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-
 »§
               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

-------