic or anaerobic digester, the sludge conditioning process, or the sand
drying beds. Septage added to a WWTP at 2% or less of the total flow will
have little impact on the treatment processes.
The advantages of treating septage in a WWTP are:
• Septage is diluted with wastewater and treated
• Few aesthetic problems are associated with this type of
septage handling
2-92
-------
• Skilled personnel are present at the plant site.
The disadvantages of septage disposal at a WWTP are:
• A shock effect can occur in the unit processes of the WWTP
if a septage is not properly entered into the wastewater
flow
• The waste should undergo separation, degritting, and equili-
zation before treatment, hence requiring additional equip-
ment and facilities.
Summary
The septage disposal alternatives are probably limited to land appli-
cation because the potential of upsetting the sewage or sludge treatment
processes within a treatment plant is considerable. Holding tank wastes,
on the other hand, can safely be treated within a sewage treatment plant.
Thus, the option of treating holding tank wastes at the various sewage
treatment plants should be investigated further. The selection of treat-
ment and disposal options is discussed further in Section 2.5.
2.2.3. Centralized Collection System Alternatives
Each community was analyzed individually with respect to what type of
collection system was most cost-effective. The three collections systems
considered were conventional gravity, pump stations, and force mains;
septic tank effluent gravity, pump stations, and force mains; and septic
tank effluent pumps and pressure sewers. The conventional gravity sewers
were not considered for alternatives with cluster soil absorption systems
in Egg Harbor and Fish Creek. Because conventional gravity sewers were
costed out as most cost effective in the Facilities Plan and addendum 1,
one alternative with conventional gravity sewers serving an area similar to
that in the Facilities Plan was prepared. The design of the sewers is
based on the year-2000 populations. The layouts utilized were similar to
those provided in the Facilities Plan and Addendum 1. A cost-effectiveness
analysis was performed for the three alternative centralized collection
systems. The detailed cost estimate for each alternative considered in-
cludes the costs for construction of the sewer system, the estimated sal-
vage value after 20 years of use, and the estimated average annual opera-
2-93
-------
tion and maintenance (O&M) costs. A detailed cost estimate for the various
components of the collection alternatives is presented in Appendix E.
The conclusions concerning sewer service areas provided in the Facil-
ities Plan and Addendum 1 were used as starting points for the analyses
conducted in this document. In each community, reduced sewer service areas
were investigated for determining the most cost-effective collection alter-
native for each community.
2.2.4. Centralized Wastewater Treatment Plant Alternatives
Different wastewater treatment processes appropriate for centralized
WWTPs designed to meet the secondary treatment requirements in Section
2.2.1.2. were evaluated in the Facilities Plan (Becher-Hoppe Engineers,
Inc. 1980). The cost effective analysis included in the Facilities Plan
showed that aerated lagoon WWTPs were the most cost-effective for any
regional or sub-regional alternative. However, in the analysis of alter-
natives the Facilities Plan and Addendum 1 recommended the following WWTPs
based on site limitations, effluent limits more stringent than typical
secondary treatment (wetland discharge) and cost considerations:
• Regional alternatives - WWTP not specified
• Sub regional alternatives
• Egg Harbor - Rotating biological contactor
• Fish Creek - Aerated lagoon (Foth and Van Dyke and As-
sociates, Inc. 1982)
• Ephraiin - Aerated lagoon
• Baileys Harbor - Recirculating sand filter
A comment made in the 26 August 1980 Public Hearing on the Draft
Facilities Plan (Mr. Steven Jacobson) suggested comparison of the same WWTP
alternative for each sub-regional project alternative. In this report
rotating biological contactor WWTPs were used for screening proposed re-
gional alternatives; for the sub-regional alternatives, an aerated lagoon
WWTP and the WWTP recommended in the Facilities Plan and Addendum 1 (Bech-
er-Hoppe Engineers, Inc. 1980, Foth and Van Dyke and Associates, Inc. 1982)
were evaluated for each community.
2-94
-------
The analysis for the regional alternatives is presented in Section
2.2.5. and for the sub-regional alternatives in Section 2.3.
2.2.5. Regional Treatment Alternatives
The analysis of regional treatment alternatives presented in the
Facilities Plan concluded that the three communities along the Green Bay
shore, Egg Harbor, FLsh Creek, and Ephraim, should be considered on a
regional basis but that Baileys Harbor on the Lake Michigan shore should be
considered separately. Based on this conclusion a cost-effective analysis
was made on the following regional treatment alternatives:
• Alternative 1 - Three separate WWTPs - one each for Egg
Harbor, Fish Creek and Ephraim
• Alternative 2 - Two WWTPs - one for Egg Harbor, and one for
Fish Creek and Ephrai-n at Fish Creek
• Alternative 3 - Two WWTPs - one for Egg Harbor, and Fish
Creek in Section 6 (T30N,R27E) and a WWTP Eor Ephraim
• Alternative 4 - A regional WWTP for Egg Harbor, Fish Creek,
and Ephraim in Section 6 (T30N.R27E)
The locations of the WWTPs and routes of the interceptor sewers are
similar to the Facility Plan and are presented in Figures 2-13, 2-14, 2-15,
and 2-15 for Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively.
A summary of the estimated costs for each alternative is presented in
Table 2-15. Costs are based on rotating biological contactor WWTPs, inter-
ceptor sewers between communities, and outfalls to Green Bay for each WWTP.
Collection sewer systems in each community are not included. Detailed
costs are presented in Appendix E.
Alternative 1 has the least total present worth cost of $3,402,300 and
is 18.5% less expensive than Alternative 2 which is the next least costly.
Alternative 4 has the highest total present worth cost.
2-95
-------
^
)
f
\
,
'
1
I
I
< '
1
1
-~_-
Q
Z
UJ
CD
UJ
E
E
o
O
Figure 2-13. Regional treatment Alternative 1,
2-96
-------
C C0 <+» CO CO
3 C = C £
« E .2 c 2 o
5 E o> -I 5> o
2 o ® 8» 0) i;
"i o oc 2 a£
UJ
_J
Figure 2-14. Regional treatment Alternative 2.
2-97
-------
Figure 2-15. Regional treatment Alternative 3.
2-98
-------
UJ
Figure 2-16. Regional treatment Alternative 4.
2-99
-------
CO
o
CJ
rH
00
ON
r-l
S-l
Ol
rrt
8
4)
0
cu
p
> — '
CO
01
^
•r-l
p
cd
p
4)
p
rH
cfl
1-1
cd
a
o
•H
00
0)
M-i
O
CO
CO
CO
0
u
£J
o
iH
CO
CO
••H
^
CO
H
cd
p
P
TJ
d
cO
•P
0
01
CO
41
•P
•
TJ ^
4> CO
•P P
cfl cfl
•P 0
4)
MH
rH 0
1-1
Cd CO
TJ
U-l c!
o cd
co
>> 3
M 0
C Jj
B
3 c
C/2 iH
•
m
rH
1
CN
01
rH
O
H
CO
•
rH
cd
P
O
CN
0
«^-
•t
CO
41
60
CO
X >
•P rH
!-i CO
o w
/— s
CO
•
0
rH
rH
N-'
••*
p
C -*
01 •
CO S
41 13
l-i O
'sO
r^.
^^
Cu
rH
CN
rH
CO
P
•r-l
p
(rt
"
CN
•
VO
CO
O
»
CN
^
S CO
o 8
vO
3
41
60 0)
cti 3
> rH
rH CO
cO >
r^*.
•
ON
r*-».
•*^-
C
O
4_)
0 4J
3 CO
4-* O
CO
d
0
o
ro
•
ro
O
\o
4*
H
*
p
o
o
P
cd
p3
00
&W
CU
rH
•P
•H
H
rO
d
cfl
M
41
a
rj
4)
£>
•H
^j
cfl
ci
cu
4->
5!
U
0
M-l
03
D-i
i"~*
2
&
CU
4_j
cfl
p
cfl
01
co
cu
Ol
p
£
H
3
•H
cfl
p
cu
P3
*"O
C
cfl
M
^v*
41
4)
O
^r^
CO
•H
CO
•
CO
CO
O
*
•*
f^^
r-^»
•
00
CN
CN
^
>^-
•
m
r-^.
rH
•t
rH
ViO
•
vO
oo
o
*>
CO
-*
vO
rH
rH
CN
•
^^
ON
ON
s^"
•
O
rO
•r>
00
fj^ Q
•H
P -P
O U
<4H 01
C/3
Cu
H d
? iH
^£
fc^
cd cu
01
o
CO
Cu fi
H co
S >H
O TJJ
H cd
CO
.3
cfl
p
J3
p,
W
M
O
<4H
Cu
p-t
3
*^e
cfl
T3
d
cfl
>^-N
w
r*^
CN
e*
"*^"
•
O
en
f<
m
/-^
rH
^D
CN
m
CO |
4~i
ct)
d
0
•H
•« P
M U
O CU
,£> C/3
I-l
Cfl d
HM »(H
oo a
W ctt
^
M Ji
O Cw
U-l W
Cu TJ
EH pj *^-N
3 cfl Cd
^ r*^
*• CN
rH ,**i PH
cfl 41
d 41 -
0 M 2
•H 0 0
00 fl
41 & H
p CO N-*
•H
^ri r^ ^^
^
co
M
cd
cu
o
CN
g
O
M
<4-l
TJ
cu
4J
3
G.
g
O
a
CO
•H
t-j
P
o
S
P
d
0)
CO
0)
i-l
Cu
r— 1
^
d
0
•H
4-1
CO
V-i
4-1
CO
•H
C
•H
0
TJ
cd
••
60
•r-t
M
CU
cu
d
•H
2P
cu
M
O
U-l
&*s
r*».
CN
CO
3
rH
Cu
4->
CO
o
Qj
d
o
•H
4->
O
3
p
P
CO
d
o
CJ
CO
4)
TJ
rH
O
rj
M
CN
•
CO
CU
•H
U
d
41
00
d
•H
4-1
d
0
o
T?
d
cfl
60
d
•H
o
d
cfl
•H
>4H
*
rH
Cfl
60
41
rH
T3
d
cfl
•
T3
a>
""Q
3
rH
a
d
•H
4-J
O
a
o»
u
cfl
4->
•rl
d
3
B
0
o
0
f?
o
a)
CU
d
•H
CO
a
CU
p
CO
£>^
CO
p
cu
13
cu
CO
d
o
•rH
P
o
cu
rH
rH
0
O
CO
2-100
-------
2.3. System Alternatives
Feasible and compatible sets of component options were combined into
system alternatives. The system alternatives represent combinations of
conveyance options for various wastewater flows, different treatment pro-
cesses, siting options, effluent disposal options, sludge processing and
disposal options, and onsite system options. The alternatives include no
action, independent treatment systems for each community with discharge to
either land or bay, and onsite systems. The potential wastewater treatment
alternatives were developed and evaluated for technical feasibility, cost-
effectiveness, and environmental concerns. These alternatives, including
the No Action Alternative, and costs associated with each one are described
in the following sections. All cost data are based on December 1981 price
levels.
2.3.1. Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative implies that neither USEPA nor WDNR (except
on an individual basis through the Wisconsin fund where eligible individual
systems can be funded for upgrades through NR 128.30) would provide funds
to build, upgrade, or expand existing wastewater treatment systems. Waste-
water would be treated in existing onsite systems and no new facility would
be built except to replace obviously failed systems. This report assumes,
however, that the county health department would assume responsibility for
improving existing systems because environmental problems associated with
the onsite systems would persist and groundwater pollution may become a
problem if no corrective action were taken.
The need for improved wastewater management in each community is not
well documented. Cost of pumping existing holding tanks appears to be the
major impetus for centralized collection and treatment systems. The number
of onsite systems experiencing serious or recurrent surface failures or
backups is small. The impact of onsite systems on groundwater quality is a
major concern but bacterial problems with properly constructed wells appear
to be minimal and are not traced specifically to onsite systems as compared
2-101
-------
to other sources. Some onsite systems are affecting the water quality of
the bays of Green Bay and Lake Michigan on a very localized basis, as
observed by the water quality analyses conducted in conjunction with the
septic leachate detector survey. With the No Action Alternative, the
health authorities would not have adequate justification for inspecting
individual onsite systems and ordering upgrades where no persistent surface
breakout is occurring. They are unlikely to have the time, personnel, or
monitoring capabilities to be able to identify and solve potential problems
with onsite systems.
Furthermore, no project would be instituted to mitigate the high cost
for businesses to pump holding tanks. The result would be an increasing
number of holding tanks that have high operational costs. The number of
systems to be upgraded, and the costs of upgrading, operating and main-
taining the onsite systems have not been estimated because too little
information has been gathered to project future upgrades. Information on
the actual soil conditions in the more densely developed areas and past
failure rates are not known. In addition, the attitudes of the regulatory
agencies toward petitions of modifications for existing structures are not
clearly perceived.
2.3.2. Village of Egg Harbor Alternatives
The alternatives for Egg Harbor include sewers and treatment plants or
onsite systems for two service areas for the downtown and onsite systems
for the remainder of the village. The needs documentation does not clearly
establish that septic tank and soil absorption systems are causing ground-
water or surface water contamination problems in the village. The inferred
evidence, particularly depth to bedrock and small lot size, does show need
for improved waste treatment systems, primarily in the downtown area and
also in outlying areas. The areas for which sewers were investigated are
shown in Figure 2-17 and 2-18. The larger area (Figure 2-17) is consistent
with the area shown in the Facilities Plan and the smaller area (Figure
2-18) is based on inferred evidence from the needs documentation.
2-102
-------
The collection systems considered for the larger area (Figure 2-17)
were the conventional gravity and the STE gravity. For both treatment
plant locations, Sec. 24 T30N R26E and Sec. 31 T30N R27E, the conventional
gravity systems are the least costly (Appendix E; Table E-10). For the
smaller area (Figure 2-18), the septic tank effluent pressure sewers were
also considered for the Sec. 31 site. Conventional gravity systems are the
least costly (Appendix E; Table E-10) for both treatment plant locations.
(Note: In Figures 2-17 and 2-18 the layout is the same for conventional and
STE gravity sewers.)
The treatment plant locations (Figure 2-19) were selected based on the
recommended site of the Facilities Plan (Sec. 24 T30N R26E) and a general
site (Sec. 31 T30N R27E) where a cluster drainfield or a land application
system could likely be located. An aerated lagoon and a RBC WWTP were
evaluated for both sewer service areas. The RBC system was recommended in
the Facilities Plan although the aerated lagoon was least costly. In this
analysis, the aerated lagoon was deemed to be technically feasible and the
least cost system (Appendix E; Table E-20). The aerated lagoon also was
utilized as the treatment process within the land application system. The
cluster drainfield and land application options are located in Sec. 31 and
30, respectively, T3UN R27E (Figure 2-19). The outfall from the WWTP would
discharge to Green Bay at a depth of 25 to 30 feet.
Each alternative for Egg Harbor will include the continued use of
onsite systems in some or all subareas. The estimated numbers and costs of
onsite systems to be upgraded and future systems are given in Appendix E,
Table E-29 through E-32.
Alternative 1 - No Action
The No Action Alternative is discussed in general in Section 2.3.1.
The total present worth cost of the No Action Alternative would probably be
considerably less (about one-half) than Alternative 7 - upgraded onsite
systems for all subareas. This estimate is based on the assumption that
few of the existing onsite systems would be replaced during the project
period.
2-105
-------
2-106
-------
.
0
o
o
rH
C/l-
rH
CO
ON
rJ
M
O>
J3
§
W
U
S
*^
CO
0)
>
•H
4-1
«
c
t->
0)
4-1
r-f
cd
h
i-i
oo
C-0
w
r-(
o
IW
m
4-1
to
o
o
X
g
4-t
C
0>
00
0)
M
a
•e
o
+j
4-*
09
>
h
5
«
rH
1
CM
01
J3
CO
H
00
e
3
1
fel
E
01 rH 41
00 B r-l -H
« 3 CO 4J
VJ C > CO
01 B i-1 O
> co 3 U
•< cr
V
CO
4J
o
H
4-1
B
01
C
o
o.
CJ
IV
4J
•rl
CO
8
r-l
CO
to
a
to
•rl
Q
4J
E
41
g
4-1
CO
01
M
H
B
E 0
O i-l
•H D
4-1 CO
O t) -rt
01 B B
rH B S
!-< C
3 2
4J
01
•H
01
^
CO
01
u
cd
3
CO
M
O
IU
1
CO
X
CO
C
o
•H
4J
01
0
u
4-1
•rl
CO
rt
00
l-l
§
B O
0 i-l
•rl 4-1
V C
2 |
S. I
«
iH CM
m
vo
-a-
i-i
CM
-x>
r*.
SD
r— I
CM
rn
00
r*»
*
m
CM
f>
r-l
co
O
c^
*^
r*.
\D
00
I
B rO
ft) J3
CU 00
C M
O O U-i
O O
60 O
01 •«
•O 00 C
V --» ^H
rt .c g
Q) QD h
nj T-I
o o
(-* ^ y-t
c cd co
DO W 4J
(D *Jr> 00
•iH M ^
S ci m
C rS tU
tfj O 4-»
+-» H m
C
• -» o
< rsi
" .-S
•c o -a
E 01 CO
CO CO h
00
- E a.
rH 10
0. ... ffl
- H X 01
< 3 co -i
rH 3 co a
^c
m
CM
in
CM
r^
O
in
CM
CO
00
r*»
«
in
CM
m
rH
CM
cn
r^
CO
r^
r*
vO
00
CO T3
01 41
M • t)
CO 0 CO
3 to 05
to a.
e 3
U i-l
o •- •
14H Ok4 X tO
H co «
E 3 CO 41
4J B a
tO O 01 J3
xcq 0) 3
to S u to
0
o •J o o
4J C M
CJ O 41 01
41 iH ttOTJ
rH CO kt B
rH 10 CO rl
0 i-l 5 CO
u s o e
4J CO T3
•rl l-i IH
> 4J TJ O
CO B ^H
M - CO
00 < CO
CM - g
rH a S
CO "O *C 4j
E B CM CO
o co D£ x
t-l tO
4J . Z
B eo o oi
41 rH Cn 4J
> H -H
§<» s
O i-t Cv» O
.
oo
eg
1 M
CQ W CU 0)
rH "X M T3
CM O C
*rf « ^
< rO fl
o S
0) m rH M
« H- "^
QJ O >-l
I* *H tt O
« <^ **-!
rO W
3 • V 00
tO O *J E
O CO S
M t/3 3 4-»
O t-4 00
u-) C O >»
•H tO
Qj 4J «H (U
4J 4J 4-»
00 -H ,— i -H
>» 00 09 (0
00 CO C
0 0 0
C ** tX
O CO T3
4j C T3 TJ
t) *H CO
0) CO -o l-i
«-i to c oo
i-J -H oj Cl.
0 B 3
O 00 4J
c a •-
>t rt a* B
4j h S a>
^-( 4J 4-1 *J
> cC to
o) * at P^
QO CN 4->
W -O -T3 O
H C fi ^
tO BJ (S +J
CO
-a-
00
*
rg
O
CM
r-*
r>.
-*
O
tN
m
00
r-*,
^
CM
•^t
00
• to H co
CO < C
n CM -a- o
00 CM
-a -o
rH B • 41
CO CO CJ T3
E Oi CO
O » tO IH
•H to 00
4J CO E O.
E rH 1-1 3 •
41 n)
!> . CU „ CO
E Zj H X 41
5< 3 CO w
rH 3 O) CJ
•w
^
CO 1*3
rH f-~
CN
- Oi
z
i-l O
CO H
«
Sen
5 .
3 cj
• a
O E
IS
4J -H
CO CO
X
n o
4-f
B
•H 0
4J -rl
U CO
41 CO
rH *rt
-i B
O CO
CO
X rl
•rl
ffl oT
U <
OOCM
td -0
H C
CO CO
m
CM
O
•
00
r*.
rH
r-~
en
Ov
r^
rH
o
o\
CN
O\
O
en
o
en
1
r>-
rH
kO
m
SJ»
-H 3
4-i n
0.
0 O
CO
"S 01
t3
rH C
fH i-l
m i
41
CO 0
3 *<
U TO
to
a a
CO
o oj
tO iH
5 C
o
B n
CO 01
T3
4J CO
E Vi
1 1
2 a* .
4J 01 CO
4-1 fl
•o to ro
B X l-i
co n co
-3-
00
•
CM
o
CM
vO
r-»
•C-
0
CM"
o
ON
CM
C*
eo
CM
0
CM
rH
O
o
«3"
CM
VO
H
m
n
CO T)
41 4-1 41
rl CO -T3
_S« 2
3 E 00
to 41 o,
u B
O CO •»
i*H 41 W
CO *• CN O
S Od CO
01 T> 01
4J E Z M
CO O H 3
t> CO
E rH
o E en 4H
•HO 0
O » O rl
41 X 41 0)
rH -H t/3 T3
CJ E iH co
CO 5
X W 01 !B
•rl i-l
> . n 'H
co to o
U < B
to o
U e^
4J m
i-l CM
to sc
0 l^
T) 4-1
41 CQ
•e
CO T3
h 91
00 H
Q. -H
O 4J
IH
i
r*. —i
2-107
-------
Alternative 2A - Conventional gravity collection system for Subareas 1A,
IB, and 2A, transmission to aerated lagoon WWTP in Sec. 24 T30N R26E, and
discharge to Green Bay; upgraded onsite systems for remainder of subareas.
This alternative consists of the most cost-effective components for
the large sewer service area and a bay discharge. The sewer service area
and the aerated lagoon location are shown in Figure 2-17. The estimated
present worth costs of the collection and transmission, treatment, dis-
charge, and onsite system components are displayed in Table 2-16. The
total present worth cost is estimated to be $2,167,600.
Alternative 2B - Conventional gravity collection system for Subareas 1A,
IB, and 2A, transmission to RBC WWTP in Sec. 24 T30N R26E, and discharge to
Green Bay; upgraded onsite systems for remainder of subareas.
This alternative is similar to the alternative recommended in the
Facilities Plan. It consists of the most cost-effective collection system
and the treatment system deemed to have the least siting problem in Sec. 24
(same WWTP site as for Alternative 2B). The sewer service area and the RBC
WWTP location are shown in Figure 2-17. The estimated present worth costs
of the collection and transmission, treatment, discharge, and onsite sys-
tems components are displayed in Table 2-16. The total present worth cost
of the alternative is estimated to be $2,550,700.
Alt ernat ive_3 - STE gravity collection system for Subareas 1A, IB, and 2A,
transmission to site in Sec. 31 T30N R27E, and treatment and disposal in
cluster soil absorption system; upgraded onsite systems in remainder of
subareas.
This alternative consists of STE gravity sewers and a cluster drain-
field. The assumption was made that most of the existing septic tanks
would not be replaced and therefore it would be less costly to utilize them
as compared to a community septic tank. The site identified for a possible
cluster drainfield was selected based on the soil maps prepared by the SCS.
No field inspection has been conducted. The sewer service area is shown in
Figure 2-17 and the cluster drainfield site is shown in Figure 2-19. The
estimated present worth costs of collection and transmission, disposal, and
onsite systems components are displayed in Table 2-16. The total present
worth cost of this alternative is estimated to be $2,047,700.
2-108
-------
Alternative 4 - Conventional gravity collection systems for Subareas IAN,
IBS, and ~2AS, transmission to aerated lagoon WWTP in Sec. 24 T30N R26E, and
discharge to Green Bay; upgraded onsite systems for remainder of subareas.
This alternative features the reduced sewer service area and, in other
respects, is similar to Alternative 2A. The sewer service area and the
aerated lagoon location are shown in Figure 2-18. The estimated present
worth costs of the collection and transmission, treatment, discharge, and
onsite systems components are displayed in Table 2-16. The total present
worth cost is estimated to be $1,872,300.
Alternative 5 - STE gravity collection system for Subareas IAN, IBS, and
2AS, transmission to site in Sec. 31 T30N R27E, and treatment and disposal
in cluster soil absorption system; upgraded onsite systems for remainder of
subareas.
This alternative is similar to Alternative 3, except the sewer service
area is smaller. The sewer service area is shown in Figure 2-18 and the
site for the cluster drainfield is shown in Figure 2-19. The estimated
present worth costs of collection and transmission, disposal, and onsite
systems components are displayed in Table 2-16. The total present worth
cost is estimated to be $1,793,700.
Alternative 6 - Conventional gravity collection for Subareas IAN, IBS, and
2AS and transmission to and treatment at land application site in Sec. 30
T30N R27E; upgraded onsite systems for remainder of subareas.
This alternative features disposal on land by slow-rate irrigation
using a permanent sprinkling system. The treatment prior to irrigation
would utilize an aerated lagoon. A separate lagoon for winter storage of
effluent was costed into the alternative, although a separate lagoon may
not be necessary. Artificial drainage was not included in the preliminary
design and costs. The sewer service area is shown in Figure 2-18 and the
treatment and land application site in Figure 2-19. The estimated present
worth costs of the collection and transmission, treatment, land applica-
tion, and onsite systems components are displayed in Table 2-16. The total
present worth cost is estimated to be $2,047,600.
2-109
-------
Alternative 7 - Upgraded onsite systems for all subareas.
This alternative consists of upgraded onsite systems and future onsite
systems in all subareas. The number of systems to be upgraded was esti-
mated conservatively. The systems that are not obviously causing a direct
effluent flow to the bedrock were not included in the estimate of the
number of systems to be upgraded. Compliance with Wisconsin code was not
used as a criterion for estimating the number of systems to be upgraded.
The estimated total present worth of this alternative is $1,670,100.
2.3.3. Community of Fish Creek Alternatives
The alternatives for Fish Creek include sewers and treatment plants or
onsite systems for three subareas that encompass the downtown and onsite
systems for the remainder of the subareas of the community. The needs
documentation does not clearly establish that septic tank and soil absorp-
tion systems are causing groundwater or surface water contamination prob-
lems except in a limited area along the shoreline. The inferred evidence,
particularly, cobbly soils and limited depth to the water table, does show
need for improved waste treatment systems within the commercialized down-
town area. Depth to bedrock is severely limited within the subareas at the
east end of the community. The high percentage of holding tanks that serve
commercial establishments and their costly pumping requirements are ap-
parently the impetus for sewering the area. The subareas for which sewers
were investigated are shown in Figure 2-20. Subarea 3B was included within
the sewer service area for one alternative and excluded for the others.
The larger area is somewhat consistent with the Facilities Plan Addendum
for Fish Creek.
The collection systems considered were the conventional gravity, STE
gravity, and STE pressure sewers. For all WWTP locations, conventional
gravity systems are the least costly (Appendix E; Table E-33).
The treatment plant locations (Figure 2-21) were selected based on the
recommended site of the Facilities Plan Addendum (NENW Sec. 33), the site
investigated for a cluster mound (SWNE Sec. 32), and a general site where a
2-110
-------
Figure 2-21. Fish Creek treatment plant and outfal
2-112
-------
cluster drainfield or land application system may be feasible (Sec. 3).
Because the Facilities Plan Addendum for Fish Creek recommended an aerated
lagoon, this analysis includes the aerated lagoon for wastewater treatment.
The cluster mound was evaluated for the feasible location for limited flows
(SWNL Sec. 32), and the cluster drainfield and land application options
were evaluated for Sec. 3 (Figure 2-21). The outfall from the WWTP would
discharge to Green Bay at a depth of 25 to 30 feet.
Each alternative for Fish Creek will include the continued use of on-
site systems in some or all subareas. The estimated numbers and costs of
onsite systems to be upgraded and future systems are given in Appendix E;
Tables E-46 through E-49.
Alternative 1 - No Action
The No Action Alternative is discussed in general in Section 2.3.1.
The total present worth cost of this alternative would be slightly less
(approximately one-quarter) than Alternative 7 - upgraded onsite systems
for all subareas. The estimated high cost is due to the large number of
holding tanks currently being utilized by commercial properties that gen-
erate large volumes of wastes during the tourist season. Under the No
Action Alternative, it was assumed that few existing systems would fail and
would need to be replaced.
Alternative 2 - Conventional gravity collection system for Subareas 2, 3A,
and 3B, transmission to aerated lagoon WWTP in NENW Sec. 33, and discharge
to Green Bay; upgraded onsite systems for remainder of subareas.
This alternative consists of conventional gravity sewers, the most
cost-effective collection system for the larger sewer service area, and
aerated lagoon located at NENW Sec. 33, and a discharge to Green Bay. It
is similar to the recommended alternative of the Facilities Plan Addendum
for Fish Creek. The sewer service area is shown in Figure 2-20 and the
WWTP and outfall in Figure 2-21. The estimated present worth costs of the
collection, treatment, transmission and discharge, and onsite systems
components are displayed in Table 2-17. The total present worth cost is
estimated to be $2,913,700.
2-113
-------
m
^~s
K
O
O
o
•w-
»
r-l
00
O\
i-t
U
0)
43
e
0>
CJ
e
CO
41
>
•H
4J
CD
E
M
41
4-1
r-l
CD
j£
0)
41
O
JE
CO
[K
kl
0
14-1
CO
CO
o
CJ
^
kl
s
4-1
E
41
CO
41
&
•d
0>
v
CO
oi s -ri O
> CO 3 CJ
< cr
41
U1
00
CO
CM
r~
co
V
O
H
m
.-»
(T>
CM
4-1
B
U
E
a
U
CD
4-1
vf
CD
eg
fj
*
o^
,jf
B
0
i-l 41
to oi
CO kl
E E .C
E to
« i-l
£ •=
«-t
r-»
^o
m
4-»
B
o>
S
*j
(0
4J
^
J3 I
3 o e
CO -\3 4-1 -H
0) rt
P *J
M-l U U p
4) q)
@es .B u
w o
+J O CO »M
03 4J -H
>» T3 CO
CO B £
O T3 (D
B -H B «J
O 05 « CO
•^t co >.
V -H * CD
0> CD ft 0)
^ B 4~»
rH « • -^
o i~i o m
O +•' 0-' B
w o
*J po a •Q
i-i co S cu
« TJ Z "S
CO CO E 00 to
•H a HI
— 1 • 3 kl
0) < Q- rt
E 0 S X"3
O *H • 3 to" CO
u E E u
^ > CO O 4)
B 01 00 41 k
O O kl tO kl 01
Z O CO rH CJ TJ
a B
rH CN
ki -a a
O 41 00
UJ 4-1 kl
Ski f.
01 CJ
4H <0 CO
CO iH
X 0 TJ
CO 4J
B E O
o o a
iH iH
4-1 CO »
O CO ro
4) iH n
rH CO •
O B CJ
IH CA
>, 4J
s .s
5^g
OCTJ C
B iH
"ie * cu
C CN H
0 3
•H 10 gt
4J tO
B 41 B
4> kl o
> 15 O
E fi 00
83 ,2
^
in
r-4
r*.
vC
in
CM
f>
ro
00
r-.
rH
•*
CT\
0
CO
4-1
CO
CO
U
CO
B
o
41 CO
•o to
tC 41
00 to
Q. J3
3 3
CO
X 14-1
a o
a
B 41
01 -e
41 B
kl iH
U CO
S
o 5
4H kl
CO U
to 41
41 CO
kl
|£
(C W
>-< c
0 -H
M-l
(U
§^
4J CD
m
&s
§§
-H -H
4J 0?
U CO
£ I
O B
O «J
M
•H *
|_|
00 "C
W a;
H
t
•a*
^j-
00
in
CM
ro
e^
O
vC
CM
00
ro
vO
in
00
\D
ro
ON
1
r-.
00
o
f-H
rH
1
ki B
4) -H
CO S
3 41
i-H M
CJ
kl
E 0
rH CO
CO B
co S
O 4-1
a. co
CO >,
iH CO
•O
T) *J
E i-l
«J O
B •
ST3 CO
41 to
4-> 13 41
tC CO k!
41 kl t8
kl 00 -Q
4J a. 3
3 CO
S •JT'S
E
. 3 kl
CM O 41
ro E TJ
00
•a-
r-
tM
CM
in
r^
r--
*
CM
00
ro
^D
in
r*~
CM
O
r-l
"
rH
1
r>»
OC
o
rH
rH
CO
to i
41 ro | fi
kl B -H
to • -H to
J2 CJ « B
3 01 kl 01
CO CO -rj kl
ki E ki E
0 iH 41 -H
01 10 CO
§4J 3 B
iH rH OJ
4J CO CJ 4J
CO CO
X 0 E !><
CO 4J -H CO
E E rH 01
O O CO 4J
iH iH CO -H
4-> CO O CO
CJ » C. E
41 IH CO O
rH 0 iH •
rH CO T3 "O CO
OS 41 CC
U tt -O -Q U
P B 0 kl
!>* 4J (0 kl H)
4-1 oo .n
-H • 4J O. 3
!> < E 3 8
kl E •" «4H
00 *rj 4-1 -rj O
E 10 rH
W tO 41 H kl
H kl 1"! 01
tO CM 4H U-l TJ
B
in
ki
£ "e
id
8 o
CO
CO O
E CC
0 CO
iH iH
CJ CO
rH CO
"5 4->
O
•%
4J CO
•H
CO ro
00 TS
E
rH CO
E tt
E -0
.
vO
CM
m
CT>
CM
UO
rH
00
&
CM
K
ro
vO
in
CO
CM
NT
vC
rsi
.
ro
m
CO
r~
rH
^3-
C*
E
•H 1
41
01 kl
-r4 B
X -H
E co
4J 4-1
CO CO
0 >.
iH CO
rH
— 41
O. 4J
tO i-l
CD •
•B E CO
BOO
« 01
r^ -0 M
0) CO
ffl -O J3
CO 3
4-1 kl CO
CO 00
4J 3 O
E
I en cu
4-1 -0
« • E
(U CJ *H
U 01 <0
iTi
»a-
CN
ro
CO
^c
f^
C«J
ro
00
sD
P-*
CM
•
C*^
CO
fl
CO
CO
01
CO
E
o
•8
B
,
r-
B
CO
ki
CO
o
CM
kl
01
5-
*?
ITI
CN
XO
r-»
w
«
tJ
cu
N
•^
4J
U
o
1
•—•
2-114
-------
Alternative 3 - Conventional gravity collection system for Subareas 2 and
3A, transmission to aerated lagoon WWTP in NENW Sec. 33, and discharge to
Green Bay; upgraded onsite systems for remainder of subareas.
This alternative is similar to Alternative 2 except Subarea 3B is
excluded from the sewer service area. The sewer service area is shown in
Figure 2-20 and the aerated lagoon and outfall location in Figure 2-21.
The estimated present worth costs of the collection, treatment, trans-
mission and discharge, and onsite systems components are displayed in Table
2-17. The total present worth cost of this alternative is estimated to be
$2,905,800, somewhat less than Alternative 2 indicating that it is not
cost-effective to provide sewer service to Subarea 3B.
Alternative 4 - STE gravity collection systems for Subarea 2 and 3A, trans-
mission to site in SWNE Sec. 32, and treatment and disposal in cluster
mound; upgraded onsite systems for remainder of subareas.
This alternative consists of STE gravity sewers and a cluster mound.
The assumption was made that most of the existing septic tanks would not be
replaced and holding tanks can be modified to operate as septic tanks and
therefore it would be less costly to utilize them as compared to a com-
munity septic tank. The site identified for the community mound has been
investigated extensively and is suitable for construction of a mound of
limited area. The sewer service area and the cluster mound site are shown
in Figures 2-20 and 2-21, respectively. The estimated present worth costs
of collection, transmission and disposal, and onsite systems components are
displayed in Table 2-17. The total present worth cost of this alternative
is estimated to be $2,609,300.
Alternative 5 - STE gravity collection system for Subareas 2 and 3A, trans-
mission to site in Sec. 3, treatment and disposal in cluster drainfield;
upgraded onsite systems in remainder of subareas.
This alternative is similar to Alternative 4 except the soil absorp-
tion system is a community drainfield in Sec. 3. The general area identi-
fied for a cluster drainfield was selected based on the soil maps prepared
by the SCS and no field inspection has been conducted. The sewer service
area is shown in Figure 2-20 and the cluster drainfield is shown in Figure
2-21. The estimated present worth costs of collection, transmission and
disposal, and onsite systems components are displayed in Table 2-17. The
total present worth cost of this alternative is estimated to be $2,775,200.
2-115
-------
Alternative 6 - Conventional gravity collection system for Subareas 2 and
3A and transmission to and treatment at land application site in Sec. 3;
upgraded onsite systems for remainder of subareas.
This alternative proposes disposal on land by slow-rate irrigation
using a permanent sprinkling system. The treatment prior to irrigation
would utilize an aerated lagoon. A separate lagoon for winter storage of
effluent was costed, although a separate lagoon may not be necessary. The
additional fill that was included in the cost of the aerated lagoon in
Alternatives 2 and 3 would not be necessary at this site although it was
included in the costs. Artif Icial drainage of the application field was
not included in the preliminary design and costs. The sewer service area
is shown in Figure 2-20 and the treatment and land application site in
Figure 2-21. The estimated present worth costs of the collection, treat-
ment, disposal, and onsite systems components costs are shown in Table
2-17. The total present worth cost is estimated to be $2,981,500.
Alternative^ 7 - Upgraded onsite systems for all subareas.
This alternative consists of upgraded onsite systems and future onsite
systems in all subareas. The number of systems to be upgraded was esti-
mated conservatively. The systems that are not obviously causing a direct
effluent flow to the bedrock were not included in the estimate of the
number of systems to be upgraded. Compliance with the code was not used as
a criterion for estimating the number of systems to be upgraded. The
estimated total present worth cost of this alternative is estimated to be
$3,27o,800.
2.3.4. Village of Ephraim Alternatives
The alternatives for Ephraim include sewers and treatment plants or
onsite systems for: 1) a service area of nearly the whole community, and 2)
a service area of the downtown, with onsite systems for the remainder of
the village. The needs documentation does not clearly establish that
septic tank and soil absorption systems are causing groundwater contami-
nation problems in the village. Elevated levels of nitrate and phosphorus
were measucel In surface water streams and shallow groundwater in Subarea
2-116
-------
IB but the source may be the Ephraim Swamp. Other swamps in the study area"
exhibited similar elevated nutrient analyses. The inferred evidence,
particularly depth to bedrock on the uplands, cobbly soil in the downtown,
and depth to water table in Subarea IB, does demonstrate that potential
problems of groundwater contamination may be present. The large number of
existing and proposed holding tanks in the downtown area indicates that a
lower cost sewage treatment alternative could be developed. The areas for
which sewers were investigated are shown in Figures 2-22 and 2-23. The
larger area (Figure 2-22) is consistent with the sewer service area of the
Facilities Plan. The reduced sewer service area (Figure 2-23) is based on
inferred evidence from the needs documentation.
The collection systems considered were the conventional gravity and
the STE gravity. The conventional gravity system was lowest cost for both
sewer service areas (Appendix E; Table E-50).
The treatment plant location (Figure 2-24) was selected based on the
recommended site and the recommended system, aerated lagoon, of the Facil-
ities Plan (Sec. 24). The discharge or disposal locations are slightly
different from the Facilities Plan. The Green Bay outfall was extended to
the 30-foot depth and this necessitated routing the outfall forcemain to
leave land considerably north of the location presented in the Facilities
Plan in order to keep the underwater outfall length as short as possible.
The discharge to the wetland was located near the center of Sec. 25. The
cluster drainfield would be located on a site in Sec. 24 where the soils
and hydrogeologic conditions appear to be suitable for a cluster drain-
field.
Each alternative for Ephraim includes the continued use of onsite
systems in some or all subareas. The estimated numbers and costs of onsite
systems to be upgraded and future systems are given in Appendix E, Tables
E-64 through E-66.
Alternative 1 - No Action.
The No Action Alternative is discussed in Section 2.3.1. The total
present worth cost of this alternative would probably be about one-third
2-117
-------
d c
" \s"' '','•
-, - i *."* -^F 's
yvetlanxl diic^c^e
(sec. 25)»
>I;
^ur^'^24
Olftjmiflf
^fart^^atioii^. '-*".
2-120
-------
less than Alternative 6 - upgraded onsite systems for all subareas. This
estimate is based on the assumption that few of the existing onsite systems
would be replaced during the project period. The number of complete re-
placement systems has not been very high within the village, except where
additions to structures have been constructed.
Alternative 2 - Conventional gravity collection system for Subareas 1, 2,
3, 5, and 6, transmission to aerated lagoon WWTP in Sec. 24, and discharge
to Green Bay; upgraded onsite systems for Subarea 4.
This alternative consists of the most cost-effective components for
the larger sewer service area and a bay discharge. The sewer service area
(Figure 2-22), the aerated lagoon WWTP, and the bay discharge (Figure 2-24)
are similar to the Facilities Plan. The estimated present worth costs of
the collection and transmission, treatment, discharge, and onsite systems
components are displayed in Table 2-18. The total present worth cost of
this alternative was estimated to be $5,918,900.
If a more northerly WWTP location (such as in Sec. 13) would be feas-
ible, the outfall costs for this alternative would be reduced. In this
area it would be difficult to locate the plant a minimum of 750 feet from
the nearest inhabited dwelling as required by the Wisconsin Code. It is
estimated that the total present worth costs would be reduced by $570,000.
Alternative 3 - Conventional.gravity collection system for Subareas 1A, IB,
and 2, transmission to aerated lagoon WWTP in Sec. 24, and discharge to
Green Bay; upgraded onsite systems for remainder of subareas.
This alternative is similar to Alternative 2 except the sewer service
area is reduced considerably (Figure 2-23). The aerated lagoon and outfall
locations are shown in Figure 2-24. The estimated present worth costs of
collection and transmission, treatment, discharge, and onsite systems
components are displayed in Table 2-18. The total present worth cost of
this alternative is estimated to be $3,962,600.
Similar to Alternative 2, if a more northerly WWTP location was feas-
ible, the total estimated present worth cost of this alternative could be
reduced by $390,000.
2-121
-------
•
s
o
0
r-l
r-l
OO
ON
r^
J-i
CU
«D
O
(U
0
*-x
tn
Q)
>
•H
4->
«
C
l-
o
+J
M
0
e
.5
OS
u
.n
£
,w
o
n-i
en
4-»
U)
0
O
re
4-1
M
i
4-*
o
0)
X
Q)
l-i
a
T3
G/
4-1
4->
X
*
M
E
3
to
.
00
i— (
1
CM
0)
.0
at
H
01
01 -H •-< — i
00 CO CO 4-1
ec 3 > X
^ C i-1 CJ
CU B 3 u
> to er
< 01
^
•o
00
in
Os
CO
4-1
o
H
00
•—4
ON
m
4-1
C
HI
c
a
Q
U
41
4-1
to
B
PO
O^
m
a\
r-4
tO
X
o
a
X
•H
O
CM
ON
r-
%£>
•*
4J
c
a
js
4->
CO
01
14
H
O^
ON
•*
r^.
e o
o o
•H 6
O -O Cl
01 C 01
.-i co :>
--< c
0 0
U CJ
r^.
•H
•^
T*^-
m
X
s
•H
*J
tB
c
^1
0)
4J
,-J
<
' *
I*2 -"
X \f,
•a eo
^H 0 (8
i-H 4-1
CD tc d
U 01
U 01 01
o o n
14-1 CJ
o
§4-1 O •
4-< ^
*-* B
X o 01 CO
>s^ 00 01
X X U M
X to CO
C 3 £ J3
o e o 3
i-1 10 X CO
4-1 c -H
O CO TJ VJ
OJ ^ O
T-H 4J T) M-J
f-H B
O • CO X
0 •* s
» a)
:»> ,u -» J-1
4-) gj CM X
•H 14 S>s
> CO • «
CO .D CJ
M 3 01 01
OOCO CO 4J
r-4 4>> C X
co exi-i e
C HI 0
E O o CM
O i-l X H -O
•H 4J CV 3 CJ
4J B 3 t3
cj a) a to
< > cO E tJ
C 01 O 00
O O n O £•
Z U rt 00 3
-H CM
1 1
JO CO
3 J
CO
"O
M 0)
0 «
n-i co
V4
feu
a
w
a o
>s *"
CO
c
e o
0 -H
i-l CO
4-1 X
CJ -H
01 £
rH g
-H B
O ro
CJ I-l
4-1
>s
4-1 ••
1-) CM
>
eo t3
p B
00 CD
r-t *
CO CO
C <-l
o
s<
e -H
0)
> «
C OJ
3^
(C
rn
-31
CM
OS
fO
v£>
rj
vC
ON
P*)
sD
•
f".
M?
i-t
*
i-|
CM
ON
CM
CM
00
m
o
r-^
vC
\D
r-l
O
en
r-l
M-J
e o
0)
0) 1~<
P 0>
o-g
C -rt
4J CO
QJ 01
00 M
M
CO I-l
J= 0
0 UJ
»
•H X
•O S
s
•c "
0 X
CO S^s
X
-» 01
CM 4J
i-(
• X
o c
01 O
CO
•o
B OJ
-"S
CU ^ •
H 00 X
3 a. a
% 3 01
M
B •• co
O t» J3
O « 3
ooca m
1
JD
c?
^
0
14-t
4-1
X
>>
X
c
o
1-1
4J
u
01
1— 1
,-J
o
CJ
:>,
4-1
-H
>
CO
tJ
00
r-t
to
c
o
1-1
4->
B
01
>
c
3
•tf-
V 1 -
0) O) HI
w 9 -o
CO C
VJ O -H
0) 4J CO
0) 01
O 00 K
••-• £r
J^l
0
O O «-i
•rt X
X ^ X
$-° 1
S 13 *-"
CO C W
S « &
u .
4J ~3- O>
CM 4J
» 1-t
CM • X
o c
13 01 0
C CO
« T!
e eu
• i-( T3
03 CO
r-l CXi 14
.s s
< 3 3
M
d •*
w o m
« O "C
cu oo C
(-. 05 rt
03 r-l rH
ON
i-f
y?
p*1,
—i
•»3-
m
vC
m
<£>
r^.
\c
r-(
r-l
-3-
>3-
•-H
m
m
0
r--
vr
vC
iH
o
en
i—t
•
X
B)
Q>
t-i
CC
^}
U-J
0
T3
- C
<: co .*
t-« *O
» r-(
to -* a;
rt f^ -H
0) M-)
M • e
CD 0 -H
JD 01 CC
3 W *4
W TJ
1U -H (-1
O 0)
y-j (U AJ
•M W
g f^ D
a> x I-H
*j y
» o
^ *J C
to —i
C
tf O ^
o -^ «
•H co m
4J » O
o •H a,
Q> E tn
*-l X »H
«• C T5
O CC
O u *O
*J d
>. «
4-t -
•r^ C
0} *& Q)
ofl to *J
«
u - a>
H « M
C/i fH +J
IT)
•-I
m
CO
m
o^
fO
00
m
£>
•
r*
sD
r-l
s
X
01
4J
•rt
X
e
o
•0
a)
•a •
S to
kl CO
00 01
a. >->
3 to
0
^-j
cr
CM
in
00
CO
Os
•>
CM
in
00
ro
Os
CM
1
1
1
X
to
01
V4
CO
.2
s
f— 1
f-l
to
M
O
u-t
X
e
01
4->
X
X
u
01
4J
•o
«
u
00
ex
p
so
,
^
c
tfl
CJ
IH
"E
•H
CO
4J
m
0
o
T-H
-^
CO
4J
3
o
i)
o
3
*o
41
^
•a
T-l
3
§
b
• 3
£ 5
co -5
0 "
>s VH
o o
N c
P 0
g u
° s
X °.
m -1
CM ^
SO >•
iJ
^ oJ
w 5
ffl "
•a 2
0) B
5 CO
4J ^
o i
1 -S
— CM
2-122
-------
Alternative 4 - Conventional gravity collection system for Subareas 1A, IB,
and 2, transmission to aerated lagoon WWTP in Sec. 24, and discharge to
wetlands; upgraded onsite systems for remainder of subareas.
This alternative features disposal of the aerated lagoon effluent in
the Ephraim Swamp in Sec. 25 (Figure 2-24). The effluent would be dis-
charged along the edge of the wetland using multiple outlets so that the
effluent discharge would dispersed over a broad area. The sewer service
area is shown in Figure 2-23. The estimated present worth costs of col-
lection and transmission, treatment, disposal, and onsite systems com-
ponents are displayed in Table 2-18. The total present worth cost is
estimated to be $3,654,100.
Alternative 5 - STE gravity collection systems for Subareas 1A, IB, and 2,
transmission to site in Sec. 24, and treatment and disposal in cluster
drainfield; upgraded onsite systems in remainder of subareas.
This alternative consists of STE gravity sewers and a cluster drain-
field. The assumption was made that most of the existing septic tanks
would not be replaced and the holding tanks could be modified to perform as
septic tanks and therefore it would be less costly to utilize them as
compared to a community septic tank. The site identified for a possible
cluster drainfield was selected based on the soil maps prepared by the SCS.
No field inspections have been conducted. The slopes may necessitate some
special design solutions that are more costly than that prepared for this
document. The sewer service area is shown in Figure 2-23 and the general-
ized location of the cluster drainfield is shown in Figure 2-24. The
estimated present worth costs of collection, treatment and disposal, and
onsite systems components are displayed in Table 2-18. The total present
worth cost of this alternative is estimated to be $3,383,900.
Alternative 6 - Upgraded onsite systems for all subareas.
This alternative consists of upgraded onsite systems and future onsite
systems in all subareas. The number of systems to be upgraded was esti-
mated conservatively considering systems should be upgraded only if there
is strong suspicion that effluent is contaminating groundwater or surface
water. The systems that are not obviously causing a direct effluent flow
2-123
-------
to the bedrock or the ground water were not included in this estimate.
Compliance with the code was not used as a criterion for estimating the
number of systems to be upgraded. Future systems were estimated based on
comparisons to the systems presently being installed in an area. The
estimated total present worth cost of this alternative is $2,938,500.
2.3.5. Community of Baileys Harbor Alternatives
The alternatives for Baileys Harbor include sewers and treatment
plants or onsite systems for two subareas that encompass the downtown and
onsite systems for the remainder of the community. The needs documentation
does not clearly establish that septic tank and soil absorption systems are
causing contamination of groundwater or surface water. Some isolated
failing systems were identified by the septic leachate detector. The
inferred evidence, particularly depth to bedrock, does show a likelihood
that less than fully treated effluent is reaching the bedrock. The number
of holding tanks with high pumping costs serving downtown businesses may
indicate that a sewer system could provide more cost-effective sewage
treatment. The subareas for which sewer service was considered are similar
to the Facilities Plan recommended sewer service area (Figure 2-25).
Subarea 3 alone constitutes the second sewer service area (Figure 2-26).
The collection systems considered were the conventional gravity and
the STE gravity for the larger sewer service area and the conventional
gravity, STE gravity, and STE pressure for the smaller sewer service area.
In both cases, the conventional gravity was least costly (Appendix E; Table
E-67).
The treatment plant locations (Figure 2-27) were selected based on the
recommended site within the Facilities Plan (Sec. 17) and sites near the
proposed discharge areas (Sec. 7 and 8).
Because the recirculating sand filter was the treatment alternative
recommended in the Facilities Plan, this analysis includes the filter as an
alternative component along with the aerated lagoon WWTP. Soils that were
potentially suitable for a cluster drainfield or a land application system
2-124
-------
2-127
-------
were located only at a considerable distance from the community; thus, no
alternatives that incorporate those components were developed. Two wet-
lands discharge locations were considered. One site in Sec. 8 was recom-
mended in the Facilities Plan but that site is adjacent to the Mud Lake
National Natural Landmark and this discharge has the potential to adversely
impact this area. Therefore, a second discharge site was considered in
Sec. 7. An outfall to Baileys Harbor was presumed to be unacceptable,
based on contacts with the FWS and WDNR. For that reason, the outfall was
extended to Lake Michigan east from the community.
Each alternative for Baileys Harbor will include the continued use of
onsite systems in some or all subareas. The estimated numbers and costs of
onsite systems to be upgraded and future systems are given in Appendix E;
Tables E-82 through E-85.
Alternative 1 - No Action
The No Action Alternative is discussed in Section 2.3.1. The number
of replacement systems in this alternative would probably not be very
large, based on records of replacements at the Door County Sanitarian's
office. The total present worth cost of this alternative would likely be
between one-third to one-half less than Alternative 6 - upgraded onsite
systems for all subareas. According to the best available information, a
large number of onsite systems are currently constructed with too little
clearance between the seepage bed and bedrock. Under this alternative,
these would not be upgraded, thus the considerable cost savings.
Alternative 2A - Conventional gravity collection system for Subareas 3 and
6, transmission to aerated lagoon WWTP, and discharge to wetland in Sec. 8;
upgraded onsite systems for remainder of subareas.
This alternative consists of conventional gravity sewers, the most
cost-effective collection system, an aerated lagoon and the wetland dis-
charge located at the site recommended in the Facilities Plan. The sewer
service area is shown in Figure 2-25 and the aerated lagoon and discharge
location is shown in Figure 2-21. The estimated present worth costs of the
collection, conveyance, treatment, discharge, and onsite systems components
2-128
-------
are displayed in Table 2-19. The total present worth cost is estimated to
be $4,237,700.
Alternatlye_ 2B - Conventional gravity collection systems for Subareas 3 and
6, transmission to recirculating sand filter WWTP, and discharge to wetland
in Sec. 8; upgraded onsite systems for remainder of subareas.
This alternative is similar to the recommended alternative in the
Facilities Plan. It consists of the most cost-effective collection system
combined with the treatment system considered by the Facilities Planners to
be best suited to Baileys Harbor. The sewer service area is shown in
Figure 2-25 and the recirculating sand filter and wetland discharge is
shown in Figure 2-27. The estimated present worth costs of the collection,
conveyance, treatment, disposal, and onsite systems components are dis-
played in Table 2-19. The total present worth cost of this alternative is
estimated to be $4,537.300.
Alternative 3 - Conventional gravity collection system for Subareas 3 and
6, transmission to aerated lagoon WWTP and discharge to wetland in Sec. 7;
upgraded onsite systems for remainder of subareas.
This alternative is similar to Alternative 2A except a less envi-
ronmentally sensitive wetland would receive the discharge from the WWTP.
The wetland in Sec. 7 appears to be hydrologically independent of the
Ridges Sanctuary and the Mud Lake landmark. The sewer service area is
shown in Figure 2-25 and the aerated lagoon and wetland discharge is shown
in Figure 2-27. The estimated present worth costs of collection, con-
veyance, treatment, discharge, and onsite systems components are displayed
in Table 2-19. The total present worth cost of this alternative is esti-
mated to be $4,344.000.
Alternative 4 - Conventional gravity collection system for Subarea 3,
transmission to aerated lagoon WWTP in Sec. 17, and discharge to Lake
Michigan; upgraded onsite systems for remainder of subareas.
This alternative is the most feasible lake discharge option for
Baileys Harbor. The discharge would be located in the lake directly east
of Ridges Road along the section line. The WWTP would be located at the
site at the intersection of CTH Q and STH 57 that the Facilities Planners
had recommended (Figure 2-27). The sewer service area is shown in Figure
2-129
-------
oo cc —
« 3 C
u e >
o
o
o
o
CM
gravity collection systet
3 and 6, transmission to
—i «
co -to
C
i-i *j y)
u o> P^t
ea 3 co
gravity for Subareas 3
ission to recirculating
6
03 C
C fl
0 H
•H -M
4J
e -
CU 'O
c •«
o c
O CO
WTP and discharge to
c. 8; upgraded onsite
3 CJ
CO C
4-J -H
u-l C
CO
c *•"
co CO
to 3
emainder of subareas.
1-4
u
o
to
CO
to
to
gravity collection sys-
eas 3 and 6, transmis-
L^
rJ to
E 3
O t/}
•H
4J l-<
C O
CJ HJ
>
I!
•o
I o
CO T5
•H CO
13 M
bO
•0 O.
C 3
cC
O-i r^
H
3 cj
CJ
IB
00 '"-I
CO
rH T3
•a co
CJ —1
4-1 4-1
2 3
CO
to o
4-1
o
4-1 CJ
O cfl
•r-l JT
tn o
i
3
tn
o
CJ
T3
C
CJ
o
tn
CJ
tn
>,
tn
CJ •
4J tO
•rJ 0)
to co
C M
O cfl
gravity collection sys-
ea 3, transmission to
r-l
rH CO
C 3
O CO
•rf
C O
CJ <4-l
CJ 4-1
1
CO
1-1 -a
t3 CO
t3 cfl
e 1-1
CO 00
c.
- 3
e"
• CO
CO 00
32
C 'i-l
•H S
C CJ
o ^
o to
00 rJ
to
rH O
T)
CO CU
4-1 00
tO l-i
p to
CO .^
CO CJ
o
CJ
•o
c
•H
CJ
O
^4-4
en
e
CJ
4J
tA
S*, •
to to
CO
CJ CJ
4J U
i-l S
in J2
C 3
o en
gravity collection sys-
ea 3, transmission to
j_i
r-l CO
C 3
0 VI
•H
4-1 l-l
C 0
CJ 14-1
C B
O 01
U 4-1
n WWTP and discharge
Sec. 7; upgraded on-
for remainder of sub-
o c
0 -H
00
CO T3
—i C
CO
CJ 4J
4-1 CO
0) 3
CJ O
10 4J
en
g
tu
4-1
to
:*,
CO
CJ CO
4-J CJ
•H U
tn co
u
CO
3
to
CO
o
MH
01
e
CJ
4J
en
en
0)
4J
•H
CO
C
o
01
CO
00
-§•
2-130
-------
2-26 and includes Subarea 3 alone. The estimated present worth costs of
collection, conveyance, treatment, discharge, and onsite systems components
is displayed in Table 2-19. The total present worth cost is estimated to
be $4,474,900.
Alternative 5 - Conventional gravity collection system for Subarea 3,
transmission to aerated lagoon WWTP, and discharge to wetland in Sec. 7;
upgraded onsite systems for remainder of subareas.
This alternative is similar to Alternative 3 except a reduced sewer
service area (Figure 2-26) is involved. The wastewater would be conveyed
to Sec. 7 where treatment in an aerated lagoon and discharge to the wetland
would occur (Figure 2-27). The estimated present worth costs of collec-
tion, conveyance, treatment, discharge, and onsite systems components are
displayed in Table 2-19. The total present worth cost of this alternative
is $4,169,900.
Alternative 6 - Upgraded onsite systems for all subareas.
This alternative consists of upgraded onsite systems and future onsite
systems in all subareas. The number of systems to be upgraded was es-
timated conservatively considering systems should be upgraded only if there
is strong suspicion that effluent is contaminating groundwater or surface
water. The systems that are not obviously causing a direct effluent flow
to the bedrock or the groundwater were not included in this estimate.
Compliance with the code was not used as a criterion for estimating the
number of systems to be upgraded. Future systems were estimated based on
comparisons to the systems currently being installed in an area. The
estimated total present worth cost of this alternative is $3,648,500.
2.3.6. Septage and Holding Tank Wastes Disposal
The estimated volumes of septage and holding tank wastes currently
produced are given in Section 2.1.5. Within the study area approximately
255,000 gallons of septage and 10 million gallons of holding tank wastes
were disposed of in 1981. The septage estimates were derived from typical
values of 65 gallons per capita per year for permanent residences and 15
gallons per capita per year for seasonal residences. Nearly 9 million
2-131
-------
gallons per year of holding tank wastes are derived from institutions and
businesses, primarily restaurants, motels, cottages, and condominiums.
These volumes were summed from the records of the County Health Department.
Permanent residences were expected to generate twelve pumpings per year and
seasonal residences three pumpings per year at 2,000 gallons per pumping.
The range of alternatives presented in this document would produce
varied volumes and proportions of septage and holding tank wastes from
within the planning area. Under the alternatives that feature complete
onsite systems, 275,500 gallons per year of septage and 30 million gallons
per year of holding tank wastes would be generated. Under the alternatives
that feature conventional gravity sewers for the larger service areas,
182,000 gallons per year of septage and 7 million gallons of holding tank
wastes would be generated. The other alternatives and combinations of
alternatives would generate volumes of liquid wastes that range between
these numbers. If all the communities were to have septic tank effluent
gravity or pressure sewers, the volume of septage produced would be slight-
ly greater than that shown for the full onsite alternatives.
Safe application rates for septage and holding tank wastes are usually
based on total nitrogen loadings. Other septage constituents of primary
concern from a public health and water quality perspective are pathogens
and phosphorus. Both are relatively immobile in typical soils. Nitrogen
is the principal constituent of concern. The nitrogen loading criterion
used in this study is 300 pounds per acre per year (USEPA 1980b). The
current estimated septage production rate would require an area of 5 acres
for disposal. Disposal of the existing holding tank wastes would require
approximately 45 acres if the assumption concerning nitrogen concentration
is correct.
Based on the previously listed volumes of septage and holding tank
wastes and the safe nitrogen loading rates, the land application area
requirements are:
Alternatives Septage Holding tank wastes Total
Current 4.8 ac 44.5 ac 50 ac
All onsite 5.2 ac 131 ac 136 ac
All centralized gravity 3.4 ac 30 ac 34 ac
2-132
-------
The greatest land area requirement is 136 acres for the full onsite
alternatives (year 2000 condition). Considering the extensive land areas
suitable for application of liquid wastes, no problem is anticipated in
identifying sufficient suitable land. For example, the Reinhards, who
dispose of the greatest volume of wastes, have 220 acres of land on CTH F
between Fish Creek and Baileys Harbor. Approximately 60 acres of their
land meets the 36 inch unsaturated soil depth and 500 foot isolation dis-
tance requirement. Thus, their land alone would suffice for disposal of
all the septage and holding tank wastes of several of the alternatives. If
the maximum application rate of 30 gallons per 100 square foot per day
specified in the Wisconsin code were used and all the liquid wastes were to
be disposed of in 4 months, all of the liquid wastes could be disposed of
on 20 acres for the full onsite alternative.
The cost of treating holding tank wastes at the Fish Creek aerated
lagoon was estimated to be $4.10 per 1000 gallons (By letter, Mr. James M.
McDonald, Foth & Van Dyke and Associates, Inc. to Mr. Edward K. Lynch, WDNR
Bureau of Wastewater Management, 23 June 1982). While the cost of applying
these wastes to land cannot be compared directly to this cost, it is un-
likely to be as great. Thus, unless the haulers are required by regulation
to dispose of these wastes at the treatment plants, it is unlikely that
they will. For the purpose of this document, the assumption was made that
both septage and holding tank wastes will be disposed of on land.
2.4. Flexibility and Reliability of System Alternatives
2.4.1. Flexibility
Flexibility measures the ability of a system to accommodate future
growth and depends on the ease with which a system can be upgraded or
modified. The alternatives considered in this report include centralized
collection sewer systems; wastewater treatment plants with bay, wetland, or
land discharge; community mound and drainfield soil absorption systems; and
various onsite systems. Because each alternative consists of a combination
of components, flexibility is discussed on a component basis.
2-133
-------
For gravity (conventional and septic tank effluent) and pressure sewer
systems, the flexibility to accommodate future increases in flow greater
than the original design flow is generally low. The interceptor sewers are
generally designed for capacity beyond the planning period. To increase
the capacity of collector sewers is a somewhat expensive process. In
addition, the layout of the system depends upon the location of the treat-
ment facility. The expansion of a sewer system is generally easy with the
addition of new sewers but this option is expensive.
The ability to expand a conventional WWTP depends largely upon the
processes being used, the layout of the facilities, and the availability of
additional land for expansion. The expansion or upgrading of most of the
treatment processes considered in the proposed WWTPs is relatively easy.
With proper design of process components of the treatment plant and proper
planning of the facility layout, the cost and effort required for expansion
may be relatively small. Most conventional treatment processes also have
good operational flexibility because operators can, to some extent, vary
treatment parameters.
The ability to expand a wetland or land application discharge depends
on the availability of additional land suitable for expansion. For the
sites considered, additional suitable land is available. Flexibility for
expansion of outfalls for bay discharge is similar to that of collection
sewers and is somewhat limited and more costly in comparison with expansion
of wetland and land application discharge facilities.
Onsite systems are flexible in that they are generally designed for
each user. As long as spatial and environmental parameters are met, the
type of system can be chosen according to individual requirements. Exist-
ing septic systems can be expanded by adding tank and drain field capacity,
if suitable land is available. Flow can then be distributed to an added
system with little disturbance of the existing one. In the case of mound
systems, a second mound would be required; thus, future expansion may be
difficult or impossible depending on the availability of a suitable area.
Community systems treat wastewater from more than one house. The flex-
ibility for design and expansion of such a system is somewhat less than for
a standard septic system.
2-134
-------
Based on the above discussion, it can be concluded that the majority
of the alternatives considered in this report generally have similar flex-
ibility for future growth and/or planning.
2.4.2. Reliability
Reliability measures the ability of a system or system components to
operate without failure at its designed level of efficiency. It is par-
ticularly important to have dependable operation in situations where ad-
verse environmental or economic impacts may result from failure of the
system.
The gravity sewer is highly reliable when designed properly. Such
systems require little maintenance, consume no energy, and have no mec-
hanical components to malfunction. Gravity sewer problems can include
clogged pipes that result in sewer backups; infiltration/inflow which
increases the volume of flow beyond the design level; and broken or mis-
aligned pipes. Major contributors to these problems are improperly jointed
pipes and damage to manholes, especially where they are not located in
paved roads. Where large sewers are used in order to achieve lower pipe
slopes, problems with solids deposition can mean that frequent flushing
with large volumes of water will be necessary.
Pump stations and force mains increase operation and maintenance re-
quirements and decrease the system reliability. Backup pumps are installed
in order to provide service in case one pump fails, and a backup power
source is usually provided, either dual power lines, or stationary or
portable emergency generators. Force mains are generally reliable; ex-
cessive solids deposition and burst pipes occur rarely. Leaking joints
occur more frequently and can cause environmental damage.
Septic tank effluent pumps and pressure sewers generally are reliable
means of conveying effluent to treatment. Because the solids have been
removed in the septic tank, problems associated with solids deposition are
avoided. The pump units themselves have been shown to be reliable; when
failure or power outages do occur, storage of about 1.5 day's sewage volume
2-135
-------
in the pump chamber and septic tank permits replacements to be made before
backups occur. The pressure sewers themselves should be even more reliable
than force mains because the pumped liquid is clear.
Federa1 Guidelines for Design, Operation, and Maintenance of Waste-
water Treatment Facilities (Federal Water Quality Administration 1970)
require that:
All water pollution control facilities should be planned and
designed so as to provide for maximum reliability at all times.
The facilities should be capable of operating satisfactorily
during power failures, flooding, peak loads, equipment failure,
and maintenance shutdowns.
The wastewater control systems design for the project area should
consider the following types of factors to insure system reliability:
• Duplicate sources of electric power
• Standby power for essential plant elements
• Multiple units and equipment to provide maximum flexibility
in operation
• Replacement parts readily available
• Holding tanks or basins to provide for emergency storage of
overflow and adequate pump-back facilities
• Flexibility of piping and pumping facilities to permit
rerouting of flows under emergency conditions
• Provision for emergency storage or disposal of sludge
• Dual chlorination units
• Automatic controls to regulate and record chlorine residuals
• Automatic alarm systems to warn of high water, power fail-
ures, or equipment malfunction
• No treatment plant bypasses
• Design of interceptor sewers to permit emergency storage
without causing backups
• Enforcement of pretreatment regulations to avoid industrial
waste-induced treatment upsets
2-136
-------
• Floodproofing of treatment plant
• Plant Operations and Maintenance Manual to have a section on
emergency operation procedures
• Use of qualified plant operators.
The wastewater treatment portion of the alternatives would be highly
reliable if these measures were incorporated. The collection systems are
less reliable because pump stations are required. If dual power lines from
separate substations can be extended to every pump station or, if auxiliary
power units are supplied for each station, a reasonable level of reliabil-
ity can be attained. A failure of a pump station would likely result in
raw sewage or septic tank effluent being discharged. When more than one
pump station must operate in series, a failure of one downstream station
would likely result in spillage.
Discharge of WWTP effluent to the bay or lake involves pumping and
transmission mains, and would have reliability similar to collection sys-
tems.
Land application of WWTP effluent is still not very common in the
United States (compared to the number of surface water discharges), but its
use is growing steadily. Potential problems with land application include:
mounding of groundwater under the site; elevated nitrate levels in the
groundwater, surface water contamination; and difficulty in farming the
site. These problems can be minimized with proper design of the facility.
Wetland discharge of WWTP effluent is less common than land applica-
tion, but its use is also growing. In Wisconsin, WWTP effluent discharge
to wetlands may be required to be treated to a higher level than secondary
(effluent BOD and suspended solids must both be 20 mg/1 or less) which
minimizes some potential impacts but adds an additional process (inter-
mittent sand filtration). The major potential problem is possible altera-
tion of the hydrologic system in the wetland which in turn can disturb the
local vegetation. Other potential problems are heavy metal accumulation,
increased solids in the spring and fall outwashes, and changes in species
composition due to added levels of nutrients and pH changes. These prob-
2-137
-------
lems can be minimized with proper preliminary site investigation and proper
design of the facility.
In addition to these considerations, the wetland discharge site for
Baileys Harbor in Sec. 8 that was proposed in the 1980 Facilities Plan and
further evaluated in this Environmental Report is adjacent to the Ridges
Sanctuary and the Mud Lake Natural Area. Both areas are designated Na-
tional Natural Landmarks and Wisconsin Scientific Areas. Because of the
high quality of the entire wetland complex, as evidenced by its species
diversity and uniqueness, and because of the protected status of the areas
adjacent to the proposed discharge site, the use of the proposed site in
Sec. 8 would be subject to critical review and would require coordination
and/or approval from the US Fish and Wildlife Service, US National Park
Service, and WDNR.
The alternative wetland discharge site (Sec. 7) for Baileys Harbor
that was evaluated in this Environmental Report is approximately two miles
west of the Mud Lake Natural Area. However, because the wetland discharge
site is within the overall wetland complex that includes the Mud Lake
Natural Area and the Ridges Sanctuary, and there is a hydrologic connection
between the proposed discharge site and the two natural areas, the use of
this site for effluent disposal also would be subject to critical review.
A finding of no impact by the US National Park Service and WDNR would be
required before either of the wetland discharge sites that were investi-
gated for Baileys Harbor could be considered as viable components of a
wastewater treatment alternative.
The onsite systems are generally a reliable means of treating and dis-
posing of wastewater. Except with certain systems, they operate with no
power inputs and little attention. When failures do occur, the impact on
the environment is small and diffuse. Total failures rarely occur in which
no treatment at all takes place.
Septic tanks provide reliable treatment when they are properly de-
signed and maintained. The principal maintenance requirement is periodic
pumping of the tank, usually every three to five years. The treatment
2-138
-------
process can be harmed if large quantities of strong chemicals are flushed
into the tank.
Soil absorption systems generally provide excellent treatment if the
design and installation are accomplished properly and the soil conditions
are suitable. Other key factors in the successful operation of soil ab-
sorption systems are proper functioning of the septic tank or other treat-
ment unit and observance of reasonable water conservation practices consis-
tent with the design flows. Soil absorption systems can malfunction when
extended wet weather results in saturation of the soil, when solids carry-
over plugs the seepage bed, and when compaction of the soil surface results
in restricted permeability. Mound soil absorption systems are more re-
liable than seepage bed systems where water tables are high because the
potential groundwater problems are minimized. They do require an effluent
pump, though, and rely on a dependable power supply. The septic tank and
pump chamber generally can hold about 1.5 days of storage, which is prob-
ably longer than the average power outage. A malfunctioning pump can be
replaced readily if the units are standardized. The cost of a mound system
is about two times that of a seepage bed system; thus, it would be utilized
only where a seepage bed system has failed or has little chance of operat-
ing properly. The average design life of soil absorption systems is great-
er than 20 years; although some could be expected to fail earlier. Some
soil absorption systems could be expected to last indefinitely, as long as
the system is not overloaded with water or solids.
Community or "cluster" systems serve a group of houses with components
similar to a septic tank-soil absorption system or mound system. The
individual septic tanks would operate at similar levels of reliability.
The septic tank effluent sewers are exposed to hazards of breakage and to
plugging due to cleanout failure similar to gravity sewers. Sewage solids
accumulations in the sewers do not occur when the septic tanks are main-
tained properly. The pump station that doses the drain fields may not
operate properly due to mechanical failure or power interruption. An
effluent spill may occur at that time. A soil absorption system would be
sited on permeable soils that have a water table that is always greater
than six-feet deep. A cluster mound system would be sited on reasonably
2-139
-------
permeable soils where a high groundwater table, high bedrock or other
condition makes the site unsuitable for a soil absorption system. The
operation of the drain field should be more reliable than an individual
onsite soil absorption or mound systems because of pressure distribution by
dosing and because of the optimum location.
2.5. Comparison of Alternatives and Selection of the Recommended Alterna-
tives
The selection of the most cost-effective and environmentally accept-
able alternatives that could be realistically implemented involved the
consideration of technical feasibility, reliability, costs, environmental
effects, and public desirability of each alternative, and compliance with
the applicable design and effluent discharge standards for the State of
Wisconsin. Selection of the most cost-effective alternative required
identification of trade-offs between costs and other relevant criteria.
2.5.1. Comparison of Alternatives
2.5.1.1. Project Costs
Project costs were categorized into capital expenses, operating and
maintenance (O&M) expenses, and salvage values for the equipment and struc-
tures for each alternative. The costs for the collection, treatment, and
disposal for each alternative were estimated separately. A summary of the
estimated costs of "build" alternatives are displayed in Table 2-16 for Egg
Harbor, Table 2-17 for Fish Creek, Table 2-18 for Ephraim, and Table 2-19
for Baileys Harbor (Section 2.3.). Appendix E contains a description of
the methodology and assumptions used in the analyses as well as the de-
tailed costs for each alternative. The capital cost for the selected
alternative could be shared by the State government through the Wisconsin
Fund (60% of eligible costs) and the local community. Annual O&M costs
would be financed entirely by the local users of the system.
The financial impact analysis (Section 4.1.3.) indicates that for many
of the centralized collection and treatment alternatives, the capital costs
2-140
-------
associated with the alternatives could cause the community's outstanding
debt to full equalized valuation ratio to exceed 5%, particularly if Wis-
consin Fund grants are unavailable. The State of Wisconsin limits muni-
cipal indebtedness, in the form of general obligation bonds, long-term
notes, State trust fund loans, and installment contracts to 5% of the full
equalized value of general property.
Egg Harbor
The system alternatives for Egg Harbor consisted of a combination of
the following components: centralized collection for two alternative groups
of subareas; aerated lagoon and RBC WWTPs with discharge to Green Bay or
land application; cluster drainfield treatment and disposal, and onsite up-
grading for subareas without collection; and a full onsite upgrade alter-
native. The No Action Alternative is estimated to have the lowest present
worth cost, although the costs were not developed in detail. The estimated
costs for the Egg Harbor "build" alternative are summarized in Table 2-16.
Of the seven "build" alternatives considered, Alternative 7 - upgraded
onsite systems for all subareas - had the lowest present worth cost and
Alternative 5 - septic tank effluent gravity collection for the smaller
group of subareas with cluster drainfield treatment and disposal, and
onsite upgrades for the other subareas - was the next least costly.
The alternative similar to that recommended in the Facilities Plan
(Alternative 2B - collection for the larger group of subareas with an RBC
WWTP and outfall to Green Bay, and onsite upgrades for the other subareas)
was the highest cost alternative. The total estimated present worth costs
ranged from approximately $1.7 million for Alternative 7 to $2.6 million
for Alternative 2B.
jj.sh _Creek
The components combined to form the system alternatives for Fish Creek
include the following: centralized collection for two groups of subareas;
aerated lagoon WWTP with discharge to Green Bay or land application; clus-
ter drainfield and cluster mound treatment and disposal, and onsite up-
2-141
-------
grades for subareas without collection; and a full onsite upgrade alter-
native. A total of 6 "build" alternatives were considered for Pish Creek.
Table 2-17 summarizes the estimated costs for the alternatives. The
"build" alternative with the lowest total present worth cost is Alternative
4 - centralized collection for some subareas with treatment and disposal at
a cluster mound, and onsite upgrades for the other subareas. The next
least cost alternative is Alternative 5 - centralized collection for some
subareas with treatment and disposal at a cluster drainfield, and onsite
upgrades for other subareas. The alternative similar to the Facilities
Plan Addendum recommendation (Foth and Van Dyke and Associates, Inc. 1982),
Alternative 2 - centralized collection for some subareas with aerated
lagoon WWTP and bay discharge, and onsite treatment in the other subareas -
ranked fourth. The estimated total present worth cost of the alternatives
ranged from $2.6 million for Alternative 4 to $3.3 million for Alternative
7 - upgraded onsite systems for all subareas.
Ephra im
Five "build" alternatives were considered for Ephraim. They consisted
of combinations of the following components: centralized collection for two
alternative groups of subareas; aerated lagoon WWTP with discharge to Green
Bay or wetland discharge; cluster drainfield treatment and disposal; onsite
system upgrades for areas without collection; and a full onsite upgrade
alternative. The estimated total present worth costs are presented in
Table 2-18 for the Ephraim "build" alternatives. Although the costs were
not estimated in detail, the No Action Alternative would likely have the
lowest total present worth cost. Alternative 6 - upgraded onsite systems
for all subareas - was the least costly "build" alternative. The second
least costly alternative was Alternative 5 - centralized collection for the
smaller number of subareas with treatment and disposal in a cluster drain-
field, and onsite upgrades for other subareas. Alternative 2 - centralized
collection for the larger number of subareas with an aerated lagoon WWTP
and outfall to Green Bay, and onsite upgrades for other subareas - was
similar to the alternative recommended in the Facilities Plan and was the
most costly alternative considered. The estimated present worth costs
ranged from $2.9 million for Alternative 6 to $5.9 million for Alternative
2.
2-142
-------
Cost estimates, and alternative rankings, are based on a WWTP location
selected in the Facilities Plan. If a more northerly location is feasible,
the total estimated present worth costs could be reduced for the alterna-
tives with outfalls to Green Bay; a $0.57 million reduction for Alternative
2, and a $0.39 million reduction for Alternative 3. This would not change
the ranking of Alternative 2, which would remain the highest cost of the
"build" alternatives. However, Alternative 3 (now ranked fourth) would
rank third, and Alternative 4 - centralized collection for the smaller
number of subareas with an aerated lagoon WWTP and wetland discharge and
onsite system upgrades for other subareas, - (now ranked 3) would rank
fourth. Alternatives 6 and 5 would remain the least costly and the second
least costly, respectively.
Baileys Harbor
The system alternatives considered for Baileys Harbor were a combi-
nation of the following components: centralized collection for two groups
of subareas; aerated lagoon WWTP with discharge to Green Bay or two alter-
native wetland sites; onsite upgrades for subareas without collection; and
a full onsite upgrade alternative. Table 2-19 summarizes the estimated
total present worth costs for the seven "build" alternatives. Alternative
6 - upgraded onsite systems for all subareas - was the "build" alternative
with the lowest estimated present worth cost. The No Action Alternative
probably would have a lower total present worth cost than any of the
"build" alternatives.
The alternative with the second lowest total present worth cost is
Alternative 5 - centralized collection for one subarea, aerated lagoon WWTP
with discharge to a wetland in Section 7, and upgraded onsite systems for
subareas without collection. The alternative similar to the Facility Plan
recommended alternative is Alternative 2B - centralized collection for two
subareas, recirculating sand filter WWTP with wetland discharge in Section
8 (adjacent to protected natural area) and onsite upgrades for subareas
without collection - which had the highest estimated total present worth
cost of the six "build" alternatives considered. The estimated total
present worth of the alternatives ranged from $3.6 million for Alternative
6 to $4.5 million for Alternative 2B.
2-143
-------
2.5.1.2. Environmental Impacts
For each of the four communities, the No Action Alternative would
entail almost no construction impacts. The environmental impacts of the
"build" alternatives would primarily be short-term impacts on the local
environment due to construction (Section 4.1.1.)
The implementation of the onsite systems component of each alterna-
tive, or the full onsite upgrade alternative, would have impacts on those
lots where upgraded onsite systems are necessary. These impacts may be
considerable on some lots but overall they would be of limited extent.
Cluster drainfield and cluster mounds would involve construction on
the drainfield sites of a similar nature to that of the onsite up>grades.
The construction of centralized collection facilities would have
considerable impacts on the right-of-way where the sewers are located.
Construction would be difficult because the extensive shallow bedrock
requires blasting and because many right-of-ways are narrow and tree lined.
Dewatering for deep sewer excavations and pump stations could affect wells
in the vicinity.
Construction of the aerated lagoon, rotating biological contractor, or
recirculating sand filter WWTPs would have a significant effect on the
particular site. Some of the proposed sites contain prime agricultural
land that would be irretrievably converted to treatment plant use.
Construction of a lake or bay outfall would have similar construction
impacts as collection systems, except that, additionally, the lake or bay
environment would be temporarily disturbed resulting in an increase in
turbidity, decreases in dissolved oxygen, and possibly some fish mortality.
The treatment facilities discharging to the lake or bay would be
required to meet the effluent requirements established by WDNR. Water
quality would be altered, but not seriously degraded. Spills of septic
tank effluent or of raw sewage at pump stations could occur if a malfunc-
2-144
-------
tion or power failure were to occur. The nutrient load from one spill
could easily equal the average annual nutrient load from existing onsite
systems. Proper maintenance of the pumps and backup power sources for all
the pump stations would reduce the potential for such an impact.
Treatment plant effluent discharged to land application sites or
wetlands would be required to meet the effluent requirements established by
WDNR. Both should result in minimal operating impacts because the applied
effluent should be of comparatively high quality. Possible operations
impacts with land application are mounding of groundwater under the site
and nitrate buildup in the groundwater. The possible operations impacts of
concern with wetlands are disturbance of natural flora and fauna due to
alteration of hydrologic parameters of the site, and flushing of solids
into surface waters in the spring and fall.
The centralized collection, treatment and disposal facilities, and the
onsite upgrading would have a positive effect on groundwater quality by
eliminating existing failing onsite systems. Onsite upgrades and manage-
ment of onsite systems would replace failing onsite systems with appropri-
ate new systems or holding tanks.
The significant environmental impacts expected for each community are
outlined in the following sections.
Egg Harbor
The environmental impacts from the construction of the collection
systems would be significant in Egg Harbor because of the rock excavation
required. Alternatives 2A, 2B, and 3 have less lineal feet of sewer (and
rock removal) than Alternatives 4, 5, and 6, and would have less of an
impact. Alternative 7 - upgraded onsite systems for all subareas - would
have no impacts from sewer construction.
The discharges proposed to Green Bay for Alternatives 2A, 2B, and 4
would have a significant temporary impact due to construction as discussed
above. A possible significant operating impact is nutrient buildup in the
2-145
-------
harbor on a temporary basis, due to currents causing a current gyre and
entraining the nutrients into the harbor. Alternative 7 is the most cost
effective alternative for Egg Harbor.
j[i_sh Creek
Construction impacts for sewer construction would be a significant
impact in all the "build" alternatives except Alternative 7 - upgraded
onsite systems for all subareas. Rock excavation would be significant in
construction of sewers in Fish Creek.
Prime agricultural farmland would be converted to treatment facilities
for Alternatives 2 (aerated lagoon), 3 (aerated lagoon), 5 (cluster drain-
field), and 6 (land application).
The discharge to Green Bay in Alternatives 2 and 3 would have tempo-
rary construction impacts as discussed above. A possible operational
impact from the outfall discharge is fish mortality in the immediate area
of the outfall due to disturbance of spawning grounds. Alternative 4 is
the most cost effective alternative for Fish Creek.
Construction impacts during sewer construction would be signficant in
Ephraim because of the shallow bedrock. Alternative 2 would have consid-
erably more lineal feet of sewer than Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 which serve
fewer subareas. Alternative 6 - upgraded onsite systems for all subareas -
includes no sewer construction.
The Green Bay discharge proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3 would have
significant temporary construction impacts as discussed above. A possible
significant operating impact is temporary nutrient buildup in Eagle Harbor
due to low-energy current gyres entraining nutrients in the Harbor. Alter-
native 6 is the most cost effective alternative for Ephraim.
2-146
-------
Baileys Harbo_r
Temporary construction impacts from sewer construction will be signi-
ficant in Baileys Harbor because of the shallow bedrock and possible per-
manent impacts on plants on the Wisconsin threatened species list occuring
along roadsides. Alternatives 2A, 2B, and 3 have more lineal feet of sewer
than Alternatives 4 and 5 and would result in a proportionally greater
impact. Alternative 6 - upgraded onsite systems for all subareas - has no
sewer construction and would not involve any such impacts.
The discharge to Lake Michigan proposed in Alternative 4 would have
significant permanent and temporary construction impacts as discussed
above. Possible operating impacts could be temporary nutrient buildup in
Moonlight Bay due to currents causing nutrients to be trapped in the Bay,
and possible fish mortality in the immediate area of the outfall due to
disturbance of spawning grounds. The potential operating impacts of a
wetland discharge (as discussed above) would be greater for Alternatives 2A
and 2B than for Alternatives 3 and 5 because of the proximity to protected
natural areas. Alternative 6 is the most cost effective alternative for
Baileys Harbor.
2.5.1.3. Implementability
The means by which the wastewater management plan is implemented for
each community depends upon whether the selected alternative relies pri-
marily upon centralized or decentralized components. Because most sanitary
districts have in the past been organized around centralized collection and
treatment of wastewater, there is a great deal of information about the
implementation of such systems. Decentralized collection and treatment,
including onsite systems and cluster systems with subsurface disposal, is
relatively new and there is less management experience on which to draw.
In this section the term "management agency" refers to the authority
responsibile for managing the systems. A management agency need not be an
autonomous organization devoted solely to the management of these systems.
It may in fact be charged with other duties, and may share systems man-
agement responsibility through agreements with other agencies.
2-147
-------
The value of small waste flows systems as a long-term rather than
short-term alternative to centralized collection and treatment began to be
recognized in the 1970s. As a result, communities preparing facilities
plans after 30 September 1978 were required to provide an analysis of the
use of innovative and alternative wastewater processes and techniques that
could solve a community's wastewater needs (PRM 78-9, USEPA 1978a). In-
cluded as alternative processes are individual, and other onsite treatment
systems with subsurface soil disposal systems.
Regardless of whether the selected alternative for a community is
primarily centralized or decentralized, four aspects of the implementation
program must be addressed:
• There must be legal authority for the managing agency to
exist and financial authority for it to operate
• The agency must manage construction, ownership, and opera-
tion of the sanitary district
• A choice must be made between the several types of long-term
financing that are generally required in paying for capital
expenditures associated with the project
• A system of user charges to retire capital debts, to cover
expenditures for operation and maintenance, and to provide a
reserve for contingencies must be established.
The Villages of Egg Harbor and Ephraim have the institutional ability
to implement and finance wastewater disposal facilities within their re-
spective Village limits. They have the legal ability to apply for the
Wisconsin Fund and other funding for design and construction; to finance
the operating costs and local share of the construction costs; and to
generate revenues through user charges. Management of wastewater disposal
facilities outside the Village limits, as required for a small portion of
the Ephraim service area, can be accomplished either by annexation to the
Village or through contractual arrangements to provide service.
The communities of Baileys Harbor and Fish Creek are not incorporated.
Wisconsin statutes provide that unincorporated communities can form sani-
tary districts to implement wastewater disposal systems. A sanitary dis-
trict may be formed by petition from residents or by WDNR order. Commis-
2-148
-------
sioners of the district are appointed by the Town Board or elected. They
have the legal managerial power to issue bonds, borrow money, and plan and
construct wastewater collection and treatment facilities. The sanitary
district is responsible for levying user charges, operating and maintaining
the system, and keeping records as required by WDNR.
The existing sanitary district serving Fish Creek would have to be
expanded to include the full service area designated in this report. A
sanitary district would have to be formed in Baileys Harbor to include the
entire proposed service area.
The villages and sanitary districts would be the management agency for
implementation of the selected alternative for each community.
The management agency would own, construct, maintain, and operate the
collection, treatment, and disposal facilities in the centralized component
of the alternative selected. Most of the proposed facilities are typical
of centralized sewage facilities. If an alternative utilizing septic tank
effluent pumps is considered, the following are several options appropriate
to the management of the septic tank effluent pump stations located on in-
dividual lots:
• The station may be designed to agency specifications, with
the responsibility for purchase, maintenance, and ownership
residing with the homeowner
• The station may be specified and purchased by the agency,
with the homeowner repurchasing and maintaining it
• The station may be specified and owned by the agency, but
purchased by the homeowner
• The station may be specified, purchased, and owned by the
agency.
The management agency would also be responsible for the decentralized
or onsite component of the selected alternative. Management options range
from private ownership of facilities, with a detailed permit process to
complete agency ownership of all facilities. There are certain advantages
with each type of management and ownership option. Complete control by the
2-149
-------
agency comes closest to guaranteeing that the systems will be operating at
optimal levels but represents the most costly approach. The least costly
approach would be to keep the homeowner responsible for all maintenance
activities and costs. The homeowner then would be more inclined to utilize
water-saving measures and other methods to minimize maintenance costs.
However, as is currently the case, environmental protection is more likely
to suffer when the homeowner is responsible for maintenance.
Capital expenses associated with a project may be financed by several
techniques. Both centralized and decentralized components are eligible for
construction grants under the Wisconsin Fund administered under Chapter NR
128 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code. Centralized systems are funded
under section NR 128.11. Only a certain portion of the total capital costs
for centralized sytems are eligible for funding, and the grant is for 60%
of the eligible costs.
Onsite systems can be funded under section NR 128.08, which requires
that the individual systems be owned by the management agency, and by
section NR 128.30 which funds private systems. In a manner similar to
centralized systems, only a certain portion of the total capital costs are
eligible for funding. The grants pay up to 60% of the eligible costs.
Grants under section NR 128.30 have a limit of $3,000 per individual sys-
tem.
It is anticipated that the onsite systems will be funded under section
NR 128.08 and that the onsite systems will be owned, constructed, operated,
and maintained by the management agency. The local costs for the con-
struction and operation of the centralized and decentralized systems can be
assessed to each user equally by a variety of means.
2.5.2. Conclusions
The least cost alternative for each community from both an economic
and environmental impact perspective is as follows:
• Egg Harbor: Alternative 7 - Upgraded onsite systems for all
subareas.
2-150
-------
• Fish Creek: Alternative 4 - Septic tank effluent gravity
collection for Subareas 2 and 3A, transmission to site in
SWNE Sec. 32, and treatment and disposal in cluster mound;
upgraded onsite systems for remainder of subareas.
• Ephrairn: Alternative 6 - Upgraded onsite systems for all
subareas.
• Baileys Harbor: Alternative 6 - Upgraded onsite systems for
all subareas.
These alternatives are the least cost based on the population pro-
jections and available needs documentation. For Fish Creek, the year 2000
population projection used in this report is smaller than that used by the
Facilities Planner (Foth and Van Dyke and Associates, Inc. 1982). The use
of a larger year 2000 population projection could result in the least cost
alternative becoming technically unfeasible. In that case, Alternative 5,
STE gravity collection system with treatment and disposal in a cluster
drainfield in Sec. 3, appears to be the least costly, technically feasible
alternative.
The cost estimates for onsite system upgrading for Egg Harbor, Ep-
hraim, and Baileys Harbor are highly sensitive to the number of holding
tanks required. An increase in the number of holding tanks above that
estimated would increase the cost of these alternatives. The need for a
holding tank is based, in turn, on the soil condition of each individual
property at the location of the soil absorption system. The soil condition
of an area was based on several sources of information, particularly the
SCS soil maps, soil borings, and soil investigations for adjacent onsite
systems. When soil data becomes available for each lot, the number of
holding tanks required may be greater than estimated here, and a collection
and treatment alternative for Egg Harbor, Ephraim and Baileys Harbor could
then be the least cost alternative. Should this be the case the alterna-
tives that are the most likely to be the least costly are as follows:
• Egg Harbor: Alternative 5 - STE gravity collection system
for Subareas IAN, IBS, and 2AS, transmission to site in Sec.
31 T30N R27E, and treatment and disposal in cluster soil
absorption system; upgraded systems for the remainder of
subareas.
2-151
-------
Ephraim: Alternative 5 - STE gravity collection system for
Subareas 1A, IB, and 2, transmission to site in Sec. 24, and
treatment and disposal in cluster drainfield; upgraded
onsite systems in remainder of subareas.
Baileys Harbor: Alternative 5 - Conventional gravity collec-
tion system for Subarea 3, transmission to aerated lagoon
WWTP and discharge to wetland in Sec. 7; upgraded onsite
systems for remainder of subareas.
2-152
-------
3.0. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3.1. Natural Environment
3.1.1. Atmosphere
Elements of the atmospheric environment that are relevant to the
consideration of the proposed wastewater treatment alternatives include
temperature, precipitation, wind, and noise levels. Other than the con-
sideration of potential odor generation by the treatment processes, air
quality is not expected to be affected significantly and, therefore, is
described briefly.
3.1.1.1. Climate
The Door Peninsula has a continental type of climate that is moderated
by the surrounding waters of Green Bay and Lake Michigan. This modifica-
tion is indicated by the narrow range of average daily temperatures and by
the few days with extreme temperatures exceeding 32 degrees Centigrade (°C)
(90 degrees Fahrenheit [°F]) or less than -18°C (0°F) . The average annual
temperature for Door County during the period of record, 1941 through 1970,
was 6.5°C (43.7°F). The mean date for the last frost is 6 May, and the
mean date of the first frost is 30 October. Door County has a growing
season of approximately 161 days (By phone, Mr. Fred Doering, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA], to WAPORA, Inc., 18 January
1979) . Climatological data from Green Bay, the monitoring point nearest to
the project area, are presented in Appendix F.
The average annual precipitation in Door County is 68.6 centimeters
(27.01 inches), of which 53% occurs during the period from May to Septem-
ber. The average annual snowfall is 113.3 centimeters (44.6 inches). The
winds are generally from the southwest at an average annual speed of 16.4
kilometers per hour (10.2 miles per hour).
Upper air data can be used to determine the occurrence and character-
istics of elevated inversions. These inversions trap contaminants in
3-1
-------
ground-based mixing layers and can result in air pollution episodes. The
lower the inversion layer is, or the shallower the mixing layer is, the
more concentrated the pollutants may be. The mean annual afternoon mixing
height in the project area is approximately 1,190 meters (3,904 feet),
ranging from 720 meters (2,362 feet) in winter to 1,580 meters (5,184 feet)
in summer (Holzworth 1972). An atmospheric dispersion factor, indicative
of the ability of the atmosphere to dilute pollutants, can be developed
from mixing height and wind velocity data (Edwards and Wheat 1978). The
annual average dispersion factor of 4,000 square meters for Door County
indicates good dispersion conditions.
3.1.1.2. Air Quality
Door County is located in USEPA's Lake Michigan Air Quality Control
Region (AQCR) and is subject to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS; Appendix G). The Wisconsin Ambient Air Quality Standards are iden-
tical. A new or modified wastewater treatment facility must comply with
the NAAQS, as well as the New Source Performance Standards for sewage
sludge incinerators, if such equipment is planned. The facility also would
be subject to regulation by the Bureau of Air Management, Wisconsin De-
partment of Natural Resources.
Ambient air quality data for Door County during the period from 1975
to 1977 were obtained from the WDNR air quality monitoring station at Fish
Creek. The monitored levels of total suspended particulates (TSP), sulfur
dioxide (SO ) , and nitrogen dioxide (NO ) are given in Appendix G. The
levels of NO and SO never have exceeded the primary standards (health
related) or the secondary standards (welfare related). TSP concentrations,
however, have exceeded the 24-hour average primary standard. In one in-
stance, concentrations of 325 micrograms per cubic meter were recorded at
the Fish Creek monitoring station. Subsequent microscopic analysis of the
filters revealed primarily (72%) soil particles. Dry soil conditions, high
winds, and fall crop harvesting activity, rather than industrial sources or
urban areas, were responsible for the high concentrations.
3-2
-------
Although the hydrocarbon and the carbon monoxide levels were not
monitored, the concentrations are assumed to be low. No major highway,
petro-chemical facilities, or other significant sources are located in the
project area.
3.1.1.3. Noise
There are no major noise sources in the project area other than inter-
mittent quarry, highway, and recreational vehicle sources (snowmobiles and
motorboats) . The WDM has not received complaints of excessive noise in
the Door County area (By phone, Mr. Raj Raisoni, WDNR, to WAPORA, Inc., 18
January 1979) .
3.1.1.4. Odor
The occasional failure of an on-site system may release some odors.
Septage haulers using inadequate or improperly maintained equipment also
may create odor nuisances. Ephemeral odor problems do occur in the project
area. The WDNR Bureau of Solid Wastes has received complaints of odors in
Door County from spreading of holding tank wastes and septage (By inter-
view, Mr. Terry Hegeman, WDNR, to WAPORA, Inc., 21 April 1982).
3.1.2. Land
3.1.2.1. Geology
3.1.2.1.1. Physiography and Topography
The project area is characterized by an upland ridge of bedrock over-
lain by shallow drift. The edge of this ridge forms the Niagaran escarp-
ment, extending the length of the Green Bay coastline. The Silurian
dolomite bedrock slopes from the Niagaran escarpment to the Lake Michigan
shore with outcrops at numerous locations. Successive glaciation has
eroded the dolomite bedrock and deposited glacial till and moraines on this
part of the Door Peninsula.
3-3
-------
Sand dunes and beach ridges also are distinctive features of the
project area. They were formed during periods of glaciation when the lake
levels were altered. In the project area these inactive sand dunes and
gravel ridges are located south of Kangaroo Lake and north of Baileys
Harbor.
Few streams are located in the project area. The soils and bedrock
are moderately permeable and most precipitation percolates to the ground-
water. Groundwater seeps occur along the escarpment and at interior loca-
tions where local relief is considerable. These seeps contribute to the
streams that drain the project area. Blockage of some of the drainage
patterns by glacial deposits has resulted in the formation of the large
inland and shoreline swamps near Ephraim and Baileys Harbor. Kangaroo Lake,
at one time a bay on Lake Michigan, became an inland lake after the mouth
was sealed by beach ridges.
3.1.2.1.2. Bedrock Geology
The project area bedrock formations consist of gently dipping Silurian
sedimentary rocks that overlie the Ordovician and Cambrian age strata and
the Precambrian basement. The strata generally dip to the southeast at
approximately 9 meters per kilometer (45 feet per mile), deepening toward
Lake Michigan.
The bedrock units underlying Door County and the project area are
presented in Table 3-1. The upper levels of bedrock are particularly
important because most of the wells in the project area draw from the
surficial unconsolidated material, the Niagaran series, and the Alexandrian
series. The Ordovician sandstone is utilized as a water source in the
southern part of Door County and also could be used in the project area at
some future date (Sherrill 1978).
With the exception of a margin of Alexandrian dolomite along the Green
Bay coast, the bedrock surface in the project area is primarily Niagaran
dolomite (Figure 3-1). The bedrock is a buff-gray, medium-to-coarse grain-
ed dolomite that ranges in thickness from thin to massive. Many natural
3-4
-------
/•~s
co
r-
Q\
1—4
•H
U
It
4-1
C
3
<5
p
O
S
e
1-1
CO
•H
C
3
•J
O
4-1
0
CO
y
•H
4-1
CO
•H
f>
'j
J
-a
O
CJ
-r-t
53
O
•— 1
O
-H
J
•
I
4)
— i
H
CO
y
1-1
4-1
CO
•H
U
0)
4-1
y
I*
J2
=4
C
i-l
3
OJ
•H
b
01
3
O
•H
00
O CO
t-l 4-1
O -H
b E
•a =
X
13 E*
E tH
to S
OJ T3 tH
SOrH CO
CO OJ 00
b -H — •
CU >H
> OJ
< -1 00
•H E
UH
' —
3 CO
B co
•H OJ
X E
al
•H
g
C
O
•H
a
•H
Li
y
CO
a
o
1-1
o
rH
0
x
3
«
T-l
=
-?•
1
•H 1
60 E X
B 3 4J
•H 3
CD CU O
CO b X
O i-(
4J OJ
a s x
3 CU 4-1
B •
T53SS
•H 4-> B
a a 3
UH CU O
CU 14-1 b O
CO O CO
3 OJ
O CO r-l 4-1
OJ O CO
X t-l B 14-1
O CO O
CU X ID 4-1
CO E b to
3 01 O Q.
rH B IJ~I
to OJ B
> b 4J b
OJ i-t CX OJ
3 0) 4-1
4J CT u x
5 cu X co
z b cu OJ
t— i
OJ S
> cu
co fj
b CO
oo X
U)
•o
E b
CO CU
•O i-l
E 3
CO
O
in
•fi
o
in
"H
X E E
CO TJ to ft) •
t-i E 10 a
CJ CO 4J *J
-O rH -H
u-i » OJ i-l CO
O rH tH X O
OJ UH o*
D > -H CU CU
b CO 4J J b
cu x b co o
4J CU b
b • TJ 00 •*
0 *J -H X
CO t-H 3 tl CO
e -H o B -i
S X X to O
CO
4-1
iH
X
a
0)
•§„
CO E
JJ O
S2
U CO
0 -H
-1 U
O r-J
co"
4J CU
•H O
t o B
B Mn
•H B E
-H t-H iH
x -a co
3 OJ i"4 b
o b O
0 CO OJ 0
b O
S cu
4J O OJ
s -H I- _o
b 4-1 x OJ
OJ 3 *•* X
CX & E 4-*
a 1-1
3 rH 0 _S
S a "a §
E
CO b
b OJ
CO UH
00 it
to 3
•H tr
Z co
0
m *?
—4 in
o
m
••> G
•^ iH
OJ
O E 01
-H - -H >
•H to b X
S b 00 X
O 00 CO
rH | U E
O W X 1
73 UH b 0
3 fO *H
•a £ o i
S O t3
CO • 1 CU
OJ O T5
OJ B 4J T3
u O 1 CU
_i 4J e .a
B X 3 £
O tH CU X
Q rH B 4H
Iff
4_l
y) -H -a
a> a c
•HO rt
W fl CU
w a a* x
C 0) *-* iH
(« c x a
U. i-4 iH O
Tj y C fH
j^is
z
w
T.
OJ
B <->
CO O
rH CO
0. 4-1
1 E
00 O
a o
TJ OJ
13 X
CU 4H
•° u
x a
•S 5"
E CO
O 3
O
T3 -H
E 4J
CO b
4H CX
B
E X*
D.'Si
i_t
x£
r-l 0
+J rH
X
§0)
X
4-1
4-1 B
b -H
D
"••g
CU T3
i jj
ax
3 1
4-1 *-*
1
b
3 ^
•H
u-i 13
UH E
3 3
^H
CO •
C
4H O
B ~H
b 4-1
3 co
so S
X CU
4-1 4-1
B a)
•H 3
0 CT
E TI CU
i-t 13
U-l CO
CU O
00 cu
E OJ b •
X -H OJ
OJ r-t
•S 1 5 a
r^ CO 3
-i "i « «
01 E U
3 E -a
OJ CU B
X 00 CO
• 4-1
OJ •" O
t-l 4-1 X
> E O CU
CO i-l CO O
CO CU
•£2.5.2
to
-13
cu
4-1
CO
•H
4-1
cu
u
U-l
01
E OJ
O X
N 4-1
b 0) 0}
O b b
OJ
x cu x
4-1 b 3
E CO
•H a
O CO 4-1
-r-» 4-1 fi
B tH
OJ •H O
B O "-)
to in
rH -H
a. cu co
1 E 0
00 tO -H
E r-l 4J
•nab
13 1 OJ
13 00 >
x 1-1 b
•^ co
E 13 CU
•H OJ B
n
X O
3 • E
O X -H
o *•>
o E -a
i-l CU
b O oo
«-> CO
tO ^4 X
3 o o
c
to
1-1
b
T3 b
E OJ
CO u-i
S? -H
CU 3
r^ CT
< co
0
^f
1
o m
o
CM
1 X
1 O b
S t-i cu
•rt w "5
-a
cu » •«
S 13 CU
OJ >
X 'H CO
co n co
b b g
00 00 E
1
- JJ O
CU CO 4-1
4J b |
•HCC!^
—i I -a
o o cu
O 4J X
X
OJ
•H
OJ
c
CO
b
1
g
3
M \
O CUX
O O 4J
•si*
42 a> i-i
T3 >
CU CU UH rH CD a X
»-i X O OJ 13 to
co *-» 3 cu O b
3 b b •* cu b
•^ B OJ 3 4-1 4J CU
EtH-rJ .4JXtO"H
3XEOJOCU3tH
o w ft t-H co a 3
btHCOXbOOCT*
O3BCO'4H-O4JCO
13
CU
X
00
E
tH
B
•H
E
O
CM
1
O
in
«
o
o
13
1 OJ •
O 13 Q.
4J -a -o o
1 OJ CU "
CU X 13
o i -a cu
•H E OJ X
4H tH X 4-1
» 4-1 CU b
X "CO
CO ••» E 4J
b -0 ,H C
00 OJ
1 E T3 B
CU -H B 0
3 -0 to E
rH b S
X OO CU O
4-1 y
- 8 -H
OJ 3 6 OJ
CO -CJ rH CO
X OJ O X
C/3 g "O »
OJ
rH
00
CO
4-1
J
0
3
CT
1
"§ OJ
CO 1 4J
13 co
OJ B b X
4J CO 0) 4J
•H X 13 -H
§0 S
OJ S 3
rH X
o fj o x
13 4-1 T3
E B
CU — 1 rH tO
X X rH »
4-1 4-1 CO
E 3 X X
tH 4J
x -a
CO OO-H a
CU E CU O
O tH iH b
> CU
U (X {fl Ul
CJ -H 4J
M c: g
C nj 3 >
i-f (H
3 0) O E "
CU -H b X
4J 4-1 O 13
•H CO !*> E
rH O .H
O Cl4 rH b
Q •Hi
X > 4J
CO to CU CU
E b 4J Cb
OJ O 4H
-H 0 D •
5CU rH 4J
Q cu en
OJ
£
4J
e
•H
£x
•H E
tO 3
i o
o
»rj OJ
CU X
O. 4J
O
cu o
OJ 4-1
•0 b
cuS.
1-1
to B
re they
thweatei
cu 3
*s
t3
3J
c rt
•H -H
0) *J
6J-"
01
LJ
3 K
-o y-<
0) -H
•H -^
•H 3
OJ
Ui »
0. O.
3
rt S
n -^
tu -a
C! -H O « -H
TJ 4-1 o 1*4 s y c
(0 CO O O "3
co tu ^ r-j w co
rt^ytoo-ow-i
« TJ -O "-• C , aj i-t - a,
>S+Jt-«Jar-4CO.r!
r-4 C 4-1 O « 0) •»-»
^ 3 to ^ LI s y
COWHU-ICO^HX:
CU CJ -H CP > W
CO C t3 T) >» 4) T*
CK CJ ru CO
3 X u 4J
co *J p C
0) -H 5 CU
rH U OJ b
CO E U
OJ rH O "H
a cu 3 u-,
a B f
CJ E -o -0
b 3 B a
H EH ro 3
3-5
-------
crevices and fissures occur in the Niagaran dolomite, and numerous vertical
joints at the surface permit rapid water recharge of the lower, horizontal
bedding plane joints. Quarries in the Niagaran formation provide crushed
dolomite for highway construction and riprap for breakwater construction.
The bedrock topography is characterized by the escarpment along Green
Bay and the gradual slope to the Lake Michigan shore. The project area
land surface is basically a bedrock surface interrupted by several bedrock
valleys. The most prominent valley is the low area between Ephraim and
Baileys Harbor. Bedrock heights of more than 229 meters (750 feet) in
elevation are located near the escarpment (Figure 3-1). Bedrock surface
elevations of less than 168 meters (550 feet) occur at Ephraim, at Kangaroo
Lake, and in the Baileys Harbor-North Bay area.
3.1.2.1.3. Surficial Geology
Unconsolidated deposits of Quaternary age overlie the project area
where the bedrock is not exposed. These deposits are generally very shal-
low, although depths of 60 feet or more occur near Ephraim, Kangaroo Lake,
and in the Baileys Harbor-Moonlight Bay area. Originally pre-glacial
valleys, these low areas were filled with glacial materials. The valleys
have a north-northwest to south-southeast orientation.
Sherrill (1978) categorized the surficial materials according to their
method of deposition, or in the case of the residual soils by the depth to
bedrock (Figure 3-2) . The alluvium, marsh, and lake deposits consist of
silt, clay, and organic matter. These fine grained, stratified materials
occur mostly at the Lake Michigan level and in drainageways where the slope
is minimal. The outwash, beach deposits, and sand dunes consist of well-
sorted sand and gravel. These coarse grained, stratified deposits occur
primarily along historic or present shorelines as beach sands and sand
dunes, or along drainageways as alluvial material. The ground moraines,
end moraines, and drumlins consist of till, intermixed clay, silt, sand,
gravel, and boulders. These unsorted materials are located in the filled
valleys and border the bedrock highlands. Surficial materials in areas of
near-surface or exposed bedrock may be composed of dolomite fragments,
silt, or clay, depending upon the origin of the material.
3-7
-------
3.1.2.2. Soils
Sewage disposal in rural areas most often depends on soil-based sys-
tems. Whether they function properly or not depends on proper design and
construction of the system and a careful selection of proper design cri-
teria. One approach to selection of design criteria is to generalize soils
into similar groupings (soil associations) based on pertinent physical
characteristics.
A soil association is a distinctive pattern of soils in defined pro-
portions (Soil Conservation Service [SCS] 1978). Each association contains
one or more major soils and at least one minor soil. The name of an as-
sociation is derived from the names of the major soils. The project area
exhibits four of the six soil associations found in Door County (Figure
3-3). The four associations are:
• Summerville - Longrie - Omena association. The dominant
association, these soils cover approximately 60% of the
project area. The approximate percent composition of the
association by soil is: Summerville, 24%; Longrie, 20%;
Omena, 20%; and minor soils, 36%. This association typical-
ly is found on glacial till and upland plains and ridges.
The major soils occur on nearly level to moderately steep
slopes, are well-drained, and consist of loam or sandy loam.
The Summerville and Longrie soils are underlain by dolomite
bedrock at a depth of approximately 1 meter (3.5 feet). In
most cases, the shallow depth of the soils render them
unsuitable for soil absorption systems, although they gen-
erally are suitable for mound systems. Omena soils are
underlain by sandy loam glacial till at a depth of approxi-
mately 0.5 meters (1.5 feet) and generally are suitable for
on-site systems. The minor mapping units in this associa-
tion include the Alpena, Bonduel shallow variant, Bonduel
wet variant, Namur, and Solona soils.
• Deford - Yahara variant - Carbondale association. This
association is found in a region extending east and north of
Baileys Harbor beyond the northern tip of Mud Lake. Each of
the major soils comprises approximately 14% of the associa-
tion. The minor soils account for the remaining 58%. The
soils in this association usually occur on nearly level,
poorly drained sites, and are usually located in areas
characterized by glacial lakes and outwash plains or broad
depressions. Deford soils are characterized by a loamy
surface layer underlain by fine sand at a depth of about 10
centimeters (4 inches). The Yahara variant surface layer and
3-9
-------
subsoil consist of a fine loamy sand underlain by
stratified silt, sand, and silty clay lake sediment.
The Carbondale soils are deep mucks located where
organic material from herbaceous plants has accumulat-
ed. Because of wetness problems, soil in this associa-
tion generally are unsuitable for on-site systems.
Markey, Rousseau, Deford, Wainola, and Yahara soils
comprise the minor soils.
• Carbondale - Cathro association. This association is
found in three relatively small pockets located at the
north end of Kangaroo Lake, in Ephraim swamp, and at
the northeast corner of the project area. The Carbon-
dale mucks account for 49% of the association; Cathro
muck, 23%; and the minor soils, 28%. Both of the soils
occur on nearly level, poorly drained areas, and con-
tain organic material derived from herbaceous plants.
The Carbondale soils are deep mucks; Cathro soils are
mucks underlain by loam and clay loam at a depth of
about 0.75 meters (2.5 feet). The high organic content
and typically saturated nature of these soils renders
them unsuitable for on-site systems. The minor soils
include the Allendale, Angelica, and Pinconning soils.
• Rousseau - Kiva - Markey association. This association
occurs in a small section of the project area at the
southern end of Kangaroo Lake. The soil composition of
the association is: Rousseau, 28%; Kiva, 16%; Markey,
15%; and the minor soils, 41%. The association is
found on outwash plains, stabilized dunes, beach rid-
ges, and in depressions. Rousseau and Kiva soils occur
on gently sloping to sloping areas and are moderately
well to well drained. The Rousseau soils consist of
fine sand at all levels. In general, the limited depth
to the water table associated with Rousseau soils
necessitates the use of a mound system. Kiva soils
have a gravelly loam surface layer, a sandy loam sub-
soil, and a substratum of stratified outwash sand and
gravel at a depth of approximately 0.5 meters (1.5
feet). On-site systems generally operate satisfactori-
ly in Kiva soils. Markey soils are nearly level,
poorly drained, and consist of muck underlain by out-
wash sand at about 0.70 meters (2.3 feet). Because of
wetness problems, Markey soils usually are not suitable
for on-site systems. The minor soils in the associa-
tion include the Boyer, Duel, Sisson, and Wainola
soils.
The individual soil series in Door County are mapped at a scale of 4
inches = 1 mile. The smallest area mapped is approximately 2.5 acres (1.1
hectares). This scale is useful for identifying the soil characteristics
in a field-sized unit, but is of limited usefulness for individual resi-
3-11
-------
dential lots. The detailed soil maps are not published in this report but
are available for inspection in the SCS office in Sturgeon Bay.
Each series represents soils that have similar characteristics, but by
no means are uniform. Thus, considerable variation may be present within
one mapping unit on the detailed soil maps. For example, the depth to the
water table may vary from zero to greater than 6 feet and slope may vary
from zero to 18%. The characteristics of the major soil series that relate
to soil-based sewage disposal are presented in Appendix H. The SCS has
given many of the soils iti the project area a severe rating for soil ab-
sorption systems. The primary limitations are near surface bedrock (Figure
3-4), high water tables (Figure 3-5), or steep slope (Figure 3-6). The
different soils, though rated as severe based on these limitations, exhibit
considerable variability in the performance of soil absorption systems.
Unfortunately, whether the soil absorption system removes pollutants from
the septic tank effluent cannot be readily assessed. Groundwater quality
samples would have to be traced directly back to the soil absorption system
to establish that it was failing to properly treat the septic tank ef-
fluent.
Soils in the predominant Summerville-Longrie-Omena association gen-
erally have a depth to bedrock of less than 1.5 meters (5 feet). Numerous
pockets where the depth to bedrock is greater occur throughout the project
area. Many of these pockets, however, have high water tables, a charac-
teristic of the other soil associations found in the project area. Steep
slopes are concentrated along Green Bay and cover a comparatively small
amount of land.
3.1.2.3. Terrestrial Biota
3.1.2.3.1. Vegetation
The vegetation in Wisconsin is divided into northern and southern
sections, based upon the climate and the geologic history. Door County is
contained in the northern sector and was covered predominantly by a nor-
thern mesic forest before settlement. The most common species were sugar
3-12
-------
maple, eastern hemlock, yellow birch, and American basswood. Other predomi-
nant plant communities included: pine forests, conifer swamps, pine bar-
rens, and boreal forests. The woodlands were primarily maple-beech-birch
and aspen-birch communities with scattered stands of white pine-red pine-
jack pine, spruce-fir, oak-hickory, and elm-ash-cottonwood. The aspen-
birch stands generally were the first tree-form vegetation to invade clear-
ed land, usually maturing in 30-50 years. The shade tolerant species, such
as sugar maple, balsam fir, and white spruce, have replaced many aspen-
birch stands (Spencer and Thorne 1972).
A unique combination of historical, geological, and climatological
factors have resulted in the development of unusually diverse plant com-
munities with numerous rare plant species in Door County, specifically, in
Middle Door County. The project area contains five Wisconsin Scientific
Areas (Figure 3-7): Peninsula Park Beech Forest, Peninsula Park White
Cedar Forest, The Ridges Sanctuary, Toft Point, and Mud Lake. These areas
are described in Table 3-2. Six additional project area sites have been
identified as unique and noteworthy, but do not meet all the criteria for
placement on the official list. The six sites are: Button Marsh, the
Logerquist Tract, the Manger Tract, Meridian County Park, Pickerel Pond,
and Thorp Pond (By letter, Mr. William Tans, Wisconsin Scientific Areas
Preservation Council, to WAPORA, Inc., 4 April 1979).
Three of the scientific areas, the Ridges Sanctuary, Toft Point, and
Mud Lake also have been designated as National Natural Landmarks by the Na-
tional Park Service (WDNR 1976b).
The plant communities in the project area were grouped into nine major
vegetation and land-cover types for mapping purposes (Figure 3-8). The
cover map was based on 1975 low altitude, black and white, aerial photo-
graphs (scale = 1:20,000), and on field observations (April 1979). Each
cover type is discussed briefly below. (The scientific equivalents of the
common names for the plant species cited in the text are listed in Appendix
I.)
• Agricultural. This classification comprises areas that are
cultivated for crops. In Door County, approximately 12,000
3-16
-------
Table 3-2. Wisconsin Scientific Areas located in the project area (WDNR
1976b).
Scientific Area
Mud Lake
Size
(acres)
1,060
Features
Spring-fed, estuarian lake surrounded by
extensive shrub and timber swamp. Water-
fowl and fish spawning use of the lake
is extensive. Designated as a National
Natural Landmark.
Peninsula Park
Beech Forest
Peninsula Park
White Cedar Forest
The Ridges Sanctuary
30 Undisturbed sugar maple, American beech
and hemlock codominant mesic forest.
53 A diverse number of plant community
types including: open marsh, calcareous
meadow, white cedar-black and white
spruce forest, and northern dry mesic
woodland. Some rare plant species are
present.
708 Parallel abandoned beach ridges and
swales, both open and forested. Unusual
flora including boreal forest and many
local and rare plant species. Wiscon-
sin's first National Natural Landmark.
Toft Point
340 Part of Lake Michigan Peninsula with
northern mesic hardwood forest and
old-growth hemlock and white pine. The
area contains rocky lake frontage,
conifer forest, and open bog and marsh.
Designated as a National Natural
Landmark.
3-17
-------
acres are planted in row crops (predominantly corn), 35,000
acres are planted in broadcast crops (predominantly oats),
and 13,000 acres are planted in special crops. An addi-
tional 41,000 acres are idle cropland. The principal crops
include corn, oats, grass-legumes, hay, and Kentucky blue-
grass (SCS 1978). This classification also included pas-
tureland. Areas covered with grasses and legumes that are
grazed by domestic animals were designated as pasture. The
agricultural lands generally were located on the uplands; as
a result they appear as wide diagonal bands across the
center of the project area.
• Orchard. Cherry and apple orchards are scattered throughout
the project area. The largest concentration of this vege-
tation type is located on the west side of the project area
between Fish Creek and the Village of Egg Harbor.
• White Pine Plantation. Small plantations of white pine are
located in the northern section of the project area, usually
on deep loam to sandy loam soils.
• Oldfield. Vegetation that inhabits abandoned cropland or
pastureland varies from herbaceous plants to mixtures of
herbaceous plants and shrubs. The common herbaceous species
include: fescue, bluegrass, love-grass, orchard grass,
brome grass, switch grass, goldenrod, and beggar-ticks. The
predominant shrub species include: sumac, red-ozier dog-
wood, dwarf juniper, and horizontal juniper.
• Deciduous Forest. Stands of deciduous forest are located
throughout the project area, particularly along the upland
coastal areas. The composition of the stands varies widely.
The predominant species are sugar maple, American beech,
yellow birch, trembling aspen, and white birch. Other
common species include Eastern hophornbeam, American elm,
northern red oak, red maple, green ash, and white ash.
• Mixed Forest. The mixed forests also are concentrated on
the coastal uplands. The predominant species of trees in-
clude sugar maple, American beech, hemlock, and white cedar.
The other tree species frequently occurring in these stands
include northern red oak, eastern hophornbeam, basswood,
trembling aspen, and white ash. Red-ozier dogwood, arrow-
wood, and beaked hazel are the predominant shrub species.
Solomon's seal and twisted-stalk are among the most common
species of herbs.
• Wetland Forest. Wetland forest is a significant cover type
in the project area, with large concentrations located north
of the community of Baileys Harbor and southeast of Ephraim
and Fish Creek. White cedar, hemlock, balsam fir, paper
birch, sugar maple, black ash, and green ash are the pre-
3-20
-------
dominant species of trees. Large sections of these forests
are composed exclusively of white cedar.
• Shrub Swamps. Shrub swamps often are located in wetland
forests. Red-ozier dogwood, pussy willow, and alder are the
predominant species of shrubs.
• Wetlands. Wetlands generally are located near the center of
the project area where they occur intermittently around
lakes and along the borders of wetland forests. The pre-
dominant species of plants include bluejoint, meadow fescue,
cattail, and sedge.
The 1979 Federal Register's list of threatened and endangered species
(50 CFR 17.11) does not include any plant species that have been recorded
in the project area. Northern monkshood, the only listed species that
occurs in Wisconsin, has not been identified in Door County. The WDNR,
however, has designated 33 species of plants as endangered and 23 species
of plants as threatened. Six of the endangered species and eight of the
threatened species have been identified in Door County (Table 3-3). Prior
to adoption of the official list, which became effective 1 October 1979,
WDNR prepared a more extensive list of plant species that were believed to
be threatened, endangered, or extirpated in Wisconsin. Although the list
is unofficial, it includes numerous other species not identified on the
official list. The plants on this list that occur in Door County are given
in Appendix J.
3.1.2.3.2. Wildlife
Because of the lack of development and the diversity of vegetative
cover, the project area provides an abundance of food and shelter for a
wide variety of wildlife, particularly birds. Wildlife habitat ranges from
rocky-barren cliffs to heavily-wooded lowlands and wetlands. Large sec-
tions of the project area have been designated as Class I wildlife habitat
(Figure 3-9; Wisconsin Coastal Zone Management Program 1977).
Although a literature search has revealed that technical studies on
wildlife in the project area have not been conducted, general information
pertaining to wildlife on a regional and state basis is available. Local
organizations and agencies also have documented the presence of certain
species of amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals in the project area.
3-21
-------
Table 3-3. Species of plants occurring in Door County that have been desig-
nated as threatened or endangered by the State of Wisconsin
(Wisconsin Statutes, Section 29.415). E indicates endangered
and T indicates threatened.
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Asplenium viride Green spleenwort E
Carex concinna No common name T
Carex lenticularis Lenticular sedge T
Cirsium pitcheri Dune thistle T
Cypripedium arietinum Ram's head lady's slipper T
Draba lanceolata No common name E
Festuca occidentalis Western fescue T
Geocaulon lividum Northern comandia E
Iris lacustris Dwarf lake iris T
Orchis rotundifolia Small round-leaved orchis T
Parnassia parviflora Grass-of-parnassus E
Pterospora andromedea Pine-drops E
Solidago spathulata Dune goldenrod T
var. gillmani
Tanacetum huronense Lake Huron tansy E
Amphibians and Reptiles. The amphibians known to inhabit
Door County (primarily frogs, toads, and salamanders) norm-
ally occur in or around water or in forested or shaded areas
where leaf litter and other detritus maintain a high degree
of ground moisture. The reptiles in the project area (pri-
marily snakes, lizards, and turtles) occur in most of the
extant habitat types. The amphibians and the reptiles that
possibly occur, or are known to occur in the project area,
are listed in Appendix K. The status of each species is
based on observations made at Newport State Park, which is
located approximately 8 kilometers (5 miles) northeast of
North Bay, and is probably indicative of their status in the
project area.
3-22
-------
• Birds. Over 130 species of birds have been sighted by
members of local conservation organizations (WDNR 1974,
1975). All of the sightings were reported at Marshalls
Point, Toft Point, or Peninsula State Park. The species of
birds observed at these locations, as well as species that
have a distributional range that extends to the project
area, are listed in Appendix K. Birds can be expected to
occur in most of the habitat types present in the project
area.
• Mammals. Most of the habitat types in the project area
support one or more species of mammals. The species that
are known to occur, or believed to occur, in the project
area are listed in Appendix K. Many of these mammals in-
habit or visit Newport State Park, and their relative abun-
dance in the park is probably indicative of their status in
the project area. The black bear, gray fox, bobcat, eastern
fox squirrel, southern bog lemming, and meadow jumping mouse
have distributional ranges that include the project area
(Burt and Grossenheider 1976); however, they presently are
not known to occur in the project area.
The Federal Register's listing of threatened and endangered species
(1979) includes two species with distributional ranges that encompass the
project area (Table 3-4). The American peregrine falcon, an endangered
species, and the bald eagle, a threatened species (in Wisconsin), have not
been sighted in Door County during recent years.
In addition to the wildlife listed in the Federal Register, the State
of Wisconsin also has identified species that have, or may have, difficulty
maintaining population levels in Wisconsin. The species that have been
listed by the State, and that may inhabit or visit the project area, also
are given in Table 3-4.
3.1.3. Water
3.1.3.1. Surface Water
3.1.3.1.1. Setting and Flow
The Door County project area is bounded on the west by Green Bay and
on the east by Lake Michigan. Kangaroo Lake, Mud Lake, and three smaller
ponds are the principal inland bodies of water in the project area. Their
3-24
-------
Table 3-4. Species of animals known to occur in Door County that have been
designated as threatened or endangered by the federal government
or the State of Wisconsin (Federal Register 1979 (50 CFR 17.11);
Wisconsin Statutes, Section 29.415). E indicates endangered and
T indicates threatened.
Class
or Phylum
Fishes
Scientific Name
Coregonus alpenae
Notropis crysocephalus
Amphibians Atubystoma macula turn
Rana palustris
Reptiles Thamnophis sauritus
Birds Accipiter cooperii
Buteo lineatus
Casmerodius albus
Charadrius meloders
Falco peregrinus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Lanius ludovicianus
Phalacrocorax auritus
Sterna forsteri
Sterna hirundo
Common Name
Longjaw cisco
Striped shiner
Spotted salamander
Pickerel frog
Northern ribbon snake
Cooper's hawk
Red-shouldered hawk
Great egret
Piping plover
Peregrine falcon
Bald eagle
Loggerhead shrike
Double-crested cormorant
Forster's tern
Common tern
Status ,
Federal State
E
T
T
T
T
T
T
E
E
E
T
E
E
E
As identified in the Federal Register, 17 January 1979, pp. 3637-3653.
3As identified by WDNR (Section 29.415 Wisconsin Statutes). Endangered
species are "species or subspecies that are in trouble. Their continued
existence as a part of the State's wild fauna is in jeopardy, and without
help they may be extirpated." Threatened species are "species or sub-
species which appear likely, within the forseeable future, to become
endangered."
3-25
-------
physical dimensions are given in Table 3-5. The project area is drained by
six streams, and their physical dimensions are given in Table 3-6.
Kangaroo Lake is located approximately 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) south-
west of the community of Baileys Harbor. Originally a bay of Lake
Michigan, Kangaroo Lake was formed when sand dunes closed the mouth of the
bay. A spring-fed stream at the north end of the lake is the principal
water source. The lake is drained by a 0.9-meter (3-foot) high dam that
discharges water into Heins Creek and, eventually, into Lake Michigan (Poff
and Threinen 1965). Mud Lake is a shallow lake located in a large swamp
between North Bay and Moonlight Bay. The main source of water is a spring-
fed stream that enters from the north. The lake discharges to Moonlight
Bay through Rieboldts Creek. The three smaller bodies of water (Fluff
Pond, Thorp Pond, and Voeks "Marsh") are all relatively remote, and are
part of extensive swamp and wetland complexes.
All of the project area streams originate in the project area and have
small watersheds. The streams are less than 9 kilometers (5.5 miles) in
length. Ephraim Creek is a low gradient stream that drains Ephraim Swamp
and flows north to Eagle Harbor. Fish Creek is an intermittent stream with
a moderate gradient. It is drains Button Marsh and flows north to Fish
Creek Harbor. Heins Creek drains Kangaroo Lake and passes through an area
of sand dunes before emptying into Lake Michigan. Hibbard Creek is a long,
marsh bordered stream that flows out of Thorp Pond and into Lake Michigan
near Jacksonport. Hidden Springs Creek is a small, spring-fed stream that
flows parallel to Ephraim Creek into Eagle Harbor. Rieboldts Creek drains
an extensive wetland forest and enters Mad Lake before emptying into Moon-
light Bay.
Flow data for project area streams are limited to short-term, spot
measurements. Both Ephraim Creek and Fish Creek have been observed with
low or no flow following dry summers.
Due to the offshore pattern of currents around the Door Peninsula, all
of the water entering Green Bay eventually returns to Lake Michigan north
of the Door Peninsula. Generally, the water flows to the north along the
3-26
-------
Green Bay coast of the project area and to the south along the Lake Michi-
gan coast (Mortimer 1978). These major patterns are sometimes reversed by
seasonal changes and/or prevailing winds. The major patterns also are
affected by the coastal bays and harbors and by the presence of offshore
islands (e.g., the Strawberry Channel).
The surface waters in the project area yield a variety of fish for
recreational and commercial purposes. Excellent smallmouth bass fisheries
are located on both sides of the Door Peninsula and along the shores of
nearby islands. Deeper waters are a source of several species of trout and
salmon. Although Lake Michigan seldom freezes, Green Bay waters provide
carp, smelt, and other fish for ice fishermen. Inland lakes and streams
also are popular fishing sites. The species populating these lakes and
streams are given in Table 3-5 and 3-6. Commercial fishing occurs in the
deeper offshore waters, outside the project area bays and harbors and
beyond 0.4 kilometers (0.25 miles) of the shoreline.
Table 3-5. Characteristics of lakes in the project area (Poff and Threinen 1965,
WDNR 1978a).
Lake
Mud Lake
Fluff Pond
Thorp Pond
Voeks "harsh"
Surface
Area
(acres)
Kangaroo Lake 1,123.0
Shoreline
(miles)
8.82
Maximum
Depth Public
(feet) Access
12.0
Boat ramp
155.0
0.5
6.4
19.1
3.20
0.14
0.40
1.10
5.0
5.0
2.5
2.0
Trail
None
None
None
Species of
Fish Present
Bluegill, bowfin, carp,
common white sucker,
largemouth bass, north-
ern pike, rainbow trout,
rock bass, smallmouth
bass, walleye, yellow perch
Smallmouth bass
None
None
None
3-27
-------
O
P-,
CO
O
•H
e
tO
cu
l-l
CO
O
cu
•r-l
O
)-J
a,
cu
43
i
CO
CU
U-l /-N
o 10
CO O-i
O ^H
•H
4-> fl
co cu
•H (3
l-l "T-l
cu cu
+-> l-l
O 43
tO H
l-l
tO
I
ro
CU
r-l
42
co
cu
•H
O
cu
o.
C/3
4-1
3
O
l-l
H
Cl
0
cfl
cu
M
4-*
Pd
§
^
rrj
cu
CO
cu
4-1
tO
4->
C
^3
tfl
O
43
4J
(3
cu
r-J
01
O
CO
M-t
M
(/!
O
c
•H
£
o
o
M
PQ
3
a
0
4->
tO
o
4-1
, J
•rt
co
CO
I-l
o
/— N
CO
cu
r-l
•t-4
e
£
tO
3
CT
CO
N^X
/— s
cu
r-H
•H
6
"ir
cu
cu
4-1
^— '
^— ^
co
CU
•H
0
•"- '
X-N
ca
cu
0
cfl
a
CO
CU
M
+->
0
O O O O
O O O O
•
f!
CO
l-l H H 4-1
60
•H .
rj -. cu
C > t-i
tO
M CU 60
0 43 C
•H
oooovo oo a>o4»i
r»linr-~l — Ou~i 4-> O
r-< l-l 4J 0) 4J
•H 4-1 CO
•-I CO
VI •«
.« CU +->
CO ^ tO
l-l O 4J
CU B -rl
LOocT\-d- OO 4J 4i
•— li— ICMin r-l,— 1 §4J43
3
4J O 4J
O 4-> O
|_| Iq
4-1 CU -M
^O O O OO
•— 1 i — 11^^ Oi — 1 T^*-*^
CO tfl C
M £3 -H
60 60
CU >-i
4»i rC g m
CO CU 60 O B
4«i 4*! 60 CU -rl CO
CU CU (3 M 43 1
0) 4*! CU -H O I
M ^ 0) h M 1 t-l
OCUCUOCX CO MM
0) l-i W 4J H M M
9 )-i O 73 T3
•HO M0 r-l COCOW
tO COtOCU4^O CDC032
M43f343"OCU43 tOtOtfl
43cO-H42T3CU
-------
Water-body contact recreation is popular in the summer with residents
and seasonal visitors engaged in swimming, diving, sunbathing, and other
beach activities. Green Bay beaches are located at Egg Harbor, Fish Creek,
Nicolet Bay (Peninsula State Park), and Eagle Harbor. The only project
area public beach on the Lake Michigan coast is at Baileys Harbor. Small
craft boating and water skiing are limited primarily to Kangaroo Lake and
to the bays, harbors, and shore areas on Green Bay. Larger seaworthy boats
and pleasure craft are common on both coasts.
3.1.3.1.2. Surface Water Quality
Section 304 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (1972) author-
izes the establishment of water quality standards and effluent limitations.
State regulation and enforcement is authorized where standards of perform-
ance are at least as stringent as those established by the Federal govern-
ment. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources is responsible for the
quality of surface waters in Door County. Standards are based on use and
currently are divided into three categories: general standards for fish
and aquatic life, standards for recreational use, and standards for public
water supply. These standards are summarized in Appendix L.
Door County is part of the Door River Basin. The Basin includes all
or parts of eight coastal counties south and east of Green Bay. Surface
waters in the Basin are classified as "effluent limited" because they are
capable of meeting water quality standards with the application of basic
treatment technology (WDNR 1975a). The Basin waters are described as
medium hard to very hard, bicarbonate lake waters and streams.
Detailed water quality data are available for Kangaroo Lake, Mud Lake,
Fish Creek, Heins Creek, and Rieboldts Creek. Ephraim Creek, Hibbard
Creek, and Hidden Springs Creek have not been sampled, and water quality
data for these streams are unavailable (By phone, Mr. Jerry McKersie, WDNR,
to WAPORA, Inc., 15 February 1979). The following paragraphs summarize the
available water quality data:
• Kangaroo Lake. Water quality data for Kangaroo Lake are
presented in Appendix L. The lake was in compliance with
3-29
-------
the Wisconsin water quality criteria. Dissolved oxygen (DO)
concentrations were high, indicating that the lake is cap-
able of supporting a wide variety of aquatic species. Kan-
garoo Lake had a Trophic Status Index (TSI) of 3 (WDNR
1975b). The TSI is a classification scheme that utilizes a
variety of techniques to evaluate the trophic status of a
body of water. The Kangaroo Lake TSI indicates the Lake was
oligotrophic, or very low in plant materials. Winterkill,
pollution, algae, macrophyte problems, or other signs, indi-
cative of eutrophy, are absent
• Mud Lake. Only limited water quality data are available for
Mud Lake. The Lake had a TSI value of 12 and is classified
as raesotrophic due to a moderate amount of dissolved nutri-
ents in the water (WDNR 1975b)
• Fish Creek. Limited water quality data for Fish Creek are
presented in Appendix L. The lowest DO concentration mea-
sured was 7.6 milligrams per liter (mg/1). This level was
above the minimum Wisconsin standard of 5 mg/1 for warm
water fisheries. Ammonia-N, a natural constituent of some
groundwater, can be indicative of sewage or industrial con-
tamination in surface waters when concentrations exceed 0.1
mg/1. Ammonia-N levels in Fish Creek were within this back-
ground range. The pH and fecal coliform values were also
within the limits established in the Wisconsin standards
• Heins Creek. Available water quality data for Heins Creek
are presented in Appendix L. Measured levels of parameters
were within Wisconsin standards
• Rieboldts Creek. Available water quality data for Rieboldts
Creek are presented in Appendix L. Mean values for DO,
ammonia-N, and fecal coliform were within State standards.
Water quality data for the coastal bays and harbors in the project
area are unavailable. General information indicates that Lake Michigan is
slightly fertile and has a composition reflecting the carbonate source ma-
terials. Green Bay is more fertile and variable in alkalinity, pH, and
ionic composition (Poff and Threinen 1965). Thermal and turbidity vari-
ations between Green Bay and Lake Michigan waters are evident from recent
multispectral scanner imagery (USEPA 1979) . The variations are attribut-
able to inherent differences in the two water bodies and physiographic
differences along the Door Peninsula coast. The Lake Michigan shoreline of
the project area is characterized in many locations by a slight bottom
gradient, rocky shoals and considerable bottom deposition. These features
3-30
-------
result in numerous, nearly uniform, thermal and turbidity bands. Tempera-
tures may vary up to 4°C within 2,000 meters (0.5 mile) of the shore. In
contrast, the Green Bay coast has a sharp bottom gradient along the es-
carpment, and the shoreline exhibits relatively few bands of thermal or
turbidity variation. Temperatures generally vary by only 1°C within 2,000
meters of the shore.
The only known point source discharging into surface waters in the
project area is the Baileys Harbor Yacht Club. An average summer flow of
4,000 gallons per day is discharged into Baileys Harbor following secondary
treatment. The Peninsula State Park sewage treatment plant, with average
summer flows of 53,000 gallons per day, relies on lagoon seepage and evap-
oration rather than discharge to surface waters.
Non-point sources contribute pollutants to surface waters in a diffuse
manner that precludes identification of specific sources. The pollutants
generally are associated with intensive rainfall, snowmelt, or othe runoff
events, and they include organic materials, fecal coliform, pesticides,
phosphorus, and nitrogen. WDNR has developed control strategies for non-
point sources as part of the Section 208 basin plan.
3.1.3.2. Groundwater
3.1.3.2.1. Setting and Flow
The groundwater in the project area is located in three aquifer sys-
tems: the Silurian dolomite system, the sandstone system, and the sand-
and-gravel system. Most of the water for the area wells is obtained from
the Silurian dolomite system. The St. Peter sandstone system, composed of
Ordovician and Cambrian bedrock units, is not an important source of water,
and the upper sandstone aquifer is usually tapped only where the dolomite
system is absent or thin. The quantity of water available is directly
related to the thickness of the system. The sand-and-gravel system is an
insignificant source of groundwater due to the screening requirements that
3-31
-------
inflate the costs of wells in glacial drift material. It is, however, an
important source of recharge for the Silurian dolomite system.
The Silurian dolomite system contains the Niagaran and Alexandrian
aquifers. The Niagaran aquifer is the most extensive aquifer and is found
beneath approximately 98% of the project area. Eight water-bearing zones,
separated by unproductive rocks, have been identified in the aquifers and
in the underlying Maquoketa shale (Sherrill 1978) .
Well yields are highly variable and are dependent upon the water-bear-
ing zones open to the well, the occurrence of joints, and the diameter and
construction of the wells. The vertical and bedding plane joints form the
principal water bearing zones in the system. Most of the water in the
upper Niagaran aquifer is contained in the vertical joints, whereas the
larger and more continuous bedding plane joints yield most of the water in
the lower Niagaran and Alexandrian aquifers. Potential yields of 25 liters
per second (400 gallons per minute) are obtainable from the Silurian dolo-
mite system (Sherrill 1978).
The Silurian dolomite system has a high contamination potential due to
highly permeable soils, a lack of adequate soil cover over bedrock, and
fractured bedrock in areas with high relief. The areas that have high
contamination potential because of lack of adequate soil cover, the primary
factor in contamination potential, are shown in Figure 3-4.
Transmissivity, the rate at which water is transmitted through a unit
width of an aquifer under a unit hydraulic gradient, varies in the project
area. Representative transmissivity values in the dolomite system range
from approximately 641 square meters (6,900 square feet) per day at Baileys
Harbor to 1,208 square meters (13,000 square feet) per day at Fish Creek
(Sherrill 1978).
The hydrologic atlas (Skinner and Borman 1973) indicates that depths
to groundwater range from the ground surface to 42 meters (140 feet). The
depths generally are greatest where ground elevations are the highest. The
3-32
-------
water table contours for the Silurian dolomite in Door County are shown in
Figure 3-10. The piezometric surface corresponds to the topography of the
land. Water recharge occurs in the high areas and discharge occurs in the
lowlands. The groundwater discharge is at right angles to the contour
lines in Figure 3-10. The aquifer recharge is largest in early spring be-
cause of snowmelt and increased precipitation. Discharge, generally into
Lake Michigan and Green Bay, is most evident by late summer or early fall.
3.1.3.2.2. Groundwater Quality
Groundwater quality data for selected wells in Door County are pre-
sented in Table 3-7. Most of the samples were obtained from the Silurian
dolomite system and are representative of the well samples in the project
area. The water is very hard (more than 180 mg/1 of calcium carbonate) and
requires softening for many uses. Water temperatures are generally cool,
between 9.5° C (49° F) to 15° C (59° F), and the water has a slightly basic
pH.
The groundwater in the project area can be classified as a calcium
magnesium bicarbonate type. Calcium and magnesium account for more than
80% of the cations. Alkalinity in the pH range of the groundwater sampled
is attributable to the bicarbonate ion. Bicarbonate concentrations range
from 100 mg/1 to 426 mg/1. The Silurian system is low in sulfates, although
the underlying Maquoketa shale far exceeds the recommended health standard
of 250 mg/1. The iron concentrations in the samples exceeded the recom-
mended standard of 0.3 mg/1 in nearly 25% of the wells. The chloride
concentrations are generally low.
The principal groundwater quality problems in the project area are
hardness, locally high iron concentrations, and contamination from surface
sources. Hardness and high iron concentrations are primarily related to
geochemical processes and can be ameliorated through softening and treat-
ment to remove iron. Contamination, however, is a more serious groundwater
problem. Several cases of dysentery and other more severe diseases related
to water quality have been reported in the past (Becher-Hoppe Engineers,
Inc. 1972). Gasoline, road salt, domestic and farm wastes, and septic tank
3-33
-------
or
CU B CO
.B cu
P 3
P co
B iH O 00
•H P U vO
05 X CM
CO d
rl 8
fli KX
S rH 0
SO rH
O iH CO rH
M S2;
MH CU
M 6
(U bd CO
P Jsl oo
cO I
JJ
13
d
3 cfl vo
O O 00
V-l CM
60
0 0
cu sr
iH O
CO
^
1-1
cfl
d co
cfl cu cu
rH CJ
rH Cu U S
co e 3 o
CJ cfl O
•H CO CO
e
01
0 B
O CO
cu o P --»
P O o
cj cu cy CM
cu P i— i —
rH CO rH in
cu Q o o
co u
•
I •
co O
cu oo
rH rH rH
& H
cfl CU
H &
CO Os
o o
O OS
CO CM
9.
-H
o sr
fH r*^
r~ CM
rH
i-t sr
0 O
0 rH
0 rH
CM
O CO
00 r-l
O
m vo
sr CM
CM CO
O vo
CO i-H
rH
r- co
O co
i— I
sr CM
CO
vO vO
rH O
O O
O CO
O CM
. ^
r^ o
O rH
0 rH
co oo
rH CM
f-
rH
rH
CO
^f
0
CO
CM
O
O
sr
m
rH
CM
CO
0
CO
CM
CO
CM
O
rH
O
£
OO
~°_.
00
CM
m
o
vO
CO
m sr
CO O
m <-»
CO CM
CM m
CM f»
CO CM
in oo
O r^
0 0
co sr
m sr
CM CM
CM CM
I-N. 0
CO CO
•g m
rH
r-» os
CO CM
sr CM
CO 00
0 0
O O
CO
CO
••
a d
CO CO
00 rH
— --»
OS CM
CM rH
in o
0 i-H
ix. oo
sr m
sr sr
00 f^
o o
O 00
CO CM
00 CO
os r-
CM CM
O rH
os sr
0 0
sr vo
rH
00 vO
CM i-H
sr o
OS O
CM CO
0 r^
CM 00
0 0
CO CO
O 0
r-» vo
m sr
0 0
0 0
co c
CO CO
rH CM
•x^ -^_
CO 00
•H 0
O OS
i-H O
sr
IH
CU
•H
0 3
CO CO
rH
B
CO
•H
IH
CM B
X
CU
rH
vO «ti
VO
II
CO
CO
0
rH •»
O 0)
M-4
•H
3
e co
d
c55 2
cfl
00
CO
•H
^
CO U
^-. d
CM CO
CM
oo cu
O CJ
IH
3
0
00
cu
oo ex,
^D fi
CM 8
CO
CO
cu
to
•H
z
1
co
O
z
,
(U
3
^J
o
rH
f_5
1
rH
a
t>
cu
4-1
CO
lii
rH
•S
CO
I
sr
CO
*
cu
cfl
B
O
rO
Cfl
CJ
•H
1
CO
0
U
ffi
iH
CO
CO
cO
p
o
Cu
1
rJM
*.
e
•H
•d
&
I
w>
e
3
iH
CO
CU
d
f
'sz
^
8
iH
CJ
r- 1
3
3
d"
o
H
|
cu
XI
,
sr
T)
d
«
CO
f.
CM
CO
V
d
o
N
. d
* w
rH iH
^j
a> A
B cu
0 rQ
IO 1
CM 1
U
oo cu
d P
iH cfl
M 5
CO
cu B
rD O
01
4-1
Cfl •
3 00
d
I "co
M CO
Sn CJ
MH
• f*i
• w
60
d ^
iH CU
CO CU
Cfl MH
CJ
O
0 0
B -*
f -d
4J 4J
•ri ti
if r>
+ *•
a, a.
cu cu
cu cu
•O TJ
p P
cu cu
cu cu
MH MH
CM in
^5 O^
iH CM
CO CO
rH ^
i— 1 i— t
cu a>
9 9
B B
cu cu
r* _rf
B d
cfl CO
cu at
CX (X
CO cfl
CO CO
CJ "O
•o
B
CO
*i
VO
in
sr
„
co
CM
CO
01
d
o
K
00
d
iH
IH
efl
CU
1
M
0)
P
cfl
e
P
[14
•
60
•H
CO
cfl
CJ
MH
O
4J
0)
CU
MH
O
O
i-H
r*
P
•H
r
4->
CU
CU
MH
OS
rH
in
o
4-1
•d
cu
4-1
cu
rH
(X
1
CJ
CO
rH
rH
CU
es
cu
"9
B
CO
cu
ex
CJ
c3
CO
cu
•
00
in T3
01 CO
G
O
N r^
r
OO ^
B
•H CO
>-l CU
CO B
01 O
A N
1
>- ao
(11 f*
w C
•P -H
CO IH
01
rJ I-l
4J
cfl
• ^
oo
d E
•H O
CO M
CJ
O •
B op
rC iH
4-1 03
•H cfl
* CJ
• MH
CU
01 P
MH 01
01
CM MH
O
rH 0
O
W rH
ES
S £
P
rH iH
CU
^ "
CU
• cu
P MH
CO
CU 4-1
4J 01
0)
IH MH
01
MH os
•H CM
3 CO
0-
CO CO
MH §
O
rH
P r— 1
I-t 0)
CO 9
CO B
01
^J n
co 9
E d
CO cfl
0) 01
ex ex
s e
cfl cfl
CO CO
MH 00
3-35
-------
effluent are among the common types of contaminants that enter the dolomite
system through groundwater recharge. Their entry is facilitated by the
thin soil cover, fractured bedrock, and inadequate well casings.
High nitrate concentrations in the well water usually indicate ground-
water contamination from surface sources (Hem 1959, Walton 1970). None of
the nitrate levels exceed the USEPA water quality standard for drinking
water of 10 mg/1 of nitrogen or 45 mg/1 of nitrate, although some samples
were slightly elevated above background levels.
Bacterial contamination of wells has been a chronic problem in Door
County (Wieniewski 1942, Sherrill 1978). When the bacteria reach the
saturated zones in the bedrock, they are capable of traveling long dis-
tances underground with little attenuation. Total and fecal coliform
bacteria were monitored from March 1972 through October 1973 at five wells
and two springs in Door County. The results indicated that both total and
fecal coliforms were generally low (less than 2 colonies per 100 milli-
liters), although total coliform ranged as high as 600 colonies per 100
milliliters and fecal coliform ranged as high as 18 colonies per 100 milli-
liters (Sherrill 1978) .
Contamination is localized in zones of the dolomite system and affects
only a small percentage of the total groundwater system. Precipitation in
late summer and early fall also contributes to the higher contaminant
levels. The rapid groundwater recharge in the area, however, enables a
relatively fast flushing of the system after the contaminant sources are
removed.
3.1.3.3. Aquatic Biota
3.1.3.3.1. Vegetation
The existing information on vascular aquatic plants indicates that,
with the exception of bays and other sheltered areas, Lake Michigan waters
are relatively barren. The bays and sheltered areas provide the necessary
protection from heavy wave action and shifting substrates (Salamun and
3-36
-------
Stearns 1978). The aquatic plants observed by Salamun and Stearns (1978)
in three Lake Michigan bays adjacent to, or near, the project area are
listed in Appendix M.
Although the existing literature does not discuss aquatic vegetation
on the Green Bay coast of the Door Peninsula, the rocky shores and deeper
waters of that coast would most likely support submerged species of vegeta-
tion. Information concerning aquatic plants in project area lakes and
streams also is unavailable, although many of the species listed in Appen-
dix M would be expected to occur in those waters.
3.1.3.3.2. Fishes
Fish are an important commercial and recreational resource in the Door
Peninsula area. Green Bay and Lake Michigan fisheries bound the Middle
Door County project area on the east and west. These fisheries are supple-
mented by the inland waters of the project area where public access to two
lakes and six streams provides additional recreational opportunities.
Species of fish with distributional ranges that include the project area
waters are listed in Appendix N.
Bishop and others (1978) estimated the value of commercial catches of
fish in Wisconsin waters to be $2.6 million in 1976 and $2.9 million in
1977. In both years, more than 95% of the harvest value was derived from
whitefish, alewives, yellow perch, and chubs. Whitefish comprised ap-
proximately half of the total catch value, and over 87% of the total catch
(by weight) were whitefish harvested from waters adjacent to Door County.
Lake Michigan bays and waters adjoining the project area, particularly
Moonlight Bay and North Bay, provide important spawning grounds for white-
fish (Imhoff 1977, Gunderson 1978, and Humphreys 1978). Estimates of the
Wisconsin whitefish stock originating from these spawning beds, some as
high as 75% (Humphreys 1978), indicate their significance.
The recreational fisheries in the project area attract local resi-
dents, as well as tourists, and provide a significant source of income for
many local businesses. This appears to be particularly significant since
3-37
-------
the initiation of an intensive trout and salmon stocking program by WDNR in
1963 (Anonymous 1978). The rapid growth and good survival rates of the
initial plantings have encouraged interest in Great Lakes sportfishing.
Brown trout, rainbow trout, brook trout, lake trout, and chinook salmon
continue to be planted in the Door County area (By phone, Mr. Lee Kernan,
WDNR, to WAPORA, Inc., 26 April 1979).
Salmonids generally frequent inshore areas during the fall, winter,
and spring, and move offshore during the warmer, summer months. Spawning
normally occurs in the fall or spring, depending on the species, in rivers,
streams, or inshore areas where the substrate consists of gravel or cobble.
Spawning, however, has not been successful in project area waters (By
phone, Mr. Lee Kernan, WDNR, to WAPORA, Inc., 2 April 1979). Major food
sources include macroinvertebrates and small fish.
Smallmouth bass and yellow perch also provide excellent recreational
fishing. These species were the mainstay of the recreational fishery for
many years prior to the intensive salmonid stocking program. Current
interest in the recreational fishery is probably divided equally among the
salmonids, bass, and perch, with the salmonids attracting more fisherman in
the fall, winter, and spring months and the bass and perch attracting more
fisherman during the summer months. With the exception of Baileys Harbor,
where the water is too cold, the bays of the project area are believed to
be successful spawning grounds for bass and perch (By phone, Mr. Lee Ker-
nan, WDNR to WAPORA, Inc., 26 April 1979).
There are five inland lakes within the project area boundaries. Only
two of the five are capable of supporting sustained fisheries; the other
three are too shallow and lack sufficient oxygen during the winter to
support fish populations. Kangaroo Lake, the largest and deepest of the
lakes, has a public boat launch area. Walleye and northern pike have been
planted in the lake at various times since 1954 by WDNR. The lake area
north of the causeway is a prime spawning area for the northern pike. In
addition to walleye and pike, a WDNR fish survey conducted in 1973 recorded
the presence of nine other species (Table 3-5). The survey revealed that
no significant changes in the fish populations had occurred since the
previous survey conducted in 1966 (WDNR intra-office memo 1978).
3-38
-------
A species of fish that once was common in Lake Michigan is included in
the Federal Register's list of threatened and endangered species (1979).
Listed as endangered, the long jaw cisco is a deepwater fish and is not
likely to frequent the shallow waters adjacent to the project area.
3.2. Manmade Environment
3.2.1. Land Use
3.2.1.1. Existing Land Use
Current land use within the 260-square kilometer (100-square mile)
project area largely is dictated by the natural features of the Door Penin-
sula. The residential and commercial uses are concentrated near Green Bay
and Lake Michigan harbors and bays. Most of the agricultural land is
located in the interior of the project area. Natural areas are found
throughout the project area and generally consist of steep, wooded slopes
along Green Bay, interior wetlands, and the Lake Michigan shoreline.
Existing land use was segregated into nine classifications, based on a
1975 inventory compiled by the Bay Lake Regional Planning Commission. The
acreage distribution is presented in Table 3-8. The nine classifications
have been combined into the following six categories for mapping purposes
(Figure 3-11) :
• Natural Areas and Agriculture/Silviculture. This combined
category represents the most extensive land uses in the pro-
ject area. Together, they comprise 90.5% of the total area.
Natural areas, including the Ridges Sanctuary, Mud Lake, and
Peninsula State Park, cover 13,048 hectares (32,342 acres),
50.5% of the project area; agriculture/silviculture uses
account for 10,380 hectares (26,648 acres), 40.0% of the
project area.
• Residential. Residential uses are concentrated in the four
project area communities and along the shoreline of Kangaroo
Lake. The 967 hectares (2,389 acres) classified as residen-
tial comprise 3.7% of the project area.
• Transportation. The transportation classification includes
all roadways and airports. Transportation uses account for
884 hectares (2,185 acres), 3.4% of the project area.
3-39
-------
41
i-H OC
It CO
O
CO
VC 00
— CO
-a-
vO
r-t
K CO
3 4>
i*
CM
O
CM
CM
00
CO
CM
CM
5
vO
CO
00
CO
CO
CM
o-.
-a
in
CM
~
VO
in
in
m
CO
CM
CM
O
CM
-a-
i-l 3
3 U
O i-l
•H >
14 —I
Px ro 1—4
•a
vo"
-a oo r^
-a- CM m
r- CM CM
O 4-1
O CO
CO
o>
CO
o
S !
oo
vo
CO
B 4J
O B
i-l oj
4-1 >
co o
B O
CJN in -H
r* co vo
ON
o
I i-"
I -a-
S
9
•H
C
Jj
Pu
iH
§
O
CO
c
O CO
•H 41
4-) i-t
CO 4-1
O i-1
O
U
o
o
m -4
&\ o
co
co
CO
m
m
o
00
•a-
CO
CO
-a-
m
•
00
CM
U
41
•4-1
O
M
p.
41
4-1
•a-
m
-a-
00
41
i-)
o
a
B
•H
f.
41
M
CJ
41
CO
3
•H
B
41
*3
CO
m
^
m
vO
m
ON
i-H
CO
O
in
m
CO
in
CO
vO
VD
CM
CM
O
ON
CO
VO
m
CM
m
-»
vO
O
m
o
00
I
o
fl
•H
a
pa
H 4-1
U o
CO O-
4-> B
<-* O
00 00 & * O
00 do o- i-l co
cff a u o *->
H
41
o
41 -*O
B
O
CO
41
•O
3
3-40
-------
• Outdoor Recreation. There were 372 hectares (920 acres)
assigned to this classification, 1.4% of the project area.
The acreage includes golf courses, ski areas, and boating
facilities.
• Industrial/Commercial. Industrial land use accounts for 97
hectares (239 acres), 0.4% of the project area. Gravel pits
and limestone quarries are the predominant industrial land
uses. Commercial areas are concentrated in the communities
and consist of mixed residences, small shops, service sta-
tions, and resort motels and cottages. The 75 hectares (185
acres) classified as commercial constitute 0.3% of the
project area.
• Other. Communication, utility, institutional, and govern-
mental facilities comprise 27 hectares (66 acres), 0.4% of
the project area. The principal uses include electrical
substations, churches, schools, and town halls.
Significant changes in land use trends are not expected. New summer
and vacation homes will increase the amount of land in residential use.
Proposed residential construction plans indicate a greater mix of housing
types, with fewer single family structures erected in linear concentrations
along shorelines and more multi-family units (e.g., new or proposed condo-
minium units) at Baileys Harbor, Egg Harbor, and Fish Creek. Commercial
growth would accompany new residential development and most likely would
cater to seasonal visitors. No expansion in industrial use is foreseen,
particularly because of local housing costs and the lack of natural gas,
sewer, and water facilities.
3.2.1.2. Development Controls
Zoning is the principal development control exercised in the project
area. Zoning is intended to promote compatibility among land uses by
regulating their location, size, and use. As a growth management tool,
zoning also may be used to control density and direct development into
environmentally compatible areas.
All four communities in the project area are zoned (Figure 3-12).
Baileys Harbor (unincorporated) is "zoned" by the State by virtue of its
shoreline location. In Wisconsin all unincorporated land within 1,000 feet
3-42
-------
of the normal high water mark of navigable waters is zoned as a Shoreland
Protection District (Wisconsin Statutes, Section 59.97(2)(a)). Responsi-
bility for the establishment and administration of these zoning districts
rests with the Door County Board. Similar shoreland zoning also is in
effect for the immediate area surrounding Kangaroo Lake.
The unincorporated community of Fish Creek is zoned under the overall
ordinance adopted by the County. Wisconsin statutes authorize enforcement
of a county zoning ordinance in townships (e.g., Gibraltar Township) when
the ordinance is ratified by the Town Board. Door County administers the
county zoning ordinance in Gibraltar with the assistance of the Town Board,
acting in an advisory capacity.
The Village of Ephraim adopted its zoning ordinance in 1965. The
Village revised the ordinance in 1979 and added a subdivision code.
The Village of Egg Harbor adopted a zoning ordinance in 1979. The new
ordinance replaced interim zoning and is designed to preserve the character
of Egg Harbor and limit population density.
Because county zoning is extended only to those townships that have
ratified the County zoning ordinance, the parts of Baileys Harbor Township
and Egg Harbor Township that are located outside the Shoreland Protection
Districts (land within 1,000 feet of the normal high water mark of navig-
able waters) currently are unzoned. Only Gibraltar Township and the part
of Liberty Grove Township that is included in the project area currently
are zoned under the County ordinance. In addition to the County zoning
ordinance adopted in 1968, Door County adopted a subdivision code in 1970
that also is enforced in divisions in which the zoning ordinance has been
ratified.
The County Comprehensive Plan, completed in 1964, was the basis for
the initial planning and zoning efforts in the project area. Subsequent
planning has focused on specific topics (e.g., Overall Economic Development
Plan, Outdoor Recreation Plan, and Comprehensive Sewer and Water Plan).
Door County also is participating in a State-sponsored farmland preserva-
3-44
-------
tion program (Farmland Preservation Act of 1977) that may serve as the
basis for a new comprehensive plan (By phone, Mr. Robert Florence, Door
County Planning Office, to WAPORA, Inc., 19 March 1979).
The Village of Efeg Harbor is the only project area community with a
comprehensive plan. All of the communities in the project area, however,
have developed individual wastewater treatment plans in the past.
3.2.1.3. Prime and Unique Farmlands
Prime farmland is cropland, pastureland, rangeland, forest land, or
other land, neither urbanized nor wet, that has the best combination of
physical and chemical characteristics for producing crops. The SCS gener-
ally has defined prime farmlands as lands having "an adequate and depend-
able moisture supply from precipitation or irrigation, a favorable tempera-
ture and growing season, acceptable acidity or alkalinity, acceptable salt
or sodium content, and few or no rocks. They are permeable to water and
air. Prime farmlands are not excessively erodible or saturated with water
for a long period of time, and they either do not flood or are protected
from flooding" (SCS 1977).
Prime farmlands in the project area have been identified by specific
soil units. The soil units classified as prime (By letter, Mr. A. J.
Klingelhoets, SCS, to USEPA, 17 April 1978) are listed in Table 3-9 and
mapped in Figure 3-13. Approximately 47% of Door County is classified as
prime farmland. Prime farmland acreage for the project area is not avail-
able.
Unique farmlands are classified in a different manner and are not
identifiable by specific soil units. These lands may have the following
characteristics (SCS 1977):
• moisture supply adequate for specific or specialty crops
• growing season long enough, and temperatures warm enough, to
produce specific or specialty crops
3-45
-------
• a location with a unique combination of soil quality, tem-
perature, humidity, air, drainage, elevation, or other
conditions, such as nearness to market, that favor the
growth or distribution of specific or specialty food or
fiber crops.
The cherry and apple orchards in Door County are considered to be
unique farmlands (By letter, Mr. A. J. Klingelhoets, SCS, to USEPA, 17
April 1978). Approximately 837 hectares (2,069 acres) of orchards are
located in the project area; these orchards are classified as long-term
specialty crops (Bay-Lake Regional Planning Commission 1975a). The orchards
Table 3-9. Prime farmlands in the project area.
Mapping Units
Angelica loam (when drained)
Bonduel loam
Bonduel wet variant loam (when drained)
Emmet sandy loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes
Kewaunee silt loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes
Kolberg silt loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes
Longrie loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes
Manawa silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes
Omena sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes
Omena variant sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes
Omro silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes
Poygan silty clay loam (when drained)
Sisson fine sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes
Solona loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes
Yahara fine sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes
3-46
-------
are tabulated by project area jurisdiction in Table 3-10 and mapped in
Figure 3-14.
Table 3-10. Orchard acreage in the project area in 1975 (Bay-Lake Regional
Planning Commission 1975a).
Jurisdiction Acres
Baileys Harbor Township 430.7
Egg Harbor Township 985.8
Egg Harbor Village 37.5
Ephraim Village 167.2
Gibraltar Township 305.4
a
Jacksonport Township 87.2
a
Liberty Grove Township 54.8
Project area 2,068.6
Includes only the acreage within the project area.
The climatic conditions in Door County are especially favorable for
cherry production (relatively steady day and night temperatures, and spring
breezes that retard blossoming until after the danger of frost damage).
The County has accounted for as much as 98% of the total cherry production
in Wisconsin (Door County Board of Supervisors 1964). Long-term trends,
however, indicate a decline in orchard acreage since the 1960 peak of 5,261
hectares (13,000 acres). This figure had dropped to 3,440 hectares (8,500
acres) by 1975, although the recent successful years for cherry production
may have slowed the rate of decline.
3-48
-------
3.2.2. Demographics
3.2.2.1. Population Distribution and Density
Historically, Door County population trends have exhibited consider-
able variance. The population gains and losses have reflected both national
trends and local economic aberrations, particularly changes associated with
the development of the natural resource base of the County. The Door
Peninsula was opened for settlement at the end of the Black Hawk War in
1832. The County was created in 1851 and had a population of 2,948 at the
time of the first census in 1860 (Table 3-11). Fishing attracted the first
settlers and was the major industry until 1890. New residents were at-
tracted by the development of the lumber and pulp industry in the 1850s.
This economic expansion, coupled with increased accessibility, stimulated
growth, and by 1880 Door County had a population of 11,645. The County
continued to grow after 1880, but the eventual decline in the fishing and
forestry industries reduced the rate of increase (Table 3-12).
The population reached 17,583 by 1900 when the focus of economic
activity began to shift to shipbuilding, fruit growing and canning, and
tourism. The first decline in County population occurred between 1920 and
1930 when the number of residents decreased by nearly 900 people. Growth
resumed after 1930, and the County's population grew to 20,870 by 1950.
Mich of the recovery was due to the expansion of the Sturgeon Bay ship-
building industry during World War II.
The second decline in County population occurred between 1950 and 1970
and was indicative of the national rural-to-urban migratory pattern.
Population declined in communities in the project area, although many
summer homes were built in the project area during this same period.
Between 1950 and 1960, it is estimated that the number of seasonal homes
built in Door County equalled the number built during all the previous
years (Door County Board of Supervisors 1964).
A definite reversal of the 20-year trend of declining population
occurred between 1970 and 1980 (Table 3-12). The population of Door County
in 1980 was 25,029, an increase of 24.5% over the 1970 census population
3-50
-------
I
•H
r-t Ct)
(3 03
o
•rl CU
00 M
cu tu
c2 &
cd cfl
tJ x)
>i O
cd C
PQ
O 4S
00 4-*
<^
^ 0)
+J
xi cd
0 O
Cd -rl
T3
o c
vO -H
oo
•-I CO
43
o- c
o
O -H
•H CO
M CO
O vH
^ s
CO g
••H O
33 U
I
CO
cu
•H
42
CO
Ss,
cu
.H
•H
cd
a
•H
CO
pi
o
CO
•H
E5
*>,
M +J
o c<
0 3
Q O
CJ
+J
o
cu cd
•r-) CU
Ot,
H
M <
cd ft
4-J -rl
cd co
u S
^Q [>
•H O
O H
6 cu
•H bC
cd cd
43 r-)
ft 1-)
w >
i-l
O CU
43 bC
M cd
_ i
•f!
bO >
If
O ft
40 -rl
M 43
eg co
bO O
iSP *"*
ft
0 43
43 CO
M fi
3 I
H
co
cd
>•<
r-i o r- o
oo r^ ON co
00 vO n co
r~ m •— * ON
i~^ o co vo
?— 1 r— 1 r— 1
oo ON m CM
•j- I-H -» oo
ON ON VO VO
CM st <-i in
*H 00
ON oo — * m
CO CM »-i CO
CM CM
ON \O CM
vO
O
CO
ON
f>.
oo
in
f^.
CO
i-H
CO
m
ON
O
ON
^
CO
"^
CM
o
oo
oo
>.
VO
O
^^
ON
m
m
^j.
CO
CO
0
oo
o
CM
ON
CO
vO
CM
vO
t"*
.^
CM
I
vO
ON
m
i— i
r^
O
in
ON
fv.
r^
•^
•— i
vn
ON
CO
in
oo
vO
o
r\J
wN
CO
CO
CO
CM
VO
0
vO
•— I
CM
CM
1
1
CM
in
CO
in
vO
0
vO
ON
i— i
CO
r^
r^
,— t
-*
-»
vO
O
O
CN|
CO
1— t
CO
CM
O
ON
m
vO
co
CM
^£f
oo
I— t
CO
ON
vO
m
vO
o
ON
m
CO
CO
m
o
•"-
-a-
ON
CM
o
m
^J
CO
CM
ON
CM
CM
•^
•^
•— I
CO
oo
CO
CM
in
CM
oo
ON
ON
r-.
o
co
ON
3-51
-------
DO
(3 •
•H
CO cfl
C
o cy
•H u
00 01
£ s
m *
QJ i i
5 ^
5-S
pa
o rC
oo *->
Os
i—i cu
4-1
O cfl
•P O
•H
O T3
vD C
00 -H
rH
r-, M
S cu
2-g
-*
cO
5-
* rH
4-1
O
01
•>~)
O
M
ft
OO
OS
CO
CQ
%8
4->
0)
«W &
O 4->
§«"
° o
4-1
CO 3
H (0
3 y
O, M
O 3
txpq
cu oo
•F5 !=>
• ^
^
m
«,£
ff:
cO
rC C
o o
•H
4J CO
C CO
CU i-(
o e
r-l g
CD O
CM CJ
CM
r-<
I
CO
,£>
&
CO
Js^
0)
H
i-l
•H
>
ft
•rl
CO
3
H
Oj
•H
rd
CO
o
H
CO
J-l
cO
J>H
f™"^ f^ CN| OQ 00 ^D ^*
1
rHi — IrHrHrHrHrHi — 1
m
-------
(US Bureau of the Census 1981). During the same period the project area
population increased by 605 residents, or 26.1%. Baileys Harbor Township
had a net increase of 184 residents, the largest in the project area.
Ephraim Village, which grew by 35.2%, had the highest rate of increase. Egg
Harbor Township's growth rate of 19.0% since 1970 was the lowest in the
project area. Although this was less than Door County's 24.5% growth rate
since 1970, it was considerably more than the State's 6.5% growth rate.
These post-1970 population increases are consistent with State and national
trends. Many urban-area populations have declined since 1970, whereas
rural "amenity" areas, similar to Door County, have grown.
The entire population of the project area was classified as rural in
the 1970 census. The census categorized 67.5% of the population as rural
non-farm and 30.1% as rural farm. The only urban population in Door County
is located at Sturgeon Bay. There were 27.4 persons per square mile in the
project area in 1980. This was considerably less than densities for Door
County (50.9) and for the State (86.1; Wisconsin Department of Administra-
tion 1978, US Bureau of the Census 1981).
3.2.2.2. Population Characteristics
3.2.2.2.1. Household Size
The average number of persons per household in the project area de-
clined from 2.97 in 1970 to 2.59 in 1980 (Table 3-13). This decline is
consistent with nationwide trends toward later marriages, smaller families
and increased numbers of one- and two-person households. This trend also
was apparent in Door County where the average household size declined from
3.08 to 2.72 between 1970 and 1980 and in the State where it declined from
3.32 to 2.85. The Town of Egg Harbor, however, had a greater number of
persons per household, 3.02, than the project area, Door County or the
State. The relatively high percentage of minors in Egg Harbor could be a
result of the Town's proximity to Sturgeon Bay and its employment oppor-
tunities.
3-53
-------
t^
PQ
O
•• P
en
i — ••
ON a
— i O
•iH
CO 4-1
3 efl
CO t-l
C P
CU CO
O -rH
0
<4H T-l
0 g
-«
3 <
CO
CU UH
rJ 0
3
M 3
cfl
CO CU
P> H
s-/ 3
M
O
00 C
ON -H
.-H CO
c
-0 0
C O
cfl CO
•rl
12
0
ON P
rH a
cu
c e
•H P
M
cfl efl
cu p,
M CU
(0 «
•P CO
O CU
cu o
•<-i -H
0 >
Mt,
W
ft cu
CO
cu
.15 0
P -H
A
C ft
•H (fl
rJ
CO t>o
0 0
•H g
P CU
CO O
•H
)H .
CU !H
P o
CJ rH
cO >-.
U cfl
cfl Z
i-C
O P
M
C CU
0 X>
•H 0
P Kl
CO
rH •
3 M
ft S
O
ft -
cu
tJ C
CU O
P 43
0 ft
cu cu
rH rH
CU CU
CO P
•
en
i-H
1
en
CU
rH
X>
&
•
CU
rH
J3
cfl
rH
•H
cfl
>
CO
CU
t-<
cfl
efl
4-1
cfl
T3
0
G
4-1
cfl
rC
4-1
cu
4-1
cfl
U
•H
•a
c
•H
CO
cu
XI
CO
CM
a
•
s^*
CN
00
ON
>>
£
r-^
eg
•>
•
0
H
hH
*
<
K
O
Pi
C
cu
CJ
IH
CU
PL,
P
C
cu
CJ
IH
CU
PX,
IH
CU
ft
CO
a
o
CO
t-i
cu
Cu
VH
CU
£
•a
a
cfl
CO
IH
cQ
CU
>•
CO
IH
cfl
CU
tH
00
i-H
V-i
CU
T3
G
O
cu
00
<
c
CO
•H
•o
CU
S
"O
rH
0
J3
cu
CO
3
O
EC
CO
T)
rH
0
,c
cu
CQ
3
O
M
<4H
O
M
cu
A
s
p^
c
o
•H
4-1
cfl
i-H
3
ft
O
CM
O
OO
CT,
i-H
0 00
• •
rH O
CN rH
O
r^
a\
i-H
CN
sr o
• •
CN en
o
r^
o\
•— i
0 0
oo m
• •
CN en
O
00
ON
rH
in en
CN r>«
en CN
0
r^
ON
rH
o oo
CN ON
CM rH
O
00
2
»~H
ON m
ON CM
r-» oo
0
r^
ON
i-H
in en
-H ON
vo vD
IH
O
d
o
•iH
P
CJ
•H
•s
•H
IH
>-}
rQ
tH
jrt ft M ft
33 -H o -H
rC rQ XI
CO CO M CO
!>. e eg c
cu § en 3
rH O O
•rl H 60 H
S &
r~-
•
CM
CM
00
•
m
i-H
CN
•
O
CM
i— (
•
\D
CM
sr
•
m
~a-
^o
•
oo
sr
CN
CM
•
CN
VO
m
•
CN
r~
o
. — t
CM
r~.
oo
en
CN
sr
00
rH
t-l
O CU
xi oo
tH CO
rS3
•H
•50>
&
00
•
sr
CM
00
•
0
CM
m
•
CN
CM
i-H
•
O
en
sr
•
t^
sr
in
•
CM
sr
en
en
•
CM
OO
>«
•
CM
r~.
en
. — i
00
00
ON
r-H
en
\o
en
CM
CU
WJ
cfl
rH
a
>
e
•H
Cfl
VH
&
ft
U
rH
•
O
CM
OO
•
CTi
r— 4
^tf
•
sr
CM
en
•
o
en
oo
•
m
en
vO
•
00
en
o
^o
•
CN
m
ON
•
CM
m
oo
CN
o
o
CM
CM
sr
t~~
o
ON
m
ft
IH -H
cfl JZ
4-> CO
rH d
efl 5
M O
rQ H
•H
O
ON
•
0\
1— 1
r- 1
•
\o
i-H
sj-
•
-*
CN
ON
•
O
en
in
•
ON
en
CN
•
o
~*
ON
m
•
CN
r^
ON
•
CN
r>.
CN
^H
•t
r-H
00
r~
r~-
en
CN
ON
*
CN
00
rH
cn
«i
CN
Cfl
CU
M
cfl
4->
0
cu
•r-)
O
VJ
CXi
!
00
•
•
m
CM
VO
O
i-H
•k
O
CN
>>
P
d
3
8
IH
O
a
i
i
r-
•
0
r-H
|
00
•
m
m
sr
•
ON
CM
CM
•
r-.
CN
m
00
•
CM
CM
en
•
en
i-H
vO
CM
f>
CN
m
vO
«.
i-H
sr
0
vO
•t
oo
CM
en
*
r— 1
^_l
CM
in
#.
m
o
r^
«^
sr
r-H
en
t^
f.
r-
rH
sr
•»
sr
d
•H
CO
a
0
CJ
CO
&
3-54
-------
3.2.2.2.2. Median Age
Median age is an index of the overall age structure. The median age
in the project area in 1980 (39.5) was significantly higher than the County
or State median ages, but was less than the 1970 median age for the project
area of 40.2 (Table 3-13). Between 1970 and 1980 the population of the US
aged as a result of the declining fertility rates that have occurred since
approximately 1965. The median age in the US in 1970 was 28.1 and in
Wisconsin it was 27.2 (US Bureau of the Census 1973). According to the
1980 census, the median age in the US and in Wisconsin was 30.0 and 29.4,
respectively (By telephone, Mr. Robert Naylor, Demographic Services Depart-
ment, Wisconsin Department of Administration, to WAPORA, Inc., 27 May
1982). The median age in Door County, however, decreased from 33.8 in 1970
to 31.7 in 1980. Four of the five jurisdictions in the project area also
recorded decreases in median age between 1970 and 1980. The one exception,
Ephraim Village, recorded an increase in the median age between L970 and
1980 from 42.5 to 47.4. Even though there is a general trend of declining
median ages in the project area, the higher than average median ages, as
compared to the County, the State and the US, can be attributed to the
growing number of retired residents who are attracted by the recreational
and scenic amenities of the project area.
3.2.2.2.3. Mobility
The mobility of the population can be determined by comparing a per-
son's residence in 1965 and 1970. In 1970, 63.9% of the population re-
ported that they resided in the same house as they did in 1965 (US Bureau
of the Census 1973). An additional 19.1% reported that they resided in the
same county in 1965, but in a different house. Another 9.4% either lived
in a different county or state in 1965. All those residing in a different
state in 1965 lived in the North Central region of the US. The large
number of individuals residing in the same house in 1970 as in 1965 is
related to the high median age in the project area; mobility tends to
decrease with age. Similar data for the project area from the 1980 census
are not yet available.
3-55
-------
3.2.2.3. Housing Stock Characteristics
The housing stock in the project area comprises both year-round and
seasonal dwellings. Year-round units account for 1,895 units, or 64.4% of
the housing stock (Table 3-14). These year-round units include 1,127
occupied units and 768 vacant units. These vacant units comprise 663 held
for occasional use; 30 for sale or rent; and 73 held for janitorial use,
estate settlements, or other private reasons. Seasonal housing represents
1,048 units. The 1,711 housing units used for only part of the year (Table
3-14) is derived by adding the 663 occassionally-used, year-round units to
the 1,048 seasonal units. The 1,711 seasonal units in the project area in
1970 constituted 58.1% of the total housing units. Among the project area
communities, the Villages of Ephraim and Egg Harbor had the highest per-
centages of seasonal housing, 68% of the housing units in both communities
are used on a seasonal basis. Because the townships include large rural
areas that are distant from water-related amenities, their seasonal housing
percentages were lower.
Comparisons between the project area, the County, and the State hous-
ing stock characteristics in 1970 reveal numerous differences (Table 3-15):
• The project area housing stock is more often owner occupied.
The low percentage of renter-occupied units is typical of
low-density rural areas. The owner-occupied homes had an
average of 5.9 rooms per unit; rental properties averaged
5.3 rooms per unit
• The project area housing stock is newer. In 1970, 48.1% of
the housing stock predated 1940 and 22.0% was built in 1960
or later. The vacant housing, primarily units reserved for
occasional use, was newer than the year-round, occupied
housing, indicating a higher recent construction rate for
seasonal dwellings
• The project area housing stock more frequently lacks com-
plete plumbing facilities (piped hot water, a flush toilet,
and a bathtub or shower). There were 175 occupied and
vacant units that lacked some or all plumbing facilities.
Of the 133 units lacking flush toilets, 73 were occupied.
3-56
-------
/-N
13
*
C
o
•H
4J
cO
Jj
CO
•H
C
•H
e
^
U-l
o
•M
a
cu
4-1
w
CO
CU
Q
0
•H
CO
C
0
O
co
•H
IS
N-X
O
00
ON
1— 1
}^
o
U-I
^"»
1
3
CO
c?
•H
CO
3
o
r4.
cO
CU
M
CO
^j
0
CU
o
&4
•
^>
,— I
1
CO
cu
^
tO
H
co i a
*-> M t>
"H cO
C cu +•>
!Z) ^4 CJ
tO
H 4-1 O
§O CO
>
O 5s?
W \Q *O
to oo C
CU 3
co o
i-l CO
co +J
+-» iH
O (3
H P
co CM vo co r^
rH O ~* 3
O O
vjD O vO CM i— I
CM O f- 1^ CM
m co CM co ,3-
II
CO
*g "^
3 H^
O
U 13
1 cu
H -H
CO CX
CU 3
fH CJ
CJ
O
in co r--. r-^ in
CM r>. o co oo
(T) CM —1 •-* CM
+
CO
'SS
3 ,a
O £>
M
i. C
cfl cO
cu CJ
>-" CO
^
•— i r^. ON m vo
O f^ ^o co co
CM i— 1 CM i-l
cx
•H
CO
d cx
? -H Q) P.
O J3 00 -H
H tn to xl
c! iH CU CO
n S H oo a
O O -H cO S
c
o
•H
4J
CJ
•H
•s
•H
1-1
3
XI H > i-l O
M ,-1 H
crt J-t M »fH
In o o t> i-i
Xi XI tO
Cfl M M J] +-J
^** Cd ^ *rn ^H
C^ p^ [ *\ cfl c^J
i^ V^ ^
•H 00 W) r^J rO
cd W) t^O &< *H
CQ W W W O
1— *
I— (
•^
r-H
CO
-*
ON
«k
CM
II
oo
^*
O
»
1— 1
+
m
ON
00
*
i— i
H
r^-
CM
»— 4
»
i— 1
+
00
f^s.
CO
cu
M
CO
+-*
CJ
-------
cu
.d
4-1
U-l
o
3
cO
CU
M
3
M
CO
D
v-x
O
o\
rH
d
•rH
rrt
w
cu
P
CO
^i
O
cu
•r™)
o
1-4
O.
cu
J3
4"J
M
O
MH
CO
0
•H
4J
•H
H
CU
1 1
o
cfl
tj
CO
,d
O
#
o
4-1
co
GO
d
•H
CO
H
o
M
-d
cu
4->
o
cu
rH
CU
CO
•
LO
•H
1
CO
cu
rH
&
&
^
rd
•
td
•
d
•*
-ft
CD
•
•tf
•
d
en
3
CO
d
cu
o
P
cu
g
0
C/3
60
d
•H
,«
O
3
CO
4-1
•H
j§
^-il
rH
•H
3
PQ
H
X
rQ
CO
ll
+^
•rt
d
!=>
^
CO
4->
,1
ri
d
t3
T3
CU
•H
a,
3
o
0
CO
cu
- 1
•rt
4-1
•H
iH
•H
O
CO
f*
M
d
•rl
•i
3
rH
O-i
t-H
_j
^
M
O
ON
CO
ON
, — 1
1
o-
ON
1 — 1
LO
ON
rH
1
\D
ON
rH
4-1
d
CU
r-4
CU
CLi
$-1
CU
-i
Pa
M
0)
._j
n
rH
r-l
3
O*^
(-<
t—t
CU
Pi
6^8
M
CU
6^S
d
o
•H
4-1
O
•H
•8
•H
r-l
3
r-3
•H rH ON rH
M CU H
cfl -rH 5-1 I-i -H
33 .C O 0 >
CO ,£J ,0
co d v-i v-i a
t*> 9 eg co -H
CU O S 33 cO
rH H 5-J
•H 60 50 ,d
(§ IP pS3 ^
CN 1-^
LO LO
•H rH
CO LO
LO r-v
•H
00 rH
O OO
LO ^J-
VD IO
CO rH
rH r-l
oo co
o oo
rH rH
Is- 0
4J
rH 0
cS CU
>-i -n
.0 0
•H M
O O-i
CM CM
ON r-
CO CM
•* r-x
r^ co
ft
o
~J- r-~
vO CM
LO IO
co r^
CM ON
i — i
vO -d"
• •
CM r~~
rH rH
\O CM
• •
00 O
rH CM
LO rH
oo r^.
i— i co
LO ON
rH CM
00 vO
>>
4->
d d
3 -rH
O CO
o d
o
r-l 0
o w
O -H
Q &
3-58
-------
3.2.2.4. Population Projections
Accuracy in the development of population projections is highly depen-
dent on two factors: the size of the base population and the period of
time for which the projections are made. The estimation of population
generally is less accurate for small populations than for larger popula-
tions over long periods of time. This is because attitudinal or techno-
logical changes can significantly affect small communities, whereas larger
communities can better absorb such changes.
The effect of these limitations can be minimized if population projec-
tions are based on observations derived from a thorough analysis of his-
torical trends and future expectations. Four observations regarding popu-
lation trends in Door County and the project area must be considered in
forecasting future population levels:
• Until recently, the population of Door County had been
slowly declining. The previous peak population level was
reached in 1950 when Door County had 20,870 residents. The
population of the project area, however, peaked in 1940 at a
level of 2,737 people. The decline that followed paralleled
the national trend of rural to urban migration during the
1950's and 1960's. The younger sectors of the rural popula-
tion usually were attracted to the urban areas by employment
and educational opportunities. This downward trend of
population growth, however, was reversed after 1970. Be-
tween 1970 and 1980, Door County's population increased by
24.5% from 20,106 to 25,029. Population growth in the
project area occurred at a similar rate during this same
period, increasing 26% from 2,318 to 2,923 (US Bureau of the
Census 1973, 1981).
The reversal of population trends in Door County is consis-
tent with recent national trends of net migration from urban
to rural areas. Rural areas are attractive for a variety of
reasons, including lower land values, the amenities of
"country life," and an absence of urban problems. The
current trend of population increase is expected to continue
in Door County, because of its varied scenic attractions and
popularity as a retirement area.
• Although the County and the project-area populations will
continue to grow, the growth will occur at a decreasing
rate. The fertility rate (the number of births per female in
the 20- to 34-year age group) between 1970 and 1975 was more
than the replacement level in Door County. The fertility
3-59
-------
rate, however, is expected to decline over a 30-year period.
Population projections developed by the Wisconsin Department
of Administration indicate that the growth rate for Door
County will gradually decrease as it approaches the replace-
ment level.
The relationship between population change in the County and
population change in the project area has been very stable
over the period from 1950 to 1980 (Table 3-16). The propor-
tion of the Door County population attributable to each
minor civil division did not vary by more than 0.73% during
any of the ten-year periods from 1950 to 1980. This sug-
gests a relatively strong correlation between County and
project area trends.
The demand for housing utilized for seasonal or occasional
use is high. Information from the 1980 census indicates
that there has been a substantial increase since 1970 in the
number of housing units used on a seasonal or occasional
basis. Between 1970 and 1980, the number of occupied year-
round housing units in the project area increased by 45%
(Wisconsin Department of Administration, n.d.). Housing
units used on a seasonal or occasional basis increased by
72%, from 994 to 1,711, during the same period. Whereas the
ratio of seasonal to occupied year-round dwellings was 1.28
in 1970, the high demand for seasonal dwellings resulted in
an increase in the ratio to 1.52 in 1980 (i.e., there were
1.52 seasonal housing units for every occupied year-round
housing unit) .
Table 3-16. Percentages of Door County population residing in the project
area minor civil divisions in 1950, 1960, and 1970. (US Bureau
of the Census 1952, 1963, 1973, 1981).
Jurisdiction
Baileys Harbor Township
Egg Harbor Township
Egg Harbor Village
Ephraim Village
Gibraltar Township
Percent of Total County Population
1950 1960 1970 1980
3.43
4.39
1.17
3.66
3.16
4.12
1.07
2.93
3.06
3.45
0.92
1.17
2.93
3.19
3.30
0.95
1.27
2.96
The Village of Egg Harbor was not enumerated as a minor civil division
until 1970. Prior to 1970, the population for the Village of Egg Harbor
was included in the population for Egg Harbor Township. For purposes of
comparison with the 1950 and 1960 Egg Harbor Township percentages, the
1970 and 1980 combined Village and Township percentages were 4.37% and
4.25%, respectively.
3-60
-------
Other factors also will have some impact on future population growth.
Higher fuel cost and/or restrictions on fuel availability might reduce
tourism and indirectly affect population growth. The growth attitudes of
existing residents, local governments, and commercial interests also could
affect future population levels.
3.2.2.4.1. Permanent Population Projections
Permanent population forecasts for the project area are based on
projections prepared for Door County by the Wisconsin Department of Admini-
stration (1975). These State projections are the most recent and compre-
hensive figures available. They were generated using a cohort-component
model that adjusts the base population as a result of changes in fertility,
mortality, and net migration over 5-year increments. In accordance with
State recommendations, the "toward replacement fertility level" projec-
tions, characterized by a declining growth rate, were employed in fore-
casting future local population. These projections for the permanent
population in Door County in 1985, 1990, and 2000 were allocated among the
governmental jurisdictions. The percentages of the County population
allocated to each community were derived from a "least squares" trend line
calculated from known percentages from 1960 to 1980. Three unincorporated
areas were not enumerated in the 1980 Census (the Baileys Harbor community,
the Fish Creek community, and the Kangaroo Lake area). The current popula-
tion for these areas was estimated from 1979 housing counts conducted in
the map areas previously delineated in the Door County, Wisconsin, Compre-
hensive Sewer and Water Plan (Becher-Hoppe Engineers, Inc. 1972). The
number of houses indicated for each map area was multiplied by 2.63 people
(the average of the 1970 occupancy rates for the Villages of Ephraim and
Egg Harbor). The community share of the County population was based on the
1979 population. The permanent population projections are presented in
Table 3-17.
3.2.2.4.2. Seasonal Population Projections
The seasonal peak population projections were calculated from 1980
census data. The number of seasonal housing units for each jurisdiction
3-61
-------
Table 3-17. Permanent population projections for the project area in 1985,
1990, and 2000.
Jurisdiction
Baileys Harbor Township
Baileys Harbor community
Kangaroo Lake area
Egg Harbor Township
Egg Harbor Village
Ephraim Village
Gibraltar Township
Fish Creek community
c
Project area
1980
1979
Toward
Replacement Fertility
Level Projections
Population
799
825
238
319
742
Population
313
147
224
1985
893
(408)
(191)
872
270
346
805
(236)
1990
978
(455)
(213)
955
300
393
878
(252)
2000
1,111
(536)
(253)
1,091
369
466
1,009
(278)
2,923
3,186 3,503 4,046
The three areas with figures in this column are unincorporated and are
not enumerated by the US Bureau of Census. These figures were calculated
from 1979 housing counts because census data were not available. Projec-
tions for these areas were calculated using the proportional share method.
The permanent projections for the Townships and Villages (not in paren-
theses) were calculated using the least squares method, "averaging" each
jurisdiction's historical percentage of the Door County population.
The totals do not include figures in parentheses because they are already
included in the figures for Baileys Harbor Township and Gibraltar Town-
ship.
3-62
-------
was multiplied by a recommended occupancy rate of 3.0 (By telephone, Mr.
Jack Grey, University of Wisconsin Recreation Resources Center, to WAPORA,
Inc., 9 April 1979), and a ratio of seasonal to permanent population was
calculated for 1980. The resultant ratio multiplier was applied to the
projections of permanent population to yield the seasonal population pro-
jections that are presented in Table 3-18. Seasonal housing stock data
(percentage of total housing units classified as seasonal) for the housing
count areas were obtained from the wastewater treatment plans prepared in
1973 for the Townships of Baileys Harbor and Gibraltar. Projections for
these areas were developed using the multipliers derived from the ratio of
seasonal to permanent population in 1979. The combined permanent and
seasonal peak populations are presented in Table 3-19.
Seasonally-transient visitors are an additional population component.
The numbers of cottage, motel, and campsite units available in the project
area were tabulated from directories provided by the Door County Chamber of
Commerce (1982). Appropriate multipliers were utilized to determine the
population accommodated by these facilities (Table 3-20). There are no
known future plans for expansion of project area campgrounds, and the
limited historical data on overnight lodging facilities in Door County
preclude identification of a trend. Therefore, the 1982 population accom-
modated by these facilities was held constant for the purpose of projecting
total peak population.
3.2.3. Economics
3.2.3.1. Local Economic Characteristics
3.2.3.1.1. Basic Sector
Agriculture, manufacturing, tourism, and mining comprise the basic, or
"export" sector, of the local economy in Door County. The basic sector
produces goods or services exported to other areas. The specific compo-
nents of the basic sector may vary with locale, but usually include the
industries listed above. Although tourism services are not exported, they
are considered basic because local consumption is attributable to non-
3-63
-------
Table 3-18. Seasonal population projections for the project area in 1985,
1990, and 2000.
1980 1979
Jurisdiction Population Population3 1985 1990 2000
Baileys Harbor Township 1,539 1,723 1,889 2,144
Baileys Harbor community 78 (161) (180) (212)
Kangaroo Lake area 387 (440) (482) (547)
Egg Harbor Township 606 641 702 802
Egg Harbor Village 738 837 930 1,144
Ephraim Village 1,029 1,118 1,269 1,505
Gibraltar Township 1,221 1,328 1,449 1,665
Fish Creek community 375 (517) (551) (610)
Project area0 5,133 5,647 6,239 7,260
a
The three areas with figures in this column are unincorporated and are
not enumerated by the US Bureau of Census. These figures were calculated
from 1979 housing counts because census data were not available. Projec-
tions for these areas were calculated using the proportional share
me thod.
b
The seasonal projections for the Townships and Villages (not in paren-
theses) assume that the 1980 ratio of seasonal to permanent population
remains constant during the planning period.
£
The totals do not include figures in parentheses because they are already
included in the figures for Baileys Harbor Township and Gibraltar Town-
ship.
3-64
-------
Table 3-19. Combined permanent and seasonal population projections for the
project area in 1985, 1990, and 2000.
Jurisdiction
Baileys Harbor Township
Baileys Harbor community
Kangaroo Lake area
Egg Harbor Township
Egg Harbor Village
Ephraim Village
Gibraltar Township
Fish Creek community
c
Project area
1980
1979
Population Population
Toward
Replacement Fertility
Level Projections
1985 1990 2000
2,338
1,431
976
1,348
1,963
2,616
391 (569)
534 (631)
1,513
1,107
1,464
2,133
599 (753)
2,867
(635)
(695)
1,657
1,230
1,662
2,327
(803)
3,255
(748)
(800)
1,893
1,513
1,971
2,674
(888)
8,056
8,833 9,743 11,306
The three areas with figures in this column are unincorporated and are
not enumerated by the US Bureau of Census. These figures were calculated
from 1979 housing counts because census data were not available. Pro-
jections for these areas were calculated using the proportional share
me thod.
The combined projections for the Townships and Villages (not in paren-
theses) were calculated by combining the permanent and seasonal popula-
tion projections.
The totals do not include figures in parentheses because they are already
included in the figures for Baileys Harbor Township and Gibraltar Town-
ship.
3-65
-------
Table 3-20. Seasonally transient population estimates for the project area
in 1980.
Jurisdiction
Baileys Harbor Township
Baileys Harbor community
Kangaroo Lake area
Egg Harbor Township
Egg Harbor Village
Ephraim Village
Gibraltar Township
Fish Creek community
c
Project area
Population Accom- Population
modated by Resort/ Accommodated;
Motel Facilities at Campsites
Total
753
(473)
(101)
165
473
728
540
(540)
456
1,066
—
—
2,184
1,209
(473)
(101)
1,231
473
728
2,724
(540)
2,659
3,706
6,365
Based on a rate of 2.8 persons per cottage or motel unit (By telephone,
Mr. Jack Grey, University of Wisconsin Recreation Resources Center, to
WAPORA, Inc., 9 April 1979).
Based on a rate of 3.26 persons per campsite (By telephone, Mr. Jack Grey,
University of Wisconsin Recreation Resources Center, to WAPORA, Inc.,
9 April 1979).
The vertical totals do not include figures in parentheses because they
are already included in figures for Baileys Harbor Township and Gibral-
tar Township.
3-66
-------
residents. The income generated by the basic sector circulates within the
local economy and supports non-basic, or "service" sector industries, that
provide goods and services for local consumption.
Because income and production data are usually difficult to obtain,
employment figures routinely are used for small-area economic base analy-
ses. The economic and population trends are directly related to employment
opportunities in the basic sector. The ratio of total employment (basic
and service sector employment) to basic employment quantitatively describes
this relationship. Specifically, the ratio indicates the total number of
jobs generated by each job in the basic sector. The relationship between
basic and total employment underlies the historic population decline in
Door County. As basic employment opportunities in agriculture and in the
lumber and fishing industries decreased, the service employment and total
population levels were affected.
Post-1970 employment trends in Door County indicate accelerated growth
in the basic sector (Table 3-21). The growth rate of 71% was primarily
attributable to a 168% increase in manufacturing and 53% increase in tou-
rism. Manufacturing accounts for 38% of the year-round wage and salary
jobs in the County, most of which are located in Sturgeon Bay. Manufac-
turing jobs are concentrated in the production of durable goods, where
employment increased by 270% between 1971 and 1979 (1,013 employees to
3,750 employees). Jobs associated with the production of non-durable goods
decreased by 33% (513 employees to 349 employees) during the same period.
The primary reason for the increase in manufacturing employment is the
expansion of the shipbuilding industry in Sturgeon Bay. Congress recently
extended eligibility for construction rebates and mortgage guarantees to
Great Lakes and inland vessel operators (Amendment to Title XI of the
Merchant Marine Act of 1936). Continued growth in this industry is ex-
pected.
Tourism, a basic industry in Door County, is particularily important
in the project area. In addition to the numerous restaurants and retail
firms that are dependent on seasonal visitors, there are 2,086 tourist
rental units and campsites in the project area (Door County Chamber of
3-67
-------
Table 3-21. Door County employment trends, by sector, in 1971 and 1979
(BEA 1981).
Category
Total employment
Farm proprietors
Non-farm proprietors
Wage and salary
1971
1979
Percent Change
1971 - 1979
Basic
Agriculture
Mining
Manufacturing
Tourism0
Non-basic (service)
Basic: Service multiplier
e
Civilian Labor Force
Employed
Unemployed
Unemployment rate
8,792
1,421
1,050
6,321
4,268
1,821
—
1,526
886
4,525
1.06
8,400
8,000
400
13,510
1,256
1,448
10,806
7,302
1,824
27
4,095
1,356
6,208
0.85
14,600
14,000
530
54%
-12
38
71
71
0.2
—
168
53
37
-20
74
75
33
5.1%
3.6%
-29
Includes farm proprietors, farm wage and salary employees, agricultural
service, forestry, fisheries, and other.
Mining not disclosed in 1971.
Tourism = 50% of the retail trade employment + 9% of the FIRE, insurance,
and real estate employment + 23% of the services employment (Strang 1970) .
The multiplier indicates the number of service jobs generated by 1 basic
job.
By phone, Mr. Russ Heilman, Wisconsin Bureau of Research and Statistics, to
WAPORA, Inc., 18 June 1982.
3-68
-------
Commerce 1982). Although tourism employment data for the project area are
unavailable, growth most likely occurred at a rate equal to, or greater
than, the County rate between 1971 and 1979 (Table 3-21), and continued
expansion is forseen.
Employment in agriculture remained relatively stable between 1971 and
1979. Although farm wage and salary employment increased from 400 to 532
during that period, the number of farm proprietors decreased by 165. This
trend is expected to persist as more attractive manufacturing and tourism
employment opportunities develop and farm consolidation continues.
The mining industry in Door County is limited to sand, gravel, and
stone extraction. In 1979 the industry employed 27 people.
3.2.3.1.2. Service Sector
Employment in the service sector in Door County increased by 37%
between 1971 and 1979. A decline in transportation/public utilities was
offset by growth in construction; wholesale trade; retail trade; finance,
insurance, and real estate (FIRE); and government (Table 3-22). The in-
crease in FIRE employment (53) was significant. Although relatively small
in terms of actual jobs, finance activities are considered tertiary and
require an increasingly sophisticated economic base to support them.
Government was the largest service sector employer in 1979, with 1,448
employees. Most of these employees are located in Sturgeon Bay, the County
seat and largest municipality in Door County.
Service employment change between 1971 and 1979 ranged from an in-
crease of 191% in wholesale trade to a decrease of 31% in transportation/
public utilities. Specific reasons for these changes are not evident in
the available literature.
The number of non-farm proprietors grew from 1,050 in 1971 to 1,448 in
1979. The types of proprietory operations are unknown, but most likely
include art and craft shops, small grocery stores, and galleries. Although
3-69
-------
Table 3-22. Door County employment trends, by service sector categories,
in 1971 and 1979 (BEA 1981).
Category 1971 1979
Non-farm proprietors
Construction
Transportation/public utilities
Wholesale trade
Retail tradec
FIRE c
Services
Government
Percentage Change
1971 - 1979
a
1,050
362
267
68
654
136
728
1,260
1,448
460
183
198
939
208
1,324
1,448
38%
27
-31
191
44
53
82
15
Total 4,525 6,208
37
50% of the retail trade employment. Remaining 50% allocated to the basic
sector (tourism).
91% of the FIRE, insurance, and real estate employment. Remaining 9%
allocated to basic sector (tourism).
77% of the service employment. Remaining 23% allocated to basic sector
(tourism).
these proprietors are considered part of the service sector, they probably
conduct most of their business during the summer tourist season.
3.2.3.1.3. Employment Multipliers
Employment trends in Door County do not parallel the State trends
shown in Table 3-23. Basic and service sector employment grew at a faster
rate in Door County, and the basic sector expanded more rapidly than the
service sector. The Door County employment multiplier decreased slightly,
with each basic sector job generating 1.06 service jobs in 1971 compared
with 0.85 service jobs in 1979. Two factors may have contributed to the
reduced multiplier. First, Door County is not a self-contained economic
unit. Many retail goods, wholesale goods, and other services are available
only outside the County, often in Green Bay. Therefore, service jobs
3-70
-------
Table 3-23. Percent change in Door County and Wisconsin employment, by
sector, 1971-1979 (BEA 1981).
Category
Total employment
Farm proprietors
Non-farm proprietors
Wage and salary
Basic
Agriculture
Mining
Manufacturing
Tourism
Non-basic (service)
Door County
Percent Change
1971 - 1979
Wisconsin
Percent Change
1971 - 1979
54%
42
38
71
71
0.2
—
168
53
23%
-9
23
25
19
9
4
23
c
37
25
Includes farm proprietors, farm wage and salary employees, agricultural
service, forestry, fisheries, and other.
Door County mining data not disclosed.
Not considered a basic industry at the State level.
3-71
-------
generated by growth in the basic sector in Door County may develop else-
where. Second, the service sector may be exhibiting a "lag time" in re-
sponse to increase in basic sector employment.
3.2.3.1.4. Labor Force
Door County had a resident labor force (persons between ages 16 and
65) of 13,600 people in 1981, 54% of the total population. This was grea-
ter than the State proportion of 50%. The higher labor force participation
rate in Door County is a change that has occurred in recent years. It
reflects the rapid population growth that took place in Door County during
the 1970's (Section 3.2.2.).
The unemployment rate for Door County generally has been higher than
the rate for the State (Table 3-24). The past scarcity of jobs, parti-
cularly at Sturgeon Bay, and the seasonal character of the tourist in-
dustry, contributed to the higher unemployment rates. This trend has
changed, however, as denoted by the lower County rate of 1979, 1980, and
1981. This change reflects the continued expansion of the ship building
industry at Sturgeon Bay and the concentration of employment in the non-
manufacturing industries which have been less severely affected by the
current nation-wide recession.
Table 3-24. Unemployment rates (percent of total work force unemployed) in
Door County and Wisconsin (By phone, Mr. Russ Heilman, Wiscon-
sin Bureau of Research and Statistics, to WAPORA, Inc. 19 June
1982).
Door County
Wisconsin
Year
1950
3.8
2.9
1960
4.3
3.3
1970
3.7
4.0
1979
3.6
4.5
1980
5.8
7.1
1981
7.1
7.8
3-72
-------
3.2.3.2. Recreation and Tourism
3.2.3.2.1. Facilities
Door County hosts an estimated two million visitors each year (By
phone, Mr. Tolin Hyland, Door County Chamber of Commerce, to WAPORA, Inc.,
7 March 1979). Most are attracted by the white sand beaches, towering
cliffs, rocky palisades, and overall natural beauty of the Door Peninsula.
The scenic rural landscape, characterized by orchards, historic villages
and farm buildings, and architecturally unique cottages and resorts, pro-
vides an atmosphere often compared to Cape Cod.
The project area includes many recreational features and some of the
finest scenery on the Door Peninsula. Peninsula State Park, the third
largest park in Wisconsin, has 465 campsites and facilities for golf, swim-
ming, picnicking, and boating. The Ridges Sanctuary, near Baileys Harbor,
is well known for its wild flowers, lighthouse, and unique landscape. The 45
miles of project-area shoreline are interrupted by numerous bays that
provide excellent fishing, particularly for salmon and lake trout. The
communities located on these bays usually have beaches, marina facilities,
and picnic sites. The various recreational resources are listed and clas-
sified by location in Appendix 0. Although most of the recreational oppor-
tunities are summer oriented, participation in winter activities is grow-
ing. Peninsula State Park now has 25 winter campsites and facilities for
cross-country skiing, ice fishing, skating, and snowmobiling.
3.2.3.2.2. Hospitality-Recreation-Tourism Industry
Although no specific economic data are available for the project area,
County figures indicate the importance of the hospitality-recreation-tour-
ism (HRT) industry (Table 3-25). In 1977, the HRT industry in Door County
generated $23,587,565 in gross sales (University of Wisconsin-Extension
1977), an increase of 12% over 1976 gross sales. With the subtraction of
an annual inflation rate of 5.9%, real growth was actually 6.1%, slightly
above the 5.7% real growth in State HRT gross sales. The HRT gross sales
comprised 9.3% of the total County business sales. These figures reflect
3-73
-------
1 —
r-^
ON
i— t
r«
O
•iH
CO
a
CU
4-1
"?
£3
•H
CO
a
o
O
CO
•iH
£2
M-J
O
^>
•iH
CO
M
CU
^
•H
a
EiD
V— '
r^
r>.
cjs
i — i
a
ed
vo
r*^
O°N
r— t
a
•H
CO
01
rH
cO
CO
CO
CO
O
M
oo
K**»
Vj
4->
CO
3
"3
a
•H
4-1
CO
•H
to
3
O
4-t
1
a
0
•H
t->
cd
CU
M
a
01
^i
l
>>
4-J
•H
•H
CO
4->
•H
ft
CO
o
p^
•
LO
CM
en
cu
rH
cO
H
rC r-.
4-> r-~
& ON
O r-i
to
r K 1
W 1
rH VO
ed r-.
(2 rl
ai
oo
a Is-
cO r^«
*£< O\
u -t
+-• i
a
Ol vo
CJ 1^.
to CTi
CU rH
CM
0(
pj
•rJ,
4->
to
O
ft
Q)
c4
u
QJ
rQ
3
I**** £5
C7\
r-H
CO
(J)
T— )
cO
C/l
CO
CO
0
to
Ot
a
•rl
M
0
ft
CU
Pd
M
CU
"0
vO 3
r-- 2;
CTv
T— t
CO
Ol
ed
oo
CO
CO
o
I [
o
r*N
VJ
O
oo
cu
3
CJ
CO
VO -*
cn o
-i 1
LO —l
LO O
CM
io cr>
r--. en
CM
LO ON
cy. vo
en oo
•» «
•d- LO
en oo
t— i en
oo r--
O
CO
1)
J_t
1
CO rH
4-> CU
a 4-1
CTJ O
3 1
ed rH
4-> CU
CO 4-1
CU O
Prf 33
-* CM ejv oo
CM CM r-l CM
I r-l r-l
1
LO en oo r^
en vo r*^ oo
1 r-H
•— ' en O CJN
CM r-H CM
r— 1
O CM CJV ON
en vo O LO
CM r-l -H ^-J-
t* •* ft ft
co ro xj- co
^O vO LO LO
IO CO IO CO
Sfr •— 1 -H
r** O &\ <-H
CO — 1 ~H -^
rH
CM vo LO vD
r^ -s^- co co
Sf 0 3 CO
ed ft a M
E-i c/3
«« ••
^ r^
oo r~-
lO 00
en o
CM LO
vo LO
oo o
CB 4J -rl
4J CO 4->
O CU i-l
4J VJ CO
^Q CJ C
3 CU cu
CO Cd CD
00
^
!->.
O
r- 1
0
vO
CJV
en
»
LO
vo
^-P
r^.
r-J
ejv
vO
CT»
O
f.
CM
CM
CM
„
f^.
VO
rH
ed
4->
£
*»
•M
a
3
o
(_>
rH
ed
O
H
^i
0)
a
3
c
^_j
^
o
4-1
•H
!>•»
ed
g
CO
CU
CO
CO
cu
a
CO
rj
•O
g_|
o
>,
4-t
cu
•H
Vj
(0
>
cO
a
•rl
T3
Ol
^
o
^
rj
•rl
CO
a
01
H
CO
•rl
rH
ed
CO
01
• •
CO
oo
a
•H
a
5
o
4-1
}_l
o
CO
01
o
CO
CO
ed
ri
crt
^j
ed
rr-j
CO
CU
1
cd
CO
rn
*2
O
"
00
'o
CU
CO
cd
CO
CO
o
00
c-
-
e
3
o
u
£
0)
4-J
r-J
cC
3
C^
'S
cu
^3
V-i
o
UJ
>,
a
o
CO
^
ed
CO
CO
o
t 1
M
00
?
o
CD
CO
CU
CJ
iH
M-l
UH
O
,_(
ed
VJ *
4J *rj
a cu
CU T3
O 3
rH
§0
a
to -H
,. .
4-)
o
a ^
TJ ^
r M
o rt
rtt W
CU ^j
0
r. cu
d d
O c!
* *rH
•M , )
"^ CU
Jj^ rrj
P- >
•H en
c^J CU
•^ i — 1
O ctf
CO
•«
00 ^
0 o
, J Ij^
t! M
o cu
ftrH
0) cfl
to co
.
CO
VJ
rH
CO
CU
T)
cu
e
•rl
rH
0
CO
ed
00
"^
a
cO
CU
>
+-)
o
g
4-1
3
ed
r— 4
c
cuS
• «\
CO
01
•H
CJ
p
00
a
•rl
•d
a
Ol
• «t
CO
CU
to
O
CD
U
O
rj"
•H
rH
T)
c
ed
«,
00
3
•S
»
•s
o
«t
4-J
a
01
a
4-1
to
ed
ft
cu
O
•
^
ed
4-1
CO
0)
rH
ed
CO
O
^J
4-1
0
01
•i-l
,0.
CO
CO
0)
CO
CO
0)
a
•H
CO
_g
r-l
5!
o
3-74
-------
only HRT sales by restaurants, hotel-motel-resorts, taverns, sporting goods
stores, amusement/recreation establishments, trailer parks, campgrounds,
and movie theaters. When combined with the 1977 recreation sensitive sales
of retail and service establishments (department, food, drug, and liquor
stores; vending machines; and gasoline stations), gross sales total $74,
465,499, approximately 29% of the total business sales in the County.
Despite a decrease in the number of restaurants and trailer park/ camping
establishments reporting, these two categories exhibited significant growth
since 1976.
The importance of the HRT sales in Door County is apparent when com-
pared with the other counties in Wisconsin. Although Door County ranked
28th of the 72 counties in the level of gross sales, it ranked 7th in the
impact of HRT sales on local income. The County percent of statewide HRT
gross sales (0.88%) was twice the percent the County contributed to state-
wide consumer spendable income (0.42%; individual income remaining after
deduction of personal tax and non-tax payments to the Federal and State
governments). The HRT sales are also significant in terms of their "multi-
plier effect" on other sectors of the Door County economy. Strang (1970)
estimated that every dollar in tourist receipts generated an additional
$2.17 in total County sales.
The HRT industry is expected to continue as the dominant economic
force in Door County. The outlook for the project area is similar because
development alternatives are severely limited and because many of the major
recreation and tourist attractions are located there. The recent comple-
tion of Interstate 43 between Sheboygan and Green Bay has reduced travel
time from the south and may result in more visits by tourists and seasonal
residents. Although some reduction in HRT sales was anticipated following
gasoline shortages during the spring of 1979, a survey of local proprietors
indicated business sales were equal to, or only slightly less than, the
previous year (Mams 1979).
3-75
-------
3.2.3.3. Local Financial Status
3.2.3.3.1. Income Levels
The incomes of Door County laborers and proprietors consistently fall
below the State and National average annual incomes (BEA 1981). The com-
paratively low annual incomes in Door County are directly related to the
relatively large proportion of the labor force (26%) that is dependent on
the seasonally oriented tourist and agriculture industries. The low in-
comes also are related directly to the large elderly population (Table
3-13). The fixed incomes of the elderly, generally derived from Social
Security and pension benefits, dividends, and interest, are usually less
than the income generated by wages, salaries, or self-employment (By phone,
Mr. John Michalski, Door County Bureau of Social Services, to WAPORA, Inc.,
17 April 1979).
Per capita income levels in the project area townships were lower than
the levels recorded for Door County and the State, while the levels for the
two villages were higher (Table 3-26). Per capita income levels in Door
County historically have been lower than the State, and the per capita
incomes in the three townships generally reflect these lower incomes.
Since 1969, per capita income in the townships, Door County and the State
have increased at approximately the same rate, with the exception of Egg
Harbor Township. In 1969, Egg Harbor Township had a higher per capita
income level than the other project area jurisdictions, Door County, and
the State. By 1980, Efeg Harbor Township had a lower per capita income
level than any of the other jurisdictions. Per capita income increased in
Egg Harbor Township by 73.2% from 1969 to 1980, compared with the 148.4%
and 133.8% increases recorded in Door County and the State, respectively.
In comparison, the Village of Ephraim had the lowest per capita income in
1969 and the highest in 1980. Per capita income in Ephraim increased by
317.2% between 1969 and 1980.
Supplemental income recipients comprise about 25% of the project area
population. In December of 1977 there were 720 individuals with Social
Security or supplemental security income in the project area (By phone, Mr.
3-76
-------
Table 3-26. Per capita income in the project area (US Bureau of the
Census 1979; By telephone, Ms. Carol Doran, Wisconsin Depart-
ment of Revenue, to WAPORA, Inc., 18 June 1982).
Jurisdiction
1969
1975
1980
Percent Change
1969-1980
Baileys Harbor Township
Egg Harbor Township
Egg Harbor Village
Ephraim Village
Gibraltar Township
Door County
Wisconsin
2,645
3,198
2,899
2,360
2,456
2,637
3,032
4,214
4,782
4,499
3,729
3,719
4,210
4,722
6,392
5,540
7,480
9,845
6,155
6,550
7,088
141.7
73.2
158.0
317.2
150.6
148.4
133.8
Per capita income is the sum of wage and salary income; net non-farm
self-employment income; net farm self-employment income; Social Security
and railroad retirement income; public assistance income; and other
income including interest, dividends, veterans payments, pensions, unem-
ployment insurance, alimony, etc. The income is computed prior to deduc-
tions for personal income taxes, Social Security, bond purchases, union
dues, Medicare, etc.
Erik Matson, Wisconsin Department of Social Security, to WAPORA, Inc., 16
April 1979). The Social Security payments were made to retired persons and
the supplemental security payments were made to disabled persons.
The project area is characterized by a very small proverty-level popu-
lation. In April of 1979, there were only seven cases of aid to families
with dependent children (AFDC) and one case of general relief in the pro-
ject area (By phone, Mr. John Michalski, Door County Bureau of Social
Services, to WAPORA, Inc., 17 April 1979).
Although the population of northern Door County is increasing, the
number of participants in the food stamp program and other public assist-
ance efforts has declined. Among the reasons for this decline are the
following: low income rental units were removed from the market after 1970
and were converted to seasonal or permanent housing; new housing construc-
tion has consisted of exclusively middle- and upper-income units; and very
3-77
-------
few of the individuals that comprise the growing retirement population can
qualify for public assistance because their income levels are considered
adequate.
3.2.3.3.2. Local Government Finances
The 1980 property valuations, both assessed and fully equalized, for
each governmental jurisdiction in the project area are presented in Table
3-27. The statutory debt limitations also are listed in Table 3-27. The
State of Wisconsin limits municipal indebtedness, in the form of general
obligation bonds, long-term notes, State trust fund loans, and installment
Table 3-27. Assessed valuations, full valuations, and statutory debt
limitations for the project area municipalities and the Gibraltar
and Sevastopol school districts during 1980 (By phone, Ms. Carol Doran,
Wisconsin Department of Revenue, to WAPORA, Inc., 11 June 1982).
Assessed Full Equalized Statutory Debt
Jurisdiction Valuation Valuation Limitation
Baileys Harbor Township $ 20,297,755 $ 56,877,580 $ 2,843,879
Egg Harbor Township
Egg Harbor Village
Ephraim Village
Gibraltar Township
Door County
Gibraltar School District0,
H
Sevastopol School District
38,576,558
14,396,128
15,503,400
62,143,770
571,053,957
e
e
41,207,940
24,409,290
46,065,260
51,139,990
968,287,820
336,361,787
160,944,271
2,060,397
1,220,465
2,303,263
2,557,000
48,414,391
16,818,089
8,047,214
a
The value of all taxable general property as determined by the municipal
assessor or the Wisconsin Department of Revenue.
The value of all taxable general property as determined by the Wisconsin
Department of Revenue. This value is determined independently of the
assessed value and reflects actual market value.
The Gibraltar School District includes all of the Towns of Baileys Harbor
and Gibraltar and the Villages of Egg Harbor and Ephraim. Although the
District also includes a small part of the Town of Egg Harbor, all of the
Town of Egg Harbor was considered part of the Sevastopol School District
for this analysis.
The Sevastopol School District includes the Town of Egg Harbor.
eNot available.
3-78
-------
contracts, to 5% of the full equalized value of general property. The Town
of Baileys Harbor had the highest full equalized valuation, and the Village
of Egg Harbor had the lowest valuation.
In 1980, municipal indebtedness (Table 3-28) was low. Gibraltar
Township had the largest debt, although the amount was only 7.5% of the
statutory limitation. Egg Harbor Village had the greatest relative debt,
although the amount was only 10.2% of its statutory limitation. The lar-
gest debts were assumed by the two project area school districts. Again,
the amounts were considerably less than the legal limits. The 1980 debt
service costs, property taxes, municipal revenues, and adjusted gross
incomes for the various jurisdictions are presented in Table 3-28.
Criteria for prudent fiscal management have been developed by several
authors, and an adaption of these criteria is presented in Table 3-29.
These recommended standards can be compared with relationships developed
from the previously discussed municipal data (Table 3-30) to assess local
financial conditions. With the exception of the Village of Egg Harbor, all
of the jurisdictional values fall below the limits given in Table 3-29.
Debt per capita for the Village of Egg Harbor surpassed the $500 upper
limit by $147, and the debt to income percentage was greater than the
national average.
3.2.4. Transportation
The economic welfare of the project area is dependent on the transpor-
tation facilities that provide accessibility to seasonal residents and
tourists. Although various means of transportation are available to reach
Door County, the principal project area transportation facilities are
limited to the highway system and two small, community airports.
3.2.4.1. Highways
Door County has a simple well-developed highway system. The two major
arterials, State Trunk Highways (STH) 42 and 57, are combined through the
City of Sturgeon Bay, but split about nine miles south of the project area.
3-79
-------
Table 3-28. Selected financial characteristics for the project area municipali-
ties and school districts in 1980 (By phone, Ms. Carol Doran,
Wisconsin Department of Revenue, to WAPORA, Inc., 10 June 1982).
Baileys Harbor
Township
Egg Harbor Township
Egg Harbor Village
Ephraim Village
Gibraltar Township
Door County
Gibraltar School
District
Sevastopol School
District
Debta
$50,000
-0-
124,500
16,452
190,475
3,050,000
405,000
341,000
Debt ,
Service
$12,900
-0-
19,382
4,836
30,381
-0-
—
—
Property
Taxes
$654,555
659,110
292,413
516,115
616,965
3,450,866
—
—
Local
Purpose ,
Revenue
$131,153
131,685
106,029
100,063
240,395
7,586,137
—
—
Adjusted
Gross
Income
$4,704,597
4,210,960
1,735,578
2,638,491
4,370,699
158,618,235
—
—
General obligation bonds, long-term notes, State trust fund notes, and in-
stallment contracts.
Debt payment = principal + interest.
State, County, local, and school property tax levies.
Total revenues for general operations.
Mjusted gross income is income reported on 1980 calendar year individual
income tax returns.
3-80
-------
Table 3-29. Criteria for local government full-faith and credit debt analy-
sis (Adapted from Moak and Hillhouse 1975, and Aronson and
Schwartz 1975).
Debt Ratio
Debt per Capita
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
Debt to Market Value
of Property
Debt Service to
Revenue (or Budget)
Debt to Personal Income
Standard Upper Limit for Debt
$ 500
1,000
5,000
10% of current market value
25% of the local government's
total budget
Not an upper limit, but the national average in 1970.
3-81
-------
•
o
00
ON
i— i
ff
•H
M
3
rr-l
^J
co
cu
co
>•>
i-l
CO
C
cO
4-t
43
CU
T3
+-)
•H
rrl
8
M
o
TJ
C
tO
43
4J
iH
CO
MH
1
i-H
,_!
.3
4-1
C
cu
§
M
01
>
5
bO
rH
CO
CJ
O
i-l
M
O
MH
CO
01
3
rH
td
>
cO
01
M
tO
4J
0
Ol
•r-)
0
M
cx,
•
o
CO
1
CO
01
rH
43
CO
H
MO
01 CO
Pu 4->
iH
« &
to cd
H O
o
*
OCO
4-1 CU
w s
4-* U
43 CJ
cu a
n M
a*
cjd
iH 01
> 3
r-l C
01 01
CO >
01
4-1 «
43
01 O
0 4J
CO
01
3
O rH
4J CO
^
4->
43 -1
CU rH
0 3
ta
l-i
OIcO
Pu cd
4->
4-1 iH
43 P.
01 cO
0 CJ
C
0
•H
0 4->
oo cd
ON rH
•H 3
&
o
O-,
a
O
•iH
4-1
O
•H
•s
•H
M
3
"-J
ON ON ON 00 r— 1
rH ON CM rH CO
oo r-. CM \o oo
•k ft
i-H i— 1
fr-!
in r-i ON r>. oo
CM CM 00 CM ID
8*S
oo i co oo vo
• O • • •
ON i oo -a- CM
r—f r-(
fr«
1— 1 r- ( CO \O ON
CM CM VO rH >d-
oo \o r*~ m O
•* O rH O
M r-| H
cd vj M i-(
S3 O O > M
O. 43 43 cfl
CO iH )-i M 0 4-1
>-,43 cfl cd i-l rH
01 CO CB 33 cd cd
•-I a MM
•H 3 c>0 00 43 43
CO O (50 00 O. -H
M H W W W O
oi 6
N O
•H 43
i-H CJ
CO ^
3
CTrH
01 O
CU
i-H O
i-H 4->
3 CO
t-l CO
>
01 CU
43 W
4-1
01
VM 43
O 4->
CU u_i
Mo
cO
4J ..
a £
"R
M ^
£"2
01
CO r4
- CU
c 3
5 "^
iH W
^ S
o o
•H U
1o co
•H cO
M >
3
•r-) M
o
43 43
CJ M
CO id
01 W
tit
*y 60
r^
CO
• •g
CO °
•° a
a, |
^H
C 01
0 »-(
iH
T3 +*
v c
S <"
O
•H 01
4J 43 •
M H 4J
0 43
rt. QJ
t-n ^**
fti • T3
CO 4->
CJ I— 1
* iH tO
11 Ij • fit
i 4J W -H
CD CO -r* CJ
-rl -H W -H
^ rrt >N 0
_. i-H 3 CU
1-33 § S
2 g cfl >, o
*!a 1 s
W 4J CO
03 CO CO
0) Jl M S 0
T3 -^ 0 -5 M
3 ^ 0 TJ
C O CJ C 3 4-» 4J 3
43 rH CO 43 -r-)
01 CO iH 01 TJ
Q > O Q ^
to 43 a
•
X
cd
4-1
>N
4-1
M
cu
ex
o
M
Oi
-d
3-82
-------
STH 42 follows the Green Bay coast and serves the communities of Egg Har-
bor, Ephralm, and Fish Creek. STH 57 serves Baileys Harbor and the Lake
Michigan side of the project area. A network of county highways and local
roads connect with these major routes.
STH 42 and STH 57 were designed to carry an average of 5,000 to 6,000
cars daily. The estimated average daily traffic (ADT) in the project area
on STH 42 is 3,000 vehicles. The estimated ADT on STH 57 is 2,000-2,500
vehicles (By phone, Mr. David Harp, Wisconsin Department of Transportation
to WAPORA, Inc., 16 November 1978). Traffic count data for combined STH 42
and 57 are presented in Table 3-31. The last year which data are available
from April through November is 1978 (Wisconsin Department of Transportation
1978). The seasonal increase in traffic is quite apparent, with the ADT
approaching 10,000 on August weekends. Traffic counts for April and May of
1982 also are available and although the data are limited, increases of 7
to 23% have occurred since 1978 (By phone, Wisconsin Department of Trans-
portation, to WAPORA, Inc., 23 June 1982). The peak traffic counts on the
combined highway (over 9,500 per day on July and August weekends) would
seem to exceed the design capacities. The Wisconsin Division of Highways,
however, characterized it as "heavy traffic" that would not result in
excessive congestion or traffic jams (By phone, Mr. David Harp, Wisconsin
Division of Highways, to WAPORA, Inc., 16 November 1978).
3.2.4.2. Airport Facilities
The Ephraim/Fish Creek Airport, located approximately 1.6 kilometers
(1 mile) southwest of Ephraim, is owned and operated by the Village of Ep-
hraim and the Town of Gibraltar. Commercial service is not available and
only light aircraft are allowed to use the facilities. Another small field
is located immediately northwest of Baileys Harbor and also is limited to
light aircraft. The only airport in Door County with regularly scheduled
commercial flights is located approximately 24 kilometers (15 miles) south-
west of the project area near Sturgeon Bay.
3-83
-------
Table 3-31. Seasonal traffic count data for combined State Trunk High-
ways 42 and 57 (Wisconsin Department of Transportation 1978;
By phone, Wisconsin Department of Transportation, to WAPORA,
Inc., 23 June 1982). The automatic traffic recorder was
located approximately 0.25 miles north of Sturgeon Bay
(Station #6103).
24-hour Average
Month
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
Weekday (1982)
4,958 (5,302)
5,462 (6,222)
6,305
8,080
8,322
5,587
5,410
3,866
Saturday (1982)
5,350 (6,070)
5,735 (6,130)
7,590
9,640
9,903
6,600
6,720
4,030
Sunday
4,640
5,025
7,900
9,530
9,820
6,850
5,690
3,120
(1982)
(5,200)
(6,190)
3.2.5. Energy Use
There are six fuel types generally available for residential, commer-
cial, industrial, and agricultural use in the project area: electricity;
bottled, tank, or liquified petroleum gas (LPG); fuel oil; coal or coke;
wood; and gasoline. Natural gas is not available in the project area.
Electricity is provided to Middle Door County by the Wisconsin Public
Service Corporation. A 67,000 volt transmission line extends from Sturgeon
Bay to substations that are located near the Villages of Egg Harbor and
Sister Bay (By letter, Mr. Steven Neuenfeldt, Wisconsin Public Service
Corporation, to WAPORA, Inc., 9 November 1978). The other fuels are trans-
ported by highway to the project area for local distribution. Most of the
wholesale outlets are located at Sturgeon Bay.
3-84
-------
3.2.6. Cultural Resources
3.2.6.1. Archaeological Sites
The Wisconsin Archaeological Codification Files, which are maintained
by the Historic Preservation Division of the State Historical Society of
Wisconsin, list nine known archaeological sites in the project area (Ap-
pendix P). The approximate locations are shown in Figure 3-15. (In ac-
cordance with standard archaeologic practices, only the generalized loca-
tions are disclosed to insure site integrity.) The nine identified sites
were used for a variety of purposes ranging from a campground (DR 11) to a
village (DR 73). One site (DR 2) is a multicomponent site (utilized for
various purposes at intervals spanning a considerable period of time), and
excavations have yielded valuable information on northern Wisconsin's
prehistory (Mason 1966).
In addition to the documented sites, there is an absolute certainty
that other undocumented sites are located in the project area (By phone,
Mr. Ronald Mason, Department of Anthropology/Archaeology, Lawrence Univer-
sity, to WAPORA, Inc., 22 February 1979). These sites could be culturally
important because of the likelihood that they are multi-component and would
provide chronologic records of the prehistory of the Door Peninsula.
General historical literature pertaining to the project area indicates
extensive use of the Door Peninsula, often as a battleground, by the Winne-
bago, Potawatomi, and Sacs Indian tribes. The Ottawa and Huron tribes
established a fortified village, circa 1650, along Hibbards Creek near the
south boundary of the project area (Holand 1917). Prehistoric cornfields
associated with numerous village sites on the Door Peninsula are still
visible. Fields of 40 acres or less, with mounds of earth 0.5 meters high
(1.5 feet) and 1.0 meter (3 feet) apart, may exist in the project area.
The dome-shaped mounds resulted from the continued heaping of soil, and are
highly visible when depressions between the small mounds are covered by
light snow (Stout 1911).
3-85
-------
3.2.6.2. Historical and Architectural Sites
Because population growth and development pressures in Door County
were hindered by the historic dependence on limited natural resources
(lumber and fish), many vestiges of the cultural evolution of the project
area remain. Some of the existing building types and styles date back to
the original period of settlement and simple log houses and cribs, initial
coastal settlements, and early tourist endeavors are still visible among
the modern dairy barns, lakeshore homes, and tourist facilities.
A considerable number of historic log structures, particularly out-
buildings, have been identified in the project area. Although housing
types changed and log houses gradually were replaced, the log out-buildings
often were retained as functional structures. Simple log barns, usually
referred to as "cribs" because of their storage use and size, were easily
transformed by frame additions and coverings and as a result often go
unnoticed today.
Numerous examples of "stovewood" construction, a unique type of log
building fabrication, are located in the project area. Resembling a pile
of stacked firewood, a stovewood wall was composed of short lengths of
wood, usually cedar, laid horizontally in mortar. This type of log con-
struction generally was confined to Wisconsin, and Door County contains
most of the remaining examples (Kahlert and Quinlan 1978). Perrin (1963)
postulated that this building type originated in Germany. Most of the
stovewood buildings in the project area are located between Ephraim and
Baileys Harbor where the German immigrants from Pomerania and other eastern
provinces established homesteads. An effort was initiated in 1977 to esta-
blish a rural stovewood historic district that included 19 structures (18
in the project area) in the vicinity of Baileys Harbor (Romano and others
1977). Because detailed site information is unavailable, the locations
denoted by asterisks in Figure 3-15 are approximate.
Other examples of early settlement are lighthouses, churches, schools,
and residences. Most of the sites are concentrated in the four project
area communities.
3-87
-------
A listing of documented sites, each identified as historically or
architecturally significant, is presented in Appendix Q. Their locations
are shown in Figure 3-15. Sites 1, 2, and 3 (the Cana Island Lighthouse,
the Eagle Bluff Lighthouse, and the Cupola House) are listed in both the
National Register of Historic Places and the Wisconsin Inventory of His-
toric Places. Sites 4 through 42 are listed in the Wisconsin Inventory of
Historic Places. Sites 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 15, 17, and 32 are described
in detail in the publication "Early Door County Buildings" (Kahlert and
Quinlan 1978).
In addition to the Toft House (Site 32) , 11 buildings (Sites 43
through 53) have been listed on a National Register inventory nomination
form. The 12 buildings would comprise a proposed historic district in
Baileys Harbor.
The Village of Ephraim has retained some of the original buildings
erected by Norwegian settlers during the 1850's. The 1973 "Plan for Ep-
hraim" (Land Plans, Inc. 1973) identified 28 village sites that were archi-
tecturally or historically significant. Sites 54 through 74 include those
Ephraim sites not listed previously. The Ephraim plan recommended the
establishment of a historic district at the southeast corner of Eagle
Harbor.
The remaining sites listed in Appendix Q were obtained from a variety
of sources. Sites 75 and 76 were listed in the County file of the Historic
Preservation Division of the State Historical Society of Wisconsin. Site
77 was described by Kahlert and Quinlan (1978). Four other sites (Sites 78
through 81) were identified by the Door County Historical Society (By in-
terview, Mr. Orville Schopf, Door County Historical Society, to WAPORA,
Inc., 6 March 1979). Mr. Schopf also indicated that a log house, reputedly
built by Increase Claflen (the first white settler in Door County) north of
Fish Creek, is presently stored in a barn at Site 33. The Society plans to
restore the structure and relocate it at the Ridges Sanctuary.
3-88
-------
The final four sites (Sites 82 through 85) were identified by WAPORA
personnel during a brief windshield survey of the project area that was
conducted on 5 and 6 March 1979. The purpose of the survey was to confirm
the locations and status of all of the documented sites and also to iden-
tify additional sites.
3-89
-------
4.0. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
The potential environmental consequences of the system alternatives
(Section 2.3.) are discussed in the following sections. The impacts re-
sulting from the construction and operation of the alternatives for each of
the four communities may be beneficial or adverse, and may vary in duration
(either short-term or long-term) and significance. The significant impacts
of the alternatives on the four communities are summarized by environmental
component in Table 4-1.
Environmental effects are classified as either primary or secondary
impacts. Primary impacts result directly from the construction and/or
operation of the proposed project. Short-term primary impacts generally
occur during construction. Long-term primary impacts occur throughout the
life of the project and generally result from the operation of the proposed
project.
Secondary impacts are the indirect effects of the project and occur
because the project causes changes that in turn induce other actions or
effects that would not have taken place in the absence of the project.
Because the project creates change in the affected area, associated impacts
can result. For example, improved and/or expanded wastewater treatment
systems can open up land for urban development that otherwise would not
have experienced such development because of the lack of this capability.
This residential, commercial, and/or industrial development could, in turn,
create an increased demand for other public facilities and services, in-
crease development pressure on agricultural lands, woodlands, or other
environmentally sensitive areas, increase ambient noise levels, lead to air
and water pollution, increase property values, or displace low and moderate
income families. Secondary impacts also may be either short-term or long-
term. Short-term secondary impacts, for example, include the disruption of
the environment that occurs during the construction of the development that
is induced by the proposed project. An example of a long-term secondary
impact would be the urban runoff that occurs indefinitely after the induced
development of agricultural land or open space/undeveloped areas.
4-1
-------
B
CO
01
^
•rl
0 4->
0 Cfl
•H 0
Cd CU
l-l 4->
CU rH
ft • <
0 cfl
CU 4->
rrj V-l p|
0 CO 01
cd B
ij ^J
00 cfl
o cu cu
•H -o M
4-> O H
Cj V-i
3 ft 13
l-i 0
4-* £>^ CO
CO 4-1
00 0
O3 O
00 -rl
O 4->
01 O
42 U 01
4-J O rH
O rH
B Q o
O CJ
v-i cu
4-1 rH 13
13 CU
CO 13 N
4-> ;H -rl
cd cfl
ft CU V-i
B 42 4-1
•rl +J 0
cu
>> c u
CO
13 CO
0 CU
0 -H
O 4-1
CU -H
CO rH
•H
cu
rH CO
•H >,
o to
CO
0
rJ O
CU -H
4-1 4->
CO 0-
3 rl
rH O
CJ CO
^
cu
13 60
CO cO
rH 42
4-> O
CU CO
13 -rl
Q
l-l
CU
4-1 01
cfl M
CO
CU 42
0 0
cfl CO
4-1 -H
l-l O
£
13 O
C cfl
CO 4-1
>•. 4->
l-i C to
cd cu oi
•rl 4§ -in
l-l tfl 4->
ft a) to
V-I 0
r-l 4-J CU l-l
O 4-J CU
•O V-I -rl 4J
Cfl CU C/J rH
B 4-> c <;
cfl O
rH S S
CO CU 01
•H 4-> +J
4-1 CO CO
CU & ' CO
4-1
O 4-1
Cu o
.
rH
1
cu
rH
M
CU
4J
CO
3
rH
O
l-l
O
CO
CU
0
•H
i — j
0)
O
0
CO
cu
0
o
o
""O
r*
cd
CD
Cu
H
pj
5
4-4
O
0
o
•H
^j
0
3
M
4-t
CO
0
O
O
cu
..
0
O
•H
4_)
O
3
4-1
CO
0
O
o
, •
p]
o
•H
O
3
CO
0
8
01
l-i
cu
ft
CO
o
_^Q C*
CO 4-1
H <
CO
0)
c~^
4-1
cd
O O V-i
M O
O> 4-4 4-1
Vj
01 0) 01
42 CO O
ft -H 0
CO O CO
O 0 CO
S -H
^3 i-rl 3
CO 0 0
cfl
01 cd
42 -
4-) CO CU
0 ^J
4-J 0 Cd
O 43 CU
cu i-i i-i
4-1 cd o
4-1 O
CO O »H
l-l rH
r* rO *C*
rH >> ?
01 42
CO CO
rH •• 01
CU CO -H
> l-l 4J
13 O -H
cfl 13 J>
O -H
>. -I-1
rH - 0
•H 4-> cfl
r-l CO
cfl 3 13
M 13 0
O cfl
ft CU
O) -H 0 •
4-» 4-J 01 Q)
•rl S B
rH 60 ft -H
rH 3 'rl 4->
•H Pn 3
01 O
CO •
§ CO 0 13
cu o o
4-» Vj -H -H
CO cd •»-• l-l
>, o cu
CO 4-> 3 ft
O l-l
T3 gj 4-J 4-1
C -i-l CO M
3 O 0 O
O l-l O 42
6 ft o co
CO
4_>
O
cd
ft
rrj
4-J CU
0 4-1
cO cfl
O ft
•rl -H
M-l CJ
•H -H
00 0
•H cd
CO
cu
O rJ
3
O
01 l-l
60 >% 0
>*-( CO CO 13
O 4-> B O
ft rH
CO CU 60 cfl
cu co 0 B
3 • ft £*•
rH CO B rJ
•H B 3 cfl
CO 0) ft l-i
4-J 4-J O
CO T3 ft •
.. rH >, 0 S CO
0 CO CO CO CU 0
00 *J 0
•H O V-i 60 -H
4-> -H Ol 0 0) +J
Cd CO 4-J -rl 4-> -H
VJ CO CO rH Cfl 13
CU 0 3 3 CU 0
ft O rH Cfl U O
c5|O O 42 O O
1
B
cu
• rH
CO 43
•• CU O
CO CO l-l
^i cd ft
O 60
13 Ol
O CO l-l
3 Q
rH O S
01 13
> M 01
Ol cfl 43
rH N
cfl 13
S 42 rH
0 3
rH 15
CU rH
B co co
0 -H 0
CO 4-J O
0 "r!
CU Q) *J
CO 4-1 Cfl
CO O ^
CU ft CO
rH
CU i3 ft
^ c3 6
cfl 3
.. rH ft
0 rH -
O -H CO +-"
•rl ? rH Cfl
<4~) O *
Cfl CO CO CO O
t-l CU O l-l -rl
CU EH |-i O 4-i
ft 3 Ol "O cfl
O|3 cfl O S
1
0 >~,
0 rH
1 r-l
CO CO 60 CU CO
>> CU O> C 43 rH •
CO 3 M 4-J -H 31-1
£3 •OWrHOtJCU
CU *rl CO 4-1 cd 3 4-* *rl B
4-J 4-1 l-l 13 Cfl 4-> S
•HfiOo ^dCU>-i3
CO O ^ *rl 4^ 3 CO CO
1 O O 4-1 0 CU 0 ft
• •0 4-< Cfl 60 -rl 01
0OrHMcfl4->c04-> «42
O rH0l-l 4-I0OI4-I
•rl 60 'rl -H 4-> 60 ft O r-l
4JCSM 00IO4360
cd -H cd ^! -H co cd 0
V-lrHCOCUO-d rHCU-H
01-rl BrH 3rHl3rH OrJ
[3.cdCUCUMOt2't-lTH3
<5]fn 4-1 MH42 cfl >4->i3
•
"S
4-1
cfl
ft
•H
o
•rl
4^
0
cd
01
M
cd
co
4.)
o
cd
ft
•rH
4-1
0
cfl
o
•rl
4-1
•rl
0
•rf
CO
o
• •
^,
i-i
cd
*"O
pi
o
o
cu
cfl
*
13
cu
+J
1 cfl
j ^
•H >H
O
4-> -H
0 4->
Cfl 0
O eO
•• -H
>-, 4-1 CU
)-( -H H
Cfl 0 Cd
-H-^co
O CO 4-J
o o
cu o cfl
c/j Z ft
4-2
-------
g
1
s~, en
TJ 01
3 -H
d d +•»
O iH «
•H 4-1 d
4-1 d v-i
cd o oi
rJ O 4J
0) ^ r-j
o cd
01 4-1
TJ M ti
d td 01
cd E!
4-1 4-1
dO tO
O 01 01
•rl T-I M
4J O H
O l-i
3 ft TJ
M d
CO 4-1
d d C
03 0
O O i-l
U +J
01 O
4S 14 01
4-1 0 rH
a (S o
o u
1-4 Ol
CO TJ N
4-1 -rl -rl
OS H
cd cd
ft 01 V-l
g 43 4"1
•H 4-J d
01
r^l d U
cd
TJ CO
d CU
O -H
O 4-1
01 -H
CO rH
Ol
4J
H CO
rl >,
O C/}
c/>
d
^j Q
01 T-l
4J 4J
co a
3 M
rH 0
C_> CO
<:
Ol
-3 ff
3 J
4-1 0
0) CO
£2
^_J
01
4-1 01
Cd 6
o;
O c.
cd to
n_._f *f«
rJ 0
TJ 0
d oj
>> 4J
i-i d a
s s K
•H 4-1 -r
S-l Cd 4J
ft 01 tt
V-i C
1-1 4J 0) rJ
O 4-> 0)
•r-) S-l T-l 4J
CO 01 03 r-
0 4j d <
cd o
cd oi o
•H 4J 4-1
4-1 CO tO
C cfl ^ ^i
oi S C/D
O MH
Oi o
rH
1
0)
* •
d
o
•H
4-1
O
i-l
4-1
CO
d
8
..
d
o
•H
O
3
)-i
CO
d
O
o
..
a
o
•H
O
3
CO
d
cS
CO
rH I— 1
43 -H
cd o
H CO
0) TJ
TJ CO 1 0 d
d o -H oi cd
CO ft TJ 4-1
X oi co oi d
GO Ol CO >•> CO O
C 10 O •>-»
•H TJ TJ ft CO
1-4 rH d 01 X O
Ol 3 Cd 4-> Ol M
£ O T-l Ol
01 g d CO TJ
CO O d rH O •
CO T-l O 3 +J d
co cu co o o
0) 4-1 O & CO *rt
M T-I l-i • cd -P
CO CO 0) d 60 01 CO
O d rJ +J
TJ V-i O -H -H cd d
ai a) +J 4-j TJ oi
4J 4-1 Cd Cd rH g
•H CO rH 4J V-l rH -H
B 3 -rl d 60 tO TJ
•H rH O O> ft B Ol
i-J O CO g 3 CD CO
rH
TJ d CO
C i-l -H
Cd 4-1
CO rH Ol
0) 3 4-i
d co o
•H 01 ft •
rH M d
13 O
0) 13 d -H
O rH Cd 4-1
d 3 ts
cd o cu 4-1
a) do)
> co cd g
d DM J3 -H
O H M TJ
o S 3 o»
S +-1 co
% bO S S
CO d to o -H
•H 4-» TJ
01 13 01 CU
4-> cd to co to
•H Vj O cd
co ao ft o) T3
O 3 Ol cd cd
• •
d
o
•rl
cd
M
CU
0
• •
d
o
•H
4-J
cd
i-i
01
p.
0
• •
d
o
•H
4-J
cd
01
PL
O
• •
d
o
•H
4-1
cd
I-l
01
ft
o
1 TJ S
o d oi oi
4J Ol TJ 4J
4-1 (U CO
CO 4-1 Ol >,
rH Cd O CO
,r 1 L^
o o oi d
CO 4J O
0> i-t
01 TJ 43 4-1
-G d ft
4J cd >> M
CO O
4H CO g CO
O3 43
M d cd
r^. 0 01
•M ,C bQ i— |
•H ft O -H
O CO V-i O
cd o 4-1 co
ft rC -H
Cd ft d 01
o 4: •
43 01 4J oi
01 l-i 4-1 4-1
JC O cd 4-1 -H
EH CD 3 cd CO
CO |
co i-l X
d rH Ol
oi i o 1-1 co
1 4-1 d 1 -rl Ol O +•• 01
MH cd O g Oi 01 4-* .d CO d 43
01 O) O "iH 60 42 *iH EH 0)
14 14 4-> CO 0> -H o
HOrHOlcO O 42M4J
01 "r^ 4— 4— 60 ft • 4-* 4-1
4-1 Tj O 4-1 O d S rC 3 TJ
CdrHCO CO-HOftl4HdO)
33 d-r-lbOO O 4->
OJOi3-i-lTjd 60 MO
to 4->COa>43cd'H4-i4-ip,«
Cd4J CO d4-i O OTJ-rlrH XtJ
SdMOco -iHSo-HaiO)
Ol 3 "^ "fl Cd g rH Cd ^H T3
Ol 3 ^-* *"^ TJ Ol O) O ft 4-1 01
43rHcO-HOIM43dcflOOO)
tH MH CO TJ g CO O "H O 4H d O
.
T3
0)
4-1
1 cd
e P.
•H -iH
O
4-1 T-l
d +-1
co c
O CO
•H
•H M
d cd
60
•H CO
CO 4J
O
o cd
13 ft
60
d
4J | .H MH
ft a TJ i o> +•» o
y-i (U ai d X g ct)
OO4JCO OIO 4->d
O 4J T3 CO d -H O
>~,cdcOCOrHOl OCOT-I .
4-1 4J343i3'HC04-ltO
»(H o rQ c* o d ^~* cu cd ,_^-
i — 1 4-1 d 01 IS O 3 ft O rH d
•H cd'H 4->OI-IO)rHcd
43CO MCO MOdcO^
ft -H d30!3 43COCO&0
CJ CO 3 O i-l Ol *44 4-1
I-i -H CO
cd d ft
TJ 00 T-l
d -H o
O CO -rl
O 4J
o» o d
co iz cd
TJ 1
TJ 01 -H
Ol CO TJ d
CO Cd 13 0)
O 01 CO Ol
ft V-i M
o o d o
M d -H
ft -H O
oi d d
43 T-l cd CO
4-1 4J
•M d d
d <-H o a)
•H 3 -rl i-l
•3 CO 4-1 M
4-1 CU CO +••
•H 1-4 4-1 3 •
S d d d
>•> 01 cfl
4-1 CO g Ol 00
d g -H O T-l
g CO 01 3 O
ft cfl co o T-I
O 01 CO S
rH M TJ
01 cfl d ^ ed d ^
01 0) 'rl Cd
TJ o d o ,J
•H O ft
•• rH > -H d M
>J cd v-i co o o
vj d oi o d -~~
cd O CO M TJ
TJ T-l 01 rH d
d 4-1 M cd cd
O T-l Ol rH d
O TJ U -H O >,
0) TJ O> O -H cd
C/3 pQ
1
4J d
d «
to
O 01
.. -rl M •
>l 144 CO TJ
14 iH 01
Cd d tO 4-1
TJ bfl 4J cfl
d TT 0 ft
O CO cfl -H
O ft O
01 0 6 -H
4-3
-------
E
.
S~** V:
T3 CU
CU >
3 -H
d d p
O -i-l cfl
•HP d
•p d ^
cfl O CU
^4 y p
.he construction and ope
r County project area (
ection and Treatment Al
•p O <— 1
an "o
o c_>
M CU
M-l r-l T3
secondary impacts
ilities in the Midd
Centralize
Q
4-
rH 0
•H >
o a
CO
M C
CU 1-
P 4-
co e
3 t-
r-l C
CJ Cf
<
We tland
Discharge
Surface Water
Discharge
ti y
d co
cd w-i
K". P
M C CO
Jcu cu
E >
P -H
M cfl P
ex cu co
M d
H 4-1 CU (-1
O 4J CU
•>") J-< *rl P
CS CU CO r-l
B p d <
cfl O
r-i s a
cfl CU CU
•HP P
P CO CO
d Cfl p*i
CU IS 'CO
p
O U-l
DJ o
.
i-H
1
~*
CU
1-1
42
cfl
H
Construction:
d
o
Construct:
d
o
•H
P
CO
P
cu
oo
cu
>
cfl 1
CU P
(-1 I-l
H 3
y
•H d
• M -i-l
c oo
O cfl co
•H CU
•P 00 -H
co d y
4-> -H CU
cu is ex
M 3 W
CU r3
> y T3
d
4-I3VJ
3 0 crt
Conveyance line ro
ment plant sites wi
ural crops or orch;
Baileys Harbor.
.
•9-H
f )
P -H
d P
cfl c
y co
y-< cu
•H lj
d co
no •
•H CO TJ
CO P CU
y P
O cfl cfl
js ex ex
cu
^
CO
4_J
CJ
CO
ex
a
.f-i
4_)
j2
cfl •
y TS
.. -H CU
CM-IP
O -H cfl
•H p CX
P 00 -H
co -H y
M CO -H
cu P
ex o d
0)2; cfl
Operation:
Probable change in
vegetative regime in
immediate discharge
area with decreasing
impact away from dis-
charge points.
Operation:
No significant im-
pacts are antici-
pated.
•k -rl
•p~( rl
y
-p -H
d ^
co d
y co
•• -H
C <4-< 01
O -H M
•H a CO
tfl -H CO T3
M CO P CU
cu y P
ex o cfl cfl
c5|z ex ex
*
'd
cu
P
ro
&,
1-^4
•
M
cd
T3
d
0
y
CU
CO
P
d
cfl
y cu -r)
Secondary:
No signifi
impacts ar
anticipate'
4-4
-------
a
•
/-N CO
T3 01
0) >
3 -H
Cr< j 1
P *^
O -rt cd
•rt 4-J d
4-1 d M
cd o 01
MO -M
Oi ^ r-j
a <
o cd
01 4-1
"2 M d
d cfl 01
cfl a
do cfl
O CU Ol
•rt T-I M
MO H
O M
30- 13
^•J C
4-1 >, Cfl
CO M
d d d
03 o
o o 1-1
CU O
,C M 0)
MO rH
O rH
an o
o u
M CU
4-1 rH 13
13 CU
CO 13 N
M -rt -rt
OS H
cfl cfl
CX 01 M
S -C 4J
•rt 4-t d
01
M .rt
13 CO
d Ol
O *rt
0 4->
Ol -rt
CO rH
01
M
rH CO
•rt >,
O CO
CO
d
M 0
CU 'rt
4J 4J
co a
3 rl
rH 0
U M
13 ill
d M
cd cd
M O
CU CO
* ^
M
0)
4-* Ol
cd &o
cd
oi -d
o o
Cfl CO
4H -rt
M Q
~J
CO
13 O
d Cfl
Cfl 4-1
?g s
•rt M -rt
M Cd M
Cu CU cfl
M d
M 4-1 0) M
O 4-1 C1J
•r-) H -rt 4J
Cfl 0) CO rH
a M d *3*
Cd O
rH S S
CO D CJ
•rt 4-1 M
M tO Cfl
d co >*
at 3 'co
It
O 4H
&- O
^
1
s3"
cu
^Q
cd
H
• •
d
o
•rt
M
O
3
M
CO
a
o
u
.«
d
o
•rt
4J
U
J^l
4J
CO
d
o
u
, ,
d
o
•rt
O
e
CO
d
o
u
p
01
4-1
rt
0>
o
cfl
M
3
CO
cfl
d M
o d o
•rt O iH
4J -rt J3
O M
3 Cfl O
M T3 lH
M Cd 4J
CO M Cd
d 60 3
o cu cr
O 13 cd
0 >. M
O M O
M -rt 4H
4H rH
cd co
60 3 d
a cr o
•rt -rt
M M 4-*
rH O) -rt
3 M T3
co cfl d
01 S O
M O
d
d -rt 01
O CO
•rt 4J M
4-" rH Ol
Ctf 3 >
•M CO 13
d cu cd
CU M
a r*"*
•rt 13 rH
13 rH rH
^ 0)
CO M M
cd -rt o
Ol > ft.
M iH
O M -3
d o d
M cd Cfl
I i
>. co cfl |
CU rH 13 -rt rH M
60 'rt d 13 3 O
M M cfl p, a
cfl cfl " O *
-C M >-> CO P- 0) >i
O O M rH CO M
CO P. %rt 0) J3 cfl 'M,
•rt a T3 > CO 0)
13 CU i-l CU 'rt l-l f
M ,£> rH 4H O CO
4-1 M d i-l
O 13 3 O rH -rt 4-1
rH M O Cfl
4J 3 0 13 4-1
C O CU 0) O d O
Ol IS CO CO rH cd
a cd co >^
Ol CO Ol CD CD (0 M
O Ol M M O d 'rt
co d o u cd o >-H
rH -rt d 01 rH -rt Cfl
B-! rH -rt 13 P< 4-> 4-1
1
•rl -rt
o
4-1 -rt
cfl d
o cd
•rt
m cu
•rt M
S cfl
60 •
•rt Cfl 13
CO 4J CU
O 4->
O Cfl Cfl
!Z &. O-
o>
I-l
cd
CO
4-1
o
cfl
p-
a
•rt
M
d
CO •
O "c3
• • *rt Ol
d 4-1 M
O -rt Cfl
•rt d P.
4-< 60-rt
cfl -rt 0
M co -rt
CU 4-1
ex o d
O|iz; cfl
CO
•o 13 13
0 13 i-l Oi
CU -rt Ol 4J 4-1
-d 00 tO Cfl Cfl
M O> -rt 4-1 rH
M r-H 01 CU
•• d cd OO M
d -rt o o cu
O -rt 0 > T3
•rt 0} rH rH d •
4J Ol 3 01 cd Ol
cfl 00 cfl 0) J3 S
M d M CO 4-1 "U -rt
CU cfl 13 3 8 (JO
a xi >» cd d 1-1 cu
OUXlO-rtbOM M
a
CO 01
0) 13 4-i
O I O rH CO •
^ *rt CO 13 3 a r^ CO
4J 4->. rt OOOICOM
4-> CUrHO 3 d 4HMOI,O
CUCJ 3 «)Cd4-i3MM,Ci-lcfl
•rt cu ^ d* n3 ^i cfl rH CU 4-1 O CO X<
M-r-lrH dOIM34-l^ MrHO4H 3 3t^i
•rtCO CfldCflrH-rt-rldOOIrHCflCfl
PCflCOrQ'rtl3CflM OOacfl<4H.O
Cfl 0) rH CO -rt -rt ttf iH O O >
HMO>cfl4->M4Ji34JCO cooao
OIO>CUrHDOddOMM SO4-I
P.dCUM3CU O43 P-dX> M4H'rt
1
•rl .rt
O
1 1 i
d M
cfl d
O Cfl
• • iH
d 4H Q)
O 'rt M
•rt d co
4-1 OO *
Cfl 'rt CO 13
M CO 4-> 01
OJ O -M
P O cd cfl
C? £5 QI f^ i
•
13
CU
4-J
Cfl
P.
•rt
0
•rt
4-1
d
CO
CU
v^
cfl
CO
M
O
Cfl
A.
a
•rt
4J
d
cd
o
•• lH
^) 4H
I-l 'rt
cfl a
13 00
d -rt
o co
0
OJ O
co Z
•
13
cu
1 cfl
a P.
•rt -rt
o
4-1 -rt
d 4-1
Cfl d
O Cfl
•• -rt
>-J4-l 01
M -rt M
cfl d cfl
13 00
d 'rt CO
O CO 4-1
O O
0) O cfl
CO 3 ft
4-5
-------
1
s
•
^ M
13 oi
0) >
3 -H
fi ±>
C -H cfl
O 4-> fi
•H fi M
4-1 O 01
co y 4J
oi 4->
M fi
13 cd 01
C 6
Cfl 4-> 4-1
y co
CO) 01
O -I") 1-1
•HO H
4-J t-l
y ft 13
3 C
t-i JX cfl
4-1 4-1
CO fi fi
fi 3 0
00 -H
U U 4->
y
0) t-l OJ
,C O -H
4-1 O rH
P 0
M O
O 0)
4H rH 13
13 01
CO 13 N
4-> -H -H
y S rH
ct) cd
& > fi 0
cfl
t3 CO
fi 0)
0 -H
U 4->
0) -H
CO rH
0)
4_)
iH CO
*H ^
o to
c*o
fi
l-i O
0) -H
4-J 4-*
CO ft
3 M
rH 0
U CO
01
T3 61
fi t-l
cfl cfl
rH Si
4-J y
Ol 03
£2 *H
Q
h
0)
4-> 01
CO 60
IS M
CO
01 *:
y u
CO CO
4-J -H
H P
CO
•o y
C cfl
Cfl I4H
£*•» 4-*
t-l C CO
00 K*
•H 4-1 -H
t-l Cfl 4J
ft Ol cfl
t-i C
t-l 4-1 Ol t-l
O 4-J 01
r-> t-l -H 4-J
CO 01 CO rH
cfl §
rH S 0
cfl 01 O)
•H 4-1 4-1
4-1 CO CO
fi cfl >t
Ol U co
O 4H
fX, O
r—j
1
01
•H
i"Q
CO
H
• •
C
o
•H
4J
y
3
l-i
4J
CO
fi
cS
,.
fi
O
4-1
y
3
4-J
CO
fi
O
u
0)
CO
-o
0
3
O
)H
CO
4-1
C
•H .
0 •
rJ
60
Ol
CO 0)
0 ,C
ft 4->
X
0) O
4_>
*rj rJ
rH .H
3
O 4-i
y *4 1
o
co c
cu 3
C l-i
•H
rH 0)
y
01 cfl
O 4-1
fi M
cfl 3
>, to
Ol
> 4-1
C 0
o
0 £
o
*X3 r-H
C IH
cfl fi
•H
01 4->
3 y
Ol 0)
CO M
•iH
'o ^
Q)
fi 4->
CD
S 4-1
CU -H
y s
cfl t-i
rH 01
ft ft
0) 13
f. fi
H cfl
CO
4-1
y
cfl
ft
£jj
•H •
T3
4-> 01
fi 4-1
CO CO
y ft
•rH *rH
4H y
•H -H
fi 4-J
60 fi
•H cfl
CO
01
O Vi
3 cfl
• •
C
O
•H
4-1
cfl
l-i
0)
• §
• •
fi
O
•H
4J
cfl
t-i
01
ft
O
• •
fi
0
•H
4-1
CO
M
0)
• •
f< '
.3
4-J
cO
M
Sj
oi
OJ 4-» I I O |
W)GOrt'HM43 CD CO
cdaJtHO£0>cC i-H .PCO r-i
5fi y O ,O >-| (U O
Wed WMO3*H p (1) fj ty 13 O
Qj^oj^'TdoO'-H'M "-MOJO
gMaj-M-MCcnts o ^ *H "^
o 4^ o cd cd 3 *^ -M M cj -.alC04->'iHrOcO
•HOJCOMfi •rHCOrHOl3rH U-l
4-*yoi60ocoy oi4-jficfl4->
cOfi-H -H0 C cfl 3Ocfl
t-l Cfl 4-* 'rJ 4-1 CO Cfl O fi t-l CD CT1 fi
4-1 !>i -H 01 Cfl -rl -H -H 4-> rH CO
rH Ol rH N fi fi [5 4-> CO *H r^ V-l 13 CO
•H > -H -H -H Cfl O ft 4-> fi 3 Ol rH 01
<4-| £3 y rH g 60 i — 1 t-l fi rH 4-1 3 rH
XOrflcOcflMoiOOW-iOcOOC
1 1
3 cfl CO CU
Ol CO fi I 0) 0) ,C
COO)T3>H4J>, ,£ Ol -H4J
13 *H O) 0 y Ol cfl *& 4-1 <-; r^ QJ ^
0fi4-JNcS'Hji00lfi 0 WOlM^HfiB
Ocfl-H-H4->fi 4J-H0O4-I 4->cfl-HftO
l-l rHrHCOIOIOICO OrHOfiCfl 3M
4-1 Ol "H (0 O 60 JM 60 K* CO r4 4-1 »H ,> CO fi CO 4H
y y y y o t^ t-i o) rH 4-1 fi ri oi rH t-i
CfiCflO X CflrHOI T3O4-JrHO)alM'O'
OCfl4-lrHUl4-l rfiO1>Mfi'H'HP^>yOIO)t-l
•H,X oicfl»y oioicfl4-J[i cufi4-ifioi
4->0»4-IO>4->ftCOCOfirH4J -H rHOCfl'H4J
n)>ficoco g-iH-H rd4-icoco- yScflca
M fi 0) 3 3 r**» CO T3 0) tJ fi O y ""0 0) 4~* 3
4-J O 0 CO *X3 r^ "H 4-1 4-J TT) Ol ft *H fi 4J cd y rQ T3
rHy4-tyfi fiCOrHcOfi30fiCOCfl -HOfi
•H Cfl 3fiCfl'O3>-l3rHOCOrHt-l>~,rH 3
4-1 o) Ol ^> O O 60 fi CO 4-* O 4H CJ 60 4-J 4-J rH -O 01 O
§^i •rH M cfl 0) *H t-i 4H 0)t-iOI*Hfi3r4t-i
60 4-J O rH (-4 fi 60 Ol ^ O iS fi O ft cfl 60
1 1 CO |
3 cfl oi co t-i
Ol CO C 4J -H O Ol
CO OIT3-H CflT3fi4-J
•c 'H 01 g y t-i co
g fi 4-J N Cfl *H 4-1 t-l 0) 3
O cfl -H -H 4J fi -H o> > 13
tH rHrHfiOlfi4JCflpj
4H 0) 'H cfl O Of) cfl . *"? 3
y y y y o '^ S o
fiflrflO J3fi T3M
OCfl4-lrHI-l4-JCflOlrH 60
•H >> o> cfl y 3
4JOl4-IO)4-lftCOCflOfi
CO>fiCQCfl 04-I3O
t-l fi Ol 3 S r*"» CO V-l
4-J O 0 cfl T3 .^ "H 3 oi 4-*
r—ty4-iyc fico6oy
•H CO 3 fi cfl t-i o)
4-1 Ol 0) ^ O O 60 01 Cfl U-l
(SS>iJ|oblJo^1g«
01
CO +J O
0 60 1 3 4-i
co fi y ,n
tH -H -H O -H CO
OJ3O4-I fil3 HOI
4-ICOUHO CflrH>%4-J4-'
•H-H >-,&OOcflCcO
Ofi-HCflO O y4->-
4-1 O g -H -H l-l T3 CO -H t-l
*H 4-i 4-J oi y fi 01 t*^ fi 01
0 00 "O fi CO 4J *H CO 4"' rH 4J
Cflfi Olficflfi COrHT3cd
M-rlcOV-HUoiOlcflCflcl) IS
60tl 0 O 013 00603 C4J-O
OcflOlftcflpJOcO Ocflfi
ft60C001fi O4J ftfi COO) O
l-i
0)
4-J
cd
•d
G
3
O
t-i
00 •
IH
f. 01
00 4J
•H cfl
J= 3
13 C
fi 3
cO O
rH 60
•H
O 4-1
CO O
fi C
•H 0
£. -H
4-J 1 *
CD
fi C
'0
fi cfl
O 4-J
'H fi
4-> O
y y
M O
4-> 4-1
CO
fi 01
O 4-J
y 3
3 -H
O M
rH 4-J
rH C
Cfl O
y
•o
rH "O
3 rH
§3
0
y
CO
0 J=
oi y
•• 4J -H
!>J co x:
tH >•> 3
Cfl CO
rrj ft
fi l-l CO
o oi cd
y S oi
0) 01 l-i
CO CO CO
CO
4-J
y
co
ft
'ri •
r^
4-1 0)
C 4-J
CO CO
U ft
•• -H -H
>, 4H U
t-l -H -H
CO C 4->
T3 60 C
C -H cfl
O CO
U Ol
Ol O M
00 a cd
4-6
-------
S
rtl
•
^ to
13 01
0) >
J3 **~t
d d «J
O -H CO
•H 4-j d
4J (3 I-l
cfl O Ol
IH O 4-J
01 v_x r-|
ft <
O cfl
01 4->
13 IH d
d cfl O>
cfl B
4H 4H
do co
o o) 01
•rl •!-> M
4H 0 H
O M
3 ft 13
w £j
4-1 Jx, CO
CO 4-1
d d d
03 o
O O -H
0) 0
43 rJ 01
4-1 O rH
6 <3 "o
O O
IH Ol
<4H rH 13
13 Oi
co 13 N
4-1 *lH *iH
OS rH
cfl cfl
ft Ol rJ
B 43 4H
•H 4-1 d
Ol
>> d o
rJ -rl
Cfl
13 co
d Ol
0 -H
O 4-1
01 -H
to i-H
4-1
rH Cfl
•H >,
O CO
CO
d
IH O
Ol iH
4-1 4-1
to ft
3 IH
i-H O
O CO
*> 4-1
!H (3 CO
co 01 01
•SB -5
M CO +-1
ft 01 CO
M d
IH 4-1 QJ ^
O 4J 01
i-> (H iH 4J
cfl Ol CO r-l
B 4-1 (3 -i
0) 3 CO
O <4H
CM o
rH
1
Ol
1— 1
03
•H
"
0)
4-1 •
cfl Ol
S >
•H
01 4-1
O CO
d
o
•rl
4-1
O
3
4-1
CO
d
o
*-W M
IH Ol
3 •*->
03 i-H
cfl
CO
cfl 01
60
Ol rl
B cfl
CO O
I
•H
0) 1 01 -H
if , _J . , JJ
cO 13 4H cfl O
? 13 O d rH Cfl
Cfl 4-1 CU >-, ft
Ol 13 r-l CO d
O 43 CO d 43 -H O
.. tfl 4-> 4-1 Ol -H -r) -rl
d
o
•rl
4-1
O
3
IH
4-1
CO
d
o
u
UH T-l O ft Cfl 4-1
M S cfl 0) 03 >-, O
3 0,T3 O rH 3
CO Oi B 1 ft 4-J IH
60 -H 01 C 4-i
CO M 13 CO CU CO
cfl cfl r-l 3 Ol d d
43 CO 4J -rl m O •
OlOd-HOBOCD
B 03 O r-l 0) IH CU
Cfl T-l -rl O ft 01 >•» 1-1
CO 13 4-1 CO to (XjD 4J
i c
^ e 1 r-l M
d 1 O CO cfl d 3
0) T-l M -HOI <4H 13 E CO O O
BMH"4H Ul3'-4H >-, O dCOCU-rlO
Olftcfl Ol -Hcfl cO rH4-io
O iH M (3 f>1i-l S C3 Ol'rlO
cflg33 >H "O OcoB4-J3i3
rH O4J O <4H tSr-IMH'rl (1) O ftlHrH
ftlHrHOOlH-H O*H dCOOI4J-J
.. CO UH 3 O OS O-H rJCOO
d
o
•H
o
3
IH
4-1
CO
d
8
•H O dft C03rHO d?
13 CU 'rl *rj O B ^H 4-1 )H 4-1 13 O
MH t-l i — 1 'rl Ol O 43 4-1 Ol d Cj CO
4J-rHt>03-*-lH 60COO>-.cO 0)
drHCOOO Ol-rldd-t-1 r-l -H
CUi3 S3 OljOcOT-ICOrH4-!
drH>^ lH «d O [>> r-l r— I CO -H
CO'HrHC04-ltOCObO OltflcO >
B & >(H 13 tO f*H _ >~^ C3 Q ^ 4-1 S rt 'rl
M iHdd&H|-IQOdr4BC?4-l
Qj O B r- 1 O 5 4-1 C04H OB B^HCO
•
T3
01
4-J
1 Cfl
B ft
•rl -H
O
4J -rl
..(34-1
d
O
•H
4-1
0
3
IH
4-J
CO
d
O
co d
CJ Cfl
•rH
14H Ol
0 Cfl
60
•rl CO
Cfl 4-1
O
O CO
*^l f-1 1
Ol
•rl
rH
13
cfl -"H
H !3
01
M
CO
to
ij
O
cO
f
4-1
d
cfl •
O T3
.. -H Ol
C 4H 4-1
O -H cfl
•rl d ft
4-J 60 -rl
Cfl 1-1 O
M CO -H
01 4-J
O SZ cfl
•
Cfl
Ol 01
o e co 60
'rl iH 01 d r*~» d
rH 60 B O CO 43 Cfl
3 Ol O -H IH 43
Cfl |-l CO 4-1 Ol ^3 O
M cfl 43 Ol
13 Ol Ol rH 4J M B
>> > O 3 O O 0)
43 -H cfl ft > 4J
4-J r-l O 4-1 Cfl CO
»dcOftftO4H>,
d -H 4-1 CO Cfl CO
O Ol -H Ol l-i CD O
•H CO SO^MH 4Hp O
4-1 01 01 lH 4-1 cfl 01
Cfl 60 > 13 rH Cfl
>-i d rH 13 4-J 43
OlcflT33rHT3cflO
&43dO-Hd433
O]O tO O S CO 4-1 CO
CO
4-J
o
cfl
ft
•rl •
13
4-1 Ol
d 4-1
03 oj
O p«
• • «H ,j~\
a MH o
O iH T-l
•H d +-i
4-> 60 d
cO *rl n3
IH Cfl
Ol 0>
O ^ cfl
•
"O
01
4H
1 cfl
a S,
•rl -H
o
4-J -rl
d 4-1
CO fi
O Cfl
.. -rl
(3 4H QJ
O -H (J
•H d CO
4-1 60
Cfl -rl CO
M CO 4-1
0) O
O- O cfl
O %?* ft
13
01
4-J
cfl
ft
•H
o
•rl
4-J
d
CO
01
cfl
CO
+-!
o
cfl
ft
S
•rl
4-1
d
cfl
O
•H
<4H
•rl
d
60
•H
03
O
• •
>i
cfl
13
O
O
Ol
CO
• •
>,
(H
CO
""U
C3
o
o
01
CO
•
rrj
Ol
4-1
1 CO
S ft
O
4-J -H
d "^
co d
O CO
•H
>4H Ol
1-1 >H
d CO
60
•H CO
Cfl 4-1
O
O cfl
S3 ft
4-7
-------
d
S
^ CO
•d cu
cu %>
d § '+•>
O -H CO
•H 4-1 d
4-1 d M
co o cu
IH cj 4-1
CU ^ H
ft <
O CO
CU 4-1
•d M d
d co cu
co a
4-1 4-J
do cfl
o cu cu
•H M-) I-l
4J O H
O M
3 ft Td
rl d
4-1 >, CO
CO 4-1
d d d
03 o
O O i-l
CJ 4J
cu o
XI M CU
4-1 O rH
O rH
S P O
0 0
M CU
UH rH Td
•d cu
4J iH -H
OS rH
cfl ctf
ft cu l-i
a xi *j
•H 4-1 d
cu
>> d <->
M *iH
cfl
'd co
d cu
0 -rl
O 4J
CU -rl
CO rH
cu
4-1
H CO
*rH ^*»
o co
d
rl O
0) i-l
4-1 4J
CO ft
rH O
O CO
r\
*> 4-J
l-i d to
CO CU CU
J 4? -H
1-1 CO 4-1
ft CU Cfl
i-i d
M 4-1 CU l-i
O 4-J CU
•ri M -H 4J
CO CU CO rH
B 4J _d ,
cu ^ co
O "4H
CU o
rH
1
^
CO
I-l
cu
cu
CO
Td
d
cfl
CO
Cu
C_|
s
^
•
UH cfl
o cu
d cfl
o
•H 4-1
4J O
o cu
M o
4-* M
CO ft
d
0 CU
0 XI
4-1
!>"!
rO O
4J
T?
CU CO
4-1 4J
cfl C
cu cu
O iH
CO
CO CD
•• I -*** r«4
C O
O >") S
•H CU
4-1 >•> d
O M
3 Cfl 4-1
l-l I-l O
4J O Cfl
CO ft I-l
d B w
0 0) 4J
U H co
•
13
CU
1 Cfl
•S-51
o
• • d 4-1
d cfl d
O O .cfl
•rt -H
4J MH CU
0 iH rl
3 d CO
ti-rfcO
CO CO 4J
d o
O O cfl
u iz; ft
XI
ft
CO
iO
o
s
CU
Q
u
rH
3
o
S cu
to
4J ti-« •
O rH >-,
•rH 3 4-J
Mod
CO O
•H >-, O
O rH
CU M
>,^ o
M iH O
CO rH P
•H CO 4H
d d o
cfl O
C/3 -rH CO
It ±J
•d -r-l M
1 d co cfl
cfl o ft
cu
CO M
Ou CU
H • ,c
g Cfl 4-1
3 a) O
M
4H Cfl M
0 0
4J
d o (0
o cu cu
•r-l T-J M
4-1 O Cfl
tfl M
M ft 4->
cu o
ft cu cu
o xi •<->
4-1 O
CU M
rd O ft
4-1 4-1
cu
>•. co A
£> 4-1 4-1
d
id cu a
cu Td o
4-1 -H M
Cfl CD <4H
0) CU
M M to
o d
:? o
to cu to
rO d I-l
O CU
•r-i 4-J ft
o
d +-1 co >>
O d M XI
•H CU 4J
4j d 4-> -d
cfl cfl cfl cu
CU S 4-1 rH
ft 01 O -H
O|Cu (2 "w
«
*d
cu
4J
1 tfl
•9 -?
o
4-J -H
d 4-1
CO d
O cfl
.. 1-1
d ^ cu
O 'fj M
*r4 C n3
4J 60
Cfl 1-1 CO
M CO 4-1
cu o
P. O CO
o];z ft
o cu
•rt 0
4-1 CU Cfl
O 4-1 rH CU
CU iH cfl ft >
rH CO CU -H "d
r-H M CU 4-1 d I
o - ca x co co a
O 4J Cfl C r-f O
03 4-1 4-1 IH O
MOO CU CU
CU O CU 4-1 4-1 1-H rl
4-J T-lX rH Xl Cfl
Cfl > O M CC Cfl rH
> !>, M -H -d 3
CU 4-1 ft a XI M CO CU rH
ctf O 4-> d O J2 3
4-1 > S -H CO 4-> CO
d cfl d o T> > d
CU O M d 4H -H
S Td cso at UH o d
cu fd, 4-1 ft o cu
> cfl O Td 01 d Cu
O rH CU CU T3 4-J O
(_, v_< 14-1 y d -rl M
ft <4H 3 CO 3 4-1 O
acocu-dcuofto
•9 M d -H B CU P
O M -H •M Cfl O
d 4-1 CU -H MO)
CO O 4-1 CU d CU CU X<
cfl cfl XI 3 J2 CU 4-1
M-l 14-1 OJ 4-1 S 4-J
O M S rH d
U OOUH O • cfl o
4-1 CU O O Cfl M
rH X! cfl CU CU CO
34-1 CU I-l rl d d
COOCUM3C8CUO
3 O 00-iH
M X! tfl 4-1 »4H CU 4-1
00-d cO O cu cO
CO 3 d CU -H XI O
O rH -G > 4-J O
CO X! rH "d *-• IH rH
cfl 4-J -H d CU Td
rH ? CO d Cfl d M
IH cfl CU cfl cu
3 >- 4-1 CU CU X!
O ^» rH d ? <"! ^ 4J
O 4-1 rQ 3 4-1 4-1 Cfl O
O -H cfl O CU CU
H X> B r^> «H M O
T-J i-l o at o cfl 4-»
rH Xl i-l >>
3 cfl ft CU M CU CU Td
o ft jd. to N y cu
O cfl /-s H > -rH -H M
O • CO > cfl
x: on M ft
4-14-14-1 • rH CU CU a
o cu cu o 4-> o
.. i-i a « 4J 3 cu
>~Jt>04-icOcO -XiCO
M cflCUM>->Td*-lcd
CO Td CU -H rH CU
Td CU rJ *-l .^ rO 4-1 d ^1
dO4-l-H4-»CflO-H4-l
O3 d I? -O CU rd "H
O Td Td CU O O rH 4-1 d
COrHcflCfloOftCOSg
•
Td
cu
4-1
1 cfl
a ft
•iH «rH
o
4-1 -H
d 4-1
cfl d
O Cfl
.. -H
>Jm cu
IH -H M
CO d Cfl
d -H CO
O CO 4-1
O CJ
CU O cfl
co a ft
4-8
-------
E
B
^~, CO
13 CU
cu >
j3 *H
C! rt 4-i
O -H cfl
•H 4J (3
4-1 13 1-1
CO O 01
V-l O 4**
CU v- ' H
ex <
O cfl
Q> 4-1
13 M C
S cfl 01
cfl E
4-1 4-1
0 O Cfl
o cu cu
•rH *I"™) M
4-> O H
O M
3 CX T3
V-l £3
4-> t» CO
CO 4-1
03 0
°3 3
0) 0
J^H V^ D
4J 0 rH
SO 0
o o
M 01
UH rH U
TJ 01
CO 13 N
4J -rl -rl
OS H
cfl cfl
CX CU M
•rl 4-1 C
CU
^ (3 O
l-i -H
cfl
13 CO
(3 CU
O -rl
O 4-J
CU -H
CO rH
CU
i-l
rH CO
•H >,
O c/3
CO
£3
M O
CU iH
4J 4-1
CO P.
^j M
rH 0
O CO
£j
CU
M
£3 cfl
cfl 43
rH 0
4J CO
01 -H
3 Q
^j
cu
4-1 CU
CO M
CO
CU 4=
O O
Cfl CO
U-l -H
M C-5
CO
13 O
(3 cfl
cfl y-i
p>^ 4J
1-1 £3 CO
Cfl CU 01
•rl 4-> -rl
VJ Cfl 4-1
CX CU Cfl
M 4J 0) V)
O 4J 0)
•r-> l-l -rl 4-1
CVj CU CO rH
nj O
Cfl CU 01
•rl 4-> *->
4-1 en co
S § £
O M-4
D-< O
i
-*
01
rH
•
1 CO
o >>
3 CO
4-1
CO <4H
C3 0
O
O 4-1
r^
M
. -H
rr} V4
cu
o ao
CO C3
rH 0
CX rH
co cfl
•H
TJ CO
cu
CU CO
^f) H
TJ 13
<-< 53
3 CO
i^
CO CX
CU 3
H M
S CO
& -H
,
43 co
4-1 e
4-1 CO
cfl 6
01
CO 4-1
Ol CO
en >,
3 co
•• 13 M
(3 C3 0)
O cfl U
•H rH CU
4-1 CO
O &0
3 (3 <4H
M i-» 0
en co c
C3 -H O
CJ W 4J
•
rrj
01
4J
1 tfl
S cx
•3 -H
o
4-1 -H
.. a 4-1
C tfl fi
O 0 CO
•H -H
O -H S-i
3 C cfl
1-1 60
4J -H co
CO CO 4-1
(3 0
5O tfl
& CX
01
CO
TJ
1 0 £3
CO rH cfl
3 Cfl >-» rH
rH E CO .
O E 4-1
CU (3
UH 4J 43 CU
O cfl O O
CU ft Cfl
01 M 43 T-)
O CJ S T3
C3 cfl
tfl 13 CO
£3 rH C 4->
CU 3 O O
4-J o -H CU
(3 o *-* 4H
•H -rl 4H
cfl co 13 cfl
-sec!
(3 01 O >%
O M 4-J O rH
•rl CU CO CU
4-1 CX >, CO CO
Cfl O CO 3 M •
i-i t-i o oi co
01 CX V-l l-l > 01
ft E cu o 13 co
<5]fl 4J T3 Cfl 3
1
•8
CO CO CU
rH 3 CO
tfl O 3
co -a
O tH 13
M cfl (3
0) N cfl
Cfl Cfl rH
,e
(3 4-J O
cfl efl CU
43 MH
CO 4-1 MH
)-l Cfl
o cu
Tj 60 >•«
rH rH
01 S -O
> 0 CU
01 (3 CO
rH 5 Cfl •
CU CO
U CU rH 0-1
0 43 01 H
rH 4-1 M 2
^
>4H 13 01
O C 42 01
cfl 43
01 13 4J
• • CO CO rH
C CO CM 3 0
O 0) H O 4-J
•H rH S O
4J Ol S •tJ
Cfl rl CO C
1-1 S CU CU
0) 01 O CO O
P. 43 iJ Cfl CO
O|P <4-i 60 •>-)
CU
01 V4
13
rH
3
O •
0 CO 1
Cfl CU CO
CO 01 13 co
0 M CU
01 cfl £3 M
4J -rl cfl
CO CU
>, O 4-1 01
CO -rl rH O
> 3 -H
4-1 >H CO > ••
C3 0) 0) l-l 01 •
CU CO U CU CO O
S CO 3 4J
4-i 13 13 cu
Cfl CU rH V-| 13
CU CO 3 01 £3 -
l-i O O 3 cfl 13
4J CX O CU rH 0
O CO cfl
TJ l-l CO £3 rH
C3 CX cfl 01 O 8
cfl CU 43 C
CU l-i 4J CO efl
(3 43 CO 4-1 V4_i
0 4J CO
•H CU -H CO CU
4J C3 O CX 3
O i-l iH CO E V
CU 43 > CU -H -rl
rH 4J l-l CO C
rH -H 01 Cfl 4J 3
O 3 CD CU C
0 !-i CU 13
4-i !-i O TJ C
l-i (3 CU C C cfl
CU 01 !5 M cu
4-J E CU 4J CU
efl CX Cfl 4-iS
3 O . cfl iH
U rH 0 E M
4-J CU 4J 0) 43 CX
CO > 4J 4J
CO CU 4-" CO -H -
9 TJ C >, & co
CU CO CO
13 rH O 4-ICU
01 rH Cfl 01 C 1-4
N -H -n 43 ai to
•H 14J T3 4-1 E
rH C3 Cfl CX rH
cfl -H UH O cfl
IH 4-> O rH 4-J
4-1 rH C3 CU £3
C cfl CU C > CU
CU {3 S 0 0) S
O O fX -H 13 C
•rl O CO O
4H 4J rH C 0) U
O -rl CU 01 4-1 -H
TJ > 4-J Cfl >
>M3 0) X rH C
4-1 cfl TJ CU 3 CU
• • -H E
>JrH C 13 r-l -H CU
>-i -H -H CU O 4J >
cfl 43 CO UH CO -rl
13 tfl 4-1 Cfl 4-J
fi rH rH 01 CO 13 -rl
O tH 3 V-i T3 rH CO
O cfl CO O C 3 C
CU > CU C3 cfl O CU
C/3 < VJ rH E CJ CO
»
|O3 TJ
VJ CX C 4J
o cu eu 3
<4H CU 3 WH
en rH
13 <4H U-l
CU 13 C3 O
13 (3 i-l
01 cfl >,
CU >, 4J •
C CO Cfl -rl 4-1
13 S CO C
£3 efl rH (30)
O cu oi eo cu E
•rl l-l -H T3 4-1 CX
4J CO 14-4 CU C3 O
cfl (3 43 -H rH
M T3 -H CU
41 (3 cfl CD CU >
O. cfl M 6043 01
O i-J 13 cfl 4-J 13
0)
4->
1 cfl
E CX
•3 -H
o
4-1 -H
C 4-1
CO c ,
O cfl
.. -rl
^ M_| qj
VJ i-l M
cfl £3 cfl
TJ 60
C -rT CO
O CO 4-1
o o
CU O cfl
w a cx
4-9
-------
0
*
,— , CO
TJ 01
CU >
3 -rl
C 4J
C -rl Cfl
O 4J C
•H fl Vl
4J o cu
Cfl O 4->
Vl ^-^ ' rH
CX cfl
O CU 4J
M (3
TJ cfl 01
fl 0
CO 4J 4J
CJ Cfl
fl CU CU
O -i-> Vi
•HO H
4-> Vl
CJ CX TJ
3 fl
Vi >, cfl
4-1 4-1
CO fl d
fl 3 0
O O -H
O O 4J
U
01 M 0)
43 O rH
4-» O rH
P 0
M 0
o cu
4-1 rH TJ
TJ CU
CO T3 N
4-> -H -H
CJ Jg rH
cd c^
CX CU VI
0 43 4->
•H 4-> C
0)
>> C3 U
Vl -rl
Cfl
TJ CO
fl CU
O -rl
O 4->
OI -rl
CO rH
CU
4-1
rH CO
•H >,
O CO
CO
C
Vi 0
CU -H
CO CX
3 M
rH O
O CO
CO
0) 1-1
3 O
Vl
cu
4-1 CU
m M
cO
01 43
o o
CO CO
4-4 iH
Vl P
3
TJ CJ
a cd
cfl 4H
^ 4-*
co cu cu
00 >
•H 4-> -H
VI cfl 4J
CX CU cfl
Vl fl
Vl 4-1 CU P
O 4J CU
•r-) VI -H 4->
Cfl CU CO r-H
0 4-t fl
4J CO CO
fl Cfl >,
CU 3 CO
O 4-1
fu O
.
rH
1
-^f
CU
r-H
43
CO
H
fl
0
•H
4-1
O
g
CO
c
o
0
c
0
•H
4-1
O
3
Vi
4-1
CO
fl
cS
«*
a
o
•H
4-1
CJ
3
4-1
CO
fl
O
CJ
TJ
fl
cfl
%
g
•3
M
cu
Vl
0)
4J
CO
3
r-H
O
cu
j;
o
43
Vi
c2
bC
bC
ro
en
c
o
•H
4-*
O
CU
CO
fl
•H
TJ
CU
CO
o
A
O
Vi
CX
a,
P— (
3
^
0)
f]
t-i
• •
^
01
01
Vl
CJ
43
CO
•rH
CO
4-1
O
cfl
.g
4-1
C
cfl
O
•H
4-1
•H
C
SO
•H
CO
O
&
I
g
cO
01
3
•H
C
OJ
Vl
fl *H
•H 3
cr1
TJ cu
OJ Vl
CO
O TJ
CXrH
0 3
Vi 0
CX 0
rrj rH
rH PO
01
•rl C
'I j o
C 'H
•H 4J
cfl O
Vl CU
CU
0
•H 1
Vl CJ
P. cu
CO
CO
•H C
•H
43
O TJ
•H 01
43 CO
3 o
CX
4-1 O
0 Vi
CX
i-H
i— 1 OH
Cfl H
4-1 ^
0
fl OJ
- H
CO
cu
Vl ••
CJ 0
cfl -H
cfl
u"t Vi
43
CU P.
ij pj
•H
3
Cf .
CU TJ
Vi fl
cfl
TJ rH
i-H 0
3 w
0 cfl
^
TJ
CU
4->
cfl
CX
•H
o
•H
C
cfl
CU
Vi
cfl
CO
TJ
Cfl
r-l
0)
•H .^
VI 01
cx cu
M
4-1 CJ
O
43
CO CO
CU iH
O
cfl
O TJ
rH C
Cfl
0 rH
4J 0
c
CX Cfl
3 4-1
e
| »H
0
C TJ
cfl 0)
M-l CO
0
cu cx
0 0
•H Vl
Vi CX
CX
CO
4-1 CU
3
CO &
CU
Vl CU
CJ 43
cfl H
in
01 Vl
Vl O
•H 43
3 Vi
cr1 cfl
0) CC
Vi
CO
rH 01
£3 rH
§-H
cfl
PQ
04
•
fl TJ
0 C
•H cfl
4J rH
rH TJ fi O O
3 4H fl 0 " Vl TJ
OO3-HC00P.H
O O 4-J CU -H 3
TJ cn0OVieflT3OCO
r— 1 CO CU 0) O Vt r-H O OI
01 ViOicOcfl43CU Vi
•H a o 43 a, rt -COOC7'cO CJ4->Vl
MC rHCXOIrHViaj cfl
OI-HCX0 OM0 CUCOCX4H
4J 3 Vl M M *•> 3
COTJ CflCXTjcflCOfl CU
3OICU4H r-H4-l3-HO)0
rHCOVl 03 rH VllH
CJ O-HCU OJOOlO-rJ-H Vl
CX304-130 CU3P*
CUOCr<.HCO -HCUcflCr1
43 Vi 01 Vl >->
M TJ 4J CU fl
CX C -rl 4J CU
(TJ 14-4 Cfl 4->
4H rH CU 3 O
0 0 fl CU CX
CO Cfl 43 CO Vl
CU 4-1 cfl 0)
Vi oi 3 3
CJ CU 43 O
Cfl 0 4-> fl rH
•H iH
in Vi O • •
CX 4-> 4-1 • ^^
CU C 00 fl
Vl 4H -T;J CU • O
•H O 0) 0 0) -H
-J Vt CU v_/ 4J
cr c co > co
01 O CX O 4-i fl
M -H 0 Vl fl -rl
CO O CX CU 0
TJ *H CJ 0 0 Cfl
rH CU -H 4-1 4-1
3 > CU cfl fl
§C 43 C CU O
O cfl Vl CJ
O 4-» 4-1
r-- CO 43 Vi
rH CU 3 4-1 T3 CU
43 0 -H fl 4->
Vi H 3 cfl cfl
O 0) 3
CO T3 fl TJ
r>- • 3 0) o C
TJ 4-> -rl 3
C (3 6 cfl 4J O
O cfl (H -H CJ Vi
•H rH cfl O 0) 00
4J 0 4H O rH
O C fl CO rH Vl
CU cfl O CO O O
CO 4-1 fl Cfl CJ 4-1
TJ
cu
cfl
cx
•H
O
•H
4-1
C
CO
01
Vi
cfl
CO
4-1
O
cfl
ex
0
•H
4-1
C
cfl
CJ
•H
4-1
•H
fl
CO
o
a
• •
fl
o
•H
cfl
Vi
CU
CX
O
• •
fl
O
•H
4-1
CO
Vi
cu
CX
o
CO
4-1
O
1
TJ
4-J CU
C -t-1
cfl cfl
O CX
•H -H
4-1 0
•H -H
fl -M
00 fl
•H cfl
CO
CU
0 Vl
J3 c\J
rH
r-H
•H
3
CO
cu
CO
3
"a
cfl
rH
TJ
01
1
G 0
O Vl CO
•H ex cfl
1 CU CO 01
CU O Vl Vl H
> C 01 CU cfl
O Cfl > 4-1
Vi 43 C cfl CU
CX fl O CU CJ
B 0) U V) -rl
•H 00 >
o cu v
• 4-1 43 cfl 01
Vi H co
CU TJ 4-1
> CD -H Vi
cy 4-1 • cU
3 O co TJ 3
O CU Vi 0) CU
Cfl CX 3 fl CO
CX X 0 01
O 01 CJ CO 0)
rH
CU
CU
TJ
O
4-1
TJ
C
cfl
rH
0
P
Cfl
4-1
CU
0
•H
VI
CX
4-1
O
C
0
•H
CO
Vl
01
C
o
o
cu
^
• •
r>,
Vi
cfl
TJ
fl
o
o
CU
CO
• •
o,
Vl
cO
e
o
o
cu
CO
• O CO 43 •
CD 4-1 CU 4-1 CO
M O 4-> rH CU
3 fl C C -H
CJ 01 CU -H 4->
CJ CU 0 43 43 -H
O M CX 4-" CO
cfl O -o -H C
•M rH rH JS CU
C 4J 01 3 TJ
CU fl > 0 0)
B cu cu o o TJ
CX 0 TJ Cfl CU
O 4-> CO rH CO
rH Cfl TJ CU CX CO
CU CU fl CO CU
> Vi cfl 3 CO Vi
01 4-> CU CJ
*"O i-C ^c3 «~* C«
TJ 4-1 fl Cfl -H
TJ fl 3 CO 4-1
fl Cfl O iH 4->
CO Vl 43 rfl
fl 00 TJ 4-1
43 O CU 3 CO
4-1 -H C CX O Vi
3 4J O O (H 3
O U iH rH 60 O
Vi CU 4-> CU O
MrH Cfl > TJ O
rH rH CU CU
G 0 3 TJ *-• 43
O o CX CJ 4-1
•H O O CU 3
4J Vl (X 4-> T-) O
CO CU O Vi
rH 4-> 43 T3 Vl 00
3 Cfl 0 fl CX
CX 3 -H cO TJ
O CU 43 r-H CU CU
CX 4J 3 0 43 4J
CO P 4-1 CJ
CO cfl 4-> (fl 01
Cfl 3 Cfl <4H <4-( T-I
o o
CU (3 CU CU Vl
3 -H 4-i g C CX
C efl iH O
•H co Vi SH -H 4-1
4-1 4J CX 4-1 -H
fl fl CU Vi
O CU 43 4H O Vi
O 0 4J O CX O
.H
1 1
•r-1 fl
C Cfl
cfl
O CU
•H Vi
4H rfl
•rl •
fl CO TJ
60 4J CU
•H o 4-i
CO cfl Cfl
P, CX
0 0 -H
& -H 0
4-10
-------
B
•
^~, CO
13 01
Ol >
3 -H
d d *-"
O -H cfl
••-I 4J G
4-1 (3 P
cfl o 01
01 ^ rH
O Cfl
Ol 4-*
-OP d
d to 01
cfl S
4-1 4-1
dO Cfl
O 01 CU
•rH T-) P
4-> O H
O M
3 ft 13
P d
4-> >, CO
CO 4-1
d d d
03 o
00 -H
'0 4J
01 O
42 p 01
4-lQ <-H
BO "o
o c_>
P 0)
UH rH 13
13 0)
CO -rt N
4-> vH -rl
OS rH
cfl cfl
ft CU P
a 42 *-•
•rH 4J d
01
^> d ^
P -H
CO
13 CO
d CU
O T<
O 4->
0) -H
Cfl rH
01
4-1
rH CO
H >,
O C/2
CO
P 0
0) iH
4J 4J
co a
3 P
rH 0
C_J CO
43
CU
13 60
d P
cfl tfl
rH 42
4-> O
CU CO
H2 lH
Q
p
0)
4-) Ol
Cfl 60
S p
CO
CU 42
O O
cfl CO
H-l -rl
P O
£
T3 O
d Cfl
CO «H
>-, 4J
PC tO
Cfl CU O>
SB >
•H 4-> 1-1
P tfl 4-1
ft 01 cfl
p d
P 4-1 CU P
O 4-> 01
•n P -H 4-1
Cfl CU Cfl rH
E 4J (3
•H 4-1 +-1
4-1 CO CO
d Cfl >>
oi 3 co
Ij
O UH
0. 0
*
1
• O 42 CO rH
4-» O 4J d iH
•rl 60 O Cfl
S 01 O >
•rl y_| rH CO CO Cfl
rH 0 Ctf 3 -H (3
O tfl 13 3
rH 3 01
CO 42 i-l 3 rH 3
CU O MH O tfl
CO P CU 3 > 4-1
co 3 d d
oi cu 01 co -a tfl
d 43 01 Ol p
•H > N 60
CO • 13 -H i-l
3 rrj rH 4-1 rH 13
43 CU 3 Ctf CO (3
4J O d 3 3
rH Cfl 3 P crfc
cfl Ol Q) 41
O p CO 4-> (3
O O CU rH rH -H
rH -H (fl i— 1 CO
0) +-1 3d
4J 43 -H 0) "H O
ft > 42 0
3 Trt -H 4-1 <4H CO
P rH 4-> 0 -rl
CO 3 O <4H 13
•H O Cfl O ^S
i3 3 m to
d >>
13 CD O |3 13 MH
rH 43 -H tfl 01 iH
3 O *J B O)
o -r-i o o :*,
O 3 14H X rH
(3 P O 0) p
CO O *-" Cfl
CU -H CO CO O rH
(3 +J C 4-1 4J 3
•H O O CO O
rH 3 O O +-• -H
p O 43 4->
CU 4-1 P Ol p
O CO O rH T3 tfl
d d «H tfl ft
Cfl O 4-1 60
p»> O >•, -H d •
CU P ft iH ^,
p> B * CB 13 4J
d P co o c -H
o cu co to B
O 4H O* 01 •*-* *H
1 O 42 CO rH
WH 4-1 01 H 4-1
O p d 3 4->
O O 43
(3 d 42 CO . CU
O O CO CU CO CO 13
•H i-l O 0) 0)
4J 4J 4-1 «rl »H 'H >-»
O CJ O > 4-1 4J M
33 P -rH -rl O
p P P 01 |3 d 4->
4J 4-1 01 CO 3 3 3
CO cfl 43 e B +-1
d S E -O B B cfl
O O 3 d O O 4J
o O d tfl o o co
CO
4J
CJ
Ctf
p-«
rt
•H •
13
4-> CU
• • d 4H
d cfl cfl
O O ft
•H -rl -rl
4J MH O
O -H -H
3 ri 4-1
p so d
4-> 1-1 tfl
CO CO
d cu
OOP
0 |Z tfl
CO
o
•rl
§
d
o
CU N
4-> m -rl
CO O P
>-, cu
CO 4-1 4->
CO O
CU O cfl
4H E P
•rH tfl
CO p 43
1 O O
d »w
o o
CO 4->
P 4-1
O CO CO
4H O 0)
O CO
CO 3
CU P
B cu -4
3 CO CU
rH 3 W
O C/3
> CU D
CO H 42
CO O
CU vH
d • 42
•H CU 3
co d
3 i-l 13
PQ rH P
O cfl
CU 13
• 13 d
13 cfl
0> 13 4J
4J -H CO
CO 3
Ol O 0)
P 3 42
O 4J
CO
CU P 13
43 Ol 01
rH 01
13 3 0
rH Cfl X
3 42 0>
3 Ol 13 •
60 rH 0)
CO cfl 3 >
43 4-> O -H
O ft 3 CO
•r-l CU d
CO CO Ol
B 01 ft
P -rj > X
Ol C -H 01
4J CO 4J
1 cfl co
•• 60 CO d Cfl
d d P P
O O CU 0) Cfl
•iH rH t-H 4J 4J
4-> r-H rH O
cfl 3 cfl cfl CU
V-t 0) 4-* *r~" )
CU <4H CO CU O
a d 42 p
O|•> tfl
4J
•H 4->
rH CJ
•H CU
43 •!-)
cfl 0
ft p
tfl ft
O
01
d 4->
CU
S d
cfl 43
01 4-1
P -rl
4-> 3
P 42
0) 4-<
4-1 3
cfl O
cu oo
4-1
CO O
SI
0
d d
•H 0
o
CO 0)
4-1
•• d rH
r"i CU Cfl
P S d
CO 01 O
13 > -H
d o 4->
0 P -H
O ft 13
CU E 13
c/3 H tfl
Cfl
4-1
0
tfl
ft
S
•H •
^
4J CU
d 4->
cfl cfl
O ft
•• -H -rl
r*t ^H O
P -H -H
Cfl d 4J
13 60 d
d -H cfl
O CO
O CU
01 O p
co Z cfl
4-11
-------
£
•
? i
^ => -H
S S ^
O -rl tfl
•H 4-1 C
4-> d M
cfl o 0)
MO 4-»
CU ^ H
CX 0 £-1
O M
3 CX T3
M d
*-" >> cfl
CO 4-1
d d d
03 0
o o i-
C_? 4->
ipacts from the
e Middle Door
ralized Collec
H rC 4J
•rl 4-> C
0>
>-. d u
M 'H
tfl
"d co
d 01
0 -H
O 4->
OI T-i
CO r-l
•H
a
4-
i-( 0
•H (>
O C/
CO
c
!-l C
3
J
j
0
"!
3
>
CU
1 £?
cfl
cu .d
o o
tfl CO
4-1 -H
M O
I
5
-o o
c: ~> O
t—i r~i
M 0
cfl
, ) t^
I—) t>,
3 rH
0 -H
•H l-i
*-• cfl
M M
tfl O
cx ex
E
• CU
CO 4-1
S
O 01
iH -0
*-M
o3 .
•H 3 tf
u-i o O
^M > -H
CO 4-J
M CO CO
4-1 -^ O1
Cfl 60
•w o d
ex M o
3 0
(•J 0)
CO g O
•H O -H
13 CO U-I
U-I
•W cfl
i—l . M
3 CO 4J
O CU
5s -H T3
4-1 01
CO -H CO
e d «
cu 3 01
4-1 § M
CO S O
>, o d
CO CJ -H
of the sewer
areas of the <
nvenience and
d d o
030-
•H o d
4J 4-1 -H
u d
3 S an
MOd
4-1 13 -H
CO CO
C 01 3
0 A cfl
U 4-1 O
No significant
impacts are antici-
pated .
•
T3
01
^ 1
CO
CX
•H
O
, J
4J
C
tf
OJ
^J
cfl
Cfl
4-1
O
Cfl
ex
5
4_)
d
tfl
o
•• -H
d u-i
O -H
•H d
4J (30
tfl -H
t-i CO
CU
Jfe
CU &0
T) 0 d
Operation:
Holding tank waste
haulers would expan
operations to servi
the increased holdi
tanks.
"S
4-J
CO
o.
•H
o
•H
d
M
ty
0)
^-t
tfl
CO
4J
o
tfl
CX
g
•!-!
Secondary:
No significant
•
*rt
Secondary:
No significant im-
pacts are anticpatec
4-12
-------
a
•
^ CO
T3 01
01 >
3 T-l
e a 4-1
0 T-l CO
•H 4-1 C
*"J C M
cfl O 01
P O 4-i
Ol ^-- rH
ft *£
O tfl
01 4J
T3 P C!
C cfl 01
cfl a
i > .JJ..I
CO cfl
o oi oi
•H T-) P
4J 0 H
O P
3 ft "O
4-1 >, CO
CO 4-1
G a e
03 o
00 T-I
Ol O
A P 0)
4-1 0 rH
BO 0
0 U
p 01
UH rH T3
T3 0)
en tvj N
4-J T-l -H
OS rH
tfl cfl
ft Ol rJ
B 42 £
•H 4-1 C
01
r*> C U
P T-l
Cfl
•a cc
C CO
0 -H
O 4-1
CU -rl
CO rH
•rH
01
4-J
rH 03
•rl >,
CO
rj
P O
01 -rl
4-1 4-1
CO ft
rH 0
CJ CO
^
Ol
rrj 50
0 P
cfl cfl
rH f,
4-1 O
01 CO
13 -H
0
P
01
4-1 01
cfl 00
tfl
01 ^3
O O
cfl 05
4-1 -H
P P
~2
CO
••d o
C CO
Ctf M-l
P^> 4-J
J-l C CO
fl) Q) QJ
£3 a _:>
M Cfl 4-J
ft CU cfl
P C
P 4-> cu M
O 4J 01
•r-> P -H J-i
eg CU CO rH
cfl O
cfl 01 01
•H 4-1 4-1
4-1 M CO
£ cfl >,
0) 3 co
O 4H
P-i O
1
•o-
01
rH
rH
50
O
O
rH
O
4-1
•O
C
Ol
»rj
01
CO
cfl
CU
p
o
C
•H
^
rH
•rl
p
tfl
O
ft
a
01
4-1
"3
rH
3
O
3
4-1
C
01
ft
•H
3
01
•
C rH
O 01
•H -)
4-1 I4_j
O
3 rH
P -T-l
4-1 TO
CO CO
C O
.. O 4-1
C 0
O 4-J
•H "3 O
4J Pi
O tfl Cfl
3 Ol
P CO -H
CO O ft
C 3 ft
O P 3
O H CO
CO
4-J
O
cfl
ft
Q
•H •
13
4-J 01
CH tfl CO
O O ft
•rl -H -rl
4-1 4-1 O
O 1-1 -rl
3 ti 4-1
P 00 C
4-1 -rl cfl
to co
C 0)
5O P
^ Cfl
00
P
,n o)
H p3
1
S*. C rH
4-1 Cfl O
•H ,C O
O 4J
,-J _t i J
P rH 01 C
4-1 01 N Ol
0 3 -H 6
CU 4-1 rH 4->
rH Cfl Cfl
Ol r-t P 0)
•rl 4-> p
CO CO C 4-1 •
CO Cfl 01 W
CU O O t3 Ol
•• rH 4-1 C >
0 P Cfl -H
O CO CU 0) 4-J
•rl 01 P X C tfl
4-1 P O -M O C
Cfl T-l B O iH P
P 3 4J CU
oi tr 4-1 oi o 4-j
ft Ol 3 £> 01 iH
O\P6 ^ 4-1 rH cfl
rH
01
3
4-1
rH
•rH
CO
CO
o
U-l
CO
CO .
CU Cfl
rH CU
4-J -H
3 V
J2 Cfl
C
^1 p
4-1 CU
•H 4-1
O rH
•H cfl
p
+J B
O Ol
CO 4-1
rH CO
0) >,
41
P P
O 01
*' Ei -M
C co
0 CO 3
•H CU rH
4-1 P O
tfl T-l
P 3 S
oi cr cfl
f*\ (11 ^f~?
c5^ c2 4-i
•
•o
CU
4-1
1 cfl
a ft
•H -rH
O
4-1 *H
C 4-J
cfl C
O cfl
•• T-l
e «H cu
•H C! cfl
•P 00
Cfl T-l CO
p CO 4-1
CU O
ft O Cfl
o]a ft
•a
01
4-1
cfl
ft
•H
o
•rl
4-1
C
cfl
0>
p
cfl
CO
4-1
0
cfl
ft
a
•H
4-1
C
cfl
o
•• -H
P T-t
cfl C
e -H5
O CO
o
01 O
co Z
CO
4-1
o
cfl
ft
a
•H .
-0
4-1 01
C +J
cfl cO
O ft
•• -H -rl
N4-I O
P -H i-l
cfl C 4-J
T3 00 C
fi -H Cfl
o co
O CU
CU O M
CO 53 cfl
4-13
-------
a
•
/-^ CO
•d o>
01 >
*rl *rl
d 3 4-1
O rH tfl
•HO d
4-> d P
CO O CU
P O 4-1
0) v-' r-j
ft ^
O cfl
41 4J
•OP d
d co 01
co e
do co
o cu cu
•H T-) p
4-> o H
O P
3 ft tJ
p d
4-1 >, CO
CO 4->
c c d
03 O
O O -H
U 4J
0) O
43 p 0>
4-> O rH
SO 0
o o
P 41
<4H rH T)
T3 0)
CO T-) N
4J -H -rl
0 S rH
tfl tO
ft cU P
a 43 ^
•H 4-> d
01
>•> d u
P »H
tfl
T3 Cfl
d cu
O -rl
O 4->
0) -rl
CO rH
CU
4->
rH CO
•rl >>
O c/>
CO
C
P 0
41 -H
4J 4J
CO ft
3 *
rH O
U CO
f
•^
CU
T3 SO
d ^
co rt
rH 4T
4-" O
41 CO
S 1-1
Q
p
QJ
4J 41
CO M
cfl
CU 4=
O O
cfl CO
II ,_J
P O
3
CO
-0 0
d cfl
CO 4H
^V| ^_t
P a co
cfl 41 cu
SB !>
•rl 4J -rl
P Cfl 4->
ft CU cfl
P d
P 4-> 41 P
O 4-1 CU
•i-) p -H 4->
CO CU CO rH
6 4-1 d
4-1 CO CO
d tfl >,
41 S 03
O 14-t
0, 0
1
-^
0)
rH
pQ
cfl
H
T)
1 01
4-1 CO
u o •
3 ft 4J
4-1 p 4)
cn a, co
cu
O u ft
cfl
cn cu
0) CO P
4-> 41 tfl
T-l 4-1
CO 3 CO
O 41
0 p 4J
•H -H
P 4) CO
o d
4J -H rH
CD rH tfl
•H O
43 4) i-l
O 00
4-> c! O
O Cfl r-l
CU >, 0
<4H 41 CU
14-1 > Cfl
CO d 43
o o •
f*. O P t3
rH Cfl CU
cu cu -d
CO j3 >4-i -H
P 4-1 -H O
0) >
> LH cu cO
T3 0 d
tfl 'H 41
gf>
O O 0) 13
d -H 4J rH
4-1 4) J3
•O cfl T3 O
3 i-l O CO
O 4J 4J
43 CO CO
CO 41 T3 4)
> 41 4J
CO d T3 -H
01 -H tU CO
•H 01
4-1 0) d rH
•H 4J «
> -iH 0) O
•H CO 43 -H
4-> 00
O T3 rH O
Cfl CU rH rH
rH -H 0
d d -H S cu
O O cfl to
•rl 1-1 4-> CO J!
4J 4-1 CU 41 O
O O Q 4-1 p
33 -H ctj
p P CO
4-* 4"* • d
CO CO Cfl O-i §
d d CU H O
o o P s d
O c3 3 3 k4
CO
4-1
O
tO
ft
•9 .
T3
4-1 CU
.. d 4J
d cfl cfl
O O ft
•H -H -H
4J 4-1 O
O vH -H
3 d 4J
P MI a
4-> iH tfl
CO CO
d CU
OOP
o a cfl
i
rH CO
Cfl CU
P O
3 H
rH O
3 co
o
•
rrl
tu
4-J
cfl
ft
•H
O
•H
4-t
d
cO
CU
cfl
05
4-1
o
cfl
ft
•rl
4-1
d
CO
o
.. -iH
d >*H
0 -rl
•H d
4J 00
cfl -H
P CO
cu
ft O
O 52
CO
4J
o
cfl
ft
•9 .
*rt
4-> CU
d 4J
cO cfl
o ex
• • >H *rl
d 4H 0
O -H -H
•H d 4J
w oo d
cfl iH cfl
P CO
01 11
ft 0 p
O !3 cfl
•
Tj
CU
4-1
cfl
ft
•H
o
•rl
4-1
d
tfl
41
p
cfl
CO
4J
O
cfl
ft
>r)
4-1
d
Cfl
o
.• -H
P -H
co d
13 OO
d *H
o to
O
41 O
C/3 SS
•
T3
01
4-1
1 cfl
•9 -H
O
4-> -H
d 4J
co d
0 tfl
.. -H
K*~ ^ CU
P T* P
CO d Cfl
13 M
d 1-1 co
o to 4-1
o o
CU O cfl
C/3 J5 Q<
4-14
-------
Most adverse impacts can be controlled, and many should be of short
duration. The possible mitigative measures outlined in the following
sections include planning activities and the utilization of construction
techniques that reduce the severity of both primary and secondary adverse
impacts. Construction plans and specifications, developed by facilities
planners for the communities and reviewed by the WDNR, must include these
mitigative measures if state or Federal monies are used to assist in the
financing of the proposed project.
4.1. Primary Impacts
4.1.1. Construction Impacts
Each of the alternatives, excluding the onsite system alternatives,
requires some construction. The onsite system alternatives include the
construction of some new systems and the upgrading of some existing systems
throughout the life of the project; therefore, impacts associated with
these alternatives are discussed in the section on operation impacts (Sec-
tion 4.1.2.). The construction impacts associated with the centralized
collection and treatment, or "build", alternatives are addressed in the
following subsections for each of the major categories of the natural and
man-made environment.
4.1.1.1. Atmosphere
The construction activities associated with the build alternatives,
including placement of conveyance lines and land clearing for WWTPs, will
produce short-term adverse impacts to local air quality. Clearing, grad-
ing, excavating, backfilling, and related construction activities will
generate fugitive dust, noise, and odors. Emission of fumes and noise from
construction equipment will be a temporary nuisance to residents living
near the construction sites.
4-15
-------
4.1.1.2. Soil Erosion and Sedimentation
Soils exposed during construction activity will be subjected to accel-
erated erosion until the soil surface is protected by revegetation or other
means. Conveyance lines typically are laid within road right-of-ways, if
possible, and runoff from construction activities tend to concentrate in
roadside drainageways. The alternatives that involve considerable lengths
of sewers and force mains can be expected to result in the greatest erosion
and subsequent sedimentation. The adverse impacts resulting from con-
struction related erosion and sedimentation include elevated phosphorus
imputs to Green Bay and Lake Michigan, possible siltation of whitefish
spawning areas in Baileys Harbor, clogging of road culverts, and localized
flooding where drainageways are filled with sediment.
4.1.1.3. Surface Water
Increased sedimentation resulting from the construction of collection
sewers could result in surface water quality degradation as noted above.
The impacts associated with the constructon of sewer lines - increased
phosphorus inputs, increased turbidity, possible siltation of fish spawning
areas - would occur under all of the centralized collection and treatment
alternatives. The construction impacts would vary in intensity and du-
ration depending on the length of the sewer lines and their placement in
relation to drainageways. Both factors will influence the amount of se-
diment that reaches the bays (i.e., Baileys Harbor, Eagle Harbor, Egg
Harbor, the Fish Creek bay), and ultimately the severity of the construc-
tion impacts.
The centralized collection and treatment alternatives that include
effluent discharges to surface waters would have additional impacts associ-
ated with the construction of the effluent outfall. The construction
activities would temporarily increase turbidity levels, increase nutrient
concentrations, possibly affect temperature and dissolved oxygen (DO)
concentrations, and disrupt the aquatic community. The adaptability of the
near-shore fishery and other biota to habitat disturbance will be a primary
factor in the severity of the impacts.
4-16
-------
Depending on the length of the effluent outfall and the characteris-
tics of the bottom, the impacts of the construction on surface water qual-
ity could be significant. Although the composition of the bottom materials
in the vicinity of each of the possible discharge lines is not known, WDNR
divers recently conducted an investigation of the bottom along the route of
the proposed discharge line serving Fish Creek (By telephone, Kr. Tim
Raceman, WDNR, to WAPORA,.Inc., 7 July 1982). This investigation found
that gravel and cobble dominate the substrate out to 520 ft from shore. At
600 ft offshore, the substrate is primarily sand with some cobble and is
covered with a thin layer of silt (approximately 1/8 inch). Construction
of an outfall in the gravel and cobble would probably disturb fish spawning
sites, and would certainly disturb, at least temporarily, fish feeding and
schooling habits in the immediate area. Other impacts that could occur
from the construction of effluent discharge lines along the bottom of Green
Bay or Lake Michigan include:
• Disruption of the benthic community could affect the aquatic
food web in the area.
• Increased nutrient levels
Mixing of sediment pore waters (the water present in
the interstitial spaces of the sediment) with overlying
waters could contribute additional nutrients to the
water column.
• Oxygen depletion
Resuspended fine organics rapidly become bacteria coat-
ed. Rapid decomposition may deplete dissolved oxygen
concentrations within these turbid areas. The effects
should be local and temporary but will affect less mo-
bile organisms. Rapid oxygen depletion could also
lower the pH if the waters are not adequately buffered
(Peterson 1979).
• Reduced primary production
Decreased light penetration due to turbidity may result
in lower rates of primary production.
• Temperature alteration
Suspended sediments may absorb radiation and transform
it into heat. If intense enough, this might produce
minithennal stratification, preventing mixing and
distribution of oxygen (Parker and others 1975 as cited
in Peterson 1979). Oxygen-holding capacity of the
water also would be reduced.
4-17
-------
4.1.1.4. Groundwater
The Niagaran dolomite that forms the bedrock surface in the project
area contains numerous vertical joints at the surface that permit rapid
water recharge of the lower, horizontal bedding plane joints (Section
3.1.2.1.2.). The blasting required for the installation of sewer and
conveyance lines could expose vertical joints, or create new fractures,
which could permit the direct inflow of surface runoff into the ground-
water. The exposure of vertical joints would reduce the filtering of
surface runoff by the overlying soils prior to recharge. Because the
surface runoff would contain relatively high concentrations of sediments as
a result of construction activities, water drawn from wells near the con-
struction zone could contain high sediment concentrations while vertical
joints are directly exposed to surface runoff. In addition, the dewatering
required for sewer construction could cause a temporary lowering of the
water table near the sewer line right of way. Shallow wells within this
affected zone could experience a temporary loss of pressure while con-
struction is taking place.
4.1.1.5. Terrestrial Biota
Construction activities associated with various components of the al-
ternatives would result in impacts to wildlife and vegetation in various
degrees. The presence of construction equipment and attendent noise along
the routes of the collection sewers and at the sites of the WWTPs would
cause the temporary displacement of most vertebrate species and the mor-
tality of a few (probably small mammal) species. The replacement of vege-
tation and the cessation of construction activities would allow the re-
establishment of displaced species. The removal of locally rare species
could preclude their replacement, though. The construction of new WWTPs
would, however, permanently displace wildlife species that reside on or
adjacent to the primarily agricultural or open space land.
Construction impacts to wildlife would be more acute under the wetland
discharge alternatives. The removal of vegetation along the outfall right-
of-way would displace, possibly permanently, resident wildlife species. In
4-18
-------
addition, construction activities and noise could displace solitude depen-
dent species whose ranges include the outfall area.
Because detailed plant or animal inventories have not been conducted
along the outfall routes, and because the overall wetland complex contains
rare or threatened plant species, disturbances along the outfall corridors
could result in significant impacts. During the detailed design of out-
falls to any wetland areas, indepth biological surveys of proposed/ alter-
native placements should be made to determine the least sensitive routes.
4.1.1.6. Wetlands
Environmental impacts associated with the construction of a wastewater
outfall to a wetland (evaluated as alternatives for Baileys Harbor and for
Ephraim) include the removal of vegetation along the outfall right-of-way
with attendant loss of wildlife habitat and possibly rare or threatened
plant species, and erosion and possible sedimentation of the wetland. The
rate and direction of groundwater flow in the wetland also may be disrupted
and permanently altered unless care is taken in the construction process to
backfill with materials that have the same approximate permeability of
those removed. Adverse impacts could be minimized if the corridor for the
outfall paralleled existing highway rights of way and former logging roads
to the extent possible. Construction activity during spring and early
summer should be avoided to reduce disruption of wildlife reproductive
cycles.
4.1.1.7. Demography
Temporary jobs created by the construction of wastewater collection
and treatment facilities are not likely to attract any new permanent resi-
dents to the project area. These positions probably would be filled by
workers from the middle Door County project area or from adjacent Door
County communities (e.g., Sturgeon Bay). Some seasonal residents could
reduce their use of seasonal dwellings while construction activities are
taking place on or adjacent to their property. No significant demographic
impacts are anticipated during the construction of wastewater facilities.
4-19
-------
4.1.1.8. Land Use
The construction of WWTPs associated with the centralized collection
and treatment alternatives would require the conversion of existing open
space and agricultural land uses to developed land uses. The aerated
lagoons that are proposed as treatment alternatives for each of the com-
munities would require a land area of approximately 5 acres. However, a
larger land area might be purchased to buffer the operation from adjacent
areas and to allow for expansion of the plant at a later date.
In general, the only land uses that are compatible wih WWTPs include
agricultural, small wood lot, open space, or similar land uses. Developed
land uses, i.e., residential, commercial or institutional land uses, typi-
cally are imcompatible with WWTPs. In addition, the construction of sewer
systems could temporarily disrupt land uses along the right-of-ways. The
magnitude of these impacts is not anticipated to be significant, though,
because most of the sewer systems would follow existing rights-of-way, such
as those along roadways.
4.1.1.9. Prime and Unique Farmlands
The construction of WWTPs and/or cluster soil absorption systems would
irreversibly convert prime farmland to developed land use. All of the
WWTPs proposed for the project area would require approximately 5 acres.
Because few land uses are compatible with the WWTPs, though, a larger land
area might be purchased as a condition of the land sale. Agricultural and
forest uses generally are compatible with the operation of WWTPs, however,
and the construction of a WWTP on a 20 acre parcel, for example, would not
preclude the use of the remaining 15 acres for agricultural or small wood-
lot uses.
The alternatives for Fish Creek include an aerated lagoon system in
Section 33 and a mound system in Section 32. Both systems would require
approximately 5 acres. Not all of the general area under consideration in
Section 33 is prime farmland, however, (i.e., classified in soil capability
classes I or II by the SCS). Thus, the actual prime farmland impacts
4-20
-------
associated with the use of the site in Section 33 would depend on the
portion of the site that is used.
A WWTP is proposed for Ephraim in Section 24. This site contains
soils that are classified as prime farmland, but the site is not currently
being cultivated. The construction of a WWTP at this site would convert
approximately 5 acres of forest land to developed land use.
The alternatives for Baileys Harbor include a WWTP in either Section 7
or Section 17. Both sites are classified as prime farmland and the con-
struction of a WWTP at either site would consume approximately 5 acres of
pr ime farmland.
In addition, cluster drainfields are proposed for Egg Harbor, Fish
Creek, and Ephraim. To accommodate the projected flows generated from the
communities, a maximum of 10 acres would be required for each of the clus-
ter drainfields. The proposed cluster drainfield for Egg Harbor is located
in Section 31 and the site is classified as prime farmland. For Fish Creek
and Ephraim, the proposed sites are located in Sections 3 and 24, respec-
tively. Each of these sites also is classified as prime farmland.
Wisconsin statutes (Section 32.035) require the preparation of an
agricultural impact statement (AIS) if a proposed project involves the
actual or potential exercise of the powers of eminent domain in the acqui-
sition of an interest in more than 5 acres of. land from any one farm opera-
tion. The AIS is prepared by the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture,
Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) and describes and analyzes the poten-
tial effects of the project on farm operations and agricultural resource.
If a proposed project involves 5 acres or less from any one farm operation,
an AIS may be prepared at the discretion of the DATCP. The AIS is intended
to reflect the general objectives and policy concerns of the DATCP of
conserving important agricultural resources and maintaining a healthy rural
economy. The DATCP recognizes, however, that final project decisions must
consider a number of factors including, but not limited to, potential agri-
cultural impacts. In the case of the proposed WWTPs, the AIS would have to
consider the increased costs associated with alternative plant sites as
4-21
-------
well as the trade-offs between removing prime farmland from the agricul-
tural land base versus improving surface water quality and/or lessening the
potential for groundwater contamination from onsite systems.
4.1.1.10. Economics
The construction activities associated with the centralized collection
and treatment alternatives would create a limited number of short-term
construction jobs. Most jobs would be filled by persons living within the
project area or within a reasonable commuting distance of the project area.
The purchase of construction materials from merchants within the
project area would benefit the local economy. However, few firms offering
the necessary building materials are present within the project area. Most
construction materials would be imported from outside the project area
probably either from Sturgeon Bay or Green Bay. Purchases made by con-
struction workers within the project area also would benefit the local
economy. These benefits would be offset, though, by the reduced patronage
that businesses along the sewer lines would experience as a result of road
closings and the disruptions caused by construction activities.
4.1.1.11. Recreation and Tourism
Any increase or decrease of tourism and the use of recreational facil-
ities within the project area attributable to the construction of waste-
water collection and treatment facilities is dependent upon construction
activities which detract from the recreational amenities of the project
area. Most recreational activities within the project area are water
related and take place on or along the perimeter of Green Bay or Lake
Michigan. No major air, water, noise, or traffic impacts are expected to
occur near Green Bay or Lake Michigan which would significantly disrupt
tourism and recreation activities. The disruption of traffic flows in the
downtown areas of the project area communities could cause a temporary
displacement of tourists, particularly if construction took place in these
areas during the summer. Access to some recreational facilities, particu-
larly those along the bays, interrupted by construction activities may
curtail temporarily some recreation and tourist activities.
4-22
-------
4.1.1.12. Transportation
Increased truck traffic during the construction of centralized waste-
water collection and treatment systems would increase traffic congestion
and disrupt traffic flows, particularly in the downtown areas of the pro-
ject area communities. Vehicular traffic also would be inconvenienced by
excavating, grading, backfilling, and temporary road closures during the
construction of conveyance lines along roadways. The temporary closure of
some roads would inconvenience permanent residents and tourists and result
in increased traffic congestion on adjacent roadways.
4.1.1.13. Energy Resources
Residential, commercial, and industrial energy requirements are not
likely to be affected during the construction of wastewater collection and
treatment facilities. Trucks and construction equipment used for the
construction of wastewater treatment facilities would increase demand for
local supplies of gasoline and diesel fuel. The increased demands result-
ing from construction activities are not anticipated to have a significant
impact on the availability of fossil fuels in the project area.
4.1.1.14. Cultural Resources
Construction activities should not adversely affect historic sites or
structures within the project area. A cursory archaeological survey was
made of the project area by WAPORA, Inc. in October 1982 (Appendix P). The
survey evaluated the environmental and cultural background of the area to
determine the potential for significant archaeological sites. A field
investigation was made at nine alternative WWTP sites (3 in Egg Harbor, 3
in Fish Creek, 1 in Ephraim, and 2 in Baileys Harbor).
The evaluation of the environmental and cultural background of the
upper Door Peninsula and the analysis of the nine known archaeological
sites in the area (Section 3.2.6.1.) indicates that present or past coastal
areas (sand ridges and fossil beachs) seem to be the preferred habitation
sites of long term, but intermittent, occupation. Significant archaeolo-
4-23
-------
gical finds are likely in these areas. Upland areas were not preferred for
habitation and archaeological evidence found in these areas would be small,
isolated finds of cultural material.
None of the nine known archaeological sites would be affected by con-
struction under any alternative.
The field inspection conducted during the survey found cultural ma-
terials on the WWTP site for Baileys Harbor Alternative 4 (Appendix P). If
construction is proposed for this location, further examination would be
necessary to assess the archaeological significance of the site and to
determine if it is eligible for listing on the National Register of His-
toric Places.
Two other alternative WWTP sites were found to be archaeologically
sensitive areas (Appendix P): The WWTP site for Egg Harbor Alternatives
2A, 2B, and 4; and the WWTP site for Baileys Harbor Alternatives 2A and 2B.
If WWTP facilities are proposed at these locations, a reconnaissance survey
should be undertaken to locate and identify cultural resources that might
be affected by construction activitiy. If archaeological materials are
discovered, further coordination would be necessary to mitigate any adverse
impacts on the sites.
Based on the cursory archaeological survey, with the exception of
these three sites, none of the other WWTP sites for the other project
alternatives (for any of the four communities) would have archaeological
sites that would be adversely affected by construction. The WWTP site for
Baileys Harbor Alternatives 3 and 5, was not examined in the survey. This
site should be inspected if either of these alternatives is selected. The
final routing of sewer and conveyance lines and the location of WWTP sites
should be presented to the SHPO for assessment before construction activi-
ties begin. Construction excavations could uncover significant cultural
resources which otherwise might not be discovered. To provide adequate
consideration of impacts affecting these resources, an archaeological
survey of specific sites should be conducted following the selection of an
alternative.
4-24
-------
4.1.2. Operation Impacts
Each of the alternatives, including the No Action Alternatives, in-
clude operations that will continue through the 20-year project period.
Included in the definition of operations are constructing new septic tank
systems for new structures, upgrading failing onsite systems, and con-
structing centralized wastewater collection and treatment systems. Opera-
tion impacts associated with the different alternatives for the four pro-
ject area communities (Egg Harbor, Fish Creek, Ephraim, Baileys Harbor) are
addressed for each of the major categories of the natural and man-made
environments.
4.1.2.1. Atmosphere
The potential emissions from the operation of the wastewater manage-
ment alternatives include aerosols, hazardous gases, and odors. The emis-
sions could pose a public health risk or be a nuisance.
Aerosols are defined as solid or liquid particles, ranging in size
from 0.01 to 50 micrometers that are suspended in the air. These particles
are produced at wastewater treatment facilities during various treatment
processes. Some of the constituents of aerosols could be pathogenic and
could cause respiratory and gastrointestinal infections. Concentrations of
bacteria or viruses in aerosols, however, are generally insignificant
(Hickey and Reist 1975). The vast majority of the microorganisms in aero-
sols are destroyed by solar radiation, desiccation (drying out), and other
environmental phenomena. There are no records of disease outbreaks re-
sulting from pathogens present in aerosols. Therefore, no adverse impacts
are expected from aerosol emissions for any of the alternatives.
Discharges of hazardous gases could have adverse affects on public
health and the environment. Explosive, toxic, noxious, lachrymose (causing
tears), and asphyxiating gases can be produced at wastewater treatment
facilities. These gases include chlorine, methane, ammonia, hydrogen sul-
fide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur, and phosphorus. The know-
ledge of the possibility that such gases can escape from the facilities or
4-25
-------
into work areas in dangerous or nuisance concentrations might affect the
operation of the facilities and the adjacent land uses. Gaseous emissions,
however, can be controlled by proper design, operation, and maintenance
procedures.
Odor is a property of a substance that affects the sense of smell.
Organic material that contains sulfur or nitrogen may be partially oxidized
anaerobically and result in the emission of byproducts that may be malo-
dorous. Common emissions, such as hydrogen sulfide and ammonia, are often
referred to as sewer gases and have odors of rotten eggs and concentrated
urine, respectively. Some organic acids, aldehydes, mercaptans, skatoles,
indoles, and amines also may be odorous, either individually or in combi-
nation with other compounds. Sources of wastewater related odors include:
• Fresh, septic, or incompletely treated wastewater
• Screenings, grit, and skimmings containing septic or putres-
cible matter
• Oil, grease, fats, and soaps from food handing enterprises,
home, and surface runoff
• Gaseous emissions from treatment processes, manholes, wet
wells, pumping stations, leaking containers, turbulent flow
areas, and outfall areas
• Raw or incompletely stabilized sludge or septage.
Wastewater stabilization lagoons typically emit considerable odors when the
ice cover goes out in the spring. These odors are likely to be noticeable
for at least one-half mile in the wind direction. Odors from septic tank
effluent sewers may escape from lift stations where turbulent flow occurs
unless proper design steps are taken to minimize odors.
The occasional failure of an onsite system may release some odors.
Septage haulers using inadequate or improperly maintained equipment may
create odor nuisances.
4-26
-------
4.1.2.2. Soils
The operation of the land application sites and cluster soil absorp-
tion system sites for wastewater treatment would alter the soils of these
sites over the life of the project. The potential changes depend on the
existing soil chemical and hydraulic properties and on the chemical charac-
teristics and application rates of the effluent. The cropping and tillage
practices on the land application sites will, to some extent, affect what
changes occur in the soil. The pH, cation exchange capacity, and phos-
phorus retention capacity should be adequate to ensure that most constit-
uents in the effluent will be removed effectively at the proposed irri-
gation rates. Organics constituents in the applied water would be oxidized
by natural biological processes within the top few inches of soil (USEPA
1981b). At Muskegon, Michigan, the BOD of renovated water from the under-
drainage system ranged from 1.2 mg/1 to 2.2 mg/1 (Demirjian 1975). Sus-
pended solids in the applied water also are removed by the soil through
filtration. The volatile solids are biologically oxidized and inorganic
solids become part of the soil matrix (USEPA 1981b) .
Phosphorus would be present in the storage pond or septic tank ef-
_2
fluent in an inorganic form as orthophosphate (primarily HPO, ), as poly-
phosphates (or condensed phosphates), and as organic phosphate compounds.
Because the pH of wastewater is alkaline, the predominant form usually is
orthophosphate (USEPA 1976). Polyphosphate is converted quickly to ortho-
phosphate in conventional wastewater treatment, in soil, or in water.
Dissolved organic phosphorus is converted more slowly (day to weeks) to
orthophosphate.
When effluent is applied to soils, dissolved inorganic phosphorus
(orthophosphate) may be adsorbed by the iron, aluminum, and/or calcium
compounds, or may be precipitated through reactions with soluble iron,
aluminum, and calcium. Because it is difficult to distinguish between
adsorption and precipitation reactions, the term "sorption" is utilized to
refer to the removal of phosphorus by both processes (USEPA 1981b). The
degree to which wastewater phosphorus is sorbed in soil depends on its
concentration, soil pH, temperature, time, total loading, and the concen-
tration of other wastewater constituents that directly react with phos-
phorus, or that affect soil pH and oxidation-reduction reactions (USEPA
1981b).
4-27
-------
The phosphorus in the adsorbed phase in soil exists in equilibrium
with the concentration of dissolved soil phosphorus (USEPA 1981b). As an
increasing amount of existing adsorptive capacity is used, such as when
wastewater enriched with phosphorus is applied, the dissolved phosphorus
concentration similarly will be increased. This may result in an increased
concentration of phosphorus in the percolate, and thus in the groundwater
or in the recovered underdrainage water.
Eventually, adsorbed phosphorus is transformed into a crystalline-
mineral state, re-establishing the adsorptive capacity of the soil. This
transformation occurs slowly, requiring from months to years. Work by
various researchers indicates that as much as 100% of the original adsorp-
tive capacity may be recovered in as little as three months. However, in
some instances it may take years for the adsorptive capacity to fully
recover because the active cations may become increasingly bound in the
crystalline form.
Dissolved organic phosphorus in applied effluent can move quickly
through the soil and enter the groundwater. Adequate retention of the
effluent in the unsaturated soil zone is necessary to allow enough time for
the organic phosphorus to be hydrolized by microorganisms to the orthophos-
phate form. In the orthophosphate form, it then can be adsorbed.
The project area soils should have adequate sorption capacity for
phosphorus where seepage beds of current design are constructed, based on
similar analyses elsewhere (Ellis and Erickson 1969). The water quality
sampling results appear to verify this conclusion.
The alternative that incorporates land application of lagoon effluent
for treatment would result in increased levels of phosphorus in the soils.
Irrigation onto the soil surface utilizes the surface soil for sorption of
phosphorus. These surface soils typically have considerably greater sorp-
tion capabilities than the underlying soil (USEPA 1981b).
Nitrogen loadings in the wastewater are of greatest concern. Nitrogen
would be present in applied wastewater principally in the form of ammonium
4-28
-------
(NH,), nitrates (NO ), and organic nitrogen. When wastewater is applied to
soils, the natural supply of soil nitrogen is increased. As in the natural
processes, most added organic nitrogen slowly is converted to ionized
ammonia by microbial action in the soil. This form of nitrogen, and any
ionized ammonia in the effluent, is adsorbed by soil particles.
Plants and soil microbes both utilize ammonium directly. Microbes
oxidize ammonium to nitrite (NO ) that is quickly converted to the nitrate
(NO ) form through nitrification. Nitrate is highly soluble and is uti-
lized by plants, or leached from the soil into the groundwater. Under
anaerobic conditions (in the absence of oxygen), soil nitrate can be re-
duced by soil microbes to gaseous nitrogen forms (dentrification). These
gaseous forms move upward through the soil atmosphere and are dissipated
into the air. Denitrification depends on organic carbon for an energy
source; thus, the interface between natural soil and the gravel fill in a
seepage bed or mound has both requisite characteristics for denitrifica-
tion.
Unlike phosphorus, nitrogen is not stored in soils except in organic
matter. Increases in organic matter within the soils would result from
increased microbial action and from decreased oxidation. The increased
organic matter improves the soil tilth (workability), water holding ca-
pacity, and capability of retaining plant nutrients.
4.1.2.3. Surface Water
The attraction of the middle Door County project area as a recreation
and retirement area is directly related to the high-quality water-related
amenities of the Door peninsula. Degradation of Green Bay or Lake Michigan
water quality, particularly in the bay-side communities of the project
area, could lessen the attractiveness of the area. Effluent discharges from
WWTPs to Green Bay, or in the case of Baileys Harbor, to Lake Michigan, are
a component of two of the alternatives for each of the west side communi-
ties and one of the alternatives for Baileys Harbor.
4-29
-------
The water quality impacts of the sewage treatment outfalls would be
most pronounced in the immediate discharge area, but wastewater consti-
tuents also would be transmitted to Green Bay and Lake Michigan as well.
Because of the higher population in the summer, higher wastewater discharge
rates will occur in the summer than in the winter. Thus, a higher propor-
tion of wastewater constituents will be introduced in the summer months
than winter months. In addition, because of minimal sludge accumulation in
the aerated lagoons, it is assumed that there will be relatively low re-
moval efficiences of nitrogen and phosphorus. Projected yearly loads of
wastewater constituents for the alternatives with sewer outfalls are shown
in Table 4-2.
The transport, dispersion and ultimate impact of the wastewater con-
stituents discharged into Green Bay would be difficult to predict. It is
assumed that a sewage outfall placed from 200 to 650 feet offshore will
discharge into a completely mixed water column. Limnological sampling
conducted during the summer in the vicinity of the proposed Fish Creek
effluent outfall indicates that the water column is well mixed to approx-
imately 60 feet (By telephone, Dr. James Wiersma, University of Wisconsin,
to WAPORA, Inc., 7 July 1982). The introduction of additional nutrients,
BOD, suspended solids, and residual chlorine associated with the sewage
outfall could create impacts in the immediate area of the outfall if rapid
mixing with the Bay or Lake Michigan does not occur. Entrainment of un-
mixed effluent into small harbor or embayments would create the greatest
potential for adverse impacts.
Although information on typical nutrient, BOD, and suspended solids
concentrations in the project area harbors is not available, it is su-
spected that raw sewage from boats on moorings, in conjunction with non-
point runoff from the communities, currently causes some water quality
degradation, particularly during the summer. Thus, entrained unmixed
effluent that enters the harbors could result in a cumulative increase in
nutrients, BOD, and suspended solids.
The effluent outfalls discharging to Green Bay in the Fish Creek and
Egg Harbor alternatives would be located offshore from the mouths of the
respective bays. Depending on subsurface currents, the wastewater consti-
4-30
-------
•
CO
•H
CO
cd
42
r-l
cd
3
C
d
cfl
01
00
cfl
V-l
01
>
cfl
d
cd
d
o
co
cfl
01
J_l
cd
l-l
0
t-l
cd
42
01
i-i
O
CO
4-1
4-1
o
0
4-1
CO
i-rj
cd
o
I— 1
4-J
d
01
3
rH
4-1
4-1
01
T)
01
4-1
o
01
b
J_J
PL,
•
CM
1
01
rH
cd
H
t-l
CU
•HCt,
§
0)
•M
en
rt
^
T3
01
4-1
CJ
0)
1~>
o
OL,
l-l
CU
4->
cdn
s
0)
4-1
CO
cd
TJ
0)
4-1
0
O)
cd
0)
VJ
co
0 0
rJ >|H
>
d 01
oi co
3
rH r-l
4-1 0)
IM rH
r-rl „ i
cd
a
CO
0)
3 M
co <;
T3
cd 01
0 0
rJ -H
>
d o>
Ol CO
3
rH M
4-1 CU
I
^
cd
o>
OJ
&,
00
Jyj
N*-'
^
O »*3"
r^. ,_ j
rH
cu
1
O csi
r^> r- 4
rH
CO
CO
o
CM
»^
1
ih o
Ol CM
o d
CO 01
0 3
CU rH
O <4H
l-l 4-1
CU W
£5
r**» ^~
r— { CO
CU
I
O CO
r^ r^
rH CM
t/>
CO
CO
CM
O
rH
in co
Q| CM
O 0
pq rH
'*"**,
5»r5
CU
4-1 >
0 -H
4-J
CO ct)
C 12
cd M
^ 4-*
rH
T3 "^
CU v-'
CO
O 4-*
a. c
O CU
M 0
P-4 "M
cd
cu
£H
'"N
^,
CN
\^s
T3
01 a
cd o
rl 00
cu cd
cd ! 42 pi!
<4H cfl
4-> O
3 9
O rJ
CO
4H 00
4-1 OO
O W
1
1
1
1
CN
00
vO
1
vo m
CO O
rH CM
CO
CM
0
rH
CO
CM
O
rH
^~^
ca
CM
1 ^~~*
60
0 M
rH O
O 4-J
•iH 0
rO Cd
4-1
10 d
d o
1-4 0
4_*
Cfl rH
4-> Cfl
O U
M -H
£j
Q
H
4-1 l-l
O
0) ft
V-l l-l
M rS
CO
4-1 00
4H 00
O W
1
rH CN
VD O
cd o
1J 00
0) cfl
Cd rH
B
0
M
4-1 ^
0)
Ol 0)
l-l M
0 O
CO J3
4H CO
4-1 -rl
O rtl
1
m cri
CM O
cfl O
M 00
01 CO
Cd rH
n
M 0
4-1 ,-Q
01 jg
M jlu
0
J2 CD
CO rH
4H 00
4H Cd
o w
1
o
CM
1
0
CM
-0
0)
4-1
cd
M
Ol
cd
0
Q
^
M-J
cu
i-i
o
CO
4H
4H
O
CO
rH
*^-
O
CO
to
o^
CO
CN
rH
ON
CO
CM
rH
I
I
1
I
^^
*^
S-X
d
o
o
00
cd
i-i
j_i
Q
Q
^j
cd
03
CO
01
f— 1
•rl
(2
01
00
cd
CO 4J U
3 d pa
0) Oi
cu S
0 4-> 0)
•H cfl 42
4-1 01 4-1
l-l
rH 4-1 l-l
rH O
3 43 U-i
4— < +J
0 2
d JQ
0 rH
l-l ^-~
T3 O 60
d UH a
cfl
CO O
i-i CO CM
cd
CU rH -O
>-.--. d
1 60 cd
n a
CU Cu
O.O
I CO rH
CO ^
>,T3 00
cd d 6
T3 cd
vO
m P i
rH§^
T3
4-1 rH (3
O -~^ cfl
00
cu a •«
oo d
cfl O 0
CO CO O
3 00
co cd
rH -H rH
cd
d >,"CJ
O 4-> 0)
CO -rl 4->
CO rH CO
cu cd i-i
CO 3 0)
cr cd
T3
CU 4-J CU
6 C rd
3 0» 4->
CO 3
• CO rH ^
Cd 4-1 O
4H 4H
3 0)
0 S
rJ T3
m O) rH
4-1 •^~-
13 o 00
01 o) B
> &
•H X 0
l-l W rH
01 1
TJ m
•
CO CO 13
01 01 d
4-> O CO
Cfl d
a 0) O-i
•r-j T3
4-> -H rH
CO CO • —
CU 0) 00
K 8
s
O 4-> 00
rH d 1
MH cu m
d
o a M
V-i "O
T3 CU O
cu PI .n
CO 4->
Cd 4H CU
EQ O S
cd
4-31
-------
tuents from these discharges could be transported to the Strawberry Is-
lands, or could be swept back and entrained in the harbor areas. Because
of the proposed location of the Ephraim WWTP and the proximity of Peninsula
State Park, feasible routes for the effluent outfall are through the cen-
tral section of Eagle Harbor or along the northeast shore of the Harbor
with discharge made offshore of the northern point of the Harbor shore.
The locations of the three harbor areas which may potentially be affected
by the proposed effluent discharges are presented in Figures 2-18, 2-21,
2-24, and 2-27. Of the three, Eagle Harbor, near Ephraim, appears to be
the most confined and isolated from Green Bay. Entrainment of effluent
into local harbor currents could have a significant impact in any of the
three harbors but, because of the relative shallowness of Eagle Harbor, it
was examined further as a case study of the "worst case" situation for
potentially adverse water quality impacts. This study of potential adverse
impacts is purely hypothetical because little is actually known about
interactions between water in small harbor areas with Green Bay or Lake
Michigan waters. However, the framework of the evaluation of Eagle Harbor
discharge impacts, as presented in the following paragraphs, also is ap-
plicable to Egg Harbor, Fish Creek Bay, and Moonlight Bay (Figure 4-1).
Eagle Harbor is approximately 800 acres in size inside a line drawn
from outlying point-to-point (just offshore from the 30 foot depth con-
tour). Average depth inside that area is approximately 15 feet. The
Harbor is sheltered from prevailing northerly longshore currents by the
Strawberry Islands, by the point of Eagle Bluff, and by Horseshoe Island -
all to the southwest. Additionally, the Harbor's shape and orientation
tends to restrict interaction with Green Bay through the action of west to
east wind driven surface layer currents; its axis is not perpendicular to
the Green Bay axis.
The hydrodynamics of Green Bay are complex and do not result in uni-
form surface or subsurface currents (Mortimer 1978). The most typical
current pattern in Green Bay appears to be a counter-clockwise flow that
produces northward, longshore currents along the Door Peninsula. It is
likely that under these conditions these longshore currents would create
clockwise current eddies (gyres) of lower velocity in the embayments and
4-32
-------
0> 0)
W H
cfl cfl
4J
en C
o
tS cfl
II cd
o
C 42
O 4J
•H -H
3 T3
0< C
0) cfl
C 0)
O N
•H
T) CO
0)
CO CO
nj 01
0)
-------
harbors located along the west side of the Door Peninsula. However, the
water movement in Green Bay, when driven by strong local storms, may reach
velocities of approximately three times the average. In addition, long-
shore surface current directions could reverse temporarily under storm con-
ditions. Subsurface, long-wave, water movement phenomenon related to Lake
Michigan and Green Bay seiches (see Glossary) also impact the storm driven
longshore currents (Mortimer 1978). The result expected from such storm
driven events would be a degree of Green Bay and Eagle Harbor water inter-
change causing complete, sudden replacement of the Harbor water.
Calculations of the theoretical rates of phosphorus "build-up" in
Eagle Harbor were made for four phosphorus concentration levels repre-
senting a range that could be discharged from the Ephraim treatment la-
goons. The calculations assume that no mixing of Harbor water with Green
Bay water takes place. The results are presented in Figure 4-1 and repre-
sents a "worst-case" evaluation of the phosphorus accumulation due to
effluent discharges. A steady condition is assumed where the effluent is
completely mixed in the Harbor and water leaves at the same rate that
effluent enters. In fact, periods of near total calm resulting in low
interchange of Green Bay and Eagle Harbor water seldom exist for more than
three or four days; therefore, the "worst-case" assessment (Figure 4-1)
most closely approximates a very short time frame, e.g., less than 5 days.
There is no single, most appropriate solution to the equation used for
the derivation of Figure 4-1. However, the figure does illustrate the
relationship of effluent "P" concentrations to the rates of accumulation
(theoretical) in Eagle Harbor, assuming no Bay/Harbor water interchange.
If the water quality of Eagle Harbor is such that phosphorus concentrations
presently are less than 0.01 mg/liter in the water column, that concen-
tration could be exceeded in 8 days if effluent discharges at the 10 mg/
liter concentration were detained in the Harbor for that period of time.
This concentration could be sufficient to induce algal blooms in Eagle
Harbor. In fact, phosphorus losses from the Harbor would be taking place
due to settling and due to Bay/Harbor water interchanges. If, for example,
the water interchange resulted in half of all the Harbor water being re-
placed in 8 days, the resultant Harbor "P" concentration that would result
4-34
-------
from the 10 mg P/liter effluent concentration would be approximately one-
half of the 0.1 mg/1 value (or 0.05 mg P/liter).
In conclusion, effluent phosphorus could have a significant impact on
Eagle Harbor water quality. The combination of north flowing surface
currents along the Door Peninsula with a low energy gyre in the Harbor
entraining the effluent plume could, in several days, elevate phosphorus
concentrations in the Harbor to undesirable levels (greater than 0.01
mg/1). A potential exists for similar increases in phosphorus concentra-
tions in the other embayments near proposed surface water discharge areas
(i.e., Egg Harbor, Fish Creek Bay, Moonlight Bay). The potential is pro-
bably less than for Eagle Harbor, though, because the other embayments are
not as confined or isolated, and dispersion by longshore currents probably
would prevent nutrient accumulation.
4.1.2.4. Groundwater
Long-term impacts on groundwater that could be encountered in the
operational phase of any of the alternatives concern the following three
types of pollutants: bacteria and viruses, organics and suspended solids;
phosphorus; and nitrate-nitrogen. Movement to groundwater of other waste-
water constituents or of soil chemicals would occur, but are not expected
to significantly affect any of the uses of the groundwater.
Bacteria, viruses, and suspended organics are readily removed by fil-
tration and adsorption onto soil particles. Two feet of soil material is
generally adequate for bacterial removal, except in very coarse-grained,
highly permeable soil material. Contamination of drinking water wells or
surface water with bacteria and suspended organics in the project area may
occur under any of the alternatives.
The data on movement of bacteria, viruses, and other pathogens within
soil and their rate of die-off are inconclusive (USEPA and others 1977c,
USEPA 1978b, 1981b). The expected hazard to groundwater wells near appli-
cation sites for WWTP effluent or holding tank wastes, or near soil ab-
sorption systems, cannot be assessed satisfactorily. Preliminary indi-
4-35
-------
cations are that hydraulically overloaded systems, either from excessive
effluent or holding tank wastes application or heavy rainfall, would cause
breakthrough of pathogens to the groundwater. Most pathogenic organisms
experience relatively rapid die-off when exposed on the soil surface or
where the concentration of predator microorganisms is high. This latter
situation occurs where the concentration of prey is typically high, such as
the soil surrounding an absorption system.
The primary concern with pathogenic organisms in groundwater is in
situations where the thickness of soils over bedrock or the water table is
inadequate to effect immobilization of the organisms. This can occur
within the sewer trenches if exfiltration were to occur, at the sewage
treatment plants, under the soil absorption systems, or at the land ap-
plication sites. Sufficient evidence exists to conclude that unprotected
wells (those not constructed to Wisconsin code) have unsafe indicator
bacteria concentrations for short intervals. Soil absorption systems have
been suspected as the source, although in the interior of the peninsula,
manure is suspected as the primary source.
Upgrading onsite systems should result in a reasonable level of pro-
tection of groundwater from contamination of pathogenic organisms. On-lot
inspection of each soil absorption system with respect to type and thick-
ness of soil below the absorption system would ensure that minimal con-
centrations of pathogenic organisms would migrate to the groundwater.
Other sources, though, may continue to contribute indicator organisms to
the groundwater and be found in wells.
Phosphorus is significant in groundwater because it can contribute to
the excessive eutrophication of surface waters. Section 4.1.2.2. contains
a discussion of phosphorus sorption in soils and supports the conclusion
that, except for dry well soil absorption systems, phosphorus contributions
to the groundwater from any of the alternatives would be minimal.
The ability to predict phosphorus concentrations in percolate waters
from soil treatment systems has not yet been demonstrated (Enfield 1978).
Models that have been developed for this purpose have not yet been evalu-
4-36
-------
ated under field conditions. Field studies have shown that most soils,
even medium sands, typically remove in excess of 95% of the phosphates in
relatively short distances from effluent sources (Jones and Lee 1977).
One potential source of phosphorus inputs to ground water are the soil
absorptions systems included in all of the alternatives. The groundwater
quality analyses performed in conjunction with the "Septic Snooper" survey
(Appendix B) confirm that some phosphorus is reaching surface waters by way
of the groundwater. The majority of groundwater samples, though, had
phosphorus concentrations less than 0.05 mg/1 (23 out of 31). The contri-
bution of phosphorus to the lakes from onsite systems has not been quanti-
fied from the sampling data, but from theoretical data. Thus, onsite
systems are likely stimulating algal growth in localized areas where ef-
fluent plumes emerge, but their contribution to eutrophication is not
quantifiable. The greatest quantity of phosphorus would be contributed to
groundwater under the No Action Alternative. A slight amount of phosphorus
would be contributed to the groundwater under the alternatives that rely on
onsite systems.
The alternatives that incorporate land application of lagoon effluent
are not expected to significantly increase the phosphorus concentration in
the groundwater. Irrigation onto the soil surface results in utilization
of the complete soil profile for sorption in contrast to onsite systems
that utilize only the subsoil. Phosphorus in groundwater under a land
application site is of concern only when surface waters are affected.
Groundwaters from the sites would likely flow primarily to the west toward
Green Bay.
The aerated lagoons which are components of the centralized alter-
natives for each community may contribute phosphorus to the groundwater if
seepage from the lagoons is considerable. A study of Minnesota wastewater
stabilization lagoons (E.A. Hickok and Associates 1978) concluded that none
of the ponds (all had natural soil liners) were capable of meeting the
designed and specified seepage rates. Most of the ponds studied removed
phosphorus effectively, although some had seepage rates considerably higher
than the allowable maximum. The aerated lagoons in Door County would
4-37
-------
probably require synthetic liners because suitable natural soil material is
generally unavailable.
Nitrates in groundwater are of concern at concentrations greater than
10 mg/1 as nitrogen because they cause methemoglobinemia in infants who
ingest liquids prepared with such waters. The limit was set in the Na-
tional Interim Primary Drj.nk.ing Water Regulations (40 CFR 141) of the Safe
Drinking Water Act (PL 93-523). A general discussion of nitrogen in soils
is presented in Section 4.1.2.2.
The density of soil absorption systems is considered to be the most
important parameter influencing pollution levels of nitrates in groundwater
(Scalf and Dunlop 1977). That source also notes, however, that currently
available "information has not been sufficiently definitive nor quantita-
tive to provide a basis for density criteria." The potential for high
nitrate concentrations in groundwaters is greater in areas of multi-tier or
grid types of residential developments than in single tier developments.
Depending on the groundwater flow direction and pumping rates of wells,
nitrate contributions from soil absorption systems may become cumulative in
multi-tier developments. Thus, separation distances are critical for new
construction and maximum density codes are crucial for new subdivisions.
The results from the groundwater sampling (Section 3.1.3.2.2.) from
wells indicate that elevated nitrates (greater than 2 mg/1 as nitrogen) did
not occur in any of the 33 wells that were sampled. Some of these wells
appeared to have sources of nitrates other than soil absorption systems
because chlorides or conductivity were not significantly elevated.
Some elevated levels of nitrate may occur under the No Action Alter-
natives and occasional violations of the drinking water quality standard
may occur. The alternatives that include continued use of onsite systems
and cluster systems may not necessarily result in declines in concentra-
tions of nitrates in the groundwater. Wells that have high nitrate con-
centrations may need to be deepened so that the contaminated groundwater is
bypassed.
4-38
-------
Cluster drainfields and mounds are designed similarly to individual
drainfields and mounds to ensure an adequate aeral distribution of the
efEluent for satisfactory removal of phosphorus. Nitrate concentrations
within the groundwater below a cluster drainfield or mound are anticipated
to be equivalent to those below an individual soil absorption system.
Insufficient experimentation has been conducted to enable designing for
nitrogen removal from sepitic tank effluent. One precaution would be to
locate the soil absorption systems as far from wells as feasible. Once
nitrates enter the groundwater, dilution is the only practical means of
reducing the concentration.
Aerated lagoon effluent typically contains nitrogen levels of approx-
imately 18 mg/1 (USEPA 1978c). Nitrates in the groundwater below the land
application sites probably would average considerably less than 10 mg/1,
the drinking water quality standard. Volatilization, crop uptake and
removal, soil storage, and denitrification would account for removal of
nitrogen from the applied effluent. Some increase in nitrate concentration
above background levels is anticipated, but no significant adverse impacts
on the environment or proposed use is anticipated.
Seepage from the aerated and storage lagoons could result in elevated
nitrate levels in the groundwater below the lagoons. Clay liners are not
impermeable and plastic liners can be punctured or experience deteriora-
tion. Field studies (E.A. Hickok and Associates 1978) have shown that a
seepage rate of 500 gallons-per-acre-per-day is very difficult to achieve
even on in-place, fine-textured soils. On medium- to coarse-textured
soils, the quality of the liner is of utmost concern for protection of
groundwater quality. Monitoring wells would be installed and sampled on a
regular basis. The sampling program would identify problems before neigh-
boring residents are affected.
Nitrate movement below the disposal areas for holding tank wastes and
septage is of concern. The safe loading rate could easily be exceeded if
several truckloads were emptied in one place, such as may happen when
access to field sites is limited. Also, continual applications at the
maximum allowable application rate in the code would overload the capa-
4-39
-------
bility of the soils to assimilate the nitrogen. A properly managed and
operated disposal operation, particularly if the site were cropped, would
contribute nitrates to groundwater only slightly above background concen-
trations.
Changes in groundwater levels would occur with the centralized alter-
natives. The greatest change in groundwater levels would occur in the
vicinity of the land application site. Inadequate data have been assembled
to accurately predict the water table rise. The water table rise would
affect not only the land application site, but also the surrounding area
and the normal outflow areas. Either draintile or recovery wells on the
land application area would prevent the water table from rising to the
surface, if it is shown to be necessary through further studies.
4.1.2.5. Terrestrial Biota
The land disposal sites proposed in Section 31 for Egg Harbor Alterna-
tive 6 and Section 3 for Fish Creek Alternative 6 would affect the terres-
trial biota during plant operation, however, no significant adverse long-
term effects would be expected during normal plant operating conditions.
Wildlife may avoid the area during waste application. Periodic monitoring
should be performed if this alternative is used to detect the presence of
potentially harmful concentrations of heavy metals, other toxic substances,
or micronutrients in the soil, crops, or other vegetation.
4.1.2.6. Wetlands
The discharge of wastewater effluent to adjacent wetland areas was
evaluated as a project alternative for Ephraim and for two Baileys Harbor
sites. The first wetland discharge alternative for Baileys Harbor was
proposed in the Middle Door County Facilities Plan (Becher-Hoppe Engineers,
Inc. 1980) and the Ephraim wetland discharge and second Baileys Harbor
discharge alternatives were developed for this Environmental Report. In
order to evaluate the potential impacts on the Baileys Harbor wetland from
the proposed effluent discharge, an assessment was made of the existing
characteristics of the wetland area (including a one-day field investiga-
4-40
-------
tion by WAPORA, Inc. personnel) and a literature review was conducted as to
the type of impacts that could result from the introduction of wastewater
effluent into the wetland. Athough a similar investigation was not con-
ducted for the "Ephraim Swamp" or for the second Baileys Harbor site, the
Wisconsin Wetlands Inventory (WDNR 1978c) indicates that these wetlands
have soils, hydrologic, and vegetative characteristics that are similar to
the Baileys Harbor wetland.,
The concept of employing natural wetland ecosystems as a component in
the treatment of wastewater has come to receive considerable attention in
recent years. The ability of wetlands to enhance water quality has led to
much research pointing to the capability of wetlands to assimilate and
treat municipal wastewater to a high degree. However, application of
wastewater to wetlands would not occur without some adverse impacts. This
dicussion presents factors to be taken into account to screen the potential
for the wetlands to accommodate and treat municipal wastewater with minimal
impact.
The Baileys Harbor wetland is located north of the community of
Baileys Harbor and is part of a large wetlands complex that extends from
Baileys Harbor on the south to north of North Bay along the Lake Michigan
side of the Door County peninsula. According to the Middle Door County
Facilities Plan, (Becher-Hoppe Engineers, Inc. 1980) the proposed discharge
area is in the vicinity of the north-south section line approximately
one-third of a mile north of Highway Q (Figure 4-2). The wetlands investi-
gation was limited to the area bounded by the 600 ft contour on the west
and north, Mud Lake on the east, and Highway Q on the south. This area
encompasses approximately 3,000 acres or 4.7 square miles.
Two additional wetland discharge sites are evaluated as alternatives
in this Environmental Report. An alternative Baileys Harbor treatment
plant and discharge location about 1.5 miles northwest of the community in
a wetland of about 900 acres was evaluated (Figure 4-2). An alternative
Ephraim discharge was considered approximately 1 mile southeast of the
Village in a wetland of approximately 1,000 acres (Figure 4-3).
4-41
-------
»!•• Mud Lake
Natural Area
mm* Ridges Sanctuary
600' Contour
U Uplano
Figure 4-2. Baileys Harbor wetland associations, approximate outfall locations,
and natural area boundaries.
4-42
-------
Figure 4-3. Ephraim wetland associations and
approximate outfall locations.
4-43
-------
The morphology of these wetlands indicate that following the retreat
of the Wisconsin glacier approximately 10,000 years ago, the lowland area
north of Baileys Harbor was inundated by Lake Chicago which occupied the
present Lake Michigan Basin and had a lake level of about 600 ft (Bertrand
et al. 1976). According to Sherrill (1978), the surficial materials pre-
sent in the wetland are of Pleistocene age and consist of either alluvium,
marsh, and lake deposits pr coarser grained stratified material consisting
of outwash, beach deposits, and sand dunes. As Lake Chicago retreated and
Lake Michigan assumed its present configuration and water level, deposition
in the previously inundated areas increased the thickness of the unconsoli-
dated deposits that overlie the consolidated rock unit.
There are four major bedrock valleys that traverse the County from
northwest to southeast, which probably were cut by preglacial streams that
flowed toward Lake Michigan (Martin 1939 as cited in Sherrill 1978). One
of these bedrock valleys is located between Ephraim and Baileys Harbor and
the presence of a wetland ecosystem within this valley indicates that
groundwater from adjacent uplands flows into the wetland complex north of
Baileys Harbor. In addition to these groundwater flows, the depth of the
outwash and lake deposits limit relief and also appear to be a primary
contributing influence to the presence of saturated soils and, in some
areas, standing water throughout the year. Additional hydrogeologic in-
vestigations are necessary, though, to describe in more detail the mor-
phology, formation, and hydrogeology of the wetlands.
The topography within the marsh consists of a series of ridges and
swales which differ in elevation by less than four feet. Surface drainage
in the area north of Highway Q generally is toward the northeast into Mud
Lake. Defined drainageways are present on the northwestern and northern
margins of the wetland, but runoff diffuses throughout the wetland as the
drainageways become increasingly diffuse due to the lack of relief.
The WDNR has mapped and classified wetlands in Wisconsin according to
vegetation, cover-type, hydrology, human influence factors, and special
wetland characteristics (WDNR 1978c). The classification system used by
the Wisconsin Wetlands Inventory is based on the US Fish and Wildlife
4-44
-------
Service (USFWS) classification system that is described in "Classification
of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States" (Cowardin et al.
1979). The wetland types that are present in the Baileys Harbor and
Ephraim wetlands are depicted in Figures 4-2 and 4-3 and described below:
Classification Class
Forested
T8K
S3K
T8/S3Ks
E2H
T3/8K
T5K
Scrub/Shrub
Forested/
Scrub/Shrub
Subclass
Needle-leaved
Broad-leaved
deciduous
Needle-leaved/
Broad-leaved
deciduous
Emergent/wet Narrow-leaved
meadow persistent
Forested
Forested
Broad-leaved
deciduous/
Needle-leaved
Needle-leaved
evergreen
Hydrologic
Modifier
Wet soil,
Palustrine
Wet soil,
Palustrine
Wet soil,
Palustrine
Standing water,
Palustrine
Wet soil,
Palustrine
Wet soil,
Palustrine
Special
Modifier
Ridge and
swale com-
plex
Two National Natural Landmarks are located adjacent to the proposed
area of application for the original Baileys Harbor wetland discharge
alternative (Figure 4-2). The Ridges Sanctuary encompasses 708 acres on
both sides of Highway Q north of Baileys Harbor. According to the Wiscon-
sin Scientific Areas Preservation Council (WDNR 1977b):
The Ridges Sanctuary consists of parallel, abandoned beach ridges
and swales of former Lake Michigan levels, deposited over dolo-
mitic bedrock. Some swales are wet and open, while others are
forested with swamp conifers. Boreal forest occurs on some of
the ridges, far disjunct from the Lake Superior region. A unique
rich flora of many local, rare, and endangered plants make the
tract world famous; Wisconsin's first National Natural Landmark.
In 1974, 960 acres surrounding Mud Lake also were established as a
National Natural Landmark by the National Park Service. Mud Lake is an
estuarine lake that flows into Moonlight Bay. Groundwater flows in the
adjacent wetland areas probably are toward Mud Lake. According to the
4-45
-------
Scientific Areas Preservation Council (WDNR 1977b): "Waterfowl and fish
spawning use of the lake and wetlands is heavy. Periodic, natural fluct-
uation of Lake Michigan changes the vegetative composition of the wetland."
The management of state scientific areas, including the Ridges,Sanc-
tuary and Mud Lake, is based on specific plans that are recommended by the
Scientific Areas Preservation Council and agreed to by the land managing
agency. For the Ridges Sanctuary, land management is provided by the
non-profit Ridges Sanctuary, Inc. Mud Lake is owned by the State of Wis-
conein and managed by the WDNR.
The general objective of scientific areas managment is "to preserve
the scientific area in a natural condition with the least possible man-in-
duced disturbance" (WDNR 1977b). In particular, the usual conservation
practices that are applied in many public forests or wildlife areas, such
as timber harvesting, water level manipulation, herbicide or insecticide
application, and introduction of plants or animals, are not considered to
be compatible with the objectives of Wisconsin's Scientific Areas Program.
SITE SURVEY
A walk-through survey of the wetland area between STH 57 and Mud Lake,
north of CTH Q, was conducted on 30 June 1982 by WAPORA, Inc. personnel.
Soil cores were taken at several locations. Cores taken on ridges general-
ly had the following characteristics:
• decomposing organic matter was confined to the upper 7 to 11
inches
• loam or sand/gravel underlie the organically enriched.sur-
face layer
• soils taken from ridges were moist, but were not saturated
• the upper soil horizons were aerobic.
Soil cores taken in the swales indicated Markey muck soils. The Door
County Soil Survey (SCS 1978) describes this soil as a very poorly drained,
4-46
-------
nearly level, organic soil that is formed in old glacial lake basins and in
depressions of floodplains. The soils cores generally indicated that:
• decomposing plant materials were found to depths greater
than 2.5 feet (the length of the soil corer)
• gravel and sand were present at a depth of approximately one
foot in those areas where decomposing vegetation was less
than 2.5 feet
• the soils were moist to saturated and in certain areas dif-
fuse flow and/or standing water was observed
• the soils generally were anaerobic below eight inches.
The vegetation on the ridges was dominated by mature cedar inter-
spersed with poplar, birch, balsam, black spruce, and tamarack. Occasional
hemlock and pine also were present. The canopy ranged from broken to
complete; where the canopy was complete, the understory vegetation was
sparse. In areas were the canopy was less dense, annuals, perennials, and
ferns provided ground cover. In the swales, scrub/shrub vegetation or
cedars dominated. The understory contained grasses, sedges, annuals,
perennials or mosses, and liverworts. In the northwest corner of the
wetland, a cattail, sedge, and grass wet meadow is present. This associ-
ation is maintained, in part, by the presence of a beaver dam (indicated by
the S3/E2H classification; Figure 4-2).
Because of its areal extent, cover, and the availability of food, the
wetland is an important wildlife habitat. The guidebook to the Ridges
Sanctuary (Ridges Sanctuary, Inc. 1977) list 7 species of reptiles, 8
species of amphibians, 15 species of mammals, and 56 species of birds that
utilize the Sanctuary for habitat. Species present in the wetland include
white-tailed deer, red fox, snowshow hare, green heron, ruffed grouse, and
american bittern.
Forested wetlands such as are found in this area are less well under-
stood as wetland treatment systems than other wetland types. Because the
climatic, hydrologic, geologic, and biologic characteristics of wetlands
are so varied, the particular physical, chemical, and biological transfor-
mations occuring in a particular wetland results in reports of a range of
removal efficiencies.
4-47
-------
The principal mechanisms for the removal of contaminants in vastewater
are:
• physical sedimentation of suspended solids
• chemical precipitation and adsorption of phosphorus
• microbial metabolization of BOD and nitrogen
• natural die off, predation, and decomposition of pathogens.
The removal mechanisms are operative in the water column, in the soil
column beneath the wetland, and at the interface between the water and soil
column. Most of the biological transformations that occur in wetlands take
place in the presence of emergent vegetation and high organic content
soils, such as the Markey muck soils present in the proposed area of appli-
cation.
The removal efficiencies reported in the literature of natural wet-
lands have varied widely. Removal efficiencies have been reported to range
between 60 and 90 percent for suspended solids, between 70 and 96 percent
for BOD , between 40 and 90 percent for nitrogen as total N, and between 10
and 50 percent for phosphorus as total P. For forested wetlands, the
literature is not extensive but removal efficiencies of 62 to 91 percent of
total phosphorus and 75 to 80 percent of total nitrogen have been reported
(Kadlec 1979, 1982).
Removal efficiencies also will vary depending on the area of appli-
cation. Although physical, chemical, and biological features will determine
the field requirements for application of secondary effluent, the lit-
erature indicates that an area of 30 to 60 acres is needed per one million
gallons per day (Reed 1980). However, because of the variations in wet-
lands, as noted above, "even with these quantities of land, removal of
nitrogen and phosphores (sic) are uncertain and may require an even larger
area for significant removal" (Reed 1980). Based on this standard, the
field area required for application of effluent for Baileys Harbor under
Alternative 3 (62,000 gpd average daily design flow) would be 1.9 to 3.7
acres, and under Alternative 5 (46,000 gpd) the field area requirement
would be 1.4 to 2.8 acres. For Ephraim under Alternative 4 (118,000 gpd),
4-48
-------
the field area requirement would be 3.5 to 7.1 acres. To achieve these
application areas, the effluent should be applied via an open top gutter
type pipe or piping with spaced holes.
The hydrology of the area is important to the consideration of this
site for wetland treatment for two reasons; the residence time of waste-
water in the wetland influences the degree of waste treatment, and the
change in the hydrologic regime may alter the wetland habitat and thus
result in a change in species composition. For a wetland to be effective
in nutrient assimilation, wastewater must remain in contact with the soil/
plant matrix long enough to allow removal by microbial transformation,
adsorption by surfaces, uptake by plants, or deposition of particulate
matter. Given the low relief, lack of defined drainage, and large size of
this wetland area, residence time should be lengthy and thus permit these
processes to take place.
The discharge of wastewater into a wetland may alter the habitat
characteristics of existing species. Kadlec (1982) reports that two re-
gimes will exist in a wastewater wetland system; a saturated region in the
vicinity of the wastewater discharge and a zone of rapid constituent re-
moval just outside of the saturated zone. If prolonged periods of standing
water were to occur within the immediate saturated region, the change in
hydrologic regime may result in the elimination of grasses, annuals, peren-
nials, mosses, and liverworts. These conditions could impede seed germi-
nation for tree species in the overstory and could contribute to wind-throw
because of shallow rooting (uprooting of mature trees during storms). This
may result in vegetational succession by species more tolerant of standing
water such as cattails (Typha spp.). In order to fully understand these
processes, a detailed hydrogeologic analysis would be necessary.
The addition of nutrients could result in changes in biomass, growth,
and production of selected wetland species. The result could be long term
changes in species composition, and alterations in the areal distribution
of component species. Certain vegetative species could be favored by
elevated nutrient levels and standing water which would lead to increased
growth and a competitive advantage of one over another species, thus im-
4-49
-------
pacting species diversity. The exact transformations that would occur are
not predictable at this time.
Secondary sewage effluent from small municipal sources typically is
characterized by low levels of heavy metals. However, residual chlorine
has been demonstrated to result in phytotoxicity on wetland vegetation
species. Dechlorination or extended residence time in a storage lagoon
would help mitigate this impact.
The addition of wastewater to wetlands could alter the structure and
function of resident insect populations. These alterations include pos-
sible increases in insects, such as mosquitos, that carry diseases trans-
mittable to man or wildlife, and increases in aquatic insects that indicate
a loss of water quality, such as chironomids. However, very little is
actually known about insect populations in wetlands and less on those
receiving wastewater.
The effects of wetland treatment on associated wildlife communities is
dependent on the ability of the wetland to provide necessary food, shelter,
and breeding sites for particular species. The changes in water levels
associated with the introduction of wastewater could result in shifts of
the location of wildlife breeding and activity sites within the wetland.
Changes also could take place in:
• habitat structure and components
• species richness and diversity
• presence and abundance of indicator species
• incidence of disease, wildlife condition, and potential for
wildlife to act as vectors for human disease
• presence and abundance of endangered, threatened, and rare
species.
Thus, the application of wastewater effluent to the Baileys Harbor or
Ephraim wetlands has the potential to change the hydrologic regime of the
application site and contiguous area and could lead to an alteration in the
vegetative species composition. In particular, species that are more
4-50
-------
tolerant of hydric conditions would succeed those that are less tolerant.
Increased nutrient loads also would permit species capable of metabolizing
nutrients to grow more vigorously and out-compete species that are not
capable of metabolizing nutrients. Thus, the structure and function of the
wetlands could change over time.
It is not possible to specifically determine the impacts that will
occur in terms of the area affected, the biotic changes that will take
place, or the significance of the changes to the overall wetland communi-
ties until a site specific ecological and engineering evaluation of the
application sites is conducted. This evaluation would require detailed
information on:
• the configuration and placement of the outfall line
• the hydrogeologic characteristics of the application site
and contiguous wetland area
• the vegetative association of the application site and
adjacent areas.
Given the size of the wetlands and the relatively small discharges
that are proposed, nutrient absorption should be adequate to obviate any
water quality impacts to Moonlight Bay, Baileys Harbor, or Lake Michigan,
or in the case of Ephraim, to Green Bay.
The primary concern associated with an effluent discharge from the
Baileys Harbor WWTP is the ability of the wetland to assimilate the waste-
water without adversely affecting the contiguous Mud Lake and Ridges Sanc-
tuary Scientific Areas. The Scientific Areas are managed so that the
natural processes taking place are not disrupted by man-induced activities.
The findings of this analysis indicate that it is highly probable that a
change in habitat characteristics would occur in the Baileys Harbor wetland
due to wastewater application. If a non-degradation policy is to be re-
spected in this area, wastewater application to the wetland must be viewed
as an incompatible use.
In evaluating and screening the use of a particular wetland for ef-
fluent discharge, factors other than the size and assimilative capacity of
4-51
-------
the wetland also must be considered. Although a wetland may be able to
assimilate the increased flows and nutrients, changes in the structure and
function of the wetland, in terms of the hydrologic and biotic regimes, can
occur. The factors that must be considered to determine whether such
changes are acceptable or not include the uniqueness of the wetland, the
richness and diversity of fauna and flora, its importance as a wildlife
area, and/or its protection or designation on a federal, state, or local
level.
As discussed previously, the proposed wetland discharge site in Sec. 8
for Baileys Harbor is adjacent to two National Natural Landmarks. The
primary purpose of the National Natural Landmark (NNL) program is to iden-
tify and protect the best remaining example of a specific eco-type. The
Ridges Sanctuary/Toft Point/Mud Lake area is described in the NNL listing
in the Federal Register as "...a series of sand ridges and swales with
associated boreal forest and bog vegetation and unusually high species
diversity, as well as the best mixed stand of large red and white pine,
hemlock, and northern hardwoods on the western shore of Lake Michigan."
Thus, the proposed wetland discharge site can be characterized as locally
and regionally unique, diverse, and important as wildlife habitat. The
creation of a more monotypic ecosystem as a result of a wetland discharge
could be considered a significant impact, regardless of whether or not the
discharge affects the adjacent Natural Areas. Because of the high quality
of the wetland, a high level screening test and critical review are neces-
sary before the use of the proposed discharge site can be considered as a
viable component of a treatment alternative. Although a field investi-
gation was not conducted for the alternative Baileys Harbor wetland dis-
charge site in Sec. 7 or the Ephraim wetland discharge site, the Wisconsin
Wetlands Inventory indicates that they are similar, in terms of the clas-
sifications that are present, to the wetland complex north of Baileys
Harbor. Thus, the use of either of these sites for effluent discharge also
will require a high level screening test prior to their inclusion as viable
options in a treatment alternative.
4-52
-------
4.1.2.7. Land Use
Land use under the easement of sewage conveyance lines would be inter-
mittently affected when maintenance or repairs were performed on sections
of the lines. Periodic excavating and filling would disturb vegetation and
soil along conveyance lines. The release of low level odors and aerosols
from WWTPs and the knowledge that hazardous gases could potentially be
released from those plants may affect land use adjacent to the plants.
Improper maintenance of cluster and onsite systems may create malodorous
conditions which would adversely affect adjacent land uses.
4.1.2.8. Demographics
The operation and maintenance of wastewater facilities proposed under
the "build" alternatives will not have a significant impact on the demo-
graphy of the study area. A limited number of long-term jobs created by
the operation and maintenance of these facilities likely will be filled by
persons living within the study area or within commuting distance. No new
residents are expected to be attracted to the study area to fill these
positions.
4.1.2.9. Economics
The operation of wastewater facilities under the centralized collec-
tion and treatment component of the proposed alternatives would create a
few long-term jobs. These jobs could be filled by persons residing in the
project area.
No new jobs are anticipated to be created under the upgrading of
existing onsite systems component of the proposed alternatives. Existing
contractors are expected to satisfy local demand for construction and
maintenance services of onsite systems. Contractors and tradesmen involved
in the construction and maintenance of onsite systems will suffer a loss of
work opportunities within the project area under the centralized collection
and treatment alternatives. No significant economic impacts are expected
to occur during the operation of wastewater treatment facilities under any
of the alternatives.
4-53
-------
4.1.2.10. Recreation and Tourism
The operation of wastewater facilities under any of the "build" alter-
natives could affect tourist and recreational activities in the project
area if a malfunction of those facilities occurred. A failure in the
system components of the WWTPs with outfall discharge could cause untreated
or partially treated waste to be discharged into Green Bay or Lake Michi-
gan. This phenomenon would result in short-term water quality degradation
and a reduction in the recreational use of that body of water. Odors
emanating from malfunctioning onsite systems may curtail outdoor recre-
ational activities in the near vicinity.
4.1.2.11. Transportation
Impacts arising during the construction of conveyance lines (Section
4.1.1.) would reoccur when maintenance or repairs are made on those lines.
Occasionally some roads may be closed temporarily. Truck traffic to and
from the proposed treatment facilities under the centralized collection and
treatment components will be associated with supply deliveries. The sewer-
ing of residential and commercial properties currently on holding tanks
would lead to a decline in truck traffic associated with waste hauling.
4.1.2.12. Energy
The operation of wastewater treatment facilities and pump stations
under the "build" alternatives require the use of electricity and fossil
fuels. Each of the wastewater treatment methods that were evaluated have
relatively similar energy requirements. No significant demands would be
placed on local energy supplies under any of the alternatives.
4.1.3. Public Finance
The costs of implementing a project in one of the project area commu-
nities could be apportioned between the State of Wisconsin and local resi-
dents. Grants of up to 60 percent of the eligible costs of implementing a
wastewater improvement action could be available from the Wisconsin Fund.
4-54
-------
In the case of a centralized collection and treatment system, the munici-
pality or sewer district would apply to the Wisconsin Fund on behalf of the
residents within the proposed service area. The Wisconsin Fund also is
authorized to assist in funding onsite system upgrades. For onsite up-
grades funded under NR 128.30 the individual property owner must apply for
the grant. However, for onsite upgrades funded under NR 128.08 the munici-
pality or sanitary district applies for the grant. Because of their posi-
tion on the State priority list, it is unlikely that the communities in the
project area will be eligible for any Federal funding under Section 201 of
the FWPCA for construction of wastewater treatment facilities. The local
construction costs and the entire costs of the system operation and main-
tenance would be borne entirely by the system users. The costs for each of
the alternatives for the project area communities are presented in Appendix
E.
Because of the mixture of seasonal and permanent residences and com-
mercial and institutional uses within the proposed service area, the annual
user costs for the different alternatives were computed based on population
equivalents. The population equivalents provide an indication of the
number of people within a particular area based on the number of permanent
residences, seasonal residences, hotel and motel units, and campgrounds.
Different population equivalents are assigned to each of the uses to re-
flect the differences between, for example, the number of people that
typically reside in a permanent dwelling and the average number of people
in a hotel or motel unit. The actual allocation of user charges between
different types of uses (i.e., residential, commercial, institutional,
year-round, seasonal) would be determined by the implementing authority
prior to construction. The 1980 population equivalents used to compute the
user costs associated with the project alternatives are presented in Table
4-3. The user costs by alternative for each community are summarized in
Table 4-4.
Wastewater treatment facilities can create significant financial
impacts for communities and users who will pay the capital, operation,
maintenance, and debt costs associated with sewage treatment facilities.
4-55
-------
Table 4-3. 1980 Population Equivalents (PE) for Egg Harbor, Fish Creek,
Ephraim and Baileys Harbor service areas.
, Seasonal
a b c
Permanent Seasonal Transient Total
Egg Harbor
d
1980 dwelling unitse 108
Population-per-unit 2.07
1980 Population Equivalents (PE) 224
200
3.0
600
161
2.8
451
469
1275
Fish Creek
1980 dwelling units£
Population-per-unit
1980 PE
79
2.34
185
123
3.0
369
216
2.8
605
418
1159
Ephraim
1980 dwelling units£
Population-per-unit
1980 PE
141
1.96
276
291
3.0
773
265
2.8
742
697
1791
Baileys Harbor
1980 dwelling units
Population-per-unit
1980 PE
149
2.32
347
169
3.0
507
c f
135 /20
2.8/3.26
378/65
463
1297
Permanent (principal) residences (single family dwellings).
Seasonal single family dwellings, condominiums, and apartments.
ft
"Hotel and motel units.
Dwelling units within onsite and off-site component service area based on
house count.
:>
Population-per-unit from 1980 Census data.
Campground spaces.
4-56
-------
Table 4-4. Annual user costs for alternatives.
1
Annual Cost per Population Equivalent
Alternative With State Grant Without State Grant
Egg Harbor
2A " $106.12 $157.73
2B 133.33 192.63
3 94.20 145.25
4 85.65 126.12
5 93.57 129.10
6 130.12 175.45
7 71.92 93.65
Fish Creek
2 $177.95 $263.24
3 169.11 255.13
4 140.12 230.72
5 149.53 245.55
6 175.84 263.76
7 239.26 263.50
Ephra im
2 " $191.74 $303.69
3 140.76 210.16
4 138.36 190.69
5 99.55 154.10
6 97.15 114.52
Baileys Harbor;
2A ' $214.57 $306.78
2B 232.15 331.61
3 219.89 316.42
4 208.71 311.87
5 206.71 292.21
6 185.81 229.22
1
1980 population equivalents for each community based on permanent, seasonal
and transient population (Table 4-3).
4-57
-------
Two guidelines for determining the magnitude of these impacts are the State
of Wisconsin limitation on municipal indebtedness to 5% of the full equal-
ized value of general property and the USEPA average annual user charge to
median household income ratio (USEPA 1981c). The individual communities
would assume the local share of additional debt under any of the "build"
alternatives. In the case of the two unincorporated communities, Fish
Creek and Baileys Harbor, sewer districts formed to implement a wastewater
collection and treatment project would be responsible for the local share
of additional debt. The total debt to full equalized value ratios as-
sociated with the project alternatives, with and without State grants, are
presented in Table 4-5 through 4-8.
Table 4-5 indicates that for Egg Harbor, the implementation of Alter-
native 2A, 2B, 3, 4, and 6 would result in the 5% debt limit being exceeded
if a State grant were unavailable. None of the Egg Harbor Alternatives
would cause the debt limit to be exceeded, though, if a State grant was
used.
In order to determine the debt to full equalized value ratios re-
sulting from the Fish Creek Alternatives, an assumption must be made about
the full equalized value within the proposed service area. Because Fish
Creek is unincorporated, information on full equalized value only is avail-
able at the Township level. To compute the ratios, it was assumed that the
proposed Fish Creek service area represents 50% of the full equalized value
of Gibraltar Township. On this basis, all of the proposed Alternatives
would result in the 5% debt limit being exceeded, with the exception of
Alternative 7, upgraded onsite systems for all subareas (Table 4-6).
Alternative 7, with or without a State grant, would not cause the debt
limit to be exceeded.
In Ephraim, Alternative 2 would exceed the debt limit, regardless of
whether a State grant was available or not. In addition, the implemen-
tation of Alternatives 3 and 4 without a State grant would cause the debt
limit to be exceeded (Table 4-7).
4-58
-------
0 ^
4-1 1 CU
C 4-13
CO ,0 rH
VJ (U CO
t>0 Q >
Sf rH
• •
sf ro
0)
cO
4->
CO Tj
4-1 N
3 iH
0 rH
jS cfl CU
4-1 33
•H tr rH
? W cfl
•0 rH
(3 rH
CO 3
Pn
3 ij
« cu
cu P
•H rH
4-1 CO
CO 4-1
a o
M H
(U
4-1
rH
CO 4-1
c
r»N Cfl
O
«T a>
3 -4-*
rH Cfl
Cfl 4-<
I-l
id CO 4J
CU JS 3
N WO
CO CO -H
3 +J St
II
O
CN
f.
ON
O
^
CN
1 1
O O
0 O
rH Sf
ON CO
ro sf
O r-.
» ^
i-l rH
II
O
o
ON
*
00
rH
so
»
rH
U< -H
*
rH rH
II
0
O
oo
f.
\o
ro
oo
f-
rH
II
O
o
^o
*•
CO
fN».
o
»
i-H
+
O
O
in
^
CM
PQ
CM
CO rH
• •
sf ro
II
0
o
CN
f>
ON
O
^"
CN
1 1
0 O
o o
00 O
ro m
m CM
o ro
f> ft
rH rH
II
0
0
in
f.
o
o
SO
*
rH
U
O
0
CO
ft
CO
CO
ON
+
o
o
m
sO
CO
SO
+
o
o
in
^
CM
,_{
m
00 CM
• •
CO SO
H
O
ON
CM
*
ON
O
sf
sf
CM
1 1
0 O
O O
ro m
* *
sf r-
CN O
ON in
•*
H
II
O
0
0
ft
ro
00
CO
ft
rH
U
O
0
CN
f.
O
o
oo
+
O
o
m
sf
CM
,__f
sO
rH CN
• *
CM CO
II
O
ON
CN
M
ON
O
sf
sf
CM
1 1
0 0
O O
sf sf
m
-------
4J 0 ^
cfl 1 0)
M 4-> 3
00 J3 H
0) tfl
O ON
• •
vO ON
cfl
1 i
•8
4-> N
3 -H
O rH
r=! CO 0)
•H CT1 rH
5 W cfl
^
T3 rH
C! rH
nj ^3
3 j_j
» 0)
01 Q
•H H
4-> cfl
cfl 4J
C 0
l-i H
0)
4-1
rH
CO 4-1
C
>> to
fj i i
O
0) 01
3 4->
rH Cfl
Cfl 4->
£> d) c/}
M
"O Cfl 4->
vV i 3
N CO O
•rl 42
CO CO -H
3 4-> 12
II
m
ON
°1
ON
vO
in
*
in
CM
1 1
oo oo
ro ro
<^ 0^
t-T rH
CM
vO
%^
^>
rt
CN
a» a.
^4,
rH ti
3 rH CO
l*H Cfl M
o o
<4H O
O (J 0>
+"•
00 4-1
Cfl CO
0) 4->
CJ -iH
M 3:
II
o
o
CM
vo"
CN
-a-
rH
01
ex,
cfl O
00
CO ON
Cfl rH
^J ^J
01 01
13 Q
s^ txQ
0) p.
a> -H
M 4->
CJ CO
•H
* ^
vO *f^
1 4J
•^ to
a
CU M
H 0)
Cfl rH
H T £f
**
rH
vO
CO
*
CM
II
0
O
-^
r>T
CM
rO
r-T
+
00
CM
m
ON
^j«
o m
• •
vO O
rH
II
m
ON
ON
ON
vO
m
»
in
CM
1 1
oo oo
ro ro
rH in
ro r-
ro in
m vo
•• *
i-H CN
II
O
O
ro
*
CM
VO
in
*
CM
II
O
O
ON
r>T
ro
-*^
rH
+
OO
ro
CM
*
m
ON
in
ON O
• •
in o
rH
II
m
ON
ON
ON
vO
m
»
m
CM
1 I
oo oo
ro ro
vo r***
vo m
rH -*
in m
•* »
rH CM
II
O
o
m
*
0
in
-
II
o
o
ro
1C
ro
-*
+
oo
ro
CN
*
m
ON
fs^
-------
1 B*~N
0 ^
4^
-[ * +j 3
ti i-O *™H
cd cu cd
M P >
-3- oo
e A
vO O
rH
00
OJ
cd cu
•P N
CO TH
rH
•P Cd 1)
3 33
O C74 rH
-c w cd
'J* rH
•d w
II
O
vO
CM
»
in
vO
0
vo"
cd
I I
fi -P
•H CU
3 P
rH
0) tfl
^ ^J
•H O
•P H
CM CM
m in
fC rT
CM in
ON ON
» f
CM Si-
VJ
CU 4-J
•P C
rH Cd
cd M
O
ja ,£ 3
CO O
CU rH -P
N cd -H
•H +J 25
i-H -H
rH Otf
rH Cd U
rH O C3
3 O
<4H rJ
JJ
O -P
CO
cu
OO -C
P -H
C 3=
01
lt
0
O
*
in
CO
CTN
*
-ft
((
0
o
ON
o
rH
ON
*
CM
o
M
0) O
PL, OO
ON
cd i-H
W -P
cd J3
cu
P O
0) 00
•rt
0 -P
•9 CO
cd -H
Cu
-J-
CM
m
ft
\^2
rH
w
0)
* ^
1 -p
rt
CU M
rH 0)
f^ ij
Cd rH
H «aj
CM
o r-
« «
-d- vO
II
0
vO
CM
A
in
vO
O
vO
1 1
CM CM
in m
VO CM
oo' co
•^ ^^
00 rH
•* ft
rH C*O
u
o
o
oo
n
^O
00
o
*
CO
II
0
o
CM
CM
CO
oo
ft
rH
H-
CM
m
"^
vo
CO
CM CO
* «
co
rH CM
II
o
o
ON
»
ON
ON
CO
*
CM
II
O
0
-*
^
m
-<3*
f>
r-H
^~
CM
m
"^.
vO
<>"
ON O
« 0
CM m
II
o
vO
CM
»
m
vO
o
vO
I i
CM CM
m in
in vo
CM ON
rH ON
CO CM
« *>
rH CM
II
0
O
CM
•>
CO
CO
CS1
«l
CM
1!
O
O
rH
vO
0\
CM
*
rH
4-
CM
m
"*,
vO
U-l
rH 00
• •
rH r-H
II
O
vO
CM
t>
m
vO
o
vO
I i
CM CM
in in
vO vo
in ON
rH CM
m oo
II
o
o
CM
»
CO
rH
00
II
o
O
CM
ON
ON
-(.
CM
in
~^,
vO
rH
vO
4-61
-------
•'. I..
<»' •
1C
-....MM""""
1a
-I 2
II™ ,
4
1b
.»•
Figure 2-3. Subareas for Ephraim.
feet A
1000
-------
2b
2a
Figure 2- 4. Subareas for Kangaroo Lake.
-------
/'V. ''''"••.," / / ";'!'" "V* .--- -•'~r'.'~'i.s"'.""''•••- -T%ses . DI^.. . " / \
-/ • '/» '''l'i't, ~ i / ''•$'•/' ^^^ '•' -'' " .^. _t_-i-=-ij!^«IL-V-."*--" . ,c Vl (
;-• 5
'* ' "
-18
I 17
I /-"\
Figure 2-5. Subareas for B
7 .
4 •/••-.
alleys,
;' ,", J 0 ' • JIOOO
f > i
i
tfcfrbor.
-------
2b
1bn
1bs \
XA.
f"
-"••••••••.
LEGEND
COLLECTION SEWER
FORGE MAIN
LIFT STATION
Figure 2-17. Egg Harbor- Conventional gravity collection system 6
for Alternatives 2A & 2B, STE gravity collection system for Alternative 3,
and force main to WWTP and WWTP for Alternatives 2A, 2B, & 4.
-------
2b
•«..,„
1bn '*
3
LEGEND
.;; • , »«' <" ; —— COLLECTION SEWER
'-•—•- FORCE MAIN
/ ' ', - • LIFT STATION
/ • . .feet ', J^ •_
Figure 2-18. Egg Harbor- Conventional gravity collection system o 1000 t
fop Alternatives 4 & 6, STE gravity collection system for Alternative 5, *
and force main to treatment sites for Alternatives 3, 5, & 6. " " '
-------
H <5'
m c
to
< i
« 10
< Q
g_ 3,
8 I
I "
3 (0
O
•<
M
a
3 o
o 3
=1 to
> El
5 §
3 »
Si «
< 3
8 i
*> *=
«• 8
P1 f
o
6'
D
W
><
w
3
CD
N)
OJ
3
a
J
J
o S
o
^
•
r~ •
TJ
H
CO
H
> l
-t
O
z
r
-n
O
JO
o
m
S
>
i
1
o
O
r~ .
i—
m
o
H
0
z
CO
m
m
0
m
o
_. „
» H
m
2. a
n
Q) O
2". O
O =
O -
~" O
~ ID
o" 3
O
m
CO
i
Di (n 3
US'
(Q 3" >
^!|.
CD cr P>
•n 3 » 21.
• a <
=•0 a -
3 "i (ft
in » *
£ S «•
' r «
Woo.
= - o
7 o
Sj 3
CD
ffi
CO
-------
COLLECTION SEWER
, FORCE MAIN
LIFT STATION
Figure 2-22. Ephraim - Conventional gravity collection
system & WWTP location for Alternative 2.
-------
u
LU
o
tc
0.
>
Z
3
O
U
cc
o
o
Q
w
_i
O
Q
z y
! I
OJ
G
a
o
0)
'o
k_
Q.
3
O
o
k.
o
o
T3
p
i
O)
L
-------
o
-------
, / -joi]jBH 663 JQJ seajeqns 'I-Z
o.x:,.
V f* r'
x>i; J
* >.,x
\ uqt
-------
IO
* -
CO:
CO
CO
CO
•"Mm-
CM I
o
.c
10
10
ra
-------
1C
v°
""•'•'"v
LEGEND
COLLECTION SEWER
FORCE MAIN
LIFT STATION
Figure 2-23. Ephraim - Conventional gravity collection system
for Alternatives 3 & 4, STE gravity collection system for
Alternative 5, & WWTP location for Alternatives 3, 4 & 5.
-------
8a
LEGEND
Figure 2-25. Baileys Harbor - Conventional gravity collection
system for Alternatives 2A, 2B, & 3.
- COLLECTION SEWER
- FORCE MAIN
', LIFT STATION
feet ,
1000
-------
NOTE - STE gravity &nd pressure
collection systems are similar.
STE pressure collection system
has no lift station.
8a
LEGEND
Figure 2-26. Baileys Harbor - Conventional gravity collection
system for Alternatives 4 & 5.
COLLECTION SEWER
FORCE MAIN
LIFT STATION
feet ;
1000
-------
ID
C
Z 2
§ i
o I
S 3
* D (
C- ri 01 C?yi 03
§ 13 If5
z 3 a s „ a
H |O 5!LO
!S IIS
15 Jig
io =15
5 2 ,S o
— ' B
OO m
= 00
«>3>
T^HQ
OQO
2z»
sf a —
CA
C>
»z
m0
m
-------
-------
c
-\
a>
co
i
co
O
(D
01
03
O
O
3
tfi
-------
(Q
c
U
I
CO
I
3
(D
wm
CO
3)3
-no
5o
df
Si
TJ
i*
-
m m
eg
9 O
-------
Id
c
CO
I
en
01
CO
•n o
JD m
O -o
_,Z
si
<= m H
|do
J£2
S ij m
iS-
iSs
lal
i b H
" 2 m
3
M
<0 I
C m
Si
52
ms
-H
m
3)
M
a P
^3
•n-4
ml
"1 •
-------
3)
ID'
CO
i
o>
0)
u
r z
i o
o 5
I i
o "
3 _1
S N»
O S?
DO
m o
30
S
O
33
m
-------
s
J I I E<50 HARBOR J
"" fT 1 BAILEYS HARBOR I
-------
in
c
CO
I
01
0DI0
! S
\
m
O
m
O
O
m
a
-------
(Q
C
CO
I
CD
0||M||-I p
0
Q Q 2 ^
m
C5 N -» >
m
-\
-------
(Q
C
CO
I
-------
CO
c
CO
I
3
Q.
C
u
(D
•DQD in >
5 O H 3 S TJ Z ?E
§ c 3 m ;r m j, O
O i} > W » 2 H
3 § 1 S II | 5
* % o 5 s= ? m
D O
•I
2 30
o m
S 2
S i
I c
i =
£ =
S m
-------
3!
CD
CO
I
N
O
3
\
OOO3) 33 JJ U 33 O >
i i i m i i i i o i
o> ro -> o -fc co ro -i z -»
N
O
2
-------
(O
c
CO
I
3 = 3)
II
-------
(D
C
CO
I
Di
ct>
£"
-1
13
>
§ 5,2
W C/i Q
i l§
>
30
3
-------
c
-*
at
u
i
* • *
O
C
o
c
c
-^
CD
ID
CO
\
!3it3iil
iS'lgfls
18 IS* I|s
l« gtg SS2
13 :I i
39
C
33
m
(A
- -
-------
,*— \
1 6-S
O ^
01 1 01
4J 4->3
CO ^5 rH
4-* CU CO
c/3 p >
4-1
3
O T3
J=. 0)
4-> N
* 3
CO 01
TJ 33
C C7
,£ iH
4-J tH
* £
oT
^ it
p 4->
•H J3
4-1 01
CO P
c
P iH
oi cd
4-1 4J
rH O
CO H
>^
J2
4-1
c
01 cfl
3 M
rH O
cfl
> 01
4J
T3 cfl
01 4->
N 0) CO
•H l-i
iH ro 4-1
cfl J2 3
3 t/: o
IT r«
01 rH 4-1
cfl -H
rH 4J &
tH -H
H -*
• •
oo co
rH
II
CM
CO
o
ft
•H
m
P-
*
CM
CN
1 1
O 0
o o
00 ON
** *>
rH 00
CO co
00 O
»• ft
rH CO
II
o
o
ON
•t
oo
rH
o
fl
CO
3 ft
«4H Cfl
O -P
**H (3
O rH cfl
cfl p
01 O O
60 O
CO r4 01
4-* 4-J
a co
CU 4-J
CJ W
L-1
W
CU X!
O, 4->
•H
CO S
II
0
o
oo
rH
rH
co
rH
CO
cfl
O
4-> 00
jO O"N
OI iH
T3
4J
M J2
O 0)
-0 P
t-l
id w)
K fl
iH
10 4-1
>-, • to
OI 4J -r)
rH d X
•H cfl W
+
O
o
o
ft
o
CN
cfl M
PQ &Q
01
* ^
00 -rH
1 4J
rH rH
II
H
O
vO
»
ON
VO
r~.
•»
oo
iH
1 1
O 0
0 0
00 rH
** ft
o oo
00 rH
ON CO
* *
rH CO
II
O
o
vO
»
rH
o
CO
»
CO
II
o
o
CM
*
O CN
•0- H
ON in
*
rH
II
O
0
P-
ft
m
CJN
<3-
ft
iH
II
O
O
vO
CO
CN
ON
+
O
o
m
ft
vO
rH
vO
-------
The determination of the debt to full equalized value ratio in Baileys
Harbor also requires the use of assumptions as to the proportion of the
full equalized value within the proposed service area as compared to the
overall Township. For Alternatives 2A, 2B, and 3, which encompass Subareas
3 and 6, it was assumed that the service area represents 40% of the Baileys
Harbor Township full equalized value. For Alternatives 4, 5, and 6, which
encompass Subarea 3, it was assumed that the service area represents 33% of
the Township's equalized value. Based on these assumptions, the only
alternative that would not cause the 5% debt limit to be exceeded is Alter-
native 6 with a State grant (Table 4-8) .
The USEPA considers projects to be expensive and as having an adverse
impact on the finances of the users when average annual user charges are:
• 1.0% of median household incomes less than $10,000
• 1.5% of median household incomes between $10,000 and $17,000
• 1.75% of median household incomes greater than $17,000.
Information on median household incomes for the project area commu-
nities currently is not available. However, according to 1980 census data
that are available, the 1980 median household income in Door County was
$15,810 (By telephone, Mr. Roger Nacker, Wisconsin Department of Develop-
ment, to WAPORA, Inc., 29 October 1982). It is possible to estimate the
median household incomes for the project area communities by comparing the
1980 per capita incomes for the communities with the 1980 per capita income
for Door County (Table 3-26). Assuming that the ratios between the per
capita incomes for each community and the Door County per capita income are
the same for median household incomes, the estimated 1980 median household
incomes for the four communities are:
Egg Harbor - $18,055 Fish Creek - $14,861
Ephraim - $23,715 Baileys Harbor - $15,431
Average annual user costs expressed as a percentage of median house-
hold income are presented in Table 4-9. The analysis only is applicable to
permanent residents, however. Because of the mixture of permanent and
seasonal residential and commercial uses, and their differing contributions
4-63
-------
>• to the projected wastewater flows, the average annual user costs were
calculated on a population equivalent (PE) basis. In order to compare the
* user costs with the median household incomes, the PE based user costs for
each alternative were multiplied by the household size factors for the
particular community (US Bureau of the Census 1981, Table 3-13) to deter-
mine the total annual user costs for permanent residential households.
These total user costs then were divided by the median household income for
the community. These estimated user costs for permanent households could
vary, though, depending on the way in which the project costs are allocated
between residential and commercial uses and seasonal and permanent uses.
Although a specific methodology is not available for evaluating the finan-
cial impact of the alternatives on seasonal and commercial uses, it is
likely that the financial impacts will be similar to those for permanent
residents.
The analysis indicates that none of the Egg Harbor alternatives would
exceed the 1.75% USEPA guideline, if a State grant was available. If a
State grant was not available, Alternatives 2A, 2B, 3, and 5 would result
in average annual user costs to permanent residences that exceed the 1.75%
guideline.
For both Baileys Harbor and Fish Creek, the estimated user costs would
represent a significant financial burden, regardless of whether a State
grant was used or not. In Fish Creek, the user cost to median household
income ratios range from 2.5% for Alternative 4 (with State grant) to 4.6%
for Alternatives 2, 6, and 7 (without State grant) . Because median house-
hold incomes in Fish Creek are less than $17,000, a project with a user
cost ratio greater than 1.5% would be considered expensive by USEPA. In
Baileys Harbor, the ratios range from 3.0% for Alternative 6 (with State
grant) to 4.1% for Alternative 2B (without State grant). Median household
incomes in Baileys Harbor also are less than $17,000 and thus subject to
the 1.5% guideline.
Ephraim has the highest median household income of the four communi-
ties and consequently the estimated user costs have a less significant
impact. If a State grant was available, only Alternative 2 would cause the
4-64
-------
Table 4-9. Average annual user costs by alternative for permanent resi-
dences as a percentage of median household income .
User Cost/Median Household Income Ratio
Alternative With State Grant Without State Grant
Egg Harbor
2A " 1.3% 1.9%
2B 1.6 2.4
3 1.2 1.8
4 1.1 1.6
5 1.2 1.6
6 1.6 2.2
7 0.9 1.2
Fish Creek
2 3.1% 4.6%
3 3.0 4.5
4 2.5 4.0
5 2.6 4.3
6 3.1 4.6
7 4.2 4.6
Ephraim
2 1.9% 3.0%
3 1.4 2.1
4 1.4 1.9
5 1.0 1.5
6 1.0 1.1
Baileys Harbor
2A ' 3.4% 4.9%
2B 3.7 5.1
3 3.5 5.0
4 3.3 5.0
5 3.3 4.7
6 3.0 3.7
The USEPA considers a project expensive when average annual user costs are
1.5% of median household income between $10,000 and $15,000 (Fish Creek
and Baileys Harbor) and 1.75% of median household income greater than $17,000
(Ephraim and Egg Harbor). User costs for permanent residences were cal-
culated by multiplying the population equivalent user costs by the 1980
average household size (person-per-unit) factors for each community.
4-65
-------
1.75% guideline to be exceeded. If a State grant was not available, Alter-
natives 5 and 6 could still be implemented without significant financial
*
impacts.
Based on these analyses, it appears that many of the project alterna-
tives would have an adverse financial impact on community residents, as
measured by their capability to afford the estimated average annual user
costs. The capital costs of some of the alternatives also could have a
significant negative impact on the financial condition of the individual
communities. The financial burden imposed by the additional debt that is
incurred could limit the ability of each community to engage in other
capital improvement projects and potentially could impact their ability to
provide other public services (e.g., police and fire protection) at a level
consistent with that which is currently being provided.
4.2. Secondary Impacts
Each of the alternatives, including the No Action Alternative, will
have effects that extend beyond primary or indirect impacts. These secon-
dary impacts could occur because improvements in wastewater treatment can
lead to changes in the project area that in turn induce or stimulate other
actions that would not have taken place in the absence of a project. The
categories that may experience signficant secondary impacts are described
in the following sections.
4.2.1. Demographics
The availability and capacity of wastewater treatment systems histo-
rically has been a major factor in determining the ability of an area to
support population growth and development. Onsite wastewater treatment
facilities, although generally available to any potential user, limit
development to areas with suitable soil and site characteristics. Sewer
systems, while not always available at a specific location or with adequate
capacity, allow development to be more site independent because soil,
slope, and drainage become less constraining design parameters. Conse-
quently, the construction of sewers in an unsewered area usually increases
4-66
-------
the inventory of buildable land and provides for development at greater"*
densities, both of which can enhance population growth.
*
The construction of wastewater collection and treatment facilities in
the project area communities could lead to additional growth in excess of
that which is all ready projected. However, the primary impetus for faci-
lities planning in the project area has been a concern about the potential
for groundwater contamination as a result of inadequate onsite systems.
Facilities planning has been proceeding on the basis that there may be a
need to correct an existing problem. Facilities planning has not had,
however, the underlying assumption that sewers may be needed to accommodate
projected growth. The proposed service areas in each of the communities
essentially are "built-out". Some additional infill development could take
place, but it cannot be concluded that the absence of sewer systems is
inhibiting growth from taking place. High growth rates were experienced in
each of the communities between 1972 and 1980 in spite of the lack of
centralized wastewater collection and treatment facilities. Residential
development has taken place throughout the project area and although water-
front areas appear to be preferred, development does not seem to be con-
centrating in any particular locations.
If sewers are constructed in a community, it is possible that the
sewered area might "capture" some of the projected growth at the expense of
other, unsewered areas. However, it also is possible that because of the
density of existing development within the proposed service areas, the
limited amount of buildable land within the service areas, and the funda-
mental attraction of the area as a recreational and retirement area, the
sewered areas might not offer any particular competitive advantage over
unsewered areas.
As discussed in Section 3.2.2., high population growth rates are
projected for the area in the next twenty years. Other factors, though,
probably will have a greater effect on population growth. These include
land costs, site and locational amenities, and variations in demand between
permanent and seasonal dwellings. It is possible that sewering an area
would unleash some unrealized demand for permanent residences. Because of
4-67
-------
the relatively high cost associated with year round reliance on a holding
tank, a majority of the permanent population growth currently could be
attracted to Sister Bay or Sturgeon Bay (which have centralized collection
and treatment systems) or to, outlying areas that are suitable for septic
tank - soil absorption systems. The availability of sewer systems could
increase the attraction of the project area communities for year round
residences. It also is possible that induced growth could be an important
factor in one community, for a variety of reasons, and of little conse-
quence in another community.
4.2.2. Land Use
Economic and other considerations (Section 3.2.3.) probably will be a
greater factor influencing changes in land use in the project area during
the planning period than the provision of wastewater facilities. The
availability of wastewater collection and treatment facilities within the
proposed service area could result in additional infill development, either
residential or commercial. Development also could take place at higher
densities than would occur if onsite systems were used. As discussed in
the previous section, it is possible that a greater proportion of the
projected growth could take place within the sewered areas. It also is
possible, though, that other factors such as site amenities, costs, lo-
cation, and access will be more important considerations than the avail-
ability of sewer service to builders of new property. If this is the case,
then growth within the sewer service area should not be more intense than
growth outside the sewer service areas.
Prime Agricultural Land
Little prime agricultural farmland is likely to be taken out of pro-
duction to accommodate wastewater treatment facilities. This will result
in a minimal net loss of food and fibre which was previously produced or
could have been produced on this land. Because induced growth is not
anticipated from the implementation of the alternatives, the threat to
prime agricultural farmland usually associated with the construction of
wastewater facilities is reduced. However, as additional land is developed
4-68
-------
to accommodate projected growth, the supply of prime farmland could di- "
minish.
•
The amount of prime farmland that is converted to other land uses will
depend to a great extent on the growth management policies of the Villages,
Townships, and/or Door County. A large proportion of the project area is
zoned either A-l, Agricultural or CON, Conservation (Figure 3-12). The
maintenance of these zoning classifications will lessen the conversion of
prime farmland to non-farm use. There appears to be enough vacant build-
able land within the four communities in residential or commercial zoning
to accommodate the projected growth. Thus, regardless of whether centra-
lized collection and treatment systems are or are not constructed, the
application of appropriate zoning designations and other growth management
techniques can be used to maintain existing agricultural operations.
4.2.3. Surface Water
Increased housing development along lake shores may increase nutrient
and sediment loads into Green Bay or Lake Michigan as a result of the
following:
• increased runoff from construction of impervious surfaces
such as rooftops, parking areas, and paved roads
• increased housing density normally accelerates storm water
runoff thereby increasing not only the amount of runoff, but
also its ability to erode soil and to transport contaminants
• lawn and garden fertilization may create unnaturally high
nutrient levels in runoff.
4.2.4. Recreation and Tourism
Any increase or decrease of tourism and recreational activities within
the project area attributable to the operation of wastewater facilities
under the "build" alternatives would occur when a quantum change in water
quality occurs. A significant decline in water quality would cause fewer
tourists to visit the project area. Permanent and seasonal residents of
the project area would likely decrease some of their recreational activi-
ties under these conditions.
4-69
-------
A significant increase in water quality may contribute to an increase
of recreational activities among local residents and tourists within the
project area. Too great an increase in development and tourism, however,
could have a negative impact on the area if the physical and cultural
amenities of the area were diminished. A concern over the potential for
well contamination as a result of failing onsite systems under the No
Action Alternative would detract from the reputation of the area as a
desirable recreational area. Recreation and tourist activities would
likely decline. A management program for identifying and upgrading failing
onsite systems would obviate this potential.
4.2.5. Economics
Economic growth should continue in conjunction with projected popula-
tion growth and development. The availability of centralized collection
and treatment systems within the service areas could result in additional
commercial development such as hotels, motels, and restaurants. This ad-
ditional development would depend, though, as much on ancillary economic
factors such as costs, the tourist potential of the area, the limits of
market saturation, etc., as on the availability of sewer service. Most
large commercial uses in the service areas currently use holding tanks and
the absence of sewers probably does not represent a constraint to expan-
sion. If additional commercial development did occur as a result of the
construction of sewers and WWTPs, the local economy would benefit from the
increased tax revenues and employment opportunities. These potential
benefits are not quantifiable, however.
As discussed in Section 3.2.3.3.1. Income Levels, the project area is
characterized by a small poverty level population. Although the population
of northern Door County is increasing, the number of participants in the
food stamp program and other public assistance efforts has declined. Thus,
it would be expected that few residents with low incomes or fixed incomes
would be displaced as a result of the user charges and special assessments
associated with the project alternatives.
4-70
-------
4.3. Mitigation of Adverse Impacts
As previously discussed, various adverse impacts would be associated
with the proposed alternatives. Many of these adverse impacts could be
reduced significantly by the application of mitigative measures. These
mitigative measures consist of a variety of legal requirements, planning
measures, and design practices. The extent to which these measures are
applied will determine the ultimate impact of the particular action.
Potential measures for alleviating construction, operation, and secondary
effects presented in Sections 4.1 and 4.2 are discussed in the following
sections.
4.3.1. Mitigation of Construction Impacts
The construction oriented impacts presented in Section 4.1. primarily
are short-term effects resulting from construction activities at WWTP sites
or along the route of proposed sewer systems. Proper design should mini-
mize the potential impacts and the plans and specifications should incor-
porate mitigative measures consistent with the following discussion.
The impact of noise from blasting for rock removal could be minimized
by scheduling and public notification of the time, location, and extent of
the work.
Fugitive dust from the excavation and backfilling operations for the
sewers, force mains, and treatment plants could be minimized by various
techniques. Frequent street sweeping of dirt from construction activites
would reduce the major source of dust. Prompt repaving of roads disturbed
by construction also could reduce dust effectively. Construction site,
spoil piles, and unpaved access roads should be wetted periodically to
minimize dust. Soil stockpiles and backfilled trenches should be seeded
with a temporary or permanent seeding or covered with mulch to reduce
susceptibility to wind erosion.
Street cleaning at sites where trucks and equipment gain access to
construction sites and of roads along which a sewer or force main would be
4-71
-------
constructed would reduce loose dirt that otherwise would generate dust,
create unsafe driving conditions, or be washed into roadside ditches or
storm drains.
Exhaust emission and noise from construction equipment could be mini-
mized by proper equipment maintenance. The resident engineer should have
and should exercise the authority to ban from the site all poorly main-
tained equipment. Soil borings along the proposed force main rights-of-way
conducted during system design, would identify organic soils that have the
potential to release odors when excavated. These areas could be bypassed
by rerouting the force main if, depending on the location, a significant
impact might be expected.
Spoil disposal sites should be identified during the project design
stage to ensure that adequate sites are available and that disposal site
impacts are minimized. Landscaping and restoration of vegetation should be
conducted immediately after disposal is completed to prevent impacts from
dust generation and unsightly conditions.
Lands disturbed by trenching for force main construction should be
regraded and compacted as necessary to prevent future subsidence. However,
too much compaction will result in conditions unsuitable for vegetation.
Areas disturbed by trenching and grading at the plant site should be
revegetated as soon as possible to prevent erosion and dust generation.
Native plants and grasses should be used. This also will facilitate the
re-establishment of wildlife habitat.
Construction-related disruption in the community can be minimized
through considerate contractor scheduling and appropriate public announce-
ments. The State and County highway departments have regulations concerning
roadway disruptions, which should be rigorously applied. Special care
should be taken to minimize disruption of access to frequently visited
establishments. Announcements should be published in local newspapers and
broadcast from local radio stations to alert drivers of temporary traffic
disruption on primary routes. Street closing and blasting schedules should
4-72
-------
be announced by fliers delivered to each affected household.
4
Planning of routes for heavy construction equipment and materials
should ensure that surface load restrictions are considered. In this way,
damage to streets and roadways would be avoided. Trucks hauling excavation
spoil to disposal sites or fill material to the WWTP sites should be routed
along primary arterials to minimize the threat to public safety and to
reduce disturbance along residential streets.
Erosion and sedimentation must be minimized at all construction sites.
USEPA Program Requirements Memorandum 78-1 establishes requirements for
control of erosion and runoff from construction activites. Adherence to
these requirements would serve to mitigate potential problems:
• Construction site selection should consider potential occur-
rence of erosion and sediment losses
• The project plan and layout should be designed to fit the
local topography and soil conditions
• When appropriate, land grading and excavating should be kept
at a minimum to reduce the possibility of creating runoff
and erosion problems which require extensive control meas-
ures
• Whenever possible, topsoil should be removed and stockpiled
before grading begins
• Land exposure should be minimized in terms of area and time
• Exposed areas subject to erosion should be covered as quick-
ly as possible by mean of mulching or vegetation
• Natural vegetation should be retained whenever feasible
• Appropriate structural or agronomic practices to control
runoff and sedimentation should be provided during and after
construction
• Early completion of stabilized drainage systems (temporary
and permanent systems) will substantially reduce erosion
potential
• Access roadways should be paved or otherwise stabilized as
soon as feasible
4-73
-------
• Clearing and grading should not be started until a firm con-
struction schedule is known and can be effectively coordi-
nated with the grading and clearing activities.
The Natural Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Executive Order 11593
(1971), the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974, and the
1973 Procedures of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation requires
that care must be taken early in the planning process to identify cultural
resources and minimize adverse effects on them. The State Historic Preser-
vation Officer must have an opportunity to determine that the requirements
have been satisfied.
Known archaeological sites should be avoided. After an alternative is
selected and design work begins, a thorough pedestrian archaeological
survey may be required for those areas affected by the proposed facility.
In addition to the information already collected and consultation with the
State Historic Preservation Officer and other knowledgeable informants, a
controlled surface collection of discovered sites and minor subsurface
testing should be conducted. A similar survey would be required of his-
toric structures, sites, properties, and objects in and adjacent to the
construction areas, if they might be affected by the construction or opera-
tion of the project.
In consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer, it would
be determined if any of the resources identified by the surveys appears to
be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Subsequently, an
evaluation would be made of the probable effects of the project on these
resources and the mitigation procedures that are necessary.
4.3.2. Mitigation of Operation Impacts
The majority of potentially adverse operational impacts of the WWTP
alternatives are related to the discharge of effluent to surface waters.
For the land treatment alternative, the most significant potential adverse
effects are impacts on groundwater and possible health risks. For the
wetland discharge alternative, the most significant potential adverse
4-74
-------
impact is on the ecology of the entire vegetative community, i.e., the*
community as a whole as well as individual species. Adverse impacts asso-
ciated with the operation of cluster and onsite systems are primarily
related to malodorous conditions which may affect outdoor recreational
activities. Measures to minimize these and other operation phase impacts
from all the alternatives are discussed below.
Adverse impacts related to the operation of the proposed sewer systems
and treatment facilities would be minimal if the facilities are designed,
operated, and maintained properly. Aerosols, gaseous emissions, and odors
from the various treatment processes could be controlled to a large extent.
Above-ground pumps would be enclosed and installed to minimize sound im-
pacts. Concentrations of the effluent constituents discharged from the
WWTPs would be regulated by the conditions of the NPDES permits. The
effluent quality is specified by the WDNR and must be monitored. Proper
and regular maintenance of cluster and onsite systems also would maximize
the efficiency of these systems and minimize odors released from malfunc-
tioning systems.
Special care to control chlorination and effluent concentrations of
chlorine residuals should be taken to minimize adverse impacts to the
aquatic biota of study area surface waters. Tsai (1973) documented that
depressed numbers of fish and macroinvertebrates were found downstream from
outfalls discharging chlorinated effluent. No fish were found in water
with chlorine residuals greater than 0.37 mg/1, and the species diversity
index reached zero at 0.25 mg/1. Arthur and others (1975) reported that
concentrations of chlorine residuals lethal to various species of warm
water fish ranged from 0.09 to 0.30 mg/1. Furthermore, chlorination of
wastewater can result in the formation of halogenated organic compounds
that are potentially carcinogenic (USEPA 1976). Rapid mixing of chlorine
and design of contact chambers to provide long contact times, however, can
achieve the desired disinfection and the minimum chlorine residual dis-
charge (USEPA and others 1977c). Chlorination will require especially
careful application and routine monitoring to insure that chlorine residual
concentrations are kept to a minimum. The maximum chlorine residual al-
lowed by WDNR is 0.5 mg/1 (Section 2.2.1.2.). Therefore, the impact of
chlorine should be minimal.
4-75
-------
To avoid adverse Impacts on fish spawning areas, a proposed outfall
should be located beyond the cobble strata in the sands and silts. The
outfall structure should be provided with diffusers to disperse the flow.
An investigation of the hydrologic and biologic conditions of a pro-
posed wetland discharge site should be made prior to design to assure that
the additional water added to the site will not disturb the existing vege-
tation and fauna. The application system should be designed to disperse
the flow over a reasonable area.
In the document jederal Guidelines for Design, Operation, and Mainten-
ance of Wastewater Treatment Facilities (Federal Water Quality Administra-
tion 1970), it is required that:
All water pollution control facilities should be planned and
designed so as to provide for maximum reliability at all times.
The facilities should be capable of operating satisfactorily
during power failures, flooding, peak loads, equipment failure,
and maintenance shutdowns.
4.3.3. Mitigation of Secondary Impacts
As discussed in Section 4.2., few secondary impacts are expected to
occur during the operation of any of the "build" alternatives. Adequate
zoning, health, and water quality regulation and enforcement would minimize
these impacts. Local growth management planning would assist in regulating
the general location, density, and type of growth that might occur.
4.4. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Some impacts associated with the implementation of any of the "build"
alternatives cannot be avoided. The centralized collection and treatment
alternatives would have the following adverse impacts:
• Considerable short-term construction dust, noise, and traf-
fic nuisance
• Alteration of vegetation and wildlife habitat along the
sewer and force main corridors and at the WWTP sites
4-76
-------
Considerable erosion and siltation during construction
Discharge of BOD, SS and phosphorus at greater than ambient
levels to Green B
fall alternatives
levels to Green Bay or Lake Michigan with the WWTP and out-
• Alteration and destruction of wildlife habitat at the clus-
ter drainfield and mound sites
• Conversion of prime farmland to WWTP sites for some alter-
natives.
The decentralized alternatives that include primarily continued use of
existing and upgraded onsite systems and holding tanks for critical areas
would have the following adverse impacts:
• Some short-term construction dust, noise, and traffic nuis-
ance
• Some erosion and siltation during construction
• Discharge of percolate with elevated levels of nitrates and
chlorides from soil absorption systems to the groundwater
• Occasional ephemeral odors associated with pumping septic
tanks and holding tanks and trucking it to disposal sites
• User fees for management and operation of wastewater treat-
ment services for the residents within the proposed service
areas.
4.5. Irretrievable and Irreversible Resource Commitments
The major type and amounts of resources that would be committed
through the implementation of any of the "build" alternatives are presented
in Sections 4.1. and 4.2. Each of the alternatives would include some or
all of the following resource commitments:
• Fossil fuel, electrical energy, and human labor for facil-
ities construction and operation
• Chemicals, especially chlorine, for WWTP operation
• Tax dollars for construction and operation
• Some unsalvageable construction materials.
4-77
-------
For each alternative involving a WWTP, there is a significant con-
sumption of these resources with no feasible means of recovery. Thus,
non-recoverable resources would be foregone for the provision of the pro-
posed wastewater control system.
Accidents which could occur from system construction and operation
could cause irreversible bodily damage or death, and damage or destroy
equipment and other resources.
Unmitigated WWTP failure potentially could kill aquatic life in the
immediate mixing zone.
The potential accidental destruction of undiscovered archaeological
sites through excavation activities is not reversible. This would repre-
sent permanent loss of the site.
4-78
-------
5.0. LITERATURE CITED
Adams, L. 1979. After slow start, tourism now looking promising in
county. Door County Advocate (10 July), Sturgeon Bay WI, page *.
Anonymous. 1978. Door illustrated 1978. Door County Publishing Company,
Sturgeon Bay WI, 69 p.
Aronson, R. , and E. Schwartz (editors). 1975. Management policies in lo-
cal government finance. International City Managers Association,
Washington DC.
Arthur, J.W., and others. 1975. Comparative toxicity of sewage -
effluent disinfection to freshwater aquatic life. Water Pollution
Control Research Service, USEPA, Washington DC.
Bay - Lake Regional Planning Commission. 1975a. Bay - Lake Regional Plan-
ning Commission 1975 land use inventory summary form. Bay - Lake Re-
gional Planning Commission, Green Bay WI, 10 p.
Bay - Lake Regional Planning Commission. 1975b. General population charac-
teristics 1840-1970. Green Bay WI, 119 p.
Becker, George C. 1976. Inland fishes of the Lake Michigan drainage basin.
Environmental status of the Lake Michigan region, ANL/ES-40, Volume
17. Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne IL, 237 p.
Becher-Hoppe Engineers, Inc. 1972. Door County, Wisconsin comprehensive
sewer and water plan. Schofield WI, variously paged, 533 p.
Bertrand, G., J. Lang, and J. Ross. 1976. The Green Bay watershed past/
present/future. Univ. of Wisconsin Sea Grant College Program. Tech-
nical Report #229. Madison WI, 300 p.
Bishop, R.C., S. L. Vogel, G.G. Stevenson, and R. Weakland. 1978. Wiscon-
sin's Lake Michigan and Green Bay commercial fisheries. A statistical
overview. Department of Agricultural Economics, Center for Resource
Policy Studies and Programs, University of Wisconsin, Madison. Madi-
son WI, 48 p.
Brown, D.V., and R.K. White. 1977. Septage disposal alternatives in
rural areas. Research bulletin 1096. Ohio Agricultural Research and
Development Center, Wooster OH, 11 p.
Bureau of Economic Analysis. 1981. Regional economic information system
employment data. US Department of Commerce, Washington DC, 1 sheet.
Burt, W.H., and R.P. Grossenheider. 1976. A field guide to the mammals.
Third edition. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston MA, 289 p.
Cohen, S., and H. Wallman. 1974. Demonstration of waste flow reduction
from households. Environmental Protection Agency, National Environ-
mental Research Center, Cincinnati OH.
5-1
-------
Conant, R. 1975. A field guide to reptiles and amphibians of eastern and
central North America. Second edition. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston
MA, 429 p.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classifica-
tion of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. Pre-
pared for US Department of Interior, US Fish and Wildlife Service,
Washington DC, 103 p.
Demirjian, Y.A. 1975. Muskegon County wastewater management system. Pre-
pared for Design Seminar for Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater
Effluents sponsored by USEPA Technology Transfer Program. Muskegon
MI, 91 p.
Door County Board of Supervisors. 1964. Door County Comprehensive Plan-
ning Program. Assisted by Wisconsin Department of Resource Develop-
ment, Madison WI, 304 p.
Door County Chamber of Commerce. 1978. Door County, Wisconsin 1978 vaca-
tion guide. Door County Chamber of Commerce, Sturgeon Bay WI, 23 p.
Door County Chamber of Commerce. 1982. 1982 vacation guide. Sturgeon Bay
WI, 39 p.
Door County Historical Society. 1979. Inventory of historic sites and
structures. Sturgeon Bay WI.
E.A. Hickok and Associates. 1978. Effects of wastewater stabilization
pond seepage on groundwater quality. Prepared for the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency. Wayzata MN, variously paged.
Edwards, H., and H.H. Wheat. 1978. Seasonal trends in Denver atmospheric
lead concentrations. American Chemical Society, Ft. Collins CO.
Ellis, B.C., and A.E. Erickson. 1969. Movement and transformation of
various phosphorus compounds in soils. Soil Science Department,
Michigan State University and Michigan Water Resources Commission,
East Lansing MI, 35 p.
Enfield, C.G. 1978. Evaluation of phosphorus models for prediction of
percolate water quality in land treatment. In; McKim, Harlan L.
(Coordinator), State of knowledge in land treatment of wastewater,
vol. 1. US Army COE Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory,
Hanover NH, 436 p. (p. 153-162).
Federal Water Quality Administration. 1970. Federal guidelines for
design, operation, and maintenance of wastewater treatment facilities.
US Department of the Interior, Washington DC, 29 p.
Fernald, M.L. 1950. Gray's manual of botany. Eighth edition. Van No-
strand Co. New York NY, 1,632 p.
5-2
-------
Foth and Van Dyke and Associates, Inc. 1982. Facilities plan for waste*-
water collection, transmission and treatment facilities, Addendum 1;
Fish Creek Sanitary District No. 1. Green Bay WI, variously paged.
<
GLUMRB [Great Lakes-Upper Mississippi River Board of State Sanitary Engi-
neers]. 1978. Recommended standards for sewage treatment works.
Health Education Service, Inc., Albany NY, variously paged.
Gunderson, J.L. 1978. Vital statistics of the Lake Whitefish in three
areas of Green Bay, Lake Michigan with comparison to Lake Michigan
east of Door County, Wisconsin. Master's thesis, College of Natural
Resources, University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point WI, 64 p.
Hartig, J.H., and F.J. Horvath. 1982. A preliminary assessment of
Michigan's phosphorus detergent ban. Journal of Water Pollution
Control Federation 54(2): 194-197.
Hem, J.A. 1959. Study and interpretation of the chemical characteristics
of natural water. US Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1473.
Washington DC. 269 p.
Hickey, J.L., and P.C. Reist. 1975. Health significance of airborne mic-
roorganisms for wastewater treatment processes. Journal of the Water
Pollution Control Federation, Vol. 47.
Holand, H.R. 1917. History of Door County Wisconsin, the county beautiful
Illustrated, 2 volumes. The S.J. Clarke Plublishing Company, Chicago
IL, 57 p.
Holzworth, George C. 1972. Mixing heights, wind speeds, and potential for
urban air pollution throughout the continguous United States. EPA Pub
AP-101, Research Triangle Park NC, 118 p.
Humphreys, J.D. 1978. Population dynamics of Lake Whitefish, Coregonus
clupeaformis, in Lake Michigan east of Door County, Wisconsin. Master
thesis, College of Natural Resources, University of Wisconsin, Stevens
Point WI, 40 p.
Imhoff, M.A. 1977. Population genetic structure of Lake Whitefish, (Core-
gonus clupeaformis) , in Green Bay and Northern Lake Michigan, as
assessed by electrophoresis of lactate, glycerol-3-phosphate, and
malate dehydrogenase isoenzymes. Master thesis, College of Natural
Resources, University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point WI, 33 p.
Jones, R.A., and G.F. Lee. 1977. Septic tank disposal systems as phos-
phorus sources for surface waters. EPA 600/3-77-129. Robert S. Kerr
Environmental Research Laboratory, Ma OK.
K-V Associates, Inc. 1980. Septic leachate survey, Door County, Wiscon-
sin. Falmouth MA, variously paged.
Kadlec, R.H., D.L. Tilton, and B.R. Schwegler. 1979. Wetlands for ter-
tiary treatment: A three-year summary of pilot scale operations at
Houghton Lake. Report to the National Science Foundation. Grant
//AEN75-08855. The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor MI, 101 p.
5-3
-------
Kadlec, R.H. 1982. Aging phenomena in a wastewater wetlands, draft tech-
nical report. The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor MI.
Kahlert, John, and Albert Quinlan. 1978. Early Door County buildings and
the people who built them 1849-1910. Meadow Lane Publishers, Baileys
Harbor WI, 154 p.
Kmiotek, S. 1973. Wisconsin trout streams. Department of Natural Re-
sources Pub. 6-3600 Madison WI, 113 p.
Land Plans, Inc. 1973. A plan for Ephraim. Land Plans, Inc., Madison WI,
Prepared in cooperation with the Door County Planning Department, 61
P.
Long, Charles A. 1974. Mammals of the Lake Michigan drainage basin. En-
vironmental status of the Lake Michigan region, Anl/ES-40, Vol 15.
Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne IL, 108 p.
Mason, Ronald. 1966. Two stratified sites on the Door peninsula of Wis-
consin. Anthropological Papers, No. 26, Museum of Anthropology, Uni-
versity of Michigan, Ann Arbor MI, 259 p.
Mclaughlin, E.R. 1968. A recycle system for conservation of water in
residences. Water and Sewage Works. 115:4, pp. 175-176.
Moak, L.L., and A.M. Hillhouse. 1975. Concepts and practices in local
government finance. Municipal Finance Officers Association of the US
and Canada, Chicago IL, 454 p.
Mortimer, C.H. 1978. Water movement, miting, and transport in Green Bay,
Lake Michigan. In; Research needs for Green Bay. University of Wis-
consin Sea Grant College Program, WIS-SG-78-234. Madison, WI, 47 p.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1977a. Climate of Stur-
geon Bay. Asheville NC, 3 p.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1977b. Local climato-
gical data, Green Bay WI. Asheville NC, 4 p.
Otis, R.J. 1979. Alternative wastewater facilities for small communi-
ties - a case study. In; Proceedings of a Workshop on Alternative
Wastewater Treatment Systems. UILU-WRC-79-00010. Water Resources
Center and Cooperative Extension Service, University of Illinois -
Urbana, Urbana IL, p. 44-69.
Parker and others. 1975. Evaluation of mathematical models for tempera-
ture prediction in deep reservoirs. EPA 660/3-75-038. US Government
Printing Office, Washington DC.
Pentecost, Edwin D. and Richard C. Vogt. 1976. Amphibians and reptiles of
the Lake Michigan drainage basin. Environmental status of the Lake
Michigan region, Anl.ES-40, Volume 16. Argonne National Laboratory,
Argonne IL, 69 p.
5-4
-------
Peterson, S.A. 1979. Dredging and late restoration, jn; Lake restora-
tion. EPA 440/5-79-001. Office of Water Planning and Standards,
Washington DC.
f
Perrin, Richard. 1963. Wisconsin "stovewood" walls: ingenious forms of
early log construction. Wisconsin magazine of history 46(3): 215-219,
Spring.
Poff, R.J., and C. W. Threinen. 1965. Surface water resources of Door
County. Wisconsin Conservation Department, Madison WI.
Pound, C.E., and R.W. Crites. 1973. Wastewater treatment and reuse by
land application, vol. 1, summary. USEPA Office of Research and
Development, Washington DC, 80 p.
Powers, J.A. 1978. Feasibility study and preliminary site identifica-
tion for land treatment in Middle Tennessee. In: State of Knowledge
in land treatment of wastewater, proceedings of an international
symposium vol. 2. US Army Corps of Engineers CRREL, August 1978, vol.
2. Hanover NH, 423 p.
Reed, C.R., and R.K. Bastian (project officers). 1980. Aquaculture sys-
tems for wastewater treatment: an engineering assessment. US Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, Washington DC, 127 p.
Romano, J.,G. Tipler, and W. Tischler. 1977. Proposal for a rural stove-
wood structure historic district at Baileys Harbor, Wisconsin. On
file at State Historical Society of Wisconsin, Historic Preservation
Division, Madison WI.
Ridges Sanctuary, Inc. 1977. Trail guide-Ridges Sanctuary. Baileys
Harbor WI, 18 p.
Salamun, P.J., and F. W. Stearns. 1978. The vegetation of the Lake Mic-
higan shoreline in Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin. University of
Wisconsin Sea Grant College Advisory report No. Wis-SG-78-420 Mil-
waukee WI, 42 p.
Scalf, M.R., and W.J. Dunlap. 1977. Environmental effects of septic
tanks. EPA 600/3-77-096. Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research
Laboratory, Ma OK.
Scott, W.B., and E.J. Grossman. 1973. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Fish-
eries Resources Board of Canada Bulletin 184: 966 p.
Sherrill, M.G. 1978. Geology and groundwater in Door County, Wisconsin
with emphasis on contamination potential in the Silurian dolomite. US
Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2047, Washington DC, 38 p. + 5
maps.
Siegrist, R.L., T. Woltanski, and C.E. Waldorf. 1978. Water conservation
and wastewater disposal. In; Proceedings of the second national home
sewage treatment symposium (ASAE Publication 5-77). American Society
of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph MI, p. 121-136.
5-5
-------
Simmons, J.D., and J.O. Newman. 1979. On-site liquefaction and variable
gradient transport lines for rural sewage disposal. Paper No. SER
79-047. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph MI, 16
P-
Soil Conservation Service. 1977. Memorandum, R.M. Davis, Administrator,
USDA-SCS, 16 August 1977.
Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with the Research Division of the
College of Agricultural and Life Sciences University of Wisconsin.
1978. Soil survey of Door County, Wisconsin. US Department of Agri-
culture, Washington DC, 132 p. plus plates.
Skinner, Earl L. , and Ronald G. Borman. 1973. Hydrologic investigations
atlas HA-432. US Geological Survey, Washington DC, 4 sheets.
Spencer, John S. Jr., and Harry W. Thorne. 1972. Wisconsin's 1968 timber
resource. A perspective. USDA Forest Service Resource Bulletin
NC-15. St. Paul MN, 80 p., Illus.
State Historical Society of Wisconsin, Historic Preservation Division. No
date. Wisconsin inventory of historic places, Wisconsin archaeologi-
cal codification files, Door County file. Madison WI.
Stout, A.N. 1911. Prehistoric earthworks in Wisconsin. Ohio archaeolo-
gical and historical publication 20:1-31. The Ohio State Archaeolo-
gical and Historical Society.
Strang, William A. 1970. Recreation and the local economy, an input-out-
put model of a recreation-oriented economy. Sea Grant College Tech-
nical Report Wis-SG-71-204, reprinted 1973. University of Wisconsin,
Madison WI, 79 p.
Tsai, C. 1973. Water quality and fish life below sewage outfalls. Trans-
actions of American Fisheries Society 102 (281).
University of Wisconsin-Extension. 1977. Gross sales of Wisconsin's hos-
pitality recreation tourism industry. Madison WI, 96 p.
US Bureau of the Census. No date a. US census of population: 1970. Com-
puter summary tapes series, first count. US Government Printing
Office, Washington DC.
US Bureau of the Census. No date b. US Census of population: 1970. Com-
puter summary tapes series fifth count. US Government Printing Of-
fice, Washington DC.
US Bureau of the Census. 1952. US Census of population: 1950, Volume
II, characteristics of the population, Part 49, Wisconsin. US Govern-
ment Printing Office, Washington DC, 230 p.
US Bureau of the Census. 1963. US Census of population: 1960, Volume I,
characteristics of the population, Part 51, Wisconsin. US Government
Printing Office, Washington DC, 483 p.
5-6
-------
US Bureau of the Census. 1973. US Census of population: 1970, Volume 1,
characteristics of the population, Part 51, Wisconsin. US Government
Printing Office, Washington DC, 492 p.
«
US Bureau of the Census. 1979. Population estimates for 1975 and revised
1974 per capita income estimates for counties, incorporated places,
and selected minor civil divisions in Wisconsin. US Government Print-
ing Office, Washington DC, 34 p.
US Bureau of the Census. 1981. 1980 Census of population and housing-Wis-
consin. US Government Printing Office, Washington DC.
US Department of the Interior. 1979. National Register of Historic Pla-
ces: annual listing of historic properties. Heritage Conservation
and Recreation Service. Federal Register 44(26):7628, Tuesday, 6
February, Part II.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1976. Quality criteria for water.
Office of Water and Hazardous Materials. Washington DC, 255 p.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1977a. Process design manual - waste-
water facilities for sewered small communities. EPA 625/1-77-009.
Environmental Research Information Center, Technology Transfer, Cin-
cinnati OH.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1977b. Alternatives for small waste-
water treatment systems, on-site disposal/septage treatment and dis-
posal. EPA 625/4-77-011. Technology Transfer, Washington DC, 90 p.
US Environmental Protection Agency and others. 1977c. Process design
manual for land treatment of municipal wastewater. EPA 625/1-77-008.
Washington DC, variously paged.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1978a. Funding of sewage collection
systems projects. Program Requirements Memorandum (PRM 78-9). Office
of Water and Hazardous Materials, Washington DC.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1978b. Sewage disposal on agricul-
tural lands: Chemical and microbiological implications. (Volume 2:
Microbiological implications) EPA 600/2-78-131b Office of Research and
Development, Ada OK, 94 p.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1978c Innovative and alternative
technology assessment manual. (MCD 53) EPA 430/9-78-009 Office of
Research and Development, Cincinnati OH, variously paged.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1978d. National emissions data system
(NEDS). Region V. Chicago IL.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1978e. Printout of STORET data - 23
October 1978, variously paged.
5-7
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1979. Multispectral survey of Door
County, Wisconsin. Advance Monitoring Systems Division, Environmental
Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas NV, 17 p.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1980a. Design manual. Onsite waste-
water treatment and disposal systems. Office of Research and Develop-
ment, Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati OH, 391
P.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1980b. Septage management. Municipal
Environmental Engineering Laboratory, Cincinnati OH, 126 p.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1981a. Flow reduction - methods,
analysis procedures, examples. Office of Water Program Operations,
Washington DC, 92 p.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1981b. Process design manual - land
treatment of municipal wastewater. EPA 625/1-81-013. Center for
Environmental Research Information, Technology Transfer, Cincinnati
OH, variously paged.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1981c. Facilities Planning 1981.
Municipal wastewater treatment. EPA 430/9-81-002. Office of Water
Program Operations, Washington DC, 116 p.
Walton, William, C. 1970. Groundwater resource evaluation. McGraw-Hill,
New York NY.
Wieniewski, T.F. 1942. Report of a survey of water supplies, water dis-
tribution and waste disposal methods in the fruit growing areas of
Door County. Wisconsin Division of Health, Madison WI.
Wisconsin Coastal Zone Management Program. 1977. Wisconsin Coastal Atlas
1977. Madison WI. Variously paged.
Wisconsin Department of Administration. No date. US Census of population
1980. Computer summary tapes, first count. Madison WI.
Wisconsin Department of Administration. 1975. Official population esti-
mates for 1975. Demographic Services Center, Madison WI.
Wisconsin Department of Administration. 1978. Official population esti-
mates for 1978. Demographic Services Center, Madison WI, 49 p.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. No date. Breeding bird surveys
of scientific areas, 1971-1974. Scientific Areas Preservation Council
Madison WI, 96 p.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1974a. Environmental impact
statement for the proposed Pine Ledges Inc. development at Marshalls
Point, Door County, Wisconsin. Bureau of Environmental Impact, Madi-
son WI, 96 p.
5-8
-------
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1974b. Preliminary environ-
mental report for the proposed development and management of Newport
State Park, Door County, Wisconsin. Bureau of Environmental Impact,
Madison WI, 17 p. plus appendixes. *
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1975a. Water quality manage-
ment basin plan for the rivers of the northwest shore of Lake Michi-
gan. Environmental Standards Division, Madison WI, 120 p.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1975b. Classification of Wis-
consin lakes by trophic condition. Bureau of Water Quality, Madison
WI, 107 p.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1976a. Endangered and threat-
ened vascular plants in Wisconsin. Scientific Areas Preservation
Council, Madison WI, 59 p.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1976b. Natural areas inven-
tory - Wisconsin coastal zone. Scientific Areas Preservation Council,
Madison WI, 33 p.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1977a. Air quality data re-
port. Madison WI.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1977b. Wisconsin Scientific
Areas 1977 - preserving scientific diversity. Madison WI, 51 p.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1978a. Intra-office memoran-
dum, 23 January 1978, 5 p.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1978b. Water quality data on
Kangaroo Lake in Door County. Bureau of Research, Madison WI (un-
published data), 15 p.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1978c. Wisconsin Wetlands In-
ventory, Door County. Madison WI.
Wisconsin Department of Transportation. 1978. Seasonal traffic count data
for Door County. Computer printout dated 30 November 1978. Madison
WI.
5-9
-------
6.0. GLOSSARY OF TECHNICAL TERMS
Activated sludge process. A method of secondary wastewater treatment in
which a suspended microbiological culture is maintained inside an
aerated treatment basin. The microbial organisms oxidize the complex
organic matter in the wastewater to carbon dioxide, water, and energy.
Advanced secondary treatment. Wastewater treatment more stringent than
secondary treatment but not to advanced waste treatment levels.
Advanced waste treatment. Wastewater treatment to treatment levels that
provide for maximum monthly average BOD and SS concentrations less
than 10 mg/1 and/or total nitrogen removal of greater than 50% (total
nitrogen removal = TKN + nitrite and nitrate) .
Aerated lagoon. In wastewater treatment, a pond, usually man-made, to
which oxygen is added mechanically for the purpose of decomposing
organic wastes to elemental forms.
Aeration. To circulate oxygen through a substance, as in wastewater treat-
ment, where it aids in purification.
Aerobic. Refers to life or processes that occur only in the presence of
oxygen.
Aerosol. A suspension of liquid or solid particles in a gas.
Algae. Simple rootless plants that grow in bodies of water in relative
proportion to the amounts of nutrients available. Algal blooms, or
sudden growth spurts, can affect water quality adversely.
Algal bloom. A proliferation of algae on the surface of lakes, streams or
ponds. Algal blooms are stimulated by phosphate enrichment.
Alluvial. Pertaining to material that has been carried by a stream.
Ambient air. Any unconfined portion of the atmosphere: open air.
Ammonia-nitrogen. Nitrogen in the form of ammonia (NH ) that is produced
in nature when nitrogen-containing organic material is biologically
decomposed.
Anaerobic. Refers to life or processes that occur in the absence of ele-
mental or free oxygen.
Aquifer. A geologic stratum or unit that contains water and will allow it
to pass through. The water is stored in and travels through spaces
between rock grains in a sand or gravel aquifer, small or cavernous
openings formed by solution in a limestone aquifer, or fissures,
cracks, and rubble in harder rocks such as shale.
Artesian (adj.). Refers to groundwater in a confined aquifer that is under
sufficient pressure to have a piezometric level above the elevation of
the aquifer.
6-1
-------
Artesian well. A well that has a static water level higher than the water
table or free water surface. A well in which the static water level
is higher than the land surface is called a flowing artesian well.*
Assessed valuation. The value of all taxable general property as deter-
mined by the municipal assessor of the Wisconsin Department of Reve-
nue.
Bar screen. In wastewater treatment, a screen that removes large float-
ing and suspended solids.
Base flow. The water in a stream channel that occurs typically during
rainless periods, when stream flow is maintained largely or entirely
by discharges of groundwater.
Bedrock. The solid rock beneath the soil.
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). A bioassay-type procedure in which the
weight of oxygen utilized by microorganisms to oxidize and assimilate
the organic matter present per liter of water is determined. It is
common to note the number of days during which a test was conducted as
a subscript to the abbreviated name. For example, BOD indicates that
the results are based on a five-day long (120-hour) test. The BOD
value is a relative measure of the amount (load) of living and dead
oxidizable organic matter in water. A high demand may deplete the
supply of oxygen in the water, temporarily or for a prolonged time, to
the degree that many or all kinds of aquatic organisms are killed.
Determinations of BOD are useful in the evaluation of the impact of
wastewater on receiving waters.
Biota. The plants and animals of an area.
Chlorination. The application of chlorine to drinking water, sewage or
industrial waste for disinfection or oxidation of undesirable com-
pounds .
Clarifier. A settling tank where solids are mechanically removed from
waste water.
Coliform bacteria. Members of a large group of bacteria that flourish in
the feces and/or intestines of warm-blooded animals, including man.
Fecal coliform bacteria, particularly Escherichia coli (E. coli),
enter water mostly in fecal matter, such as sewage or feedlot runoff.
Coliforms apparently do not cause serious human diseases, but these
organisms are abundant in polluted waters and they are fairly easy to
detect. The abundance of coliforms in water, therefore, is used as an
index to the probability of the occurrence of such disease-producing
organisms (pathogens) as jalmonella, Shigella, and enteric viruses.
These pathogens are relatively difficult to detect.
Collector sewer. A sewer designed and installed to collect sewage from a
limited number of individual properties and conduct it to a trunk
sewer.
6-2
-------
Community. The plants and animals in a particular area that are closely
related through food chains and other interactions.
Cultural resources. Fragile and nonrenewable sites, districts, buildings,
structures, or objects representative of our heritage. Cultural
resources are divided into three categories: historical, architec-
tural, or archaeological. Cultural resources of special significance
may be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic
Places.
Detention time. The average time required for a volume of water to flow
through a basin.
Digestion. In wastewater treatment a closed tank, sometimes heated to 95°F
where sludge is subjected to intensified bacterial action.
Disinfection. Effective killing by chemical or physical processes of all
organisms capable of causing infectious disease. Chlorination is the
disinfection method commonly employed in sewage treatment processes.
Dissolved oxygen (DO). Oxygen gas (0 ) in water. It is utilized in res-
piration by fish and other aquatic organisms, and those organisms may
be injured or killed when the concentration is low. Because much
oxygen diffuses into water from the air, the concentration of DO is
greater, other conditions being equal, at sea level than at high
elevations, during periods of high atmospheric pressure than during
periods of low pressure, and when the water is turbulent (during
rainfall, in rapids, and waterfalls) rather than when it is placid.
Because cool water can absorb more oxygen than warm water, the con-
centration tends to be greater at low temperatures than at high tem-
peratures. Dissolved oxygen is depleted by the oxidation of organic
matter and of various inorganic chemicals. Should depletion be ex-
treme, the water may become anaerobic.
Effluent. Wastewater or other liquid, partially or completely treated, or
in its natural state, flowing out of a reservoir, basin, treatment
plant, or industrial treatment plant, or part thereof.
Endangered species. Any species of animal or plant that is in known danger
of extinction throughout all or a significant part of its range.
Epilimnion. Surface waters of a lake usually separated from the bottom
layers by oxygen levels or temperature stratification.
Eutrophic. Waters with an abundant supply of nutrients and hence a pro-
lific production of organic matter.
Eutrophication. The process of enrichment of a water body with nutrients.
Eutrophic Lakes. Lakes that contain an abundant supply of nutrients and
plant life typically of nuisance levels.
6-3
-------
Fauna. The total animal life of a particular geographic area or habitat.
Fecal coliform bacteria. See coliform bacteria.
Flora. The total plant life of a particular geographic area or habitat.
Flowmeter. A guage that indicates the quantity of water moving through a
conveyance conduit.
Force main. A pipe designed to carry wastewater under pressure from a
lift station.
Full equalized value. The value of all taxable general property as deter-
mined by the Wisconsin Department of Revenue. This value is deter-
mined independently of the assessed value and reflects actual market
value.
Glacial drift. Rock and soil material picked up and transported by a
glacier and deposited elsewhere.
Gravity sewer. A sewer in which wastewater flows naturally down-gradient
by gravity.
Gravity sewer system. A layout of below grade pipes in which the liquid
flows by gravity to collection point(s) within the system.
Groundwater. All interstitial water within soils and bedrock, especially
that part in the zone of saturation.
Groundwater runoff. Groundwater that is discharged into a stream channel
as spring or seepage water.
Gyre. A partially open circular system, but larger than a whirlpool or
eddy. Gyres in Green Bay harbors or embayments typically are clock-
wise currents originating from counter-clockwise longshore current
patterns.
Holding tank. Enclosed tank, usually constructed of fiberglass, steel or
concrete, for the storage of wastewater prior to removal or disposal
at another location.
Hypolimnion. Relatively undisturbed waters of a lake bottom separated from
the surface layer by oxygen levels or temperature stratification.
Infiltration. The water entering a sewer system and service connections
from the ground through such means as, but not limited to, defective
pipes, pipe joints, improper connections, or manhole walls. Infiltra-
tion does not include, and is distinguished from, inflow.
Inflow. The water discharged into a wastewater collection system and
service connections from such sources as, but not limited to, roof
drains, cellars, yard and area drains, foundation drains, cooling
water discharges, drains from springs and swampy areas, manhole co-
vers, cross-connections from storm sewers and combined sewers, catch
6-4
-------
basins, surface runoff, street wash waters or drainage. Inflow does
not include, and is distinguished from, infiltration.
g Influent. Water, wastewater, or other liquid flowing into a reservoir,
basin, or treatment facility, or any unit thereof.
Interceptor sewer. A sewer designed and installed to collect sewage from a
series of collection sewers and to convey it to a sewage treatment
plant.
Innovative technology. A technology whose use has not been widely tested
by experience and is not a variant of conventional biological or
physical/chemical treatment.
Land treatment. A method of treatment in which the soil, air, vegetation,
bacteria, and fungi are employed to remove pollutants from wastewater.
In its most simple form, the method includes three steps: (1) pre-
treatment to screen out large solids; (2) secondary treatment; (3)
application to cropland, pasture, or natural vegetation to allow
plants and soil microorganisms to remove additional pollutants.
Little of the applied water evaporates, and the remainder either
percolates to the water table, or runs off and is collected. The
water table may be artificially lowered by drain tiles or recovery
wells.
Leachate. Solution formed when water percolates through solid wastes, soil
or other materials and extracts soluble or suspendable substances from
the material.
Lift station. A facility in a collector sewer system, consisting of a
receiving chamber, pumping equipment, and associated drive and control
devices, that collects wastewater from a low-lying district at some
convenient point, from which it is lifted to another portion of the
.collector system or to an interceptor sewer.
Limiting factor. A factor whose absence, or excessive concentration,
exerts some restraining influence upon a population.
Loam. The textural class name for soil having a moderate amount of sand,
silt, and clay. Loam soils contain 7 to 27% of clay, 28 to 50% of
silt, and less than 52% of sand.
Loess. Soil of wind-blown origin, predominantly silt and fine sand.
Macroinvertebrates. Invertebrates that are visible to the unaided eye
(those retained by a standard No. 30 sieve, which has 28 meshes per
inch or 0.595 mm openings); generally connotes bottom-dwelling aquatic
animals (benthos).
Macrophyte. A large (not microscopic) plant, usually in an aquatic ha-
bitat. They can be rooted, floating, or submerged plants.
Melt water. Water that originates from the melting of snow or ice, usually
in association with prehistoric glaciation.
6-5
-------
Mesotrophic. Waters with a moderate supply of nutrients and no significant
production of organic matter.
Mesotrophic lake. Lakes of intermediate characteristics between oligotro-
phic and eutrophic. They contain a moderate supply of nutrients and*
plant life.
Methemoglobinemia. The presence of oxidized hemoglobin in the blood after
poisoning by chlorates, nitrates, ferricyanides, or various other
substances.
Milligram per liter (mg/1). A concentration of 1/1000 gram of a substance
in 1 liter of water. Because 1 liter of pure water weighs 1,000
grams, the concentration also can be stated as 1 ppm (part per mil-
lion, by weight). Used to measure and report the concentrations of
most substances that commonly occur in natural and polluted waters.
Moraine. A mound, ridge, or other distinctive accumulation of sediment
deposited by a glacier.
National Register of Historic Places. Official listing of the cultural
resources of the Nation that are worthy of preservation. Listing on
the National Register makes property owners eligible to be considered
for Federal grants-in-aid for historic preservation through state
programs. Listing also provides protection through comment by the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation on the effect of Federally
financed, assisted, or licensed undertakings on historic properties.
Nitrate-nitrogen. Nitrogen in the form of nitrate (NO ). It is the most
oxidized phase in the nitrogen cycle in nature and occurs in high
concentrations in the final stages of biological oxidation. It can
serve as a nutrient for the growth of algae and other aquatic plants.
Nitrite-nitrogen. Nitrogen in the form of nitrite (NO ). it is an in-
termediate stage in the nitrogen cycle in nature. Nitrite normally is
found in low concentrations and represents a transient stage in the
biological oxidation of organic materials.
Nonpoint source. Any area, in contrast to a pipe or other structure, from
which pollutants flow into a body of water. Common pollutants from
nonpoint sources are sediments from construction sites and fertilizers
and sediments from agricultural soils.
Nutrients. Elements or compounds essential as raw materials for the growth
and development of an organism; e.g., carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and
phosphorus.
Oligotrophic. Waters with a small supply of nutrients and hence an insig-
nificant production of organic matter.
Oligotrophic lakes. Lakes that have a low supply of nutrients and contain
little organic matter. Such lakes are characterized by high water
transparency and high dissolved oxygen.
6-6
-------
Ordinance. A municipal or county regulation.
Outwash. Soil material carried by melt water from a glacier and deposited
beyond the marginal moraine.
Outwash plain. A plain formed by material deposited by melt water from a
glacier flowing over a more or less flat surface of large area.
Deposits of this origin are usually distinguishable from ordinary
river deposits by the fact that they often grade into moraines and
their constituents bear evidence of glacial origin. Also called
frontal apron.
Percolation. The downward movement of water through pore spaces or larger
voids in soil or rock to the water table.
pH. A measure of the acidity or alkalinity of a material, liquid or solid.
pH is represented on a scale of 0 to 14 with 7 being a neutral state;
0, most acid; and 14, most alkaline.
Phosphorus. An essential food element that can contribute to the eutrophi-
cation of water bodies.
Photochemical oxidants. Secondary pollutants formed by the action of
sunlight on nitric oxides and hydrocarbons in the air; they are the
primary components of photochemical smog.
Piezometric level. An imaginary point that represents the static head of
groundwater and is defined by the level to which water will rise.
Plankton. Minute plants (phytoplankton) and animals (zooplankton) that
float or swim weakly in rivers, ponds, lakes, estuaries, or seas.
Point source. In regard to water, any pipe, ditch, channel, conduit,
tunnel, well, discrete operation, vessel or other floating craft, or
other confined and discrete conveyance from which a substance con-
sidered to be a pollutant is, or may be, discharged into a body of
water.
Pressure sewer system. A wastewater collection system in which household
wastes are collected in the building drain and conveyed therein to the
pretreatment and/or pressurization facility. The system consists of
two major elements, the on-site or pressurization facility, and the
pressurized sewer main.
Primary treatment. The first stage in wastewater treatment, in which
substantially all floating or settleable solids are mechanically
removed by screening and sedimentation.
Prime farmland. Agricultural lands, designated Class I or II (occasionally
some Class III), having little or no limitations to profitable crop
production.
Pumping station. A facility within a sewer system that pumps sewage or
effluent against the force of gravity through an enclosed conduit.
6-7
-------
Runoff. Water from rain, snow melt, or irrigation that flows over the.
ground surface and returns to streams. It can collect pollutants from
air or land and carry them to the receiving waters.
«
Sanitary sewer. Buried pipelines that carry only domestic or commercial
wastewater, not stormwater.
Screening. Use of screens to remove coarse floating and suspended solids
from sewage.
Secondary treatment. The second stage in the treatment of wastewater in
which bacteria are utilized to decompose the organic matter in sewage.
Effective secondary treatment processes remove virtually all floating
solids and settleable solids, as well as 90% of the BOD and suspended
solids. USEPA regulations define secondary treatment as 30 mg/1 BOD,
30 mg/1 SS, or 85% removal of these substances.
Seepage cells. Unlined wastewater lagoons designed so that all or part of
wastewater percolates into the underlying soil.
Seiches. Long-wave, free oscillations of water set up initially by a
disturbance such as the wind piling up water against the lakeshore.
Seiche waves are periodic, returning periodically until frictional
forces dissipate their energy. The period for Lake Michigan seiches
may vary from 2.5 to 9 hours. In the first half of each seiche period
the water near the shoreline rises from several inches to several
feet. Over the last half of the seiche period the water falls below
the average level to a similar or greater distance. Generally, it
takes an east/west wind of at least 20 mph to bring about a sizeable
seiche in the vicinity of Green Bay. For one or several days follow-
ing this wind, the water near the shore will rise and fall with con-
tinually diminishing energy. When coupled with longshore, littoral
currents, seiche-generated currents within harbors and embayments
provide a flushing action within Great Lakes harbors. During each
seiche cycle, the Harbor or slip water is partially removed and re-
placed with fresh Lake Michigan water. Some harbors produce standing
waves as a result of internal resonant seiche wave oscillations.
These standing waves amplify the water level fluctuations inside
harbors.
Septic Snooper. Trademark for the ENDECO (Environmental Devices Corpora-
tion) Type 2100 Septic Leachate Detector. This instrument consists of
an underwater probe, a water intake system, an analyzer control unit
and a graphic recorder. Water drawn through the instrument is con-
tinuously analyzed for specific fluorescence and conductivity. When
calibrated against typical effluents, the instrument can detect and
profile effluent-like substances and thereby locate septic tank lea-
chate or other sources of organic decomposition products entering
lakes and streams.
Septic tank. A buried tank used for the collection of domestic wastes.
Bacteria in the wastes decompose the organic matter, and the sludge
settles to the bottom. The effluent flows out to another treatment
and disposal facility. Sludge is pumped out at regular intervals.
6-8
-------
Septic tank effluent pump (STEP). Pump designed to transfer settled ef-
fluent from a septic tank to a higher elevation through a pressure
pipe.
Septic tank-soil absorption system. A system of wastewater disposal in
which large solids are retained in a tank; fine solids and liquids are
dispersed into the surrounding soil by a system of pipes.
Settling tank. A holding area for wastewater, where heavier particles sink
to the bottom and the liquid decanted.
Shoaling. The bottom effect that influences the height of waves moving
from deep to shallow water.
Slope. The incline of the surface of the land. It is usually expressed as
a percent (%) of slope that is the elevation difference per 100 feet
of horizontal distance.
Sludge. The accumulated solids that have been separated from liquids such
as wastewater.
Soil association. A group of soils geographically associated in a charac-
teristic repeating pattern and defined and delineated as a single map-
ping unit.
Soil textural class. The classification of soil material according to the
proportions of sand, silt, and clay. The principal textural classes
in soil, in increasing order of the amount of silt and clay, are as
follows: sand, loamy sand, sandy loam, loam, silt loam, sandy clay
loam, clay loam, silty clay loam, sandy clay, silty clay, and clay.
These class names are modified to indicate the size of the sand frac-
tion or the presence of gravel, sandy loam, gravelly loam, stony clay,
and cobbly loam, and are used on detailed soil maps. These terms
apply only to individual soil horizons or to the surface layer of a
soil type.
Storm sewer. A conduit that collects and transports storm water runoff.
In many sewerage systems, storm sewers are separate from those carry-
ing sanitary or industrial wastewater.
Stratification. The condition of a lake, ocean, or other body of water
when the water column is divided into a relatively cold bottom layer
and a relatively warm surface layer, with a thin boundary layer (ther-
mocline) between them. Stratification generally occurs during the
summer and during periods of ice cover in the winter. Overturns, or
periods of mixing, occur in the spring and autumn. This condition is
most common in middle latitudes and is related to weather conditions,
basin morphology, and altitude.
Supernatant. The liquid that remains on the surface after the solids have
settled out in a wastewater treatment process.
Surface water. All waters on the earth's surface such as streams, lakes,
and oceans.
6-9
-------
Suspended solids (SS). Small solid particles that contribute to turbidity.
The examination of suspended solids and the BOD test constitute the
two main determinations for water quality that are performed at waste-
water treatment facilities.
Threatened species. Any species of animal or plant that is likely to
become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant part of its range.
Till. Unsorted and unstratified drift, consisting of a heterogeneous
mixture of clay, sand, gravel, and boulders, that is deposited by and
underneath a glacier.
Trickling filter process. A method of secondary wastewater treatment in
which the biological growth is attached to a fixed medium, over which
wastewater is sprayed. The filter organisms biochemically oxidize the
complex organic matter in the wastewater to carbon dioxide, water, and
energy.
Topography. The configuration of a surface area including its relief, or
relative elevations, and the position of its natural and manmade
features.
Trophic status. A measure of the productivity of a body of water typically
expressed as oligotrophic (least), mesotrophic, and eutrophic (great-
est) .
Trunk sewer. A sewer designed and installed to collect sewage from a
number of collector sewers and conduct it to an interceptor sewer or,
in some cases, to a sewage treatment plant.
Unique farmland. Land, other than prime farmland, that is used for the
production of specific high value food and fiber crops and that has
the special combination of soil quality, location, growing seasons,
and moisture supply needed to economically produce sustained high
quality and/or high yields of a specific crop under modern management.
Wastewater. Water carrying dissolved or suspended solids from homes,
farms, businesses, and industries.
Wastewater stabilization lagoon. In wastewater treatment, a shallow pond,
usually man-made, in which sunlight, algal and bacterial action and
oxygen interact to decompose the organics. Oxygen is added to the
water by natural air to water interchange.
Water quality. The relative condition of a body of water, as judged by
a comparison between contemporary values and certain more or less
objective standard values for biological, chemical, and/or physical
parameters. The standard values usually are based on a specific
series of intended uses, and may vary as the intended uses vary.
Water table. The upper level of groundwater that is not confined by an
upper impermeable layer and is under atmospheric pressure. The upper
surface of the substrate that is wholly saturated with groundwater.
6-10
-------
Wetlands. Those areas that are inundated by surface or ground water with a
frequency sufficient to support and under normal circumstances does or
would support a prevalence of vegetative or aquatic life that requires
saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions for growth and
reproduction.
6-11
-------
APPENDIX A
Wastewater Disposal Questionnaire and Responses
to Questions 5 and 15
-------
Wastewater Disposal Questionnaire^
The communities of Bailey's Harbor, Egg Harbor, Ephraim and Fish
Creek are currently participating in a study sponsored in part by the
Environmental Protection Agency to solve the sewage disposal problems
facing these communities. This information is being requested to obtain
information on the current sewerage systems operating in the area, and
to determine what type of waste disposal system is best suited for each
community.
Please take a few minutes to complete this questionnaire and return it
along with your tax payment. If you have any questions, please contact
your Town or Village Clerk. Your cooperation is appreciated.
1. What type of residence do you live in? Year constructed_
Single Residence Duplex Other
2. Lot size - Width_ Length
3. What kind of wastewater disposal system does your house use?
A Septic Tank D Holding Tank
B Privy E Discharge directly to ditch
C Cesspool* F Discharge directly to sewer
or tile line
G Do not know
4. If you have checked A, B or C above, where does it discharge?
Seepage field Other (Explain
Sewer or tile line
Ditch Do not know
Immediately percolates
into the ground
A cesspool is the use of a dry well without a septic tank.
-------
5. Does your disposal system satisfactorily serve your residence?
Yes No
If no, check the problem and seasons most Irequent.
Spring Summer Fall Winter
Overloaded
Wet ground over seepage field
Odor
Other (Explain:
6. If your disposal system discharges to a sewer or tile line, where does
that line eventually discharge?
Describe location in a few words
Do not know
7. If your disposal system, discharges directly to the surface of the ground
describe in' a few words the nature and location of the discharge point
(example: roadside ditch in front of house): (back of house)
8. If you checked #3, A, B, C or D above, what is the approximate age?
years Installed prior to occupancy which has
been years.
9. If your system includes a holding tank
A. What is the size of your holding tank?
B. Approximately how often do you have your holding tank pumped out?
-------
10. Who pumps your disposal system?
V/here is this hauler located?
11. If you have a septic tank, approximately how many times has it been
cleaned in the last five years? times Do not know
12. What water sources, other than toilets, washbasins, showers and
sinks are connected to your disposal system?
Laundry drains Yes No Do not know
Garbage grinder Yes No Do not know
Roof drain Yes No Do not know
Footing drain Yes No Do not know
Other (Explain: 1
13. In the general area of your residence, what is the depth of soil to
bedrock? to groundwater?_
14. Are there any liquid wastes, other than human wasies, such as laundry
wash water, which discharge to other than your nrimary disposal system'
Yes No
If yes, which wastes? Where do they go?
15. Are there any other wastewater problems in your community you think
need correction? Yes No
If yes, briefly describe the problem and approximate location. Use
additional pages, if necessary.
16. What is the source of your drinking water supply?
Public watermains
Private well
Other (Explain:
-------
1 6. cont.
If private well -
1. Type of well (i.e. drilled, dug, driven)_
2. Depth
3. Date well constructed
4. Distance from nearest septic system_
5. Date of last bacteriological analysis
Results
6. Cased? Yes No If yes, to what approximate depth
17. What is the duration of your residency in this area (check one)?
Year round
Seasonal, from to
month month
Weekends, approximately per year.
Name (please print)
Address
•4
-------
Response to Question #15
Egg Harbor
I would like to see a complete Village sewer disposal system installed.
Wastewater drains into ditch on East side of White Cliff Road ifc back of
, our cottage.
Gibraltar
Bayside Tavern - needs pumping twice/week.
Fish Creek downtown and school waste seeping into Bay.
Omnibus Ski ridge overflowed all summer.
Park Gate Laundromat causes soap bubbles in Fish Creek.
On an adjacent piece of property a local plumber dumps fresh effluent
from holding tanks. This is a problem particularly in the summer on
windy days and hot humid days. A better method of disposing this effluent
should be considered.
Holding and septic tank disposal on open fields.
Water at Fish Creek Beach is noticeably polluted.
Needs municipal sewerage treatment.
Downtown Fish Creek cottages, apartments and businesses are not able to
handle sewage in summer.
Problems in the •water front area.
Mound septic tank systems built or near bedrock on top of cliff, over-
looking Juddville Bay, on southwest corner of the Town of Gibraltar
should be checked for proper functioning.
gt,T*=>O«\«e.o,>i'v*i
High water over level of drain fields along beach front speed c v Lj. uliLAliun
of harbor and Green Bay.
5
-------
Septic tanks discharging to the ground. These are located through-
out the community. Some very old places on cottage row have cess
pools and little or no drainage fields.
Holding tanks should be sealed only to be opened by licensed pumpers. .
The whole area should be put on a sewerage system.
Village of Fish Creek in July and August, -^ock and beach area visible
debris, sewage at times Kangaroo Lake - West side - seepage from field
which receives hauled sewage.
During holiday weekends the odors coming from the Tavern and C. C.
Club indicate insufficient waste system for the peak crowds.
Polluted conditions in Village of Fish Creek. Direct discharges to
Green Bay and Lake Michigan.
Need extreme caution to avoid overloading what the land can handle,
especially in development areas.
Very concerned about the entire pollution problem in Green Bay. It
seems to be getting worse rather than better.
A number of old inadequate septic systems on nearby properties.
In Door County land disposal of human raw sewage is a threat to human
health.
All holding tank sewage should be treated by conventional method in light
of potential Public Health Risk involved.
Seepage is occurring frequently along with overflowing from adjoining
properties. Must be corrected soon.
Ephraim
Absolutely! Wastewater disposal is at a crisis level in the Ephi^im area,
unsafe. In 1977 there was a hepatitus case in our home and right, now my
son is in Childrens Memorial Hospital with an intestinal problem that is
being checked. Why hasn't sewer gone in along time ago? I fear the deposit
pouring in the bay where our children swim. Someone ought to take well
and beach water samples in August.
-------
Areas along shoreline.
General inspection of existing septic facilities. Supervision of holding
tank effluent disposal.
The whole water front.
The whole village needs sewer and water.
I feel all towns in Door County need a sewer system.
Septic systemjat water level are increasingly troublesome as more
buildings (and more holding tanks) are located along the shoreline.
Inadequate supervision of disposal of holding tank effluent. Use of
secondary treatment systems such as Sister Bay to justify promiscuous
building of condominiums which contribute heavily to dumping inadequately
treated sewage into Green Bay.
Lack of satisfactory depths of proper soil for installation of septic system
makes it worthwhile trying to install sewer lines.
Bedrock, very high water table, creviced bedrock on bluff east of Village
and entire length of Highway 42, the business district.
Lower Village along lakeshore is reported to have problems.
Shore cottage with inadequate septic systems.
High groundwater levels, particularly low shoreline areas.
Ephraim needs additional public toilets for the tourist season at public
beach, Firehouse Dock, Anderson Dock.
We need a Village system.
Overloaded and/or inadequate septic field, inadequate public rest-
room facilities contributing to overloading of septic systems at
business locations. Definitely would prefer sewer system.
(Suspect two neighboring cottages have failing systems)
Am sure the long range answer is a sewage treatment system for the
area.
-------
Ephraim is noted for this problem.
Old defective septic systems.
I am concerned over the pumping of raw sewage in downtown Ephraim.
The odor is in the Village and to dump this sewage oij open farm fields
and orchards is dangerous. I also heard that some is dumped over
cliff sides. There must be some other way.
Center Village has questionable soil for septic systems.
Stagnant ditch along Larson place.
Wastewater along shore in the North part of Town.
Ephraim needs additional public toilet facilities for the tourist season,
located at public beach, Firehouse Dock and Anderson Dock.
I am sure these are due to occasional odors detected throughout the
community. Mostly noticed in times of heavy tourist influx.
Drainage pipe from area south of Highway 42 empties into Bay at our
property line.
Need for sewage collection/treatment system, and safe water supply.
In my opinion, the Peninsula Park golf course is a major pollution source
to Eagle Harbor from septic system, and fertilizer draining from the
course to the harbor.
Drinking water on shore in Ephraim is questionable.
Boats at Anderson Dock.
I think the hotels and motels and Condos that have high population density
should not expect one house on 3+ acres to help pay for their problems
Oy '
solution via taxes ! ©« an assessment on a front foot basis.
-------
Boats polluting Bay, human faces floating in the public beach area,
for example.
Direct drainage into lake.
There should be a central sewerage and water treatment facility.
Baileys Harbor
There is no planning for the future need of the community or expansion
and development of dwelling will create serious disposal problems in
next 15-20 years.
Entire Main Street.
One of the major concerns is the surface disposal of holding tank material
throughout the County.
In North Bay close to the lake. Should septic tanks be allowed? I often
wonder if they are OK or if it leaches anything out into the water.
The misuse of holding tanks^ outdate^septic systems, the dumping of
Baileys Harbor laundry and other holding tanks in the area low te-4«.
U^>
Downtown Main Street.
Holding tank pumpings discharge^on shallow soils.
Continuous pump-outs of small holding tanks are a nuisance - also the
dumping areas are unsatisfactory.
Florian II, Blue Ox, Baileys Harbor Laundry, Frontier Bar.
Downtown Baileys Harbor has old septic tanks that overflow onto street
it rains.
n
We could use a good primary disposal system especially if we should live
there year round, and need laundry and shower drainage.
The whole town needs water/sewer.
-------
Bad odors (on the) three Main Streets of Baileys Harbor on occasion.
Many cottages on Kangaroo Lake have outdoor privy's - definitely not
systems required by todays legal standards.
There has been some question of disposal of contents of holding tanks.
It should be taken to disposal system rather than dumped on fields.
(Neighbors let water run onto adjacent properties, most of the year)
I suggest that all septic systems surrounding Kangaroo Lake should be
tested for discharge into the lake.
Wet ground over seepage fields after heavy rains in the summer.
•10
-------
Response to Question #5
»
Gibraltar
Sometimes overloaded - seasonal user.
Overloaded in summer - seasonal user
Prohibits use of washer, showers, etc. - weekender
Ephraim
Overloaded, wet ground, and odor in Fall.
Ocasional wet ground over field in the summer.
Overloaded, wet ground over field and odors in the summer.
Overloaded in the summer.
Water level over septic tank in Spring.
Baileys Harbor
Inconvenient (Privy)
Overloaded in Summer.
Overloaded in Summer.
Saturated ground over septic field.
Overloaded in Spring.
•11
-------
APPENDIX B
Septic Leachate Survey
Door County, Wisconsin
-------
#667
MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Subject:
Ms. Bobbie Lively
USEPA Project Officer
Date: 26 February 1980
G
Warren J. Buchanan, Jr. w
WAPORA Project Manager
WAPORA comments to be appended to the final
report prepared by K-V Associates on the
septic leachate survey, Middle Door County,
Wisconsin
Ref:
Cc:
Mr. Chuck Burney
Dr. William Kerfoot
Mr. Steve Jankowski
Mr. Phil Stecker
Mr. Phil Woerfel
Mr. Len Montie
Mr. Bill Barry
1) The statements throughout the report that infer effluent-related
bacterial contamination of drinking water wells are based largely on the
USGS publication on Door County water supplies by Sherrill (1978). There
is general agreement among state and local officials that conclusive evidence
is lacking to substantiate such inferences. Therefore, such statements con-
cerning the correlation of failing on-site treatment systems and wellwater
contamination should not be taken for granted.
2) The introduction of the report describes typical septic leachate
plumes (page 2). It should be noted that throughout much of the study area,
the fissured dolomite substrate causes an atypical transport, dilution, and
attenuation of septic leachate and an atypical manifestation of plumes, as
described on page 11.
3) The description of traditional causes of septic system failures
(page 4) is not completely relevant to the situation in the study area. A
major cause of septic system failure in the study area is the too-rapid drain-
age of the septic fields into the fissured bedrock.
4) The description of wellwater sampling (page 10) states that the
samples were taken from cottages "representative of the communities survey(ed)."
Most well samples, however, were' taken from motels; from deep, cased wells;
and from shoreline areas. The wellwater survey, therefore, should not be con-
strued as a statistically representative and complete survey. Because no ef-
fluent-related contamination was identified, the absence of septic contamination
of wellwater may seem to be indicated. This is contrary to statements made
elsewhere in the report. It must be emphasized that the survey methods were not
adequate to develop any definitive conclusions.
It is noteworthy that Dr. Kerfoot made a qualitative judgement that some
organic contaminant other than domestic wastewater was present in some well-
water, based on its odor. He verbally recommended a thorough chemical analysis.
5) The discussion on the percentage breakthrough of leachate plumes (pages
36-38) has limited value because the effects of the fissured dolomite on the
septic leachate breakthrough largely are unknown. There is no way to attribute
-------
MEMORANDUM
To: Ms. Bobbie Lively
Page: 2
the breakthrough points detected along the shoreline to a single source or to
many sources inland. It was acknowledged that the groundwater flows that trans-
port the leachate were impossible to measure in many instances because of the
rocky substrate. Therefore, the rate of pollutants leaching to the surface
waters cannot be determined. The conclusions that can be drawn are that:
• septic leachate plumes were present, signifying some amount of
effluent-related groundwater and surface-water pollution;
• high bacterial populations were associated with a few of these
plumes;
• significant organic contamination was found to be associated with
wetland discharges elsewhere in the study area.
6) Conclusion 2 (page 45), which correlates background conductivity in
Baileys Harbor-Eagle Harbor and Egg Harbor-Tennison Bay to the frequency of
wastewater plumes is inadequately supported by the data. Only two background
samples were recorded for Egg Harbor and none were recorded for Tennison Bay
(Table 1). Dr. Kerfoot, however, advised WAPORA that such relationships be-
tween background conductivity and frequency of plumes is common.
7) The timing of the survey in October, after the tourist season, may be
subject to question. Dr. Kerfoot, however, was confident that the lag between
the time that septic leachate indicators entered the groundwater system and the
time they were discharged along the shoreline was sufficient to permit detection
of the contamination from the seasonal peak. Furthermore, discharge points that
were no longer active were accounted for because inactive discharges also were
detected readily as dormant plumes.
-------
SEPTIC LEACHATE SURVEY
DOOR COUNTY, WISCONSIN
October 1979
Prepared for
WAPORA, Inc.
Chicago, Illinois
Prepared by
K-V Associates, Inc.
281 Main Street
Faltnouth, Massachusetts 02540
January 1980
-------
TABLE OP CONTENTS
Page
1.0 Introduction 1
1.1 Effluent Plume Theory. 1
1.1.1 Groundwater Plumes*... 2
1.1.2 Runoff Plumes.. 4
1.2 Special Survey Technique and Equipment 5
2.0 Methodology - Sampling and Analysis «. 7
2.1 Procedure 8
2.2 Sample Handling 9
2.3 Calibration 9
2.4 Well Water Sampling and Groundwater Flow Measurement.... 10
2.5 Water Analysis 10
3.0 Plume Locations 11
4.0 Nutrient Analyses..... 27
5.0 Nutrient Relationships 36
5.1 Assumed Standard Wastewater Characteristics 37
5.2 Assumed Background Levels 38
6.0 Coliform Levels in Surface Waters 39
7.0 Groundwater Flow Patterns 42
8.0 Conclusions 45
Appendix* 47
-------
-1-
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Door County is located along the western shores of Lake Michigan
and is the principal eastern shoreline of Green Bay. The county has a
permanent population of about 20,000 while another estimated 50,000
visit the peninsula resort areas as summer residents or tourists. The
high bedrock of Silurian dolomite limestone and thin topsoils are
not well-suited to wastewater disposal through septic tank absorption
systems which service most residences in the area. Chemical and indicator
coliform bacteria content of groundwater recharge are public concerns
that threaten private water supplies. In support of the Environmental
Impact Statement concerning sewering needs evaluation, this report
.presents the results of a comprehensive septic leachate survey per-
formed during October, 1979. The study covered populated shoreline
areas in Egg Harbor, Fish Creek, Eagle Harbor, Sister Bay, North and
Moonlight Bays, Baileys Harbor, and inland Kangaroo Lake.
1.1 Effluent Plume Theory
In porous soils, groundwater inflows frequently convey wastewaters
from nearshore septic units through bottom sediments and into lake
waters, causing attached algae growth and algal blooms. The lake
shoreline is a particularly sensitive area since: 1) the groundwater
depth is shallow, encouraging soil water saturation and anaerobic
conditions; 2) septic units and leaching fields are frequently located
close to the water's edge, allowing only a short distance for bacterial
degradation and soil adsorption of potential contaminants; and 3) the
-------
-2-
recreational attractiveness of the lakeshore often induces temporary
*
overcrowding of homes leading to hydraulically overloaded septic units.
Rather than a passive release from lakeshore bottoms, groundwater
plumes from nearby on-site treatment units may actively emerge along
shorelines, raising sediment nutrient levels and creating local elevated
concentrations of nutrients. The contribution of nutrients from
subsurface discharges of shoreline septic units has been estimated at
30 to 60 percent of the total nutrient load in certain New Hampshire
lakes, (LRPC, 1977).
The capillary-Iike structure of sandy, porous soils and horizontal
groundwater movement induces a fairly narrow plume from malfunctioning
septic units* The point of discharge along the shoreline is often
through a small area of lake bottom, commonly forming an oval-shaped
area several meters wide when the septic unit is close to the shoreline.
In denser subdivisions containing several overloaded units, the discharges
may overlap forming a broader increase. (See Figure 1 )
1.1.1. Groundwater Plumes
Three different types of groundwater-re lated wastewater plumes
are commonly encountered during a septic leachate survey: 1) erupting
plumes, 2) passive plumes, and 3) stream source plumes. As the soil
becomes saturated with dissolved solids and organics during the aging
process of a leaching on-lot septic system, a breakthrough of organics
occurs first, followed by inorganic penetration (principally chlorides,
sodium, and other salts). The active emerging of the combined organic
and inorganic residues into the shoreline lake water describes an
-------
-3-
TANK
VERFLOW
SURFACE
RUNOFF
r-GROUNDWATER
SEPTIC LEACHATE
Figure 1. Excessive loading of septic systems causes the development
of plumes of poorly-treated effluent which may
1) enter nearby waterways through surface runoff or
which may 2) move laterally with groundwater flow and
discharge near the shoreline of nearby lakes.
-------
-4-
erupting plume. In seasonal dwellings where wastewater loads vary in
time, a plume may be apparent during late summer when shoreline cottages
sustain heavy use, but retreat during winter during low flow conditions.
Residual organics from the wastewater often still remain attached to
soil particles in the vicinity of the previous erupting plume, slowly
releasing into the shoreline waters. This dormant plume indicates a
previous breakthrough, but sufficient treatment of the plume exists
under current conditions so that no inorganic discharge is apparent.
Stream source plumes refer to either groundwater leachings or near-
stream septic leaching fields which enter into streams which then
empty into the lake.
1.1.2 Runoff Plumes
Traditional failures of septic systems occur in tight soil
conditions when the rate of inflow into the unit is greater than the
soil percolation can accomodate. Often leakage occurs around the
septic tank or leaching unit covers, creating standing pools of poorly-
treated effluent. If sufficient drainage is present, the effluent
may flow laterally across the surface into nearby waterways. In
addition, rainfall or snow melt may also create an excess of surface
water which can wash the standing effluent into water courses. In
either case, the poorly-treated effluent frequently contains elevated
fecal coliform bacteria, indicative of the presence of pathogenic
bacteria and, if sufficiently high, must be considered a threat to
public health.
-------
-5-
1.2 Special Survey Technique and Equipment
Wastewater effluent contains a mixture of near-UV fluorescent
organics derived from whiteners, surfactants and natural degradation
products which are persistent under the combined conditions of low
oxygen and limited microbial activity. Figure 2 shows two samples of
sand-filtered effluent from the Otis Air Force Base, Massachusetts,
sewage treatment plant. One was analyzed immediately and the other
after having been held in a darkened bottle for six months at 20 C.
Note that little change in fluorescence was apparent, although during
the aging process some narrowing of the fluorescent region did occur.
The aged effluent percolating through sandy loam soil under anaerobic
conditions reaches a stable ratio between the organic content and
chlorides which are highly mobile anions. It is this stable ratio
(conjoint signal) between fluorescence and conductivity that allows
ready detection of leachate plumes by their conservative tracers.
Such identified plumes are an early warning of potential nutrient
breakthrough or public health problems. The septic leachate detector
instrument utilizes this principal.
Septic surveys for shoreline wastewater discharges are conducted
with a septic leachate detector, ENDECOR Type 2100 "Septic Snooper"™,
TM
and the K-V Associates, Inc. "Dowser" Groundwater Flow Meter. The
leachate detector unit can be operated out of any small rowboat. It
consists of the subsurface probe (water intake system), the analyzer
control unit, and an analog stripchart recorder. Initially the unit
is calibrated against incremental additions of wastewater effluent of
-------
80-
70-
60-
UJ
o
z
UJ
UJ
UL
UJ
_J
UJ
-------
-6-
the type to be detected to the background lake water. The pump end of
the probe unit is then submerged in the lake water along the near
shoreline. Groundwater seeping through the shoreline bottom is drawn
into the screened intake of the probe and travels upwards to the analyzer
unit. As it passes through the analyzer, separate conductivity and
fluorescence signals are generated. The responses are sent to the
signal processor which registers the separate signals on a strip chart
recorder as the boat moves forward. The analyzed water is continuously
discharged from the unit back into the receiving water. The battery-
powered unit used for field studies can record individual fluorescence
and conductivity or a combination signal. It has also been modified
to operate under the conductivity conditions encountered in the field.
Well-point sampling of groundwater and bacterial sampling of
surface run-off complement the leachate detector scan, surface water
sampling and groundwater flow vector measurements for the complete
survey.
-------
-7-
2.0 METHODOLOGY - SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
The septic leachate survey covered the unsewered populated shore-
lines of Egg Harbor, Eagle Harbor, Baileys Harbor, Fish Creek, North
Bay, and Kangaroo Lake. Sewered and unsewered sections of Sister Bay
shoreline were also investigated. Separated dwellings dot the more
exposed rocky coastlines, while crowded cottages and business establish-
ments mark the sandy inner shores of the harbor areas.
The objectives of this survey were:
1) To perform a shoreline scan of selected populated sections of
several coastal communities for evidence of septic leachate (nutrient)
intrusion from on-lot septic systems.
2) To take discrete water samples for subsequent nutrient analysis
only at those locations of alleged effluent plumes revealed by the
leachate detector instrument.
3) To take bacteria samples for fecal coliform analysis from all
moving surface tributaries or exceptionally high shoreline effluent
plumes.
4) To make groundwater flow measurements in the shallow holes in
the loose sand shoreline of the study areas.
5) To make visual observations relevant to sources of lake water
degradation.
This survey was executed during the period of October-November 1979.
Daytime temperatures ranged, from 10° to 20°C with winds from 0-25 knots.
-------
-8-
2.1 Procedure
Each harbor area was shoreline-scanned in a continuous counter-
clockwise direction. The entire shoreline of Door County was not
surveyed; rather, those specific sections around principal northern
communities where density of settlement would likely give rise to
significant pollution problems. The survey team consisted of two
technicians and light-weight mobile survey gear. The basic equipment
platform was a 14-foot aluminum boat with small outboard. The septic
ieachate detector instrument was securely lashed to a boat seat with
shock cords and the water intake and exhaust tubes were extended over
the starboard gunnel. A 12 vdc gel-cell battery provided electrical
power to the instrument and submersible pump. The centrifugal water
pump at the end of the 5-foot long metal tube intake wand drew near-
bottom water through the instrument detector chamber and out a flexible
plastic discharge tube from which retained samples could be taken.
A large ice chest held chilled water samples as well as supplies
and maintenance gear. Groundwater specimens were drawn through a
rugged stainless steel well-point sampler developed by K-V Associates,
Inc. This 3/8 inch bore tube had 2% foot threaded segments to accomodate
different water and ground penetration depths. It was fitted with a
slotted and pointed tip section. A 10-pound tubular steel hammer Was
used to drive the point into the sandy bottom at depths of up to 2
feet. Water flowed easily at this depth, but was impeded somewhat
below this depth by finer, less permeable sand. Groundwater samples
were drawn from bottom sediments of those locations displaying a high
relative fluorescence signal. Interstitial water was extracted via
-------
-9-
simple hand vacuum pump and large plastic receiving chamber. The
captured groundwater could then be readily decanted apart from entrained
sand and bottled for later analysis.
In summary the two-man team walked or motored the boat around the
lake within 15 feet of shore in shallow water. Background or plume
samples were taken as required. Specific conductance of each sample
was measured as the water was prefiltered and bottled. Relative
fluorescence and conductivity were continuously plotted on separate
strip recorders with positional cross references to the sewer planning
map of the lake. (See Figure 3a through k for sampling locations.)
2.2 Sample Handling
Both ground and surface water samples for nutrient analysis were
retained in 250 ml clean plastic bottles. Each sample was prefiltered
with .45 um filters on the boat and acidified with sulfuric acid for
preservation at the end of the sampling day following the procedures
outlined by EPA Standard Methods.
Bacteria samples were captured in similar sterilized 250 ml plastic
bottles and shipped to Badger Laboratories & Engineering Co., Inc.
(Appleton, Wisconsin) for fecal coliform analysis.
2.3 Calibration
The shoreline scanning work day began with a calibration of the
septic leachate instrument. Two solutions were required: the first, a
background sample drawn from an assumed unpolluted central portion
of the harbor area (here, water from offshore of Fish Creek served
-------
-10-
for all calibrations in other areas); the second, a sample of local
municipally treated effluent (Sister Bay Lagoon). The instrument
was zero stabilized on background water and a response slope was
established equal to a change of 507. of full scale for organics and
247. of scale for inorganics with 27. addition of local effluent in
background water. This spiked solution was injected by syringe into
the instrument detection chamber. Inorganics (conductivity) sensiti-
vity was at a maximum level and could not be increased further to
exact parity with the more responsive fiuoresence.
2.4 Well Water Sampling and Groundwater Flow Measurement
Several well water samples were taken from cottages representative
of the communities survey. These drinking water specimens were analyzed
for signs of nutrient contamination from pollutant infiltrated ground-
waters. Groundwater transport vectors were studied with the K-V
Associates, Inc. Dowser instrument. Shallow bedrock and pebbly soils
were limitations in obtaining this data on shallow soil flow.
See section 7.0 for discussion of groundwater flow findings.
2.5 Water Analysis
All water samples were analyzed by EPA Standard Methods for the
following chemical constituents:
Nitrate nitrogen (as combined
Ammonia nitrogen (NH^-N)
Total phosphorous (TP)
Conductivity (pmhos/cm)
-------
-11-
3.0 PTUME LOCATIONS
The Door County study area encompassed the populated shorelines
of four coastal communities on the Green Bay exposure (Egg Harbor, Fish
Creek, Eagle Harbor and Sister Bay), and three bay communities on the
Lake Michigan exposure (Baileys Harbor, Moonlight Bay and North Bay), as
well as an interior water body, Kangaroo Lake. The dominant geology is
dolomite bedrock with bare outcropping along the outer shore and shallow
silt or sand coveT in more confined harbor areas which often abut low
wetlands. The fractured substrate induces a fragmentation of plumes rather
than encouraging discrete subsurface discharges characteristic of unconsol-
idated soils. For purposes of evaluation and consistent with our historical
practice, a plume was judged to be a leachate detector signal excursion
of at least 17. effluent equivalent of fluorescence and ^7. of conductivity.
Egg Harbor
The Egg Harbor shoreline is primarily stone and bedrock with a
shallow covering of silt soils. Two small plumes (26 and 27) were
detected at opposite ends of the Alpine Resort in Egg Harbor. Groundwater
samples were not available at several of these sites because of the
underlying bedrock condition. The total phosphorus levels (.050 ppm) of
27 and 28 (near condominiums) are capable of sustaining algae growth
which was already apparent on the rocks, even at location 26, though
surrounding stones were free of vegetation.
Fish Creek
The resort village of Fish Creek has exposed bedrock along its
western bank and low wet areas southeast of the populated harbor region.
-------
-12-
Two small groundwater plumes and one larger stream source plume were
detected in the interior harbor of Fish Creek. The rocky, exposed shoreline
to the southwest gave no indication of any concentrated discharges. Sample
IS taken near a shore-front cottage revealed a very notable phosphorus
concentration of 1.1 ppm. Fish Creek stream which drains Button Marsh
showed significant nutrient intrusion and boron retention in its alluvial
soils, indicating a very probable effluent connection.
Eagle Harbor
Eagle Harbor has a well-developed community in the town of Ephraim,
and several small stream discharges provide drainage for Ephraim Swamp,
a low-lying wetlands to the southeast. At least three stream sources
(samples 5, 9, and 10) carried conductivity (inorganics) well above back-
ground, and total phosphorus levels somewhat above normal. Fluorescent
scanning of these stream samples confirms a high fluorescence intensity,
containing both bog discharge and effluent loadings. The other plume
locations marked houses close to shore with distinct algae patches capping
rocks in the vicinity of the detected discharge. Their groundwater total
phosphorus levels were among the highest measured in the county, all above
.092 ppm. The frequency of effluent discharges correlated with the elevated
dissolved solids background, again the highest observed for a harbor area.
Sister Bay
Sister Bay, the largest community in northern Door County, has been
sewered up to the Liberty Grove town line. Two distinct effluent plumes
were located: one in the Sister Bay area in the vicinity of a gray
contemporary cottage; and a second in Liberty Grove, a much stronger plume
just below the Hotel du Nord, a high-capacity tourist facility. Here,
the stone bottom was very slimy with thick algae. A phosphorus level
-------
-13-
of .052 ppm and a fecal colifora count exceeding 1000 colonies/100 ml
of water mark this as a strongly erupting source.
North Bay
North Bay is surrounded by wetlands and inhabited only along the
western shoreline. The plume locations encountered during the continuous
scan were found to have quite low total phosphorus (.005 - .018 ppm)
and total nitrogen (.06 - .30 ppm) loadings. All samples showed a
fluorescence discharge more characteristic of bog than effluent.
Moonlight Bay
Several groundwater nutrlant plumes appeared in the vicinity of the
delta formed by the creek draining Mud Lake. This region is uninhabited
Deford loamy fine sand. A few homes are widely-spaced east and west
of the creek, along the shores. Green algae (Cladophora) appeared
discretely on a rock groin near the first house (sample 31) west of the
creek* The fluorescent scan of creek surface water showed the pattern
of bog content. The high ammonia level (~26 ppm) is indication of
reducing conditions for decaying organic debris in non-flushed lake
bottom sediments. Dwellings just north of highway Q along the creek
may be effluent contributors, but it is more likely a broader nonpoint
source like road runoff is responsible.
Baileys Harbor
Most of the shoreline of Baileys Harbor has shallow bedrock condi-
tions with thin silt cover. The old sandy beaches to the north are
sparsely populated and subject to high groundwater most of the year.
-------
-14-
The most notable leachate plume in Baileys Harbor appeared in front
of a commercial laundry effluent concrete holding tank. Sample 14
showed elevated conductivity (330 jimho/cm) but surprisingly low phosphorus
and nitrogen values. As the nutrient content of underlying shallow
groundwater in front of the tank exhibited even lower levels, the source
could well be attributed to below-waterline flaws in the concrete tank.
Effluent wash water from the tank has a high conductivity of 1800 ^mho/cm
and it is possible low phosphate detergents were used. A neighboring
conduit pipe leading back towards Town Hall showed no sign of effluent
and was not flowing.
A second, broad area discharge was confirmed over the known outfall
from the Baileys Harbor Yacht Club treatment plant. Transect readings
taken at various distances offshore map the pipe's discharge dispersion
and substantiate the high bacteria count within this area. Survey water
conditions were difficult on the northern shore due to turbid water
caused by steady swells rolling in over the shallow sandy swales.
Kangaroo Lake
Kangaroo Lake is the largest freshwater lake in Door County. It
is also very shallow and has a dam at the outlet. The areas immediately
north and south of the lake are swamp lands of soft peat and muck soils,
and were not surveyed. The silt bottom material around the lake is
generally very thin, underlain by solid bedrock slabs. No plumes were
revealed by the continuous septic survey. Nutrient levels in both the
well water and background samples were low (TF below .022ppm and TN
below 1.5 pom). Septic leaching from shoreside dwellings, though
highly suspect, could not be confirmed.
-------
EGG HARBOR
s27
s26
FISH CREEK
'FISH CREEK
SISTER SAY
MOONLIGHT
BAY
•MUD LAKE CREEK
s38
NORTH BAY
BAILEYS HARBOR
$14
3KG 250
3KG 260
BKG 260
SIS
BKG 270
BKG 272
BKG 275
S13
Figure 3. Profiles of equal length shorelines in each harbor, characterizing
the frequency of confirmed effluent plumes with the dissolved
solids concentration (in pmhos) found in background surface waters.
-------
-15-
Pigure 3a through k. Mappings of Egg Harbor, Fish Creek, Tennison
and Shanty Bays, Eagle Harbor, Sister Bay, North Bay, Moonlight Bay,
Baileys Harbor, and Kangaroo Lake showing start and finish of
leachate surveys, sampling stations for bacteria, well water, and
nutrients, and ground-water flow measurement locations.
Symbol code:
o
-------
-16-
START
N
EGG HARBOR
Figure 3a
-------
-17-
FINISH
FISH CREEK
N
2000
Figure 3b
-------
-18-
FINISH
TENNISON BAY
START
2000
SHANTY BAY
Figure 3c
-------
-19-
F1NISH
EAGLE
Figure 3d
-------
-20-
EAGLE HARBOR
\
Figure 3e
-------
-21-
N
SISTER BAY
2000
START
Figure 3f
-------
-22-
N
FINISH
Figure 3g
-------
-23-
N
MOONLIGHT BAY
2000
figure 3h
-------
-24-
GWFV
N
MOONLIGHT BAY
2000
Figure 3i
-------
-25-
-------
-26-
N
KANGAROO
LAKE
2000
Figure 3k
-------
-27-
4.0 NUTRIENT ANALYSES
Completed analysis of Che chemical content of 113 samples taken
along the Green Bay and Lake Michigan shorelines of Door County are
presented in Table 1. The samples are grouped by community area.
The numerical sample codes refer to the shoreline sampling locations
as seen on individual area maps (Figure 3a through k). The symbol "S"
refers to a surface water sample, the symbol "G" refers to a groundwater
sample, and "w" refers to a drinking water well sample. Virtually all
groundwater samples were obtained from the sandy interior shores of the
harbors and not from the impenetrable rocky shore along the outer exposed
shoreline.
The conductivity of the water samples as specific conductance (umho/cm)
is given in the second column. The nutrient analyses for total phosphorus
(TP), combined nitrate nitrite nitrogen (NCL-NO -N) and ammonia nitrogen
(NH.-N) are presented in the next three columns in parts-per-raillion
(ppm - mg/1).
-------
•i
/•s
•y.
•^ •
• e
Vi Vi «H
4j Js e
41
o *> vi
•— ' it eg
b. £
Vi
01 • ,
$ f2 *H
•a Vi eg
H 60 X
00 60 eg
Ed CQ
•O
C E ^
cQ O •£
H 00
r/\ _j
WJ *""
^^ w e
41 O
Vi -- O
41 az:
4J E
eg eg «
S »l >•«
41 4) CQ
•>
? CO
(A 41 93
•fH 4^
« M Vi
>»
B
8
A
00
3 Z
2
JS
X
4
41
Vi
CO 0-
Z
<3
o
«2 S
"
0
^
•z.
1 g
POO*
o a.
z
| 0
•^Ou
z a.
z
cu
— E
2 a
a.
H
E
• o
•O ^x
e o
31
4) Vi
— 41
O* jQ
E E
a 3
c/j z
V 4)
60 4> M
«« C 3 -*
•iJ •* O 41 TJ
u w o. x: *-> c
o vi -j « o e 4»
o o < ex z 41
M 3 O 10 J3
TJ W TJ * —i ai *-> e Su«
4) X C £ 1- O ^ JJ (0
W Vl *rH W Q *O ^M *«H 1
c 03 a. a OT c c -nvt
41 _z •— o tu o O tM rH C*l ^ »O
rH O^ f^*- 00 Cr* f**" ^N CN| O O rM
OO OrHOOOOOOO
oo ooooooooo
oo oooooomoo
-------
» «
A I-
« ^1
X *» 03 «
J-» (6 U
a
a.
o
a
^
c
V
a
^ »• W ** WW »* M* I* ^
«4>OM*O4>4I.££
M e
om'Or^ OOO
mO
r»o>
< to
sr
-------
•o
V
c £
o *
£ 5
•H 00
a
41 ta
JO
<8 «
H U
en
eo
9 Z
o
a a.
z
H
O Ou
X O.
z
•si
.8
41 M
M
m 3
to z
O -H
e e >
o ** o
I
5 «
2
M
«2 3
O ** 4»
n w js v m
« —i 3
O E W O 41 O
M 41 4-1
www o
W « 3 <->
0) Q V4
S4I
M
«4J
H «
<5 -^ O O > --
XAOfa^g
41 5 v « * 3 E
O
oo o
« 41 41 W
•O 00 O 4»
C -O W --
< W Ui O
>f\
in
CO
O
oo
O 00 ^O O
O O i-l TH
o m o ui
O 04 O rl
Wi-tlHi-(»-(»-t»-IO'-IO»^OT^<*^'*''>>>4>n>»
-------
•a
4»
G
o
o
4
S3
V
*-( <0
•H
4) CO
2
a) •
60
•a z
o
.*
a
M
a a.
U QU
« fr-
ee <3
V*
o a
ri
Z Q.
•51
*J cu
U M
E* S
J= t)
•U M
3 O
O Z
3
O
«l
-31-
u e
O« v>
JK.C
« 4)
U VI
C 3
41 O
U X
C O 4) M n
« X ** 41
U C 4 •
o a -J z
o
co
o
o
r» ao
^^ ^5
ao ao ^o
CO
(N
in o \o
PI eo 0 O •»
CO t/5 O CO CO O O
o
in
o
e
§£
«0 «l
« 3
r» oo CT*
O i-l
3 3
-------
-32-
Table 1. (continued)
E. North Bay
Sample
Number
38
39
40
41
42
W25
W12
W13
BKG 17
BKG 18
W14
S
G
S
G
S
G
S
G
S
G
G
G
S
G
S
G
G
Cond.
jjmho/cm
285
375
290
730
300
800
280
570
260
2900
1050
275
740
270
290
880
Total P
ppm
.006
.011
.007
.007
.005
.007
.005
.018
.009
.005
.009
.007
.034
.025
.060
.067
.007
NH4-N
ppm
.229
.813
.047
.005
.046
.265
.041
.182
.056
.099
.029
.027
.005
.005
.005
.013
.174
N03-N
ppm
.018
.054
.013
.037
.033
.024
.023
.028
.038
.032
.018
.015
.055
.075
.024
.096
.008
Comments
"B" on map
South of bright red
cabin
Brown house "wilcum"
Holiday Houae
Center - opposite
Gordon Lodge
Schroeders #9804
L. Raymond - N. Bay Dr
#9591 - Ballantynes
Offshore - beyond
tall grass
House #9527
#9451 - Garro & Bete
-------
-33-
e
I 5
<-• 60
• C
f( O
tl
c
00
3 Z
O
8! <
u
S Q.
Z
«|
*» O.
5
TJ
o
« w
— V
0..0
E e
« 3
CO Z
o
V
w
«
-------
-34-
Table 1. (continued)
G. Baileys Harbor
Sample
Number
12
13
14
15
16
BKG 7
BKG 8
BKG 9
W15
W16
W23
B.H.Y
S
S
G
S
S
S
G
S
G
S
G
G
.C.
Cond.
jjoiho/cm
270
330
300
1800
275
275
520
275
520
300
1150
1650
3070
Total P
ppo
.012
.019
.016
.323
.009
.009
.007
.008
.020
.010
.005
.007
2.554
NH4-N
ppm
.217
.110
.036
.293
.052
.037
1.470
.021
.058
.038
.020
.039
2.579
N03-N
ppm
.108
.341
.229
.286
.147
.125
.031
.148
.120
.065
.021
.267
.061
Comments
Center
Lost
In front of laundry's
concrete effluent tank
From laundry effluent tank
South of jetty
100' offshore of public
beach
North of jetty
Lost
Treatment
Plant
-------
-35-
Table 1. (continued)
H. Kangaroo Lake
Sample
Number
21
W17
wia
W19
W20
BKG 11
BKG 12
BKG 13
S
G
G
G
G
S
G
S
G
S
G
Cond.
umho/cm
310
740
560
2250
320
430
320
480
310
440
Total P
ppm
.012
.007
.007
.009
.008
.008
.008
.008
.011
.006
.022
ppm
.102
.112
.009
.039
.022
.042
1.333
.081
1.356
.089
.175
NO.-N
ppm
.088
.151
.008
.012
.694
.049
.018
.020
.042
.022
1.284
Comments
Center
Happy Landing well water
#7645 -east shore well water
#7698 -west shore well water
#7510 - Dvorak well water
Between houses #10 & #11
Green house #35
Between houses #44 & #45
-------
-36-
5.0 NUTRIENT RELATIONSHIPS
By the use of a few calculations, the characteristics of wastewater
plumes can be described. First, a general background groundwater
concentration for conductivity and nutrients is determined. The concen-
tration of nutrients found in a plume is then compared to the background
and to municipal wastewater effluent from the lake region to determine
the percent breakthrough of phosphorus and nitrogen to the lake water.
Because the wellpoint sampler does not always intercept the center of
the plume, the nutrient content of the groundwater plume is always
partially diluted by surrounding ambient background groundwater or
seeping lakewater concentrations* In an attempt to correct for the
sampling uncertainty in pinpointing the peak of the groundwater plume,
the nutrient concentrations of the sampled plume are corrected to a
concentration proportional to adjustment of plume conductivity to the
level of undiluted municipal effluent. (Recall section 1.1.1 explained
that effluent-saturated soils will likely pass 100% conductivity of any
newly-charged effluent.) The percentage of location-corrected nutrient
concentration to raw municipal effluent nutrient levels is referred to
as "nutrient breakthrough."
-------
-37-
For the difference between background (C ) and observed (C.) values:
C. - C = AC. conductivity
TP. • TP * ATP, total phosphorus
TN - TN » ATN total nitrogen (here, sum of NCL-N and NH -N)
For attenuation during soil passage:
ef i i
100 x { Ar • )-==— » 7. breakthrough of phosphorus
J L ef
i
100 x {— v--J -=j— - % breakthrough of nitrogen
\ACiy TNfif
Where: C » conductivity of background groundwater (pmho/cm)
C. * conductivity of sampled plume groundwater (pmho/cin)
AC . » conductivity of sand-filtered effluent minus the
conductivity of background (well) water (proho/cm)
TP * total phosphorus in background groundwater (ppm)
TP. » total phosphorus of sampled plume groundwater (ppm)
TP , » total phosphorus concentration of standard effluent (ppm)
TN * total nitrogen content of background (well) groundwater,
0 here calculated as NO,-M+ NH4-N (ppm)
TN, - total nitrogen content of sampled plume groundwater,
here calculated as NCyN + NH^-N (ppm)
TN , » total nitrogen content of standard effluent (ppm)
6 r
TN and TP are considered insignificantly small compared to TP ,
o o et
and TNfif.
5.1 Assumed Standard Wastewater Characteristics
Samples of effluent were taken from the treatment lagoons in Sister
Bay. Characteristics of the effluent formed the basis of comparison
-------
-38-
for all sampled plumes in the Door County study area. A conductance :.
total phosphorus : total nitrogen ratio of 1050:6:20 was used. Please
note that a standard (assumed) value of 20 ppm total nitrogen was
substituted for the analytically determined value of 2.6 ppm for purposes
of breakthrough computations. It was felt that the sample value was
quite uncharacteristically low, though a sound explanation for this
condition is lacking. Background levels of surface water conductivity,
total phosphorus and total nitrogen were derived from center-of-bay
samples taken in each principal harbor or lake area. Likewise, background
levels of conductivity, total phosphorus and total nitrogen for ground-
water were derived judgementally from consideration of local well water
and background station samples.
5.2 Assumed Background Levels
One or more background pair samples were taken from each study area.
Additionally, well water sample data were also available. An effort was
made to find a consistent value between these two sources for purposes
of "breakthrough" calculations. Where shallower wells seem to have
conductivities of about 500 umho/cm, deeper wells can easily exceed
1000 pmho/cm. In most cases, the common value used was: conductivity,
500 umho/cm; TF, .01 ppm; TN, .20 ppm. So far as possible, background
samples were taken away from potential plume areas.
-------
-39-
6.0 COLIFORM LEVELS IN SURFACE WATERS
A series of water samples from around the various harbor areas
was analyzed for fecal coliform count to confirm the presence of
surface runoff or soil shortcircuiting from malfunctioning systems.
The membrane filter coliform count indicates the density of coliform
organisms. Since these organisms may be of intestinal origin and are
numerous in sewage, high numbers are indicative of sewage pollution
with its possible hazards to public health. Here, the fecal coliform
count was used as a more specific test of recent sewage pollution.
The thin soil cover and fractured bedrock allow groundwater
contaminants easy entry to the groundwater system in large areas
of Door County. Many chemical and bacteria contaminants enter the
Silurian dolomite acquifer system with recharging groundwater.
Contamination in the fractured dolomite occurs from point sources, in
zones or enclaves that become elongated with the channeled flow of
groundwater through the aquifer system. Door County does have a
long history of groundwater contamination and particularly bacterial
contamination from ineffectively treated septic wastewater disposal.
The bacteria problem may be aggravated by the clustering of cottages
with older, inadequate treatment facilities in many of the densely
populated harbor areas.
Our samplings encompassed stream outlets to the harbor areas,
drinking water wells, likely plume areas revealed by the septic leachate
-------
-40-
detector, and several special sources such as the commercial laundry
at Baileys Harbor.
Fecal coliform levels in Fish Creek, Egg Harbor, Kangaroo Lake,
Moonlight and North Bays were well below 100 colonies per 100 ml of
water. Two high coliform sites in excess of 200 colonies per 100 ml
of water were found in Eagle Harbor area, the higher being from a small
stream discharge. Sister Bay was undergoing an extension of the city
sewer line into Liberty Grove. Opposite the Hotel du Word, in this
unsewered coastal zone, a substantial coliform count of about 1400
colonies per 100 ml of water was found amongst thickly Cladophora-
covered rocks.
Baileys Harbor Laundry, a commercial plant, has a large, poured
concrete effluent holding tank located directly on the water's edge.
A sample from lakewater directly in front of this holding tank registered
a coliform count of about 1400 colonies per 100 ml of water. A second
high source in Baileys Harbor may be related to the outfall from the
yacht club treatment plant. A value of 460 colonies/100 ml of water
was recorded from a sample drawn from in front of the retaining wall in
front of the yacht club.
Coliform sample analysis was provided by Badger Laboratories &
Engineering Co., Inc., Appleton, Wisconsin.
-------
-41-
Table 2* Bacterial content of shoreline samples.
Harbor Area
Fish Creek
Egg Harbor
Kangaroo Lake
Baileys Harbor
Moonlight Bay
North Bay
Sister Bay
Eagle Harbor
Station
Bl
B2
B3
B4
B5
B6
B7
B29
B8
B9
BIO
Bll
B12
B13
B14
B15
B16
B17
B30
B18
819
B20
B21
B22
323
B24
B25
B26
B27
B28
Fecal Coliforms
No/100 ml
< 1
< 1
< 1
23
75
45
<1
43
43
4
4
9
15
75
9
1400
460
< 1
43
4
< 1
< 1
< 1
1400
< 1
240
9
460
15
43
Location
Shanty Bay - drinking water
Tennison Bay boat ramp
Tennison Bay drinking water
Stream-north end of town y./1
White house - 2 houses south
of town beach
Town docks
Cookery Cabins drinking water
Weborg Campground - police
boat harbor
Condominiums south of
town dock
Alpine Resort - dock area
Alpine Resort - Maryland
College
#35 - green house
Conduit
Conduit
Condui t
Near commercial laundry tank
Yacht club plant outfall
House #17, south of
condominiums
Creek entrance
Beach road house $8688
2 houses south of #8688
Gordon Lodge
Hotel du Nord
Grey house north of
town docks
Residential area
First house after beach
Stream entrance
Culvert
Stream by Texaco station
-------
-42-
7.0 GROUNDWATER PLOW PATTERNS
Precipation in the form of tain or melting snow is the principal
source of groundvater in Door County. Aquifer systems are found in the
glacial drift mantle and the underlying Niagara dolomite, which is of
Silurian age. The water can be obtained from gravel seams in the drift
where the drift attains thicknesses of 30 feet or more or from vertical
bedding joints resulting from fractures and fissures in the bedrock.
Some of these fracture zones may be widened by solution allowing for
rapid transport of groundwater through the dolomite formations. Piezometric
surfaces for groundwater in upper Door County reflects radial flow
gradients discharging towards lakes, streams, and bogs, eventually
entering either Lake Michigan or Green Bay (Figure 4). The geology of
Door County along with its wide area and seasonal water supply variations
have been reported in detail by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil
Survey of Door County and the U.S. Department of the Interior, Groundwater
in Door County.
For this septic leachate survey we endeavored to develop information
on shallow groundwater flow patterns along discrete coastal shorelines
of the study area using the K-V Associates, Inc. Dowser groundwater flow
meter. Our ability to generate data with the instrument was limited by
difficult pebble and bedrock conditions along much of the exposed shore-
lines. Flow vectors are presented in Figure 4 and represent very localized
indications only. Where these shoreline vectors deviate significantly
from broad piezometric gradient, this may be local variations resulting
from contact with the large, open water bays.
-------
-43-
Table 3. Observed rate of groundwater flow in Door County, Wisconsin,
Station
GWF1
GWF2
GWF16
GWF17
GWF6
GWF7
GWF8
Flow
Location Direction
Kangaroo Lake
.
East Shorewood Cottages
Swamp
Kangaroo Lake Lodge
Fish Creek
Town beach
State park
Nicolet Bay - concession stand
Eagle Harbor
258°W
115°E
332°N
232°SW
301°NW
264°W
317°NW
Flow Rate
FPD
5.5
4.5
3.0
6.0
3.5
2.0
2.5
GWF10
Town beach
274°W
1.5
-------
-44-
TENNISON
BAY
FISH CR.
MOONLIGHT
BAY
« 2 FEET / DAY
GROUNOWATER FLOW
Figure 4. Groundwater flow patterns of the Door County Peninsula based
upon existing water table elevations and observed flow
measurement.
-------
-45-
8.0 CONCLUSIONS
A continuous shoreline septic leachate survey was conducted in the
autumn of 1979 in northern Door County, Wisconsin. Seven major harbors
and one inland lake were investigated. The following observations were
made from the shoreline profiles, fluorescent scans, nutrient and inorganic
analysis of surface and well water samples, and ground-water flow
measurements:
1) A total of 39 locations exhibited noticeable effluent plume
characteristics. Five of these related to surface streams draining wetlands
and passing through populous areas. The fractured dolomite substrate
tended to fragment plumes so that the individual peaks would not necessarily
indicate singular sources.
2) A general correlation existed between the frequency of confirmed
wastewater plumes and the dissolved solids content of background surface
water samples in harbor areas. For example, Eagle Harbor and Baileys
Harbor with background conductivity over 270 pnhos contained numerous
fragmented plume sources compared to the low levels of incidence in
Egg Harbor and Tennison Bay (ca. 250 umhos).
3) A number of plumes were found with fecal coliform bacterial
levels exceeding 200 colonies/100 ml of water, two locations at Baileys
Harbor, one in Sister Bay, and one in Eagle Harbor.
4) The strongest effluent source plumes were associated with surface
discharges in harbor areas, one in the rear of Pish Creek Harbor and at
least three in Sagle Harbor, while separate bog discharges, such as
observed with the Mud Creek inflow in Moonlight Bay, represent additional
nonpoint sources of nutrients.
-------
-46-
5) Due to the bedrock and shallow soil conditions, on-site groundwater
flow measurements were not particularly instructive.
6) Of 25 wells sampled, no significant nitrate contamination was
recorded. Three wells tested for bacteria showed no evidence of colifortn
contamination.
7) Lastly, a problem situation could not be confirmed in Kangaroo
Lake, based upon the late season survey of the shoreline. No discharges
were observed along the periphery of the lake and all samples showed low
total phosphorus content.
-------
-47-
APPENDIX
-------
N
FEET
2000
EGG HARBOR
SEG. 6
SEG. 5
SEG. 4
-------
i4:'"'-- -j:
^ %
*)flr>
i \
±3
Ifowd
-3-4-
^B
T" i i
-r-e-o
ry
14
•^JC1
-7—0
^ '
-—-f-n-o
-------
part
,-c
-U-
>o
p i
-M3
»l HC
^- — O
-C
-«:
Conductivity
-9-:
~\>cvv\ «viTfl^r
r8-O
-uf-
-------
txv-t
5
-O ||-
-os
-0 I-", i
-s-c
0
-i-C>!
-—0
-«
-c
-7 Zt-C
J «
-ll-O
-Ql-C
iE
-------
N\ SEG. 4
FISH CREEK
N
FEET
2000
-------
FISH
Port /
lOO
1 ni-r-fa.
-^—f-,0
-r— oiO
-9-0
-f-O-
•vS
-i-O
—o
V M^ A'"?'
. ufl litf^r" '
• i - "f xj T"
-««
•f— ^!
-tO«
!
_ X
•»»•
-Jf
iS
-=a e-*«>
-------
j. c!
-os
4—0.
*os :
—S-K
-Li o
-o.
LU
-O'
Lul' i
::^:~:'" '"3-
o
0
-nO
—o
-oiO
-60
—O
:u
TJ
, 8--/I
-ziC
llJ-;
*" 1
•t-C.
-»4
o
LU !
i-C
-Jt-O
-------
TENNISON BAY
xXSEG I.
2000
SHANTY BAY
-------
—40—50_M—7
-------
EAGLE HARBOR
-------
-»-O i
—c
-Zl'~
-01-03 "^TT
—c^ T*1*
-/f
'A 1 >v -
OdfTLo/fi • " !
i , /HT* \ .< '1
O^u^ ~
• r •>
( ^ {
\~ 2— ' \
• ' N -a r
\ i
i
'.
' i
J
'" ' . ' . .1 . -S
c™
'• 4d!/irp/j*. -1!
' / i!
/i ; «
jj-itr-r t 3m
4* ° V :•
"•' ^ -
V °
'- ---ft
j *-
s °
r
u
1- — ^
•~"
' '•>
'^
a'\ • ^i
! ^ -7 j O !
^ ^rtfnnle ^ j
luiii ? , "•- .
r •'t'Vl 1
. rf»^j • v 3
^ ' ,1 i"
1! 'J ' ' °'
1 >. ' x.
: i "c-
i' - ' ' ' 01'-
f '"" ^.^
li ' i "°
ii . • • . i. ^
i ., • i
ii !• .
F «•
! ^i i
i , ., G-O
I1 ~. s"**
• Pi '
• f>
i, . °
/l s o O
>v
^
^ j •— "
cam/ylf.
*7-^ i , j,1
1 ^T -t-Oa
" - - ' ''• rt-
i" 1 o (, "-
i _S
j -U.
1
1 T -,
! s ; 3-a
Z-, V ^3
^7^1Pt^- f rr2
8/' _^ a
•* °
£80%
s; _:
Ca*lOUC3-', U/ TV
00 ^r-
i T V*
-------
! SEG.2
SISTER BAY
N
FEET
2000
SEG.
-------
*?"
I
O
7—O
T— O,
^ T"
-o
-T S-0
4-i ho!
-f-9
• O
o ijo;
:•! 1"!. i
-c
-o
_£_
-o •
A
a
-t—s-a
i
i 'i.
-o
-o
'•., 6 '
-*-c
~vj
-O
131
-4-C.
—G
(00 <
-O
I
C
TV
-------
N
2000
SEG. 4
SEG.S NORTH BAY
-------
0 10 20 30 40 50 S™
,
•«
>
i
i £~_ ' ' " I • i • I I i ^3 CJ
CM—ag^iiTo—ao—so—torrso—33—10^:0 t j
100
Sf^-
- ff\ \ • £• =
0 - 10 — 2*^30 — <0 56-ZIjft±r719r^:30 — 30^
100
OfZGAA/tCS
! i
' ' ; •
; .
i ' ''
. ' i
1 •
1 i !
• i ;
1 i J<
<
i
"
f
i '
1
-r-—C
-!-—»-C i
•4—c
-A C
~i—c
-—e-c
-: c
_t
: f
toA/Dttc. n*/ ry
-------
i*»««ct 3
-9-O
C
-o
-^Z-C
-—c
—M-O
j——!—o
MC
'; • i '•
>V 4fi> vc.r/ts/ ry
-------
-I HO
-*-o
--!
4*-cl
-OS
-O
4«-o
-i-o
K^c
fz-<
•i-O
-------
SEG.3
N
MOONLIGHT BAY
2000
-------
^- --^ r -• —• • .
o_" ;or_ sc i I-' „ i<-
— - •- /—__^ -;
_?or 2^ ._ iTJz. so-jr
r
O
i
too
ftirt I
-:—-Ol-Ci
-O:
T>—-»-o
-£-O
-3-O
-Zt-O
-r—o
O
>
^ ; ^i
* ~' -1
" °1"^
/I
ft -r/ -
too
co*t ocxcr i«/«-r V
^F
4 ,
>•»—r
iT'
-------
> ICO
Port
-z-C
-04
'
i
^a
-s-o i J
-,- f
-e-o
—o
—o
VK^ii
?M°
'U
! I ' ! '! 1 :
-°
'^l
-dh
0
-------
Q
Z
LU
-------
-^J-
^
^
^
^
20— io
s
•/CO
<*r:
-ll-C
-i-«.
-. 9-c
i—o
-~f-O
-4- O
-! O
-£-<
-1 O
L c
-zi-;
/
JOC?
-»-\»
—c
-2- •
—r
—c
—c
-«-C :
-s-r
y
\
\
y
4 x~ i
-i-Cs
—ci-
-s-c
—c
—c
C
-t-C
—c
—c
—c
-E-C
-2-C
C
-------
^
-f—c
-i—o
.. r"°
> — o
=-100
£aASDi>c:T~sfsr^/
-E-C
—C
z-c
-c
-c
~—c
—c
ico •*—
(Lo/*&i)c.Ti is /
*7
6- 2.
-------
^_
v
7,-, I." .-^S
3 —
;•]•
!
«C?
/
-J £•
-: C
-4-Cs
-9-C
-; C
-5-0
;—o
—o
—c
-2~C
-.—c
-~—c
-zi-C
-Os
~t~ f*
:—«
-—c
-ll-O
c;
-o i-c:
C'
—o
—o
—«-«
~.—o
-02
-'-««
—«:
e
—at
-
-------
SEG.3
SEG.4
SEG.5
SEG.S
SEG.7
KANGAROO
LAKE
N
FEET
2000
CONDUCTIVITY
CONTINUATION
A SEG. 2
SEG.
-------
- %: = |V"
h-S^-^-8-• '- '
' -^" n'-rvr-- aw.
iS:
/CO 4
O
-et-'
4-o-c?' If
loo
-S-O
IL
vc. r
T ^f; '~
(
-s-r
a
J
-------
m^^
-------
K»0 <-
L^KE.
port 3
—cj
-oi-oi
OS
—o •
—o,
t\
' '
-r—0
—v
I
o
-o
-o
—t uc '
c,
«4 4
\ It
O I 'i
0 I
—° '-
-i-O '
3
-9—^
/? c —
IK'
—9-G
<^vvoua"«w«-ry
-------
APPENDIX C
Case History of Bacteriological
Contamination of Ground Water
In Door County
-------
CASE HISTORY OF BACTERIOLOGICAL CONTAMINATION OF
GROUND WATER IN DOOR COUNTY
Introduction
The Door Peninsula is formed by a ridge of resistant Niagara dolomite
which is slightly tilted toward the east and is covered by a relatively
thin mantle of unconsolidated glacial deposits. Along the rugged Green
Bay escarpment in the northern part of Door County, bedrock outcrops are
common; to the south and east the drift materials increase in thickness
to as much as 60 feet. The dolomite is creviced, fractured, and solution
features such as sink holes exist. The water table is relatively deep,
over 100 feet in many places, but abundant supplies of ground water can
be easily obtained. Unfortunately, the combination of thin glacial
cover and large openings in the bedrock result in conditions conducive
to ground water contamination. Man-made and natural pollutants can
enter the ground water readily and flow freely for great distances. As
a result, in parts of Door County, it is difficult to obtain safe drinking
water from the shallow part of the saturated zone.
As used in this report, "unsafe" or "safe" drinking water refers to the
bacteriological quality of the water as determined by the presence or
absence, respectively, of coliform bacteria. Coliforms are indicator
organisms; they do not cause disease, but specific bacteria or disease-
causing bacteria or viruses may be associated with them. Coliforms are
found in soil, water, air, plants, arid human and animal excreta. The
presence of coliforms is not positive proof that water has been contaminated
by man, but it is generally accepted that the absence of coliforms
indicates that water is safe for human consumption.
The Private Water Supply Section of the DNR, initially called the Well
Drilling Division and then the Section of Well Drilling and Sanitation
Services of the State Board of Health, has had a long history of involvement
in efforts to ensure safe drinking water supplies in Door County. Only
two public water supply systems exist (Sturgeon Bay and Sister Bay), and
the majority of the county's year-round residents and many of the summer
tourists are served by private water supplies.
Other state and local agencies have, of course, been involved in Door
County's ground water problem. However, the history of the Private
Water Supply Section's efforts provides an excellent overview of the
situation and the corrective measures that have been taken.
The Wisconsin Well Code
In 1936, the Wisconsin Well Construction and Pump Installation Code was
promulgated for the first time by the State Board of Health, Division of
Well Drilling, pursuant to Chapter 162, Wisconsin Statutes. It was the
first well code in the United States and remained the only one for
nearly 30 years. It resulted in substantial improvements in well
-------
construction techniques and set forth certain requirements for well
locations with respect to potential sources of contaminants. In addition,
it established the Well Drilling Division to" carry out the provisions of
the code.
The code was revised in 1939, but it was not until the 1951 revision that
specific minimum casing length requirements were set forth. Therefore,
prior to 1951, most drilled rock wells were constructed with only sufficient
casing to hold the hole open through unconsolidated surficial materials,
and if the water table was substantially below the top of the rock (as
it is in many parts of Door County), contaminated surface and near-surface
water could easily enter well.
The 1951 revision to the well code set forth detailed casing requirements
for different types of geologic conditions. For wells constructed in
water-bearing limestone (which is actually dolomite in Door County but is
called "limerock" by well drillers), where the unconsolidated material
was less than 40 feet thick, well casing pipe had to be seated a minimum
of 10 feet into uncreviced rock below the 30 foot depth provided there
was no record of sinkholes, test holes, or abandoned wells within a \-
mile radius. In other words, a minimum of 40 feet of casing pipe was
required under favorable conditions, but if unfavorable conditions existed
such as creviced rock, test holes, abandoned wells, or sink holes, more
than 40 feet was required.
Nearly all Door County drillers interpreted the 1951 code quite liberally
and installed the minimum of 40 feet of casing, even though there are
few places in the county which would qualify. Therefore, in 1957 and
again in 1971, drillers were advised by letter that substantially more
than 40 feet of casing would be required for wells in Door County.
However, many older wells with inadequate casing still exist which
allow easy access of surface contaminants to ground water.
The well code was renumbered in 1956, in a program to have uniform numbering
of administrative rules, and again in 1968 and 1971 because of reorganization
of state agencies. It was revised in 1975 and amended in 1977 and 1978.
However, none of the later revisions affected the basic state-wide minimum
casing length requirements set forth in the 1951 code.
Early Water Quality Surveys in Door County
The earliest county-wide water quality study in Door County for which
records are available was conducted during the summer of 1955 by the
U.S. Public Health Service. A team of epidemiological workers sampled
27 private wells supplying water for public consumption (hotels,
restaurants, and parks), apparently in an effort to ascertain the
cause of the high incidence of dysentery or "summer diarrhea" that was
prevalent among the native population as well as summer residents and
tourists. The establishments served by the 27 wells were all licensed
by the Hotel and Restaurant Division of the State Board of Health, and
each well had tested bacteriologically safe earlier in the year.
However, it was suspected that the single yearly sample, normally
taken in the spring by the well owner, did not give an accurate
indication of water quality during the tourist season.
-------
Most of the wells were sampled once a week for ten weeks from June 28
to September 2; a total of 273 samples were collected and analyzed for
coliform bacteria. Well owners supplied construction details for the
wells, but they were not considered accurate.
Of the 27 wells, 14 (51.9%) tested positive for coliform on at least
one occasion during the summer. Fifty-four of the 273 samples tested
positive for the coliform group (19.8% of all samples). Intermittent
contamination was noted for many wells; there were 46 reversals from a
safe to an unsafe condition during the course of the testing period.
As a result of the survey, representatives from the Madison and Green
Bay offices, of the State Board of Health met in 1956 to discuss methods
of ensuring the safety of private water supplies serving the public.
Procedures were formalized in an office memorandum dated August 14,
1956 which stated that unsafe or poorly located wells should be reconstructed,
but chlorination would be accepted as a temporary expedient if reconstruction
was not practical.
Several chlorinators were approved and installed at hotels and restaurants
in Door County between the fall of 1955 and the spring of 1957, and
the State Board of Health conducted the second county-wide water
quality survey in Door County in the summer of 1957 to determine,
among other things, the effectiveness of chlorination. All 27 private
wells at establishments licensed by the Hotel and Restaurant Inspection
Section which had been sampled in 1955 were resampled, and two additional
wells were included in the program. Samples were taken once a week
over a 10-week period from June 25 to August 27, and a total of 310
samples were obtained. Of these, 39 (12.6%) were bacteriologically
unsafe. Eighteen of the 29 wells produced an unsafe sample on at
least one occasion (62.1% of all wells).
The survey showed that chlorination was not producing acceptable
results due to human error, mechanical failures, and inadequate design
and maintenance. Of the 8 wells which had chlorinators, only one
produced consistently safe samples; from 10% to 50% of the samples
from the other chlorinated wells were bacteriologically unsafe.
In the 1957 survey, the Board of Health made an attempt to determine
accurate construction details for the wells, and they found a correlation
between the age of the wells, conformance of construction to the well
code, and the bacteriological quality of the water. The main conclusions
of the survey, contained in a January, 1958 report by the Green Bay
District Office of the State Board of Health, were:
1. Unit chlorinators were not a dependable method of obtaining
a safe water supply.
2. Increased casing lengths were necessary to provide safe
water supplies in Door County.
The 1957 100-Foot Casing Requirement
In November, 1957, largely as a result of the second survey, the Board "
of Health established a 100-foot casing requirement for all new wells
-------
or reconstructed wells in Door County. Drillers were informed by
letter, and a meeting was held to explain the new policy. The 100-
foot casing requirement did not require a revision of the drilling
code. Since creviced rock extends fairly deep in Door County and sink
holes and rock outcrops are common, the Board determined that casing
lengths in excess of 40 feet were required. Furthermore, the 1957
survey indicated that wells with casing lengths approaching or greater
than 100-feet produced a fairly high percentage of bacteriologically
safe samples, and 40 feet of casing was insufficient to shut off the
vertical zone of contamination, as required by the well construction
code.
In addition to the November, 1957 letter, a guide for well construction
was distributed to well drillers in January, 1958. It restated the
new casing requirements and also advised that if reconstruction of old
wells with 100-feet of casing still resulted in bacteriologically
unsafe water samples, chlorination would be considered, but chlorination
in lieu of well reconstruction was not an acceptable alternative.
Numerous variances from the 100-foot casing requirement were allowed,
and the Drilling Division of the State Board of Health kept a detailed
log. In March, 1959, the variance policy was formalized in another
letter to Door County drillers, and procedures which the driller or a
well owner had to follow in requesting a variance were set forth. An
important criterion used in evaluating requests for variances was the
bacteriological quality of water from nearby wells and their construction
characteristics.
Between February, 1958 and August, 1971, about 200 variances from the
100-foot casing requirement were granted. To compare water quality
from wells given variances to those which had 100-feet or more of
surface casing, the Board conducted three water quality surveys in
Door County during the summers of 1959, 1960, and 1961. The results
are shown in Table 1.
-------
Table 1.
Results of 1959, 1960, and 1961 Water Quality Surveys in
Door County.
1959
Wells with 100' or more of casing
Wells with less than 100' of casing
All wells
1960
(variances)
Wells with 100* or more of casing
Wells with less than 100' of casing (variances)
Unknown casing length
All wells
1961
Wells with 100' or more of casing
Wells with less than 100' of casing (variances)
Unknown casing length
All wells
Safe
35
3*
38
59
21
4
84
48
33
1
82
Unsafe and Percent
of all Samples which
were Unsafe
6 (14.6%)
3*(50.0%)
9 (19.1%)
4 (6.3%)
3 (12.5%)
0 (0.0%)
7 (7.7%)
4
3
0
7
(7.7%)
(8.3%)
(0.0%)
(7.9%)
*Does not include one well which tested unsafe and then safe.
A relatively high number of all wells produced bacteriologically unsafe
samples during the 1959 survey (19.1%), and 3 out of the 6 wells which had
been granted variances tested unsafe. However, in 1960 and 1961, the
number of unsafe samples was considerably lower than in 1959, possibly due
to increased surveillance of drillers in these years, including a grouting
inspection program. Wells constructed under variances for less than 100
feet of casing produced a slightly greater percentage of unsafe samples in
the second and third years, but the results are very close to the results
for the entire group of wells. Of the 47 wells which were sampled in 1959,
43 were resampled in 1960, and all of the nine wells which tested unsafe in
1959 were safe. However, two wells which had been safe in 1959 were unsafe
in 1960.
Forty-seven wells were sampled two or more times during the three years.
Of these, 15 (31.9%) produced bacteriologically unsafe samples on one or
more occasions. For 26 wells with 100 or more feet of casing, 6, or
23.1%, were unsafe on one or more occasions. For 19 wells with less than
100 feet of casing, 8, or 42.1%, were unsafe on one or more occasions. Two
wells with unknown casing lengths were sampled more than once, and one of
these produced at least one unsafe sample during the survey period.
-------
Migrant Labor Camp Problems and Chlorination Policies
In the early 1960's, the Board of Health undertook an examination of the
water supplies at camps which were provided by cherry growers in Door
County for the seasonal labor force used to harvest the crop. Several
were closed in 1961, 1962, and 1963; by 1964, a total of 20 camps had
been closed for unsafe drinking water supplies. Many of the closed camps
had other sanitation deficiencies as well.
The closed camps represented housing for about 25% of the labor force
needed to harvest the 1964 cherry crop, and the growers were desperate.
Representatives of the Board of Health (which enforced migrant labor
camp standards and controlled the construction of water supply wells),
cherry growers, and the marketing cooperative held a meeting in the
spring of 1964 to discuss the problem. As a result, emergency drinking
water procedures were established which allowed the camps to reopen
using dispensers of chlorinated water for drinking and culinary purposes,
provided that they entered into contracts for new wells. Seven camps
reopened under these provisions.
None of the owners of the seven camps which operated under the 1964
emergency drinking water procedures drilled new wells, and by the summer
of 1965, a total of 36 camps had been closed for unsafe drinking water
supplies and other sanitation deficiencies. Dispensers of chlorinated
drinking water were again allowed, and 15 camps reopened, although only 2
provided an adequate disinfected water supply. Similar situations
developed in 1966, 1967, 1968, and 1969. Although a substantial effort
was made by the Well Drilling Division of the State Board of Health to
force camp owners to drill new wells, few, if any, actually did. They
were apparently reluctant to make the investment in a new well during a
period when mechanical harvesters were beginning to replace much of the
migrant labor force. In addition, camp owners argued that chlorination
was an accepted method of providing bacteriologically safe private water
supplies in Door County, pointing out that they knew of chlorinator
installations at establishments licensed by the Hotel and Restaurant
Section. Subsequent investigation showed that several owners of licensed
establishments did, indeed, have chlorinators still installed. Two of
these units had been installed as a result of the 1955 U.S. Public
Health Service water quality survey and the subsequent temporary chlorination
policy introduced by the Board of Health in 1956.
In a December, 1969 letter to the chairman of the Department of Industry,
Labor, and Human Relations, (which now controlled the migrant labor
inspection program), the Secretary of the DNR reiterated the policy
established after the 1956-1957 chlorination "experiment"; chlorinators
would only be allowed if well reconstruction or drilling a new well
failed to produce a safe water supply. It was requested that no migrant
labor camp be allowed to reopen unless the private water supply standards
of the state were met. At the same time, action was taken to ensure
compliance with the standards at establishments licensed under the hotel
and restaurant program.
-------
"Poison in Paradise" and Follow-Up Water Quality Surveys in Door County
In April, 1971, Don Oleson, a Door County summer resident and a writer
for the Milwaukee Journal, published an article in the Journal's "Insight"
magazine which stirred up unprecedented interest in Door County ground
water quality. With the emotional title of "Poison in Paradise," the
article presented the results of bacteriological testing of 30 water
samples taken from private wells serving the public. Oleson collected
the samples himself from bathroom, water faucets at public establishments,
and although he apparently followed accepted sampling procedures, he
took many of the samples without the knowledge of the owners.
/
Thirty samples were taken—20 in August of 1970 and an additional 10 in
March, 1971. Of the 30, 14 (46.7%) were bacteriologically unsafe;
however, newer wells which met the 100' casing requirement produced
almost uniformly safe water (no actual count was given). Oleson placed
most of the blame for the problem on faulty septic systems and called
for sewage collection systems and a limit to further development in Door
County. However, he did not develop positive evidence of sewage contamination.
Coliform bacteria have many non-sewage sources; furthermore, by taking samples
at bathroom faucets, Oleson may have been sampling bacteria which were
introduced in the plumbing system.
Largely as a result of the article and the ensuing controversies, the
Department of Health and Social Services and the Department of Natural
Resources undertook a cooperative water quality survey of Door County in
the summer of 1971. The DHSS sampled wells at mobile home parks and at
establishments licensed by the Hotel and Restaurant Section, whereas
DNR's sampling efforts were aimed at quasi-public places such as service
stations, taverns, marinas, and airports. In addition, owners of wells
used for domestic supply were encouraged to submit samples for bacteriological
analysis. The results of this sampling program are listed in Table 2.
-------
Table 2. Results of 1971 Water Quality Survey in Door County
Wells sampled by DNR Safe Unsafe
Wells with 100' or more of casing 11 1 (9.1%)
Wells with less than 100' of casing 7 2 (28.6%)
Unknown casing length 33 9 (27.3%)
All wells 51 12 (19.0%)
Wells Sampled by DHSS
Wells with 100' or more of casing 126 16 (11.3%)
Wells with less than 100' of casing 46 2 ( 4.2%)
constructed since 1957 (variances)
Wells with less than 100' of casing or 615 119 (16.2%)
unknown casing length constructed
prior to 1957
All wells 787 137 (14.8%)
Wells sampled by owners
Wells with 100' or more of casing 312 35 (10.1%)
Wells with less than 100" of casing 76 5 ( 6.2%)
constructed since 1957 (variances)
Wells with less than 100' of casing or 637 152 (19.3%)
unknown casing length constructed
prior to 1957
All wells 1,025 192 (15.8%)
Only 10.4% of all samples taken from wells with 100 or more feet
of casing tested bacteriologically unsafe, whereas 16.9% of all samples
taken from wells with unknown casing lengths or less than 100 feet of
casing tested unsafe. Of the latter category, samples taken from wells
which had less than 100 feet of casing but had been drilled since 1957
(variances to the 1957 casing requirement) had a very low incidence of
unsafe samples. This was probably due to the fact that, under the 1957
casing requirement, drillers in Door County could only get approval for
less than 100 feet of casing in areas where favorable geologic and water
quality conditions already existed.
Overall, 15.5% of the 2,204 wells sampled during the 1971 survey in Door
County produced unsafe samples. After the survey was completed, DNR
began the time-consuming task of notifying well owners of code violations
and making follow-up inspections to ascertain corrections.
During the time that the 1971 survey was being conducted, the Private
Water Supply Section of the DNR also prepared a proposal in response to
a request by the Governor for a DNR program to correct unsafe water
supplies in Door County. The proposed program provided for a continued
water supply sampling and evaluation for several more years, and included
schools and migrant labor camps as well as the establishments licensed
by the Hotel and Restaurant Section of the DHSS. In addition, an
inventory and sampling of domestic wells would be undertaken, and a well
grouting inspection program was planned. The cost of the proposed work
would be about $80,000 per year for 6 years. The proposed program was
subsequently modified to include only water supplies serving the public,
but no budgetary action was taken.
-------
The 1971 170-Foot Casing Requirement
The 1971 water quality studies in Door County indicated that, among
other things, 100 feet of casing was not sufficient to ensure safe water
supplies in many parts of the county. Therefore, in September, 1971,
drillers were advised that, until proposed new casing requirements were
formalized, the amount of casing required in new wells would have to be
resolved with DNR on a case-by-case basis. In addition, they were informed
that grouting procedures would have to be improved to ensure an adequate
bond between casing and rock. In general, the drillers were advised
that 170 feet of casing would be required in all new or reconstructed
wells east of the Niagara escarpment except in the Southeastern portion
of the county where consideration would be given to less well casing pipe.
In October, 1971, the procedures requiring a case-by-case evaluation of each new
well were replaced, and the county was divided into zones, with different minimum
casing requirements in each zone. As shown on the accompanying map, most of
Door County was zoned for 170 feet of casing or sufficient casing to extend 30-
feet below the static water level at the time of setting the casing (whichever
was greater); some smaller areas were zoned for 100 feet of casing or casing
extending 30 feet below the static water level (whichever was greater). In
other areas, consultation with the DNR would be required to determine casing
length, unless the driller proceeded under the most restrictive guidelines. The
northern tier of sections in Kewaunee County was also included in the zoning.
To a certain extent, the new casing requirements were based on the results of a
testing drilling program initiated by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation
with the DNR during the summer of 1971. Although the final report was not
completed until 1978, preliminary results indicated that more than 100 feet of
casing was required to seal off the zone of contamination in most of Door County,
and that adequate supplies of high quality ground water were available from deep
openings along bedding planes and fractures in the Niagara dolomite.
Water Quality in New Wells Constructed Since Zoning
Since the most recent casing requirements were promulgated, the DNR has kept a
careful account of the bacteriological quality of water from the new wells. The
lab of Hygiene, which performs nearly all the bacteriological analyses on water
from new domestic wells, forwards the results to the Private Water Supply Section.
Table 3 summarizes analyses for wells drilled since September, 1971.
Table 3. Bacteriological Quality of Water from New Wells :.
Drilled in Door County between September, 1971 and
July, 1978
Safe Unsafe
First test results 1,137 79 (6.5%)
Retest results for wells testing 42 17 (28.8%)
unsafe on first test*
Retest results for wells testing 7 2 (22.2%)
unsafe on first and second test
-------
* Not all wells are retested after an unsafe test or the results aren't reported;
retest results for only 59 (42 + 17) of the 79 initial unsafes were reported,
and retest results for only 9 (74-2) of the 17 wells which tested unsafe on the
first two tests were reported.
These results indicate that the new casing requirements have been successful in
improving the bacteriological quality of water supplied by Door County wells.
Out of the 1,216 new wells tested, 1,186 produced safe samples on either the
first test or on retests after disinfection. The percentage of unsafe first
tests (6.4%) is probably comparable to new wells in the rest of the state (a
direct comparison is impossible to make; results of tests on new wells only are
not kept for the rest of the state).
The crackdown on well code violations which resulted from the 1971 water quality
survey has also been effective in improving the bacteriological quality of water
from private wells serving the public. In the 1975-1976 random survey of water
supplies at establishments licensed by the Hotel and Restaurant Section of the
DHSS, 40 wells in Door County were sampled. There were no unsafe samples.
Only three major violations of the well construction code were noted, and more
. than one-half (22) of the wells were in complete compliance.
In 1977, an additional 11 private wells serving the public in Door County were
sampled as part of the random non-community survey. Only one well produced
bacteriologically unsafe water, but it retested safe. No major violations of
the well code were noted. However, it is not expected that 100% of the wells in
these two categories would produce consistently safe samples. In the older
wells, intermittent contamination will still be a problem.
1978 Special Survey of Old Wells
In early 1978, the DNR Board expressed interest in determining the bacteriological
quality of water from wells constructed in Door County prior to 1951, when
minimum well casing requirements had not been established. The Private Water
Supply Section initiated a sampling program for fifty wells with less than 40
feet of casing. Wells constructed prior to 1936 could not be included in the
program (construction reports are not available and casing lengths are unknown),
and, in order to reach the goal of fifty wells, it was necessary to include
three wells with 40 feet of casing and four wells with casing lengths slightly
in excess of 40 feet. In addition, one well was never sampled and one well had
an unknown casing length and the data was not used. Ultimately, 48 wells were
sampled.
The first round of sampling was conducted in May and June, 1978. Of the 48
wells, six (12.2%) were unsafe, but after well disinfection and resampling, only
one well still produced an unsafe sample (one unsafe well was never disinfected
and resampled).
In order to determine the extent of intermittent contamination, the wells were
resampled in August. It was not possible to contact all of the well owners, and
seven wells were not resampled. Of the 41 wells, 13 (31.7%) were unsafe.
-------
A correlation between bacteriological quality and pump installation was
noted during the survey. Eleven of the sampled wells had fully complying
pump installations, and all but one of these produced consistently safe
samples. Nineteen wells had major pump installation violations; nine of
these produced intermittently unsafe samples, and all of the samples
from two noncomplying wells were unsafe. Pump inspections could not be
made at nine wells for various reasons, and three of these produced
intermittently unsafe samples. At the nine wells which had minor pump
installation violations (lack of a sampling faucet), only two produced
unsafe samples.
The large number of unsafe samples from the wells in the survey would be
expected in any area of creviced rock, and thin soils where wells are
cased to a shallow depth. However, even with insufficient casing, the
survey results indicate that wells in compliance with the well construction
and pump installation code have a greater probability of producing safe
samples than those which have major violations. All owners of wells
with questionable or non-complying pump installations, as well as those
which produced one or more unsafe samples, were advised by letter on how
to improve the condition of their water supplies.
Summary and Conclusions
There has been a continual effort on the part of the Private Water
Supply Section of the DNR and its predecessors to ensure safe drinking
water supplies in Door County. Since the earliest water quality surveys
in 1955 and 1957, there has been a steady improvement in the bacteriological
quality of water from domestic wells and private wells serving the
public. Wells drilled today in the county are nearly always cased
through the upper part of the saturated zone, and the bacteriological
analyses indicate that the percentage of new wells testing unsafe in
Door County is no greater than any other part of the state.
However, ground water quality problems still exist in Door County. The s
shallow, fractured bedrock and numerous shallow-cased wells allow contaminants
in surface and near surface waters to move downward to the water table.
In the event that it is necessary to case to even greater depths than '
presently required, it will still be possible to produce an adequate
supply of water from the Niagara aquifer in most of the County. In
areas where the Niagara is thin, it may be necessary to obtain water
from horizons below the Maquoketa shale. Continued monitoring of water
supplies, especially those at public establishments, is necessary to
ensure safe drinking water in the County.
-------
APPENDIX D
Report on Investigation, Door County Wells
with Limited Casing
-------
REPORT ON INVESTIGATION
DOOR COUNTY WELLS
WITH LIMITED CASING
October 10, 1978
During the March DNR Board Meeting, board member John Erogan expressed an
interest in determining the safety of private wells in Door County which
were constructed prior to 1951. During that period, wells were constructed
in many ca&cs with less than 40 feet of well casing when rock lay at a depth
of less than 40 feet from the ground surface.
Mr. Brogan reasoned that private well owners were not getting the protection
in the way of monitoring of water quality that persons who were obtaining water
from systems supplying water to licensed establishments and other systems
covered by the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act were or would be getting.
He felt owners of residential supplies in Door County and in any other similar
problem areas of the state should be alerted to the potential hazards of
unsafe wells.
Mr. Brogan suggested there should be sampling of a percentage of wells constructed
prior to 1951, when the code was not specific as to the minimum casing
requirements. He felt that a random survey should be made of 30 to 50
wells constructed prior to 1951 and cased with less than 40 feet of pipe
to determine the quality of the water from such wells. The Board supported
his thinking and requested through Secretary Earl that such a survey be
made.
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
To carry out the assignment required use of budget ear-marked for other purposes.
It also required the services of someone knowledgeable in the standards for
private water supplies. Because normal program demands did not permit
diversion of staff time from either the central office or district office for
the project, it was necessary to find someone who has retired- and hopefully
had experience in the private water supply program. The assignment did not
allow tine for training which could not be accomplished adequately in a matter
of a few weeks. The assignment had to involve more than mere sample collection,
it neccesitated evaluation of the water supplies, also.
We were fortunate to employ Mr, Roderick Kal.linp, a retired registered sanitarian
who was formerly in the Hotel & Restaurant (H&R) Inspection Section of the
State Board of Health, and after reorganization of state agencies, with the
Division of Health, Department of Health and Social Services. Prior to his
retirement he served as Assistant Chief of the H&R Section. He had inspected
many water supplies during the long period of time he worked in inspecting
licensed establishments. Water supply evaluations in addition to sampling
at licensed establishments bt^gan in 1954 following training of the H&R staff
of the State Board of Health by the Private Water Supply Section.
The assignment was not one involving the simple matter of going out into the
county and contacting home owners for permission to sample their well water.
It was necessary to review well construction reports in the Department files
-------
2.
*
to obtain a list of wells with leaa than 40 feet of casing. It was known
that, it would be difficult to locate many of these wells in the field because
information on the well location entered on the early reports was limited
and well ownership was expected to have changed in many cases. It was known
that on the reports for the older wells, the location was often referenced
by distance from highway Intotauctions rather than by 1/4 Section, Section,
Town and Range. The completeness of locations of the wells listed in Table 1
may appear to contradict thia but many of the geographic locations given
in the tabl» were determined in Che field during the survey.
Mr. Railing began the project on May 15, 1978. He abstracted from the construc-
tion reports in the files, information on well locations, ownership at
the time of completion of the wells, well construction and geologic data,
depth of well casing, depth to static well water level ac the time of completion
of the well and date of completion of the well. He took data from 138 well
reports, a few of which had more than 40 feet of casing, but which were
constructed prior to 1951. The goa}. was to sample at least 50 wells and
as it turned out, because of difficulties in finding the properties, locating
property owners, finding owners at home, denials of entry and sampling,
etc., it was necessary to sample a few wells with slightly more^than 40
feet of casing to accomplish that goal.
FIELD SURVEY AND RESULTS
The field survey was begun on May 23, 1978. It is repeated, we were especially
fortunate to get Mr. Kalling to do the field work, not only because of his
knowledge of the well construction and pump installation code but because
of his conscientious attitude, which we knew we could expect from past associations
with him. On his own volition, when finding many well owners were absent
during the day, he went back in the late afternoon and even worked many
evenings to contact owners. Also, he made n special effort to ferret out
information to match old wells with present property owners. Not only
did he contact Mr. Phil Woerfel, Door County Sanitarian and Mr. John Teichtler,
Assistant County Sanitarian, who were most helpful in this regard, but he
also contacted Mr. Tom Suiith of the County Tax Listing Office and Bert Thorp,
Ephriam postmaster. They too were very helpful to Mr. Railing. In addition,
he conferred with several citizens, drillers and pump installers to locate
wells.
With diiligence he was able to locate 100 properties out of the 138 for
which lie had welJ construction information. He collected 50 samples, one
of which he discarded because the owner changed his mind and asked that
the sample be dumped. In thi« goal of collecting samples from at least 50
wells, it was necessary to sample four wells with 40 feet of casing, one
well with 41 feer of casing, one with 45.5 feet of casing, one with 46 feet
of casing and one with 65 feet of caning. Although the constraints on the
type of wells which were to be sampled prevented a truly statistically random
sampling, the wells were spread throughout most of the county (Figure 1).
In Mr. Kalling's visit to the 100 properties, he found that 10 wells had
been replaced with new wells, the buildings were gone in 5 cases with no
well visible, the well owner was never available in 4 cases, no one was
home in 10 cases, the wells were not operational in 9 cases, wells were
used only for toilets in 2 cases, wells had been reconstructed in 3 cases
and he was not allowed to sample wells in 8 cases.
-------
3.
.There were 6 (.12.22) unsafe samples collected out of the 49 samples analyzed
in May and June (Table 1). The owners of wells producing unsafe samples
were advised to disinfect their wellb and all of these wells, except for
one was resampled in June. On the resampling, 4 of the 5 wells produced
safe samples. Because it was reasoned that with the limited amount of well
casing existing in these wells there would be some intermittent contamination,
a second sampling of the 49 wells wun scheduled in August. Mr. Kalling
was able to collect samples from only 41 of the 49 wells.
Owners of 2 of the wells initially sanpled refused the second sample request,
in one cade the pump had burned out, and the other 5 home owners were not
at home. Ten samples wf.re lace in reaching the Madison Laboratory due to
an error by the Green ttay Poat Office in mailing the samples destined for
Madison back to Kphriain, the starting point. By the time they were redirected
to arid reached Madison, they were too old for analysis. These wells were
resampled the following week.
29,3
Of the 41 wells sampled in August, 12 (2Jkll) produced unsafe samples.
A review of Table 1 will show repeated safe samples from several wells with
intermittent contamination in others and repeated unsafe samples in 2 cases.
An apparent correlation between bacteriological quality and pump installation
was noted during the survey.
EJeven of the sampled wells had fully complying pump installations, and
all but one of these produced consistently safe samples. Nineteen wells
had major pump installation violations; nine of these produced intermittently
unsafe samples. All of the samples from two of the 19 wells with non-complying
pump installations were unsafe. Pump inspections could not be made at nine
wells for various reasons, and three of these produced intermittently unsafe
samples. Of the nine wells which had minor pump installation violations
(lack of sampling faucet), only two produced unsafe samples. If a proper
sampling faucet were installed, sample results may have been different for
the two wells.
Possibly in any area of creviced rock with thin soil cover where wells are
cased to shallow depths and wacer occurs at a considerable depth, wells
would produce a similarly large number of unsafe samples as collected during
the survey. On che other hand, the nature of the geology, the ground elevation
and the penninsular configuration of Door County, which is relatively narrow
and lends to deeper ground water occurrence, is not duplicated extensively
in the state. True, in some of the Coulee County and in other areas of high
ground with narrow ridges completely or partially surrounded by deep valleys
the ground water may be deep but population density and thus the number
of wells is very small.
Even with insufficient casing, the survey indicates that wells with complying
pump installations have a greater probability of producing safe samples
than those which have major pump installation violations. All owners of
wells with questionable or non-complying pump installations, as well as
those whose veils produced one or more unsafe samples, are being advised
by letter how to possibly improve the condition of their water supplies.
Even those property owners whose wells produced safe samples on repeated
sampling are being advised to continue to sample periodically.
-------
4.
Because one well had 65 feet of casing, which is considerably more than
the 40 feet of caning set as a maximum for the survey, it was not included
in Table 1. It produced a sate sample during the initial round of sampling
and was not resampled in August.
In a survey of this nature, it is best to sample during a wet period of
the year because the probability of a well producing an unsafe sample is
greatest during such period if it is intermittently contaminated. Table
2 illustrates precipitation for the period of the survey. The rainfall
which occurred during the survey period is considered as being high enough
to have caused the type of impact desired on ground water quality to permit
an assessment of the dependability of the shallow cased wells to produce
safe samples.
The results were not surprising to the Private Water Supply Section staff,
considering these wells were selected because they were constructed with
limited casing.
Even though the survey brought out the fact that a number of unsafe wells
exist, which is something that can be expected with 500,000 plus wells in
this state, there is no way in which the Department could conduct similar
surveys statewide nor should it be necessary. Owners of wells have a responsi-
bility to themselves to determine the safety of their water supplies if
they have a concern about them. It appears to us that well owners in Door
County have been amply aware of the need to sample water from their supplies
based on information in our files.
In 1971 following the publicity Door County received from the article in
the Milwaukee Journal "Insight" magazine, 1,217 well owners collected samples
on their own Initiative and submitted them to the laboratory; 665 well owners
sent in samples to the laboratory in 1972; 478 sent in samples in 1973;
407 sent in samples in 1974, 616 sent in samples in 1975; 401 sent in samples
in 1976; 201 sent in samples in 1977; and to date 328 sent li\ samples in
1978.
The results of this water supply survey and the earlier survey made in 1971
points out the need on occasion to define what constitutes the."vertical
zone of contamination" based on a history of failures of wells constructed
to existing minimum standards to produce bacteriologically safe water.
Chapter NR 112, Wisconsin Administrative Code requires such zone to be cased
off.
The "vertical zone of contamination" means that depth of geologic formations,
generally near r.he ground surface, containing connecting pore spaces, crevices
or similar openings, including artificial channels, such as unprotected
wells, through which contaminated water may gain access to a well or the
ground water body. It is generally found that the minimum .casing normally
needed is much less statewide than is necessary in special problem areas.
The results of this water supply survey and of the 1971 water supply survey
prior to establishivig the present well construction standards in Door County
compared to the high degree of success with safe samples collected from new
wells constructed in Door County beginning in late 1971, justifies the present
construction standards in Door County.
-------
5.
Our records show that out of 1,216 new wells constructed since that time,
93. 52 produced safe samples on initial sampling and that following disinfection
and repeated sampling, 97.5% produced safe samples. Also we have no record
that 30 of the wells producing initial unsafe samples had been disinfected
and resampled. Had they been and based on the results of resampling of
the other wells following disinfection, it could be expected that possibly
1/3 or more of the 30 would have produced safe samples. If true, this would
bring the number of new wells producing safe samples up to about 98%.
These figures show a very high degree of success, especially considering
that construction methods may introduce temporary contamination in a new
well which may require a period of time to eliminate. It is believed this
record is as good as can be expected with new wells in any county.
Respectfully Submitted,
Thomas A. Calabresa, P.E.
Bureau of Water Quality
TAC:sd
-------
t
o +>
4~» r—
•a r
u ,/i
S(
O —
•™
«> 01
10
UJ
Ck
3
8
o
u
o
(X
-c c
Q
1- tn
Oi c
to fi
CO
CO ^-
to rg
I i
VO CO
'?>
1
00
f
H-
t> *
*• C
10 co
co
01
S
trij= •
c *J «-•
.
i V
a
>o co
c
-U
c
u
u
fsi
a
el
rsi
(Si eg
I i
Ul 00
«J 4)
0- V.
in n
« r>.
r^ •
i ^>
O 00
S?
o
on
u>
fx
at
X
Y~
l"1
r1*
—
•
S
1/1
-f
^
i/)
-
i
3
33
at
5
rl
O
rj
''I
"
*^
O
_J
*-*
~-^
0
o
u-
f*j
or
z
m
i—
n
OJ
w>
.y
JK
Ifl
Ul
ao
Ul
ra
tM
O
in
-------
X
I- in
O *'
s,
c
o
«•- aj •*-
"a u
oj E t>
•— u
S -i' i?
5 "
c
o
o
CO
tft r^.
fj
«#• t
!/•> I
CO 03
r-» i*.
i i
eo «o
C-J PJ
i i
CO CQ
co co
r^ r-»
I I
CO CO CO CO
r«. fv *•• r*»
II II
V
L
r*
rj
M rg n ~-
I I
en co
CO
I
«J O
U- H-
1/1 CO
CO CO
r» r^
i i
IS) —
i i
'O CO
'4. W
o a •-
S
o
I'M
T
a
JC
I
.-t
;o
i\i
a:
(M
J«
ac
CO
•f
ISI
CO
txj
O.
O
rvj
ui
uj
m
IM
a:
rg
»—
fvl
J«
I
JP
I
s
-------
'-> flj j
"•o S"oJ
s a
O — «-•
O U
«. e «j
*j AJ .—
5 >.•) •—
d. o
&•-*•'
••- u
a. t> p
«-> 0f r
5 =
a
t. V
j *—
ui oo
(U to
00 r^ r^.
r- i-l
i oc> ">
o
rj
a:
IW
ai
t!
3
rv<
i/l
j«
X
i/l
JC
5
CNJ
i
II
O
INI
-------
is
«J 4)
«j v n.
,- i t
4^ at T
•*- CX I/I
C"
u' */i
o ~>
4-* •—
L 11
o a>
J3 OC
_J
C
o
a u
*•* it •"
^l t«O r—
3 3
r
o
o »— *-»
^— u
4) 4) p
»•» :» L
« 4-'
O f^
t;
a
3
a:
O «">
4-» •»-
SJE
a
W» 4-*
O O V-
fl~
•«
4>J
3t~-
cr,j? .
C *-* 4J
•*- CX V-
1/1 4i
•o Q C
O ••-
C
0
^ Ti
V i«
31 >
••
L-
r— Of
51
— rx ce -• at
ttj 4>
•<- *l 41 *' w-
_C l^ 11 l-"l C
0) CO OC 00
>Y 1 1 II
CM — r- CM r-
III II
to U> OO U5 CO
CO
1
CM e-
1 Ul
C3 C7^
"
rN. m
O *^
*
g £
fw *JD
*n ^
LU
o
C1C
yr
ff
f*1
H*
"^ tr
c\j r*)
Q£ iS)
*
5
(NJ
0
CO -J
v>
1 >
31 O
in O
so c^
r^j fNj
*-oc »—ac -^ot — o: «—et •—or —ct
CM — p-
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
aa en CM en au — >0
ft/ 1)
O U
1 to M /*» »*- O V-
3 9
i «r ^ rw ro o —
O rv O tM *T* U"> f*i
^ CNJ w r«» ^— «W CsJ
fSJ •—
V/> LT> l.t
O «tf "•" */> JV O ^3
*> CM ^ *^ PO
Ul
cJ cQ
a> *NI uj
r\* ex cr\
ac; * rsj
* z >: uj tu
r- o f* CD cr»
UJ PO l-.' (-> QC Jt
rw «• <7» h- rx « r-
oc c\j cv • fv *- tr
* »"• t/> rj ac *o PO
3j CO U*) * h~ ^*
INI CM" iJ «r" 5 jT ./
>— rl CM fn
•r o o O • • •
^ CM "» il/
'l "> "> "> J» J« _'«
uj o O O UJ LJ uJ
"^ Ul •£>
rl I^T 1*1 ro r^> r^ r-)
-------
«J ft>
*j u *6
c
o *^
« 3
C tu
C
o
U- U •*-
p. II
u R ft)
n t/i •—
r^ o
o
c
o
o »— «-»
r— U
ova
~i DC L.
c
o
o
M
a.
O ^
J. r
o.
£
U l/>
U C
4-1 0
10 O
H- -U
o o •*.
v c
55"
O-H-
JC *>
&>*- •—
O V C
O 3 —
C «-> *J
— O.X-
i/i JU
"3 G> C
1
1
Of «
_ J
^—
o> '
— ct •— or •— at oc of — ~« —
ft) flU ft* 41 (U 4* 4J i/1 C C C C Ml tO i/> WO
r>.ro CD x oo co CD coco coco
r** f*^ f>- r*« 00 r^» r*» P^ co f^» r** t*>» r*^
ii it rs. i i i c- ii ii
i ri ii * i i i i ii ii
,
oo oy op ^^
*» "tf" ^F ^T ^
lii tn i
r- r- CM •— CM f*l
III 1 * ^
^ °* * ^ "
'
i i m ^o •«• '
i i f^ fm ^~ *
ot
81 CM UI *» CM
If- *- ~
u.
(^ fs» CO (M CM ^
O o ^r> o fv* O
CM f^ fM fj CM (M
UJ
rM
oc
r> rn en S
tM VM *^ **"^
o: tx ot ' r*»
*T UJ 2! ^T Z •
oi oj rst m m f—
^ a; h- *— >- vo
*"• ^ * ^^ ,—
(M CO m ^- —
. v- * o
j» ,i« -•* -J
i— f>* LU LU UI
jj jjj jjj J* J^ ">
2 ^ ^J 3 in S
r^ ^ 01 o — *M
— tt »- QC *~* CC
•
fll l/T CO LO |/l tO
CO O^ CO CO CO OO
^"» f*>« r*v r^ f*.* r*.
ii ii ii
CO t** ^™* *J3 P** y3
ii ii f i
^o co ui co u^ co
co rj
Ul 1 |
i f) CD
1 1 1
C3 m tvi
U3 1 CP
I r-1
S ^ S
^*
Lf> U9 Uj
l^ C3 S
f\j ^) ^5
ra »^ (^>
^•,
rw
LJ * LJ
rj "5 (0
a; .M oc
. i— __ •
r' l/l X-
• » •
«.T j« a?
iv •» c-j
vl •/! */l
< J* w*
3 2 Z-
? 5 5
-------
o *~
4) "i
«-> Jl
s
ne
3,
5 c
o.
t- Ul
01 C
*• o
41
O «->
&v- ^«
o si _
Q »~
31 O
O
CO 00
(si
J,
00 00
rx ^.
i i
r» so
r— rj
u? oo
s?
J,
3
-------
Table 2
Rainfall for the Period of Survey
Sturgeon Bay Vicinity
Courtesy U. of W. Experimental Farm
May 8
9
11
12
13
14
15
20
Inches
.58
.08
.01
.85
1.38
0.65
.03
.25
June 1
4
5
8
12
; 15
17
18
20
21
26
Inches
.31
.02
.22
.74
.26
.01
.13
.01
.08
.01
.16
July 1
2
3
7
9
13
15
18
19
21
22
23
26
29
Inches
.45
.42
.02
.09
.02
.10
.06
.73
.05
.14
.03
.33
.02
.04
August 1
2
16
18
19
23
24
27
28
'Inches
.03
.52
.85
.02
1.29
.60
.58
1.84
.03
Total 3.83
1.95
2,50
5.76
Total Precipitation May through August 26 was
3.83" + 1.95" + 2.50" + 3.89" - 12.17"
Total Precipitation During Field Survey Period May 23 through August 26 was
1.95" + 2.50" + 3.89" - 8.34"
-------
APPENDIX E
COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
-------
COST METHODOLOGY
1. Costs for the conventional gravity sewer system were determined from
the Facilities Plan Addendum 1 or Unit Price Memorandum (UPM). The
general layout of the systems in the Facilities Plan and supplements
was used. Costs represented were updated to December 1981 price
levels.
2. Costs for the pressure sewer system and onsite system components were
either obtained from the UPM from the Facilities Plan Addendum 1, or
from cost estimation data published by R.S. Means Co., Inc.
3. Cost for materials, construction, and O&M were updated to December
1981 price levels. Construction costs for treatment units and sewers
were based on USEPA indexes for Chicago of 411.6 (STP) and 226 (CUSS),
respectively. The Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index of
3,725 for December 1981 also was used.
4. Salvage values were determined using straight-line depreciation for a
planning period of 20 years. The service life of land was considered
to appreciate by 3 percent. The service life of structures, including
buildings, concrete process units, etc., were assumed to be 40 years.
The service life of process and auxiliary equipment such as clarifier
mechanisms, standby generators, pumps, electric motors, etc was as-
sumed to be 20 years.
5. Capital costs were based on construction costs plus a service factor
for engineering, administration, legal and contingencies (Table 2-14).
6. Present worth of salvage value, O&M costs, and average annual equi-
valent costs were determined for 20 years using a discount rate of
7.625%.
7. Present worth of salvage values was determined using a single payment
present worth factor of 0.2300 (Salvage value x 0.2300 = present worth
of salvage).
-------
8. Present worth of O&M costs were determined using a uniform or equal
payment series factor of 10.0983 (average annual O&M cost x 10.0983 =
present worth of O&M) .
9. Average annual equivalent costs were determined using a capital re-
covery factor of 0.0990 (total present worth x 0.0990 = average annual
equivalent cost).
-------
References to cost tables
The relation of the various cost
the alternatives is as follows:
Regional Alternatives Analysis
Summaries
Treatment
Egg Harbor Alternatives
Collection and transmission options
Treatment and discharge options
Onsite systems
Wisconsin Fund grant and local costs
User Costs
Fish Creek Alternatives
Collection
Transmission, treatment, and outfall
Onsite systems
Wisconsin Fund grant and local costs
User costs
Ephraim Alternatives
Collection and transmission
Treatment and discharge
Onsite systems
Wisconsin fund grant and local costs
User Costs
tables to the various costs used in
Tables E-l through E-4
Tables E-5 through E-9
Summary
Details
E-19
Summary
Details
E-28
Summary
Details
E-32
Table E-
Table E-
Table E-10
Table E-ll through
Table E-20
Table E-21 through
Table E-29
Table E-30 through
-36 through E-92
-110 and E-lll
Summary Table E-33
Details Table E-34 through
E-39
Summary Table E-40
Details Tables E-41 through
E-4 5
Summary Table E-46
Details Tables E-47 through
E-49
Table E-93 through E-98
Tables E-112 and E-113
Summary Table E-50
Details Tables E-51 through
E-5 4
Summary Table E-55
Details Tables E-56 through
E-62
Summary Table E-63
Details Tables E-64 through
E-66
Tables E-98 through E-102
Tables E-114 and E-115
-------
Baileys Harbor Alternatives
Collection and transmission
Treatment and discharge
Onsite systems
Wisconsin fund grant and local costs
User costs
- Summary Table E-67
- Details Tables E-68 through
E-74
- Summary Table E-75
- Details Tables E-76 through
E-81
- Summary Table E-82
- Details Tables E-83 through
E-85
- Tables E-104 through E-109
- Tables E-116 and E-117
-------
Table E-l. Regional Alternative 1 - Three separate WWTPs for Egg Harbor,
Fish Creek, and Ephraim.
Cost ($l,000x)
Construct^
Item
Egg Harbor
WWTP
Outfall
Fish Creek
WWTP
Outfall
Ephraim
WWTP
Outfall
Total
Service factor (27%)
Total capital cost 2,036.2
Present worth cost
(@ 7 5/8% over 20 years)
Capital cost 2,036.2
O&M cost 1,476.4
Salvage Value ( 110.3)
Total Present Worth $3,402.3
Construction
cost
$ 404.6
45.0
496.7
45.0
567.0
45.0
1,603.3
432.9
Salvage
value
$118.7
22.5
142.2
22.5
151.3
22.5
479.7
O&M
cost
$43.7
48.3
54.2
146.2
-------
Table E-2. Regional Alternative 2 - Two WWTPs -WWTP for Egg Harbor and a
WWTP for Fish Creek and Ephraim at Fish Creek.
Cost ($l,000x)
Item
Egg Harbor
WWTP
Outfall
Ephraim
Pumping station
Interceptor
Fish Creek and Ephraim
WWTP
Outfall
Total
Service factor (27%)
Total capital cost
Present worth cost
(@ 7 5/8% over 20 years)
Capital cost
O&M cost
Salvage value
Construction
Cost
$ 404.6
45.0
232.0
946.0
757.8
45.0
2,430.4
656.2
3,086.6
3,086.6
1,175.4
(228.7)
Salvage
value
$118.7
22.5
58.0
567.6
204.9
22.5
994.2
O&M
cost
$43.7
6.0
66.7
116.4
Total Present Worth
$4,033.3
-------
Table E-3. Regional Alternative 3 - Two WWTPs - a WWTP for Egg Harbor and
Fish Creek in Section 6 (T30N R27E) and a WWTP for Ephraim.
Cost ($l,000x)
Item
Egg Harbor
Pumping station
Interceptor
Fish Creek
Pumping station
Interceptor
Egg Harbor and Fish Creek
WWTP
Outfall
Total
Service factor (27%)
Total capital cost
Present worth cost
(@ 7 5/8% over 20 years)
Capital cost
O&M cost
Salvage value
Construction
cost
$ 174.0
892.0
185.6
580.5
567.0
45.0
3,056.1
825.1
3,881.2
3,881.2
1,145.1
(303.8)
Salvage
value
$ 43.5
535.2
46.4
348.3
151.3
22.5
1,321.0
O&M
cost
$ 2.5
2.5
54.2
113.4
Total Present Worth
$4,722.5
-------
Table E-4. Regional Alternative 4 - A regional WWTP for Egg Harbor, Fish
Creek, and Ephraim in Section 6 (T30N R27E).
Cost ($l,000x)
Construction Salvage O&M
Item Cost value cost
Ephraim
Pumping station $ 232.0 $ 58.0 $6.0
Interceptor sewer 946.0 567.6
Fish Creek
Pumping station 185.6 46.4 2.5
Interceptor sewer 580.5 348.3
Egg Harbor
Pumping station 174.0 43.5 2.5
Interceptor sewer 892.0 535.2
Regional WWTP 863.3 231.3 72.3
Outfall 45.0 22.5 ^_
Total 3,918.4 1,852.8 83.3
Service factor (27%) 1,057.9
Total capital cost 4,975.3
Present worth cost
(@ 7 5/8% over 20 years)
Capital cost 4,975.3
O&M cost 841.2
Salvage value (426.1)
Total Present Worth $5,390.4
-------
Table E-5. Rotating biological contactor (RBC) WWTP for 50,000 GPD design
average flow (Regional Alternative Nos. 1 and 2) .
Cost ($1.000x)
Item
Preliminary treatment
Primary clarifier
RBC
Secondary clarifier
Phosphorus removal
Chlorination system
Aerobic digester
Land
Administration & laboratory
building
Service roads and fence
Monitoring system, controls,
instrumentation
Electrical
Process piping
Site Preparation
Total
Service factor (27%)
Total capital cost
Present worth cost (@ 7 5/8%
over 20 years)
Capital cost
O&M cost
Salvage value
Total present worth
Construction
Cost
$ 15.0
57.2
79.4
67.7
-
30.1
45.1
10.0
36.0
6.7
and
10.1
16.9
27.0
3.4
404.6
109.2
513.8
513.8
441.3
(27.3)
$927.8
Salvage
value
$ 3.8
14.3
19.8
16.9
-
7.5
11.3
18.1
10.8
-
-
-
16.2
-
118.7
O&M
cost
$11.7
3.0
12.8
3.7
-
6.5
3.0
-
3.0
-
-
-
3.0
-
43.7
Total present worth cost does not include costs for liquid sludge
hauling and land spreading.
-------
Table E-6. Rotating biological contactor (RBC) WWTP for 100,000 GPD design
average flow (Regional Alternative No. 1).
Cost ($l,000x)
Item
Preliminary treatment
Primary clarifier
RBC
Secondary clarifier
Phosphorus removal
Chlorination system
Aerobic digester
Land
Administration & laboratory
building
Service roads and fence
Monitoring system, controls,
and instrumentation
FAectricial
Process piping
Site preparation
Total
Service factor (27%)
Total capital cost
Present worth cost (@ 7 5/8%
over 20 years)
Capital cost
O&M cost
Salvage value
Total present worth
Construction
Cost
$ 18.1
63.2
135.4
75.2
-
33.1
48.2
10.0
36.0
6.7
12.5
20.8
33.3
4.2
496.7
134.1
630.8
630.8
487.7
(32.7)
$1,085.8
Salvage
value
$ 4.5
15.8
33.9
18.8
-
8.3
12.0
18.1
10.8
-
-
-
20.0
-
142.2
O&M
cost
$12.0
3.3
13.5
3.9
-
6.9
3.0
5.7
-
-
—
-
-
48.3
Total present worth cost does not include costs for liquid sludge hauling
and land spreading.
-------
Table E-7. Rotating biological contactor (RBC) WWTP for 150,^00 GPD design
average flow (Regional Alternative Nos. 1 and 3).
Cost ($l.QOOx)
Item
Preliminary treatment
Primary clarifier
RBC
Secondary clarifier
Phosphorus removal
Chlorination system
Aerobic digester
Land
Administration & laboratory
building
Service roads and fence
Monitoring system, controls,
instrumentation
Electrical
Process piping
Site Preparation
Total
Service factor (27%)
Total capital cost
Present worth cost (@ 7 5/8%
Capital cost
O&M cost
Salvage value
Total Present Worth
Construction
Cost
$ 22.6
72.2
147.5
91.8
-
39.1
60.2
10.0
36.0
6.7
and
14.3
23.8
38.1
4.7
567.0
153.1
720.1
over 20 years)
720.1
547.3
(34.8)
$1,232.6
Salvage
value
$ 5.6
18.0
36.8
22.9
-
9.8
15.0
18.1
10.8
-
-
-
14.3
1_
151.3
O&M
cost
$12.3
3.9
14.3
4.1
-
7.8
3.8
-
8.0
-
-
-
-
54.2
Total present worth cost does not include costs for liquid sludge hauling
and land soreadins.
-------
Table E-8. Rotating biological contactor (RBC) WWTP for 250,000 GPD design
average flow (Regional Alternative No. 2).
Cost ($l,000x)
_Ttem
Preliminary treatment
Primary clarifier
RBC
Secondary clarifier
Phosphorus removal
Chlorination system
Aerobic digestor
Land
Administration & laboratory
building
Service roads and fence
Monitoring system, controls, and
instrumentation
Electrical
Process piping
Site Preparation
Total
Service factor (27%)
Total capital cost
Construction
Cost
$ 30.1
82.8
210.7
133.9
15.4
45.1
78.3
10.0
36.0
6.7
19.2
32.0
51.2
6,4
757.8
204.6
Salvage
value
$ 7.5
20.7
52.7
33.5
-
11.3
19.6
18.1
10.8
-
_
-
30.7
-
204.9
O&M
cost
$13.4
4.8
15.8
4.6
3.9
9.0
4.8
-
10.4
-
_
-
-
-
66.7
962.4
Present worth cost (@ 7 5/8% over 20 years)
Capital cost 962.4
O&M cost 673.5
Salvage value (47.1)
Total Present Worth
$1,588.8
1
Total present worth cost does not include costs for liquid sludge hauling
and land spreading.
-------
Table E-9. Rotating biological contactor (RBC) WWTP for 300,000 GPD design
average flow (Regional Alternative No. 4) .
Cost ($l>OQOx)
Item
Preliminary treatment
Primary clarifier
RBC
Secondary clarifier
Phosphorus removal
Chlorination system
Aerobic digester
Land
Administration & laboratory
building
Service roads and fence
Monitoring system, controls, and
instrumentation
Electrical
Process piping
Site Preparation
Total
Service factor (27%)
Total capital cost
Present worth cost (@ 7 5/8% over 20 years)
Capital cost 1,096.4
O&M cost 730.1
Salvage value (53.2)
Construction
Cost
$ 33.1
90.3
263.0
142.9
17.3
49.7
90.3
10.0
36.0
6.7
21.9
36.5
58.3
7.3
863.3
233.1
1,096.4
Salvage
value
$ 8.3
22.6
65.8
35.7
-
12.4
22.6
18.1
10.8
-
_
-
35.0
-
251.3
O&M
cost
$13.6
5.3
16.5
5.1
4.8
10.5
5.7
-
10.8
—
_
-
-
-
72.3
Total present worth
$1,773.3
Total present worth cost does not include costs for liquid sludge hauling
and land spreading.
-------
JZ
AJ
)H
«!
0 C
H 01
V.
b
fr,
4J
U
3
B
o
3
U
[I
3
P
U
in
|
w
0)
P
3
4-f
H
£
p
j
M
tf
33
60
00
bJ
U
CM CM CM CM
00 00 ON ON
Si Si
rH rH VO lO
fN.cn ON in
m -.
U Ss X
W W 4J
1 > >
3 0 Z A (fl
W «fl AJ O P 0 SE P
CM cn o 4J o o c/
•O O i-l B H «H c*
* g B -H NT « >-, e « >,
0 Q
rH 4.
1 r-
U)
) CflCaCM C4J-rtrH C *J
to o*HcQcn O*H w
4 CO • i-l d -H > CO -H > CO (*
03 OQ B O J-) ffl i-4 d JJOt cUi-
0) t-H tO -3-* B P BO d (H 01
01 l-i d W W 0) U CO i-CM QJ O D
rH co * (0 O vO > c -u W > (02
.0 .0 <; P ot CM d w nor-, d w .0, <
« 3rHH««QH P 01 CM OH 3i-
H W OtOHWpeJGWW
O O O O O
NT en ON in CM
IN. m rH vD cn
Or*- vo rH f*N
—4 NT rH vD O
NT n CM >r \o vo
rN. rH oo CM en
CM cn CM en vo
§o o o o
NT NT O CM
fN. en vO CM 00
ON i-H CM ^f fN.
cn NT in in IA
CN. rN. rH rH O
CM ON vo cn O
PN o co CM en
CM en CM en vo
0 O O O O B
vO NT CO VO rH O
ON fN. CO vO NT -H
• • K * 0 4J
CM ON CO 4n rH 0)
fN. r^ CM en in o
rH rH CM CM CM -H
S g §. g S II
rH O NT OO VO
* • • • • tj «rj
CM CO O en O 01 B
rH CM m m m 01 co
*%t NT m m NO IH rH
u u
0 O
X ^ 4J
•« " ^2
•H «H rH *~*
> > rt , «H ^-i nj>ski P
*0)CM d4J t»f^ E-U3 JSTJ
1 01 O*rtffi O-rlm 4J
-H d -H > -H d -H > O] -HP
H B O UtO SO 4J 03 0> SO)
Si-rH B P CO *HM Cpp u
4J w oi o d u w o O CM rW<»
E(OOvO ?• flOfN. >^ p3
fi P 0) CN C W P 0) CM d W W ?'-<
H H to a: OH H to ft: QHH 5 u
u cn a cn cn rH CM
-------
Table E-ll. Quantities and costs for conventional sewers and transmission to WWTP in
Sec. 24 T30N R26E for Egg Harbor Subareas 1A, IB, 2A.
Item
Sewer Pipe
8"
Rock excavation
4' deep
5' deep
9' deep
15' deep
Manholes
Road repair
Lift station
114 gpm - TDH 46 Ft
Force main
4" Individual trench
4" Common trench
Wye
Gravity service connection
Pressure lateral
Grinder-pump
Septic tank abandonment
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (27%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connection cost
Building sewer
Wye
Gravity service connection
Pressure lateral
Grinder pump
Subtotal future connection costs
Annual connection costs
Unit
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
VF
LF
EA
Unit
Quantity Cost
Construction Salvage
O&M
$ 176,800
24,600
72,000
21,600
57,200
29,900
79,120
40,000
$106,080 $ 829
24,600
72,000
21,600
57,200
12,000 2,048
LF
LF
EA
LF
LF
EA
EA
2,800
1,200
102
3,760
320
8
102
20
8
40
15
10
6000
65
56,000
9,600
4,080
56,400
3,200
48,000
6,630
685,130
184,990
870,120
33,600
5,760
2,450
33,840
1,200
4,800
—
375,130
800
3,677
LF
EA
LF
LF
EA
915
61
2360
80
2
15
40
15
10
6000
13,730
2,440
35,400
800
12,000
64,370
3,120
8,240
1,460
21,240
480
1,200
32,620
200
200
10
-------
Table E-12. Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent gravity sewers and transmission
to WWTP in Sec. 24 T30N R26E for Egg Harbor Subareas 1A, IB, 2A.
Item
STE sewer pipe
4"
Rock excavation
4' deep
5' deep
8' deep
15' deep
Manholes
Road repair
Lift Station
114 gpra - TDH 46 ft
Force main
4" individual trench
4" common trench
Wye
Gravity service connection
Pressure lateral
STE pump - simplex
- duplex
Septic tank minor upgrade
SFD & small commercial
Large commercial
Septic tank replacement
SFD & small commercial
Large commercial
Septic tank rock removal
SFD & small commercial
Large commercial
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future Connection cost
Building sewer
Wye
Gravity service connection
Pressure lateral
STE Pump - simplex
Septic tanks - new/repl.
SFD & small commercial
Large commercial
Septic tank rock removal
SFD & small commercial
Large commercial
Subtotal future connection costs
Annual connection costs
Unit Quantity
Construction
Salvage
O&M
LF
EA
11,050 $13 $ 143,650
40,000
$86,190 $ 420
LF
LF
LF
LF
VF
LF
2,550
4,300
800
1,300
26
11,050
12
15
27
44
100
7.16
24,600
72,000
21,600
57,200
2,600
79,120
24,600
72,000
21,600
57,200
1,560
12,000 2,048
LF
LF
EA
LF
LF
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
2,800
1,200
102
3,760
320
7
1
64
10
25
3
15
3
20
8
40
15
10
2000
3890
150
150
1000
2000
750
1000
56,000
9,600
4,080
56,400
3,200
14,000
3,890
9,600
1,500
25,000
6,000
11,250
2,000
643,290
225,150
868,440
33,600
5,760
2,450
33,840
1,200
4,200
1,170
5,760
900
15,000
3,600
LI, 250
2,000
395,880
525
125
640
200
250
60
-
—
4,268
LF
EA
LF
LF
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
915
61
2360
80
2
61/16
0/2
55
2
15
40
15
10
2000
1000
2000
750
1000
13,730
2,440
35,400
800
4,000
77,000
4,000
41,250
2,000
180,620
9,031
8,240
1,460
21,240
480
1,200
46,200
2,400
41,250
2,000
124,470
150
610
760
38
-------
Table E-13. Quantities and costs for conventional gravity collection and transmission
land application site in Sec. 31 T30N R27E for Egg Harbor Subareas
1A, IB, 2A.
Item
Sewer pipe
8"
Block excavation
4' deep
5' deep
9' deep
15' deep
Manholes
Road repair
Lift station
114 gpm - TDH 46 Ft
Force main
4" individual trench
4" common trench
Wye
Gravity service connection
Pressure lateral
Grinder pump
Sentic tank abandonment
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (27%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connection cost
Building sewer
Wye
Gravity service connection
Pressure lateral
Grinder pump
Sub total future connection cost
Annual connection costs
Unit Quantity
LF
EA
LF
EA
LF
LF
EA
Unit
Cost
Construction Salvage
11,050 $ 16 $ 176,800
LF
LF
LF
LF
VF
LF
2,050
4,800
800
1,300
299
11,050
12
15
27
44
100
7.16
24,600
72,000
21,600
57,200
29,900
79,120
24,600
72,000
21,600
57,200
915
61
2,360
80
2
40,000
15
40
15
10
6000
13,730
2,440
35,400
800
12,000
64,370
3,120
8,240
1,460
21,240
480
1,200
32,620
O&M
$106,080 $ 829
12,000 2,294
LF
LF
EA
LF
LF
EA
EA
6,100
3,700
102
3,760
320
8
102
20
8
40
15
10
6000
65
122,000
29,600
4,080
56,400
3,200
48,000
6,630
771,130
208,210
979,340
73,200
17,760
2,450
33,840
1,200
4,800
-
426,730
800
-
3,923
200
200
10
-------
Table E-14. Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent gravity sewers and transmission
to cluster drainfield in Sec. 31 T30N R27E on land application site in Sec.
30 T30N R27E for Egg Harbor Subareas 1A, IB, 2A.
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
VF
LF
EA
Item Unit
STE sewer pipe
4"
Rock excavation
4' deep
5' deep
8' deep
15' deep
Manholes
Road repair
Lift station
114 gpra - TDH 190 Ft
Force main
4" individual trench
4" common trench
Wye
Gravity service connection
Pressure lateral
STE pump - simplex
- duplex
Septic tank minor upgrade
SFD & small commercial
Large commercial
Septic tank replacement
SFD & small commercial
Large commercial
Septic tank rock removal
SFD & small commercial
Large commercial
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connection cost
Building service
Wye
Gravity service connection
Pressure lateral
STE Pump - Simplex
Septic tanks - new/repl.
SFD & small commercial
Large commercial
Septic tank rock removal
SFD & small commercial
Large commercial
Subtotal future connection costs
Annual connection costs
Construction Salvage O&M
$ 143,650
24,600
72,000
21,600
57,200
2,600
79,120
40,000
$86,190 $ 420
24,600
72,000
21,600
57,200
1,560
12,000 2,294
LF
LF
EA
LF
LF
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
6,100
3,700
102
3,760
320
7
1
64
10
25
3
15
3
20
8
40
15
10
2000
3890
150
150
1000
2000
750
1000
122,000
29,600
4,080
56,400
3,200
14,000
3,890
9,600
1,500
25,000
6,000
11,250
2,000
729,290
255,250
984,540
73,200
17,760
2,450
33,840
1,200
4,200
1,170
5,760
900
15,000
3,600
11,250
2,000
447,480
525
125
640
200
250
60
_
4,514
LF
EA
LF
LF
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
915
61
2360
80
2
61/16
0/2
55
2
15
40
15
10
2000
1000
2000
750
1000
13,730
2,440
35,400
800
4,000
77,000
4,000
41,250
2,000
18,620
9,031
8,240
1,460
21,240
480
1,200
46,200
2,400
41,250
2,000
124,470
150
610
-
—
-
760
38
-------
Table E-15. Quantities and costs for conventional gravity sewers and transmission
to WWTP in Sec. 24 T30N R26E for Egg Harbor Subareas IAN, IBS, 2AS.
Item
Sewer pipe
8"
Rock excavation
4* deep
5' deep
6' deep
7' deep
Manholes
Road repair
Lift station
23 gpm - TDK 41 ft
Force main
4" individual trench
4" common trench
Wye
Gravity service connection
Pressure lateral
Grinder pump
Septic tank abandonment
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (27%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connection cost
Building sewer
Wye
Gravity service connection
Pressure lateral
Grinder pump
Subtotal future connection costs
Annual connection costs
Unit Quantity
Construction Salvage
O&M
LF
EA
LF
EA
LF
LF
EA
3,800
375
25
960
40
1
$16 $ 60,800
40,000
15
40
15
10
6000
5,630
1,000
14,400
400
6,000
27,430
1,372
$36,480 $ 285
LF
LF
LF
LF
VF
LF
600
1,600
600
200
81
3,800
12
15
18
21
100
7.16
7,200
24,000
10,800
4,200
8,100
27,210
7,200
24,000
10,800
4,200
4,860
12,000 2,042
LF
LF
EA
LF
LF
EA
EA
4,000
400
47
1,880
160
4
51
20
8
40
15
10
6000
65
80,000
3,200
1,880
28,200
1,600
24,000
3,320
324,510
87,620
412,130
48,000
1,920
1,230
16,920
960
2,400
1,990
172,960
3,380
600
8,640
240
600
13,460
400
2,727
100
100
5
-------
Table E-16. Quantities and costs for septic effluent gravity sewers and trans-
mission to WWTP in Sec. 24 T30N R26E for Egg Harbor subareas IAN,
1BN, 2AS.
jtem
STE sewer pipe
4"
Rock excavation
4' deep
5' deep
6' deep
7' deep
Manholes
Road repair
Lift station
23 gpm - TDH 41 Ft
Force Main
4" Individual trench
4" Common trench
Wye
Gravity service connection
Pressure lateral
STE pump - simplex
- Duplex
Septic Tank minor upgrade
SFD & small commercial
large commercial
Septic tank replacement
SFD & small commercial
Large commercial
Septic tank rock removal
SFD & small commercial
Large commercial
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connection cost
Building sewer
Wye
Gravity service connection
Pressure lateral
STE Pump-Simplex
Septic Tanks new/replace
SFD & small commercial
Large commercial
Septic tank rock removal
SFD & small commercial
Large commercial
Subtotal future connection costs
Annual connection costs
Unit Quantity
Construction Salvage
O&M
LF
EA
3,800 $ 13
$49,400
40,000
$29,640 $ 145
LF
LF
LF
LF
VF
LF
600
1,600
600
200
9
3,800
12
15
18
21
100
7.16
7,200
24,000
10,800
4,200
900
27,210
7,200
24,000
10,800
4,200
540
12,000 2,042
LF
LF
EA
LF
LF
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
LF
EA
LF
LF
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
4,000
400
47
1,880
160
3
1
30
4
16
1
6
1
375
25
960
40
1
25/9
0/1
29
1
20
8
40
15
10
2000
3890
150
150
1000
2000
750
1000
15
40
15
10
2000
1000
2000
750
1000
80,000
3,200
1,880
28,200
1,600
6,000
3,890
4,500
600
16,000
2,000
4,500
1,000
317,080
110,980
428,060
5,630
1,000
14,400
400
2,000
34,000
2,000
21,750
1,000
82,180
4,109
48,000
1,920
1,230
16,920
960
1,800
1,170
2,700
360
960
1,200
4,500
1,000
179,740
3,380
600
8,640
240
600
20,400
1,200
21,750
1,000
57,810
225
125
300
80
160
28
_
—
3,097
75
25C
-
—
-
325
16
-------
Table E-17. Quantities and costs for conventional gravity sewers and trans-
mission to land treatment site in Sec. 31 T30N R27E for Egg Harbor
Subareas IAN, IBS, 2AS.
Item
Unit Quantity
Construction Salvage
O&M
Sewer pipe
8" LF
Rock excavation
4' deep
5' deep
6" deep
7' deep
Manholes
Road repair
Lift station
23 gpm - TDK 41 Ft EA
Force main
4" individual trench
4" common trench
Wye
Gravity service connection
Pressure lateral
Grinder pump
Septic tank abandonment
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (27%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connection cost
Building sewer LF
Wye EA
Gravity service connection LF
Pressure lateral LF
Grinder pump EA
Subtotal future connection costs
Annual connection costs
3,800
375
25
960
40
1
$16 $ 60,800
40,000
15
40
15
10
6000
5,630
1,000
14,400
400
6,000
27,430
1,372
$36,480 $ 285
LF
LF
LF
LF
VF
LF
600
1,600
600
200
81
3,800
12
15
18
21
100
7.16
7,200
24,000
10,800
4,200
8,100
27,210
7,200
24,000
10,800
4,200
4,860
12,000 2,176
LF
LF
EA
LF
LF
EA
EA
8,300
1,300
47
1,880
160
4
51
20
8
40
15
10
6000
65
166,000
10,400
1,880
28,200
1,600
24,000
3,320
417,710
112,780
530,490
99,600
6,240
1,230
16,920
960
2,400
1,990
228,880
3,380
600
8,640
240
600
13,460
400
2,861
100
100
5
-------
Table E-L8. Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent gravity sewers and trans-
mission to cluster drainfield or land application site in Sec. 31 T30N
R27E for Egg Harbor Subareas IAN, IBS, 2AS.
jtem
STE sewer pipe
4"
Rock excavation
4' deep
5' deep
6' deep
7' deep
Manholes
Road repair
Lift station
23 gpm - TDH 172 Ft
Force main
4" individual trench
4" common trench
Wye
Gravity service connection
Pressure lateral
STE pump - simplex
- duplex
Septic tank minor upgrade
SFD & small commercial
Large commercial
Septic tank replacement
SFD & small commercial
Large commercial
Septic tank rock removal
SFD & small commercial
Large commercial
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connection cost
Unit Quantity
Construction Salvage
O&M
LF $ 3,800 $ 13 $ 49,400
EA
40,000
$29,640 $ 145
LF
LF
LF
LF
VF
LF
600
1,600
600
200
9
3,800
12
15
18
21
100
7.16
7,200
24,000
10,800
4,200
900
27,210
7,200
24,000
10,800
4,200
540
12,000 2,176
LF
LF
EA
LF
LF
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
8,300
1,300
47
1,880
160
3
1
30
4
16
1
6
1
20
8
40
15
10
2000
3890
150
150
1000
2000
750
1000
166,000
10,400
1,880
28,200
1,600
6,000
3,890
4,500
600
16,000
2,000
4,500
1,000
410,280
143,600
553,880
99,600
6,240
1,230
16,920
960
1,800
1,170
2,700
360
9,600
1,200
4,500
1,000
235,660
225
125
300
80
160
20
_
—
3,231
Building sewer LF 375 15 5,630
Wye EA 25 40 1,000
Gravity service connection LF 960 15 14,400
Pressure lateral LF 40 10 400
STE Pump - Simplex EA 1 2000 2,000
Septic tanks - new/replc.
SFD & small commercial EA 25/9 1000 34,000
Large commercial EA 0/1 2000 2,000
Septic tank rock removal
SFD & small commercial EA 29 750 21,750
Large commercial EA 1 1000 1,000
Subtotal future connection costs 82,180
Annual connection costs 4,109
3,380
600
8,640
240
600
20,400
1,200
21,750
1,000
57,810
75
250
325
16
-------
Table E-19. Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent pressure sewers and trans-
mission to cluster drainfield or land application site in Sec. 31 T30N
R27E for Egg Harbor Subareas IAN, IBS, 2AS.
Item Unit
Sewer pipe
4" LF
STE Pressure pipe LF
Cleanouts EA
Rock excavation
4' LF
5' LF
Road repair LF
Lift station
85 gpm - TDH 172 Ft EA
Forceraain
4" individual trench LF
Wye EA
Gravity service connection LF
Wye & curb value EA
Pressure lateral LF
STE pump - simplex EA
- duplex EA
Septic tank minor upgrade
SFD & small commercial EA
Large commercial EA
Septic tank replacement
SFD & small commercial EA
large commercial EA
Septic tank rock removal
SFD & small commercial EA
Large commercial EA
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connection cost
Building sewer LF
Wye EA
Gravity service connection LF
Wye & curb value EA
Pressure lateral LF
STE Pump - Simplex EA
Septic tanks - new/repl.
SFD & small commercial EA
Large commercial EA
Septic tank rock removal
SFD & small commercial EA
Large commercial EA
Subtotal future connection cost
Annual connection costs
lantity
700
4,600
12
1,100
3,400
3,800
1
6,700
10
400
42
1,640
36
6
30
4
16
1
6
1
375
4
160
21
840
21
25/9
0/1
29
1
Unit
Cost
$ 13
10
1000
12
15
7.16
20
40
15
64
10
2000
3890
150
150
1000
2000
750
1000
15
40
15
64
10
2000
1000
2000
750
1000
Construction
$ 9,100
46,000
12,000
13,200
51,000
27,210
40,000
134,000
400
6,000
2,690
16,400
72,000
23,340
4,500
600
16,000
2,000
4,500
1,000
481,940
168,680
650,620
5,630
160
2,400
1,340
8,400
42,000
34,000
2,000
21,750
1,000
118,690
5,934
Salvage O&M
$ 5,460 $ 27
27,600 87
7,200
12,200
51,000
12,000 2,176
80,400
240
3,600
1,610
9,840
21,600
7,000
3,380
100
1,440
810
5,040
12,600
20,400
1,200
21,750
1,000
67,720
2,700
750
300
80
160
20
2,700
360
960
1,200
4,500
1,000
251,410 6,300
1,575
250
1,825
91
-------
cr\ o
a-
o co
i— co
o o o
o o r-*
CO vO CM
00 OO
m
to
H
cfl
00
O
O
O
*.
O
m
(U
4-1
r-l
o
CM
a
01
4J
H
CM
<^
CM
»
PQ
«*
<^
rH
CO
cfl
01
I-l
CO
3
oo
3
5
d
o
o
60
cfl
rH-l
CM
•3 H
CO 3
rH
Tj U-)
C 4-1
CO «
P*"»
cd
pQ -O
rH
(3 0)
11 -H
J) 4-1
M C
0 -H
cfl
0 l-i
4-J ^3
rH H>
cO *J
14-1 CO
4-» 3
3 -H
C/3
<^
fs]
C/2
PQ
rH
»
*j£
^
rH
CO
cfl
01
CO
,0
uo
CU
PH
3
^
C
o
o
00
CO
rH
u
4J
cO
i-l
•^
O-i
H
^2
O
§
(4_|
o
f^
o
•H
4-1
cO
O
•H
1 t I
a u
a, ai
CO 3
rH
^ m
C 4-1
5 ^
^.
CO
rt
01
0>
M
O
O
4-J
rH
rH
cO
M-f
4->
3
^
1—1
QJ
-H
M-l
d
*r-t
cfl
M
rQ
M
01
4->
CO
3
rH
CJ
rH
CO
d
o
•H
00
CM"
CO
cfl
01
CO
4-1
CO
o
u
rH
-------
Table E-21. Aerated Lagoon WWTP for Egg Harbor Subareas 1A, IB, 2A or Baileys
Harbor Subarea 3.
Cost ($l,000x)
Item
Flow meter assembly
Aerated lagoons
Impermeable liner
Chlorination system
Administration & laboratory
bldg.
Service roads and fencing
Land
Monitoring, controls, and
instrumentation
Electrical
Process piping
Site preparation
Total
Service factor (27%)
Total capital cost
Present worth cost (@7 5/8%
Capital cost
O&M cost
Salvage cost
Total present worth
Construction Salvage
Cost Value
$ 10.0 $ -
94.8 15.6
11.8
30.0 7.5
36.0 10.0
6.7
10.0 18.0
5.6
9.5
15.1 9.1
1.9 -
231.4 60.2
62.5
293.9
over 20 years)
293.9
210.0
(13.8)
490.1
O&M
Cost
$2.0
9.3
-
6.5
3.0
-
-
-
-
-
i.
20.8
-------
Table E-22. Land application of WWTP effluent for Egg Harbor Subareas
1A, IB, 2A.
Cost ($1.000x)
Item
Lined storage pond
Pump station
Field preparation
Permanent distribution
system
Monitoring walls
Additional land
Additional fence
Total
Service factor 35%
Total capital cost
Present worth cost (@ 7
Capital cost
O&M cost
Salvage value
Total present worth
Construction
Cost
$ 72.7
40.0
1.1
23.3
3.8
23.6
15.9
180.4
63.1
243.5
5/8% over 20 years)
243.5
63.6
(19.9)
287.2
Salvage
Value
$18.2
12.0
1.1
11.6
1.1
42.6 -
-
86.6
O&M
Cost
$0.7
2.1
3.0
0.5
-
6.3
-------
Table E-23. WWTP outfall to Green Bay for Egg Harbor.
Item Unit Quantity Cost Construction Salvage O&M
Sewer Pipe
Manhole
Underwater pipe
Outfall structure
Total
Service factor 27%
Total capital cost
Present worth cost (@ 7 5/8% over 20 years)
Capital cost $148,600
O&M cost
Salvage value (16,146)
Total present worth 132,454
LF
VF
LF
EA
700
8
500
1
$ 16
100
200
$ 11,200
800
100,000
5,000
117,000
31,600
148,600
$ 6,720
480
60,000
3,000
70,200
-------
Table E-24. Cluster soil absorption system for Egg Harbor Subareas 1A, IB, 2A.
Item
Dosing chamber
tankage
pumps 450 gpm
appurtenances
emergency pump 450 gpm
electrical
meters
Value chamber
vault
values
Storage building
Drainfields
excavation & backfill
gravel
distribution pipe
mainfold pipe
delivery pipe
filter fabric
seeding
Administrative building
Access road
Land
Initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Initial capital cost
Present worth factors
Present worth
Total present worth
Quantity
12,500 gal
4
2,000 gal
286 sf
6,920 cy
3,480 cy
18,800 If
960 If
1,690 If
10,440 sy
3 ac
2,000 If
12 ac
Unit
Cost
$ 1.00
7,000
5,000
3,000
20,000
5,000
1.00
21,000
35
6.00
6.00
3.00
6.00
10.00
2.00
1,000
36,000
6.00
2,000
Construction
$ 12,500
21,000
5,000
3,000
20,000
5,000
2,000
21,000
10,000
41,520
20,880
56,400
5,760
16,900
20,880
3,000
36,000
12,000
24,000
336,840
117,890
427,790
1.000
427,790
484,150
Salvage
$ 7,500
O&M
1,200
4,000
$2,500
1,600
10,800 3,000
43,200
66,700 7,100
0.230 10.0983
15,340 71,700
-------
Table E-25. Aerated lagoon WWTP for Egg Harbor Subareas IAN, IBS, 2AS.
Cost ($1000x)
Item
Flow meter assembly
Aerated lagoons
Impermeable liner
Chlorination system
Administration & laboratory
bldg.
Service roads and fencing
Land
Monitoring, controls, and
instrumentation
Electrical
Process piping
Site preparation
Total
Service factor (27%)
Total capital cost
Capital cost
O&M cost
Salvage cost
Construction
cost
8.0
82.0
5.8
27.1
36.0
6.7
10.0
5.0
8.3
13.2
1.7
203.8
55.0
259.8
r 20 years)
259.8
153.5
(13.2)
Salvage
value
_
13.7
-
6.8
10.8
-
18.1
_
-
7.9
57.3
O&M
cost
2.0
6.0
-
6.0
1.2
-
-
_
—
-
15.2
Total present worth
400.1
-------
Table E-26. Rotating biological contactor (RBC) WWTP for Egg Harbor Subareas
IAN, IBS, 2AS.
Cost ($1000x)
Construction Salvage O&M
Item cost value cost
Preliminary treatment 13.5 3.4 11.4
Primary clarifier 37.6 9.4 1.8
RBC 45.0 11.3 10.5
Secondary clarifier 37.6 9.4 3.6
Phosphorus removal - -
Chlorination system 22.6 5.6 5.3
Aerobic digestor 30.1 7.5 2.7
Land 10.0 18.1
Administration & laboratory
building 36.0 10.8 1.9
Service roads and fence 6.7 - -
Monitoring system, controls, and
instrumentation 6.9
Electrical 11.5
Process piping 18.3 11.0 -
Site preparation 2,3 - -
Total1 287.1 86.5 37.2
Service factor (27%)
Total capital cost 352.2
Present worth cost (@ 7 5/8% over 20 years)
Capital cost 352.2
O&M cost 352.7
Salvage cost (19.9)
Total present worth 708.0
Costs for liquid sludge hauling and land spreading are not included.
-------
Table E-27. Land application of WWTP effluent for Egg Harbor Subareas
IAN, IBS, 2AS.
(Cost ($1000x)
Construction Salvage O&M
Item cost value cost
Lined storage pond 46.6 11.7 0.5
Pump station 40.0 12.0 2.0
Field preparation 0.4 0.4
Permanent distribution system 10.6 5.2 1.5
Monitoring wells 3.8 1.1 0.5
Additional land 10.6 19.1
Additional fence 12.7 - -_
Total 124.7 49.5 4.5
Service factor 35% 43.6
Total capital cost 168.3
Present worth cost (@ 7 5/8% over 20 years)
Capital cost 168.3
O&M cost 45.4
Salvage cost (11.4)
Total present worth 202.3
-------
Table E-28. Cluster soil absorption system for Egg Harbor Subareas IAN, IBS', 2AS.
Item
Dosing chamber
tankage
pumps 180 gpm
appurtenances
emergency pump 180 gpm
electrical
meters
Value chamber
vault
values
Storage building
Drainfields
excavation & backfill
gravel
distribution pipe
mainfold pipe
delivery pipe
filter fabric
seeding
Administrative building
Access road
Land
Initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Initial capital cost
Present worth factors
Present worth
Total present worth
Quantity
5,000 gal
4
1
2,000 gal
286 sf
Unit
Cost
$ 1.00
3,000
5,000
2,000
20,000
5,000
1.00
21,000
35
Construction
$ 5,000
12,000
5,000
2,000
20,000
5,000
2,000
21,000
10,000
Salvage
$ 3,000
-
-
-
-
—
1,200
—
4,000
2,220 cy
1,110 cy
6,000 If
400 If
1,120 If
3,330 sy
1 ac
2,000 If
4 ac
6.00
6.00
3.00
6.00
10.00
2.00
1,000
36,000
6.00
2,000
13,320
6,660
18,000
2,400
11,200
6,660
1,000
36,000
12,000
8,000
197,240
69,030
266,270
1.000
266,270
303,020
$1,000
400
10,800 3,000
14,400
33,400 4,400
0.230 10.0983
7,680 44,430
-------
i
o
S g
3 "'
C
0
•ft
u
u
3
III
,1
s
o
00 O
PI m
o ^
CO*
m
-*
-------
Table E-30.
Quantities and costs for upgrading and operating onsite systems and
holding tanks for Egg Harbor Subareas 28, 2C, 3, 4, 5.
1
1
10
11
Item ^
Septic tank-SFD t, small comm'l
Upgrade - permanent
- seasonal
Replacement - permanent
- seasonal
Septic tank - large comm'l
Upgrade - seasonal
Replacement - seasonal
Lift pump
Existing
Mew
Soil absorption sys.-SFD & sm.
comm'l
Replacement-seepage bed
- mound
Soil absorption sys.-large
comm'l
Replacement - mound
Holding tank-SFD & sm. comm'l
Existing-permanent
-seasonal
Replacement-permanent
-seasonal
Holding tank large comm'l
Existing - seasonal
Rock removal
Septic tank-SFD & sm. comm'l
Lift pump
Holding tank-SFD 4 sm. comm'l
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future systems
Building sewers - new 91
Septic tank-SFD & sm. comm'l
New/repl. - permanent 19/10
- seasonal 30/11
Septic tank -large comm'l
New/repl. - seasonal 4/2
Lift pump
New 44
Soil absorption sys.-SFD & sm.
comm'l
New & repl. - seepage bed 26
- mound 50
Soil absorption sys. large comm'1
New & repl. - mound 5
Holding tank-SFD 4 sm. comm'l
New 4 repl. - permanent 9
- seasonal 21
Rock removal
Septic tank - SFD 4 sra. comm'l 35
- Large comm'l 3
Lift pump 34
Holding tank - SFD 4 sai. comm'l 27
Total future costs
Annual future costs
intity
36
40
15
16
4
1
9
32
13
23
Unit
Cost
S 150
150
1000
1000
150
2000
645
1520
2170
Construction
$ 5,400
6,000
15,000
16,000
600
2,000
20,640
19,760
49,910
Salvage
$ 3,240
3,600
9,000
9,600
360
1,200
6,190
-
' 0&M
$ 504
280
210
112
60
15
675
2,400
-
6550
2100
2100
225
1000
1000
2000
645
1520
217C
6550
2100
2100
750
1000
600
1000
6,550
21,000
23,100
20,480
29,000
41,000
16,000
28,380
39,520
108,500
32,750
18,900
44,100
26,250
3,000
20,400
27,000
455,280
22,764
12,600
13,860
18
19
16
750
600
1000
13,500
11,400
16,000
226,860
79,400
306,260
13,500
11,400
16,000
100,550
12,290
17,400
24,600
9,600
8,510
11,340
26,460
26,250
3,000
20,400
27,000
186,580
700
155
7,000
1,705
2,500
16,316
266
210
60
3,300
6,300
3,255
13,391
670
-------
Table E-31. Quantities and costs for upgrading and operating onslte systems and
holding tanks for Efeg Harbor Subareas IAS, IBM, 2AN, 2B, 2C, 3, 4, 5.
Item
Septic tank-SFD 4 small comm'l
Upgrade - permanent
- seasonal
Replacement - permanent
- seasonal
Septic tank - large comm'l
Upgrade - permanent
- seasonal
Replacement * permanent
Lift pump
Existing
Hew
Soil absorption sys.-SFD & sin.
comm11
Replacement-seepage bed
- mound
Soil absorption sys.-large
comm'l
Replacement - mound
Holding tank-SFD & sm. comffl'l
Existing - seasonal
Replacement-permanent
-seasonal
Rock removal
Septic tank-SFD & sm. comm'l
-large comm'l
Lift pump
Holding tank-SFD & sm. comn'l
-large comm'l
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (352)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future systems
Building severs - new
Septic tank-SFD & sm. comm'l
New/repl. - permanent
- seasonal
Septic tank -large comm'l
New/repl. - permanent
- seasonal
Lif t pump
New
Soil absorption sys.— SFD & sin.
comm'l
New & repl. - seepage bed
- mound
Soil absorption sys. large comm'l
New & repl. - seepage bed
- mound
Holding tank-SFD & sm. comm'l
New & repl. - permanent
- seasonal
Rock removal
Septic tank - SFD & sm. comm'l
- large comm'l
Lift pump
Holding tank - SFD & sm. comm'l
Total future costs
Annual future costs
Quantity
51
47
18
18
3
7
1
15
37
16
27
2
4
15
19
I 22
2
24
1 33
1
127
31/13
42/13
0/1
4/2
66
35
63
1
8
15
32
51
4
48
50
Unit
Cost
? 150
150
1000
1000
150
150
2000
_
645
1520
2170
6550
2100
2100
750
1000
600
1000
3000
225
1000
1000
2000
2000
645
1520
2170
5060
6550
2100
2100
750
1000
600
1000
Construction
$ 7,650
7,050
18,000
18,000
450
1,050
2,000
23,870
24,320
58,590
13,100
31,500
39,900
16,500
2,000
14,400
33,000
3,000
314,380
110,030
424,410
28,580
44,000
55,000
2,000
12,000
42,570
53,200
136,710
5,060
52,400
31,500
67,200
38,250
4,000
28,800
50,000
651,270
32,564
Salvage
$ 4,590
4,230
10,800
10,800
270
630
1,200
7,160
-
18,900
23,940
16,500
2,000
14,400
33,000
3,000
151,420
17,150
26,400
33,000
1,200
7,200
12,770
_
.
18,900
40,320
38,250
4,000
28,800
50,000
277,990
n&M
vgfl
$ 714
329
252
126
90
105
30
1,125
2,775
-
620
10,500
2,945
-
19,611
434
294
60
4,950
10,500
4,960
-
21,198
1,060
-------
Table E-32.
Quantities and costs foe upgrading and operating onsite systems and
holding tanks for all Egg Harbor subareaa.
Unit
Item Quantity Cost Construction
Septic tank-SFD 4 small comm'l
Upgrade - permanent 53 $ 150 $ 7,950
- seasonal 55 150 8,250
Replacement - permanent 24 1000 24,000
- seasonal 22 1000 22,000
Septic tank - large comm'l
Upgrade - permanent 4 150 600
- seasonal 11 150 1,650
Replacement - permanent 1 2000 2,000
- seasonal 2 2000 4,000
Lift pump
Existing 16 -
New 47 645 30,320
Soil absorption sys.-SFD 4 sm.
comm'l
Replacement-seepage bed 21 1520 31,920
- mound 35 2170 75,950
Soil absorption sys .-large
comm'l
Replacement - mound 3 6550 19,650
Holding tank-SFD 4 sm. comm'l
Existing-permanent
-seasonal
Replacement-permanent
-seasonal
Holding tank large comm'l
Existing - seasonal
Re plac emen t-pe rmanent
-seasonal
Rock removal
Septic tank-SFD 4 sm. comm'l
-large comm'l
Lift pump
Holding tank-SFD 4 sm. comm'l
-large comm'l
Administration 4 laboratory
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future systems
Building sewers - new 152 225
Septic tank-SFD 4 sm. comm'l
New/repl. - permanent
- seasonal
Septic tank -large comm'l
New/repl. - permanent
- seasonal
Lift pump
New 74 645 47,730
Soil absorption sys.-SFD 4 sm.
comm'1
New 4 repl. - seepage bed 36 1520 54,720
- mound 74 2170 160,580
Soil absorption sys. large comm'l
New 4 repl. - seepage bed 1 5060 5,060
- mound 8 6550 52,400
Holding tank-SFD 4 sm. comm'l
New 4 repl, - permanent 24 2100 50,400
- seasonal 44 2100 92,400
Rock removal
Septic tank - SFD 4 sm. comm'l 61 750 45,750
- large comm'l 5 1000 5,000
Lift pump 56 600 33,600
Holding tank - SFD 4 sm. comm'l 56 1000 56,000
- large comm'l 0 3000
O&H
34,200
$ 4,770
4,950
14,400
13,200
360
990
1,200
2,400
«
9,100
$ 742
385
336
154
120
165
30
30
1,200
3,525
1
5
35
24
2
2
1
25
2
26
46
4
-
-
2100
2100
-
2100
2100
750
1000
600
1000
3000
-
-
73,500
50,400
_
4,200
2,100
18,750
2,000
15,600
46,000
12,000
36,000
488,840
171,090
659,930
-
-
44,100
30,240
_
2,520
1,260
18,750
2,000
15,600
46,000
12,000
10,800
234,640
700
775
24,500
3,720
5,000
14,600
2,500
_
_
_
_
-
5,700
64,182
20,520
32/14
48/15
0/2
4/2
1000
1000
2000
2000
46,000
63,000
4,000
12,000
27,600
37,800
2,400
7,200
448
336
0
30
L4.320
30,240
55,440
45,750
5,000
33,600
56,000
5,550
16,800
6,820
Total future costs
Annual future costs
762,840
38,142
335,870
29,984
1,499
-------
5
o
u X
hi
e»1 00
*C m
^ r*
O r*
»
sf
S
o
e
2 8
000
O CT> en
M CO O
* » »
m oo m
•§<
«i
c u w
SH H
ul en
-------
Table E-34. Quantities and costs for conventional gravity sewers for Fish Creek
Subareas 2, 3A, and 3B.
Item Unit
Sewer pipe
8" LF
Rock excavation
3' deep
4.5' deep
6' deep
Manholes
Road repair
Dewatering
River crossing pipe
Lift station
Subarea 2
Subarea 3
Force main
4" individual trench
4" common trench
Wye
Gravity service connection
Pressure lateral
Grinder pump
Septic tank abandonment
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (27%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connection cost
Building sewer LF
Wye EA
Gravity service connection LF
Subtotal future connection costs
Annual connection costs
Construction Salvage
O&M
$ 184,160
135
9
630
15
40
15
2,030
360
9,450
11,840
592
$110,500 $ 863
LF
LF
LF
VF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
EA
LF
LF
EA
EA
7,710
2,800
1,000
364
11,510
7,490
70
1
1
300
2,380
140
11,000
2,200
8
140
3
13.50
18
100
7.16
10
50
8
20
40
15
10
6000
65
23,130
37,800
18,000
36,400
82,410
74,900
3,500
40,000
40,000
19,040
6,000
5,600
165,000
22,000
48,000
9,100
815,040
220,060
1,035,100
23,130
37,800
18,000
21,840
-
44,900
2,100
12,000
12,000
11,420
3,600
3,360
99,000
13,200
4,800
—
417,650
2,650
3,000
800
—
7,313
1,220
220
5,670
7,110
-------
Table E-35. Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent gravity sewers for Fish Creek
Subareas 2, 3A, and 3B.
Item Unit
Sewer pipe
4" - 6" LF
Rock excavation
2.5' deep
3.5' deep
5' deep
Manholes
Road repair
Dewatering
River crossing pipe
Lift station
Subarea 2
Subarea 3
Force main
4" individual trench
4" common trench
Wye
Gravity service connection
Pressure lateral
STE pump - simplex
Septic tank minor upgrade
SFD & small commercial
Large commercial
School
Septic tank replacement
SFD & small commercial
Large commercial
School
Septic tank rock removal
SFD & small commercial
Large commercial
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connection cost
Building sewer LF
Wye EA
Gravity service connection LF
Septic tanks - new/repl.
SFD & small commercial EA
Large commercial EA
Septic tank rock removal
SFD & small commercial EA
Large commercial EA
Subtotal future connection costs
Annual connection costs
Construction Salvage
O&M
$ 149,630
135
9
630
0/25
9/1
7
7
15
40
15
1000
2000
750
1000
2,030
360
9,450
25,000
20,000
5,250
7,000
69,090
3,455
$89,780 $ 437
LF
LF
LF
VF
LF
LF
LF
EA
EA
LF
LF
EA
LF
LF
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
7,710
2,800
1,000
304
11,510
7,490
70
1
1
300
2,380
140
11,000
2,200
8
28
38
1
91
29
1
9
1
7.50
10.50
15
100
7.16
10
50
20
80
40
15
10
2000
150
150
150
1000
2000
9000
750
1000
57,830
29,400
15,000
30,400
82,410
74,900
3,500
40,000
40,000
6,000
19,040
5,600
165,000
22,000
16,000
4,200
5,700
150
91,000
58,000
9,000
6,750
1,000
932,510
326,380
1,258,890
57,830
29,400
15,000
18,240
-
44,900
2,100
12,000
12,000
3,600
11,420
3,360
99,000
13,200
4,800
2,520
3,420
90
54,600
34,800
5,400
6,750
1,000
326,210
2,150
2,500
600
280
760
180
910
580
180
8,577
1,220
220
5,670
15,000
12,000
5,250
7,000
46,360
180
180
9
-------
Table E-36. Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent pressure sewers for Fish Creek
Subareas 2, 3A, and 3B.
Unit Quantity
Unit
Cost
Construction Salvage
O&M
Item
STE pressure pipe
2%" - 6"
Rock excavation
2.5" deep
Road repair
Cleanouts
Dewatering
River crossing pipe
Wye & curb value
Pressure lateral
STE pump - simplex
- duplex
Septic tank minor upgrade
SFD & small commercial
Large commercial
School
Septic tank replacement
SFD & small commercial
Large commercial
School
Septic tank rock removal
SFD & small commercial
Large commercial
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connection cost
Building sewer LF 135 15 2,030 1,220
Wye & curb value EA 9 64 1,220 720
Pressure lateral LF 630 10 6,300 3,780
STE pump - duplex EA 9 3890 35,010 10,500 1,125
Septic tanks - new/repl.
SFD & small commercial EA 0/25 1000 25,000 15,000
Large commercial EA 9/1 2000 20,000 12,000 180
Septic tank rock removal
SFD & small commercial EA 7 750 5,250 5,250
Large commercial EA 7 1000 7,000 7,000
Subtotal future connection costs 101,810 55,470 1,305
Annual Connection costs 5,091 65
LF
LF
LF
EA
LF
LF
EA
LF
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
11,810
3,800
11,810
30
3,100
70
140
U,000
119
41
28
38
1
91
29
1
9
2
$ 10
750
7.16
1000
10
50
64
10
2000
3890
150
150
150
1000
2000
9000
750
1000
$ 118,100
28,500
84,560
30,000
31,000
3,500
8,960
110,000
238,000
159,490
4,200
5,700
150
91,000
58,000
9,000
6,750
2,000
988,910
346,120
1,335,030
$70,860
28,500
-
18,000
18,600
2,100
5,380
66,000
71,400
47,852
2,520
3,420
90
54,600
34,800
5,400
6,750
2,000
438,270
$ 224
8,925
5,125
280
760
180
910
580
180
17,164
-------
Table E-37. Quantities and costs for conventional gravity sewers sewers for Fish Creek
Subareas 2, and 3A.
Item
Sewer pipe
8"
Rock excavation
3' deep
4.5' deep
Manholes
Road repair
Dewataring
River crossing pipe
Lift, station
Subarea 2
Subarea 3
Force main
4" individual trench
4" common trench
Wye
Gravity service connection
Pressure lateral
Grinder pump
Septic tank abandonment
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (27%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connection cost
Building sewer
Wye
Gravity service connection
Subtotal future connection costs
Annual connection costs
Unit
LF
LF
LF
VF
LF
LF
LF
EA
EA
Construction Salvage
O&M
$ 168,160 $100,900 $ 788
25,130
37,800
34,300
75,250
74,900
3,500
40,000
40,000
25,130
37,800
20,580
44,900
2,100
12,000
12,000
LF
LF
EA
LF
LF
EA
EA
300
2,380
133
9,400
2,200
8
133
20
8
40
15
10
6000
65
6,000
19,040
5,320
141,000
22,000
48,000
8,650
749,050
202,240
951,290
3,600
11,420
3,190
84,600
13,200
4,800
—
376,220
LF
EA
LF
135
9
630
15
40
15
2,030
360
9,450
11,840
592
1,220
220
5,670
7,110
2,650
3,000
800
7,238
-------
Table E-38. Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent gravity sewers for Fish
Creek Subareas 2, and 3A.
Item Unit
Sewer pipe
4" - 6" LF
Rock removal
2.5' deep
3.5' deep
Manholes
Road repair
Dewatering
River crossing pipe
Lift station
Subarea 2
Subarea 3
Force main
4" individual tranch
4" common trench
Wye
Gravity service connection
Pressure lateral
STE pump - simplex
Septic tank minor upgrade
SFD & small commercial
Large commercial
School
Septic tank replacement
SFD & small commercial
Large commercial
School
Septic tank rock removal
SFD & small commercial
Large commercial
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connection cost
Building sewer LF
Wye EA
Gravity service connection LF
Septic tanks - new/repl.
SFD & small commercial EA
Large commercial EA
Septic tank rock removal
SFD & small commercial EA
Large commercial EA
Subtotal future connection costs
Annual connection costs
Construction Salvage
O&M
$ 136,630
135
9
630
0/25
9/0
6
0
15
40
15
1000
2000
750
1000
2,030
360
9,450
25,000
18,000
4,500
59,340
2,967
$81,980 $ 399
LF
LF
VF
LF
LF
LF
EA
EA
LF
LF
EA
LF
LF
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
7,710
2,800
287
10,510
7,490
70
1
1
300
2,380
133
9,400
2,200
8
26
19
1
86
29
1
9
1
7.50
10.50
100
7.16
10
50
20
8
40
15
10
2000
150
150
150
1000
2000
9000
750
1000
57,830
29,400
28,700
75,250
74,900
3,500
40,000
40,000
6,000
19,040
5,320
141,000
22,000
16,000
3,900
2,850
150
86,000
58,000
9,000
6,750
1,000
863,220
302,130
1,165,350
57,830
29,400
28,700
44,900
2,100
12,000
12,000
3,600
11,420
3,190
84,600
13,200
4,800
2,340
1,710
90
51,600
34,800
5,400
6,750
1,000
493,410
600
260
380
180
860
580
180
3,439
1,220
220
5,670
15,000
10,800
4,500
37,410
180
180
9
-------
Table E-39. Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent pressure sewers for Fish
Creek Subareas 2, and 3A.
Item
STE pressure pipe
2%" - 6" installed
Rock excavation
2.5' deep
Road repair
Cleanouts
Dewatering
River crossing pipe
Wye & curb value
Pressure lateral.
STE pump - simplex
- duplex
Septic tank minor upgrade
SFD & small commercial
Large commercial
School
Septic tank replacement
SFD & small commercial
Large commercial
School
Septic tank rock removal
SFD & small commercial
Large commercial
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connection cost
Unit
LF
Construction Salvage
O&M
$ 108,100
$64,860 $ 205
LF
LF
EA
LF
EA
EA
LF
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
2,800
10,810
27
3,100
70
133
9,400
113
40
26
19
1
86
29
1
9
1
7.50
7.16
1000
10
50
64
10
2000
3890
150
150
150
1000
2000
9000
750
1000
21,000
72,250
27,000
31,000
3,500
8,510
94,000
226,000
155,600
3,900
2,850
150
86,000
58,000
9,000
6,750
1,000
914,610
320,110
1,234,720
21,000
-
16,200
18,600
2,100
5,110
56,400
67,800
46,680
2,340
1,710
90
51,600
34,800
5,400
6,750
1,000
402,440
-
8,475
5,000
260
380
180
860
580
180
16,120
Building sewer
Wye & curb value
Pressure lateral
STE Pump - duplex
Septic tanks - new/repl.
SFD & small commercial
Large commercial
Septic tank rock removal
SFD & small commercial
Subtotal future connection costs
Annual connection costs
LF
EA
LF
EA
EA
EA
135
9
630
9
0/25
9/0
15
64
10
3890
1000
2000
2,030
1,220
6,300
35,010
25,000
18,000
1,220
720
3,780
10,500
15,000
10,800
EA
750
4,500
92,060
4,603
1,125
180
46,520 1,305
65
-------
Table E-40. Summary of WWTP and discharge costs for Fish Creek.
Present Worth
Capital Salvage O&M Salvage O&M Total
Aerated lagoon WWTP $ 557,000 $67,800 $28,900 $15,594 $291,841 $ 833,247
Land application of
effluent
Outfall
Cluster
Cluster
to Green Bay
drainf ield
mound
644,
593,
1,099,
898,
900
600
560
700
333
224
337
185
,900
,990
,460
,800
7,400
2,500
8,000
8,000
76,
51,
77,
42,
797
748
616
734
74,
25,
80,
80,
727
246
786
786
642,830
567,098
1,102,730
936,752
Includes transmission costs
-------
Table E-41. Aerated lagoon WWTP for Fish Creek
Cost ($1000x)
Construction Salvage O&M
Item cost value cost
Flow meter assembly $10.0 $- $2.0
Aerated lagoons 120.4 19.8 14.3
Impermeable liner 19.8
Special fill 164.1
Chlorination system 33.1 8.3 6.9
Administration and laboratory
bldg. 36.0 10.8 5.7
Service roads and fencing 6.7 - -
Land 10.0 18.1
Monitoring, controls, and in-
strumentation 6.8 - -
Electrical 11.3
Processing piping 18.1 10.8
Site preparation 2._. 3 - -
Total 438.6 67.8 28.9
Service factor (27%) 118.4
Total capital cost 557.0
Present worth cost (@ 7 5/8% over 20 years)
Capital cost 557.0
O&M cost 291.8
Salvage cost (15.6)
Total present worth 833.2
-------
Table E-42. Transmission to site in Sec. 3 and land application of WWTP
effluent for Fish Creek.
Cost ($1000x)
Construction Salvage O&M
Item cost value cost
Force main 250.1 186.5
Lined storage pond 65.7 16.4 0.6
Pump station 40.0 12.0 2.1
Field preparation 2.1 2.1
Permanent distribution system 42.4 21.2 4.2
Monitoring walls 3.8 1.1 0.5
Additional land 52.4 94.6
Additional fence 21.2 ^_ -
Total 477.7 333.9 7.4
Service factor 35% 167.2
Total capital cost 644.9
Present worth cost (@ 7 5/8% over 20 years)
Capital cost 644.9
O&M cost 74.7
Salvage cost (76.8)
Total present worth 642.8
-------
Table E-43. Transmission to WWIP in NENW Section 33 and WWTP outfall to Green Bay
for Fish Creek.
Item
Force main to site
Pipe-common trench
Rock excavation
4' deep
5' deep
Dewatering
Lift station
Force main from site
Pipe-common trench
Gravity sewer pipe
Manhole
Underwater pipe
Outfall structure
Total
Service factor 27%
Total capital cost
Present worth Cost (@ 7 f
Capital cost
O&M cost
Salvage value
Total present worth
Unit Quantity
Construction Salvage
O&M
LF
5,000
40,000
24,000
LF
LF
LF
EA
700
3,200
1,100
1
12
15
10
8,400
48,000
110,000
40,000
8,400
48,000
-
12,000
LF
LF
VF
LF
EA
20
9,200
100
8
700
1
years)
8 73,600
16 1,600
100 800
200 140,000
5,000
467,400
126,200
593,600
593,600
25,246
(51,748)
567,098
44,150
960
480
84,000
3,000
224,990
2,500
2,500
-------
Table E-44. Cluster drainfield and transmission to site in Sec. 3 T30N R27E for Fish Creek.
Item
Force main to Site
common trench
individual trench
rock excavation 5' deep
Dosing chamber
tank
pumps 800 gpm
appurtenances
emergency pump 800 gpm
electrical
meters
Value chamber
vault
values
Storage building
Drainbeds
excavation & backfill
gravel
distribution pipe
manifold pipe
delivery pipe
6"
8"
filter fabric
seeding
Administrative and lab building
Land
Initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Initial capital cost
Present worth factors
Present worth
Total present worth
Quantity
1,700 LF
7,270 LF
6,070 LF
15,000 gal
4
1
2,000 gal
286 sf
Unit
Cost
$ 8.00
20.00
15.00
1.00
12,000
5,000
5,000
20,000
5,000
1.00
21,000
35.00
Construction
$ 13,600
145,400
91,100
15,000
48,000
5,000
5,000
20,000
5,000
2,000
21,000
10,000
Salvage O&M
$ 8,160
87,200
91,100
$3,000
9,000
-
-
-
-
— —
1,200
- -
4,000
18,700 sy
6,230 cy
33,600 If
1,680 If
880 If
1,210 If
18,700 sy
5 ac
20 ac
6.00
6.00
3.00
6.00
10.00
13.00
2.00
1,000.00
36,000
2,000
112,200
37,380
100,800
10,080
8,800
15,730
37,400
5,000
36,000
70,000
814,490
285,070
1,099,560
1.000
1,099,560
1,102,730
2,000
10,800 3,000
126,000
337,460 8,000
0.230 10.0983
77,616 80,786
-------
Table E-45. Cluster mound and transmission to site in SWNE Sec. 32 for Fish Creek.
Item
Force main to Site
individual trench
dewatering
Dosing chamber
tankage
pumps 800 gpm
appurtenances
emergency pump 800 gpm
electrical
meters
Value chamber
vault
values
Storage building
Drainbeds
plowing
sand f ill
gravel
distribution pipe
manifold pipe
delivery pipe
filter fabric
soil fill
topsoil
seeding
Site improvements
access road
fencing
Administrative & lab building
Land
Initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Initial capital cost
Present worth factors
Present worth
Total present worth
Quantity
2,100 LF
1,600 LF
15,000 gal
4
1
2,000 gal
286 sf
Unit
Cost
$ 20.00
10.00
1.00
12,000
5,000
5,000
20,000
5,000
1.00
21,000
35
Construction
$ 42,000
16,000
15,000
48,000
5,000
5,000
20,000
5,000
2,000
21,000
10,000
Salvage
$25,200
9,600
9,000
-
-
-
-
""
1,200
4,000
O&M
-
3,000
-
-
-
-
-
—
_
2,000
5 ac
14,800 ac
3,700 cy
20,000 If
1,000 If
1,600 If
11,100 sy
5,920 cy
3,000 cy
5 ac
2,200 If
4,000 If
35 ac
100
6.00
6.00
3.00
6.00
13.00
2.00
5.00
5.00
1,000
6.00
5.00
2,000
500
88,800
22,200
60,000
6,000
20,800
22,200
29,600
15,000
5,000
13,200
20,000
36,000
70,000
589,300
209,400
898,700
1.00
898,700
936,752
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
— —
_ __
- -
10,800 3,000
126,000
185,800 8,000
0.230 10.0983
42,734 80,786
-------
5
o
S
3.
CTi \jp
5
o
r- O
xD O
-------
Table E-47. Quantities and costs for upgrading and operating onsite systems and
holding tanks for Fish Creek subareas 1, 4, 5, and 6.
Item C.
Septic tank-SFD & small coom'l
Upgrade - permanent
- seasonal
Replacement - permanent
- seasonal
Lift pump
New
Soil absorption sys.-SFD & sm.
comm'l
Replacement - mound
Holding tank-SFD S sm. comm'l
Exi sting-permanent
-seasonal
Replacement-permanent
-seasonal
Rock removal
Septic tank-SFD (, sm. comm'l
-Large comm'l
Lift pump
Holding tank-SFD 4 sm. comm'l
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future systems
Building sewers - new
Septic tank-SFD & sm. comm'l
New/repl. - permanent
- seasonal
Lift pump
New
Soil absorption sys.-SFD & sm.
comm' I
New Si repl. - seepage bed
- mound
Holding tank-SFD & sm. comm'l
New & repl. - permanent
Rock removal
Septic tank - SFD & sm. comm'l
Lift pump
Holding tank - SFD & sm. comm'l
Total future costs
Annual future costs
lantity
9
13
2
6
19
19
1
4
13
27
4
0
15
32
23
13/6
0/7
18
4
18
12
13
15
12
Unit
Cost
$ 150
150
1000
1000
645
2170
2100
2100
750
1000
600
1000
225
1000
1000
645
1520
2170
2100
750
600
1000
Construction
5 1,350
1,950
2,000
6,000
12,260
41,230
27,300
56,700
3,000
9,000
32,000
192,790
67,480
260,270
5,180
19,000
7,000
-11,610
6,080
39,060
25,200
9,750
9,000
12,000
152,880
7,644
Salvage
$ 810
1,170
1,200
3,600
3,680
-
16,380
34,020
3,000
9,000
32,000
104,860
3,110
11,400
4,200
3,480
-
15,120
9,750
9,000
12,000
77,060
Q&M
$ 126
91
28
42
1,425
-
700
620
9,106
4,185
-
16,317
-
182
1,350
_
8,400
-
9,932
497
-------
Table E-48. Quantities and costs for upgrading and operating onsite systems and
holding tanks for Fish Creek subareas 1, 3B, 4, 5, and 6.
Item jj
Septic tank-SFD 61 small comm'l
Upgrade - permanent
- seasonal
Replacement - permanent
- seasonal
Septic tank - large comm'l
Upgrade - seasonal
Lift pump
New
Soil absorption sys.-SFD 4 sm.
comm11
Replacement - mound
Soil absorption sys.-large
comm'l
Replacement - mound
Holding tank-SFD 4 sm. comm'l
Existing-permanent
-seasonal
Replacement-permanent
-seasonal
Rock removal
Septic tank-SFD & sm. comm'l
-large comm'l
Lift pump
Holding tank-SFD 4 sm. comm'l
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future systems
Building sewers - new
Septic tank-SFD 4 sm. comm'l
New/repl. - permanent
- seasonal
Septic tank -large comm'l
New/repl. - seasonal
Lift pump
New
Soil absorption sys.-SFD 4 sm.
coratn11
New 4 repl. - seepage bed
- mound
Holding tank-SFD 4 sm. comm'l
New & repl. - permanent
Rock removal
Septic tank - SFD & sm. comm'l
- Large comm'l
Lift pump
Holding tank - SFD 4 sm. comm'1
Total future costs
Annual future costs
tantity
9
13
2
6
3
21
19
2
1
5
17
27
4
3
17
32
23
13/6
0/7
0/1
18
4
18
12
13
1
15
12
Unit
Cost
5 150
150
1000
1000
150
645
2170
6550
2100
2100
750
1000
600
1000
225
1000
1000
2000
645
1520
2170
2100
750
1000
600
1000
Construction
$ 1,350
1,950
2,000
6,000
450
13,550
41,230
13,100
35,700
56,700
3,000
3,000
10,200
32,000
220,230
77,080
297,310
5,180
19,000
7,000
2,000
11,610
6,080
39,060
25,200
9,750
1,000
9,000
12,000
155,880
7,794
Salvage
S 810
1,170
1,200
3,600
270
4,065
-
-
21,420
34,020
3,000
3,000
10 , 200
32,000
114,755
3,110
11,400
4,200
1,200
3,480
_
15,120
9,750
1,000
9,000
12,000
79,260
O&M
5 126
91
28
42
45
1,575
-
-
700
775
11,900
4,185
-
19,467
-
182
15
1,350
_
8,400
1,000
9,947
497
-------
table £-49. Quantities and costs for upgrading and operating onaite system* and
holding tank* for all Flab Creek subareas.
24
25
10
12
3
45
$ 150
150
1000
1000
150
645
$ 3,600
3.750
10,000
12,000'
450
29,030
$ 2,160
2,250
6,000
7,200
270
8,710
S 336
175
140
84
45
3,375
10,640
67,270
13,100
Unit
Item Cuaa tity Cost Construction
Septic tank-SFD & small coaa'l
Upgrade - permanent
- seasonal
Replacement - permanent
- seasonal
Septic tank - large coaa'l
Upgrade - seasonal
Lift pump
New
Soil absorption sys.-SFD & so.
comm'l
Replacement-seepage bed 7 1520
- mound 31 2170
Soil absorption sys.-large
comm'1
Replacement - mound 2 6550
holding tank-SFD 4 sm. comm'l
Existins-permanent
-seasonal
Replacement-permanent
-seasonal
Holding tank Large comm'l
Existing permanent
seasonal
Replacement-permanent
-seasonal
Sock removal
Septic tank-SFD & sm.
-large com
Lift pump
Holding tank-SFD & sm. comm'l
Administration a Laboratory
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35X)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future systems
EuUaing severs - new 32 225 7,200
Septic tank-SFD & sm. conm'l
New/repl. - permanent 13/11 1000 24,000
- seasonal 0/12 1000 12,000
Septic tank -large coma'L
New/repl. - seasonal 0/1 2000 2,000
Lift pump
Sew 26 645 16.770
Soil absorption sys.-SFD & sa.
coma'l
New & repl. - seepage bed 5 1520 7,600
- mound 26 2170 56,420
Holding tank-SFD & sm. corns'1
New 4 repl. - permanent 15 2100 31,500
- seasonal 5 2100 10,500
Holding tank-large cooa'l
New & repi. - permanent - 10,000
- seasonal 9 10,000 90,000
Rock removal
Septic tank - SFD 4 sm. coam'l 15 750 11,250
- large como'l 1 1000 1,000
Lift pump 15 600 9,000
Holding tank - SFD i sa. conm'l 17 1000 17,000
- large comm'L 9 3000 27,000
Total future costs 323,240
Annual future costs 16,162
O&M
4
12
51
65
14
a
5
6
conm'l 6
I'l 5
25
comm'l 45
IB' I 4
7
:ost
.
-
2100
2100
_
-
2100
2100
750
1000
600
1000
3000
-
-
107,100
136,500
-
-
10,500
12,600
4,500
5,000
15,000
45,000
12,000
36,000
534,040
186,910
720,950
-
_
64,260
81,900
_
-
6,300
7,560
4,500
5,000
15,000
45,000
12,000
10,800
296,910
2,800
1,860
35,700
10,075
102.200
20,000
36,500
15,000
_
-
-
.
-
5,700
233,990
4,320
14,400
7,200
1,200
5,030
18,900
6,300
27,000
11,250
1,000
9,000
17,000
27,000
136,640
182
1.950
10,500
775
22.500
35,907
1,795
-------
&
fj
o
3
d
*j >
fi-3
O ON
O> f>
SO CM
ON in
so so
CM CM
8 S
m o
«
Ll
H
5
o
a
o o
O CO
co en
X
4-1
•H
£
w«
o
d u
O H
o w
•rt >
u nl
c u
-------
Ta'ble E-51. Quantities and costs for conventional gravity sewers and
transmission for Ephraim Subareas 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6.
Item
STE sewer pipe
8" LF
Rock excavation
1' deep
3' deep
4' deep
5' deep
6' deep
7' deep
8' deep
10' deep
12' deep
14' deep
19' deep
Manholes
Road repair
Dewatering
Lift stations
#1 30 gpm - TDH 92 ft
#2 206 gpra - TDH 33 ft
#3 275 gpm - TDH 13 ft
#4 25 gpm - TDH 13 ft
Force main (2"-4")
individual trench
common trench
Wye
Gravity service connection
Pressure lateral
Grinder pump
Septic tank abandonment
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (27%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connection cost
Building sewer
Wye
Gravity service connection
Pressure lateral
Grinder pump
Subtotal future connection cost
Annual connection costs
Unit Quantity Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
56280
$ 16 $ 900,480
$540,290 $4,221
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
VF
LF
LF
LF
LF
EA
LF
LF
EA
EA
450
2600
9010
4680
6550
700
450
400
250
2900
450
1440
49730
16240
5100
2900
365
34300
2200
22
365
3
9
12
15
18
21
24
30
36
42
57
100
7.16
10
20
8
40
15
10
6000
65
1350
23,400
108,120
70,200
117,900
14,700
10,800
12,000
9,000
121,800
25,650
144,000
356,070
162,400
40,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
102,000
23,200
14,600
514,500
22,000
132,000
23,730
3,069,920
828,880
3,898,800
1350
23,400
108,120
70,200
117,900
14,700
10,800
12,000
9,000
121,800
25,650
86,400
-
97,440
12,000
12,000
12,000
12,000
61,200
13,920
8,760
308,700
13,200
13,200
14,240
1,720,880
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
—
2,029
2,083
2,401
2,003
-
-
-
-
-
2,200
—
14,973
LF
EA
LF
LF
EA
1515
101
4300
750
15
15
40
15
10
6000
27,730
4,040
64,500
7,500
90,000
193,770
9,690
13,640
2,420
38,700
4,500
9,000
68,260
-
-
-
-
1,500
1,500
75
-------
Table E-52. Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent gravity sewers and
transmission for Ephraim Subareas 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6.
Item
STE sewer pipe
4" - 6"
8"
Rock excavation
2' deep
4' deep
5' deep
6' deep
7' deep
9' deep
11' deep
12' deep
15' deep
Manholes
Road repair
Dewatering
Lift stations
#1 30 gpm - TDK 92 ft
#2 206 gpm - TDH 33 ft
#3 275 gpm - TDH 13 ft
#4 20 gpm - TDH 13 ft
Force main (2" - 4")
individual trench
common trench
Wye
Gravity service connection
Pressure lateral
STE pump - simplex
Septic tank minor upgrade
SFD & small commercial
Large commercial
Septic tank replacement
SFD & small commercial
Large commercial
Septic tank rock removal
SFD & small commercial
Large commercial
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connection cost
Building sewer
Wye
Gravity service connection
Pressure lateral
STE Pump - simplex
Septic tanks - new & repl.
SFD & small commercial
Large commercial
Septic tank rock removal
SFD & small commercial
Large commercial
Unit Quantity Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
VF
LF
LF
EA
EA
EA
EA
LF
LF
EA
LF
LF
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
54380
1900
1800
6580
6730
5900
800
200
1700
2650
450
140
49730
16240
1
1
1
1
5100
2900
365
34,300
2,200
22
255
35
71
4
28
2
$ 13
16
6
12
15
18
21
24
33
36
45
10
7.16
10
20
8
40
15
10
2000
150
150
1000
2000
750
1000
$ 706,940
30,400
10,800
78,960
100,950
88,500
16,800
4,800
56,100
95,400
162,000
1,400
356,070
162,400
40,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
102,000
23,200
14,600
514,500
22,000
44,000
38,250
5,250
71,000
2,000
21,000
2,000
2,897,320
1,014,060
3,911,380
$424,160
18,240
10,800
78,960
100,950
88,500
16,800
4,800
56,100
95,400
162,000
840
-
97,440
12,000
12,000
12,000
12,000
61,200
13,920
8,760
308,700
13,200
132,000
22,950
3,150
42,600
4,800
21,000
2,000
1,718,470
$2,066
72
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2,029
2,083
2,401
2,003
_
-
-
-
1,650
2,550
700
710
80
-
16,344
LF
EA
LF
LF
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
1515
101
4300
750
15
68/121
33/5
96
14
15
40
15
10
2000
1000
2000
750
1000
Subtotal future connection costs
Annual connection costs
27,730
4,040
64,500
7,500
30,000
189,000
76,000
72,000
14,000
484,770
24,239
13,640
2,420
38,700
4,500
9,000
113,400
45,600
72,000
14,000
313,260
1,125
680
660
2,465
123
-------
Table E-53. Quantities and costs for conventional gravity sewers and trans-
mission for Ephraim Subareas 1A, IB, and 2.
Item
STE sewer pipe
8"
Rock excavation
1' deep
3' deep
6' deep
7' deep
8' deep
Manholes
Road repair
Dewatering
Lift station
#1 108 gpm TDH 22 ft
#2 200 gpm TDH 86 ft
Force main
4" individual trench
4" common trench
Wye
Gravity service connection
Pressure lateral
Grinder pump
Septic tank abandonment
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (27%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connection cost
Building sewer
Wye
Gravity service connection
Pressure lateral
Grinder pump
Unit Quantity Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
LF
LF
EA
LF
LF
EA
Subtotal future connection
Annual connection costs
19870
525
35
1,450
300
6
$ 16 $ 317,920
15
40
15
10
6000
cost
7,880
1,400
21,700
3,000
36,000
69,980
3,499
$190,760 $1,490
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
VF
LF
LF
EA
EA
LF
LF
EA
LF
LF
EA
EA
450
800
1200
700
450
460
19870
7570
1
1
2,500
2,300
185
18,200
300
3
185
3
9
18
21
24
100
7.16
10
20
8
40
15
10
6000
65
1,350
7,200
21,600
14,700
10,800
46,000
142,270
75,700
40,000
40,000
50,000
18,400
7,400
273,000
3,000
18,000
12,030
1,101,370
297,370
1,399,740
1,350
7,200
21,600
14,700
10,800
27,600
-
45,420
12,000
12,000
30,000
11,040
4,440
164,000
1,800
1,800
7,220
563,730
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2,024
2,078
_
-
-
-
-
300
-
5,892
4,730
840
13,050
1,800
3,600
24,020
600
600
30
-------
Table E-54. Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent sewers and trans-
mission for Ephraim Subareas 1A, IB, and 2.
Item
STE sewer pipe
4" - 6"
8"
Rock excavation
1' deep
6' deep
7' deep
Manholes
Road repair
Dewatering
Lift station
#1 108 gpm TDH 22 ft
#2 200 gpm TDH 86 ft
Force main
4" individual trench
4" common trench
Wye
Gravity service connection
Pressure lateral
STE pump - simplex
Septic tank minor upgrade
SFD & small commercial
Large commercial
Septic tank replacement
SFD & small commercial
Large commercial
Septic tank rock removal
SFD & small commercial
Large commercial
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connection cost
Building sewer LF
Wye EA
Gravity service connection LF
Pressure lateral LF
STE Pump - simplex EA
Septic tanks - new & repl.
SFD & small commercial EA
Large commercial EA
Septic rock removal
SFD & small commercial EA
Large commercial EA
Subtotal future connection cost
Annual connection costs
Unit Quantity Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
VF
LF
LF
EA
EA
LF
LF
EA
LF
LF
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
18570
1300
800
700
1150
77
19870
7570
1
1
2500
2300
185
18200
300
3
121
27
34
3
8
2
$13 $
16
3
18
21
100
7.16
10
20
8
40
15
10
2000
150
150
1000
2000
750
1000
1,035,030
279,560
1,314,490
24,410
20,800
2,400
12,600
24,150
7,700
142,270
75,700
40,000
40,000
50,000
18,400
7,400
273,000
3,000
6,000
18,150
4,050
34,000
6,000
6,000
2,000
529,220
$144,850
12,480
2,200
12,600
24,150
4,620
-
45,420
12,000
12,000
30,000
11,040
4,400
164,000
1,800
1,800
10,890
2,430
20,400
3,600
6,000
2,000
7,232
$ 706
49
—
-
-
2,024
2,078
_
-
-
-
-
225
1,210
540
340
600
_
—
-
525
35
1450
300
6
15/40
20/3
17
3
15
40
15
10
2000
1000
2000
750
1000
7,880
1,400
21,700
3,000
12,000
55,000
46,000
2,250
3,000
152,250
7,613
4,730
840
13,050
1,800
3,600
33,000
27,600
2,250
3,000
89,870
450
150
400
1,000
50
-------
Table E-55. Summary of WWTP and discharge costs for Ephraim.
Present Worth
Item
Subareas 1A, IB, 2. 3, 5,
and 6
Aerated lagoon WWTP
Discharge to wetland
Outfall to Green Bay
Subareas 1A, IB, and 2
Aerated lagoon WWTP
Discharge to wetland
Outfall to Green Bay
Cluster drainfield
Capital Salvage
$432,300 $ 78,600
194,500 66,800
494,000 221,400
O&M
Salvage
$37,700 $18,078
37,200 15,364
2,460 50,922
O&M
Total
$380,706 $794,928
375,657 554,793
24,842 467,920
373,800
172,400
859,280
797,660
71,000
62,700
255,960
118,000
31,000
35,300
2,230
11,090
16,330
14,421
58,871
27,140
313,047
356,470
22,519
120,170
670,517
514,449
822,928
890,690
-------
Table E-56. Aerated lagoon WWTP for Ephraim Subareas 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6,
Cost ($1.000x)
Item
Flow meter assembly
Aerated lagoons
Impermenable liner
Chlorination system
Administration & laboratory
bldg.
Service roads and fencing
Land
Monitoring, controls, and
instrumentation
Electrical
Process piping
Site preparation
Total
Service factor (27%)
Total capital cost
Present worth cost (@ 7 5/8%
Capital cost
O&M cost
Salvage value
Total present worth
Construction Salvage
Cost Value
$ 10.0 $ -
155.0 25.6
32.6
42.1 10.5
36.0 10.8
6.7
10.0 18.1
8.5
14.1
22.6 13.6
2.8
340.4 78.6
91.9
432.3
over 20 years)
432.3
380.7
(18.1)
749.7
O&M
Cost
i? 2.0
17.8
-
9.3
8.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
37.7
-------
Tabte E-57. WWTP discharge to wetland for Ephraim Subareas 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6.
Cost ($l,000x)
Item
Intermittent sand filter
Pumping station
Force main
Distribution
Land
Total
Service factor (35%)
Total capital cost
Present worth cost (@ 7 5/8%
Capital cost
O&M cost
Salvage value
Construction
Cost
$ 49.2
40.0
9.0
30.4
15.5
144.1
50.4
194.5
over 20 years)
194.5
375.7
(15.4)
Salvage
Value
$12.3
12.0
5.4
9.1
28.0
66.8
O&M
Cost
$6.1
2.2
-
29.0
-
37.2
Total present worth 554.8
located at WWTP for 20 mg/1 BOD & 20 mg/1 SS discharge.
-------
Table E-58. WWTP outfall to Green Bay for Ephraim Subareas 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6.
Item
Lift station
Forcemain common trench
Gravity sewer pipe
Manholes
Underwater pipe
Outfall
Total
Service factor 27%
Total capital cost
Present worth cost (@ 7 5/8% over 20 years)
Capital cost
O&M cost
Salvage value
Total present worth
Unit Quantity Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
1
LF
LF
VF
LF
EA
EA
12,100
400
8
1,200
1
8
16
100
200
40,000
96,800
6,400
800
240,000
5,000
389,000
105,000
494,000
12,000
58,080
3,840
480
144,000
3,000
221,400
2,460
-
-
-
-
—
2,460
494,000
24,842
(50,922)
467,920
-------
Table E-59. Aerated lagoon WWTP for Ephraim Subareas 1A, IB, and 2.
Cost ($1.000x)
Construction Salvage
Item
Flow meter assembly $
Aerated lagoons
Impermeable liner
Chlorination system
Administration and laboratory
bldg.
Service roads and fencing
Land
Monitoring, controls, and
i as t rumen tat ion
Electrical
Process piping
Site preparation
Total
Service factor (27%)
Total capital cost
Present worth cost (@ 7 5/8% over
Capital cost
O&M cost
Salvage value
Total present worth
Cost Value
10.0 $ -
132.4 21.8
23.3
34.6 8.6
36.0 10.8
6.7
10.0 18.1
7.3
12.2
19.4 11.7
2.4
294.3 71.0
94.5
373.8
20 years)
373.8
313.0
(16.3)
670.5
O&M
Cost
$ 2.0
15.2
-
7.1
6.7
-
-
-
-
-
31.0
-------
Table E-60. WWTP discharge to wetland for Ephraim Subareas 1A, IB, and 2,
Cost ($l,000x)
Item
Intermittent sand filter
Pumping station
Force main
Distribution
Land
Total
Service factor (35%)
Total capital cost
Present worth cost (@ 7 5/8%
Capital cost
O&M cost
Salvage value
Total present worth
Construction
Cost
$ 32.8
40.0
9.0
30.4
15.5
127.7
44.7
172.4
over 20 years)
172.4
356.5
14.4
514.5
Salvage
Value
$ 8.2
12.0
5.4
9.1
28.0
62.7
O&M
Cost
$4.1
2.2
-
29.0
-
35.3
Located at WWTP for 20 mg/1 BOD & 20 mg/1 SS discharge
-------
Table E-61. WWTP outfall to Green Bay for Ephraim Subareas 1A, IB, and 2.
Item
Lift station
Forcemain
common trench
individual trench
Dewatering
Gravity sewer pipe
Manhole
Underwater pipe
Outfall structures
Total
Service factor 27%
Total capital cost
Cost Construction Salvage
O&M
Present worth cost (@ 7 5/8% over 20 years)
Capital cost
O&M cost
Salvage value
Total present worth
$ 8
$ 40,000
58,400
$859,280
22,519
(58,871)
822,928
$12,000 $2,230
35,040
LF
LF
LF
VF
LF
EA
4,800
23,000
400
8
1,200
1
20
10
16
100
200
96,000
230,000
6,400
800
240,000
5,000
676,600
182,680
859,280
57,600
-
3,840
480
144,000
3,000
255,960
2,230
-------
Table E-62. Cluster soil absorption system for Ephraim Subareas 1A, IB, and 2.
Item
Dosing chamber
tankage
pumps 1000 gpm
appurtenances
emergency pump 1000 gpm
electrical
meters
Value chamber
vault
values
Storage building
Drainfields
excavation & backfill
gravel
distribution pipe
manifold pipe
delevery pipe 6" dia
8" dia
filter fabric
seeding
tree removal and disposal
Administrative building
Access road
Land
Initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Initial capital cost
Present worth factors
Present worth
Total present worth
Quantity Unit Cost Construction
$ 20,000
16,000
5,000
6,300
20,000
5,000
2,000
21,000
10,000
97,100
48,570
108,900
13,060
19,000
12,870
48,560
7,000
38,500
36,000
6,000
50,000
590,860
206,800
797,660
1.000
797,660
890,690
20,000 gal
4
1
2,000 gal
286 sf
16,190 cy
8,090 cy
36,300 If
2,180 If
1,900 If
990 If
24,280 sy
7 ac
7 ac
1000 If
25 ac
$ 1.00
4,000
5,000
6,300
20,000
5,000
1.00
21,000
35
6.00
6.00
3.00
6.00
10.00
13.00
2.00
1,000
5,500
36,000
6.0
2,000
Salvage O&M
$4,000
$12,000
1,200
4,000
10,800 3,000
90,000
118,000 11,090
0.230 10.0983
27,140 120,170
-------
5 S
c <
S
CO
I
o
-------
Table E-64. Quantities and costs for upgrading and operating onsite systems and holding
tanks for Ephraim Subarea 4.
Item Qaantit
Septic tank-SFD & sm. comm'l
Upgrade - permanent 28
- seasonal 22
Replacement - permanent 2
- seasonal 3
Septic tank - large comm'l
Replacement - seasonal 1
Lift pump
Existing 1
New 11
Soil absorption sys.-SFD 4 sm.
comm'l
Replacement-seepage bed 3
- mound 10
Soil absorption sys.-large
comm'1
Replacement - mound 1
Holding tank-SFD 4 sm. comm'l
Existing - seasonal
Replacement-permanent
-seasonal
Rock removal
Septic tank-SFD 4 sm. comm'l
Lift pump
Holding tank-SFD 4 sm. comm'l
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (357.)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future systems
Building sewers - new 18
Septic tank-SFD 4 sm. comm'l
New/repl. - permanent 8/5
- seasonal 6/4
Septic tank -large comm'l
Lift pump
New 16
Soil absorption sys.-SFD 4 sm.
comm'l
New 4 repl. - seepage bed 50
- mound 6
Holding tank-SFD 4 sm. comm'l
New 4 repl. - permanent 1
- seasonal 3
Rock removal
Septic tank - SFD 4 sm. comm'l 16
Lift pump 14
Holding tank - SFD 4 sm. comm'l 4
Total future costs
Annual future costs
Unit
Cost
5 150
150
1000
1000
2000
645
1520
2170
6550
225
1000
1000
645
1520
2170
2100
2100
750
600
1000
Construction
$ 4,200
3,300
2,000
3,000
7,100
4,560
21,700
4,050
13,000
10,000
10,320
76,000
13,020
2,100
6,300
12,000
8,400
4,000
159,190
7,960
$ 2,520
1,980
1,200
1,800
2,130
2,430
7,800
6,000
3,100
1,260
3,780
12,OPn
8,400
4,000
48,770
O&M
5 392
154
28
21
75
825
3
4
5
4
10
8
-
2100
2100
750
600
1000
-
8,400
10,500
3,000
6,000
8,000
81,760
28,620
110,380
_
5,040
6,300
3,000
6,000
8,000
37,970
465
2,800
775
_
-
5,460
112
42
1,200
700
465
2,519
126
-------
Table E-6S. Quantities and costs for upgrading and operating onsite systems and holding
tanks for Ephralm Subareas 3,4, 5, and 6.
Item (
Septic tank-SFD 4 sm. comm'l
Upgrade - permanent
- seasonal
Replacement - permanent
- seasonal
Septic tank - large comm'l
Upgrade - permanent
- seasonal
Lift pump
Existing
New
Soil absorption sys.-SFD A sm.
c omm'1
Replacement - seepage bed
- mound
Soil absorption sys.-large
cumin' 1
Replacement - seepage bed
- mound
Holding tank-SFD & sm. comm'l
Existing - seasonal
Replacement - permanent
- seasonal
Holding tank large comm'l
Existing - seasonal
Replacement-permanent
-seasonal
Rock removal
Septic tank-SFD & sm. comm'l
Lift pump
Holding tank-SFD 6. sm. comm'l
-Large comm'l
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35?)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future systems
Building sewers - new
Septic tank-SFD & sm. comm'l
New/repl. - permanent
- seasonal
Septic tank -large comm'l
New/repl. - permanent
- seasonal
Lift pump
New
So;.l absorption sys.-SFD & sm.
c omm'1
New ft repl. - seepage bed
- mound
Soil absorption sys. large comm'l
New & repl. - seepage bed
- mound
Holding tank-SFD 4 sm. comm'l
New & repl. - permanent
- seasonal
Holding tank-large comm'l
New & repl. - permanent
- seasonal
Rock removal
Septic tank - SFD & sm. comm'l
- large comm'l
Lilt pump
Holding tank - SFD 4 sm. comm'l
- large comm'l
Total future costs
Annual fu tu re cos ts
intity
62
102
13
24
3
1
2
44
15
35
1
2
8
12
17
3
1
1
20
30
24
2
Unit
Cost
$ 150
150
1000
1000
150
150
„
645
1520
2170
5060
6550
_
2100
2100
_
2100
2100
750
600
1000
3000
Construction
$ 9,300
15,300
13,000
24,000
450
150
_
28,380
22,800
75,950
5,060
13,100
_
25,200
35,700
_
2,100
2,100
15,000
18,000
24,000
6,000
335,590
117,460
453,050
Salvage
$ 5,580
9,180
7,800
7,200
270
90
^
8,510
.
-
.
-
_
15,120
21,420
_
1,260
1,260
15,000
18,000
24,000
6,000
140,690
O&M
5 868
714
182
168
90
15
^
3,300
.
-
.
-
1,240
8,400
2,635
7,500
2,300
2,500
_
_
-
-
31,612
84
60
30
51
4
3
16
29
2
5
52
2
47
39
7
645
1520
2170
5060
6550
2100
2100
10,000
10,000
750
1000
600
1000
3000
18,900
38,700
45,600
110,670
20,240
19,650
33,600
60,900
20,000
50,000
39,000
2,000
28,200
39,000
21,000
645,460
32,273
11,340
30/10
20/20
3/2
3/0
1000
1000
2000
2000
40,000
40,000
12,000
6,000
24,000
24,000
7,200
3,600
420
140
90
45
11,710
20,160
36,640
12,000
30,000
39,000
2,000
28,200
39,000
21,000
309,750
4,500
11,200
4,495
14,600
12,500
47,990
2,400
-------
Table £-66. Quantities and costs for upgrading and operating onsite systems and holding
tanks for all Ephraim Subareas.
Item
Septic tank-SFD 4 small comm'l
Upgrade - permanet
- seasonal
Replacement - permanent
- seasonal
Septic tank - large comm'l
Upgrade - permanent
- seasonal
Replacement - permanent
- seasonal
Lift pump
Existing
New
Soil absorption sys.-SFD 4 sm
comm'l
Replacement-seepage bed
- mound
Soil absorption sys.-large
comtn' 1
Replacement-seepage bed
-mound
Holding tank-SFD 4 sm. comm'l
Existing-permanent
-seasonal
Replacement-permanent
-seasonal
Holding tank large comm'l
Existing permanent
seasonal
Replacement-permanent
-seasonal
Rock removal
Septic tank-SFD & sm comm'l
-large comm'l
Lift pump
Holding tank-SFD 4 sra comm'l
-lar^e comm'l
Administration 5. laboratory
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future systems
Building sewers - new
Septic tank-SFD & sm. comm'l
New/repl. - permanent
- seasonal
Septic tank -large comm'l
New/repl. - permanent
- seasonal
Lift pump
New
Soil absorption sys.-SFD & sm.
comm* 1
New repl. - seepage bed
- mound
Soil absorption sys large comm'l
New repl. - seepage bed
- mound
Holding tank-SFD 4 sm comm'l
New 4 repl. - permanent
- seasonal
Holding tank-large comm'l
New 4 repl. - permanent
- seasonal
Rock removal
Septic tank - SFD 4 sm. comm'l
- large comm'l
Lift pump
Holding tank - SFD 4 sm comm'l
- large comm'l
Total future costs
Annual future costs
lantity
95
152
28
33
5
5
0
2
4
61
28
47
3
4
1
17
26
41
4
16
3
*
26
1
36
31
3
X
Unit
Cost
150
150
1000
1000
150
150
2000
2000
_
645
1520
2170
5060
6550
_
-
2100
2100
_
-
2100
2100
750
1000
600
1000
3000
xxxx
Construction
14,250
22,800
28,000
33,000
750
750-
-
4,000
_
39,350
42,560
101,990
15,180
26,200
-
-
54,600
86,100
_
-
6,300
8,400
19,500
1,000
21,600
31,000
9,000
36,000
602,330
210,820
813,150
Salvage
8,550
13,680
16,800
19,800
450
450
_
2,400
_
11,810
-
-
_
-
32,760
51,660
«
-
3,780
5,040
19,500
1,000
21,600
31,000
9,000
10,800
305,080
XXX , XXX
OiM
1,330
1,064
392
231
150
75
_
30
300
4,575
-
-
700
2,635
18,200
6,355
29,200
40,000
21,900
10,000
—
-
_
^
-
5,700
124,637
XX, XXX
119
76
41
65
7
5
33
46
9
18
61
4
52
57
10
225
645
1520
2170
5060
6550
2100
2100
10000
10000
750
1000
600
1000
3000
26,100
49,020
62,320
141,050
35,420
32,750
69,300
96,600
90,000
180,000
45,750
4,000
31,200
57,000
30,000
1,084,510
54,226
15,660
36/20
20/32
4/2
3/2
1000
1000
2000
2000
56,000
52,000
16,000
16,000
33,600
31,200
9,600
6,000
504
140
120
45
14,710
41,580
57,960
54,000
108,000
45,750
4,000
31,200
57,000
30,000
540,260
5,700
23,100
7,130
65,700
45,000
147,439
-------
14
£
(J
SC
to
rH
•H
4
M
•"
tn
to
3
1
OD
CO
•H
CO
ft
•o
§
T4
U
0)
H
O
CJ
O
1
so
pi
«
3
4.
CO
+J >4J
E2 £
t)
a
Gu
a
c
o
c
c
4J
3
tr
o
0
V
1-1
3
4J
(£
4J
a
3
Initial
rH
fl
c
H
S
O
u=
U 4
o «
4J «
C «
s
in
^4
g
CM
^
"
I
O
PO
m
CO
£ d
3s O
•H
O
3
(D
C
c8
o
ON
.-4
rH
ll
S
)-< C
o d
d -5
M
01
rH U
4J !>
0 iH
H CO
DO
d
0
00
^1 *"*
»l S
1
r-
fO
Ou ON
0)1 sO
r*J *
3 S
l/j| •**
iH
(0
d
M V
OJ >
•& d
CO U
O O C
(N ON
* ° "
ON rH in
O 0 O
m ON o
eo o m
r-- **
(Q CO 4J CO
n o> d u
o u» cu o
Q >
H 3 O H
O O O
In S CM
m so o
-T CM rH
rH
g
CM | (
e*l
sO
O
0 1 1
r-
Q
m | |
^
CM
O
O 1 1
so
r^>
^
OO | |
ON
O
8
m
ON
^J
CO
sO 1 I
^
O O 0
CM rH Csl
ON ON ON
O so O
m CM — i
r~l
o
00
CN
*> 1 1
^^
O O O
m i-< m
ON
ON
0 1 1
en
o & o
rH 00
ON sO O
•H O so
O 00 sO
in •— 4
o o o
CM vt sD
CM O -*
ON rH CM
CM CO r-t
rH
*o
-------
Table E-68. Quantities and costs for conventional gravity sewer for Baileys Harbor
Subareas 3 and 6.
Item
Sewer pipe
8"
Rock excavation
4' deep
5' deep
6' deep
7' deep
8' deep
9' deep
10' deep
12' deep
Manholes
Road repair
Dewatering
Lift station
133 gpm - TDK 107 ft
Wye
Gravity service convention
Pressure lateral
Grinder pump
Septic tank abandonment
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (27%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connection cost
Building sewer
Wye
Gravity service connection
Subtotal future connection costs
Annual connection costs
Unit Quantity
Construction Salvage
O&M
LF
LF
EA
LF
22,400 $16 $ 358,400
40,000
675
45
1,800
15
40
15
10,130
1,800
27,000
38,930
1,947
$215,040 $1,680
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
VF
LF
LF
750
11,050
1,050
3,000
1,450
1,250
650
1,550
522
22,400
6,700
12
15
18
21
21
27
30
36
100
7.16
10
9,000
165,750
18,900
63,000
34,800
33,750
19,500
55,800
52,200
16,380
67,000
9,000
165,750
18,900
63,000
34,800
33,750
19,500
55,800
33,120
40,200
12,000 2,194
EA
LF
LF
EA
EA
173
10,320
700
1
173
40
15
10
6000
65
6,920
154,800
7,000
6,000
11,250
1,120,450
302,520
1,422,970
4,150
92,880
4,200
600
790,690
100
3,977
6,080
1,080
16,200
23,360
-------
Table E-69. Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent gravity sewer for Baileys
Harbor Subareas 3 and 6.
Item
STE sewer pipe
4" - 6"
8"
Rock excavation
4' deep
5' deep
6' deep
7' deep
8' deep
9' deep
Manholes
Road repair
Dewatering
Lift station
133 gpm - TDH 107 Ft
Wye
Gravity service connection
Pressure lateral
STE pump - Duplex
Septic tank minor upgrade
SFD & small commercial
Large commercial
Septic tank replacement
SFD & small commercial
Large commercial
Septic tank rock removal
SFD & small commercial
Large commercial
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connection cost
Building sewer
Wye
Gravity service connection
Septic tanks - new/repl.
SFD & small commercial
Large commercial
Septic tank rock removal
SFD & small commercial
Large commercial
Subtotal factor connection costs
Annual connection costs
Unit Quantity
Construction Salvage
O&M
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
VF
LF
LF
EA
LF
LF
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
22,050
350
750
10,800
4,450
2,500
950
1,250
70
22,400
4,900
173
10,320
700
1
107
10
56
1
26
1
$ 13
16
12
15
18
21
24
27
100
7.16
10
40
15
10
3890
150
150
1000
2000
750
1000
$ 286,650
5,600
9,000
162,000
80,100
52,500
22,800
33,750
7,000
160,380
49,000
40,000
6,920
154,800
7,000
3,890
16,050
1,500
56,000
2,000
19,500
1,000
1,182,170
413,760
1,595,930
$171,990
3,360
9,000
162,000
80,100
52,500
22,800
33,750
4,200
-
29,400
12,000
4,150
92,880
4,200
1,170
9,630
900
33,600
1,200
19,500
1,000
783,330
$ 838
13
2,194
125
1,070
200
560
20
—
-
4,169
LF
EA
LF
EA
EA
EA
EA
675
45
1800
41/29
4/0
57
4
15
40
15
1000
2000
750
1000
10,130
1,800
27,000
100,000
8,000
42,750
4,000
193,680
9,684
6,080
1,080
16,200
60,000
4,800
42,750
4,000
134,910
410
80
490
25
-------
Table E-70. Quantities and costs for conventional gravity sewers for Baileys
Harbor Subarea 3.
Item
Sewer pipe
8" LF
Rock excavation
5' deep
6' deep
7' deep
8' deep
9' deep
10' deep
12' deep
Manholes
Road repair
Dewatering
Lift station
100 gpm-TDH 70 ft
Wye
Gravity service connection
Septic tank abandonment
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (27%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connection cost
Building sewer LF
Wye EA
Gravity service connection LF
Subtotal future connection costs
Annual connection costs
Unit Quantity
Construction Salvage
O&M
13,650 $16 $ 218,400
360
24
960
15
40
15
5,400
1,200
14,400
21,000
1,050
$131,040 $1,024
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
VF
LF
LF
EA
EA
LF
EA
6,600
450
550
1,450
1,200
650
1,550
238
13,650
4,700
1
144
8,640
144
15
18
21
24
27
30
36
100
7.16
10
40
15
65
99,000
8,640
9,900
34,800
32,400
19,500
55,800
23,800
97,730
47,000
40,000
5,760
129,600
9,360
831,690
224,560
1,056,250
99,000
8,640
9,900
34,800
32,400
19,500
55,800
14,280
28,200
12,000
3,460
77,760
494,380
3,240
720
8,600
12,600
2,100
-------
Table E-71. Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent gravity collection
for Baileys Harbor Subarea 3.
Item
STE sewer pipe
4" - 6"
Rock excavation
5' deep
6' deep
7' deep
8' deep
9' deep
10' deep
Manholes
Road repair
Dewatering
Lift station
100 gpm - TDK 70 Ft
Wye
Gravity service connection
Septic tank minor upgrade
SFD & small commercial
Large commercial
Septic tank replacement
SFD & small commercial
Large commercial
Septic tank rock removal
SFD & small commercial
Large commercial
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connection cost
Unit
LF
Unit
Quantity Cost
Construction Salvage
O&M
$ 177,450
$106,470 $ 519
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
VF
LF
LF
EA
EA
LF
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
6,600
450
3,200
300
1,250
650
49
13,650
4,700
1
144
8,640
85
9
49
1
23
1
15
18
21
24
27
30
100
7.16
10
40
15
150
150
1000
2000
750
1000
99,000
8,640
67,200
72,000
33,750
19,500
4,900
97,730
47,000
40,000
5,760
129,600
12,750
1,350
49,000
2,000
17,250
1,000
885,630
309,970
1,195,600
99,000
8,640
67,200
72,000
33,750
19,500
2,940
28,200
12,000
3,460
77,760
7,660
810
29,400
1,200
17,250
1,000
588,240
2,100
850
180
490
20
4,159
Building sewer
Wye
Gravity service connection
Septic tanks - new/repl.
SFD & small commercial
Large commercial
Septic tank rock removal
SFD & small commercial
Large commercial
Subtotal future connection costs
Annual connection costs
LF
EA
LF
EA
EA
EA
EA
360
24
960
21/26
4/0
38
3
15
40
15
1000
2000
750
1000
5,400
1,200
14,400
47,000
8,000
28,500
3,000
107,500
5,375
3,240
720
8,600
28,200
4,800
28,500
3,000
77,060
210
80
-
290
15
-------
Table E-72. Quantities and costs for septic tank effluent pressure sewer
for Baileys Harbor Subarea 3.
Unit Quantity
Unit
Cost
Construction Salvage
O&M
LF
13,650 $ 10 $ 136,500
$ 81,900 $ 259
Item
STE pressure sewer
2%" to 6"
Rock excavation
5' deep
Cleanouts
Road repair
Dewatering
Wye & curb valve
Pressure lateral
STE pump - simple
- duplex
Septic tank minor upgrade
SFD & small commercial
Large commercial
Septic tank replacement
SFD & small commercial
Large commercial
Septic tank rock removal
SFD & small commercial
Large commercial
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future connection cost
Building sewer LF 360 15 5,400 3,240
Wye & curb valve EA 24 64 1,540 920
Pressure lateral LF 960 10 9,600 5,760
STE pump - simplex EA 21 2000 42,000 12,600 1,575
- duplex EA 3 3890 3,890 1,170 375
Septic tanks - new/replace
SFD & small commercial EA 21/26 1000 47,000 28,200
Large commercial EA 3/0 2000 6,000 3,600
Septic tank rock removal
SFD & small commercial EA 47 750 35,250 35,250
Large commercial EA 3 1000 3,000 3,000
Subtotal future connection costs 153,680 93,700 1,950
Annual connection costs 7,684 98
LF
EA
LF
LF
EA
LF
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
10,150
34
13,650
5,100
144
8,640
134
10
85
9
49
1
23
1
15
1000
7.16
10
64
10
2000
3890
150
150
1000
2000
750
1000
152,250
34,000
97,730
51,000
9,220
86,400
268,000
38,900
12,750
1,350
49,000
2,000
17,250
1,000
957,350
335,070
1,292,420
152,250
30,400
-
30,600
5,530
51,840
80,400
11,670
7,660
810
29,400
1,200
17,250
1,000
501,910
19,050
1,250
850
180
490
20
13,099
-------
T-able E-73. Quantities and costs for transmission to WWTP in Sec
discharge in Sec. 8 for Baileys Harbor.
8 for wetlands
Item
Force main
Common trench
Individual trench
Rock excavation
5 ' deep
6' deep
Dewatering
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (27%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Unit
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
Quantity
250
7,000
3,000
2,200
1,800
Unit
Cost
$ 8
20
15
18
10
Construction
$ 2,000
140,000
45,000
39,600
18,000
244,600
66,040
310,640
Salvage
$ 1,200
84,000
45,000
39,600
10,800
180,600
O&M
-
-
-------
Table E-74. Quantities and costs for transmission to WWTP in Sec. 17 for Baileys
Harbor.
Item
Force main
Common trench
Individual trench
Dewater
Rock excav. 6' deep
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (27%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Unit Quantity
Unit
Cost
Construction Salvage
O&M
LF
LF
LF
LF
250
3000
1800
1000
$ 8
20
10
18
$ 2,000
60,000
18,000
18,000
98,000
26,460
124,460
$ 1,200
36,000
10,800
18,000
66,000
-------
-Table L-75.
Quantities and costs for transmission to WWTP in Sec. 7 for wetlands
discharge in Sec. 7.
Item
Force main
Common trench
Individual trench
Rock excavation
4 ' deep
5' deep
6' deep
Dewatering
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (27%)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Unit Quantity
Unit
Cost
Construction Salvage
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
250
10,100
1,100
4,500
1,300
3,200
$ 8
20
12
15
18
10
$ 2,000
202,000
13,200
67,500
23,400
32,000
340,100
91,230
431,930
$ 1,200
121,200
13,200
67,500
23,400
19,200
245,700
O&M
-------
ub
^3" CNJ CO *3"
• oo o
ON - * •»
m CN m ON
rH m ON
CN
C
cO
-o
OJ
rH
cfl
H
O
o
i-O
^
<*Q
o
„
en
CN
rH
CO
C/J
O
0
CN
*>
rH
CN
en
&H
?
^2
^O C!
0
t3 O
C 60
CO *
en
CD ai
CO P
0) CO
W r-i
01
4-1
M
<$ 0(
rj
c/o
o
o
vD
M
^*
en
o
0
en
•>
0
^f
rH
O
0
CN
^
vO
CN
m
O-i
£H
^2
^
0)
4-1
rH
•H
44-)
-o
cO
co
00
a
•H
CO
rH
6
•H
0
£
O
o
oo
#«
•vf
CN
0
0
m
#L
vO
eN
O
O
r*^
«
r— \
rH
rH
*T^
ci
ca
4-*
1
O
4-1
cu
cO
r*
O
CO
^
0
r-I
»
CN
O
1^^
•«
rH
en
^j-
O
C3N
*
r^.
ON
ON
a
cO
(50
•H
f.
O
^
J
ctf
0
4-1
rH en
rH
CO co
14-1 a)
1 1 ^
3 co
c5 ^Q
^J
CO
0 0
0 0
oo >o
O
en ^o
ON CN
CN m
CU
E-i
&
3:
r4
01
4->
rH
•H
"—I H-l
O-i
ii
& cO
CO
C
O ao
0 fS
00 -H
CO 4J
rH CO
-$!$
+-• M
CO -H
rJ 0
^.s
o
O
in
*
*^-
CN
O
0
00
fl
in
CN
O
o
in
»,
r^>
O
rH
-d
C
co
rH
J-J
S
O
4->
CU
to
!-i
CO
X
O
CO
•H
n
O rH
en
rH
<
CN rH
CO
cfl
0)
rJ
O cO
<*O J2
r-~ 3
• t/)
rH
en !iO
i-j
O)
O CO
f>».
ON 0-1
fs C-4
r^ Z2
ON 5
ON
a
tO
to
•H
£
CJ
3
^
CO
rJ
O
4-1
rH
rH
Cfl
14-1
4-<
cB
c
o
0
00
cfl
rH
•s
4J
ed
}_!
01
cfl
l-i
O
(-I
cfl
^c
1
CO
cfl
cu
CO
en
i — i
-------
-Table E-77. Aerated lagoon WWTP for Baileys Harbor Subareas 3 and 6.
Cost ($l,000x)
Item
Flow meter assembly
Aerated lagoons
Iraparmeable liner
Chlorination system
Administration & Laboratory Bldg.
Service roads and fencing
Land
Monitoring, controls, and instrumentation
Electrical
Process piping
Site preparation
Total
Service factor (27%)
Total capital cost
Present worth cost (@7 5/8% over 20 years)
Capital cost
O&M Cost
Salvage Cost
Total present worth
Construction
Cost
$ 10.0
105.4
17.5
32.0
36.0
6.7
10.0
6.2
10.4
16.6
12.1
252.9
68.3
321.2
321.2
237.3
(14.8)
543.7
Salvage
Value
$ -
17.4
-
7.9
10.8
-
18.1
—
-
10.0
-
64.2
O&M
Cost
$ 2.0
11.3
-
6.6
3.0
-
-
_
-
-
-
23.5
-------
Table E-78. Recirculating sand filter WWTP for Baileys Harbor
1
Cost ($l>QOOx)
Item
Preliminary treatment
Primary clarifier
Recirculating sand filter (filters,
building, pumps)
Chlorination system
Aerobic digester
Land
Administration & laboratory building
Service roads and fence
Monitoring system, controls, and instrumen-
tation
Electrical
Process piping
Site preparation
Total
Service factor (27%)
Total capital cost
Present worth cost (@
Capital cost
O&M cost
Salvage value
Total Present Worth
7 5/8% over 20 years)
Construction
Cost
$ 15.0
57.2
153.6
32.0
45.1
10.0
36.0
6.7
10.4
17.3
27.6
3.5
414.3
111.9
526.2
526.2
394.4
(32.4)
843.2
Salvage
Value
$ 3.8
14.3
57.5
7.9
11.3
18.1
10.8
-
_
-
16.6
-
140.3
O&M
Cost
$11.7
3.0
7.3
6.6
3.0
-
3.0
-
_
-
-
-
34.6
1
Total present worth cost does not include costs for liquid sludge
hauling and land spreading.
-------
- Table E-79. WWTP discharge to wetland for Baileys Harbor Subareas 3 and 6,
Cost ($l,OQQx)
Item
Intermittent sand filter
Pumping station
Force main
Distribution
Land (9ac)
Total
Service factor (35%)
Total capital cost
Present worth cost (@ 7/58% over 20 years)
Capital cost
O&M cost
Salvage value
Total present worth
Construction
Cost
$ 16.4
40.0
9.0
16.9
82.3
28.8
111.1
111.1
250.4
(6.1)
355.4
Salvage
Value
$ 4.1
6.0
5.4
5.0
26.5
O&M
Cost
$ 2.0
2.1
-
20.7
24.8
1
Located at WWTP for 20 mg/1 BOD & 20 mg/1 55 discharge.
Located on publicly owned land.
-------
Table E-80. WWTP outfall to Lake Michigan for Baileys Harbor.
Item
Lift station
Force main
Common trench
Individual trench
Rock excavation
6 deep
Dewater
Manhole
Underwater pipe
Outfall structure
Total
Service factor (27%)
Total capital cost
Present worth cost (@
Capital cost
O&M cost
Salvage value
Total present worth
Unit
EA
LF
LF
LF
LF
VF
LF
EA
7 5/8%
Unit
Quantity Cost
1
1,100 $ 8
10,900 20
4,900 18
10,500 10
8 100
1,600 200
1
over 20 years)
Construction
$ 40,000
8,800
218,000
88,200
105,000
800
320,000
5,000
785,800
212,270
997,970
997,970
21,509
(99,305)
920,174
Salvage
$12,000
5,280
130,800
88,200
-
480
192,000
3,000
431,760
O&M
$2,130
_
-
_
-
-
-
-
2,130
-------
- Table E-81. WWTP discharge to wetland for Baileys Harbor Subarea 3.
Cost ($l>000x)
Item
Intermittent sand filter
Pumping station
Force main
Distribution
Land (9ac)
Total
Service factor (35%)
Total capital cost
Present worth cost (@ 7 5/8% over 20 years)
Capital cost
O&M cost
Salvage value
Total present worth
Construction
Cost
$ 13.7
40.0
9.0
16.9
79.6
27.9
107.5
107.5
274.4
(4.9)
349.0
Salvage
Value
$ 3.4
12.0
5.4
5.0
25.8
O&M
Cost
$1.7
2.1
20.7
24.5
1
Located at WWTP (20 mg/1 BOD & 20 mg/1 SS discharge).
"Located on public owned land.
-------
f>J .-.
IT) i£
s
o
\o o\ o
•—i r-l CO
u S
B 3
m co
& 00
*r\ f*i
O vO O
vO CO C4
o ~* m
o ** o
r- r-4 CT\
O r- -^
SrC r-T
VO <-H
a
cu * « - C3
0) -* V -* O
-------
Table K-83. Quantities and costs for upgrading and operating on-sxte systems and
holding tanks for Baileys Harbor Subareas 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8.
Itea
Unit Cost
Construction
Salvage
O&H
Septic tank - ;,FD & sm. comm'l.
Upgrade - permanent
- seasonal
SepLsceiaent - peruanfent
- seasonal
Septic tank - large comm'l.
Upgrcae - seasonal
Replacement * seasonal
Lift pump
Existing
Nej
ioil absorption sys. - SFO 1 sm.
Raplaccticn'. - seepage bed
Replacweut - mound
.Soil ao3j'.-pti3n sys. - Large
comi'l.
ReplacOTent - seepage bed
Replacement mound
Holding tan* - 5FT (> small conn' 1
Existing - psrmane-it
- seasonal
Sepia cement - permanent
- seasonal
•toidlr.g tank - large comm'l.
Existing •• seasonal
Replacement - seasonal
Rock removal
SipLic tank - SFT i sm. comm'l.
Septic tank - Large comm'l.
Lift pu mp
Holding tank - £F'J & sm. comm'l.
ilolding tank - large comm'l
jibtotal initial cost
Service factor (35»~
'iuatotal inif.al capital cost
3'utuje Systems
Building sewer - new
Septic tank - SID small coma'l
Merf/repl. - permanent
- season-il
Lift pimp
Vei
Soil absorption ays. - SFD {
sa. comm'i
Ne« 1 repl. - si-pr.ge bed
- aound
Holding ta.ik-SF3 £ -TO. comic' 1
.ie»- i leyi. - pcrrianent
- seasonal
ticldLn^ tank - large comm'l
Nev & repl. - permanent
- seasonal
Rock r^movil
septic tank -SFD & sm. comai'l
Li f t pump
Hol'iiag tank - JFD f sm. comm'l
- »argu cottm'l
Total future costs
Annual future costs
69
122
21
27
1
2
7
83
38
64
1
1
1
27
22
81
1
2
17
J
23
45
1
170
54/19
50/25
103
68
89
26
62
1
1
40
36
48
1
$ 150
150
1000
1000
150
2000
-
645
1520
2170
5060
6550
-
-
2100
2100
-
2100
750
1000
600
1000
3000
225
1000
1000
645
1520
2170
210C
2100
10,000
10,000
750
600
1000
3000
$ 10.330
18,^00
21,000
27,000
150
4,000
-
53,540
57, -'60
138,880
5>C60
6,550
-
-
46,200
1/0.100
-
'-,200
12,750
1,000
13,600
45,000
3,000
638,620
223,520
862,140
33,250
73,000
75,000
65,440
103,360
193,130
-.4,600
130,200
10,000
10,000
30,000
21,600
43,000
3,000
356,580
42,829
$ 6,210
10,930
12,600
16,200
'50
1,200
-
16,060
_
-
-
-
-
-
27,720
102,060
-
2,520
12,750
l.COO
13,800
45,000
3,000
261,190
22,950
43,800
45,000
15,930
-
-
32, 760
78,120
6,000
6,000
30,000
21,600
48,'JOO
3,100
357,160
$ 966
854
?94
189
15
30
525
5,225
„
-
-
_
•JOD
4,185
15,400
12,555
2,500
2,500
_
_
-
-
-
46,938
756
350
7,725
_
-
lfi,200
°,nOO
7,300
2,500
-
-
-
4o,431
i,322
-------
Table E-84. Quantities and costs for upgrading and operating on-aite systems and
holding tanks for Baileys Harbor Subareas 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
Item
Septic Tank - SFD & sm. comm'l
Upgrade - permanent $
- seasonal
Replacement - permanent
* seasonal
Septic tank - large comm'l
Upgrade - permanent
- seasonal
Replacement - seasonal
lift pump
Existing
New
Soil absorption sys. SFD i sm.
c omm'1
Replacement - seepage bed
- mound
Soil absorption sys. - large comm'l
Replacement - sepage bed
- mound
Holding tank - SFD S> small comm'l
Existing - permanent
- seasonal
Replacement - permanent
- seasonal
Holding tank large comm'l
Existing - seasonal
Replacement - seasonal
Rock removal
Septic tank - SFD & sm. comm'l
- large comm11
Lift- pump
Holding tank - SFD & sm. comm'l
- large comm'l
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (357.)
Subtotal initial capita cost
Future Systems
Building sewers - new 190
Septic tank - SFD & sm. comm'l
Nev/repl. - permanent 59/21
- seasonal 52/25
lift pump
New 116
Soil absorption sys. - SFD & sm.
comm' 1
New 4 repl. - sepage bed 69
- mound 118
Soil absorption sys. - large comm'l
New Si repl, - seepage bed 0
- mound 0
Holding tank - SFD 5. sm comm'l
New 4 repl. - permanent 34
- seasonal 77
Holding tank - large comm' 1
New 4 repl. - permanent 1
- seasonal 1
Rock removal
Septic tank-SFD 4 sm. comm'l 47
- large comm'l 0
Lift pump 44
Holding tank -SFD 4 sm. comm'l 59
- large comm'l 2
Total future costs
Annual future costs
Unit Cost
Construction
04M
81
123
26
28
1
1
2
7
90
42
69
1
1
2
31
25
83
1
2
19
1
28
50
1
$ 150
150
1000
1000
150
150
2000
_
645
1520
2170
5060
6550
_
-
2100
2100
_
2100
750
1000
600
1000
3000
$ 12,150
18,450
26,000
28,000
150
150
4,000
_
58,050
63,840
149,730
5,060
6,550
_
-
52,500
174,300
_
4,200
14,250
1,000
16,800
50,000
3,000
688,180
240,860
929,040
5 7,290
11,070
15,600
16,800
90
90
2,400
^
17,420
-
_
-
_
_
31,500
104,580
_
2,520
14,250
1,000
16,800
50,000
3,000
294,410
51,134
861
364
196
30
15
30
525
6,750
-
_.
-
1,400
4,805
17,500
12,865
2,500
2,500
_
-
-
_
_
51,475
225
1000
1000
645
1520
2170
5060
6550
2100
2100
10,000
10,000
750
1000
600
1000
3000
42,750
80,000
77,000
74,820
59,780
256,060
71,400
16,700
10,000
10,000
35,250
26,400
59,000
6,000
969,660
48,483
25,650
48,000
46,200
22,440
42,840
97,020
6,000
6,000
35,250
26,400
59,000
6,000
420,800
826
364
8,700
23,800
11,935
7,300
2,500
55,425
2,771
-------
Table £-85.
Quantities and coats for upgrading and operating on-slte systems and
holding tanks for all Baileys Harbor Subareas.
Item
Unit Cost
Septic Tank - SFD 4 sm. comm'l
Upgrade - permanent
- seasonal
Replacement - permanent
- seasonal
Septic tank - large comm'l
Upgrade - permanent
- seasonal
Replacement - seasonal
Lift pump
Existing
New
Soil absorption sys. - SFD 4 sm.
comm'l
Repl. - seepage bed
- mound
Soil absorption sys. - large comm'l
Repl. - seepage bed
- mound
Holding tank - SFD 4 sm. comm'l
Existing - permanent
- seasonal
Repl. - permanent
- seasonal
Holding tank - large comm'l
Existing - permanent
- seasonal
Kepi. - permanent
- seasonal
Rock removal
Septic tank - SFD 4 sm. comai'l
- large comm'l
Lift pump
Holding tank - SFD 4 sm. comm'l
- large comm'1
Administration & laboratory
Subtotal initial cost
Service factor (357.)
Subtotal initial capital cost
Future Systems
Building sewers - new
Septic tank - SFD 4 sm. comm'l
New/repl. - permanent
- seasonal
Lift pump
New
Soil absorption sys. - SFD & sm.
comm'l
New & repl. - seepage bed
- mound
Holding tank - SFD 4 sm. comm'l
New & repl. - permanent
- seasonal
Holding tank - lar^e comm'l
New & repl. - permanent
- seasonal
Rock removal
Septic tank - SFD & sm. ccram1'!
- large comm'l.
Lift pump
Holding tank - SFD 4 sn. comra'l
- large comm'l
Total future costs
Annual future costs
Construction
04M
114
128
51
38
1
1
2
7
130
54
104
1
1
2
36
67
95
2
5
4
2
29
1
63
90
5
S 150
150
1000
1000
150
150
2000
_
645
1520
2170
5060
6550
_
-
2100
2100
.
-
2100
2100
750
1000
600
1000
3000
S 17,100
19,200
51,000
38,000
150
150
4000
_
83,850
82,080
225,680
5,060
6,550
_
-
140,700
199,500
_
-
8,400
4,200
21,750
1,000
37,800
90,000
15,000
36,000
1,107,920
378,770
1,495,690
510,260
11,520
30,600
22,800
90
90
2,400
_
25,160
-
_
-
_
-
84,420
119,700
_
-
5,040
2,520
21,750
1,000
37,800
90,000
15,000
10,800
511,700
31,596
986
714
266
• 30
15
30
525
9,750
-
„
-
1,400
5,580
46,900
14,725
14,600
12,500
29,200
5,000
_
-
-
-
-
5,700
149,517
211
61/32
55/27
125
225
1000
1000
645
47,480
93,000
82,000
80,630
28,496
55,800
49,200
24,190
854
385
9,375
71
107
58
72
2
3
67
0
53
86
5
1520
2170
2100
2100
10,000
10,000
750
1000
600
1000
3000
107,920
232,190
121,800
151,200
20,000
30,000
50,250
-
31,800
86,000
15,000
1,149,270
57,464
-
-
73,080
90,720
12,000
18,000
50,250
-
31,800
86,000
15,000
534,530
-
-
40,600
11,160
14,600
7,500
„
-
-
-
-
84,474
4,224
-------
ASSUMPTIONS ON ELIGIBILITY OF INITIAL CAPITAL
COSTS FOR FUNDING WITH THE WISCONSIN FUND**
1. Offsite systems
Homeowner ineligible costs - For conventional gravity sewer collection
systems the individual homeowner (or business) will be responsible for
the installation the connecting sewer located on private property
originating at the building and terminating at the sewer service
connection located at the boundary of the street right-of-way.
Eligible-ineligible costs - Initial capital costs eligible for the
Wisconsin Fund are estimated to be to 75% of the total estimated
collection, transmission, treatment, and disposal costs after deduc-
tion of the homeowner iaeligible costs (based on user charge analysis
in Foth and Van Dyke, 1982). The remaining 25% of the estimated
initial capital costs are not eligible for the Wisconsin Fund and must
be paid by the local community.
2. Onsite systems
Eligible costs - The following items are considered eligible for
Wisconsin fund grants (based on a review of NR128.08 and a telephone
conversation WAPORA to John Hario WDNR, 19 October 1982):
• For permanent (principal) residences, and seasonal and
permanent commercial connections with dry weather flows
less than 25,000 gpd:
- Septic tank replacement
— Lift pumps (to disposal area)
- Soil absorption systems (seepage bed and mounds)
- Holding tanks
- Rock removal.
Ineligible costs - The remainder of the estimated initial capital
costs not included in the eligible costs above are ineligible costs.
They include the following:
• Minor upgrade of septic tanks
• For seasonal (non-principal) residences and commercial
connections with dry weather flows greater than 25,000
gpd:
- Septic tank replacement
Soil absorption systems (seepage bed and mounds)
Holding tanks
- Rock removal.
aThe Wisconsin Fund provides a grant of 60% of eligible initial capital costs.
-------
•Table E-86. Wisconsin Fund grant and local share of costs for Egg Harbor
Alternative 2A (costs in $1,000).
System Component
OCfsite component
Homeowner ineligible
Collection
Eligible - ineligible
Collection & transmission
Treatment
Discharge
Subtotal
Eligible 75%
Ineligible 25%
Onsite component
Eligible
Ineligible
Total
a
Total O&M
Wisconsin Fund Grant
Total Capital (Local Cost) State
22.9
847.2
293.9
148.6
1,289.7
967.3
322.4
3.7
20.8
139.9
166.4
1,618.9
16.3
40.8
580.4
83.9
664.3
Local
22.9
386.9
322.4
56.0
166.4
954.6
Local capital costs with no grant
60% of eligible capital costs funded by Wisconsin Fund.
-------
Table E-87. Wisconsin Fund grant and local share of costs for Egg Harbor
Alternative 2B (costs in $1,000).
Total O&M
Wisconsin Fund Grant
System Component
Offsite component
Homeowner ineligible
Collection
Eligible - ineligible
Collection & transmission
Trea tment
Discharge
Subtotal
Eligible 75%
Ineligible 25%
pnsite component
Eligible
Ineligible
Total
Total Capital (Local Cost) State
$ 22.9
847.2
513.8
148.6
1,509.6
1,132.2
377.14
139.9
164.4
1,836.8
$ 3.7
43.7
16.3
63.7
$679.3
83.9
763.2
Local
$ 22.9
452.9
377.4
56.0
164.4
1,073.6
Local capital costs with no grant
60% of eligible capital costs funded by Wisconsin Fund.
-------
'Table E-88. Wisconsin Fund grant and local share of costs for Egg Harbor
Alternative 3 (costs in $1,000).
*
Total O&M Wisconsin Fund Grant
a b
System Component Total Capital (Local Cost) .State Local
Offsite component
Eligible - Ineligible
Collection & transmission $ 868.4 $4.3
Di scharg e 427.8 7.1
Subtotal 1,296.2
Eligible 75% 972.2 588.3 388.9
Ineligible 25% 324.0 324.0
Onsite Component
Eligible 139.9 - 83.9 56.0
Ineligible 164.4 16.3 - 164.4
Total 1,600.5 27.7 667.2 933.3
-------
Table E-89. Wisconsin Fund grant and local share of costs for Egg Harbor
Alternative 4 (costs in $1,000).
«
Total O&M Wisconsin Fund Grant
System Component Total Capital (Local Cost) State Local
Offsite component
Homeowner ineligible
Collection $ 10.6 - $ 10.6
Eligible - ineligible
Collection & transmission 401.5 $ 2.7
Treatment 259.8 15.2
Discharge 148.6
Subtotal 809.9
eligible 75% 607.4 - $364.4 243.0
ineligible 25% 202.5 202.5
Onsite component
Eligible 263.5 - 156.2 107.5
Ineligible 160.7 19.6 - 160.7
Total 1,244.9 37.5 520.6 724.3
*3
Local capital costs with no grant
60% of eligible capital costs funded by Wisconsin Fund.
-------
Table E-90. Wisconsin Fund grant and local share of costs for Egg Harbor
Alternative 5 (costs in $1,000),
tt
Total O&M Wisconsin Fund Grant
a b
System Component Total Capital (Local Cost) State Local
Offsite component
Eligible - ineligible
Collection & transmission $ 553.9 $ 3.2
Discharge 226.3 33.4
Subtotal 670.3
Eligible 75% 502.7 301.6 201.1
Ineligible 25% 167.6 167.6
OnsitG component
Eligible 263.7 - 156.2 107.5
Ineligible 160.7 19.6 - 160.7
Total 1,094.7 56.2 457.8 636.9
a
Local capital costs with no grant
60% of eligible capital costs funded by Wisconsin Fund.
-------
Table E-91. Wisconsin Fund grant and local share of costs for Egg Harbor
Alternative 6 (costs in $1,000).
Wisconsin Fund Grant
System Component
Offsite component
Homeowner ineligible
Collection
Eligible - ineligible
Collection
Treatment
Discharge
Subtotal
Eligible 75%
Ineligible 25%
Onsite component
Eligible
Ineligible
Total
AO tcij_ v«n _..—-—.
Total Capital (Local Cost) State
$ 10.6
519.9 $ 2.4
259.8 15.2
168.3 49.5
948.0
711.0 $426.6
237.0
263.7 - 156.2
160.7 19.6
1,383.0 86.7 582.8
Local
$ 10.6
284.4
237.0
107.5
160.7
800.2
Local capital costs with no grant
60% of eligible capital costs funded by Wisconsin Fund.
-------
Table E-92. Wisconsin Fund grant and local share of costs for Egg Harbor
Alternative 7 (costs in $1,000).
System Component
OnSite systems
Eligible
Ineligible
Total
Total O&M
Wisconsin Fund Grant
a ~ b
Total Capital (Local Cost) State
$465.0
194.9
659.9
$54.0
54.0
$279.0
279.0
Local
$186.0
194.9
380.9
Local capital costs with no grant
60% of eligible capital costs funded by Wisconsin Fund.
-------
Table E-93. Wisconsin Fund grant and local share of costs for Fish Creek
Alternative 2 (costs in $1,000).
System Component
Offsite component
Homeowner ineligible
Collection
Eligible - ineligible
Collection
Treatment
Discharge & transmission
Subtotal
Eligible 75%
Ineligible 25%
Gnsite component
Eligible
Ineligible
Total
Total O&M
Wisconsin.Fund Grant
Total Capital (Local Cost) State
$ 105.0
930.1
557.0
593.6
2,080.7
1,560.5
520.2
$ 7.3
37.8
2.5
139.2
121.1
2,446.0
16.3
63.9
$936.3
83.5
1,019.8
Local
$105.0
$624.4
520.2
55.7
121.1
1,426.2
Local capital costs with no grant.
60% of eligible capital costs funded by Wisconsin Fund.
-------
'Table E-94. Wisconsin Fund grant and local share of costs for Fish Creek
Alternative 3 (costs in $1,000).
System Component
Offsite component
Homeowner ineligible
Collection
Eligible - Ineligible
Collection
Treatment
Discharge & transmission
Subtotal
Eligible 75%
Ineligible 25%
Onsite Component
Eligible
Ineligible
Total
Total Capital
$ 99.8
175.2
122.1
2,399.2
Total O&M
Local Cost
Wisconsin Fund Grant
851.5
557.0
593.6
2,002.1
1,501.6
500.5
$ 7.2
28.9
2.5
19.5
58.1
State
900.9
105.1
1006.0
Local
$99.8
600.7
500.5
70.1
122.1
1,393.2
Local capital costs with no grant
60% of eligible capital costs funded by Wisconsin Fund.
-------
Table E-95. Wisconsin Fund grant and local share of costs for Fish Creek
Alternative 4 (costs in $1,000).
Total O&M
Wisconsin Fund Grant
System Component
Offsite component
Eligible - Ineligible
Collection
Discharge & transmission
Subtotal
Eligible 75%
Ineligible 25%
Onsite component
Eligible
Ineligible
Total
Total Capital3 (Local Cost) State
$1,165.4
898.7
2,064.1
1,548.1
516.0
$ 3.4
8.0
175.2
122.1
2,361.4
928.9
105.1
19.5
30.9 1,034.0
Local
$619.2
516.0
70.1
122.1
1,327.4
Local capital costs with no grant
60% of eligible capital costs funded by Wisconsin Fund.
-------
Table E-96. Wisconsin Fund grant and local share of costs for Fish Creek
Alternative 5 (costs in $1,000).
Total O&M
Wisconsin Fund Grant
System Component
Offsite component
Eligible - Ineligible
Collection
Discharge & transmission
Subtotal
Eligible 75%
Ineligible 25%
Qnsite component
Eligible
Ineligible
Total
Total Capital (Local Cost) jtate
$1,165.4
1,099.6
2,265.0
1,698.8
566.2
175.2
122.1
2,562.3
$ 3.5
8.0
19.5
30.9
$1,019.3
105.1
1,124.4
Local
679.5
566.2
70.1
122.1
1437.9
Local capital costs with no grant
60% of eligible capital coats funded by Wisconsin Fund.
-------
Table E-97. Wisconsin Fund grant and local share of costs for Fish Creek
Alternative 6 (costs in $1,000).
Total O&M
Wisconsin Fund Grant
System Component
UfCsite component
Homeowner ineligible
Collection
Eligible - Ineligible
Collection
Treatment
Discharge & transmission
Subtotal
Eligible 75%
Ineligible 25%
Onsite component
Eligible
Ineligible
Total
Total Capital (Local Cost) State
$ 99.8
851.5
557.0
644.9
2,053.4
1,540.1
513.3
$ 7.2
28.9
7.4
175.2
122.1
2,450.5
19.5
63.0
924.0
105.1
1029.1
Local
$ 99.8
616.1
513.3
70.1
122.1
1,421.4
Local capital costs with no grant.
60% of eligible capital costs funded by Wisconsin Fund.
-------
Table E-98. Wisconsin Fund grant and local share of costs for Fish Creek
Alternative 7 (costs in $1,000).
T *. i new Wisconsin Fund Grant
System Component
Onsite systems
Eligible
Ineligible
Total
Total Capital
$472.9
248.1
721.0
(Local Cost)
$234.0
234.0
b
State
$283.7
283.7
Local
$189.2
248.1
437.3
Local capital costs with no grant.
60% of eligible capital costs funded by Wisconsin Fund.
-------
Table E-99. Wisconsin Fund grant and local share of costs for Ephraim
Alternative 2 (costs in $1,000).
Total O&M
Wisconsin Fund Grant
System Component
Off-site component
Homeowner-ineligible
Collection
Eligible-Ineligible
Collection & transmission
Treatment
Discharge
Subtotal
Eligible 75%
Ineligible 25%
Qnsite component
Eligible
Ineligible
Total
Total Capital (Local Cost) State
$ 410.6
3,488.2
432.3
494.0
4,414.5
3,310.9
1,103.6
$14.9
37.7
2.5
63.5
46.9
4,935.5
5.5
55.1
$1,986.5
38.1
2,024.5
Local
$ 410.6
1,324.4
1,103.6
25.4
46.9
2,910.9
Local capital costs with no grant.
60% of eligible capital costs funded by Wisconsin Fund.
-------
Table E-100. Wisconsin Fund grant and local share of costs for Ephraim
Alternative 3 (costs in $1,000).
Total O&M
Wisconsin Fund Grant
System Component
Qffsite component
Homeowner ineligible
Collection
Eligible-Ineligible
Collection & transmission
Treatment
Discharge
Subtotal
Eligible 75%
Ineligible 25%
Onsite component
Eligible
Ineligible
Total
Total Capital (Local Cost) State
$ 209.1
1,191.6
373.8
859.3
2,424.7
1,819.5
606.2
$ 5.9
31.0
2.2
272.4
180.6
3,086.8
31.6
70.7
$1,091.1
163.5
1,254.5
Local
$209.1
727.4
606.2
108.9
180.6
1,832.2
Local capital costs with no grant
60% of eligible capital costs funded by Wisconsin Fund.
-------
Table E-101. Wisconsin Fund grant and local share of costs for Ephraim
Alternative 4 (costs in $1,000).
*
T ^ i new Wisconsin Fund Grant
Total O&M r
System Component Total Capital (Local Cost) State Local
Offsite component
Homeowner ineligible
Collection $ 209.1 $ 209.1
Eligible - Ineligible
Collection & transmission 1,191.6 $ 5.9
Treatment 373.8 31.0
Discharge 172.4 35.3
Subtotal 1,737.8
Eligible 75% 1,303.4 $782.0 521.4
Ineligible 25% 434.4 434.4
Onsite component
Eligible 272.4 - 163.5 108.9
Ineligible 180.6 31.6 - 180.6
Total 2,399.9 103.8 945.5 1,454.4
a
Local capital costs with no grant.
60% of eligible capital costs funded by Wisconsin Fund.
-------
Table E-102. Wisconsin Fund grant and local share of costs for Ephraim
Alternative 5 (costs in $1,000).
System Component
Off site component
Eligible - ineligible
Collection & transmission
Discharge
Subtotal
Eligible 75%
Ineligible 25%
Onsite component
Eligible
Ineligible
Total
1U Ld-L UCU'i r
a b
Total Capital Local Cost State
$1,032.5 $ 7.2
797.7 11.1
1,830.2
1,372.7 $823.6
457.5
272.4 - 163.5
180.6 31.6
2,283.2 49.9 987.1
Local
$549.1
457.5
108.9
180.6
1,296.1
Local capital costs with no grant.
60% of eligible capital costs funded by Wisconsin Fund.
-------
Table E-103. Wisconsin Fund grant and local share of costs for Ephraim
Alternative 6 (costs in $1,000).
jjystem Component
Onsite systems
Eligible
Ineligible
Total
Total O&M
Wisconsin Fund Grant
Total Capital5 (Local Cost) State
$523.3
289.9
813.2
Local
$124.6
124.6
$314.0
314.0
$209.3
289.9
499.2
Local capital costs with no grant.
60% of eligible capital costs funded by Wisconsin Fund.
-------
Table E-104. Wisconsin Fund grant and local share of costs for Baileys Harbor
Alternative 2A (costs in $1,000).
Total O&M
Wisconsin Fund Grant
System Component
Offsite component
Homeowner ineligible
Collection
Eligible-Ineligible
Collection
Transmission
Treatment
Discharge
Subtotal
Eligible 75%
Ineligible 25%
Onsite component
Eligible
Ineligible
Total
a b
Total Capital (Local Cost) State
$ 90.8
1,332.1
310.6
312.2
111.1
2,066.0
1,549.5
516.5
$ 4.0
23.5
24.5
462.3
399.8
3,018.9
46.9
98.9
929.7
277.4
1,207.1
Local
$ 90.8
619.8
516.5
184.9
399.8
1,811.8
Local capital costs with no grant.
60% of eligible capital costs funded by Wisconsin Fund.
-------
Table E-105. Wisconsin Fund grant and local share of costs for Baileys Harbor
Alternative 2B (costs in $1,000).
Total O&M
Wisconsin Fund Grant
System Component
Offsite component
Homeowner ineligible
Collection
Eligible - Ineligible
Collection
Transmission
Treatment
Discharge
Subtotal
Eligible 75%
Ineligible 25%
Onsite component
Eligible
Ineligible
Total
Total Capital5 (Local Cost) State
$ 90.8
1,332.1
310.6
526.2
111.1
2,280.0
1,710.0
570.0
$ 4.0
34.6
24.5
462.3
399.8
3,232.9
46.9
110.0
1,026.0
277.4
1,202.4
Local
$ 90.8
684.0
570.0
184.9
399.8
1,929.5
Local capital costs with no grant.
60% of eligible capital costs funded by Wisconsin Fund.
-------
Table E-106. Wisconsin Fund grant and local share of costs for Baileys Harbor
Alternative 3 (costs in $1,000).
Total O&M
Wisconsin Fund Grant
System Component
Offsite component
Homeowner ineligible
Collection
Eligible - Ineligible
Collection
Transmission
Treatment
Discharge
Subtotal
Eligible 75%
Ineligible 25%
pnsite component
Eligible
Ineligible
Total
Total Capital (Local Cost) State
$ 90.8
1,332.1
431.9
321.2
107.5
2,192.7
1,644.5
548.2
$ 4.0
23.5
24.5
462.3
399.8
3,145.6
46.9
98.9
$986.7
277.4
1,264.1
Local
$ 90.8
657.8
548.2
184.9
399.8
1,881.5
Local capital costs with no grant.
60% of eligible capital costs funded by Wisconsin Fund.
-------
Table E-107. Wisconsin Fund grant and local share of costs for Baileys Harbor -
Alternative 4 (costs in $1,000).
System Component
Offsite component
Homeowner ineligible
Collection
Eligible - Ineligible
Collection
Transmission
Treatment
Discharge
Subtotal
Eligible 75%
Ineligible 25%
Onsite component
Eligible
Ineligible
Total
Total O&M
Wisconsin Fund Grant
Total Capital (Local Cost) State
$ 75.6
980.7
124.5
293.9
997.9
2,297.0
1,722.8
574.2
$ 3.1
-
20.8
2.1
506.1
422.9
3,301.6
51.5
77.5
$1,033.7
303.7
1,337.4
Local
$ 75.6
689.1
574.2
202.4
422.9
1,964.2
Local capital costs with no grant.
60% of eligible capital costs funded by Wisconsin Fund.
-------
Table E-108. Wisconsin Fund grant and local share of costs for Baileys Harbor
Alternative 5 (costs in $1,000).
System Component
Offsite component
Homeowner ineligible
Collection
Eligible - Ineligible
Collection
Transmission
Treatment
Discharge
Subtotal
Eligible 75%
Ineligible 25%
Onsite compoaent
Eligible
Ineligible
Total
Total O&M
Wisconsin Fund Grant
Total Capital3 (Local Cost) _State_
$ 75.6
980.7
431.9
293.9
107.5
1,814.0
1,360.5
453.5
$ 3.1
20.8
24.5
506.1
422.9
2,818.6
51.5
99.9
$816.3
303.7
1,120.0
Local
$ 75.6
544.2
453.5
202.4
422.9
1,698.6
Local capital costs with no grant.
60% of eligible capital costs funded by Wisconsin Fund.
-------
Table E-109. Wisconsin Fund grant and local share of costs for Baileys Harbor
Alternative 6 (costs in $1,000).
m ^ -, ^r*, Wisconsin Fund Grant
System Component
Ons ite systems
Eligible
Ineligible
Total
Total Capital (Local Cost) State Local
$ 953.5
542.2
1,495.7
$572.1 $381.4
$149.4 - 542.2
149.5 572.1 923.6
Local capital costs with no grant.
60% of eligible capital costs funded by Wisconsin Fund.
-------
*
IH
O
IH
33
60
00
Id
M
O
14H
CO
03
O
O
14H
O
d
o
•rl
4-f
3
•H
l-i
4_)
CO
•H
T3
rH
Cfl
O
O
rH
13
d
CO
0)
4-1
tfl
4-1
CO
IH
O /-^
WH X
CO O
4-1 O
CO O
o
O rH
1
lj S^y
01
CO 4->
3 CO
O
.-^ U
w
Cu
^^
4-1
d
CL
rH
tfl
>
•Z
3
Ol
d
o
•H
5
3
a.
o
a.
r-H
Cfl
3
d
1
o
rH
rH
1
prj
0)
rH
"S
H
4->
to '-N
O
O v— '
iH W
R) CL,
3
d w
§ V
< a.
+j
03 /— •*
O
o "--
f*, W
rH OH
4-> I-l
d ai
a a.
*^
o
w
CM
0
00
o*>
r-H
4->
4-1 CO
d o
0) O
r-H rH
CO tfl rH
4-> > CO
O -H 3
H 3 d
W -§
0)
•U 0
d d
rH tfl tfl
tfl d
3 • 01
d M 4-1
d a) d
tfl
d -3 O
< 3 O
O'rJ
w
4-1
o
•-H 0)
tfl IH
O tfl
0 J2
1-3 CO
0) 0)
It t 1
cfl tfl
C/3 C/3
,-H
cfl
4J 4J
•rl 03
C^ O
cj U
a)
j>
•H
4-1
tfl
d
oj
4-1
•H
<;
CM
•H
^D
0
rH
-^>
CO
CO
m
r-
CM
,-H
CO
•
in
CO
rH
00
•
o
-ct
in
x^-
ON
vi>
^3.
in
co
S
\o
o*\
•
co
M>
T-\
<^
c\J
co o tri r-. CN fN
CO CM VO tO rH ON
ro ^- LO co o f-H
c*O ON 00 ON CO r-*
r— I I-H
i— ^ to r^- r^> r^» r^- r^»
CM %o oo co
*.
rH
CM CM \£> OO 00 O
CO t^. O 1^ CM O^
^o \,o CM m oo ^^>
1^- \O lO -^- iO CM
00 iO ON f*1* O ON
*•••••
^O O ^d" "^ CO ON
co o *"d" o> oo m
co \o CM o ^o \o
<-H iH rH rH i-l
PQ
CM co *^ uo ^o r^»
•
s— \
•
CO
•
rH
•
^*
ql
O
-H
O
0)
t/>
•Sfc^
•
w d
M O
CO -H
CU 4->
>i CO
1-1
0 3
CM li
o
M Cu
0
M-l 4->
d
4J 0)
CO -H
0) CO
i . r*
01 cfl
4-1 I-l
d +-1
•rl
rH
S-S cfl
co d
~-~ o
in 03
tfl
•^ 01
4->
cd 'O
d
~O tfl
0)
N rH
•H cfl
*-> d
W 0
o to
e «
tfl CU
CO
IH '
tfl *-•
fi d
CO 0)
d
rH Cfl
R) S
U H
30J
Of
Cd rQ
-------
00
IH
O
03
4-1
30
4-1
I
IH
(U
b
oo
O
CO
o
U
CO
3
4-i
S
CC
b4
V
3
•H
g,
o
a,
3
>— \
XI
o
o
o
,_!"
>~>'
^J
CO
o
^J
CO
o
U Id
0.
^J
^^
3 £
XJ
1 w
ex.
rH M
-C cu
4J py
B
U
a,
o
co
4-*
*•> »
C3 0
rH CU O
CD — 1
3 CO rH
r* K- fH
C > CO
C -rl 3
< 3 £
(U
•O cj
r«4 rt rt
Qj £
3 • fl)
s _ X
o
o co
o o
o
« rH
4-> CQ
•H y
a. c
rt I-H
0 ^
0)
4->
cfl
B
rl
CU
f^ CO ^O ^4 ^5 ^^ ^^
r^ \O CM rH rH
r^ CM in ^o o> in tn
U^ t?N »^ CM CM t^ C^
rH rH rH rH rH
-T m o r-i vo CM o
rH O rH in f*"' VO *20
cn vD CM O O »
-H I— 1 i-H I— 1 r-l rH
m m m iTi in m m
r^* f** r^ ^«. Is- t** f^*
fj CM CM CM CM CM CM
r~>. rH rH T-J rH r-l t-H
i-i \o CM oo ^ r-^ \S\ O ^* C^> CTN
O in oo *^
f^ ON ^n f") -^ O "^
« * • • • * *
o f-i oo m oo r*x m
\D oo in c*^ o co vo
(j\ yo ^ ^* f**1* O O1^
QQ *^ C^ *^ ^f C^ ^^
rH n o -a- os oo m
^0 oo ^o CM o en vo
* « • * » •
rH rM rH rH rH rH
*C CO
CM c-4 tn
oo
cu
N
U
O
tn
C
o
•H
4->
u
cu
C/l
o
O
Q.
B
CU
^
CO
CO
B
O
co
cd
cu
co
•s
a)
C8
O
CO
(4
cu
(A
4->
g
B
&
-------
0)
p
u
f
CO
•H
j_i
O
l+H
CO
CO
o
o
14H
0
d
o
•H
4->
3
•H
p
4_}
CO
•rH
^
rH
CO
O
O
rrj
C3
cO
0)
4J
cfl
4-1
CO /-v
X
J_)
0 0
14H O
O
CO •
4V I — 1
W
o ^
o
1 4->
P CO
01 O
CO O
3
X^N
U3
N^*
•M
d
Ol
rH
cfl
3
3
cr
01
d
o
•H
4-1
r3
3
ft
o
ft
rH
CO
3
d
s
•
CM
rH
rH
1
[x3
0>
rH
-D
CO
H
CO /^
o -
O N-'
rH W
CO CU
3
C "
d oi
< ft
4-1
CO '•^
O -c/J-
0 ^
>, W
rH PL,
4-1 P
d a)
O ft
J-,
W
BJ
o
CO
rH
4-> 4-<
d w
0) o
rH rH O
cfl cfl
4-> > rH
O v-t CO
H 3 3
W (3
*5
01
T3 O
d d
rH CO CO
cfl d
— l . n)
3 • UJ
d P +-•
3 o> d
Cfl
d .c
i— ) 0> C/3
CO rH
3 CO rH
d > co
a -H o
D4 ^J
W
14H
o
rH 0)
Cfl P
CJ Cfl
Q *d
tJ C/)
0) O)
cfl co
+-* rC
C/3 CO
rH
cfl
4-1 4-"
•H CO
ft 0
0)
•H
4-1
cfl
d
p
01
4-1
rH
<3
in rH CM CO ON rH CM O rH
*^ ON vo ^o in CM
-^- co co in ^a- r>»
CM CM CM CM CM
CM CO .* in VO I--
•
^-N
•
CO
rH
•
>i-
2
O
•rl
+-*
O
(U
CO
**-/
•
co d
P O
Cfl -rl
0) 4J
* rH
0 3
CM ft
O
p ft
0
14H 4-1
d
4-> 01
CO -H
01 CO
P d
0) cfl
4-* p
d 4-1
•H
rH
^S tO
oo d
"--• o
m co
cfl
r-» a)
CO
4-1
cfl -e
d
T3 cfl
0)
N rH
•H cfl
4-1 d
P 0
O CO
e co
cfl 0)
CO
a>
p
cfl +J
-d a
10 ai
d
t — i Cfl
Cfl B
o C
5 S
Cfl 43
-------
0)
0)
(J
C
cd
l-i
oo
0)
I
M
0)
cS
oo
3
O
f.
4-1
•H
CO
o
o
cu
CO
3
W
cu
rH
Cfl
o*
CU
a
o
•r-l
3
a,
o
ex
to
1
4-1
CO
o
cj w
CXi
rt *J
3 CU
CO
o
cj w
Cu
?>•>
•~H M
J2 0)
4-1 CU
M
Qj
o
oo
t-H
4-> CO
C O
rH 0) CJ
tfl rH
3 CO rH
ti > cO
5 -H 3
•3 3 C
W*<5
CU
Td CJ
C C
f-H Cfl tfl
CO C
3 • 0)
C t-< <-•
/-N fl cu
co r-i cu co
O tO rH
CJ 3 CO rH
C ^ tO
rj -rH CJ
< 3 O
0* rJ
M
o
CO 4->
O CD
U 0
CJ
rH
CO rH
4-< Cfl
A» O
CO rH
CJ ^^
CU
4-1
Cfl
d
M
4-1
-^- ro CM m
CM rH r~- in
co m o m
^o in co -^"
CM CM CM CM
*d" \o co in
C^ CM CM -
LA i/^ iTi LTi
^H ,_H ^H ,-H
r-| ^) ,— J ,-J
i—s r^* r^« VQ
• • • •
LA lA CO \O
•si- co co m
CM CM CM CM
O CM -vt CO
• • " *
v£) Oi rH CM
^3" 0*1 ^O ^O
C7>
m m
—1 rH
rH rH
r^
-------
*
e
•iH
CTJ.
p
-d
W
l-i
O
14-1
CO
^J
CO
o
o
U-l
o
d
O
•H
3
i-l
jtai
4J
CO
•iH
-o
rH
CD
o
O
,-.-)
13
d
CO
/i)
m
4->
tO
4->
C/3
i-l
O ^
(_j_j S^
CO O
4J O
CO O
o
CJ rH
1
LJ v—'
rt)
\U
CO 4->
3 co
o
'—N O
w
CM
•*~*
4-)
C
rH
CC
>
•H
?*
C
O
•H
4~>
CO
r-l
3
D.
O
f"H
CO
3
d
d
*£
«
-
O •. W
rH P-l
£ i-l
d oi
0 P.
42
W
Oj
o
00
ON
rH
• j M
d °
0) °
rH r-J ,
Tota
Equiva
Annua]
0)
T3 0
d d
rH CO CO
S . d
d M 4-*
d oi d
< P, -iH
O cd
J^
tO
0)
u
4-1 CO
d x
rH 0) CO
CO rH
3 CO rH
C ^ CO
d -H o
n3 M
U ^3
O rG
rJ CO
OI tJ
<0 cO
4-* .^1
CO CO
frt
'•v
•H 05
O. O
tO O
c.5
01
•H
4-1
CO
d
0)
4-1
rH
rH
t
fM
in
CM
l^-
O
^
~=J"
rH
00
r-l
CM
CM
to
oo
_r
m
•
^3*
m
CM
*
rH
00
vO
30
o
ft
CO
CO
\O lO LO
oo m tH
• * •
oO o^ r*^
ro 0s* o^
i-^
CO O O
m co »— t
• • •
r-l OO OO
-H
i j _|
i— I ^H r-""
(^ ^ ^
r^ r^. r-.
r-l r-> r-(
oo co o
r^» oo ^-d"
CSJ I-" T-l
OO O"* ^D
ro o^ *sj~
O •* CM
rH rH
0 ~* -sf
~* CO ON
•r^
-j ^j
>. tO
rH
0 3
CM O,
O
ju a,
o
U-( *J
d
4-J OI
Oi CO
i-i d
OI JlJ
4-> i-l
d +-•
•rH
1"^
6^8 CO
00 O
-~~ 0
m
co
r~- Oi
CO
4-1
cO 'C
d
"8 *
NJ
T"^
•H CO
4-i d
P O
O CO
E co
CO 0)
tA
OI
CO ^
A d
w o>
d
H~I cd
*^ s
CJ W
O 0)
i-J OA
CO 42
-------
•H
cfl
C
rt
u
00
4-"
S-l
a)
3
O
U5
O
O
V-4
01
cu
cr
ai
C!
O
•H
4-1
a.
o
cfl
c
I
CU
tfl
H
4-1
CO
O
0 W
IX
i— H
cfl M
3 0)
£3 0^
CO
o
o w
CU
^,
rH M
.C U
•M (*L^
c
0
w
CX,
o
00
ON
T-H
+J
4J W
C 0
rH 0) U
3 03 rH
C > sfl
C -H 3
< 3 C
er c
w 43
O)
T3 0
c c
rH Cfl OS
cfl d
3 • 01
s-* d oi d
X < &, -iH
O tti
o S
ON ^O ON CO
>X> rH v£> i-H
d O O . OO ON
in o ro ON
vn r*^ o C 43
Cfl i-H O> C/l
O 03 rH
U 3 cfl rH
a > co
d -H o
^|3
o
CO 4-1
O CO
o o
o
rH
CO rH
4-> 0)
•rl 0
ft O
cfl i-H
o ^^
O
oo i-. r-^ rH
• • • •
oo in r*^ ^o
00 O CO CN
~3" CO CN CN
m oo ON CN
• • • •
in ^£> ON ro
CO 00 ON 00
ON O CO CM
*. •• A f>
•^r co CN CN
01
•H
4-1
Cfl
ti
V-l
01
4-1
rH
CM co
4-)
c:
5-8
CO
a)
N
•iH
1)
1-1
CD
03
O
O
0
O
•H
4-1
O
o
•H
Cu
o
ex
a
o>
U)
e
S-l
4-1
aj
c
o
CO
ft
a)
en
-d
fi
O
CO
nj
OJ
CO
S
M
0)
-------
•
^1
o
s
CO
^
CU
r-l
•1-1
cd
co
S-l
o
IP
CO
4-J
CO
0
o
IP
0
d
o
•H
P
3
•H
)-l
P
CO
•r-l
T3
i— 1
cd
o
o
r-l
•d
C
cd
cu
P
s
P
CO x-x
X
IH
0 0
IP. 0
0
CO
P r-l
CO
o ^
CJ
1 p
H CO
CU O
CO O
3
^-N
JV|
p ,
v^
p
d
cu
rH
cd
>
•rl
3
cr1
CU
d
•H
P
3
r^
3
Cu
O
Cu
rH
cd
3
d
.§
,
vO
T~H
r-(
|
w
cu
•-i
cd
H
p
CO s~~
o
CJ ^^
rH W
cd GJ
3
d ^*
5 cu
< D-
P
CO /-N
o
0 ^
>•> w
i-H O<
,c
d CU
:§ &
,0
M
Oi
O
OO
rH
p p
d 01
cu o
rH i-l U
cd cfl
P > rH
O -H cd
H 3 3
cr d
w cd
d -H o
< 3 0
0- rJ
IP
O
rH CU
cd M
o cd
o *^-*
, 1 f_/3
cu o>
cd cd
P -d
CO CO
i-H
cd
P P
•H CO
Cu o
cd o
CU
,J5
p
cd
d
CU
P
<;
r^^
m
^
i— i
CM
OO
00
•
(
r^*
o
CM
jj
CO
•
00
p>»
r^*
rH
CO
•
rH
rH
00
•t
i-H
r-l
f^.
O
CM
i-H
OS
00
rH
O
M
•^
CN|
m
rH
CM
CO
CM
m
CO
•
i
r-.
ON
CM
1
i-H
•
rH
0
CO
o
•
0
r-l
rH
rH
rH
OS
rH
m
•
CTi
CM
CJ\
ft
i-H
CM
CO
CM
CO
PQ
CM
CT* i— 1
oo r--
CJs OO
rH 0
CM CM
CM 00
CO ^J"
• •
i t
rH r-l
r^. r^
CTi CTs
CM CM
J f ^
CM O
• •
m CM
oo r^*
CM CM
ON in
• •
co r-
cr» r^.
co m
vO -*
OO OS
rH rH
m CM
• •
r-l •*
OO vO
OO CT\
» «
rH i-H
rH -*
sr r~-
vO co
CM CO
rH rH
vO VD
in rH
•>r o
rH CO
CO CO
CO ^d"
rH
CM m
00 rH
vO OS
rH
vO vO
• •
00 CO
OS CM
vO OS
*
rH
0 rH
O CM
CM P--
I-H m
i-H
vo ^
oo m
rH OS
00 -*
CM rH
m vo
•
x~-\
•
CO
•
iH
•
<•
d
o
•H
P
CJ
cu
CO
V— '
•
co d
Lj r~\
t-t >> cd
rH
o a
CM CX
o
P Cu
O
*^-l 4-J
d
P CU
W -rH
CU CO
W d
D Cd
P »-l
d -P
•H
i— !
oo d
"•^ o
* VJ
m co
cd
r~. cu
P
cd T3
d
T3 Cd
cu
N i
•rl cd
P d
l-i 0
Om
UJ
CO CU
CO
CU
I-l -
^ d
CO CU
d
rH Cd
cd B
O ^J
o cu
hJ Ou
cd -Q
-------
O
J3
M
CO
o
u w
d-
cd i-i
3 cu
C cu
oo
^»
SO
O
CO
r-t
SO
r-l
CO
CM
-*
sO
CO
fS»
oo
r-l
CO
r-l
CM
CM
ON
CM
CM
CM
ON
CM
CM
cu
r-l
•H
B)
CO
VJ
o
U-l
rt
e
cu
§
SJ
cu
c
O
CD
O
u
CJ
(0
3
G
CU
a,
o
cfl
3
i
u
CB
O
u
a-
o
oo
m
CM
OS
CM
•o
CM
m
CM
ON
CS
o-,
ON
m
CM
OS
CM
m
CO
Os
OS
CM
ON
CM
O
O
o
r-l
03
3
a
^
r-l
CO
3
|
i— |
CO
3
C
<
4-1
C
cu
CO
•H
3
cr
W
HJJ
e
(tj
•
V
CL
Q
a
4J
£J
CU
«
•rl
3
[3*
4-1
CO
0
O
1-1
CO
i-l
O.
cd
0
•M
CO
o
o
r-l
CO
3
C
5
<
cu
o
c
oj
C
cu
3
03
Jj§l
D
U
r*
w
r-f
W
O
(J
U-4
o
j*^
±J
m
o
o
T-H
u
0
G)
^
*r*t
AJ
CO
C
u
cu
*J
5
^ *H *^ IA O ro
r^- O O *^ ^ r^
CJ*> CO rS O f^- O>
rn ^- *a- ,
o
CM
u
o
!*•<
+J
CO
VI
01
4-1
G
•rt
^S
oo
**•*.
m
i^.
4-1
to
T3
cu
N
•H
4J
^
o
1
Crt
>»x
c
o
•H
4-1
rH
y
o.
0
a-
4J
Cl
0)
•H
CO
e
CO
M
•M
^H
cd
c
o
CO
cd
cu
CO
*O
£
CO
r-l
§
O
CO
5
CO
»
t^
f3
cu
c
CO
1
w
CM
Xi
-------
APPENDIX F
Climatological Data
-------
o
13
O
0)
a
^
o
M
o
o
co
cd
pa
d
QJ
0)
o
o
fd
4J
cfl
a
M
o
•C B
.5.3
gjj
^
J=
|t
s ^
ll
SS
CM
VO
CO
M
— ' B
e
£3
0) ^
•H
*J
II
c
a
X
c
o
« "i?
*j 0)
•H J=
T> 5
a.
0
CM
CO
co e
to s
£J3
o
0 CM
SB m
c
a B
OJ X
M i e
§"«*
H *
e
x B
•H d
(S X
e
•H X
a a
j:
G
K^ggsessga^g s
- 0, 0, VD ^ ^CMOOCM
->00-<0 . . . .O — O 0
f^°S2S" f* r*^ r*^ OS 00 00 00 GO 00 00 CD
OO-OvO-^-^OvCCMONOOCM O
_^_,,Mrocnr,Nm-_<_ r-.
^-«cor-.*3'rnooo*'*co~"'c* ^^
r^ rsi (N — < CM csj *O
r*l O ON ~H O O O o O O "*f O ^
CM (S (Mf^
*ff O VO 00 *^ lO fM |*N. CT\ CJ ^^ ^ f1**
10 OD QO m »tf ««T ^ r«» co &\ *& o ro
«-i.-HM.tf-u")^sc^oin»*nON^— ^oo ft
escMP"tinvor^-oor^\O4n<*e^ in
X 0) W »-
X f-4 -D U 0> U 4)
i-i a) *J B 0» -O X) »H e*
(0 3 J3 •-! 05 «J Xl g 8 « CC
3 C U M 0) tN 3 *^ O 5J D 2 U
CJ3»-iU>,c-^MCi.*J> O CO)
0) CO
0} (0
at at
Ps X
.•H fM
a a
•H -H
•S "2
o o
a; 01
i- u
O 0
£)0 00
e c
»-5 |j
« ^
-------
•
a
Average monthly temperature and precipitation at Sturgeon Bay WI and Green
Bay WI (NOAA 1977b).
Average Monthly
Temperature (F°)
Month Sturgeon Bay
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Annual Average
19.1
19.2
28.2
41.2
52.1
62.6
69.0
67.4
59.3
48.7
35.0
23.8
43.8
Green Bay
15.4
18.0
28.6
43.8
54.5
64.5
69.2
67.7
58.9
49.2
34.1
20.9
43.7
Average Monthly
Precipitation (inches)
Sturgeon Bay Green Bay
1.34
1.33
1.76
2.43
2.46
3.20
2.75
2.86
3.25
2.16
2.36
1.32
27.22
1.09
1.01
1.68
2.69
3.10
3.41
3.09
2.62
3.24
1.93
1.88
1.27
27.01
Period of record: 1931-1955.
Period of record: 1941-1970.
-------
APPENDIX G
Air Quality
-------
cfl
•a
cO
cO
•a
o
CJ
00
00 3
3
O
o in
s
a
ft
in
•
o
60
O
O
cd
X-N
i — 1
i — 1
•
O
m
i
.^
•
o
in
3d
pti
CJ
O
<»•
<
Q-i
W
cn
Z3
CO
t3
stand a r
>>
+J
•H
r-l
CO
g-
M
•r-f
Cfl
4-1
C
o>
•H
43
National an
id
b
cfl
"2
c
ct
4-1
CO
>-
|j
•H
f-i
CU
43
60
00 3
O
m vo
r-- CM
x— \
C
rrt
w
cu
a
CJ
cu
00
CO
M
01
J5
4-1
Pollutant
Particulate
X-N e
a ft
ft ft
ft
3
CJ CO
cu a cfl
3 ""a1
X co
0 C 01
c o c
§43 CO
^ 43
cfl *-•
e o cu
O o B
43 u a
l-i — 0
c« 5s fl
0 Pd -^
x~> x^,
a B •
ft ft s~*
ft ft op
m CN
O r-l B
• • S
o o
V— ' V_X Q
vO
60 60 60 l~-
333
o o m "§
0^3-. nj
•-I CM r-4
CJ
o
in
CN
O
^^ 4->
0
Cfl »r-t
w 'TJ
CU 01
O 01
•rl J»|
+-• l-l tl
0) 0) O
a "o
r] j_, ^^
+J cfl
•rl g U
l-l 0*
-i
cfl
cu
>*
1 !
M
01
ft
01
o
d
o
C
$
4-)
CU
l-l
•8
-8
01
S
0)
0)
43
O
4-i
4-*
0
c
d
5
i i
b
Concentral
•
Vj
cfl
01
>>
l-l
01
ft
h-
>>
cfl
TJ
01
d
o
c
JS
4J
01
M
•8
"8
01
o
X
01
0>
43
O
4->
+"•
O
c
c
o
•H
J t
Q
Concentral
-------
o
co
CM
o
o
vO
(0
00
o
o
CM
ON
CO
O
O
cu
w
CO
O
CM
O
O
o
z
0)
cx
CO
a
o
CM
O
Cfl
O
O
CO
>
4->
C
3
5
M
O
(J
O
^J
n)
M
cu
c
•r-l
y
d
M
i-J
tti
CU
•H
y
•H
(2
•
CU
Tl
•rl
X
0
•H
'O
)-i
^
r-l
3
eft
C
cu
60
o
cu
3
X
o
I
d
5
co
C
o
O
M
£ I
-------
0)
Oi
2
00
o
I.
o
•H
B
CTv
^-i
m
CU
(0
C/3
cfl
d
o>
(Xi
(1)
4-l
O
o
S3
lutant
,_J
o
(X,
M
0)
cu
O <<<3 O << r~-cM ^o vo CM
CM CT>CO 00 f^v^ t— 4 OOON
CM 'H -H CM
f*» min m mm o mm
cu cu cu
^Cj t3 *^J
CU *ri CU "H CU "^
-O X -a X TJ X
•fl O -HO -HO
CU X -H CU X-r-l CU X -H
•t-1 O-a •p O-T3 -"-1 Oi3
!fl -H ttf -H CO -H
•— ' H -d c I-'MTSC "-1 M tj fi
3cu-cu 3ai'cu 3cu-cu
O f-i >-i oo CJ4->MdO O 4J t-J &0
•H 4-130 -r^wSO -H4J3O
4Jnj>4-(M +J gj «W M +J gj •*-! M
^j a ^ ^j J-* S r^ •(-* M c ^ ^
(T} !d *H rt 3 *H CTj ^ *H
f^ i y^ 25 P 1 C/D ^^ O i CO t^j
r^* ^o '^^
r^. r^* r^*-
0*\ o^ c^
T-H •— 1 f-H
mean
c mean.
U -H
•H +->
M 0)
|J
o *H
(U M
GO ^0
II II
o" <
\-x s.^
cd
-------
APPENDIX H
Criteria for Selection of
Permeability Class
-------
•O 4J
U -K
"3 "HU
C — B
C. .C 0]
1 Is
u fc-
OJ 0-
0^ F-.
a
\j
o
4J
O .0
cd "i
11 1 (v
^ •"'
JJ k.
ft/) ^ qj x^
Ci-i ij I-
.H "i -• ^
j_i Te *" c
•H isi
e 60
•H Qi IS
2J e.
^ w
0
0)
H
•*~s
0 C
. c o
co =•£
tD C- C!
cd £ —
>H fa O
u
•0 -g
>» _C 5
•H
,fl
cd
S <*
p 0 i- —
I-J -J .O 01
0) (QC
O. u (.
c. >-• -
U_i 01 O1 i1^
O D B ^"
c
o
-H
4J
O
01
0) 0 -
05 " Jt in
* ol
M 4j t, o
l2 ^ 01 O> -rt
*yM O 60 ^*
cd 01
•H C
M i-l
01 rH
4J I-J
•H QJ
U C u £
_i =) "S
T^ OJ 30
V3 Cd
•o T: -B
U 0 11
= 3 r c
tr. tc tt s
c ceo
— _. „ E
VC
o
(N 1
r-j
C
1 O
VC /^
c r
m
i-^ r4
; *->
CN
«-• C «M
C 1 1
fN O (N VC
vC A O C
oc;
c
Jl
e
01
3
o> 01 cy (u
H C 01 C
£ z £ i
/-s
'— N ^*- I C
w c o
<0| S •-)
f 7 i.
^ 4j 0)
O O M
Z £ ~"
~~* ^ VD
00 «M •*>
-< O iH 1
v^i A O i-t
s
1
c o e o
A A A ,
01 7
*c " *n; *^5 ™
C CJ C> &' O
~J «H ^ ^H ^H
33 33 3
K K K tt o:
_c £ c £ £
"" " ^ ^ ^ — "rt —
o o c
fM fM (Nl
r~* f~* t*^
rn pi ri
I es( m r-i m vC (N
1 s^^> ^ 1 |
/ ( 1 • CM
W 3J Qj O
^^ CO 05 Z
VC ^^
^ rg eM rs)
1 •-! OOO —1 OO "H
i-l O AAA O AA O
0 0
1 1
O O OOO O OO O
7 , ' A A A A A A A
B B
•H -rt
O 0
0 0
Jd Jt
-> U U
IT; K K K 3 [ --i i-l 3
"O
OJ
^
K
C
3
C-1
1
rg
O
00
c
^
£
u
o-
01
u.
?
CO
esi
o
c
1
o
1
g
1-1
r^
r*J
0
^
u
3
•^
U
•n
3
K
=
•J
O
evj
1
VQ
CJ
(C
^
c
OJ
3
tr
01
b
fc
C
re
^
rg
1
O
0
A
o:
c
£
2.
c;
A
0)
1
0
A
O
1
o
(N
1
K
•H OC I
o c -if
CO -H 0
Q..01
tn c. E,
ic
t/
1!
ta
c
to
ca u oi
i- ^ w
1C U
u u
-------
•o -a
0) 01
•a
c
1
3 3
rJ5 en
E C
5 I
IIII
-3 TJ
01 CJ
3 3
x w
5 5
o
>> -H
4J t-l
a c
0) ~t «*^
E -H •-
l- O
111 a
a.
so so so so vO
I I I 1 I
CM CM CM CM CM
CM CM CM CM CM
c o o o o
I I I I I
CM CM CM CM CM
d
i
CM
<=
03
CM
so
O
1
O
o
1
CM
o
1
CM
•I •
clo
00
CM
«3
d
i
o
CO
CM
SO
d
1
SO
c
0 0
CM CM
A A
u e
e o
01
•o
o c
0
c
o
z
000
zzz
cc
00
zz
O&IQJ
ccc
000
zzz
tl
o ^ <~
^j ^ Q)
<0 CJ
X H i
4J U
O. I. .C
«l 01 V4
c
3
7
c.
01
en
O|O|O|O|O|
«
'F
c
Z
SO
a
i
o
z
SO
f">
C3
1
Q
Z
SO
O 0 O 0 0
AAA AA AAA
o o
A A
13
Q)
3
•H
U
C
O
O
«
•H
0)
•H
o
CO
.
u 01
^ o £
JJ ki U
c. -o c
01 «l -H
a ca —
o o o o o
o o o o
*C SO *^ SO
AAAA
C O
SO sD
b X
3 01
W H
•H oc
o c
to •* o
O.XI
CO C. E
CM n
s u ai
< CO U
000
-------
01 "H
•o — cj
C -H
o .a
I It
I «
•O -0 -5 -C
C C C C
III I
r 3
K K
C C
•c
c
3
o
I
o
I
O
I
vO
I
VD
I
vC
O
I
vO
O
I
VO
0- O 0)
c e c
000
Z Z Z
•H
to
«(
I
CJ 01
c c
c o
Z Z
0>
c
o
Z
0) Qj QJ Of
c c c c
o o o c
Z Z Z Z
o>
c
c
Z
c
01
3
tr
01
T)
0)
C
c
o
a
to
1-1
1-1
0)
o
CO
01
O "-I *"•
iJ J> D
e 0)
x H
u a
c. u e
o 01 -H
O JJ -w
O O O
^D VC VC>
A A A
^^
c
3
^
1
>
Z
r>i
<-t
1
O
x-v >-^
e >.
3 CC
7 f
? D.
O CU
Z »
^ ^x
\C ^£5
rl n
O O 1 O O O 1
%JP VO CN SO sD VC CN
A A t-i A A A «H
y-s. ^^
*-^i >-, »-•
^
tc
S
1
>
C
Z
ID
r">
roj 3
£ *™t
I
a
CM
rt
1
A O
F
>
C
Z
CM
~H
1
O
?
=
CD
•-J
I
O
U Cl
£-5
J1
ki X
3 01
U H
o
vC
O
VC
A
O
VO
A
O
vc
A
O
VD
0|
i
o
O
\c
A
e
TH
VC
O
C iH
•* O-
C..O
c. E
< to u <
2 2 2 z
CD
Z
o
c-
-------
•O
01
c
o
o
tfl
•H
(-1
o
•0 -N 0
C -H 0}
o .3 a
Ext?
i Q) *H
0 E -J
u u
U 01
K C.
X
e
X -4
^4 A) ^*
•N u kl
-4 S i
.£ E "»
a =
E "4 ^
w 0
01 0
b.
*M
c
u c
= .=
& B
•O -O
| i
U.
01
o ^* *^
(3 4
j: H j
0. 1- .£
ft) ft) «P
I"
0 —
U 1
.= o ^
** U e.
ati c
O CQ ^
a
u w
B :
«W 4.
1- X
3 fl
n H
•*
o c -
tn — c
w £1
u o :
"
T5
IV
•3-D "C ^ -C
C = C 3 C
00 ' 'f 0
CO O C O
tN (N (N fM CN
II II 1
vC VD M> vC VO
,
2
§
CT
01
W
fcL.
0) 01 QJ 0) CJ
c c c c c
O C CO 0
n z z z z
^-^ ^
>, >, /-v
/^y-*4 C5 n >^
> >• S x. a
a s ii z
z s; tj i- i
ii a a c
i- t, E s n
eg n <~* *-* —)
£ S •^-
•— • •^ O O
vO kC O
o o ii fn
en m o O 1
A A o|ro o
O 0 O O O
en to en co cc
IM U^ UM IM *M
J
i
i to a u a| to
1 oo c. a.1 b
1 3: K a: e: a:
•0
01
^
3
X
vO
1
eN
O
X
Ol
>
•
u
e
01
UJl 3
oil t^
Til £
oj to
u
s
T
3
-i
C4
1
m
C
vO
c
•^H
0
vO
0
-u
^
U
e
a
en
•o
0)
^T -^ _j
•o ^
U w c 3
° ° | J
vO
O
V
rn
CM CM CNJ m
III ^-<
1
O O O IN
01
a '
£ u
0 C
•H OJ
CO IM 3
caj 01 o> tu (u cr
C C C U —I 01
COO 0 u b
-H! Z z O a b.
?| ^3
*•: ^
1 3C
P 1
eo >
S 0
"-' "Z>
MD
m (N
0 O 1 ^H
^O vO CN t
A A «H O
O O O O
c
•H
m
m
0
4J
^i
—( i-( O
m 03 3
u-, y-i fi £
< ca <
SCO 3
w w cn w
"C "U T3 "D
i) D ty aj
"333
tn K w «
c c c c
till
h^l QJ D U Cl
e c c c c
o o o o o
— z z z z
o c o o
A A A A
oplo o
CM KM [CM CM
1 1 1 1 1 1
000 0
^{THJ^H ~4
i I I I
^ ^^ ^H ~H
< eo o o
en en en en
-------
01 -N
•S -*t
C -1 »
3
I
I
•£>
CM
I
vC
X
u e
= 0
U *4
C1 (0
01 >•
£2
11
k.
•H
ca
c
01
ty cy a) (u CT
Z C 1- k- CU
o o co co u
j2 ;» os oe; tb
o — *-
*J J9 O
<5 ft
^ ™
c. w ,c
0, 4, .
c
•
^™N
T3
(U
T)
3
T-H
U o -
§ 11 j
0 w S ~
^/ a. -c c
01 0) —
rt a e ~
1-1
0)
4J
•H
0 a t>
c a
•H ^5
1-1 b K
S «
"1
>
1 =
^•** *
rJ f
0 0 1
sO ^O
{0
b
u
-
J3
£ 01
o *.
« CJ -t I
tTi /c
: %
, i
' Z
o
-) CM
1 -H
M 1
H O
2 O
•- »— t
cn —J
u n
n — m — x s
s-:
o
l-H I
— I — — CJ
j2 01
d) w
£
U 3
0..=
si
— *
01
u w .
u — K
a) •»•• tu
5=|
> 2
-C Mo
4J O
c. en
4) •« u-
•o o
31 d .s
01 »> ij
.c k* ex
U OJ 01
C J-» -o
" i -
o
vC k. O
O u
•O Q.
C Q. 01
It O 00
C
oo 01 a
u
c x
0) O —
u CU T-
a) eo .a
J2 C CO
c
a
o
CJ
z
_
CD
CU
e
a.
0)
4)
^P,
^.^
•T4
o
b
0)
"
*t*
O
V
cH
H
c
(U
-.1-6
i_, «4 o -
o as a
- ^£i
-* u- t/1
JJ "5 .=
O U
oi oi c
E 00 »<
1- C
•o
c
c
a.
-------
APPENDIX I
Scientific Equivalents of Common Names of Plants
-------
Scientific equivalents of the common names of plants cited in the
text. Nomenclature follows that of Fernald (1950) .
Common Name
Scientific Name
Alder
American beech
American elm
Apple
Arrow-wood
Balsam fir
Basswood
Beaked hazel
Beggar-ticks
Black ash
Bluegrass
Blue joint
Brome-grass
Cherry
Corn
Dwarf juniper
Fescue
Go Id en rod
Green ash
Hemlock
Horizontal juniper
Eastern hophornbeam
Kentucky bluegrass
Lovegrass
Meadow fescue
Northern red oak
Oats
Orchard grass
Pussy willow
Red maple
Red-osier dogwood
Red pine
Bulrush
Solomon's seal
Sugar maple
Sumac
Switchgrass
Trembling aspen
Twisted stalk
White ash
White birch
White cedar
White pine
Yellow birch
Alnus spp.
Fagus grand ifolia
Ulmus americana
Malus spp.
Viburnum recognitum
Abies balsamea
Tilia americana
Corylus cornuta
Bidens coronata
Fraxinus nigra
Poa spp.
Calamagrostis canadensis
Bromus spp.
Prunus spp.
Zea mays
Juniperus commaa is
Festuca spp.
So lid ago spp.
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Tsuga canadensis
Juniperus horizontalis
Ostrya virginiana
Poa pratensis
Eragrostis spp.
Festuca spp.
Quercus rubra
Avena spp.
Dactylis glomerata
Salix discolor
Acer rubrum
Cornus stolonifera
Pinus resinosa
Scirpus spp.
Polygonatum spp.
Acer saccharum
Rhus spp.
Panicum virgatum
Populus tremuloides
Streptopus spp.
Fraxinus americana
Betula papyrifera
Chamaecyparis thyoides
Pinus strobus
Betula alleghaniensis
-------
APPENDIX J
Unofficial List of Endangered and Threatened Plants
In Door County
-------
Unofficial list of endangered and threatened species of vascular plants
in Door County, Wisconsin (WDNR 1976a). An asterisk indicates that the
species also is included in the official list. E indicates endangered,
T indicates threatened, and U indicates unknown.
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Mlumia fungosa
Asplenium viride
Carex backii
Carex capillaris
Carex concinna
Carex crawei
Carex garberi
Cypripedium arletinum
Cypripedium calceolus
Cypripedium reginae
Draba lanceolata
Festuca occidentalis
Gentiana procera
Geocanlon lividurn
Gymnocarpium robertianum
Habenaria jiookeri
Iris lacustris
Orchis rotundifolia
Orobanche uniflora
Osmorhiza chilensis
Parnassia parviflora
Primula mistassinica
Pterospora andromedea
Ranunculus gmelini
Ribes oxycanthoides
Satureja g label la
Selaginella selaginoides
Senecio congestus
Solid ago spathulata
Tanacetum huronense
Tiarella copdifqlia
Tof leldia glutinosa
Trlglochin palustre
Trisetum melicoides
Viola rostrata
Allegheny-vine
Green spleenwort
No common name
No common name
No common name
No common name
No common name
Ram's-head lady's slipper
Small yellow lady's slipper
Showy lady's slipper
No common name
Western fescue
Narrow-leaved fringed gentian
Northern comandra
Northern oak fern
Hooker's orchid
Dwarf lake iris
Small round-leaved orchis
One-flowered broom-rape
Chilean sweet cicely
Grass-of-parnassus
Birds eye primrose
Pine-drops
Yellow water crow foot
No common name
Low calamint
Northern spikemoss
Marsh fleabane
Dune goldenrod
Lake Huron tansey
Foamflower
False asphodel
Slender bog arrow-grass
No common name
Long-spurred violet
T
U*
T
E
E*
T
E
E*
T
T
U*
E*
T
E*
E
T
E
E*
T
T
U*
T
E*
U
U
E
E
E
E*
E*
E
E
E
E
T
-------
APPENDIX K
Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds, and Mammals with Ranges
that Include the Project Area
-------
as
GO
o
C
CO
CO
O
O
01
4-1
C
01
Os
X>
*
CO
CO
3
O
O
o
d
CO
-a
d
3
d
1
o
o
01
VJ
rt
C
CO
C
o
o
CO
O)
O
01
•f->
o
S-l
O,
01
JC
3
r-l
O
CO
X!
CO
0)
60
CO
VJ
05
C
CO
O.
CO
CO cy,
u .-j
•H
cjg
P~i VJ
a. vj ai
O. 0) T3
3 -o d
ex d to vj
co e vj CD
T3 E VJ cfl 01 TJ
3 Cfl 01 r-l "O d
E r-l T3 CO d Cfl
co d to co E
O to cfl E cfl
00 E VJ Cfl rH -O
Cfl -O Cfl 0) 4-1 r-ICfl CO
01
E
CO
z
d
o
s
E
0
CO
X) Qlr-lOOJJ cflCD O
fl) 4-1 Cfl t-l 01 CO 4-1
C 4-1 tO 4-> d T3
do j«i ai d
•rl CLT3dr-l CJO CO
t5 tOOlVj cfl C04-I O
1 4-1 QJ VJ X> 1 "H
0) 01 4-1 4J 4-1 I VJ VJ
J t-l 10
CJ VJ d
•H 00 01 E
4-J -HO 3
tO 4-1 10 4J
E 0) cfl
CO 0) 3 S T3 tO 4-1
3 r-l 4J 3 -H 33
CO CflCfld rWCO OJCJ
01
CO
•z.
u
•H
U-l
•H
4J
d
0)
•H
o
co
O VJr-lt-l t-l'rl VJCO CO
r-l 01 3 VJ > CO 0) 3
34-icjoc d c E d
O cflcflt-l tool t-13 CO
CO r-l E •rJ 2 C O-H O
6 E CO i— t t-<
Cfl CO Cfl I— 1 t-l d >i VJ
co SEE coco o 4-i oi
3 OOO x: t-l -O O E
VJ 4-1 4-1 4J 4J3 OtO CO
3 03 05 CO Q. O X113
4J >,>,>, OrH 4J-H O
CJXlXtXl''-1 CUE U-i
QISEEO i-l 01 3
z<:<^z P^B to
01 01
cfl 0) cfl
*T3 Cfl *^
•H *O t-l
Q) 4-1 t-l 4-1
cfl a vj d oi
13 E "d O cfl
^s,
I—I
•H
E
CO
[£4
^^.
Vj
01
•a
V-l
o
•ri O d *O *T3
VJ 4-1 Cfl O t-l
3 to EX: d
4-1 >> Cfl 4-) O
O Xl r-l 01 U-l
< 0) 6 Cfl r-l 3
H z «£ en OM ca
^ ^!
Q M
s s
^j Z
CO <
VJ
01
a
01
a)
a
00
d
•H
VJ
a,
CO
d
VJ
01
JS
4-1
t-l
o
VJ
OJ
U-l
t-l
CJ
3
VJ
o
VJ
0)
M-l
-r-l
CJ
3
VJ
o
CO
>*
33
0)
CO
•a
•H
r-l
>*,
32
T3
d
cfl
VJ
o
r-l
o
o
T-l
co
Vj
a)
cfl
1-1
D3
00
o
VJ
U-l
a)
0)
£
r^"*
CO
VJ
o
CO
t-l
r-l
01
o
co
o
CO
^
VJ
x;
CJ
cfl
r-l
re
00
o
VJ
U-l
CO
3
VJ
0
X!
a
00
d o
VJ VJ
01 u-i
4J r-l
03 r-l
01 3
S pa
cfl
4J
CO
VJ
01
CO
t-l
^
4-1
cfl
4-1
cfl
VJ
a>
to
T-l
VJ
CO
•H
VJ
CJ
cfl
-o
3
0)
CO
OH
CO
d
CO
•H
0)
co
01
4-1
cfl
a
cfl
d
cfl
OS
01
cO
tH
d
cfl
fd
00
o
VJ
U-l
d
01
01
VJ
o
cfl
o
d
cfl
I—I
0}
E
to
d
ctj
t-l
E
cfl
r-l
CJ
cfl
d
CO
oo
o
VJ
U-l
"T3
o
o
cfl
0
T-l
4_)
cfl
r-l
^Sj
CO
cfl
d
CO
OS
oc
Q
yj
U-l
T3
CO
D.
o
01
r-f
d
VJ
0)
x;
V-l
o
s
co
d
0)
t-l
a
•H
a
cfl
d
00
o
Vj
U-l
1— 1
0)
0)
u
•H
OH
co
•H
VJ
4-1
co
3
r-l
cfl
a
CB
d
CO
OS
II II
•^2 x* *»
ei
,^-v
vO -
r- C
•— ' 6
v— ' E
0
4J U
00
O II
^-^
•0 CO
cfl
4-J •
co ^
O VJ
O cfl
01 PJ
1 1
d o)
01 4-1
Oj ctf
o co
4J
4-1
00 U
d o
•H D.
13 S
VJ 0)
o z
CJ
0 d
Cfl T-(
C T3
•H C
CO 3
cO o
CQ U-l
01 0)
00 X>
Cfl
d >>
•H R)
<0 £
M
0 4J
cfl
c si
CO 4J
00
t-l CO
XT d
CJ Cfl
•H t-l
S X!
01 x:
^ D.
15 E
rJ Cfl
d u-i
•H O
co en
3 3
4-1 4J
cfl cfl
CO CO
cfl Xi
-------
vO
r--.
Os
00
O
d
tfl
CO
o
o
CO
4->
d
0)
P-,
XI
»i
tfl
d
to
d
o
o
o
cu
o
CX
CO
x:
4-1
CO
3
r-1
CJ
d
T-l
tfl
CD
CU
60
s
CO
0)
4J
8-
Ȥ
co
3
cfl
CO
CU
T3
M
O
CO
cfl
•o
13
CO >>
W r-l
a co
M Xi
C CJ
CO
H
CO
tfl
CJ
o
CX,
tO
a
d
e
o
CJ
mon snapping turtle
6
o
0
land painted turtle
13
s
d
•H
CO
•o
cu
d
•H
r-l
1
cu
•H
&M
Cfl
d
CO
cu
4-1
tfl CU
cfl
d d
VJ CD
cu
x: d
4-1 3
rJ O
O Vl
5^ pQ
cfl
d
CD
•o
CU
•H
r-l
CO
?
•a
CO
d
CO
XI
4-1
}_,
O
a
tern garter snake
co
cfl
W
them ribbon snake
M
O
25
tern hognose snake
CO
tfl
w
them ringneck snake
tern smooth green sna
P CO
O cfl
a w
CO
ca
d
co
X
o
d
cu
4-1
CD
CU
13
1 snake
tern milk snake
r-i co
3 cfl
ca W
•H
t-l
CO
d
cfl
d
•H
4-1
d
CO
a-
cu
CO
cd
d
•H
4-1
CU
E
CO
a
CJ
•H
U-l
•H
4-1
d
cu
•H
O
co
d
CO
a.
rJ
cu
CO
CO
^J
-0
^
1— 1
CO
^£^
CJ
o
•H
CO
TH
r-4
Cfl
4-J
cfl
d
T-(
00
i-i
cfl
^
tfl
4-1
CJ
•H
a
CO
e~
CO
CD
^
I-l
r*l
CJ
Cfl
d
o
T3
0)
CX
•H
CD
3
CO
•H
CJ
en
co
U-l
co
cu
o
CO
E
u
CD
d
o
T3
CU
a
•H
CO
cd
•H
-0
o
I-l
CU
4-1
cfl
I-l
3
O
g
o
4_)
^_f
^s,
CO
s^
cu
•o
cfl
•H
l-i
cu
i^
o
4-1
CO
•H
a
CJ
CJ
o
cfl
T-l
|_4
cu
i-i
o
co
cd
%
•H
CO
co
cfl
4_»
cfl
r-l
3
O
CO
o
4J
•H
a
•H
CJ
CJ
O
T— 1
cd
4J
I-l
*r*l
co
co
•H
x:
a
o
Es
cfl
rJ
H
U
4J
d
cu
4-1
a
CO
ca
CD
3
4-1
•H
|-l
3
cfl
co
CD
•H
X!
O.
0
d
cO
x;
H
E
3
1— 1
3
00
d
•H
CO
•a
co
*rj
CO
O
d
x:
^~
4-1
Cfl
r-l
a
d
o
•o
o
I-l
cu
4-1
cu
33
CO
CD
3
4-1
CO
4J
CJ
d
3
ex
CO
•H
X!
a
o
13
cfl
T-l
a
cfl
co
•H
r-l
CO
d
V-i
cu
CO
•H
r-l
CO
d
i-i
cu
ca
i-i
»rj
Q
CO
x;
a
O
•H
CO
co
CO
d
-H
a.
i— i
3
^
CO
d
•H
a
t-i
3
cu
x:
a
CO
r-l
U
CO
3
U
3
cu
r-l
O
d
cfl
r-i
CU
e
CD
•H
x;
a
o
3
•H
P-<
•H
I-i
4-1
g
^
r-l
3
W3
d
cfl
•H
I-i
4->
co
-H
4_l
r-l
cu
a.
o
i_i
a
E
cfl
rJ
CO
Cfl
•o
o
cj
1
I
o
CJ
d
to
-a
d
3
•§
vO
d
i
o
o
d
3
,0
tfl
.0
o
4-1
00
o
>
•o
d
tfl
4-1
CO
o
o
cu
4-J
d
CO
P-,
O
j 1
00
d
•H
T3
O
O
CJ
CO
d
,_ri
"T"1
CO
CO
CQ
cu
00
CO
d
•H
CO
jj
O
d
CO
00
•H
O
•H
CU
vf
CO
d
•H
co
ji
CO
CO
cd
E
O
0
II
s~\
^
•
J^
M
CO
CU
Cfl
1 1
CO
4-1
I-l
o
CX
^J
(!)
5Z
d
-H
T3
d
3
O
U-J
cu
£*"*
Cfl
E
4-1
Cfl
x:
co
cu
r-l
•H
4->
CX
cu
m
o
CO
3
^J
CO
+J
CO
XI
-------
Species of birds that have been observed in or near the project area
since 1969 (WDNRn.d., 1974a, 1975).
Order/Family
GAVIIFORMES
Gaviidae
Scientific Name
Gavia immer
Common Name
Common loon
PODICIPEDIFORMES
Podicipedidae
PELECANIFORMES
Phalacrocoracidae
Podilymbus podiceps
Phalacrocorax auritus
Pied-billed grebe
Double-crested cormorant
CICONIIFORMES
Ardeidae
Ardea herodias
Butorides striatus
Casmerodius albus
Ixobrychus exilis
Botaurus lentiginosus
Great blue heron
Green heron
Great egret
Least bittern
American bittern
ANSERIFORMES
Anatidae
Anas platyrhynchos
Anas rubripes
Anas strepera
Anas acuta
Anas crecca
Anas discors
Anas americana
Anas clypeata
Aythya marila
Bucephala clangula
Bucephala albeola
Clangula hyemalis
Mergus merganser
Mergus serrator
Mallard
Black duck
Gadwall
Pintail
Green-winged teal
Blue-winged teal
American wigeon
Northern shoveler
Greater scaup
Common goldeneye
Bufflehead
Oldsquaw
Common merganser
Red-breasted merganser
FALCONIFORMES
Cathartidae
Accipitridae
Falconidae
GALLIFORMES
Tetraonidae
Gruiformes
Cathartes aura
Buteo jamaicensis
Buteo platypterus
Circus cyaneus
Falco sparverius
Bonasa umbellus
Porzana Carolina
Gallinula chloropus
Fulica americana
Turkey vulture
Red-tailed hawk
Broad-winged hawk
Marsh hawk
American kestrel
Ruffed grouse
Sora
Common gallinule
American coot
-------
Species of birds (continued)
Order/Family
CHARADRIIFORMES
Charadriidae
Scientific Name
Charadrius vociferus
Common Name
Killdeer
Scolopacidae
Laridae
Actitis macularia
Tringa flavipes
Larus argentatus
Larus delawarensis
Sterna hirundo
Sterna caspia
Chlidonias nigra
Spotted sandpiper
Lesser yellowlegs
Herring gull
Ring-billed gull
Common tern
Caspian tern
Black tern
COLUMBIFORMES
Columbidae
CUCULIFORMES
Cuculidae
Zenaida macroura
Coccyzus americanus
Coccyzus erythropthalmus
Mourning dove
Yellow-billed cuckoo
Black-billed cuckoo
STRIGIFORMES
Strigidae
Otis asio
Bubo virginianus
Strix varia
Screech owl
Great horned owl
Barred owl
CAPRIMULGIFORMES
Caprimulgidae
Caprimulgus vociferus
Chordeiles minor
Whip-poor-will
Common nighthawk
APODIFORMES
Apodidae
Trochilidae
Alcedinidae
PICIFORMES
Picidae
Chaetura pelagica
Archilochus colubris
Megaceryle alcyon
Colaptes auratus
Dryocopus pileatus
Melanerpes erythrocephalus
Sphyrapicus varius
Picoides villosus
Picoides pubescens
Chimney swift
Ruby-throated hummingbird
Belted kingfisher
Common flicker
Pileated woodpecker
Red-headed woodpecker
Yellow-bellied sapsucker
Hairy woodpecker
Downy woodpecker
PASSERIFORMES
Tyrannidae
Tyrannus tyrannus
Sayornis phoebe
Empidonax alnorum
Emp idonax minimus
Contopus virens
Nuttallornis borealis
Eastern kingbird
Eastern phoebe
Alder flycatcher
Least flycatcher
Eastern wood pewee
Olive-sided flycatcher
Alaudidae
Eremophila alpestris
Horned lark
-------
Species of birds (continued).
Order/Family
PASSERIFORMS (cont.)
Hirundinidae
Corvidae
Paridae
Sittidae
Scientific Name
Iridoprocne bicolor
Riparia riparia
Stelgidopteryx ruficollis
Hirundo rustica
Petrochelidon pyrrhonota
Progne subis
Cyanocitta cristata
Corvus brachyrhynchos
Parus atricapillus
Sitta carolinensis
Sitta canadensis
Common Name
Tree swallow
Bank swallow
Rough-winged swallow
Barn swallow
Cliff swallow
Purple martin
Blue jay
Common crow
Black-capped chickadee
White-breasted nuthatch
Red-breasted nuthatch
Certhiidae
Troglodytidae
Mimidae
Certhia familiaris
Troglodytes aedon
Troglodytes troglodytes
Cistothorus palustris
Cistothorus platensis
Dumetella carolinensis
Toxostoma rufum
Brown creeper
House wren
Winter wren
Long-billed marsh wren
Short-billed marsh wren
Gray catbird
Brown thrasher
Turdidae
Sylviidae
Sturnidae
Vireonidae
Parulidae
Turdus migratorius
Hylocichla mustelina
Catharus guttatus
Catharus minimus
Catharus fuscescens
Sialia Sialis
Regulus calendula
Bombycilla cedrorum
Sturnus vulgaris
Vireo flavifrons
Vireo olivaceus
Vireo gilvus
Mniotilta varia
Vermivora ruficapilia
Parula americana
Dendroica petechia
Dendroica magnolia
Dendroica coronata
Dendroica virens
American robin
Wood thrush
Hermit thrush
Gray-cheeked thrush
Veery
Eastern bluebird
Ruby-crowned kinglet
Cedar waxwing
Starling
Yellow-throated vireo
Red-eyed vireo
Warbling vireo
Black-and-white warbler
Nashville warbler
Northern parula
Yellow warbler
Magnolia warbler
Yellow-rumped warbler
Black-throated green warbler
-------
Species of birds (concluded).
Order/Family
Icteridae
Thraupidae
Fringillidae
Scientific Name
Dendroica cerulea
Dendroica fusca
Dendroica pensylvanica
Dendroica striata
Dendroica pinus
Dendroica palmarum
Oporornis Philadelphia
Geothylpis trichas
Wilsonia canadensis
Setophaga ruticilla
Passer domesticus
Sturnella magna
Agelaius phoeniceus
Icterus galbula
Quiscalus quiscula
Molothrus ater
Piranga olivacea
Cardinalis cardinalis
Passerina cyanea
Carpodacus purpureus
Carduelis pinus
Carduelis tristis
Pipilo erythrophthalmus
Passerculus sandwichensis
Pooecetes gramineus
Junco hyemalis
Spizella passerina
Zonotrichia albicollis
Melospiza georgiana
Melospiza melodia
Common Name
Cerulean warbler
Blackburnian warbler
Chestnut-sided warbler
Blackpoll warbler
Pine warbler
Palm warbler
Mourning warbler
Common yellowthroat
Canada warbler
American redstart
House sparrow
Eastern meadowlark
Red-winged blackbird
Northern oriole
Common grackle
Brown-headed cowbird
Scarlet tanager
Cardinal
Indigo buntin
Purple finch
Pine siskin
American goldfinch
Rufous-sided towhee
Savannah sparrow
Vesper sparrow
Dark-eyed junco
Chipping sparrow
White-throated sparrow
Swamp sparrow
Song sparrow
-------
Species of birds that may be present in or near the project area but
for which no documented sightings have been reported during the past
decade (WDNRn.d., 1974a, 1974b, 1975).
Order/Family
PODICIPEDIFORMES
Podicipedidae
Scientific Name
Podiceps grisegena
Podiceps auritus
Podiceps nigricollis
Common Name
Red-necked grebe
Horned grebe
Eared grebe
PELEC AN IFORMES
Pelecanidae
CICONIIFORMES
Ardeidae
Pelecanus erythrorhynchos
Nycticorax nycticorax
Ixobrychus exilis
White pelican
Black-crowned night heron
Least bittern
ANSERIFORMES
Anatidae
Olor columbianus
Branta canadensis
Branta bernicla
Anser albifrons
Chen caerulescens
Anas penelope
Aix sponsa
Aythya collaris
Aythya affinis
Melanitta fusca
Lophodytes cucullatus
Whistling swan
Canada goose
Brant
White-fronted goose
Snow goose
Eurasian widgeon
Wood duck
Ring-necked duck
Lesser scaup
White-winged scoter
Hooded merganser
FALCONIFORMES
Accipitridae
Falconidae
Accipiter gentilis
Accipiter striatus
Accipiter cooperii
Buteo lineatus
Buteo swainsoni
Aquila chrysaetos
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco rusticolus
Falco peregrinus
Falco columbarius
Goshawk
Sharp-skinned hawk
Cooper's hawk
Red—shouldered hawk
Swainson's hawk
Golden eagle
Bald eagle
Gyrfalcon
Peregrine falcon
Merlin
GALLIFORMES
Phasianidae
Meleagrididae
GRUIFORMES
Rallidae
Phasianus colchicus
Meleagris gallopavo
Rallus elegans
Rallus limicola
Coturnicops noveboracensis
Ring-necked pheasant
Turkey
King rail
Virginia rail
Yellow rail
-------
Species of birds (continued).
Order/Family
CHARADRIIFORMES
Charadriidae
Scolopacidae
Recurvirostridae
Phalaropodidae
Stereorariidae
Laridae
STRIGIFORMES
Strigidae
Scientific Name
Charadrius semipalmatus
Charadrius melodus
Pluvialis dominica
Pluvialis squatarola
Arenaria interpres
Philohela minor
Capella gallinago
Numenius phaeopus
Bartramia longicauda
Actitis macularia
Tringa solitaria
Tringa melanoleuca
Catop trophorus semipalmatus
Calidris canutus
Calidris fusciollis
Calidris bairdii
Calidris minutilla
Calidris alpina
Calidris pusilla
Calidris mauri
Calidris alba
Micropalama himantopus
Tryngites subruficollis
Limosa fedoa
Limosa haemastica
Recurvirostra americana
Phalaropus fulicarius
Phalaropus tricolor
Phalaropus lobatus
Common Name
Semipalmated plover
Piping plover
American golden plover
Black-bellied plover
Ruddy turnstone
American woodcock
Common snipe
Whimbrel
Upland sandpiper
Spotted sandpiper
Solitary sandpiper
Greater yellowlegs
Willet
Red knot
White-rumped sandpiper
Baird's sandpiper
Least sandpiper
Dunlin
Semipalmated sandpiper
Western sandpiper
Sanderling
Stilt sandpiper
Buff-breasted sandpiper
Marbled godwit
Hudsonian godwit
American avocet
Red phalarope
Wilson's phalarope
Northern phalarope
Stercorarius parasiticus Parasitic jaeger
Larus hyperboreus
Larus pipixcan
Larus Philadelphia
Sterna forsteri
Nyctea scandiaca
Surnia ulula
Asio otus
Asio flammeus
Aegolius funereus
Aegolius acadicus
Glaucous gull
Franklin's guii
Bonaparte' s gul1
Foster's tern
Snowy owl
Hawk owl
Long-eared owl
Short-eared owl
Boreal owl
Saw-whet owl
-------
Species of birds (concluded).
Order/Family
PASSERIFORMES
Paridae
Mimidae
Sylviidae
Motacillidae
Bombycillidae
Laniidae
Vireonidae
Parulidae
Icteridae
Fringillidae
Scientific Name
Parus hudsonicus
Mimus polyglottos
Myadestes townsendi
Regulus satrapa
Anthus spinoletta
Bombycilla garrulus
Lanius excubitor
Vireo philadelphicus
Vermivora chrysoptera
Vermivora peregrina
Vermivora celata
Dendrioca tigrina
Dendroica caerulescens
Dendroica castanea
Seiurus noveboracensis
Wilsonia pusilla
Common Name
Boreal chickadee
Mockingbird
Townsend's solitaire
Golden-crowned kinglet
Water pipit
Bohemian waxwing
Northern shrike
Philadelphia vireo
Golden-winged warbler
Tennessee warbler
Orange-crowned warbler
Cape May warbler
Black-throated blue warbler
Bay-breasted warbler
Northern water thrush
Wilson's warbler
Dolichonyx oryzivorus Bobolink
Sturnella neglecta Western meadowlark
Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus Yellow-headed blackbird
Euphagus cyanocephalus Brewer's blackbird
Pheucticus ludovicianus
Sjiiza americana
Hesperiphona vespertina
Pinicola enucleator
Carduelig flanflnfea
Loxia curvirostra
Loxia leucop tera
Ammodramus savannarum
Ammospiza leconteii
Ammospiza caudacuta
Spizella arborea
Spizella pallida
Zonotrichia querula
Zonotrichia leucophyrs
Passerella iliaca
Melospiza lincolnii
Calcarius lapponicus
Calcarius pictus
Fleetrophenax nivalis
Rose-breasted grosbeak
Dickcissel
Evening grosbeak
Pine grosbeak
Common tedppll
Red crossbill
White-winged crossbill
Grasshopper sparrow
LeConte's sparrow
Sharp-tailed sparrow
Tree sparrow
Clay-colored sparrow
Harris' sparrow
White-crowned sparrow
Fox sparrow
Lincoln's sparrow
Lapland longspur
Smith's longspur
Snow bunting
-------
T3
d
to
l-l
a
CQ
a) cj
> cu
r-l t-l
0) O
co M
r-l
PM
CU
4-1
Cfl
to
O
2
P?
S
Pi
el
>
O
r-l
O
0.
&
CU
3
,J
O
•o
cfl
cfl
CU
t-l
cfl
4-1
CJ
CU
1—)
o
D.
CU /~~.
-d jz
I
•z,
cu co
CU 4-1
CO O
Cfl Si
S co
CD -a 4-1
d 1-1 a) co
o o 1-1
u >. « a
rO E J3 S
I O 4W
CU CO l-l r-l CO
r-l - CU £) ,C
4-> d
4-1 CU
•H Q)
OOT5 cfl
i-l Q) O
35 PS rd
d
o
o
CJ
O
cfl
cu
cu
CD
cfl
0)
IS
r-l
CO
4->
4-1
l-l
O
CO
I-l
cu
co
cfl
cu
5
•H
cfl
00 -^
d d
3s
i-i
CU
4-1
O
^J
cu
>
4-i
*y*
d
3
S/1-
co
T3
CU
ON
i-l
^j
4-1
C/3
CU
4J
O
o
o
X
o
14-1
rrj
CU
c*
cu
r-l
r-1
1-1
3
cr
CO
•o
o
i-i
oo >:
•O 3
^
0
3
.d
O
TJ
O
O
3
CU
d
•H
!— !
1
d
cu
cu
4J
•H
JC
H
E
o.
•H
j=
CJ
d
M
cu
co
cfl
W
squirrel
>-,
cfl
r-l
00
d
W
cu
4-1
CO
Cfl
M
T-l
cu
r-l
^J
•H
3
cr
CD
T3
CU
Pi
ng squirrel
•H
>>
r—l
M-l
d
i-i
cu
Si
M
O
E5
M
CU
Cfl
0)
pa
0) Cfl
>
3 iH
d Q CO
CU S •«
CU 3
JO ••» CU
CU r-~ CO
^ CT* 12
Cfl -H
Si o
OO i-l
4^ d M-I
CO O iH
XI rJ 4->
4-> d
CO \O i-l
i—i r-» o
rt cr> to
cfl
CO
3
CU
r-l
CU
p3
•H
O
X
cu
r-l
O
CJ
cu
M
Cfl
•H
r-l
Cfl
r-l
tf)
4-1
O
03
3
00
3
u-i
•H
CJ
3
r-l
CO
•H
4-1
O
S
o
c
•H
-H
f-j
CU
CU
CO
•H
O
>1
s
CO
r4
cu
4-1
CJ
d
0
•H
CO
cfl
CO
3
4J
Cfl
CU
«r4
i— 1
CO
CO
3
0
CO
3
14-1
CO
3
O
•H
co
cu
4-1
a
-H
r-l
Cfl
CU
i-l
o
CO
3
S-l
3
•H
CD
cfl
CO
3
CU
cu
-H
O
CO
3
l-i
3
•H
CO
CO
rJ
CO
C/3
CO
cu
o
4-1
o
r-l
d
0
>,
CJ
o
M
PM
•H
g
l-l
CU
cfl
l-l
cu
4->
3
•&
CO
4->
d
cu
r-l
Cfl
r-l
CU
4->
co
3
s
•H
CO
O
•H
>
cfl
r-l
CU
4-1
CO
3
s
d
cu
*O
cfl
C
cfl
CJ
cfl
r-l
4-1
3
J
1-1
4-1
i-l
jd
a
cu
CO
1-1
4-1
T-l
rf
a
cu
a
E
01
CJ
cu
CO
d
cfl
r-l
4->
Cfl
i— 1
CO
•H
d
cfl
u
cfl
>
r-l
3
14-1
co
S
d
o
E
Cfl
4-J
o
Q
cfl
s
3
r-l
4-1
CO
r-l
1— 1
CU
T-l
U
CO
3
a
co
•H
cu
CD
3
4J
CO
•H
r-l
4-1
CO
co
CO
•H
E
cfl
H
d
•H
i— 1
O
V4
cfl
CJ
co
3
M
3
•H
CJ
to
•H
d
o
co
•o
3
rG
CO
3
J_|
3
•H
CJ
CO
cfl
-H
E
cfl
H
CO
3
a
M
_0
cfl
CO
CO
^
g
o
CJ
3
cfl
r-l
o
CO
•H
CD
d
cu
cfl
d
cfl
CJ
l-l
O
4J
CO
Cfl
O
E ^
Cfl rl
E cu
•O CU
O CU
co d
cu cu
i-l CO
o co
cu o
O. r-l
en o
cu
cfl
O •"
M 0
H c/>
O
W
trt
d
o
i-i
< Q)
pi a.
w co
H cu
c^
ai
S3
O
cu
cfl
3
d
o
-------
cfl
C CU
•H I-l
•O
Q)
>
!-l
01
cn
O P-i
en
cfl
4-1
cfl
X
U
x
x
X
i
I
u
c
3
0)
i-l
cfl
I-i
1
cfl
C
G
e
o
o
footed mouse
i
cu
4_)
•H
rf
s
ouse
redback vole
£ rH
CO
I-i 0)
0) IH
Q) O
O «
CU
i— I
O
^
o
•o
CO
01
23
4->
cfl
I-i
en
3
22
4-)
Cfl
^
cfl
5
O
mouse
cu
en
3
O
EC
nd jumping mouse
cfl
rH
rrj
O
o
3
0)
c
•I-l
Q.
3
O
I-i
O
P-I
cu
IH
Cfl
CU
O
-C
en
5
O
c
n cottontail
^
cu
4-1
en
cfl
w
P
01
01
-a
•H
cfl
4-1
0)
4J
•H
("!
5
1-1
o
4-1
CO
1-1
00
32
»•
C
T3
CU
•a
3
o
o
a
co
cu
•H
O
cu
o.
0)
cfl
u
•H
M-4
•H
4-1
C
01
•rH
U
Cfl
cfl
IH
Q)
en
3
4-1
CO
3
G.
0
0
3
0)
rH
CO
3
O
CO
ci
O
i-t
0)
CM
Cfl
rH
3
CJ
•H
C
gl-
en
3
U
en
^
e
0
^
cu
P-
3
•H
P
CU
a.
a
cfl
00
en
^*i
C
O
T-t
I-l
r*.
4-1
CU
rH
O
CJ
•H
C
cfl
>
^"i
en
c
c
01
a
en
4-1
o
p
o
•H
S
en
en
en
•H
-3
o
•H
r?
4-1
CU
•H
cfl
I-i
4J
Cfl
C
O
C
eo
3
O
•rH
60
CU
^
M
O
C
CO
3
4-J
4-1
Cfl
oc
•rH
en
C
•H
en
3
rH
3
CJ
en
3
e
en
23
en
3
a
cfl
o
cu
cfl
a.
cfl
Z
3
C
e
3
4-J
cfl
CD
P
O
•a
c
o
•rH
cf
4J
Q)
)-J
w
cfl
T3
CO
3
C
cfl
0
•rH
M
0)
E
cfl
co
0.
cu
•H
)H
O
rH
4-1
CO
3
00
cfl
rH
•rH
rH
Cfl
3
C
cfl
•H
0
•H
00
•H
^
CO
3
0)
rH
•H
O
CJ
O
s
0)
i-l
CO
^
|H
CO
DH
0)
4-1
CB
4.1
Cfl
4^1
I-l
O
Q-
S
cu
^
i-i
0
U-l
•a
0)
O> 4-1
cfl CO
T3 O
. CU
4J Cfl
C -a
O -rH
O 4-1
^~s O!
O
I-l
o
w
Q
O
0)
CO
T3
I
CU
cfl
O
ex
cfl
C
O
N
•rH
CU
i-l
w
0)
3
-o
•rH
iH
O
a
cu
C CO
01
3
+-> II
CO
4-> a!
Cfl >
CO
-------
APPENDIX L
Water Quality Data
-------
Wisconsin water quality standards (Wisconsin Administrative Code, NR 102.2).
Classification
Fish and
Aquatic Life
Intended Use
Support of balanced
communities of fish
and aquatic life
Parameter
Dissolved oxygen
Temperature
Standard (Criteria)
Wanawater fisheries - 5 mg/1
Trout streams - 6 ag/1 except
during spawning seasons, when
it should be 7 mg/1.
No changes that may adversely
affect aquatic life; maintain
daily and seasonal fluctu-
ations; rise at edge of mixing
zone not to exceed 5° F for
streams and 3° F for lakes;
not to exceed 89° F for warm
water fish. No artificial
increase is allowed in trout
waters.
pH
6.0 - 9.0 with no change
greater than 0.5 units out-
side estimated natural
seasonal maximum and minimum.
Other
Recreation
Bacteriological
guidelines
Public Water Supply
In addition to
above:
Dissolved solids
Other
Unauthorized concentrations
of substances are not per-
mitted that alone or in
combination with other
materials present are toxic
to fish or other aquatic life.
Membrane filter fecal coli-
form count not to exceed 200
per 100 ml as geometric mean
based on not less than 5
samples per month, or 400 per
100 ml in more than 10% of
all samples during any month.
Not to exceed 500 mg/1 as a
monthly average, or 750 mg/1
at any time.
Must meet Public Health Ser-
vice Drinking Water Standards,
1962. Concentrations of
other constituents must not
be hazardous to health.
-------
Wisconsin water standards (concluded).
Classification Intended Use Parameter
Intermediate
aquatic life (waters
not capable of sup-
porting a balanced
aquatic community).
Marginal surface
(effluent channels,
wetlands, diffuse
surface waters, and
„thers capable of
supporting only
tolerant species).
Dissolved oxygen
Bacteriological
guidelines
Chlorine
_Standard (Criteria)
Daily average not less than
3 mg/1.
(As above)
When used as a disinfectant,
not greater than 0.75 mg/1
at any point in the receiving
water.
Ammonia nitrogen Not greater than 3 mg/1 during
(as N) warm temperature conditions
or 6 mg/1 during cold tem-
peratures.
pH 6.0 - 9.0
Dissolved oxygen Not less than 2 mg/1.
Bacteriological
guidelines
Chlorine
(As above)
When used as a disinfectant,
not greater than 0.75 mg/1
at any point in the receiving
water.
-------
CO
S
T)
C
CO
cn
o>
<->
d
0)
c
0)
0)
I-l
0)
CO
(1)
CO
cn
00
oi
o
cu c
CO 0)
iJ CO
o'g
O VJ
I-l <1J
cfl JS
60 4-i
C O
cfl
& CO
CO
I-. CO
O —I
CO
13
E
C
co cn
3 4-1
tr c
M I
0) 01
4J 1-1
CO 3
3 in
T3 CD
0) S
i-l
o •
o) m
i—i r--
0) O\
cn —i
C
o
•H
-O 4J
l-j cfl
CO i-l
C ci)
cfl O
cn
a
0
r*"»
X
0
•a
0
t-t
o
CO
cn
Q
CN
OO
^-^
4J
U-4
f— |
— H
N.^/
1— 1
oo
o
oo
/— N
4J
UH
0
^
m
oo
>*
oo
oo
r\
ffi
a
CN
1— 1
o
^•^
4-1
U-l
o
,_<
^-/
cn
o
o
cn
o
o
^•^
4J
U-l
,—1
i— (
v-'
vO
«•
CSI
o
O
0
CSI
O
o
o
'oT
o
cfl
U-l
I-l
3
cn
^— '
<— *
o
o
vD
(—1
O
O
oo
CM
o
a
_4
O>
^H
co
C
OJ
60
O
l-i
+j
•H
J2
f—l
Cfl
^J
O
H
in
O
O
s~^
0)
o
cfl
U-l
1^
3
cn
•^^
«— i
o
o
^
o
0
^^
4-1
U-l
0
^-/
m
^
o
, — i
-^
o
00
cn
3
P
O
D.
cn
o
p t
r-<
CO
4-J
0
H
0
O
CN
cn
^^
4-1
U-l
O
I— 1
NH/
O
o
oo
CM
O
cn
oo
CN
^^
4-J
U-l
i— 1
^
O
cn
00
-^-
o
»^
cn
O r~
CN O
in
V— <
cn
O r-
CN O
m
r-t
^-s /™s
4J 4J
U-l U-l
O -H
—1 •— 1
CO C7N
oo ^
«-^
CM
O -<
CM m
*_i
CM
oo oo
*T3
>> 0)
•T-t "W
C -H
i-l *O
T— 1 -rH
CO .0
^ I-l
r-l 3
< H
•
cu
CO
I-l
60
•H
4-1
C
O)
u
cn
cu
0)
i-i
60
Ci)
t)
C
1-1
CU
I-l
3
4-1
Cfl
I-l
0)
Cu
E
0>
H
cfl
cn
4J
•H
C
3
?*•>
4-1
•H
•o
i-l
cn "£
4J 3
•H 4J
c
3 C
• • o
32 CO J° CO
n. o g ^
C E cfl cfl
•H 6 O "3
a: e co c
D, M O T3 CU
-------
Selected water quality data for Fish Creek (USEPA 1978b). Sam-
ples were taken between March 1976 and June 1976. Measurements
are in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
Number
Parameter of Samples Maximum
a
Temperature
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
BOD
pHb
Ammonia (NH )-N
NO and NO.,
Total Phosphorus
Fecal Coliform0
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
17.5
8.6
2.5
8.1
0.15
0.21
0.03
18.0
Minimum
0.0
7.6
2.4
7.9
0.05
0.02
0.015
10.0
Mean
8.4
8.3
2.4
8.0
0.077
0.067
0.023
52.5
Standard
Deviation
7.6
0.46
0.06
0.12
0.048
0.095
0.007
85.0
Q
Temperature in degrees centigrade.
pH in pH units.
Q
Fecal coliform in colonies/100ml.
-------
Selected water quality data for Heins Creek (USEPA 1978b). Sam-
ples were taken between March and August 1976. Measurements ar*e
in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
Numbe r
Parameter of Samples Maximum
Q
Temperature
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
BODC
5
PH"
Ammonia (NH )-N
NO and N0«
Total Phosphorus
Fecal Coliform0
6
6
5
4
6
6
6
6
18.1
9.5
4.0
8.0
0.50
0.50
0.04
120.0
Minimum
5.0
3.0
1.2
7.5
0.09
0.07
0.01
10.0
Mean
13.8
7.1
2.5
8.1
0.23
0.21
0.02
31.6
Standard
Deviation
5.5
2.8
1.0
0.19
0.014
0.17
0.012
44.0
o
Temperature in degrees centigrade.
pH in pH units.
£
Fecal coliform in colonies/100ml.
-------
Selected water quality data for Rieboldts Creek (USEPA 1978b).
Samples were taken between March 1976 and December 1976. Mea-
surements are in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
Parameter
a
Temperature
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
BOD
pHb
Ammonia (NH )-N
NO and N03
Total Phosphorus
Fecal Coliform0
Numbe r
of Samples
11
10
8
9
10
10
10
10
Maximum
22.0
10.0
5.3
8.6
1.5
0.23
0.14
30.0
Minimum
4.0
5.5
2.4
7.4
0.06
0.02
0.008
10.0
Mean
12.2
7.5
3.2
8.1
0.262
0.073
0.032
12.0
Standard
Deviation
6.5
1.3
0.87
0.41
0.44
0.066
0.038
6.3
o
Temperature in degrees centigrade.
pH in pH units.
p
Fecal coliform in colonies/lOOml.
-------
APPENDIX M
Aquatic Plants
-------
Aquatic plants observed in Lake Michigan bays adjacent to, or
near, the project area (Salamun and Stearns 1978).
Common Name Scientific Name
Arrowhead Sagittaria latifolia
Blue-joint Calamagrostis canadensis
Bullrush Scirpus validus
Bur-reed Sparganium eurycarpum
Common cattail Typha latifolia
Duckweed Lemna minor
Eel grass Vallisneria americana
Manna grass Glyceria borealis
Pondweed Potamogeton sp.
Reed Phragmites communis
Reed canary grass Phalaris arundinacea
Rushes Juncus spp.
Sedges Carex spp.
Spike rush Eleocharis spp.
Water milfoil Myriophyllum spp.
Water plantain Alisma plantago-aquatica
Water smartweed Polygonum natans
Wild rice Zizania aquatica
Yellow water lily Nuphar variegatum
-------
APPENDIX N
Fish Species Present in the Project Area
-------
Species of fish with distributional ranges that include project
area waters (Becker 1976).
Common Name
Scientific Name
Silver lamprey
Sea lamprey
Lake sturgeon
Alewife
Lake herring
Lake whitefish
Bloater
Coho salmon
Chinook salmon
Rainbow trout
Brown trout
Brook trout
Round whitefish
Rainbow smelt
Central mudminnow
Northern pike
Lake chub
Carp
Golden shiner
Common shiner
Spottail shiner
Sand shiner
Mimic shiner
Northern redbelly dace
Bluntnose minnow
Fathead minnow
Longnose dace
Creek chub
Ichthyomyzon unicuspis
Petromyzon marinus
Acipenser fulvescens
Alosa pseudoharengus
Coregonus artedii
Coregonus clupeaformis
Coregonus hoyi
Oncorhynchus kisutch
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Salmo gairdneri
Salmo trutta
Salvelinus namaycush
Prosopium cylindraceum
Osmerus mordax
Umbra limi
Esox lucius
Couesius plumbeus
Cyprinus carpio
Notemigonus crysoleucas
Notropis cornutus
Notropis hudsonius
Notropis stramineus
Notropis volucellus
Phoxinus eos
Pimephales notatus
Pimiphales promelas
Rinichthys cataractae
Semotilus atromaculatus
-------
Species of fish (concluded).
Common Name
Scientific Name
Longnose sucker
White sucker
Black bullhead
Brown bullhead
Channel catfish
Burbot
Banded ki Hi fish
Brook stickleback
Ninespine stickleback
Rock bass
Pumpkinseed
Bluegill
Smallmouth bass
Largemouth bass
Black crappie
Iowa darter
Johnny darter
Yellow perch
Walleye
Mottled sculpin
Fourhorn sculpin
Catostomus catostomus
Catostomus commersoni
Ictalurus melas
Ictalurus nebulosus
Ictalurus punctatus
Lota lota
Fundulus diaphanus
Culaea inconstans
Pungitius pungitius
Ambloplites rupestris
Lepomis gibbosus
Lepomis macrochirus
Micropterus dolomieui
Micropterus salmoides
Pomoxis nigromaculatus
Etheostoma exile
Etheostoma nigrum
Perca flavescens
Stizostedion vitreum vitreum
Cottus bairdi
Myoxocephalus quadricornis
-------
APPENDIX 0
Recreational Resources
-------
Public and private recreational resources in the project area (Door County
Chamber of Commerce 1978)
Baileys Egg Egg
Harbor Harbor Harbor
Activity Township Township Village
Theater
Music
Amusement park
Museum
Fishing
Horseback riding
Tennis (public)
Charter boats
Bicycle rental
Driving ranges
Miniature golf
Golf
Boat-motor rentals
Marinas /docking
Boat ramps
Swimming pools (public)
1
1
1 1
1 1 1
2
2
1
2 1 1
1 1
4
1
3 1 1
a
Ephraim Gibraltar
Village Township Toti
1 1
1 2
1 2
2
1 1 5
1 3
1 1 4
1
1 3 8
1 1
1 1 2
1 3
1 1 6
1 2
1 3 9
There are swimming pools located at most motels and resorts in the project area.
-------
APPENDIX P
Archaeological Sites
and
Field Survey Investigations
-------
Location of known archaeological sites in the study area (State
Historical Society of Wisconsin n.d.)- Exact location within the
section is not disclosed to insure site integrity.
Site Number
DR 1
DR 2
DR 3
DR 7
DR 11
DR 12
DR 72
DR 73
DR 90
Township
29N
29N
SON
SON
3 IN
SIN
30N
SIN
SON
Range
28E
28E
28E
26E
27E
27E
28E
28E
26E
Section
6
6
16
25
16
32
17
34
25
-------
APPENDIX P
Preliminary Field Evaluation of the Archaeological Potential
of Nine Sites in Door County, Wisconsin
1.0. INTRODUCTION
In October 1982, a preliminary archaeology study was conducted in
middle Door County, Wisconsin to assess the potential for archaeological
resources in the project area. Background information on the environmental
setting and cultural resources of the region was gathered from existing
documentation and a literature search was conducted to identify existing
aboriginal sites. Interviews were conducted with academic and state autho-
rities and local residents to gather further information, seek additional
existing site locations, and examine cultural materials representative of
the area. Finally, an onsite inspection was made at each of the nine
alternative treatment plant locations examined in the ER to observe spe-
cific environmental conditions and to examine the ground surface, when
visible, for exposed cultural debris.
The scope of the investigation was cursory and did not employ detailed
field reconnaissance or testing to determine the presence of cultural
materials. When favorable environmental conditions and knowledge of pre-
historic settlement patterns indicated the likelihood that a site could
exist at a specific location, the site was designated an archaeologically
"sensitive area." If actual physical evidence of cultural activity was
found, the location was designated a "site."
2.0. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Details of the climate, geology, soils, water resources and flora and
fauna of the project area are presented in the ER (Section 3.O.). Evalua-
tion of this information suggests that the project area was favorable for
settlement by aborginal peoples.
P-l
-------
Four environmental factors influenced settlement patterns in the
project area. First, glacial activity on the Door Peninsula created a
physical setting where micro-environments flourished. These diverse bio-
logical communities attracted and supported prehistoric groups. Secondly,
old beach ridges, isolated inland beaches (fossil beaches) and sand dunes
left by fluctuating lake levels were principal choices as habitation sites.
Access to water was a third factor affecting prehistoric settlement of the
area. Coastal occupations along shallow bays and inlets had easy access to
water transportation routes and offered safe havens from foul weather and
turbulent waters. A fourth consideration for settlement was climate.
Conditions on the Lake Michigan side of the peninsula are and were more
moderate and, therefore, more attractive for habitation, especially in
winter.
3.0. CULTURAL SETTING
Archaeological studies of North American divide cultural history into
the following phases:
Paleo-Indian 15,000 BC to 8,000 BC
Archaic 8,000 BC to 700 BC
Woodland 700 BC to 800 AD
Late Prehistoric 800 AD to 1634 AD
Historic 1634 AD to 1850 AD
A literature review was conducted to identify previously recorded
cultural resources within the study area and to identify any archaeological
investigations that had taken place in the vicinity. It included a review
of the National Register of Historic Places, the records of the State
Historic Preservation Division of the State Historical Society of Wiscon-
sin, archaeological data at Lawrence University in Appleton, Wisconsin, and
other relevant documentation for the area.
There are nine previously recorded archaeological sites located in, or
adjacent to the project area (Table 1 and ER Figure 3-15) . The Middle
Woodland phase (200 BC to 500 AD) is the earliest cultural affiliation
identified in the study area (Mero Site).
P-2
-------
Table 1. Previously recorded archaeological sites within the study area.
Site
Numbe r
DR1
DR2
DR3
DR7
DR11
DR72
DR73
DR90
Site Name
Heins Creek Burial
Heins Creek Site
Mud Bay Site
Shanty Bay Campsite
Erickson Village Site
Vicinity
Baileys Harbor
Baileys Harbor
Baileys Harobr
Egg Harbor
Fish Creek
Baileys Harbor
Baileys Harbor
Egg Harbor
Site Type
Burial
Village
Village
Cache
Camp
Camp
Village
Camp
DR83* Mero Site
North Bay
Prehistoric
Cultural
Affiliation
**
Late Wood-
land to Late
Prehistoric
**
**
**
**
Historic
(Potawato-
mie Indian)
Middle Wood-
land to Late
Prehistoric
Site located just north of the project area.
**
Prehistoric of unknown orgin.
P-3
-------
Except for the interest of a few avocational archaeologists, explora-
tion of the Door Peninsula was neglected until Dr. Ronald J. Mason and
Carol Irwin Mason began excavation at the Mero and Heins Creek sites in the
early 1960's. Archaeological investigations that have included the project
area are a coastal zone management study of the Lake Michigan shoreline in
Wisconsin (Fay 1978) and a coastal corridor study of Green Bay (Overstreet
1980). Other smaller reconnaissance surveys have been undertaken in the
region for wastewater facilities plans, highways, and US Army Corps of
Engineer projects. No surveys specific to the upper Door Peninsula have
been conducted (By telephone Mr. William Green, Archaeologist, Wisconsin
State Historic Preservation Office, and Ms. Joan Freeman, Curator of An-
thropology, State Historical Society of Wisconsin, to Ms. L. Scheurer,
WAPORA, Inc.).
In April 1982, M. L. Staab conducted an archaeological investigation
at a proposed treatment plant location as part of the 1982 Facilities Plan
Addendum. The site is located east of Fish Creek (community) on the level
upland overlooking Fish Creek (stream). Several flint and stone flashes
were discovered during a preliminary survey, but later testing of the site
did not locate any further evidence of occupation. The project was recom-
mended for clearance at this location.
Based on the existing information on archaeological sites in the
project area and a general review of the cultural setting of the Great
Lakes Region (Mason 1981, Mason 1966, Bertrand 1976, Caldwell 1978 and
Brose 1976), it was concluded that in upland areas it is most probable that
archaeological evidence will be small isolated finds of cultural materials.
Coastal areas, however, will produce sites that are long term, intermittent
occupations, and represent a variety of different uses. Sand ridges and
fossil beaches seem to have been preferred as habitation sites.
Based on the environmental and cultural setting, it is likely that the
nine previously recorded sites represent only a small percentage of those
existing on the Door Peninsula.
P-4
-------
4.0. FIELD INSPECTION
i
On October 12, 1982, a personal visit was made to interview Dr. Ronald *
J. Mason at Lawrence University in Appleton, Wisconsin. The existing
archaeological excavations on the Door Peninsula were discussed and ma-
terial from the excavations were carefully examined for the cultural at-
tributes. Other personal interviews were conducted with local residents,
Door County Sheriff's Deputy Al Birnschein, and State Forester Harry Por-
ter. Ray Lukes, Resident Manager of the Ridges Santuary and the librarian
at the Gibraltar Library and Community Center are local authorities on the
history of the project area, but attempts to contact them failed.
On October 13 and 14, 1982, the field inspecton was performed. Weath-
er conditions were excellent. A total of nine sites were inspected - three
near Egg Harbor, three near Fish Creek, one near Ephraim, and two near
Baileys Harbor.
Land use at the sites included a white pine plantation, agriculture,
oldfields, upland and wetland forests, fossil beaches, and sand ridges.
Surface visibility in the forested areas, oldfields, plantations and cov-
ered agricultural land was poor (Sites No. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9). The
agricultural land planted in corn and the old beach areas had good surface
visibility (Sites No. 2 and 8). A summary of the present land use, archae-
ological potential and recommendations for further investigation of each
site are presented in Table 2.
5.0. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AND SENSITIVE AREAS
Based on the background data and the field inspections, one site was
identifed as an archaeological site and two were identified as sensitive
areas.
P-5
-------
CO
C
O
•H
4-1
CS
TJ
C
Q)
B
a
0
o
0)
Pi
Ml
C
•H
4-1
CO
cu
H
cn
QJ
>*
>>
QJ
>
VJ
3
CO
0)
>•<
o
53
o
53
o
2;
o
55
O
53
O
a
o
53
o
53
CO
CU
CO
CD
CO
CD
o
•H
4J
CO
U
O
C
cfl
I
O QJ
rH >-> >
O rH -H CO
01 rH 4-» Cfl
CO cfl -H CU
£ O W VJ
O -H C <
VJ &o cu
QJ
rH
w
0
VJ
o
ti
cd
rJ
QJ
60
cO QJ
-H B
rH Cfl
•rl 53
VJ
QJ
CO
Jxi
^ O
CJ O
O VJ
VJ
•x3 -a
QJ C
PQ ct)
O
00
t> A! ^ CU
QJ CJ £6 U
co o a co
O Vj O 4-1
ft T3 VJ VJ
X QJ 3
W 43 ^ co
VJ
O
43
60 VJ
60 cfl
w rc
T3
rH C
QJ cfl
> rH
0) P.
rJ 3
0
LO
rH a
CU CO
> rH
cu ex
i-J 3
60 VJ 60 VJ
60 Cfl 60 cfl
W ffi W 33
13
rH C
CU CO
> rH
cu cx
i-J 3
,C QJ
cn cu
•H VJ
fc O
O
rH
Q) &.
rJ 3
O
rH
QJ CX
rJ 3
43 QJ 42 QJ
cn CU Cfl CU
•H VJ -H VJ
pTj rj fct-i rj
•H
4-1
rH
1 cfl
*>*> *H
B cJ
tfl cfl
O rH
J 60
O
O
-a
rH C
0) cfl
> rH
Q) CX
e
•H
cfl
VJ
f:
cx
W
^
,C
CJ
CO
QJ
O
O
rH
•H
CO
CO
O
W
px,
Q)
rH
•H
CO
«
00
"O
a
CO
CO
r^
CJ
cfl
QJ
^
O
o
VJ
CO
ffi
J>-j
-a B
C cfl
cfl o
C/l i — 1
O
o
rH
•H 42
CO CJ
Cfl CO
O QJ
fe 43
cn
>, VJ
Q) O
rH 43
•H VJ
Cfl cfl
PQ ra
0\
rH
QJ
QJ
rH
cfl
QJ
CO
cu
o
43
tfl
1
J
•
C/}
•K
P-6
-------
Baileys Harbor Site
Site No. 8 is located just north of the community of Baileys
Harbor along the west side of Route 57 and near the center of
Section 7. It is an area of exposed beach sand with sparse
vegetation of primarily small white pines. In the west, the site
slopes down to a forested wetland known as the Baileys Harbor
Swamp. Approximately 0.25 miles to southeast is the Ridges
Sanctuary, a National Natural Landmark.
Surface visibility was good for most of the site area. Where
vegetation was not present, erosion of the ground surface had
created depressions. Cultural material was observed in nearly
all of the depressions checked.
The sand was white except in isolated spots where it ap-
peared red to yellowish brown in color. These spots were pre-
sumed to have been burned because charcoal is known to have been
available in the vicinity.
An assortment of cultural debris was noted at the site
including large mammals bones, fish bones, chert flakes (some
utilized), thinning flakes, decertification flakes, and vast
quantities of local chert. No prehistoric ceramics or diago-
nostic artifacts were found. Historic glass and metal also
occurred on the surface with the lithic and bone debris.
Dr. Mason had indicated during the interview (personal
communication, to Ms. L. Scheurer, WAPORA, Inc., October 1982)
that this area is archaeologically sensitive and could produce
archaeological materials.
Because historic debris was observed, local authorities were
contacted for information on dumping sites and possible historic
disturbances. The Deputy Sherrif and a State Forester knew of no
historic occupation or disturbance in this area.
The location of site No. 8 is being filed with the State
Historical Society of Wisconsin as a designated archaeological
site.
Baileys Harbor Sensitive Area
Site No. 9 is located just north of the community of Baileys
Harbor between Route 57 and County Road Q in the south central
part of Section 9. A heavily forested, rocky, fossil beach lies
to the east just above Baileys Harbor Swamp. It rises in several
separate progressions to a level open area. Recent gravel roads
have been constructed on the level areas, possibly for future
development. A few residences are scattered at the forest edge.
Vegetation prevented a good view of the ground surface.
Environmental conditions indicate that it is a favorable area for
prehistoric occupation, therefore, this area was designated as
archaeologically sensitive.
P-7
-------
Egg Harbor Sensitive Area
Site No. 1 is located approximately 1.0 mile north of the
Village of Egg Harbor in Section 2k. It is east of Route 42 and
west of the residential road that runs along the coast between
Egg Harbor and Judd Bay.
At Site No. 1, the land surface is very rocky and barely
forested. To the west is the shear face of the glacial escarp-
ment. To the east are residential structures that have frontage
on Green Bay. A cache of flint tools was discovered a short
distance from this location indicating prehistoric man's presence
in the immediate area. Environmental conditions indicate it
might have been attractive site for habitation. It has therefore
been designated as an archaeologally sensitive area.
6.0. SUMMARY
A literature search identified nine known archaeological sites in the
project area. None of these will be affected by any of the proposed alter-
natives. No systematic survey to locate and identify archaeological re-
sources has been conducted in the area. Based on the environmental and
cultural setting there is good reason to believe that the known sites
represent only a small percentage of those existing on the Door Peninsula.
A field inspection was made of the nine treatment plant locations
evaluated in the ER as part of this preliminary archaeological study. The
onsite inspections discovered one archaeological site just north of Baileys
Harbor (Site No. 8). Two areas were identified as archaeologically sensi-
tive and have the potential for producing cultural materials: one in the
vicinity of Egg Harbor (Site No. 1) and another near Baileys Harbor (Site
No. 9). The other six proposed treatment plant sites do not demonstrate
any archaeological potential.
P-8
-------
7.0. LITERATURE CITED
Bertrand, G., J. Lang, and J. Ross. 1976. The Green Bay watershed past/
present/future. Univ. of Wisconsin Sea Grant College Program. Tech-
nical Report #229. Madison WI, 300p.
Brose, D.S. 1978. Late prehistory of the Upper Great Lakes Area. _In
Sturtevant, W.C. and B.C. Triggen (editors). 1978. Handbook of North
American Indians, Northeast, Vol 15. Smithsonian Institute, Wash-
ington, D.C.
Caldwell, J.R. 1958. Trend and tradition in the prehistory of the eastern
United States. Memoir 88, American Anthropological Association.
Fay, R.P. 1978. A records and literature search of archaeological sites
in Wisconsin counties located witin the Lake Michigan costal zone.
State Historical Society of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.
Mason, R.J. 1966. Two stratified sites on the Door Peninsula of Wis-
consin. Anthropological Papers, No. 26. Museum of Athropology,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Mason R.J. 1981. Great Lakes archaeology. Academic Press, N.Y.
Overstreet, D.F. 1980. Archaeological survey of Green Bay coastal corri-
dor, Vol I, and Vol. II. Report of Investigations No. 87, Great Lakes
Archaeological Research Center, Inc., Waukesha, WI.
Staab, M.L. 1982. Archaeological survey of a proposed treatment plant
site, Fish Creek, Door County, Wisconsin. (unpublished).
P-9
-------
APPENDIX Q
Sites of Historical or Architectural Significance
-------
Sites of historical or architectural significance in the project
area (Department of Interior, Heritage Conservation and Recre-
ation Service 1979; State Historical Society of Wisconsin n.d.;
Land Plans Inc. 1973)
Site
Number
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
-15
16
Site Name
Cana Island Lighthouse
Eagle Bluff Lighthouse
Levi Thorp (Cupola) House
St. John the Baptist
Catholic Church
Inverson House
Moravian Church
Pioneer School House
Round-log House
Anderson Store
Anderson House
Village Hall
Moravian Cemetery
White Gull Inn
Church of the Atonement
Asa Thorp House/Cabin
Frame Inn
Site Location
Cana Island, 4 miles NE of
Baileys Harbor
Eagle Bluff, 3.5 miles N of
Fish Creek
7836 Egg Harbor Rd., Egg Harbor
Egg Harbor Rd, S of School St.
Egg Harbor
Cherry and Moravia Sts., Ephraim
Moravia St., S of Cherry St.
Ephraim
Moravia St., Ephraim
Norway St., Ephraim
STH 42 near Anderson Lane, Ephraim
STH 42 near Anderson Lane, Ephraim
STH 42 at Pioneer Lane, Ephraim
Willow and Norway Sts., Ephraim
Main St., Fish Creek
Main St. and Cottage Row, Fish Creek
Main St., Fish Creek
Main St., Fish Creek
-------
Sites of historical or architectural significance (concluded).
Site
Number Site Name
17 Noble House
18 Horseshoe Bay Farm-Barn
19 Stone outbuilding
20 Large Log Barn
21 Log house
22 Peninsula Players Theatre
23 Buckbinder House
24 Two farm outbuildings of
vertical logs
25 Log outbuilding
26 Early picturesque stone
house
27 Log outbuildings
28 Fieldstone barn
29 Site of School #1
30 Barn with stovewood wing
31 Vertical log farm
outbuildings
32 Carrington (Toft) House
33 Log house
34 Boynton House and Chapel
(Bjorkbinden Chapel)
Site Location
STH 42, Fish Creek
Sec 3, T29N, R26E, Town of Egg Harbor
of NF^;, Sec 2, T29N, R27E,
Town of Jacksonport
of SWJs, Sec 5, T29N, R27E,
Town of Jacksonport
of SEk, Sec 36, T30N, R26E,
Town of Egg Harbor
of SEJt, Sec 7, T30N, R27E,
Town of Gibraltar
, Sec 7, T30N, R27E,
Town of Gibraltar
% of SW%, Sec 8, T30N, R27E,
Town of Gibraltar
k of NWJ£, Sec 8, T30N, R27E,
Town of Gibraltar
of NWJj;, Sec 10, T30N, R27E,
Town of Gibraltar
of NEJz;, Sec 23, T30N, R27E,
Town of Baileys Harbor
of SWJ* Sec 23, T30N, R27E,
Town of Baileys Harbor
SW% of NW^, Sec 36, T30N, R27E,
Town of Baileys Harbor
NEh; of SE5&, Sec 31, T30N, R27E,
Town of Egg Harbor
of NWJj, Sec 31, T30N, R27E,
Town of Egg Harbor
STH 57, Baileys Harbor
SE% of NWh;, Sec 31, T30N, R28E,
Town of Baileys Harbor
of NWJs, Sec 32, T30N, R28E,
Town of Baileys Harbor
-------
Sites of historical or architectural significance (continued)
Site
Number Site Name
35 Large gambrel-roofed
log barn
36 Ridges Sanctuary-Tofts
Point-Mud Lake Area
37 Craft Mart
38 Lime kiln
39 Dorn Farm
40 Stovewood and log house
41 Log house
42 Stovewood barn
43 Toft Stovewood barn
44 Partial log house
45 Stovewood barn
46 Barn
47 Barn
48 Store (circa 1880)
49 Store
50 Schram Saloon
51 Hotel (circa 1875)
52 Blacksmith shop (circa 1900)
53 Zahn House (circa 1900)
54 Langs Resort
(1880s grocery store)
Site Location
of SE^, Sec 36, T31N,
Town of Gibraltar
Eh, Sec 17, T30N, R28E,
Town of Baileys Harbor
R27E,
of SE%, Sec 18, T31N,
Town of Liberty Grove
of SW%, Sec 18, T31N,
Town of Liberty Grove
of SW^s, Sec 29, T31N,
Town of Liberty Grove
of SEk, Sec 30, T31N,
Town of Liberty Grove
of NWij, Sec 35, T31N,
Town of Baileys Harbor
of HE!*, Sec 31, T31N,
Town of Baileys Harbor
Baileys Harbor
Baileys Harbor
Baileys Harbor
Baileys Harbor
Baileys Harbor
Baileys Harbor
Baileys Harbor
Baileys Harbor
Baileys Harbor
Baileys Harbor
Baileys Harbor
Ephraim
R28E,
R28E,
R28E,
R28E,
R28E,
R28E,
-------
Sites of historical or architectural significance (continued).
Site
Numbe r
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
Site Name
Edgewater Hotel
Oneson Cottage (circa 1853)
First post office
(circa 1872)
Sohn's Grocery (originally
blacksmith shop)
Lutheran Church
Kendall Property
Original site of
Moravian Church
Hillside Resort
Hannah Valentine Home
First Ephraim school
Iverson Stone Wall
Evergreen Beach Hotel
Evenson Home Site
Olson Home (circa 1860)
Langhoer Home
Zacharis Home site
Former Lutheran
Cemetery Site
Former Pier site
Peterson Home site
Water supply spring
Pilot Island Lighthouse
Indian Memorial Pole
Baileys Harbor Tower
Site Location
Ephraim
Ephraim
Ephraim
Ephraim
Ephraim
Ephraim
Ephraim
Ephraim
Ephraim
Ephraim
Ephraim
Ephraim
Ephraim
Ephraim
Ephraim
Ephraim
Ephraim
Ephraim
Ephraim
Ephraim
Pilot Island,
Peninsula Sta
Ridges Sanctu
and Range Residence
-------
Sites of historical or architectural significance (concluded).
Site
Number Site Name Site Location
78 Founder's Square Fish Creek
79 Proud Mary Hotel Fish Creek
80 Alpine Resort Egg Harbor
81 Toft Log House and SE% of NW^, Sec 15, T30N, R28E,
Outbuildings Town of Baileys Harbor
82 Log house SW^ of SWJj;, Sec 32, T30N, R27E,
Town of Egg Harbor
83 Stovewood barn NEh; of SW>«, Sec 1, T30N, R27E,
Town of Gibraltar
84 Fieldstone barns SW% of SW^, Sec 20, T31N, R28E
Town of Liberty Grove
85 Log barns SE^ of NE%, Sec 33, T31N, R27E
Town of Gibraltar
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (5PL-16)
230 S. Dearborn Street, ROOJB 1670
Chicago, IL 60604
------- |