-------
For a nearly maximum level of protection of aquatic life, the pH should
be maintained between 6.5 and 8.5 and no change greater than 0.5 units
above or below the natural seasonal maximum and minimum values should be
introduced.

The allowable ranges for high, moderate and low levels of protection are
specified as follows:
High Level
Moderate Level
Low Level
pH 6-9         change less than +_0.5 units
pH 6-9         change less than +1.0 units
pH 5.5-9.5     change less than +1.5 units
In addition, it is recommended that the total alkalinity of the waters
not be decreased more than 25% below the natural levels.

With respect to Badfish Creek, it should be noted that both the average
yearly pH and the average summer pH for the Creek are roughly the same
indicating very little photosynthetic activity present either before or
after diversion of the effluent into the creek.  In general, it can be
said that the treated effluent acted to lower the pH of the stream
roughly 0.5 units along its entire length.  Thus diversion had no detri-
mental effects on the pH regime of the stream and nearly maximum levels
of protection were provided before and after diversion.

The effect of the Badfish Creek flow on the Yahara River after diversion
can be viewed as beneficial in that it resulted in reduction of pH
downstream of the confluence.  The extremely high summer pH values in
the Yahara prior to diversion (9.06-9.20) were reduced to more acceptable
values (8.09-8.59) following diversion of the effluent.

The lower pH values in the Yahara River after diversion show a result-
ing reduction in the pH of the Rock River.  However, it should be noted
that there was also a slight decline in pH present in those streams and
portions of streams not subjected to the MMSD effluent.  Therefore, it
is likely that a portion of the pH reduction noticed in all cases, is
attributable to the difference between the rainfall patterns and stream
flows in the periods compared.

The information presented in Volume V, Appendix F of MMSD's facilities
plan indicated that the addition of nitrification, chlorination and
dechlorination treatment steps would result in a slight lowering of the
effluent pH in the future.  The proposed facilities will provide for
an adequate level of protection for the receiving stream from an pH
standpoint since the effluent must allow for a pH of between pH 6-9
in Badfish Creek in order to meet pH criteria for the stream.
                               5-28

-------
         (9) Dissolved Solids and Hardness

Total dissolved solids (TDS) are a quantitative measure of the concen-
tration of dissolved minerals in the water. The background dissolved
solids characteristics of the Badfish Creek, and the Yahara and Rock
Rivers and the Wisconsin River are, in all probability, determined
by the TDS concentration of the groundwaters in the area which seep
into the stream directly and are also discharged to the stream after
human use.

The total dissolved solids content of the MMSD sewage effluent, however,
is expected to be noticeably higher than both the groundwater and the
receiving streams since the sewage is heavily influenced by the large
quantities of salt brine (NaCl) which result from the regeneration of
zeolite home water softeners.  The discharge from the Oscar Mayer plant
also contains high levels of salt (NaCl) which contribute to the higher
TDS content of the effluent as shown in Section 4.02 of Volume I of
MMSD's facilities plan.

Recommendations in Water Quality Criteria are extremely general and
state that "total dissolved materials should not be changed to the
extent that biological communities characteristic of the particular
habitat are changed."

The range of TDS change that will cause damage to the aquatic community
is not well defined.  It has been reported in the 1972 edition of Water
Quality Criteria that the upper limit of allowable concentrations to pro-
tect freshwater fish from osmotic stress is between 5000 and 10,000 mg/1.
Thus a considerable margin of safety would seem present in Badfish Creek
since concentrations in the Creek range from approximately 525-1127 mg/1
and concentrations in the effluent from Nine Springs Sewage Treatment
Plant ranged from 739-1079 mg/1.

The 1968 edition of Water Quality Criteria recommends that TDS concentra-
tions in the receiving stream not be increased by more than one-third of
the natural concentration.

McKee and Wolf, however, in the 1968 Edition of California Water Quality
Criteria report that the natural osmotic pressure of the blood of most
freshwater fishes is roughly equivalent to six atmospheres, or 7000 mg/1,
of sodium chloride.  This same reference reports that freshwater fish have
been found to live well in sea water diluted to this level.

It is apparent that there is little or no agreement on the specific limit-
ing concentrations of TDS that are required in order to protect fish and
aquatic life.  There would seem to be a consensus of opinion, however,
that rapid changes in TDS concentrations would definitely have harmful
effects from an osmotic pressure standpoint.
                              5-29

-------
The biological survey conducted by the University of Wisconsin as a part
of this facilities plan found no drastic differences in the fish conrouni-
ties in the Yahara River above and below the discharge of Badfish Creek.
It can, therefore, be assumed that the increased salinity in the Yahara
River below its confluence with the creek did not appreciably affect the
aquatic community.

There are no economically available methods for reducing the TDS concentra-
tion of water.  Therefore, no additional levels of treatment can be recom-
mended for this purpose and the TDS levels in the effluent can be expected
to remain essentially the same as at present.

         (10) Oils and Tainting Substances

Oils in a receiving stream may be in the form of floating oils or emulsi-
fied oils which eventually settle and become part of the sediments.  Oils
as such are not a common concern in secondary sewage effluents since most
oils are adequately broken down by the micro-organisms in a biological
treatment system.  Vegetable oils and common greases are, however, present
in sewage and small quantities are contained in a sewage effluent.  In
general, the oils escape as either floating scum or as oil and grease
attached to solid particles of biological floe.

Typical oil and grease concentrations found in the Nine Springs effluent
characterization program range from 0-35 p.p.m. with the higher values
associated with higher sewage flows and lessened removal efficiencies.

Floating oil and grease can be adequately removed by effective skinning
of the effluent as suggested for protection of the aesthetic use of the
receiving waters.

Since emulsified oils and greases are commonly attached to solid particles,
they should be effectively removed by the filtration of the effluent which
is required from a recreational use and dissolved oxygen standpoint.

One of the most frequent chemical groups associated with tainting of fish
flesh by sewage effluent are phenolic compounds.

It has been reported that phenol concentrations of 0.1 mg/1 in sewage have
had a detrimental effect on the palatability of freshwater fish.

Total phenol concentrations in the Nine Springs effluent were found to
range from 0.005 mg/1 to 0.210 mg/1 during the effluent characterization
survey.  The average value for the highest 24-hour composite was 0.089 mg/1.
Thus, the average effluent concentration could be expected to be less than
the 0.1 mg/1 found to cause fish flesh tainting.

Data on phenol levels in the receiving waters are very limited.
                               5-30

-------
It is not anticipated that the concentration of phenolic materials in the
receiving waters are causing a fish flesh tainting problem at the present
time, nor that such a problem will exist in the future.

No additional levels of treatment are recommended to protect the fish life
in the receiving stream from tainting caused by phenolic compounds.

         (11) Ammonia Nitrogen

According to the Mackenthun study discussed in Chapter 2 of this EIS, the
Oregon Sewage Treatment Plant affected inorganic nitrogen levels in
Badfish Creek prior to diversion.  The study also shows that inorganic
nitrogen concentrations and volumes (particularly of ammonia nitrogen)
increased significantly after diversion with concentrations decreasing
moving downstream.

As discussed in Chapter 2 of this EIS, present ammonia nitrogen levels in
Badfish Creek currently exceed recommended limits for protection of fish
and aquatic life from toxicity.

The effluent limits proposed by the WENR are expected to provide for full
protection of fish and aquatic life in all reaches of Badfish Creek.  The
0.02 mg/1 maximum un-ionized ammonia limit would not be violated.

         (12) Heavy Metals

Numerous heavy metals found in the Madison Sewage effluent are known to
have detrimental effects on fish and aquatic life in a receiving stream
if present in toxic concentrations.

Table 5-4 is a comparison of the heavy metal concentrations found in the
Nine Springs effluent with allowable concentrations in the receiving
stream found to be necessary for the protection of fish and aquatic life.

It should be noted that in most cases the allowable concentrations
specified for the protection of fish and aquatic life are much lower
and more stringent than those allowable for the protection of drinking
water for livestock and humans.

The referenced allowable standards have been taken, where available, from
the recommendations contained in the "Freshwater Aquatic Life Section"
of the 1972 edition of Water Quality Criteria.  Where no recommendations
were available, in that report, the listed values were taken from the
recommendations contained in the 1968 edition of Water Quality Criteria
by McKee and Wolf.  In those cases where recommendations were not found
in either report, the listed value represents the lowest concentration
found to be necessary, in either of the reports, for protection of any
member of the aquatic community felt to be a potential inhabitant of the
                              5-31

-------
       w

       h-1
       J

       CJ
       M
       H


       cr


       Q
       ffl
       C/J
       M
       fc
    co
    2  Pn
    O  O
    H
    H  Z
    <1  O
    P5  t—I
    H  H
    Z  CJ
    W  W
    CJ  H
    Z  O
    O  PS
    CJ  PL,
   <  o

   w
W S  LO
i—1     W
LO
H
    w >

       w

    o m

    c o
    CO i—1
    l-l 1-J
    Pi <
    o
    CJ
       H
       Z
       w
       w
       o
       OS
       PH
       CO

       w
       Z



















E
n
E
••-
re
21




















C
o
4-1
c
E
i_
CJ
4_»
CU
a
WO
CJ
O
c:
CJ
CJ
<)
CJ
C£
C
0
1) CJ +->
-a r— 
CJ
4-> !- 4->
CO 3 -.—
CJ O to
-C -C 0
cn i CL
•r- *r E
Z 0
0

CJ
Cn CJ
s_ • —
CJ O
»
,^





1 —
TJ
-t->
a>
2:



•a
3
CO
CJ
.rr
^j
i_
3
Li-





ra




.^
cn
E

O
•—
o


Cn
cn
O
O

-^,
CO
E
*3-
*3-
CO
o




E
3
c
T-
E
3
r—
<
C
a
o
c
o
CJ

o
"


r—

r>.
.a




.^
cn
£

O
co
o


cn
E
O
O
CM
0

cn
E
cr>
CO
O
O




>•>
c
o
E
-r-
4-i
cz
«t
CJ
LJ
o
u

o
•z.





J2




-^
cn
E

i —
•—
O


0
co
o
o

cn
E
r^
CO
0
o





0
•r—
C
o
to
l_
<
c
o
o
c
o
u

o
*





ja




—
cn
E


O
LO


cn
E
0
CM
r-

	
cn
e
LTJ
CO
U3
O






E
3
•/—
U
re
ca
c
CJ
c
0
o

o
z


CM

°°
-a




-^
cn
E

LO
<—
0


cn
E
O
0
o

cn
CD
0
O
V



E
3
•r-
i —
>>
i-
CJ
£O
CJ
C
o
u

o
Z


ro

o3
J3




^_
cn
E



0
o
CM
cn
E
0
0

cn
i —
0
0
^






cz
o
&~
o
ca
c
i-
o
c
o
0

o
Z





nj




^^
cn
E

ro
0
o


cn
E
CD
O
0

cn
E
CD
O
CD
•v/




E
3
•f—
E
-o
IXJ
o
c
CJ
c:
0
u

o
55





re




^^
cn
E

LO
O
o


cn
O
ID
0
O

cn
E
i —
CD
CD
	 ^

^-^
E
3
•i—
E
O
S-
f~
CJ
3 3
CO i- to
OJ
cj c: CJ
-C O -C
4-> O t->
S- l-
303
U. Z U.


Vl- LO

o3 o3
,
3
4->
CO
S*.
CJ
^:
4~>
S-
3
LL.


LO

«0
re




, 	
^^.
cn
3

O
CM


cn
3
co
IO
LO

cn
3
CM
CM
CM





>^
i.
3
O
s_
CU
i;
c
S-
CJ
c
0
u

o
z:


r~~

«a
^a




,_
^^^
cn
E


LO


cn
E
i — '
0
o
o

cn
E
O
o
o
x/


E
3
C
lU
•o
ja
>^
r—
O
12
c
i_
CJ
c
o
o

0
•z.


CO

«3
re




,_
^.
cn
E

•—
O


cn
E
LO
LO
O
o

cn
E
CM
O
O






r—
O
Jl^
o
•r»
2=
O
O
c;
O
o

o
2:


C71

«a
X)




^
cn
E

LO
CM
O


cn
E
O
O

cn
E
i —
*j-
o
o




E
3
•r-
c
CJ
1—
CU
(/)
>>
~o
aj
j=
4J
s_
3
U.

o


o3
Jd



»-
cn
E

oo
o
o
o


cn
E
0
O
O

cn
E
CO
o
o
o






s-
OJ
>
1—
.f~
00
c
CJ
(J
c
o
u

o
•z.

I—
r-

«S
n




, 	
^^.
cn
£Z

Cxi
,_


cn
E
O
O
0
N/
cn
E
o
o
o
^








c
,fm
I—
C
CJ
c
0
o

o
Z

CM
r—

«s
n




r—
*^^
a>
E

O
cn


cn
E
O
O

-~»
CO
E
i —
0
o
v^



E
3
«,~
•a
re
c
re
>
>.
X)
3
4~*
CO
S-
CJ
.c
Jrl
l_
3
U-

co
,_

oO
re




C^
cn
E

O
•—
o


cn
E
CO
LO
o

cn
E
LO
cn
O
O








t_>
C
.r_
M
                                                           5-32

-------
                  >>
                  E
                  O
o
o
LTi
w
                  c
                  o
                                                       c

                                                       >
c
0)
o
on
o
e
OJ
~o

ni
S
XJ
ro
.c

c
-^

GJ
XI
•r-
X
O
QJ
(XJ
X)
!_
fO

C
'r-

OJ
X!
.,—
S-
o
1 —


+J
3
0
i.
4->

?
O
_Q
O
C
o
0
t.
ex

s-
o
f-

-
1 —
3
O-
0
O-

X3
O
0
en

_c
-f->
•r-
3

rj-
t^
r—
.
O-

>>
s_
3

it)
-°
a)
i —
\^
0
••-
i/> in
t- I—
a. c: s- oj
o o >
TO
a
c
*tj
*
en
c
"w
3
I/I
3:
O
C
c
T—
=
T3
^
O
C
0
Tl
o
D
TO
o
s_
CL
£

3;
C
c
E

"C
TO
CJ
JZ
<:
<»-

i_








c
tH
D_i

CO
(1)
4J
*H
fH
•H
0
cd

tn

p
rn
                         PO


                         en
                         3

                         O'
                                     ca

                                     E
      C     !-
      O     QJ     C ^^


      rsl     C       O



      o     ,          s
                    E



                    O
                               X



                               o
                               c
                               o
c
o
c
o
c
o
c •<-
o <->
c
o
c
o
c
o
                                                                                            c
                                                                                            o
                                                             -S.    -u
                                                            •a    c
                                                             t-    oj
                                                                                            «3

                                                                                           X3
c     •=.
o     o
c
o
                                                                  CJ
                                                                  E
c:
o
                                                                          X
                                                                         •H
                 QJ
                QL
                                                                                                              O
                                                                                                             CO
                                                              5-33

-------
receiving waters under consideration.  Likewise, values used reflected
hard water conditions in each case since the receiving streams in the
area are hard water streams.

The source of the reference is listed in each case and in those cases
where no recommendation is available in either report, further references
are given as to the basis of the value listed in the table.

The last column in the table shows the determination made as a result of
the comparison.  It should be noted that where the highest concentration
found in any of the 4-hour composites is lower than the allowable value
in the stream, there is no concern that the effluent will adversely
affect the receiving stream; thus these parameters determined to be in
need of further study are those where either the average concentration
or the maximum concentration exceed the allowable values.

Table 5-5 is a comparison of heavy metals in the effluent which are found
to require further study with the concentrations of those same metals
found in the receiving streams of the area which are not affected by the
effluent discharge.

It should be noted that concentrations of many of the elements are higher
in some of the natural streams than they are in the effluent.

For instance, the Rutland Branch of Badfish Creek was described by
Magnuson and Herbst (1975) as a pristine stream.  Yet the data collected
shows the concentrations of certain metals including aluminum, copper,
mercury and zinc to exceed, at times, the average values found in the
Nine Springs effluent.  Likewise, the waters of Spring Creek, another
rather natural tributary, contain concentrations of copper, mercury and
zinc which are both in excess of the average concentrations found in the
sewage effluent.

It is apparent that the average concentrations present in the MMSD efflu-
ent are not decidedly toxic.

The allowable values assigned for each parameter in Tables 5-4 and 5-5 are
those values, which if present in the stream, on a consistent basis, would
protect the aquatic life from chronic long-term toxicity.  The values are
usually arrived at by taking a reported concentration  (TLm or LC50) at
which 50% of the test individuals were killed in some time (24-96 hrs.)
and then multiplying that value by applying a factor of  from 1/50 to 1/100
of that value to protect against chronic or longterm toxicity.

Fish and other forms of aquatic life are able to withstand higher concen-
trations than those allowed for shorter periods of time  without severe
detrimental effects, provided that the absolute change in concentration
is not too abrupt, and the  individual species have time  to acclimate to a
gradually increasing concentration.
                               5-34

-------
    to
    c
    o
    •I—
    4->  tO
    1X3  E
    S-  10
    +J  QJ
    C  i-
    01 +j
    o co
    c
    o •—
    C_J  ro
        S-
    i—  3
    CT3 +J
    ••->  ro
    QJ Z

       •o
LO  >>  C
 I  >  fO
Lf)  re
    OJ 4->
 QJ  IT  C
r-      O)
-O  T3  3
 ro   <+-
    O 4-
    oj uj
    r—
    QJ  to
    CO  Oi
o  s-
    a
 C I/O
 o
 CO  QJ
•r-  C
 S- •!-
 n3 -SZ.
 Q.

 O
O
E
3
E

X
£































































T3
QJ
T3
C
CD

E
O
O
01
C£


















i-
O)
>

5

m
s-
ro
.C
rO










"O
c
03
,«_
+->
3
o;


o>
CT;
rO
S-
O)
>
<









0)
jEi
ro
2
o

5

c
•1 —
to
c
o
o
to
•r—
3:


S-
QJ
>
•r—
or

_^:
u
o
a:



E
ro
CD
S_
4J
to
CL
rs












.c
o
E
ro
S_
CO

to

o
c
0
o



1-
a>
>
•r-
a:




E
ra
CD
$-
-l->
If!
a.
r>


c
t— i
i
^f-

•
+j
ro
-p
*/^
V J
j«;
a>
O)
5-
O

01
C
s-
a.
to
!— 1
1
r-H

.
-)->
ro
+->
CO




O
i— i
•
O


LO

O
V



CO
1 — 1
.
«— <
1
«=1-
T-H

o

.


CTl
•
r-1
1
^a-
o





i
i



un
•
C3
1
CM

C




r-l
O
.
0


1 — 1
o

c
V


UD
CO
O

t
CM
O
O
0
V


CO
CM

1
CM
O
O


C
I— <
.
c

i~H
o
0
V
o
CM

0
1
CO
c
0



CO
0
.
o


1
1






o
I— 1
.
1
CM
C

o
V




o
I— 1
•
o
V






r~<
C
o
V



r— 1
O
.
O
V





CM




ID

CO
1
1-H
o
V





1 — t
•
o
V







*3-
LT>
1— 1


VD
o
•
r~.
1
1
^d
0
CO

l£>
CM
.
r^
i
«^-
co
CO



o
i — i
.
o


«— 1
o
o

o
V



i^
•
c
1
CM
cr
o
o




i^
0
•
i
i— i
0





CO
CM
r-H
,"
O


cr>
CM
.—i
•
i
o


cr,4->
c
•p-
s_
Q
co
#T^
sJ7








C
a>
3
1 —
M-
q-
1 I 1
U-l
s_

rH
t— 1
.
o



S-
a>
a.
c.
0
o

•3-
*±
o
•
o





T3
ro
ai
— 1




CM
CM
CM

^^
s-
3
O
S-
ai
s:

ID
Oi
O
•
C





o
c
•r—
r-j
                                                                              o
                                                                          CD
                                                                          E
                                                                          o
                                                                          S-
                                                                          O)
                                                                          Q
                                                                          CD
                                                                          O
                                                                          X
                                                                          a>
                                                                          a)
                                                                                 re
                                                                                 CO
                                                                                 
                                                                                co
                                                                                     c:
                                                                                     CD
                                                                                     Q
                                                                                     Q_
                                                                                    
-------
In order to alleviate potentially rapid changes in the concentrations of
heavy metals, equalization of the effluent will be provided.

Table 5-6 is a tabulation of concentrations of those specific parameters
found to be potentially harmful to the fish and aquatic life in the re-
ceiving stream.  The table lists the average concentration of each param-
eter found during the effluent characterization survey as well as the
highest 4-hour, 8-hour, 12-hour, and 24-hour composite values found.

As shown in Table 5-6, the provision of equalization would result in a
sizeable reduction in the fluctuations of heavy metal concentrations that
would be imposed on the receiving stream.  In general, the larger the
period of equalization, the better the protection offered.
                          Table 5-6
              Equalized Effluent Concentrations



PARAMETER
Aluminum
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Silver
Zinc
Maximum
Recommended
Allowable
Concen-
tration
0.10
0.01
0.03
2
0.003
0.10

Highest
24- hr.
Concen-
tration
0.53
0.027
0.133
2.95
0.01
0.107

Highest
12- hour
Concen-
tration
0.57
0.033
0.15
3.35
0.01
0.127

Highest
8-hour
Concen-
tration
0.60
0.035
0.155
4.04
0.01
0.138

Highest
4- hour
Concen-
tration
0.70
0.040
0.180
5.68
0.010
0.168
     Note:  All values in mg/1 except mercury.  Mercury in ug/1.
   Source:  Volume V, Appendix F, Section 5.05 of MMSD's Facilities Plan
                               5-36
-------
Since, in general, the high values are pronounced peaks which rise and fall
substantially within a given 8-hour manufacturing period, the choice of
equalization time should be chosen as 8 hours or more.  Since the passage
of the peaks through the treatment plant tends to depress and spread out
any peak, it is felt that a twelve hour equalization period would be the
optimum choice for depressing peak metal values.  Any equalization period
greatly exceeding 8-12 hours would possibly create a detrimental effect
in that algal growth could occur in the equalization facility since
planktonic algae have a relatively rapid generation time on the order
of 12 hours at 25 C.  Any algal growth would create an additional oxygen
demand on the receiving stream.

A pond or structure providing a total of twelve hours of equalization is
recommended to prevent shock loading of heavy metals from entering the
receiving stream.

Table 5-7 is a tabulation of selected heavy metal concentrations measured
at various points along the effluent discharge route during the biological
studies which were conducted from April to October of 1975.  From this
data the following observations can be made.

     Aluminum

Aluminum in the treatment plant effluent exceeds the recommended limit.
However, major quantities of aluminum are apparently contributed by the
Rutland Branch and Spring Creek.  These natural sources appear to have
a much more pronounced effect on Badfish Creek than does the concentra-
tion in the effluent.  Considerable aluminum is also contributed by the
upper reach of the Yahara River where the concentration is again consid-
erably higher than the concentration in the sewage effluent.

In view of the rather good fish populations in the tributary streams con-
taining high concentration of aluminum, it is apparent that this metal
constituent is not seriously limiting the aquatic community.  Therefore,
no additional levels of treatment are recommended specifically for the
reduction of effluent aluminum concentrations.

It is, however, recommended that efforts be made to find the major sources
of aluminum in the MMSD system and control this parameter at its source.

     Copper

The levels of copper while in excess of recommended levels are, neverthe-
less, in the same range as the levels found in tributaries of Badfish
Creek and the Yahara River which are unaffected by the effluent discharge.
No additional levels of treatment can be justified for the removal of
this parameter.
                              5-37
-------
     Lead

The background concentrations of lead in many of the effluent samples
were below the 0.01 mg/1 concentration recommended as allowable.  However
samples on one day contained lead concentrations of 0.1 mg/1.  It is felt
that these higher concentrations are the result of an industrial discharge
at some point in the MMSD system.  It is recommended that efforts be
directed at locating the source of the lead discharge and the elimination
of the materials at the source.

     Mercury

The slightly higher than allowable concentration of mercury in the
effluent may be a result of industrial mercury use, and any source of
mercury discharge into the MMSD system should be identified and the
problem corrected at the source.

The fact that the same range of mercury concentrations was found in the
waters of the Rutland Branch and in Spring Creek gives cause to suspect
that the source of mercury in the area may be involved insome way with
agricultural operations.  Mercury is included in some pesticide formula-
tions and it is possible that crops in the area may be treated with a
mercury based pesticide.

A WENR survey was conducted in 1972 (Konrad and Kleinert, 1974) of the
metal concentrations in numerous sewage plants in Wisconsin.  Their
mercury readings of the plant influents showed Madison to have the third
highest concentration of the thirty-five plant influents monitored.  The
Madison concentration of 0.013 mg/1 was exceeded only by Kaukauna at 0.08
mg/1 and Racine at 0.24 mg/1.  The reported effluent value, however, was
less than 0.0005 mg/1.

Relatively high concentrations of mercury were found in the sediments of
the MMSD outfall ditch by the DNR (Konrad, 1971) and it was theorized,
in that study, that the high alkalinities of the receiving waters
limit the availability of the mercury in the sediments thus avoiding
detrimental effects on fish.

It is recommended that MMSD perform intensive sampling to locate the source
of this element and develop a source control program.

     Zinc

The levels of zinc found in the MMSD effluent are of the same order of
magnitude as the higher end of values found in tributary streams. It
would seem that this level of zinc has not proven to be detrimental in
the receiving waters of the area.
                              5-39
-------
While no additional treatment levels are recommended for the removal of
zinc, it is recommended that MMSD locate zinc sources in their system and
again seek to control this parameter at its source.

In summary, it would appear from an analysis of heavy metal data that
average heavy metal concentrations in the secondary effluent would not be
detrimental to fish and aquatic life in Badfish Creek.

Peak concentrations of certain elements, including aluminum, copper, lead,
mercury, silver and zinc could cause temporary detrimental effects to
certain sensitive species.

Effluent filtration which was recommended to reduce the suspended solids
load on the stream will undoubtedly achieve further removals of the metals
of prime concern.

In order to further alleviate the possibility of these temporary detri-
mental effects it is recommended that twelve hours of effluent equalization
be provided.

It is also recommended that MMSD institute a vigorous industrial waste
program whereby the MMSD would locate industrial sources of key heavy
metals in their system and take appropriate steps to remove portions of
these metal contaminants at their source.

     Cyanides

Cyanides are utilized in certain metal plating operations.  Cyanides
which have been known to be toxic to man, fish and aquatic life. Both
free and complex cyanides are usually present in wastewaters from
industrial plating operations.

Free cyanide (HCN) can be satisfactorily destroyed by the micro-organisms
in a biological treatment system when the system is acclimated to the
material, and the concentrations do not change radically from hour to hour
or day to day.

Complex cyanides, on the other hand, are usually bound up with metallic
complexes containing copper,  zinc or other heavy metals, which inhibit
the biological breakdown of the complex.  By the same token, complex
cyanides are usually contained in fine precipitate with the metal and
might be removed by filtration.

Total cyanide values found  in the MMSD effluent ranged from less than 0.01
mg/1 with the average value of all  samples being 0.157 mg/1.  Many of the
samples were virtually free of cyanide and on those occasions when it
was present, the concentration rose abruptly and fell off rapidly reflect-
ing the possibility of an  industrial release of the material.  Since the
material passed through the secondary treatment unit, it is assumed that
much of the material is in  the complex form.  It is anticipated that
additional  removals will be accomplished by filtration.

                              5-40
-------
It is recommended in the 1972 edition of Water Quality Criteria that free
cyanide levels in the receiving stream be kept below 0.005 mg/1.  The
addition of a biological nitrification step should insure that free cyanides
will be effectively broken down in the treatment process and filtration
will remove much of the complexed cyanide material which could possibly
revert to free cyanide.  In addition, it is recommended that MMSD locate
sources of cyanide in their system and insure that any free or complex
cyanides are either destroyed before discharge or are discharged at a
rather uniform rate such that the treatment system can adequately destroy
them.

         (13) Detergents

The prime toxicant in detergents is the sulfonated compound used as the
base building block for the detergent compound.  Until 1965, the use of
relatively non-biodegradable alkylbenzene sulfonates (PBS) resulted in
severe foaming in sewage treatment plants and in receiving streams.
In 1965 the industry switched to a more biodegradable base compound
called linear alkylate sulfonate (LAS) in response to increasing environ-
mental concerns.  Most of the detergent residue in sewage today is
residual IAS.

The standard test for detergent residues is the test for Methylene Blue
Active Substances (MBAS) which include both ABS and IAS in the total of
the surfactants measured.

MBAS test results, run on the Nine Springs effluent, showed concentrations
ranging from less than 0.1 to 0.4 mg/1, with the average value being 0.2
mg/1.  The 1972 edition of Water Quality Criteria recommends that the
average LAS concentration in the receiving stream not exceed 0.2 mg/1.

If it is assumed that all of the MBAS found in the effluent is IAS, then
the average value in the effluent is equal to the allowable value in the
receiving stream, and no detrimental effects are to be expected.  The
higher temporary values of 0.4 mg/1 should likewise not be detrimental
to aquatic life.  Additional treatment steps recommended for other pur-
poses such as nitrification and filtration should result in longer contact
times in the biological-system and further reductions of IAS concentrations
in the effluent.

         (14) Pesticides

Many of the pesticide compounds which man has invented for destruction of
harmful insects and to protect lawns, gardens, farm crops and other vege-
tation from damage or destruction due to pests have been shown to have
detrimental effects on other non-target terrestrial and aquatic inhabitants
of the ecosystem.  Many of the pesticides have been shown to be relatively
                              5-41
-------
resistant to chemical decay and persist in the environment for long periods
of time.  Chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides and mercury pesticides are
examples of compounds which are known to be concentrated in the aquatic
food chain such that a cumulative effect develops in the entire food chain.
At some point in time the cumulative concentration reaches the point where
lethal or toxic effects are evident at some level of the food chain, either
in fish, wildlife or in man.  In many cases the allowable concentrations of
these compounds in water are established at a level which has been found
necessary to protect man against the excessive concentrations found in
fish.

Mercury included in mercury pesticides has been discussed as a part of the
heavy metals problem; however, the general problem of mercury is one that
is also closely tied with any discussion of pesticides.

Three different pesticide screening tests were performed as a part of the
effluent characterization study in order to assess the general level of
pesticide contamination in the effluent.

The test for chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides revealed concentrations
ranging from less than 0.1 ug/1 to 3.2 ug/1 with the average value of
0.7 ug/1 expressed as aldrin.  While this test was not specific as far
as individual pesticides, the results of the test would include the total
of such pesticides as aldrin, dieldrin, chlordane, DDT, etc. which are
all composed of rather persistant chlorinated hydrocarbon bases.

The allowable concentrations of these materials from the standpoint of
chronic toxicity range from 0.002 to 0.01 ug/1, depending on the specific
pesticide involved.  The concentrations in the effluent could manifest
their presence by causing damage to any receiving stream with minimal
dilution.

The tests for organo-sulfur and organo-phosphorus pesticides again in-
cluded all of the pesticides included in the general grouping.  These
tests indicated the potential presence of two specific compounds—mala-
thion and methyl parathion in the effluent.  The total concentration of
organo-sulfur pesticides was found to range from less than 0.1 ug/1 to
77 ug/1 with the average value approximately 28 ug/1 as methyl parathion.
Organo-phosphorus pesticide values ranged from 1.3 to 4.6 ug/1 with an
average of 2.8 ug/1 expressed as methyl parathion.

As in the previous case, if it is assumed that the material is all methyl
parathion, then the recommended allowable concentration listed in Water
Quality Criteria would be 0.0004 ug/1.  Again, one could expect that the
compounds would have a detrimental effect on any receiving stream with
minimal dilution.
                              5-42
-------
However, the data collected by Hilsenhoff and Karl (1975) on macro-inver-
tebrates and the data collected by Magnuson and Herbst (1975) on fish
during their studies of Badfish Creek do not tend to confirm the fact
that pesticides in the effluent are causing the level of damage that might
be anticipated from the pesticide concentrations found.

Since it is an established fact that pesticides tend to adsorb to partic-
ulate matter, the pesticides in the effluent may be effectively removed
fron solution and concentrated in the bottom sediments along certain slow-
moving sections of the stream.

Likewise, it could be anticipated that filtration of the effluent would
also result in the increased removal of pesticides that may be adsorbed
onto the suspended matter, thus greatly reducing the concentrations in
the effluent.

As with the heavy metals, it is suggested that MMSD strive to locate the
sources of pesticide discharges into their system.  Relatively large
quantities would have to exist in the influent in order to represent the
total poundage levels left in the effluent since about 70% removal can be
expected with secondary treatment.  The search could begin with a scan-
ning of the larger potential sources.

As in the case of mercury, one could suspect that agricultural use of
pesticides might result in pesticide levels in agricultural run-off.  A
limited number of pesticide samples were collected on the Rutland Branch
and Spring Creek during run-off conditions.  Analysis of the samples con-
firmed the presence of 0.1 ug/1 of chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides in
the waters of each stream.

In summary, while pesticides would appear to be a potential problem area,
the extent of the problem cannot be fully defined without considerably
more investigative work.  Such work should include the gathering of pesti-
cide data on both the receiving stream and suspected contributors in the
sewer system.

Both the State and the Federal government are placing increasingly stricter
controls on the manufacture, sale and use of all pesticide formulations.
It would seem reasonable to assume that pesticide levels in the environ-
ment will naturally decline over the next few years.

With a reasonable assumption that pesticide levels in the tributary streams
in the Madison area are of the same order of magnitude as those found in
the sewage effluent; it would seem to be unjustified at this time to recom-
mend higher levels of treatment specifically for the removal of pesticides.
Therefore, no additional levels of treatment are recommended for this pur-
pose.
                              5-43
-------
         (15) Polychlorinated Biphenyls

Certain phenolic compounds utilized in today's highly technical society
have been found to have the same cumulative toxic properties in the envi-
ronment as the chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides and mercury.  These
compounds, referred to as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB's), have the
basic phenol structure with from one to ten attached chlorine atoms.
The entire family could represent up to 200 possible compounds.  PCB's
are used as insulating electrical fluids, hydraulic fluids and plasticiz-
ers.  Most of the known data on PCB's in the aquatic environment has been
related to measuring concentration in the tissues of fish.  High concen-
trations have been found in fish in the upper Hudson River in New York
and in fish inhabiting the Great Lakes.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has established an allowable level
of 5 ug/g for polychlorinated biphenyls in fish used as human food.

The 1972 edition of Water Quality Criteria recommends a limit of 0.5 ug/
gram in fish and recommends allowable concentrations in the stream of less
than 0.002 ug/1 in order to prevent the build-up in fish tissues.

Since PCB's have an affinity for sediments, they are deposited in the
stream sediments and enter the food chain from that point.  Bottom feeding
fish, therefore, can be expected to possess relatively higher concentra-
tions than the game fish species.

PCB measurements made during the effluent characterization survey showed
PCB levels in the effluent ranging from less than 0.001 ug/1 to 0.803 ug/1
with an average value of 0.195 ug/1.  If one were to assume a background
concentration of zero in the receiving stream, and the maintenance of an
instream concentration of less than 0.002 ug/1, approximately 100 dilu-
tions of the effluent would be required.  The Wisconsin Fiver would offer
the required dilutions.  However, data reported by Degurse and Duter of
the DNR in their report entitled "Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Residues  in
Fish from Major Waters in Wisconsin", 1975 showed higher concentrations
of PCB's present in carp and buffalo  in Lake Wisconsin than were  found
in buffalo in the Rock River Basin.  Therefore, the Wisconsin River
would seen to be more severely affected by PCB's than the Rock River.

Governmental actions have been taken only recently to limit the manufac-
ture, sale and use of PCB's and it is expected that these actions will
result in a reduction of PCB levels in the future.

The low concentrations found in the effluent, while higher than  allowable
concentrations in the stream are nevertheless at such low values  that
treatment techniques  for removal would be relatively  inefficient.   At the
same time it is assumed that other sources of PCB's in the area would
still maintain stream concentrations  in excess of the  allowable value.
Additional treatment  for the removal of PCB's is not recommended.
                               5-44
-------
It is suggested, however, that MMSD attempt to locate KB sources in
their system and institute procedures whereby the PCB's would be con-
trolled at their source.

         (c)  Impact on Water Uses

Section 5.01 F of MMSD's EA is an adequate summary of impacts of the pro-
posed actions on water uses in Badfish Creek.

F.  IMPACT ON BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

      1.  Impact on Area of Nine Springs
          Sewage Treatment Plant

The area of wetlands adjacent to Nine Springs Sewage Treatment Plant is
one sensitive natural area that could potentially be affected by the
proposed actions.  Earth moving operations required for construction of
the treatment facilities would expose the soil and make it subject to
erosion.  Runoff from the site could carry and deposit the eroded soil
into the adjacent areas, including the wetlands and into Nine Springs
Creek.  By utilizing recognized construction methods, such as providing
adequate site drainage (e.g. settling ponds), this temporary impact will
be minimized.

      2.  Impact on Biota in Badfish Creek
          and Yahara River

The most significant impacts on biological resources which could result
from the proposed actions would be the potential impacts on the Badfish
Creek and the Yahara River resulting from continued diversion of MMSD's
wastewater to Badfish Creek.  Implementation of the proposed actions
would result in a substantial improvement in water quality in the Creek
compared to present conditions.  The improved water quality will provide
a higher level of protection for fish and aquatic life and is expected
to result in an improvement in the aquatic species present in the Creek.

Section 5.01 J of MMSD's environmental assessment summarizes impacts on
biota.  It should be pointed out that the actions proposed in this EIS
involve ozonation for disinfection and no longer propose breakpoint chlor-
ination and dechlorination.  It is expected that adequate protection from
ammonia toxicity would be afforded the aquatic biota in all reaches of the
Creek.
                              5-45
-------
G.  IMPACT ON AIR RESOURCES

      1.  Impact on Air Quality

Section 5.01 H of MMSD's EA adequately addresses potential air quality im-
pacts except that it does not indicate that temporary decreases in air
quality are expected during expansion of the Nine Springs sewage treatment
plant.  These temporary effects would result from the operation of con-
struction equipment and from increased truck traffic carrying additional
equipment and supplies.

      2.  Impact on Noise

Noise impacts resulting from construction and operation of the expanded
treatment facilities are expected to be minimal if MMSD adheres to the
criteria they proposed in Volume II, Section 5 of their facilities plan.

      3.  Impact on Odors

Section 5.01 H of MMSD's facilities plan adequately addresses potential
odor impacts.

H.  IMPACT ON LAND USE

Potential impacts on land use are adequately summarized in Section 5.01  I
of MMSD's EA.

I.  IMPACTS ON DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS

The most significant impact in this category is a positive one and that
is that adequate treatment plant capacity will be provided for the addi-
tional population expected in MMSD's service area.

J.  IMPACT ON SENSITIVE MAN-MADE RESOURCES

      1.  Impact on Historical and Archaeological
          Resources

There are no sites listed on or eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places which will be affected by the proposed actions.  In  a
letter dated June 4, 1976, (Included in Appendix A) the State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO) recommended that the area proposed for
location of the expanded treatment plant be surveyed by a qualified
archaeologist to determine whether any sites would be affected by treat-
ment facility construction.  MMSD hired a qualified archaeologist to
perform this survey.  After review of the survey the State Historic
Preservation Officer in a letter dated August 31, 1977, stated that
                               5-46
-------
"the significance of this site in terms of expected archeological values
is negligible and we do not feel that the site is eligible for inclusion
on the National Register".

      2.  Impact on Open Spaces and Recreation

          a.  Impact on Open Spaces

Ihe proposed actions will have no significant impact on open spaces since
the actions are in accordance with regional land use and open space plans.

          b.  Impact on Recreation

Section 5.01 L of MMSD's EA discusses the impact of the proposed actions
on recreation.  As is indicated there, "The implementation of the proposed
actions would provide an effluent of sufficient quality to permit the
aesthetic enjoyment and recreational utilization of Badfish Creek to be
regained".

      3.  Impact on Agriculture

The proposed actions are expected to have no significant effect on agri-
culture.

      4.  Impact on Energy Resources

Section 5.01 M of MMSD's EA discusses the expected impact of the proposed
actions on energy consumption by MMSD.  Until further study is completed
it will not be known how redesign of the facilities to meet WENR proposed
effluent limits will affect total electrical energy consumption.  However,
it is expected that there will be a substantial increase as indicated in
the above-referenced section.

K.  ADVERSE IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED
    SHOULD THE PROPOSED ACTIONS BE IMPLEMENTED

Section 5.02 of MMSD's environmental assessment adequately summarizes sig-
nificant short term impacts which cannot be avoided should the proposed
actions be implemented.

Section 5.02 of MMSD's environmental assessment also summarizes adverse
long term impacts which can be expected as a result of implementing the
proposed actions.  We would like to supplement that summary with some
additional discussion related to water quality and quantity impacts.

Sectin 5.02 of MMSD's EA indicates that "Improved wastewater treatment
would provide an effluent which would substantially meet the water quality
criteria for various beneficial uses, as suggested in Water Quality Crite-
                              5-47
-------
ria, 1972 where practicable".  Related to water quality, this EIS has
evaluated the proposed actions primarily in regard to whether or not they
would protect the fish and aquatic life of Badfish Creek and protect its
recreational use.  Although the facilities proposed do not provide as
high a level of nitrification as those proposed in MMSD's facilities plan,
we feel that they will adequately protect the fish and aquatic life of
the Creek and will protect its recreational use.  To insure that, we pro-
pose that MMSD implement a water quality monitoring approved by the WDNR
and prior to and after start up of the new facilities program to determine
whether the proposed effluent limits and facility design allow for meeting
the water quality criteria for protection of fish and aquatic life, espe-
cially related to ammonia nitrogen.  We also propose that MMSD implement a
bioassay program approved by the WENR and EPA to evaluate the effect im-
proved water quality and the new facilities and having on fish and aquatic
life in Badfish Creek, particularly whether the proposed effluent limit
for ammonia adequately provides for protection of fish and aquatic life
from ammonia toxicity.  We also propose that MMSD design the facilities so
that additional nitrification facilities can be constructed at a later
date if the monitoring and bioassay programs show that they are warranted.

Section 5.02 of MMSD's EA also summarizes potential adverse water quantity
impacts related to diversion of water out of the Upper Yahara River.  Since
the regulation of lake levels and flow augmentation proposed as,a mitiga-
tive measure will require a comprehensive planning program out'the scope
of this project, it can only be assumed that MMSD will cooperate with other
area agencies in assuring that such a program is implemented.

L.  RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT TERM USE OF THE
    ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT
    OF LONG TERM PRODUCTIVITY

Refer to pages 5-12 and 5-13 of MMSD's EA for a summary discussion of this
subject.

M.  IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES
    WHICH WOULD BE INVOLVED  IF THE PROPOSED ACTIONS SHOULD
    BE IMPLEMENTED

Refer to page 5-13 of MMSD's EA for a summary discussion of this subject.
                               5-48
-------
                                CHAPTER 6

                          PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Section 6 of MMSD's environmental assessment is an adequate summary of
public participation related to this project prior to this Draft EIS.
                              6-1
-------
APPENDIX A
-------
                               TABLE A-l



                 ESTIMATED TREATMENT FACILITY COSTS FOR



                         ALTERNATIVES #1 AND #2






Construction Costs




Upgrading Existing Facilities                           $1,815,000



Liquid Treatment Facilities



     Blower Building No. 1 Modifications                     5,000



     Blower Building No. 2                               1,500,000



     Secondary Clarifiers                                  650,000



     Rotating Biological Contactors                      9,100,000



     Filter Building                                     1,250,000



     Filters                                             1,165,000



     Filter Galleries                                      855,000



     Railroad Spur and Chlorine Docks                      110,000



     Chlor inator s                                          170,00 0



     Effluent Holding Pond                                 500,000




     Dechlorination Equipment                               30,000



     Major Conduits                                      1,300,000






Solids Treatment Facilities



     Gravity Thickeners                                    110,000



     Flotation Thickeners                                  815,000



     Digesters and Control Building                      1,700,000



     Utility Tunnel                                        220,000



     Supernatant Drawoff Equipment                          70,000




                                          Subtotal     $20,365,000
                                   A-l
-------
                                - 2 -
Table A-l continued
          Engineering (12%)



          Administration (0.5%)



          Legal and Fiscal Costs (2.5%)



          Contingency (25%)








     PRESENT WORTH CONSTRUCTION COSTS
        TOTAL
  $2,450,000




     105,000




     505.000




   5,085,000




 $28,510,000




 $20,850,000
Operation and Maintenance Costs







Upgraded Secondary Treatment



Advanced Waste Treatment



Digested Sludge Disposal



                Subtotal



       Contingency (25%)



                   TOTAL
ELECTRIC POWER



  $310,000/yr




   460,000/yr








  $770,000/yr



   190,000/yr



  $960,000/yr
   OTHER 0 & M



   $935,000/yr



    350,000/yr



    110,000/yr



 $l,395,000/yr



    345,000/yr



 $l,740,000/yr






$14,540,000
Present Worth 20-Year Operation     $19,380,000



Total Present-Worth



  0 & M 20-Year Operation           $23,920,000





Salvage Values



Computed Salvage Value After 20-Year Operation  (2001)     $11,850,000



Present Worth Values                                        2,180,000
     TOTAL PRESENT WORTH
                    $42,590,000
Compiled  from information presented  in MMSD's Facilities Plan, Volume II,



Tables E-3  and  F-6
                                  A-2
-------
                               TABLE A-2

           COSTS FOR HJMPING TO YAHARA RIVER (ALTERNATIVE #1)

A.  TRANSMISSION FACILITIES
      52,000 L. F. of 72" PCCP @ $206/ft                 $10,712,000
      Engineering, Legal and Administration 15%            1,606,000
      Contingencies 25%                                    2,678,000

      Total Capital Costs                                $14,996,000
      Salvage Value of Pipeline                           10,997,000

      Present worth of Capital Costs                     $11,440,000
      Present worth of Salvage Value (pipeline)           -2,026,000

B.  OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COSTS
      Annual 0 & M Costs for Pipeline                    $    16,000
      Present worth of Pipeline 0 & M                        134,000

C.  PRESENT WORTH OF PIPELINE                            $ 9,548,000

D.  MODIFICATION TO EXISTING PUMPING STATION
      New Pumps, Motors & Electrical Equipment           $   723,000
      Engineering, Legal and Administration @ 15%            108,000
      Contingencies @ 25%                                    181,000
      Total Capital                                      $ 1,012,000
      Present Worth of Modifications                         770,000

E.  PRESENT WORTH OF LIFT STATION AND CONNECTION
    TO EFFLUENT PUMP STATION
      Present worth of Capital Costs                     $   300,000(1)

F.  0 & M COSTS FOR PUMPING
      Electrical Power Costs                            $   349,000
      Other 0 & M Costs                                       80,000(D

      Present worth of Electrical Power Costs            $ 3,410,000
      Present worth of Other 0 & M Costs                     670,000
      Present worth of 0 & M                             $ 4,080,000

G.  PRESENT WORTH OF SALVAGE VALUE (Pumping)             $  - 65,000 M

TOTAL PRESENT WORTH OF CAPITAL AND 0 & M FOR
PUMPING AND PIPELINE TO YAHARA RIVER                     $14,633,000

(1) Courtesy: CH2M Hill

Present worth calculated in accordance with methods specified in CH2M Hill
Report, Volume II, Appendix E.

Source: Volume V, Appendix F of MMSD's Facilities Plan
                                  A-3
-------
                               *TABLE A-3

          COSTS FOR SPLIT PUMPING TO BADFISH AND YAHARA RIVER

                            (ALTERNATIVE #2)

A.  BOOSTER PUMP STATION
      Pumps, iiDtors and electrical equipment            $  330.000
      Structure                                            654.000

      Total Construction                                $  984.000
      Engineering, Legal and Administration @ 15%          147.000
      Contingencies @ 25%                                  246.000

      Total Capital                                     $1,377,000

      Salvage Value                                     $  342.000

      Present worth of Capital Costs                    $1,051,000
      Present worth of Booster Station
       Salvage Value                                     -  63,000

      Present worth of Booster Station
       Capital Costs                                    $  988,000

B.  PIPELINE
      52,000 L.F. of 47" PCCP @ 115/LF                  $5,980,000
      Engineering, Legal and Administration @ 15%         897,000
      Contingencies @ 25%                                1,495,000

      Total Capital                                     $8,372,000

      Salvage Value                                     $6,139,000

      Present worth of Capital Costs                    $6,387,000
      Present worth of Salvage Value                    $1,131,000

C.  OPERATION & MAINTENANCE
      Annual 0 & M Costs for Pipeline                   $   12,000
      Present worth of Pipeline 0 & M costs                100,000

D.  PRESENT WORTH OF PIPELINE                           $5,356,000

E.  PRESENT WORTH OF EFFLUENT DITCH IMPROVEMENTS           305,000

F.  PBESENT WORTH OF LIFT STATION AND CONNECTION
    TO EFFLUENT PUMP STATION
      Present worth of Capital Costs                    $  300.000^)
      Present worth of Salvage Value                       -20,000

    Present worth for Lift Station                      $  280,000
                                    A-4
-------
                                - 2 -

Table A-3 continued

G.  0 & M COSTS FOR PUMPING TO BADFISH CREEK
      Power Costs                                       $  351,000u'
      Other 0 & M                                          150,000

Present worth
      Electrical power                                  $3,435,000
      Other 0 & M                                        1,250,000

Present worth for Pumping to Badfish                    $4,685,000

TOTAL PRESENT WORTH FOR EFFLUENT PUMPING FOR SPLIT
  DISCHARGE TO BADFISH CREEK AND YAHARA RIVER          $11,614,000
(1) Courtesy: CH2M Hill

Present worth calculated in accordance with methods specified in CH2M Hill
Report, Volume II, Appendix E.

*Extracted from Volume V, Appendix F of MMSD's Facilities Plan
                                    A-5
-------
                               *TABLE A-4

          COSTS FOR PUMPING TO BADFISH CREEK (ALTERNATIVE #3)

A.  LIFT STATION AND CONNECTION TO EFFLUENT PUMP STATION
      Present worth of Lift Station                     $  300,000
      Present worth of salvage value                      - 20,OOP

      Present worth of Lift Station                     $  280,000

B.  ANNUAL 0 & M COSTS (Including 25% Contingencies)
      Electrical Power                                  $  345,000
      Other 0 & M                                           80,000

      Present worth of 0 & M Costs
        Electrical Power                                $3,375,000
        Other 0 & M                                        670,000
      Present worth of 0 & M                            $4,045,000

C.  PRESENT WORTH OF EFFLUENT DITCH IMPROVEMENT         $  305,000

D.  TOTAL PRESENT WORTH FOR PUMPING TO BADFISH CREEK    $4,630,000


(1) Courtesy CH2M Hill Chapter II, Volume II

*Source: MMSD Facilities Plan, Volume V, Appendix F
                                    A-6
-------
APPENDIX B
-------
          Fishes - Nine Springs Creek, 1972-73*
AMIIDAE - BOWFIN

    Bowfin, Amia calva Linnaeus

SALMONIDAE - TROUT

    Rainbow trout, Salmo gairdneri Richardson
    Brown trout, Salrco trutta Linnaeus

UMBRIDAE - MUDMINNOW

    Central mudminnow, Unt>ra limi (Kirtland)

CYPRINIDAE - MINNOWS AND CARP

    Carp, Cyprinus carpio Linnaeus
    Brassy minnow, Hybognathus hankinsoni Hubbs
    Golden shiner, Notenugonus crysoleucas (Mitchill)
    Emerald shiner, Notropis athermoides Rafinesque
    Common shiner, Notropis cornutus (Mitchill)
    Sand shiner, Notropis stramineus (Cope)
    Spotfin shiner, Notropis spilopterus (Cope)
    Bluntnose minnow, Pimephales notatus {Rafinesque)
    Fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas Rafinesque
    Creek chub, Semotilus atromaculatus (Mitchill)

CATOSTOMIDAE - SUCKER

    White sucker, Catostomus commersoni (Lacepede)

ICTALURIDAE - FRESHWATER CATFISH

    Black bullhead, Ictalurus melas (Rafinesque)
    Yellow bullhead, Ictalurus natal is (Lesueur)
    Brown bullhead, Ictalurus nebulosus (Lesueur)

ATHERINIDAE - SILVERSIDE

    Brook silverside, Labidesthes sicculus (Cope)

GASTEROSTEIDAE - STICKLEBACK

    Brook stickleback, Culaea inconstans (Kirtland)

PERCICHTHYIDAE - TEMPERATE BASS

    White bass, Morone chrysops (Rafinesque)
    Yellow bass, Morone mississippiensis Jordan and Eignmann

CENTRARCHIDAE - SUNFISH

    Green sunfish, Lepomis cyanellus Rafinesque
    Pumpkinseed, Lepomis gibbosus (Linnaeus)
    Bluegill,  Lepomis macrochirus Rafinesque
    Smallmouth bass, Micropterus dolomieui Lacepede
    Largemouth bass, Micropterus salmoides (Lacepede)

                        B-l
-------
(con11)






PERCIDAE - PERCH




  Yellow perch, Perca flavescens (Mitchill)




SCIAENIDAE - DRUM




   Freshwater Drum, Aplodinotus grunniens Rafinesque
 *Source:  Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
                               B-2
-------
APPENDIX C
-------
                                     THR STATUE HISTORICAL
                                     SOCIETY  OP WISCONSIN
816 STATE  STREET  /  MADISON, WISCONSIN 53706 / JAMES MORTON  SMITH, DIRECTOR

State Historic Preservation Office
                                     June 4,  1976
    Mr.  Ralph  McClurg
    O'Brien  and  Cere Engineers,  Inc.
    1304 Buckley Road
    Syracuse,  New York   13201                           SHSW 0279-76

    Dear Mr. MrClurg:

    '["his letter  is in response  to your letter of May 25, 1976 concerning
    the  potential impacts  of  the MMSD-201 Facilities Planning Study proposed
    action on  historical and  archeological resources (File 1533.002).

    Since the  existing  pipeline  route  and discharge to Badfish Creek will
    be utilized  in the  future,  these actions will have no impact on sites
    or structures of historical  or archoological significance.   Additionally,
    the  application of  sludge to agricultural lands will have no effect on
    any  historical or archeological sites.

    The  area designated in Figure 13-4,  as the recommended location for
    an expanded  treatment  plant, should  be surveyed by an archeologist
    to determine if any such  sites will  be affected by the proposed con-
    struction.   Dr. Joan Freeman (608/262-9566), State Archeologist and
    a member of  our staff, will  be plensed to help you locate a qualified
    person to  perform this .survey.

                                     Sincej ely,
 /'
/J
                                         s Morton Smith
                                     .State Historic Preservation Officer
    JMS:cm
                                  C-l
-------
                                     THE  STATE HISTORICAL
                                     SOCIETY  OFWISCONS1N
                              •!• STATE  STREET , M AD
                              August 31,  1977
                                                          RU.LE
                                                          St
          •p 1   1977
Mr. W. J. Landwehr, Chief Engineer and Director
Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District
104 North First Street
Madison, Wisconsin  53704

Dear Mr. Landwehr:
SHSW:  0279-76
  RE:  Nine Springs Sewerage
          District
Our staff archeologists have reviewed the "Report  of  an Archaeological
Survey on the Site of the Proposed Expansion of the Nine Springs Sewage
Treatment Plant, Madison, Wisconsin" by Dr.  James  B.  Stoltman of the
University of Wisconsin-Madison.

During the course of the survey one archeological  site was  located
within the project area.  The survey and testing procedures indicated
that the archeological materials recovered from this  site were excessively
disturbed, and restricted to the plow zone.   As a  result of the excessive
soil disturbance by agricultural activities, the significance of this
site in terms of expected archeological values is  negligible and we do
not feel that the site is eligible for inclusion on  the National Register.

Therefore, under the provisions of 36 CFR 800, we  conclude  that the
construction of the Nine Springs Sewage Treatment  Plant will have no
effect upon properties listed on or eligible for inclusion  on the
National Register of Historic Places.

                              Sincerely,

                              Richard A. Erney
                             -State Historic Preservation Officer
                                       ean
                                 te^Preservation Planner
RAE:rdd
cc:  Mr. George R. Alexander, Jr., Environmental Protection Agency
     Dr. James B. Stoltman, Department of Anthropology
     Mr. John Hario, Department of Natural Resources
                                 C-2
-------
I
*
                                APPENDIX D
-------
                            REFERENCES

                             Chapter 1

Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District, Facilities jPlan»_ _19_7Jv Volume I,
Summary Plan, Section 1

                             Chapter 2

Section A

Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD), Facilities Plan, 1976, Volume
1, Environmental Assessment, Section 2.02 and Volume IV, Appendix A.

Section B

MMSD, Facilities Plan, 1976, Volume I, Environmental Assessment, Section 2.05,
and Volume IV, Appendix A.

Section C

MMSD, Facilities Plan, 1976, Volume I, Environmental Assessment, Section 2.05,
and Volume IV, Appendix A.

Section D

  1.  MMSD, Facilites Plan, 1976, Volume I, Summary Plan, Sections 2,3 and
6, Environmental Assessment, Sections 1 and 2; Volume IV, Appendices A, B,
C, F and H.

  2.  Mackenthun, K.M. et al.  A Study of the Effects of Diverting the
Effluent from Sewage Treatment upon the Receiving Stream, Wisconsin
Academy of Science Arts and Letters, Volume 49, 1960.

Section E

  1.  mSD, Facilities Plan, 1976, Volume I, Environmental Assessment
Section 2; Volume IV, Appendices A, B, D, and E.

  2. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, unpublished Mud Lake
Marsh Study cover map and open file information.

Section F

  1.  MMSD, Facilities Plan, 1976, Volume I, Environmental Assessment,
Section 2; Volume IV, Appendix A.

  2.  United States Environmental Protection Agency, Quality of Life
Indicators in U.S. Metropolitan Areas - 1970 A Comprehensive Assessment,
Washington, D.C., 1975
                                 D-l
-------
Section G

MKSD, Facilities Plan, 1976, Volume I, Summary Plan, Section 6 and
Environmental Assessment, Section 2; Volume IV, Appendix A, Section
2.

Section H

MMSD, Facilities Plan, 1976, Volume I, Summary Plan, Sections 5 and 6
and Environmental Assessment, Section 2; Volume IV, Appendix A, Section
2; Volume VI, Appendices K and N

Section I
  1.  MMSD, Facilities Plan, 1976, Volume I, Summary Plan, Section 6 and
Environmental Assessment, Section 2; Volume II, Section 5; Volume IV,
Appendix A

  2.  Upper Mississippi River Comprehensive Basin Study, Volume VI,
Appendix M: Power, 1970

                             Chapter 3

Section B

Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD), Facilities Plan, 1976,
Volume I, Summary Plan, Sections 7 and Environmental Assessment, Sections;
Volume V, Appendix F

Section C

MMSD, Facilities Plan, 1976, Volume I, Suirmary Plan, Section 8 and
Environmental Assessment, Section 3; Volume VC, Appendices F and I.

Section D

  1.  MMSD, Facilities Plan, 1976, Volume I, Summary Plan, Sections 7 and
8 and Environmental Assessment, Section 3; Volume II, Volume IV, Appendices
A,  C, D, E; Volume V, Appendices F, H, I

  2.  MMSD letter to USEPA, Region V dated August 24, 1977

  3.  LBEPA , Washington, D.C. Quality Criteria for Water, 1976, EPA-
440/9-76-023

  4.  WDNR memo dated, April 4, 1977, May 3, 1977, July 21, 1977 and
July 22, 1977

                             Chapter 4

Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District, Facilities Plan, 1976, Volume

                                 D-2
-------
I, Summary Plan, Section 9 and Environmental Assessments, Section 4

                             Chapter 5

Sections B, C, and D

Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD), Facilities Plan, 1976,
Volume I, Environmental Assessment, Section 5

Section E

  1.  Mackenthun, K.M., et al. A Study of the Effects of Diverting
the Effluent from Sewage Treatment Upon the Receiving Stream, Wisconsin
Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters, Volume 49, 1960

  2.  MMSD, Facilities Plan, 1976, Volume I, Summary Plan and Environ-
mental Assessment, Section 5; Volume V, Appendix F, Sections 3, 4
and 5;

  3.  WDNR memos dated April 14, 1977; May 3, 1977; July 21, 1977 and
July 22, 19771

                             Chapter 6

MMSD Facilities Plan, 1976, Volume I, Environmental Assessment, Section
G
                                 D-3
-------
                                                                              *
                                                                             J
U.S. Environmental Protection
R-flcion 5, Library (5PL-16)
230 S. Dearborn Street, Boom  1670
Chicago, XL   60604
-------

z
^
0.
cxJ CO
ci liJ
LU h-
^ O
u_ rf
IE
Q
CO
2
5




o
2
OL
§
0
s
ER QUALITY
*




s
>
IE
0
g
DC
UJ
1
en
ll
CO CD




E
1 —

o
s
Q
en

END:
SELECTED M
STATION
u>





»
2
ct
g
2
O
s
CE
§§
^
3co
O
•z.
Q_
on
UJ








x
o
UJ
D_
O.
-------
i
•83
-------
-------
  t y
<> I ^
_i^ £ O
O. D _J O
< O <
                    B
                    >Q
          g 10

          I Q
  IIS
     8 T ^
     a. O U
Cfl

6
                   ^ Q

                   s 1
                               £33??«
-------
-------
-------
Q   2
                                                                                                               2 >
                                                                                                               < Q
                                                                                                         ;H    o-i-
                                                                                                         ce:
                                                                                                         ^D
                                                                                                         CJ3
Qg

§1
-I O
*  £
   >
   2
                                                                                                                         O <
-------
-------
          I- <
sl
OS
-------
      «c
      >- Q

      O <:
fv    o I—i
                                                                            a
                                                                            z
                                                                            UJ
                                                                                             z
                                                                                             <
in I-  JiJ  <
Sis:8.
co Q-  "-
& h-  \t
2 z  in
                                                                                ^ K   x  a
                                                                                                      O   i-.
                                                                                                      "ZL =  CXl
                                                                                                      K-( C>J
                   i— x; uj :
                   =tfc UJ ^ i

                   UJ l/l Q "
                                                                                                          ~g
                                                                                                                   C£S|—    •-.
   CO 	I D; LU
   H-I U. C_J O QC
CM X U_    Or I_U
=tt= LU UJ O^ O>-
        CO U_ »-i
UJ CO Q t—i   Di
>• UJ -Z. U- =
•—< M 
-------
-------