-------
^-IsFT's^
-^ *iK>i ^ ^ 1 -K
-------
a
* ^
V ^
\ "
5 >•
X
\
*• *s
!>
>«
N
t
<£•'
\ :
S!
I
! \
£
* *
.i *
~ w
V
:$
\
iioH
« ^ : i 4
^ > ' £ X?
5 «
5 -*
.^P
4 ^ ...
0 5;
V Ji
* 3 ^
Ui
Jl
« K
I '
*: 5
J V - s
i N"
H* fr. Vi
X ^ *
? ^
> \^
V,
V)
i "N
Ki
x ^
v,
V;
2-40
-------
C 4)
•H j= tn
id P 3
in C T3
rt! - (d 01
ft cr c
C >. 5
C 4> C rH
-H XI O ft
3 S5 1
X tn w
in
0 c
41 tr 0 »H
ft c u 41
•H M >
C 41 -H 0)
•rt CQ S rH
01
C 4) 4J
8* .c c:
m 4J 41
tn c i
-H -H c 5
3 ns o
-P 2 C -H
cS|-°
o -H -P -M
4J m g
OT f) CO
in 01
*> rH
fl H *
8 it
w 3 5
$g S
&
S
§
*J
o
3 c«
8 i§
°- -as
H fi
3 s j
g H
g in 5 >
3 a o
S C 0 Cn
C 0 u) 10
^ -H O
> CnO 'H
fi S S 6
f Portage
o
•H
S 01
H A
S v
V
3S
u) IH
11
H «
ithy Garra
. ronmen tal
;ewater Tre
K > tn
6 A
I
O
>,
4J
•H
O
01
5
o
•H
4J
•H
O
I
5
n
"w
O
v
m o n
01 0
sil
•s
rH
•H
«
H
Ot
C
-H
J
1
1
g
a
>«
«
o
»
0>
«4H
IH
O
E
m
•H
<*> 4-t
W
ir £
o|
0
n JJ
0)
D> 0>
0 H
'•d*
> £
-H O
0) 4>
|5
watching the
and climaxed
0)
« rH
0) «H
JS
rH
c
M *H
S 3
2 8
tn
C •*
•H X
01
g B
U 0)
tn c
S9
V 0>
.c H
4-» *J
U)
g &d
O» -O -H
cow
-H 4J C
*O W O
§« o
*> tn
4-i tn -H
n S
- in
•O o> o>
0) 4-1
|c
0» «H O
> n
af'JII
M M O - 4->
IH 0 b 4> W
O- M ffl
9.2 i&
S5*c|
B) 0) 0) O «
c w > -a u
•§ *S 41 O *C
V -o tn
H 4J -H 4J
£ 33 93
M-,, a *
0) JJ AJ IB
4J C -O to -H
10 10 10 >
V 0) 8 0 "
> £ C .
•o «
*J O 0) 4J T3
" S -S 5 M
£8J*g,.
41 rH O V C 0)
& O TJ 9 tP
tn M w i «
S J5 »>-6
4) M E-» -H 0 U)
5 -H .C -H
g 1-4 c -a
CM M
84) • 0)
• > 4J • 4J
E | S § 3 S
oi 3 S oi
*j H x to m *J
iu a, o c «
a b. oi o «
u -a n t
ol S * 'H o> w
E 3 *J nj a)
3 10 Ifl -H ^H h
W 01 -U Ot -H
o" 1 i "«
£ « T) O
>« (0 «3 ^ 5 flj
C > C V V
10 oi io j= o> M
z » O 3 > 10
how much
et away with in
Lake Wisconsin.
en
h 01
m ** **
•H 0) "W
M O
4J A
o i9 a
Is s
"* 4J H
41
ft >i C
Wisconsin
ow much the
on growth i
4) £ -H
X 4->
(d 4J ^4 V}
O 4-1 Ifl
•O C U4
0
01 0 01
5x:
.-1 4J
•W -H W
:est fear o
i Portage w
i because o
000
Cl -H -H
& 3 3
rH rH
4) rH M
e Prairie Du Sa<
ee stumps from
5H
4J
IH IH
H O
4J
• tn
)H 01
(D ri
3«
oi .
-H -H E
in IH
w y *:
-H ft 4J
o, "2
£ 41 O
0>
"1*
4J 0 tn
c 2 a»
1-5.2
§ s «
&o
u tn
g tn
T) 41 0)
g JJj H
C U)
id >
cn fl 41
"H S "^
I-8 s
80
4J tn
U) 4»
£92
01 * "
1 S.S
J O.f
2-41
-------
lf<
IN J ^ '
1M<* 4
HU*4
M ' 4
o
S-\
•"•• i
v.
-X.
•>i
«i)
rrt
3
Ul
C9
<
H> U. >
re u ~
O "I O
a. x
u re H>
z ui u>
a. CQ • H>
M >o ui in ui
CO C9
in a z in a
u O
Ul U.
O)
Ul 4
u
2 §
K re
E Ul
8t>
Z
u. 8
o
re
ce 3
a °
E 3
«T 4 O
ta x >•
«0 0
CHICAGO IL 60
.HE HERRIHAC
COMMUNICATE TO
M
4
Ul
Z
to
z
8
U)
»
Ul
X
s
t-4
K
^
K
Z
O
•Hi
H-
E
re
o
u.
z
1-
z
o
Ul
re
u.
o
X
(9
•-4
Z
z
Ul
in z
g 8
•i O»
re •-«
w »
en
1*1
Ul 0
a re
o
Ul O.
»
e
E 0
Ul U.
H-
Ol Ul
en .-4
i—
_l 4
4 Z
01 re
o ui
OL. H"
Ol _l
re
Ul 4
13 -J
> E
Ul «-i
Ul 01
§ *
4 U.
_l 0
0 Z
CELTON PROPOSE
RECONSICERATIO
Ul
t*j
in
^
Ul
a.
2
X
3B
»-4
M
HI
re
2
z
•"
H"
Ul
Ul
1-1
Ol
Ul
X
IH)
PRISON LOCATED
H-
0>
n
z
a.
-j
4
0>
S
in
•-»
0
O
4
Ul
in
^.
z
4
•
re
J"
fr-
2
^-«
4
O
O
u>
z
s.
»-«
£
Ul
X
H
H>
E
in
u.
o o
z
4 Z
. s
x in
^ ^
SUI
re
C9
a
Ul Z
re 4
H> Ul
=1 C9
u. re
4
K X
o o
*» 0>
E O
re u.
o o
u.
13
01 Z
o re
*"* O
o> •=•
> z
0,
Ul
H> O
Ul •->
U) O>
s s
0 0
INCLUDE AT THE
ESPECIALLY FOR
•
a
Ul
o
4
g
OL
4
M
re
4
Ul
O
re
4
X
O
^•4
a
H-
z
4
H>
_l
O
flu
u.
o
in
HI
•-i
E
»«j
Ul
ol
Z
Ul
N4
re
4
Ul
X
H>
4
a. ul
ui re
re a.
* *
«l >•
•^J |-|
1 £
M CO
re re
o o
ce re
o
2^42°
O O
-------
2-43
-------
2-44
-------
s*
J I
z
t
^
9
(I
i
f
C/
*•
^
«
«
/'
;
J-
r
5
^
^
a i
&x g/
* f
ti
xC
(.
a
: ^i^-f.j-'^
J
rv^^Tj
y >
-o / J*?
Jt -T* *^*
2 J A
s ^ ^ J^-
,-i <<*'i
J ' ^ X-C ^
?.{^- ,
»*&4Wi'-iim#te
J .^P.^V , 1 * 0.^^^-
f
J^#?
n
?
f
£
M c
*fc
|+j kg..,
fi £ cu
.3 .H g §•
+> *» O <
duo
rt 0 O <^. f, U
O -H t« tt> t. ^ *
O 0> S >
rH O rH
=J
O O p O
5Sho:
<;, o
•o <> o
Q) *U U M
5 'H !a,":
o y iu 7)
O -rf u +J
t-i^ 5
0> ^ U O
^ «> Ft w o ^
•P -H ti _.. O»
•^ o c. p. "
^. , a
•O *^ v- u
W r-1 fJ> O
t; b w+3 B
y fct -H •; w
O
-------
I"?
5 oi
4 "
H
^
oi 5
.2 v •,
5
s «
?
o
gl
*•
?
A
' x"^
5
tflo
^ l
< ^
?•?
1
fl^ f
!;! g 2
- J'
0
2-46
-------
CO
CD
I*
h
^ * vf>
\ V NN
$
''00 ' IZ
WATcii!
V
a
r
-------
3.0. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT: NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
3.1. Meteorology
Portage has a continental-type climate. Thus, it experiences a large
annual temperature range and frequent temperature fluctuations over a short
period of time. The average annual precipitation is approximately 30
inches, 60% of which falls between May and September. Detailed data on
other relevant meteorological phenomena, such as wind direction, mixing
layer heights, and precipitation, are available in the Draft EIS, Section
2.1 and Appendix A.
3.2. Existing Air Quality
Particulates and oxidants are the only atmospheric pollutants of
concern in or near the study area. The major sources of particulates in
Columbia County are the Columbia Generating Station owned by the Wisconsin
Power and Light Company and the Martin-Marietta sand processing plant.
Oxidants are a problem over much of the United States as a result of long-
distance transport and reaction of precursor emissions such as hydrocarbons
and nitrogen oxides from urban areas. .The air quality data for Columbia
County, the national ambient air quality standards, and the point source
inventory for Columbia County are included in Appendix A.
3.3. Sound
Sound levels in the City of Portage were measured and were found to be
typical of those found in small towns. The principal sources are automo-
bile, truck and railroad traffic. Ambient sound levels exceeded USEPA
guidelines at two of the four sampling sites. At present neither the State
of Wisconsin nor Columbia County have established noise level guidelines.
3.4. Geology and Soils
Topography and landforms are characterized predominantly by glacial
lake plain and morainic deposits that have been modified by
surface-weathering agents and by the fluvial action of the Wisconsin
River, the Fox River, Neenah Creek, French Creek, and Spring Creek. Major
lakes in the study area include Swan Lake, Silver Lake, and Mud Lake.
Broad, level floodplains occur along the rivers and their tributaries
(Section 4.4).' A large lowland area northwest of Portage is part of the
floodplain of the Wisconsin River. Upland areas are situated to the east
and west of the Fox River in the northern two-thirds of the study area.
Drumlins, kames, moraines, and bedrock outcrops produce a rolling and
hummocky topography. A detailed description of the physiography and topo-
graphy, surficial and bedrock geology, and soils in the area is presented
in the Draft EIS, Section 3.4. Information on soils also is presented in
Section 6.4.4.2. and Appendix C.
3.5. Groundwater Resources
3.5.1. Groundwater Availability
Although surface water is used for recreation, navigation, and waste-
water disposal, the Portage area relies exclusively on groundwater for its
water supply (Olcott 1968; Hindall and Borman 1974). Usable groundwater in
the expanded study area exists in sand and gravel deposits, in glacial
3-1
-------
drift, and in the underlying sandstone bedrock. During 197.7, the City of
Portage pumped a total of 395,368,000 gallons, or 1,083,200 gallons per day
(gpd), from the glacial drift aquifer and 102,862,000 gallons (281,813 gpd)
from the sandstone bedrock aquifer (By telephone, Mr. Emil Abegglen, Por-
tage Water Department, to Mr. Kent Peterson, WAPORA, Inc., 8 March 1978).
3.5.2. Piezometric Levels
Water levels in wells indicate the position of the piezometric sur-
face, which is a measure of hydrostatic pressure. In unconfined aquifers,
this surface corresponds to the water table. The water table, however,
does not follow the topography of the land exactly, because depths to
groundwater generally increase with distance from major streams. An exami-
nation of well records and soil reports indicated that depths to ground-
water range from less than 5 feet in floodplains to more than 50 feet in
upland areas (Draft EIS, Section 2.5.2.).
3.5.3. Groundwater Quality
Water quality is similar in the bedrock and glacial drift aquifers
(Draft EIS, Section 2.5.3.). The groundwater is typically hard, has a
neutral to slightly basic pH, and has locally high iron concentrations.
Hardness and high iron concentrations are related primarily to natural
geochemical processes and do not present serious problems.
Some of the groundwater, however, is contaminated from surface
sources. Well samples have had high nitrate concentrations, which indicate
such contamination. Problems can occur if aquifers are close to the sur-
face and/or if wells are not cased properly. The potential for contamina-
tion can be particularly high in floodplains, where the water table is high
seasonally. Common types of pollutants are sewage discharges, industrial
wastes, road salt, fertilizers, and pesticides.
3.6. Surface Water
3.6.1. General Description
Portage is located in both the Lower Wisconsin River Basin and the
Fox-Wolf River Basin. The Wisconsin River and the Fox River are within 1.5
miles of each other at Portage. The Wisconsin River flows to the Missis-
sippi River Basin, and the Fox River flows to the Great Lakes (Figure 1) .
The Wisconsin River Basin is located primarily in the central area of
Wisconsin, lying generally north and south from upper Michigan to Portage
and east-west from Portage to the Mississippi River. The drainage area of
the entire Basin is 11,730 square miles, of which 7,940 square miles are
north of Portage. The Wisconsin River is the largest river in the state,
430 miles long. The Lower Wisconsin River Basin includes an area of
approximately 3,780 square miles, which contains all or parts of 11 coun-
ties in southwestern Wisconsin. The nearest downstream impoundment is Lake
Wisconsin, about 12 miles south of Portage. The Baraboo River, with a
drainage area of 650 square miles, is the only major tributary near the
Portage study area.
3-2
-------
The Fox-Wolf River Basin drains an area of approximately 6,500 square
miles in east-central and northeastern Wisconsin.. The Basin includes all
or significant parts of 18 counties* The headwaters of the Fox River are
located in northeastern Columbia County.. There are no significant tribu-
taries to the Fox River within the study area. Upstream from Portage, the
Fox River has a drainage area of 900 square miles. Downstream from Portage
the Fox River flows generally northeast through a series of lakes and
impoundments to Green Bay, Wisconsin, on Lake Michigan. Buffalo Lake is
the impoundment closest to Portage on the Fox River, approximately 20 miles
downstream (north). In the Portage area, the Fox River usually is about 6
feet lower during normal flood stages than the Wisconsin River. Delineat-
ing precise drainage basins within the area is difficult because of the
flat topography.
3.6.2. Hydrology
The flow of both the Wisconsin River and the Fox River is measured by
the USGS (Tables 1 and 2). The average flow varies from year to year and
throughout the year (Appendix B, Tables B-l through B-4). River flow
generally is highest during the early spring and is lowest during late
summer and autumn.
Table 1. Summary of flow data for the Wisconsin River (USGS 1977a). Dis-
charges are given in cubic feet per second (cfs).
Near
Wisconsin Dells Near Muscoda
Average discharge (period of record) 6,775 8,625
Extremes for period of record
Maximum discharge 72,200 80,800
Minimum discharge 1,060 2,000
Extremes for 1975-1976 water year
Maximum discharge 41,000 46,700
Minimum discharge 1,500 2,290
Table 2. Summary of flow data for the Fox River near Berlin, Wisconsin
(USGS 1.977b). Discharges are given in cubic feet per second
(cfs).
Average discharge (period of record) 1,093
Extremes of period of record
Maximum discharge 6,900
Minimum discharge 248
Extremes tor 1975-1976 water year
Maximum discharge 3,420
Minimum, discharge 355
The gaging station near the Wisconsin Dells is located approximately
15 miles upstream from Portage. The drainage area upstream from the sta-
tion is 7,830 square miles. The gage records can be assumed to approximate
the flow of the Wisconsin River near Portage because of the relatively
close location and the absence of any major tributaries entering the Wis-
consin River between the station and Portage. The other gaging station is
located at Muscoda, 70 miles downstream from Portage. The drainage area
upstream from Muscoda is 10,300 square miles.
3-3
-------
The 7-day, 10-year low flow for the Wisconsin River at Portage was
determined by WDNR (McKersie 1977) through interpolation of USGS gaging
station records at Wisconsin Dells, Muscoda, and Baraboo. The 7-day,
10-year low flows determined by WDNR for these stations were 1,800 cfs,
2,260 cfs, and 84 cfs, respectively. The 7-day, 10-year flow for the
Wisconsin River at Portage was determined to be 1,850 cfs.
The USGS continuous gaging station nearest to Portage is at Berlin,
Wisconsin, which is located approximately 60 miles downstream from Portage
on the Fox River. The drainage area upstream from the gaging station is
approximately 1,430 square miles. Because of the difference between the
size of the drainage basin at Portage and the size of the basin at Berlin,
the USGS data does not reflect exactly the flow of the Fox River at Portage.
During June, July, August, and September 1978, USEPA made river flow
measurements on the Fox River upstream and downstream from the WWTP at
Portage (Table 3). To obtain the 7-day, 10-year low flow for the Fox
River, WDNR contracted with the USGS to monitor the River near the Portage
WWTP. Data were collected during August, September, and November 1972 and
during July and August 1973. These data were interpolated through the use
of the Berlin, Wisconsin, gaging station data. The 7-day, 10-year low flow
at Portage was 15 cfs. During August 1977, two additional flow surveys
were conducted by WDNR at the Route 33 Bridge, approximately 200 yards
downstream from the WWTP. The surveys indicated flows of 14.26 cfs and
17.7 cfs, respectively. These figures were interpolated to upstream flows
of 11.6 cfs and 15.0 cfs, respectively (By telephone, Mr. Jerome McKersie,
WDNR, to Ms. Carol Qualkinbush, WAPORA, Inc., March 1977).
Table 3. Fox River flow data for 1978 (USEPA 1979b). Discharges are given
in cubic feet per second (cfs).
June July Augus t September
Upstream from WWTP 40.63 90.67 25.18 76.06
Downstream from WWTP 28.82a 99.38 25.73 71.18
SIt is the opinion of USEPA that this figure is not valid.
3.6.3. Surface Water Use
As a major surface water resource, the Wisconsin River presently is
used as the receiving water for wastewater effluent, for water supply, and
for recreation. It assimilates and disperses both human and industrial
wastes discharged from municipal and industrial point sources (Section
3.6.4.5.). The Wisconsin River also serves the water needs of industry and
commerce. The largest user of surface water in the Lower Wisconsin Basin
may be the Badger Army Ammunition Plant near Baraboo. As of June 1980, a
5.5 mgd discharge to Lake Wisconsin Is projected for the proposed facility.
The Department of the Army has not yet decided whether to prepare an EIS on
the lease of this facility to a munitions manufacturing company. Irriga-
tion use is increasing in the area. The total quantity of surface water
consumed by category of use is listed in Appendix B, Table B-5. Approxi-
mately 14% of the water consumed in the Basin is from surface water, exclud-
ing recent increases in surface water use for irrigation.
3-4
-------
.The lower part of the Wisconsin River is used extensively for rec-
reation, especially canoeing.. In October 1979, the segment from Honey
Creek, approximately 8.1 miles downstream from Prairie Du Sac, to the
confluence with the Mississippi River was found eligible for inclusion in
the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. This segment is about 30 miles
downstream from Portage. The scenic, recreational, and fish and wildlife
values of this river segment therefore are protected under Public Law 93-621,
Section 7(b).
The Fox River near Portage has potential for recreational use. How-
ever, current recreational use is minimal. In the vicinity of Portage, the
Fox River is used primarily as the receiving water for municipal wastewater
effluent (Olcott 1968).
3.6.4. Water Quality
3.6.4.1. Water Quality Standards
The quality of the Wisconsin River and the Fox River is regulated by
WDNR through Chapter 144 of the Wisconsin Statutes and Chapters 102 and 104
of the Wisconsin Administrative Code. These standards apply to each river
according to its use and location. Present (1978) standards are divided
into four categories: general standards, standards for fish and aquatic
life, standards for recreational use, and standards for public water supply
(Appendix B, Table B-6). A summary of State standards (State of Wisconsin
1973) and Federal criteria (USEPA 1976c) for selected, pertinent parameters
is given below:
Parameter State
Fecal coliform (MPN/100 ml)
Dissolved oxygen (mg/1)
Total phosphorus (mg/1)
Ni trate-ni trogen (mg/ 1)
Cadmium [micrograms per liter
(ug/1)]
Copper (mg/1)
Iron (mg/1)
Lead (ug/1)
Manganese (ug/1)
Mercury (ug/1)
Polychlorinated biphenyls (ug/1)
Standard
200
5.0
NA
NA
0.4
1.0
0.3
50
50
0.05
0.001
Federal Criteria
200
5.0
0.10, 0.05
10
0.4
1.0
0.3
50
50
0.05
0.001
NA - Not applicable.
The criteria were determined to protect various water uses and/or aquatic
resources: fecal coliform — full-body contact recreation; dissolved
oxygen (DO) — freshwater aquatic life; total phosphorus — free-flowing
stream or river (0.10 mg/1), and stream or river that enters an impoundment
or lake (0.05^ mg/1); nitrate-nitrogen — domestic water supply; and heavy
metals and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) — freshwater aquatic life and
wildlife and domestic water supply.
3-5
-------
3.6.4.2. Wisconsin River
The Wisconsin River at Portage has been classified as "effluent
limited" (WDNR 1977c). The river is capable of meeting water quality goals
with the application of basic treatment technology to wastewater effluent.
Water quality goals for 1983 are being met on the lower part of the Wisconsin
River. However, this does not mean that some violations of the standards
do not occur.
WDNR maintains surface water quality stations at the Wisconsin Dells,
15 miles upstream from Portage, and at Prairie du Sac, approximately 21
miles downstream from Portage. Water quality data for the Wisconsin River
at the Wisconsin Dells have been gathered monthly since 2 February 1977.
None of the available data, however, reflect accurately the water quality
conditions at Portage and at the point of entry into Lake Wisconsin.
Fecal coliform, dissolved oxygen and nitrate-nitrogen levels in the
Wisconsin River between February 1977 and November 1978 were within stand-
ards set by the State of Wisconsin and USEPA water quality criteria (Table
4). Concentrations of total phosphorus were relatively high, and mercury
concentrations were recorded at levels higher than the lev,el that is recom-
mended by USEPA (1976c). Total phosphorus concentrations should measure
0.10 mg/1 in a moving stream or river and should be less than 0.05 mg/1 in
a stream or river at the point where it enters a lake or impoundment.
These criteria are intended to ensure that the rate of eutrophication will
not increase. Total phosphorus concentrations exceeded the criteria of
0.10 mg/1 twice during 1977 and four times during the first 11 months of
1978. All concentrations at the point of entry into Lake Wisconsin ex-
ceeded the 0.05 mg/1 criteria. These concentrations indicate the presence
of phosphorus in the Wisconsin River at levels that could cause nuisance
algae growth in the river and lake and that could contribute to the eutro-
phication process in the lake. It is recommended that mercury concentra-
tions not exceed 0.05 ug/1 to protect freshwater aquatic life and wildlife,
concentrations in the Wisconsin River at the Wisconsin Dells averaged less
than 0.-2 ug/1 during 1978. The actual mercury concentration cannot be
determined by the instruments that are presently being used by WDNR.
During June, July, August, and September 1978, USEPA collected water
quality data for the Wisconsin River at three locations (USEPA 1979b) :
• Approximately 1.0 mile upstream from Portage
• Downstream from Portage, approximately 2.0 miles downstream
from the Route 33 Bridge
• Approximately 7.0 miles downstream from Portage, near the
public landing at Dekorra and downstream from the confluence
of the Baraboo River and the Wisconsin River.
3-6
-------
Table 4. Water quality data for the Wisconsin River at Wisconsin Dells
(WDNR 1978, 1979c).
Date
2-28-77
3-22-77
4-20-77
5-17-77
6-20-77
7-25-77
9-13-77
10-12-77
11-15-77
12-13-78
1-12-78
2-08-78
3-09-78
4-12-78
5-09-78
6-12-78
7-10-78
8-10-78
9-21-78
10-11-78
11-08-78
Total
Phosphorus
(mg/1)
0.100
0.070
0.090
0.070
0.110**
0.120**
0.080
0.080
0.080
0.060
0.180**
0.080
0.08
0.12**
0.08
0.08
0.14**
0.12**
—
0.10
—
Fecal Coliform
(MPN/100 ml)
300*
<10
<10
30
40
20
<10
60
450*
190
50
50
80
<10
<10
10
50
50
80
50
20
Dissolved
Oxygen
(mg/1)
10.0
7.7
9.2
7.5
9.2
8.3
8.5
10.4
12.9
11.8
10.6
10.8
9.3
12.4
10.4
8.2
7.6
7.2
7.4
9.7
— •
Nitrate-
Nitrogen (mg/1)
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.01
0.02
0.2
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.7
—
0.6
0.5
0.3
0.5
0.1
—
0.4
~~
Mercury
(ug/l)
<0.2
<0.3
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
—
<0.2
<0.2
*Potentially violates USEPA recommended standards (USEPA 1976c).
**Violates USEPA recommended standards (USEPA 1976c).
3-7
-------
These data reflect water quality conditions in the Wisconsin River near
Portage and also near the entry point into Lake Wisconsin. The water
quality sampling stations are illustrated in Appendix B, Figure B-l. Water
samples were collected once each month. Sediment samples were collected
only during June and September.
The water quality data collected are presented in Table 5. Total
phosphorus, fecal coliform, manganese (Mn), and iron (Fe) concentrations
consistently exceeded State of Wisconsin standards and/or USEPA criteria
(State of Wisconsin 1973; USEPA 1972, 1976c). At the upstream and mid-
stream stations, total phosphorus concentrations exceeded 0.10 mg/1 during
July, August, and September, indicating that phosphorus may be a problem
regardless of the phosphorus loadings from Portage. Total phosphorus
concentrations at the downstream station exceeded the 0.05 mg/1 during all
4 months. The fecal coliform standard for Wisconsin and the Federal cri-
teria were exceeded at all three stations at least twice during the 4-month
period. Fecal coliform counts at the three stations ranged from 0.50 to
460 MPN/100 ml at the upstream station, from 0.79 to 460 MPN/100 ml at the
midstream station, and from 0.49 to 1,300 MPN/100 ml at the downstream
station. Manganese concentrations were higher than the recommended 5 ug/1
for public water supply sources (USEPA 1976c) at all stations during July
and August, ranging from 143 ug/1 to 193 ug/1 at each station. Iron con-
centrations exceeded the recommended concentration of 1.0 mg/1 for all
samples collected, ranging from 1.10 mg/1 to 1.67 mg/1. Mercury concen-
trations were consistently less than 0.1 ug/1 at all stations during the
monitoring period. Dissolved oxygen concentrations ranged from 3.8 mg/1 to
7.6 mg/1, violating the 5.0 mg/1 minimum concentration once at the down-
stream station during July (State of Wisconsin 1973; USEPA 1976c). The
recommended fluoride concentration was exceeded upstream from Portage in
September.
PCBs, a group of industrial chemicals previously used extensively in
manufacturing processes and consumer products, are present in the Wisconsin
River. PCB concentrations are given in Table 5 under the trade name Aroclor.
The degree of chlorination determines their chemical properties, and gener-
ally their composition can be identified by the numerical nomenclature.
The first two digits represent the molecular type and the last two digits
the average percentage by weight of chlorine (e.g., Aroclor 1242). Total
levels of PCBs usually are derived from adding the individual Aroclor
levels to obtain a single total. Exact measurements are not available,
because the measuring instruments were not sensitive to the present con-
centrations in the River.
3.6.4.3. Lake Wisconsin
Lake Wisconsin has severe water quality problems (WDNR 1979a). It has
algal blooms, fishkills, excess rooted plant growth in the bays, bacterial
contamination, excessive sediment, and shoreline erosion. The quality of
the water in Lake Wisconsin was studied by USEPA in 1972 and 1978 (USEPA
1973 and 1979b). The 1972 study was part of the National Eutrophication
Survey, which was designed to collect information on nutrient sources and
concentrations and the impacts of those concentrations on selected fresh-
water lakes.
3-8
-------
O\
rH
0
0
m
o
r*s
tH
0
100
°
'
in
0
s
0
o
o
0
0
s
o
"I
8s
I
sT
*
* r*. * *
© m co o © m © r-. * *
CO 00 CO © O SO © © OOOO OOOOO
OOO CMO^r^OO CM SO sD © fOinOOCM
m tH v v
fH
•K
* * * *
oootH © © m © ^ oooo ooooo
ooo coorvfsjZ cMinoo© mmoocM
C1*) \& tH V V
*
* * * « *
OOfH VDOOOOO OOOO OOOOȣ>
OtHO cMOmtHO cMinr*© rvmOOr«.
tH CN VtH mff\VCM\D
m CM tH V V
* fH
SO 0 i> *
OOOO OOOvOOOv OOOO OOOOO
OOO CMOvOCMO CMvO^-OO CMinOOCM
in CM V V^»COVCMSOV
•H V V
oo mmoocM
I ** I
OCMtH OOOOOCM OOOO OOOOin
OfHO momrHO CMOOOO -a-inr-oco
•* m tH v
M
tH
& O sC «
OONO OOcMOm OOOO OOOOO
OOO CMOr^-OO CMln^.OO OmOOCM
tH V V
tH
E
.— * O s~*
tH O fH
"tf s ^
§^ C ^N
0) U y-.
o c x >-• -^
J! 0 X 00
^ a ,-s «-t fe v e
tH rH O "*••. fH *TJ S3 rH fH rH rH rH rH tH fH rH
fg10- i°^;2S sfg'g'g'S'g'g'g'S'
Q m w to a. o
gUiO OO>*HVfH *OM70J C>H^BCO
^H ^l CQtaOt^Efc UOO t*« S SK P^ N ^
fH
©
©
©
V
z
rH
o
V
fH
o
V
tH
©
tH
o
V
o
V
o
V
o
rH
0
tH
3°
00
X
in
o
in
o
in
0
V
in
o
V
o
V
in
o
V
in
o
in
o
V
rH
o
V
o
in
0
m
o
r-l
M
3
CN
-sr
iH
0
u
2
m
o
in
o
in
o
in
o
V
in
o
V
in
o
V
in
o
m
o
V
tH
o
V
in
o
V
o
in
o
T1
I3
00
-a-
r-t
o
o
o
^
o
0
o
V
o
rH
V
rH
0
V
rH
o
V
o
tH
o
fH
V
rH
o
V
rH
o
V
o
rH
o
rH
tH
3°
•a-
in
tH
M
o
u
o
tH rH
O 0
rH in
o o
o m
rH O
V V
rH
O 0
rH 0
V V
rH rH
O 0
V V
tH rH
0 0
V V
o m
rH O
0 S
tH 0
V V
o o
V V
rH rH
o o
V V
o in
rH O
iH
o o
rH O
rH rH
1? 9
o
sO
rH
0 C
U M
o *o
Li tH
JJ
0)
u
•H
(4-4
o
•H
4J
•H
a
c
*-.
If)
$
e Kaiser, U!
b
111
1
a
Ol
fH
01
4J
0
g
00
2
•H
c
CO
to
«H
c
CO
tH
(0 •
4J s~>
jj r**
U-l fH
intrations
7 Septembe
O iH
8>
Q) -H
01 0)
D.
0) <
t-l Cw
W
tH
9
-------
The eutrophication study, which was conducted during June, July, and
November 1972, concluded that Lake Wisconsin was eutrophic. Total phos-
phorus concentrations ranged from 0.052 mg/1 to 0.15 mg/1 and averaged 0.07
mg/1. These concentrations exceed the 0.025 mg/1 criteria recommended to
prevent excessive or nuisance algal growth in lakes and impoundments (USEPA
1976c). Algal assay results and water quality data indicate that nitrogen
was the critical nutrient limiting plant productivity (thus the rate of
eutrophicat!on) during June and July and that phosphorus was the critical
nutrient limiting productivity during November. To reduce the biological
activity in the lake, and thus the rate of eutrophication, the amount of
phosphorus entering the lake would have to be controlled to the extent that
phosphorus would be the limiting nutrient throughout the year, par-
ticularly during summer months when the biological activity is greatest.
The average annual total phosphorus loading for Lake Wisconsin was
estimated during the USEPA lake eutrophication study to be 15.21 grams/
m /day. The recommended Vollenweider loading rate for phosphorus (based on
the mean depth and mean hydraulic retention time of Lake Wisconsin) that
would maintain a clean, oligotrophic lake is 1.25 grams/m / day. The
"dangerous" loading rate that would cause eutrophication was determined to
be 2.50 grams/m /day (USEPA 1974b). Thus, the existing incoming total
phosphorus load is more than six times the loading rate suggested to cause
eutrophic conditions (USEPA 1972).
Total phosphorus concentrations measured in 1978 near Dekorra, where
the flow of the Wisconsin River enters Lake Wisconsin, ranged from 0.05 mg/1
in June to 0.38 mg/1 in September (Table 5). However, the criteria for the
phosphorus concentration in a stream that flows into an impoundment or a
lake is 0.05 mg/1 (USEPA 1972). Because the river contributes 93% of the
inflow to the Lake and because the Lake has a mean hydraulic retention time
of only four days, it is highly unlikely that the total phosphorus con-
centration in the Lake could ever be less than 0.025 mg/1, unless the
amount of phosphorus entering the river is controlled.
3.6.4.4. Fox River
WDNR has designated the Upper Fox River as "effluent limited." The
Upper Fox River generally meets Wisconsin water quality standards (1983
water quality goals). However, information in a WDNR water quality inven-
tory (WDNR 1977c) indicated that the River is very eutrophic and has severe
aesthetic problems, which are caused by a combination of factors such as
agricultural runoff, WWTP effluent, and impoundments.
No consistent sampling has been done on the Fox River near Portage by
either USGS or WDNR. Twelve monthly water quality samples were taken at
MarcelIon during 1973 and 1974 (WDNR 1974). The results indicated that the
dissolved oxygen standard was being met. The sampling, however, was con-
ducted upstream from Pardeeville and Portage, the locations of two point
sources in the Fox River headwaters subbasin.
A preliminary waste load allocation study was conducted by WDNR on 6
and 7 September 1977 (WDNR 1977b). The results of the study reflected the
water quality of the Fox River for only one day during low flow conditions
(16.06 cfs upstream from the treatment plant outfall). These data may or
may not be representative of the quality of the Fox River. The locations
of the water quality sampling stations are shown in Appendix B, Figure B-l.
3-10
-------
During the allocation study, WDNR recorded field observations at
intervals of several hundred feet along the stream reach from just upstream
from the WWTP to 2.15 miles downstream from the effluent outfall. The DO
levels were 1.85 mg/1 upstream from the outfall and 9.0 mg/1 at a point 2.1
miles downstream from the outfall (Appendix B, Figure B-2). An examination
of the data indicated that DO recovery occurred within 1.0 mile of the
outfall. Dissolved oxygen levels varied significantly during the day,
which indicates the photosynthetic activity of a large aquatic plant popu-
lation on that particular day (Appendix B, Figure B-3).
WDNR also collected chemical data from five stations, all located
close to the wastewater treatment effluent outfall (Table 6). Concentra-
tions of nitrogenous compounds and total phosphorus increased downstream,
which could be due to the WWTP discharge (Section 4.5). The significance
of the in-stream increase in nitrogenous compounds is hard to assess be-
cause of the small area sampled and the lack of nonpoint source infor-
mation. An excess of nitrogen in the water would tend to promote plant
productivity and thus eutrophication, if phosphorus were readily available.
The phosphorus loading of the effluent exceeded the standard of 1.0 mg/1
for streams flowing into the Great Lakes. Excess plant growth was noted in
the section of the Fox River in the study area.
Table 6. Chemical data from the WDNR Fox River study (WDNR 1977b).
Station No.
1
2
3
9
27
Trib. 1
Trib. 2
Trib. 3
Distance
from
Outfall
(miles)
0.1
0.0
0.04
0.5
1.5
0.55
1.02
2.15
BOD
20
Total
Org. N
9
64
10.5
10.5
10.4
16.8
11.5
10.5
0.6
2.3
—
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.6
N02-N
0.03
6.2
0.25
0.24
0.10
0.16
0.13
0.11
0.02
4.44
0.16
0.24
0.48
0.05
0.34
1.56
0.03
5.9
0.44
0.38
0.45
0.13
0.42
0.09
During June, July, August, and September 1978, USEPA collected water
quality data from two locations on the Fox River (USEPA 1979b)» Data were
collected 500 feet upstream from the WWTP outfall and 500 feet downstream
from the WWTP (Appendix B, Figure B-l). Sediment samples from the above
locations were collected, as well as effluent and sludge samples from the
WWTP. Sediment samples were collected during June and September. All
other samples were collected monthly.
Concentrations of total phosphorus, fecal coliform, DO, mercury, and
fluoride exceeded Federal criteria and/or Wisconsin standards (Table 7).
Total phosphorus concentrations in samples from the upstream station ranged
from 0.05 "mg/1 to 0.10 mg/1, and ranged from 0.15 mg/1 to 0.25 mg/1 in
samples from the downstream station. The difference between the upstream
samples and the downstream samples appears to reflect the loading from the
WWTP. Fecal coliform counts for upstream samples ranged from 23 to 490
3-11
-------
^^
o-v
ON
— 1
D-i
U
C/3
a
oo
CTi
— 1
60
•H
3
onsin d
of Portage, Wise
cd
CO-
Ol
.c
a
•H
•H
O
fct
01
C
•H
0)
4-1
cd
O
•H
O1
*
,
%
<->
w
S"
^
B*
1-1
o
.M-
°
$
0
PI
o
o
o
V
o
0
s
0
iH
o
eo
tM
g
i"1
CM
o
PI
CM
0
CM
O
CO
0
o
o
§
o
o
o
CO
o
o
«
£
«•>
oo
1-4
o
CM
fi
m
i-i
CM
i-l
I-H
O
o
rt
I-.
NO
o
jf
2
P
CM
CM
O
in
iH
0
co
iH
O
*
o
o
IH
o
m
o
o
o
iH
o
ON
O
O
^
t-l
•^^
S
a
o
a
a
4J
H
o
pn
o
o
CM
m
PI
o
pi
o
CM
V
O
CM
O
CM
V
Q
g>
Sw1
m
a
§
* * -»
•K in co
OiHOO OOOOOOOOP^tH
O i-H ViHVvOinVP>ND
*
in i-l
ONCOCM OOOOOOOOOiH
-* CM ViH r— CM V CM vD V V
iH V V
V
•K
iH * 00
X « NC
»moo oooooooooirt
CNPIOO cMNONOgNDinoopNO
CM V V
ONOOCM OOOOOOOOOiH
p*i P) oo in CM r^ \o o ON in o o fNi o
CM iH V ^ V r*> ON V (M SO V V
iH V V
V
* * CO
OCMOO OOOOCOOOOiH
ONCOP1 OOOOOOOOOJ^
PNCMP1O CNOOvOOOinOOCMO
CM CM ViHVr^PSVtMNO V
tH V V
V
OCMOO OOOOOOOOiniH
OPirHO
-------
MPN/100 ml, and those for downstream samples ranged from 23 to 2,400,000
MPN/100 ml. Again, the difference between the upstream and downstream
samples reflects the loading from the WWTP. Dissolved oxygen concentra-
tions in the upstream samples ranged from 2.0 mg/1 to 4.2 mg/1 and ranged
from 1.65 mg/1 to 4.15 mg/1 in samples from the downstream station. All of
the mercury concentrations upstream were less than 0.1 ug/1. Downs"tream
samples contained less than 0.1 ug/1 in June and 0.1 ug/1 in July, August,
and September. Fluoride concentrations ranged from 0.086 mg/1 to 0.2 mg/1
at the upstream station and ranged from 0.068 mg/1 to 5.2 mg/1 at the
downstream station. The concentration of 5.2 mg/1 in June at the downs-
tream station exceeded the State standard.
A water quality standard exists for un-ioniEed ammonia (NH ), but
concentrations of un-ionized ammonia in the Fox River were not determined.
However, concentrations for total ammonia as nitrogen from the upstream
station ranged from 0.04 mg/1 to 0.10 mg/1. Values for samples from the
downstream station ranged from 0.12 mg/1 to 0.48 mg/1. This difference in
the values appears to reflect loadings from the WWTP.
USEPA measured PCB concentrations in the Fox River during June, July,
August, and September 1978 (USEPA 1979b). PCBs were entering the waste-
water treatment facilities from the National Cash Register plant in Portage
and were being discharged to the Fox River (Section 4.5.5.). The majority
of the in-stream concentrations were less than the level of instrument
sensitivity (Table 7). Concentrations within the range of instrument
sensitivity ranged from 0.1 ug/1 to 0.8 ug/1 at the downstream station.
These values are very high in comparison with the Federal criteria for
drinking water of 0.001 ug/1 (USEPA 1976b). The maximum allowable level
for ambient waters is 1 part per trillion (0.000001 ug/1) because of bio-
accumulation that can occur in aquatic organisms. Carp downstream from the
WWTP have been found to contain PCBs in excess of the tolerance level of 5
ppm established by the US Food and Drug Administration.
3.6.4.5. Point Sources
Point sources discharge pollutants (e.g., organics, nutrients, heavy
metals) into a stream via a pipe or ditch. The Lower Wisconsin River Basin
has relatively few point sources compared with the Upper Wisconsin River
Basin, which has numerous paper mills. It is expected that these paper
mills will reduce their pollutant loadings to the River by about 85% from
previous years by the installment of new treatment systems. These paper
mills collectively released 50,000 Ibs per day of BOD into the Wisconsin
River during 1977 (Krill 1977). 5
There are several major and minor tributaries in the Lower Wisconsin
River Basin that convey pollutants to Lake Wisconsin. Approximately 21,000
people are served by municipal sanitary sewage districts that discharge
treated sewage effluent to tributaries of the Wisconsin River between
Portage and Lake Wisconsin. Numerous industries, including feedlots and
dairy processing, canning, meat processing, and light manufacturing fa-
cilities, also discharge process waters in the study area. The potential
contribution of the Badger Army Ammunition Plant has been noted in Section
3.6.2. The estimated point source loading of phosphorus that is discharged
between Wisconsin Dells and Lodi to Lake Wisconsin is approximately
69,300 Ibs per year. Thus, 6% of the total phosphorus loading to the lake
enters downstream from Portage.
3-13
-------
The upper part of the Fox River Basin has only one point source. This
is the Pardeeville WWTP, which is located approximately 7.0 miles upstream
from Portage.
3.6.4.6. Nonpoint Sources
Nonpoint sources discharge pollutants into a stream over a diffuse
area instead of via a discharge pipe or ditch. The discharges generally
are associated with intensive rainfalls, snowmelts, or other runoff events.
The quantities of pollutants discharged from nonpoint sources are difficult
to measure or predict because the sources are diffuse.
Nonpoint sources in the Lower Wisconsin River Basin discharge signifi-
cantly larger amounts of pollutants (i.e., nutrients and organics) to
surface water than point sources (WDNR 1979a). The major nonpoint sources
are agricultural, including eroding cropland and barnyards and feedlots.
Other locally important sources are eroding roadsides, pastured woodlands,
streambanks, and construction sites; poorly managed urban areas; and fail-
ing septic systems.
WDNR attempted to determine the significance of the pollutant contri-
bution from animal waste by evaluating animal units, which represent ap-
proximately 1,000 pounds of animal. It was estimated that Pacific Township
(the township in which Portage is located) had 21.57 animal units per
square mile. WDNR determined that, 15 to 30 animal units per square mile
were of low priority in dealing with nonpoint source pollution. Caledonia
Township, which is located downstream from Portage and includes a section
of the Baraboo River Watershed, had 41.26 animal units per square mile.
According to WDNR, between 30 and 60 animal units per square mile rep-
resents a potential for serious nonpoint source pollution (WDNR 1976c.)
The average annual nonpoint source loading of phosphorus between
Wisconsin Dells and Lodi to Lake Wisconsin is approximately 1,160,770
pounds, which represents 94% of the total phosphorus loading from the area
(USEPA 1974b). However, nonpoint sources farther upstream contribute most
of the phosphorus reaching Lake Wisconsin. This is primarily because the
drainage area of the Upper Wisconsin River Basin is so much larger than the
drainage area downstream from Wisconsin Dells to the Lake.
3.7. Terrestrial and Aquatic Flora
3.7.1. Contemporary Flora
Thirteen types of land cover were identified in the expanded study
area, including:
Agricultural Land
Barren Land
Floodplain Forest
Hedgerows
Hemlock-White Pine-Northern Hardwood Forest
3-14
-------
Mixed Grassland
Mixed Succession
Oak-Hickory Forest
Pastureland
Red Pine Plantation
Residential Land
Swamp Forest
Wetlands
The major locations of each cover type, as well as perennial streams and
bodies of water, are shown in Figure 4. More complete data describing each
land cover is given in the Draft EIS (Section 2.7.2. and Appendix E).
3.7.2. Regulations Concerning Wetlands
Wetlands are poorly drained areas where "water is the dominant factor
determining the nature of soil development and the types of plants and
animal communities living in the soil and on its surface" (Cowardin and
others 1977). Wetlands historically have been regarded as wastelands;
farmers and developers were encouraged to drain and fill the land for more
"useful" purposes (Draft EIS, Section 2.7.2.13.).
Public recognition of the natural resource values of wetland areas is
shifting wetland policies from draining and filling to conservation. The
State of Wisconsin Natural Resources Board has approved and .adopted rules
that pertain to the preservation, restoration, and management of wetland
areas (State of Wisconsin Natural Resources Board 1977). In addition, the
Federal Government "... requires Federal agencies to take action to avoid
adversely impacting wetlands wherever possible, to minimize wetlands
destruction and to preserve the values of wetlands, and to prescribe pro-
cedures to implement the policies and procedures of this Executive Order"
(Executive Order 11990, 1979). Section 404 permits are established by the
Clean Water Act for wetlands filling. They are issued by the Corps of
Engineers and are subject to the concurrence of USEPA, as well as the
review of other Agencies. Much of the legal recourse available for wet-
land preservation still is limited primarily to indirect approaches (Bed-
ford and others 1974; By telephone, Mr. Floyd Stautz, WDNR, to Ms. Anita
Locke, WAPORA, Inc., 7 February 1978).
3.8. Terrestrial and Aquatic Fauna
Documented information on fauna that pertains specifically to the
animals that utilize the study area is not available. However, pre- and
post-operational environmental surveys were conducted (1971-1977) for the
Columbia Generating Station (CGS), which is located approximately 4 miles
southeast of the study area. Similar habitat types exist in the study
area, therefore, communities should be similar in both areas.
Results of pre-operational surveys are summarized in the Final En-
vironmental Impact Statement for the Columbia Generating Station (US Army
Corps of Engineers [COE] 1974). Results from continuing investigations by
3-15
-------
the University of Wisconsin during the period from 1972 to 1977 also are
available, as are results from an impingement/entrainment survey conducted
by Swanson Environmental. These programs provide information on the pre-
sence or absence of fauna in the area, but provide little information on
population densities. A discussion of published results is presented in
the Draft EIS (Section 2.8. and Appendix F).
Because scientific data pertaining to the Fox River in the Portage
vicinity were virtually nonexistent, a short-term survey was conducted by
USEPA on the Fox River near Portage during Summer 1978. The Wisconsin
River also was included in the survey to supplement existing data for that
River. The survey involved sampling of chlorophyll <±, perlphyton, phyto-
plankton, zooplankton, macro!nvertebrates, and fish. Physical and chemical
parameters, including dissolved oxygen,. pH, temperature, and specific
conductance, also were measured. A discussion of findings is presented in
the Draft EIS (Section 2.8. and Appendix F).
3.9. Endangered or Threatened Species of Plants and Animals
A list of the species of plants that may be present within the ex-
panded study area and that have been included In the WDNR list of endan-
gered and threatened species (WDNR 1979d) is contained in Table 8. Each
species has been listed according to the habitat in which it most commonly
occurs. It should be noted that while the ranges of these species may
encompass the expanded study area, no collections or sightings of these
species are known to have been made in the Portage area. No plant species
recorded as extant within the study area is included in the Federal en-
dangered and threatened species list (59 CFR 17).
Twelve terrestrial species observed in the CGS area and Portgage study
areas are listed in the State list of endangered and threatened species
(WDNR 1979c). The eastern massasauga (Sistrurus catenatus), the double-
crested cormorant (Phalaci ocorax aurltus), the bald eagle (Haliaectus
legucocephalus), and the osprey (Pandion haliaetus) are listed as en-
dangered. Species listed as threatened include the spotted salamander
(Ambystoma maculatum), Blanding's turtle (Emydoldea blanding!), the western
glass lizard (Ophisaurus attenuatus), the great egret (Casmerodius albus),
the red-shouldered hawk (Buteo Hneatus), Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooper!),
the loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), and river redhorse (Moxostoma
carinaturn). No species observed are included in the Federal list of en-
dangered and threatened species (59 CFR 17). No species of fish listed as
endangered by the State of Wisconsin (WDNR 1979d) is known to be present in
the study area. The river redhorse (Moxostoma carlnatum), a species listed
as threatened, has been collected from the Wisconsin River.
3-17
-------
Table 8. Endangered and threatened species of plants that may occur in the study
area (Read 1976; WDNR 1979d).
Fanily Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Status
Cruciferae Amoracia aquatica Lake cress Aquatic E
Cyperaceae Carex lupuliformis No common name Marsh E
Orchidaceae Cypripedium candidum White lady's Marsh T
slipper
Orchidaceae Habenaria flava Tuberculed Marsh T
orchid
Read (1976) defined the status categories as follows:
Threatened - Rare native species which are known from more
than three stations in the state, but of very limited
distribution in Wisconsin so as to cause concern of future
endangerraent.
Endangered - Native plants with three or less stations
known to exist in the state are automatically included in
this category. Some species with more than three stations
have been included where it is believed that a substantial
number of .the stations are destroyed or actively threat-
ened. It should be noted that species are included in this
category even if the only station is protected, as in the
case of plants on state scientific areas.
Unknown, Probably Extirpated - Native species for which no
recent collections have substantiated its present existence
in the state, but for which there is insufficient
information to conclude that the plant is extirpated.
Extirpated - Species thought to be originally native (based
on old records and habitat data) but no longer believed to
exist in the state.
3-18
-------
4.0. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT: MAN-MADE ENVIRONMENT
4.1. Cultural Resources
4.1.1. Prehistory and Archaeological Sites
An archaeological survey at each alternate WWTP site was conducted
(Figure 5; Owen Ayres & Associates 1979). In addition, a survey of the
interceptor route to one of the alternate Wisconsin River sites (Site 1A)
was conducted during the spring of 1978 (Price). No significant archaeo-
logical materials were discovered during the surveys and associated test-
ing.
4.1.2. Historical or Architectural Sites
Examination of the National Register of Historic Places (Federal
Register, Vol. 44 No. .26, 6 February 1979, p. 7627; Federal Register, Vol.
45 No. 54, 18 March 1980, p. 17487) showed that five National Register
sites are located in the study area as of April 1980: the Fox-Wisconsin
Portage Site along the Wauona Trail, the Old Indian Agency House, the Fort
Winnebago Surgeon's Quarters, the Portage Canal, and the Fort Winnebago
site. Four other sites of local or architectural significance listed in
the Wisconsin Historic Sites Survey (State Historical Society of Wisconsin
1979) are located in the study area: the Wisconsin River Levee, the Silvef
Lake Cemetery, the Emancipation Ferry site, and the Fort Winnebago Ceme-
tery.
A historic residential district within the City of Portage has been
proposed. Several architecturally significant building styles encompassing
the period between 1800 and 1915 can be found in the City. In addition, a
survey by the State Historical Society of Wisconsin identified over 160
potentially significant buildings. Further study, however is needed to
determine to what degree each one is significant. A detailed description
of all historic or architecturally important sites is given in the Draft
EIS (Section 3.1.3. and Appendix G).
4.2. Socioeconomic Characteristics
4.2.1. Base Year Population of the Study Area
The Portage Planning Area consists of the City of Portage, Caledonia
Township, Fort Winnebago Township, Lewiston Township, and Pacific Township.
The Portage study area, which is within the Planning Area, consists of the
City of Portage and the land adjacent to the City that could be developed
by the year 2000 (Figure 2). The population of the Portage Planning Area
in 1970, as reported in the 1970 US Census, was as follows:
Portage
Caledonia Township
Fort Winnebago Township
Lewiston Township
Pacific Township
Total
The Wisconsin Department of Administration (DOA) develops population
4-1
-------
7 7
(35 MILES
NORTH)
STUDY BOUNDARY
SITE IDENTIFIED IN THE AUGUST, 1974
ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY OF PORTAGE
CONDUCTED BY STATE HISTORICAL
SOCIETY OF WISCONSIN
A NATIONAL REGISTER SITE
• WISCONSIN HISTORIC SITE
V///A POTENTIAL NATIONAL REGISTER SITE
(DMifMM At A NMtaMl NnMw lit. In I»T9 )
FIGURE 5
HISTORICAL OR ARCHITECTURAL SITES
IN THE STUDY AREA
4-2
-------
estimates on an annual basis. These estimates are based on the 1970 US
Census totals. The most recent Wisconsin DOA estimates are for the popula-
tion as of 1 January 1978 (Wisconsin DOA 1978). The estimates for the
Portage Planning Area are:
Portage 7,738
Caledonia Township 935
Fort Winnebago Township 832
Lewiston Township 1,070
Pacific Township 1,016
Total 11,591
For the purpose of this document, the 1 January 1978 estimates will be used
as the base year populations for the City of Portage and the Portage Plan-
ning Area.
4.2.2. Recent Population Trends
Past population trends can be identified at the level of the State of
Wisconsin, the OBERS subarea containing the City of Portage, Columbia
County, the Portage Planning Area, Portage, and the area surrounding Por-
tage. The trends observed at each level are summarized in Table 9. They
also are described in detail in the Draft EIS (Section 3.2.2. and Appendix
H).
Table 9. Summary of recent population growth (% increase).
1960-1970 1970-1975 1970-1980 1970-1978
10.9
OBERS Subarea3
Columbia County
Portage Planning Area
Portage
11.8
NA
9.4
4.4
0
3.7 7.5
4.7 9.6
4.2 8.6
-1.1
Includes Adams, Columbia, Crawford, Juneau, Lincoln, Marathon, Monroe,
Oneida, Portage, Richland, Sauk, Vernon, Vilas, and Wood Counties
Includes the City of Portage and the four surrounding townships
Q
Rate projected on the basis of years 1970 to 1975.
'4.2.3. Long-term Population Trends in Portage and Columbia County
The populations of both Portage and Columbia County have increased
slowly since 1900 (Draft EIS, Appendix H, Table H-4). Over the 78-year
period, the population of Portage increased by 41.7%, and the population of
Columbia County increased by 36.5%.
4-3
-------
The proportion of the Columbia County population living in Portage has
been declining since 1940. In 1940 the population of Portage accounted for
21.6% of the Columbia County total and by 1978 only 18.2% of the population
of the County resided in Portage. Most of the decrease has occurred since
1960, when the Columbia C.ounty growth rate became significantly higher than
the growth rate for the City of Portage.
4.2.4. Forces Behind Population Change
The changes in the population of an area are attributable primarily to
two major forces. One major force is job opportunities and potential for
employment growth. The other major force is the rate of natural.population
increase. Together, these forces determine the magnitude of the population
growth or decrease. More specifically, these- forces include parameters
such as: birth rate, employment trends, population age structure and
employment characteristics, migration and natural increases; commuting
patterns, and available housing stock. • A detailed description of these
factors and their impacts on population is available in the Draft EIS
(Section 3.2.4. and Appendix H).
4.2.5. Population Projections
The population projections for the State of Wisconsin, the OBERS
subarea in which Portage is located, Columbia County, and the City of
Portage are summarized in Table 10. Section 3.2.5. of the Draft EIS pro-
vides a complete discussion of these projections.
The recommended EIS population projection for Portage for the year
2000 is 9,150. The recommended population projection is consistant with
the projection that was developed as part of the areawide (208) water
quality planning process for the Lower Wisconsin River Basin. This pro-
jection indicates that Portage will have a population of 9,150 in the year
2000, based on a shift-share analysis of 1940 to 1977 trends.
It is difficult to develop population projections for a city the size
of Portage, as any number of factors may have a significant impact on its
future population growth. If a large industry locates in Portage, or in
close proximity to the City, the population could increase dramatically.
This is conceivable because of the location of the City with respect to
rail and highway facilities. Similarly, if a large industry leaves Por-
tage, population growth could be depressed seriously. The projection of a
population figure for Portage for the year 2000 is based on an overall
assumption of moderate growth in employment opportunities in the Portage
area.
4.2.6. Financial Assessment
The City of Portage provides a variety of community services that
include police and fire protection, garbage collection and disposal, waste-
water treatment, education, and water supply. The ability of a community
to maintain and/or to improve the level of services is dependent on the
ability of the community to finance these services. A discussion of total
revenues and expenditures for the City of Portage and its total indebted-
ness is presented in the Draft EIS (Section 3.2.6.).
4-4
-------
4-1
C
CU
U
CU
f^l
r^.
ON
vO
CM
•
rx.
CM
o
rH
ON
o
o
o
CM
«*
o
SJ-
oo
VO
•
m
CO
o
o
oo
A
00
vO
vO
oo
m
o
CO
o
m
ON
in
CO
oo
CM
O
CM
o
m
CM
o
CO
CM
m
vO
CO
O
O
m
o\
ON
o
r^
CM
*
>»
CO
vO
*
in
o
in
ON
•»
CM
m
o
o
CO
««
CM
m
O
rH
-tf
o
m
O
ON
ON
CM
00
CO
o
o
o
ON
in
o
r^
CO
0
m
0
ON
ON
ON
o
-3-
00
oo
o
m
ON
o
o
o
CM
O
4J
m
r~-
ON
m
oo
ON
O
oo
ON
O
r-.
ON
O
in
0
00
oo
*
ON
rH
oo
o
-*
CO
O
O
CM
M
O
CM
m
0
m
O
ON
CO
o
CO
CM
O
m
r--
«\
oo
o
•H
J-l
Q)
a.
in
ON
o
ON
ON
00
in
in
CM
vO
«
CO
ON
o
00
o
*
CM
o
00
o
ft
CM
O
00
O
•s
CM
00
in
00
o
4-4
co
a
o
o
cu
c
o
iH
4J
(1.
O
PM
(U
CO
H
4-»
I
CU
CJ
cd
rH
P.
CU
eve
>>
4J
•H
rH
•H
4-1
H
Q)
MH
4-1
a
cu
ol
o
Cfl
rH
CU
CU
CU
«
U
C/i
CU
00
CO
4-1
M
O
CM
•H
cj
m
r^
ON
O
Q
C
•H
co
C
o
a
co
CM
ON
co
"H
CO
rH
CCf
O
•H
o
o
s
CO
CU
h
3
m
CO
r-.
ON
CJ
C
M
co
cu
4-1
CO
•H
U
O
co
CO
•a
c
co
cu
c
cu
cfl
5
4-1
O
4-5
-------
Because the City of Portage is not overburdened by long-term indebted-
ness, it appears sound financially. The amount of debt that a local
government may incur safely depends on several criteria, and Portage .is
within the upper limits for indebtedness as shown in Table 11.
Table 11. Criteria for local government debt analysis (Moak and Hill-
house 1975; Aronson and Schwartz 1975).
_ , . Portage WI Standard Upper Limit
Debt per capita 6 "
Low income — $ 500
Middle income $285 $1,000
High income — $5,000
Debt as percent of market
value of property 2.1% 10% of current market
value
Debt service as percent of
revenue 5.0% 25% of the local govern-
ment's revenues
Debt service as percent of
per capita income 1.4% 7%*
* Not an upper limit, but the national average in 1970.
4.2.7. Recreation and Tourism
The City of Portage is located in close proximity to three major
recreation and tourism areas (Figure 6). The Wisconsin Dells area is
situated along the Wisconsin River in Columbia County and Sauk County,
approximately 17 miles northwest of Portage. Several ski resorts and
Devil's Lake State Park are located to the west of Portage along the Bara-
boo Range in western Columbia County and eastern Sauk County. Lake Wis-
consin is the third major recreation area in the vicinity of Portage. The
Lake is located 12 miles downstream from Portage within both Columbia
County and Sauk County. Because of the proximity of Portage to these
areas, recreation and tourism are important components of the economies of
the City of Portage and Columbia County.
4.2.7.1. State of Wisconsin
Recreation and tourism also are important parts of the Wisconsin
economy. In 1976, recreation and tourism sales totaled $4.2 billion (WDBD
1977a). This accounted for 9.8% of total business activity in Wisconsin.
The WDBD repqrted that recreation travel supported about 18% of the total
jobs in the State in 1976. Nonresidents accounted for 46% of the 1976
total gross sales. This is indicative of the attractiveness of the recre-
ation and tourism areas in Wisconsin to persons living in adjacent states.
4.2.7.2. Columbia County and Sauk County
In terms of 1976 total recreation and tourism sales, Columbia County
ranked 23rd of the 72 counties in Wisconsin, with sales totaling $53.6
4-6
-------
WISCONSIN__D§1-L_S
WISCONSIN DELLS
DEVILS LAKE
STATE. PARK
FIGURE 6
RECREATIONAL AREAS
4-7
-------
million (WDBD 1977a). Sauk County had recreation and travel sales of $67.9
million and ranked 15th in the State during 1976.
WDNR prepared a State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) in
1976. Columbia County is located within Recreation Planning Region 2,
along with Dane County, Dodge County, Jefferson County, and Rock County.
The recreation resources of Planning Region 2, which consists of two State
parks and 35 county parks, are well distributed. Bodies of water are
numerous and evenly located throughout Region. 2, although recreational
opportunities for swimming, boating, canoeing, and fishing are diminished
somewhat by water pollution (WDNR 1976d).
4.2.7.3. Lake Wisconsin
Lake Wisconsin, a man-made impoundment of the Wisconsin River, is
located approximately 12 miles downstream from Portage. A number of busi-
nesses in the Lake Wisconsin area depend primarily on water-based recre-
ation and tourism for their income. There are 33 recreation-related busi-
nesses listed in the Lake Wisconsin Chamber of Commerce Directory: 16 re-
sort hotels, 4 campgrounds, 4 marinas, and 9 restaurants. Numerous banks,
real estate agencies, and food stores in the Lake Wisconsin area are par-
tially dependent on the recreation and tourism industry. Although a year-
round recreation industry is developing, the Lake Wisconsin area recreation
industry is predominantly seasonal (Lake Wisconsin Chamber of Commerce
1977).
The University of Wisconsin Extension (1971) published' a survey of
recreation-oriented businesses in the Wisconsin River area concerning the
losses incurred as a result of the degradation of water quality in the
Wisconsin River and associated publicity. The survey was conducted in a
four-county area that included Sauk County and Columbia County. A majority
of the survey respondents indicated that they had suffered either property
or business losses, or that they did not realize expected increases in
business and property values because of water quality problems. Over half
of the survey respondents mentioned that they would expand their businesses
if Wisconsin River pollution were abated. The survey was simple and less
than half (45.4%) of the surveys mailed to businesses were returned.
Despite these limitations, the survey is an indication of the relationship
between water quality and the economics of recreation businesses along the
Wisconsin River.
Several attempts have been made by WAPORA to obtain firsthand infor-
mation on Lake Wisconsin area businesses through the use of questionnaires.
The purpose* of the questionnaires was to obtain past and present data to
determine economic trends in the Lake Wisconsin area. Questionnaires were
sent to nine business owners on 3 May 1978. Four of these questionnaires
were returned. At the request of persons attending the 29 July 1978 public
meeting held at Poynette High School, copies of the questionnaire were made
available to all interested persons. On 8 August 1978, .sample copies of
the questionnaire were mailed to the public libraries in Lodi, Portage, and
Poynette by USEPA, Region V.
4-8
-------
Two of the questionnaires returned by resort owners indicated that the
total amount of dollars grossed by those owners has increased steadily
since 1970. This increase in gross sales coincides with a reported im-
provement in the^water quality of the Wisconsin River, as indicated by Lake
Wisconsin residents.-
Several State-owned and county-owned recreation facilities also are
located in the Lake Wisconsin area. State facilities consist of two way-
side areas and the automobile ferry that crosses Lake Wisconsin at Merri-
mac. The Merrimac Ferry operates at the site of a ferry route established
in 1844; it is the last operating ferry in Wisconsin and was placed on the
National Register of Historic Places in 1974. County facilities in the
area include a wayside area, a bicycle trail, a snowmobile trail, and
Gibraltar Park (Columbia County Planning Department 1975).
4.2.7.4. Fox River
Little in the way of recreation development has occurred along the Fox
River in the vicinity of Portage. The only State-owned facility is a
wayside area along Route 33 in the vicinity of the Surgeon's Quarters at
Fort Winnebago and the Old Indian Agency House. Both are local tourist
attractions.
Governor's Bend Park is a county-owned facility adjacent to the Fox
River about 5 miles northeast of Portage (downstream). The Park is at the
northern end of the Marquette Trail, which runs along the Fox River between
Governor's Bend and Portage. Adjacent to the Park is a Boy Scout camp
which is used by Boy Scouts throughout Wisconsin (Columbia County Planning
Department 1975).
4.2.7.5. City,of Portage
In the City of Portage, six parks and recreation areas are located
adjacent to, or near, the Wisconsin River downstream from the Route 33
Bridge. The sizes of these parks and recreation areas vary from 9.7 acres
(Cottage School Playground) to 41.9 acres (Veteran's Memorial Field). No
Portage municipal parks or recreation areas are located in the vicinity of
the Fox River (Columbia County Planning Department 1975). A picnic area is
available for use adjacent to the existing WWTP.
4.3. Land Use
4.3.1. General Description
In general, the study area is rural in character. The predominant
land uses are agricultural or natural (Figures 4 and 7). Agricultural
lands include cultivated lands, pasturelands, and pine plantations. These
lands occupy 2,728 acres, or approximately 38% of the total study area.
Natural areas include floodplain forests, oak-hickory forests, mixed suc-
cession forests, wetlands, swamp forests, and mixed grasslands. These
lands occupy 2,354 acres, or approximately 33% of the total "study area
(Table 12).
4-9
-------
Table 12. Existing land use in the Portage study area (acres).
Land Use Acreage Percent of Study Area
Agriculture 2,728 38
Natural 2,354 33
Residential 882 12
Commercial 224 3
Industry 160 2
Institutional and utilities 248 3
Open space 133 2
Airport 102 1
Vacant 408 6
Within the developed area of Portage, the predominant land use is
residential (City of Portage 1979), which occupies 12% of the study area
(882 acres). Commercial uses occupy 3% of the study area (224 acres), and
industrial uses account for 2% of the study area (160 acres). Institu-
tional uses and utilities occupy 248 acres (3% of the area), and open space
occupies 133 acres (2% of the area). The airport is located on 102 acres,
occupying 1% of the study area. About 6% of the study area (408 acres) is
near, or between, developed lands and remains vacant.
Although there are no agricultural statistics available that are
specific to the Portage study area, the data for the surrounding county
(Columbia) are consistent with national trends. The number of farms de-
clined from 1,890 in 1977 to 1,870 in 1978, and land in farms declined from
393,200 acres to 391,900 acres during the same period (WDBD 1979a). An
examination of data for Columbia County revealed an increase in the average
size of farms, from 208 acres in 1977 to 210 acres in 1978. The signifi-
cance of the agricultural land resource is documented by the following
financial statistics. Based on farm sales in 1977 for land continuing in
agriculture, an acre of farmland sold for $933, whereas $737 per acre was
the State average (WDBD 1979a). Average cash receipts per farm were
$35,316 in 1977, whereas the State average was $31,518. Total receipts for
the County equaled $66,748,000, or 2.1% of the State total (WDBD 1979a).
4.3.2. Physical Constraints
The City of Portage lies between the Wisconsin River and the Fox
River, near the historic portage between the Great Lakes water system and
the Mississippi River system. A large area of wetlands lies between the
Wisconsin River and the Fox River, east of the Portage Canal. This area is
inundated seasonally by flood waters of the Wisconsin River and the Fox
River. The City of Portage is protected from the floodwaters of the Wis-
consin River by a levee that extends from the southwestern part of Portage
around to the south side of the City. The levee is breached downstream
from the study area, and the floodwaters from the Wisconsin River move
through the breach and inundate the wetland area located to the east of
Portage. Generally, floodplains and wetlands are a physical constraint to
the growth of Portage to the south and the southeast. Higher land is
available for growth to the north and northwest of Portage.
4-11
-------
Traffic systems are a factor in the development of growth patterns.
Route 78 runs north and south to the west of Portage. Route 78 originates
at Interstate 90-94, which passes approximately 6 miles south of Portage.
Route 78 extends north near Stevens Point, Wausau, and Merrill, Wisconsin.
Route 16 runs northwest from Milwaukee through Portage and. toward the
Wisconsin Dells. Land use changes could occur where there is easy access
to Interstate 90-94 near Route 78.
4.3.3. Development Constraints
The City of Portage has enacted a zoning ordinance, a subdivision
ordinance, and a floodplain ordinance to control future land uses. The
existing land uses appear to adhere to the zoning ordinance and the offi-
cial zoning map. The area south of the Wisconsin River within the Portage
city limits is designated for agricultural use. Agricultural and resource
conservation zones are designated to the southeast of Portage. Growth is
not encouraged to the south or southwest of Portage, but is encouraged to
the north and northwest. The trend to build multiple housing units, gener-
ally for senior citizens, has begun in the northern area of the City.
Floodplain zoning is used to control and discourage growth to the
south and east of Portage. Floodplain Zone 2 is located south of the
Wisconsin River; floodplain Zone 1 is located east of the Portage Canal,
between the Fox River and the Wisconsin River. Floodplain Zone 1 extends
west from the northern half of the Canal to just north of Mud Lake. Stric-
ter controls are required in these areas to restrict development outside
the 100-year floodplain.
The subdivision ordinance is applicable within the city limits and up
to 1.5 miles outside of the city limits. The ordinance regulates the
division of land larger than three parcels to assure that any major housing
construction is be developed as a subdivision unit.
Another constraint to development is the lack of available rental
units. Although the construction of multiple housing units, primarily for
the elderly, has created some owner-occupied housing, there is still a
demand for rental housing (By telephone, Ms. Maxine O'Brien, Portage Area
Chamber of Commerce, to Ms. Linda Gawthrop, WAPORA, Inc., 11 June 1979).
The townships of Fort Winnebago, Lewiston, and Caledonia have adopted
the model zoning ordinance promulgated by Columbia County. Pacific Town-
ship adopted their own zoning ordinance (By telephone, Ms. Jeanne Kuhn,
Columbia County Planning and Zoning, to Ms. Linda Gawthrop, WAPORA, Inc.,
12 September 1979).
4.3.4. Future Land Use Trends
Future land use patterns in an area are influenced by population
growth; local, State, and national legislation; local, State, and national
migration trends; and lifestyles and value changes. Population growth will
be the major factor affecting the acreage of future land uses in the Port-
age area. Development controls and transportation networks will be the
major factors affecting the spatial distribution of future land use.
Future land-use acreages were derived according to the present percentage
of developed land (Table 13). The assumptions used to derive these land-
use figures are in the Draft EIS (Section 3.3.4. and Appendix I).
4-12
-------
Table 13. Estimated future land use projections in the Portage study area
(acres)
Year
1978
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
Total
Devel-j
C Q
oped '
1,749
1,787
1,882
1,976
2,074
2,170
Resi-
dential
882
903
955
1,004
1,057
1,108
Commercial
224
229
242
255
268
281
Indus-
trial
262
265
274
283
293
302
Institu-
tional and
Utilities
248
253
267
282
296
311
Open
Space
133
137
144
152
160
168
Unde- b
veloped
5,490
5,452
5,357
5,263
5,165
5,069
Total acreage = 7,239
Includes vacant land, natural areas, and agricultural lands
•*
"It is assumed that the total amount of developed land increases by ap-
proximately 19-20 acres per year
Each category of developed land remains at a constant percentage of the
totals; i.e., residential use is always approximately 50% of the total
"Includes 102 acres at the airport that is assumed to remain constant.
Future land allocations, other than residential use, are difficult to
predict for a city the size of Portage. Any number of factors may affect
future land use allocations in the City. Commercial use acreages could be
larger than those estimated, because most newer commercial areas allocate
more space for the same use than was available or economical in the older
commercial districts. However, commercial acreages may not increase at all
if sufficient commercial space already :js available. Industrial land use
can be altered significantly by the location of a new industry in the study
area or by the movement of an established industry to another area. How-
ever, the assumption that Portage will continue to develop in a manner
consistent with past observations and present development controls was
necessary to estimate future land allocations.
In accordance with the zoning ordinance, additional residential growth
in Portage should be located to the north and northwest of the City. How-
ever, an area to the east, presently outside the city limits, appears to be
developing for single-family residential and multi-family residential
(quadraplex) uses. New growth should not be encouraged to the south of
southeast of Portage because of floodplain restrictions.
4.4. Flood Potential
There are 25 power dams located on the Wisconsin River upstream
(north) from Portage. These dams are operated by the Wisconsin Valley
Improvement Co. to generate power and to augment low flows in the River.
4-13
-------
The water levels in some of the reservoirs are lowered in anticipation of
spring runoff due to snowmelt and thus provide some flood protection to
downstream areas. However, flood storage capacity is unpredictable at
other times of the year. .In recent years, severe flooding due to spring
runoff has not occurred. With the present reservoir operation policy,
severe flooding is more likely to be due to heavy summer rains than to
spring runoff (US Army COE 1972).
Flooding in Portage is affected substantially by the height and stabi-
lity of levees. Local interests began constructing levees on the Wisconsin
River at or near Portage as early as 1866. The Federal Government assisted
local interests in constructing and maintaining the levees for navigation
and in providing flood protection to government installations on the Fox
River. The present flood protection system consists of 18 miles of discon-
tinuous sand levees that are located on both sides of the Wisconsin River.
During periods of high flow, the levees contain the River and prevent
floodwaters from entering the City of Portage and the Fox River. However,
a recent study by the St. Paul District Corps of Engineers, WDNR, and the
Federal Emergency Management Agency concluded that the levee system does
not meet the design standards or criteria to be considered as a flood
control structure (By memorandum, Mr. Richard Vogt, WDNR, to Mr. Gary
Edelstein, WDNR, 29 May 1980).
The potential exists for a disastrous flood because of the topography
of the area and man's attempts to modify the flood flow characteristics of
the Wisconsin River (US Army COE 1972). The floodway in the Portage area
for the 100-year flood recently was designated to be that area between the
levees or natural high ground (By memorandum, Mr. Richard Vogt, WDNR, to
Mr. Gary Edelstein, WDNR, 29 May. 1980). The adjacent areas outside the
levee system are considered flood fringe areas. Areas in which the depth
to groundwater is seasonally less than 5 feet (Section 6.4.4.2.1.; Figure
12) closely approximate the areas that would be flooded if the levees are
breached. Floodplain development constraints are summarized in Section
4.3.3. The Federal Flood Insurance Administration flood hazard map for
Portage "is included in Appendix B.
Flood stage on the Wisconsin River has been recorded since 1873, when
the US Army COE established a staff gage at the Portage Locks. A USGS
gaging station is located on the Wisconsin River 3 miles downstream from
the Wisconsin Dells. Both stage and discharge data for the site have been
recorded since October 1934. The ten highest recorded floods at Portage
are listed in Table 14. Stages were -measured at the Locks and were adjus-
ted to the present gage zero of 773.94 feet msl. Discharge data for floods
that occurred after October 1934 were measured at the Wisconsin Dells
gaging station. A rating curve was used to estimate the discharge of
floods that occurred prior to 1934.
Estimates of the flood potential of the area have been made by the US
Army COE (1972). The Intermediate Regional Flood at Portage was calculated
to have a peak discharge of 115,000 cfs and to crest approximately 0.6 feet
higher than the 1938 flood. The Intermediate Regional Flood is defined as
the flood with an average frequency of occurrence for a designated location
of once in 100 years.
4-14
-------
Table 14. Ten highest known floods of the Wisconsin River at Portage,
Wisconsin (US Army COE 1972).
Order No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Date of Crest
14 September 1938
27 March 1935
10 May 1960
12 April 1951
11-12 October 1911
14 April 1922
4-5 June 1943
11 June 1905
9 October 1900
5 April 1967
Maximum
Stage (ft)
20.5
19.0
19.6
19.1-
19.2
19.1
18.9
18.9
18.8
18.8
Crest
Peak
Elevation(ft) Discharge (cfs)
794.44
792.94
793.54
793.04
793.14
793.04
792.84
792.84
792.74
792.74
72,200
64,600
63,300
61*700
59,800
58,800
57,500
57,000
56,200
51,800
4-15
-------
The gage heights were determined on the assumption that the levees would
fail during this flood.
The US Army COE currently is completing a hydrologic analysis of the
Wisconsin River in cooperation with WDNR. Unofficial estimates of dis-
charges for the Intermediate Regional Flood at Portage range from 84,000 to
95,000 cfs. This is considerably lower than the 115,000 cfs presented in
the 1972 report (By telephone, Mr. John Bailen, US Army COE, to Mr. Kent
Peterson, WAPORA, Inc., 28 June 1979).
The Standard Project Flood at the Portage Locks can be expected to
have a discharge of 152,500 cfs and a stage that would be approximately 2.2
feet higher than the recorded stage of the 1938 flood. The Standard Pro-
ject Flood is defined as the largest flood that can be expected from the
most severe combination of meteorological and hydrological conditions that
could occur in the geographic region of the study.
4.5. Description of Existing Wastewater Systems
4.5.1. Sanitary Sewer Collection System
The sanitary sewer system consists of approximately 34 miles of sewer,
ranging from 6 to 20 inches in diameter, and 16 lift stations. The first
15 miles of sanitary sewer were installed in Portage in 1908, and construc-
tion has continued intermittently to the present time. The pipes are
composed of vitrified clay, concrete, asbestos concrete, and polyvinyl
chloride. A detailed discussion of the wastewater collection system is
presented in the Sewer System Evaluation Survey prepared by Owen Ayres and
Associates (1976). Four bypasses exist in the system: two to the Wisconsin
River and two to the Fox River. A sewer rehabilitation program currently
is underway to control excessive I/I (Section 6.4.2.).
4.5.2 Storm Sewer Collection System
The majority of the present Portage service area is served by a sepa-
rate storm sewer system. Areas in the City that do not have storm sewers
are drained overland during periods of rainfall or snowmelt. There are no
known cross-connections between the storm and sanitary sewers (Owen Ayres
and Associates 1976).
4.5.3. Existing Wastewater Treatment Plant
The City of Portage owns and operates the' Portage WWTP, which is a
secondary wastewater treatment plant. The plant consists of a coraminutor,
a pumping station, a primary sedimentation tank, a trickling filter, a
pumping station, a final sedimentation tank, and a chlorine contact cham-
ber. Phosphorus is precipitated chemically by the addition of aluminum
sulfate (alum) to the primary sedimentation tank. The plant effluent is
chlorinated before discharge to the Fox River. Sludge is digested anaero-
bically in separate heated digesters. Provisions are available to either
dry sludge on sand drying beds or to haul liquid digested sludge to agri-
cultural lands. The present average design capacity of the plant is 1.3
mgd, and the facility is capable of accepting a hydraulic loading of 2.16
mgd.
4-16
-------
4.5.4. Evaluation of Existing Wastewater Treatment Plant
The WWTP was inspected on 27 March 1978 to evaluate the serviceability
of existing plant components for potential use in improved or expanded
wastewater treatment facilities. Basically, it was determined that most of
the current structures could be modified and incorporated into remodeling,
upgrading, and expansion alternatives. Most of the mechanical process
equipment, however, has served its useful life and should be replaced.
These findings are similar to those presented in .the Facilities Plan (Owen
Ayres and Associates 1977).
/
4.5.4,1. Preliminary Treatment
Preliminary treatment consists of a bar screen and a comminutor, which
will need to be replaced for plant expansion. The building over the wet
well contains the raw sewage pumps and sludge pumps, the digester control
room, the laboratory, and the general office. All of the pumps are old and
break down frequently. Replacement parts are unavailable and have to be
made on the site. All pumps, piping, and electrical equipment should be
replaced. The building can be used, with modification, to house new pumps,
motors, standing generators, and office and laboratory facilities.
4.5.4.2. Primary Treatment
The primary treatment units were hydraulically overloaded. Some of
the flow bypassed the secondary treatment components and was conveyed
directly to the chlorine contact chamber prior to stream discharge. The
scum-collecting equipment was submerged and in a deteriorated condition.
All mechanical equipment for these units should be replaced. The primary
tanks could be salvaged for use in an expanded/upgraded treatment plant.
4.5.4.3. Secondary Treatment
The existing trickling filter was found to have minor process prob-
lems. The air vents were clogged accidently with filter rock and should be
removed. Ponding, observed along the sides of the filter, probably was due
to hydraulic overloading. The filter rock maintained a good biologic
growth and should be able to produce an effluent typical of trickling
filters if hydraulic overloading did not occur. The secondary clarifiers
appear to be salvageable for use in plant expansion/upgrading.
4.5.4.4. Chlorination
The chlorination tank is old and will not provide the required deten-
tion time and flow characteristics for projected flows. The unit should be
replaced.
4.5.4.5. Effluent Pumping
The effluent pumps are old and in similar condition to the other pumps
described previously. They should be replaced by new pumps with adequate
capacity for plant expansion and for ultimate effluent disposal.
4-17
-------
4.5.4.6. Solids Handling
Sludge presently is digested in an Imhoff tank that has been converted
into an anaerobic digester. Insufficient solids concentration results, and
more capacity is needed. Regardless, new facilities are needed. Recent
digester cleanings have been in the fall of 1978 and the fall of 1979.
Sludge sometimes is dried in drying beds or pumped to trucks that
deliver it to various farms in the area for land application for crop
production. The locations of sludge spreading sites are as follows:
• T13N, R9E, Section 36, NW^ (131.5 acres); 3.5 miles east of
Portage
• T13N, R9E, Section 35, SEk of NE^ (39 acres); 3.0 miles
east of Portage
• T12N, R9E, Section 30, SW1^ (142.32 acres); 4.0 miles south
of Portage
• T13N, R8E, Section 24, N^ of NF>s (approximately 80 acres);
3.0 miles north of Portage
(By letter, Mr. Fred Haerter, Director of Fublic Works, City of Portage, to
Mr. George Bartnik, WAPORA, Inc., 28 March 1978).
4.5.5. Operating Data
The operating data for the Portage WWTP for the years 1977 and 1978
are summarized in Tables 15 and 16, respectively. The Wisconsin Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) permit that was in effect at the time
included the following effluent limitations:
• BOD — 50 mg/1 (monthly average)
• Suspended Solids — 50 mg/1 (monthly average)
• Fecal Coliform — 200 MPN/100 ml (monthly average)
• Total 'Phosphorus — 4 mg/1 (monthly average).
(The interim effluent limitations of the current permit are identical.)
The City reported that the flow meter was off by approximately 24% prior to
mid-April 1979, when the flow meter was readjusted and calibrated (By
telephone, Mr. Mike Horken, Director of Public Works, City of Portage, to
Mr. J. P. Singh, WAPORA, Inc., 2 July 1979).
USEPA performed a water quality study on the Fox River and the Wis-
consin River at Portage during 1978 (USEPA 1979b). As part of this study,
samples were collected from the WWTP effluent; results of the analysis are
presented in Table 17. Concentrations of BOD and ammonia were high in
June and July, and fecal coliform counts were high in August and September.
Concentrations of total phosphorus were high in all four months. Most of
the heavy metal concentrations were high, indicating that industrial pre-
4-18
-------
G
03
rH
ft
4J
0)
g
cd
0)
4-1
OJ
4J
cd
i
OJ
4-J
CO
cd
^
r,
G
•H
cn
C
O
O
cn
•H
r.
1)
bO
cd
4J
^
' O
PL,
CU
4J
t_j
O
14-1
cd
4-J
cd
60
0
•H
4-1
cfl
S-i
CD
ft
o
[.^
ON
4H
O
>i
cfl
§
CO
*
m
j— i
a
rH
,£>
cd
H
rH
m
o
Q)
CM
ffi
^^
rH
to g
B
M O
0 0
MH rH
•H \
H .
0 0
U G
'
!-)
ftw
w
T3
•H
rH
0
CO
•d
0)
•d
c
Q)
p
to
J3
co
U"
Q
0
CQ
•O-
,~*
H
"•s.
Cn
_B
^*,
)H
"S^
cn
s
4-1
G
0)
3
H
MH
W
4-1
c
QJ
3
MH
C
H
C
0)
rH
MH
MH
H
4-1
C
0)
rH
MH
G
H
4J
G
CD
rH
MH
MH
M
4-1
C
rH
MH
G
H
S -d
O Cn
rH _g
~^
G
S!
rH
^1 (^
C 3
•H T! CN 4->
C -H rH 03
C W U Q)
Pn PH
'd1 ^ o CN cn i co o
r^ r — r** [ — ^ \o r*~
co cn r^ r^ ^o i ^'•f r^
r- r- r^ r- r- r~ r-
vo cn cn ro o i r- en
^0 ro ro ^ ^* c^o CN
O in CN ro ro i H r~
co >o en o o ro en
rH iH rH CN CN CN rH
^* ro r*^ co r** i LO ^*
r^- ^ ^* ^* LO "^ ^*
CO ON ^3* C*4 f^O \ OO ^
00 O^ i~H ^* vD P1^ P^
CN iH CN CN CN CN CN
r^ o rH m cn i vo I*--
oo rH r^ o m CN ro
vo en oo cn co oo c~~
o o o o o o o
^i
M RJ _ 4J
rd 3 x! rH ti w
3 ri D -H rj) >, 3
GX!MM>iCrHcji
id Q) rd PI nj 3 3 3
i^Pi(SrtJSi-oh)BiI
o
t--
m
r^
o
ro
0
CN
CN
t^
^t
0
CN
CN
m
1£
o
^
Q)
!
4J
ft
57
CO
H
r--
CO
t^
CN
ro
cn
cn
rH
00
ro
O
in
CN
rH
CO
vO
o
M
0)
i
o
o
o
r~.
in
t^
vo
ro
o
en
•H
CN
in
t^
vo
CN
\o
CO
a)
o
rH
vembe
o
z
H
r--
r*
r-.
o
^
CN
VO
rH
CO
in
vo
CN
CN
CO
cn
o
rH
cembe
0)
Q
cn H
r- r^
r-
PO r-~
•sj r^
CO
rH CN
ro
^ cn
ro
CN t^
TJ •
rH ^*
- cn
CN iH
ro ro
in
in o
in
i — i ^
rH
^ ^
CN CN
CN ro
•H CO
VO t^
CO O
0)
Cn
•H ftj
(d M
4-> Q)
S 5
Cn
G
•H
CO
to
•rH
E
to
(0
J5
r-
t-~
en
H
Q)
G
3
l~3
^
0
IW
6
M
0
fe
tJ
0
a
0)
&
c?
•H
O
4-1
•H
0
S
0)
Cn
M
id
X!
U'
to
•H
Q
nS
4-19
-------
G
cd
rH
cx
G
cu
CD
4-1
Cfl
G
•H
CO
G
O
O
at
M
nj
4-1
M
o
CM
<1J
,G
)-(
O
M-l
cfl
13
00
G
•H
4J
>
rJ
Cfl
CO
•s
H
Q)
C
•H
rH
A
O
rH
3 §
i-H T3 g
IO *ri *rH
-P ro x
o cu
G
Q)
MH
G
H
4-1
G
CU
3
rH
«H
W
•P
C
0)
, |
C
H
4J
G
3
rH
H_j
UH
W
4->
G
0)
rH
4H
G
H
•a
tn
^
O *£>
•tf ro
cn r-
CO CTi
rH O
r- r>
r> 01
[-! r~!
^ c^o
^J1 "d*
in o
H H
ro 00
ii> m
CTt CTt
•* in
CN CN
ro in
CFi in
r^ oo
O 0
Ssj
P*i H
H n5
(0 ^
3 M
rt) CU
•K
*
OOOOOOOOOOO
(Tir-ooinrHincri^DvOrHoo
^.^^^^^^^p^tv-,^
^1
r^t--cncr>oo-^'cnn'in!-Hr>-vOi-Hr-HjOii>ov0
HHHCNrHrHrHrHHCNCN
v
CN
oinvoincnocNinoooi^-
r^- r — r^» ^o ro ^ ^J1 ^* CN CN CN
vo
r~\ rO P^ CN CJ^ LO CN ^* VO VO f^O
co LO r*^ ^^ cr^ ^D ^* to vo t^ co
OOCNCNOOHCNCNOJrHrHCn
^
CN
oor-^cNr-oo^cNcnou)
in O t^ rH 00 ^ ^ rH CN OO T)1
oooocooocncor~r~t-~cN
OOOHrHOOOOOO
M
CU rH rH
rQ rH CU 0)
4J S CJ O
i5
^f
in
in
00
rH
CN
LT)
CT>
•
rH
^J1
CN
^
m
00
o
cu
^"
rd
^
(U
>
CO
r^
rH
i-H
• H
ft
iH
"0
G
•H
X
ft
4-1
C
CU
3
rH
C
•H
tn
C
•H
•P
JM(
O
ft
CU
rH
rrj
CU
ft
HJ
5?
CO
r-
cn
H
rH
•H
ft
MH
0
w
ro
4-1
O
ft
CU
tn
G
rH
O
•rH
G
g
cu
Cn
rH
ft)
co
•H
•O
G
•H
e
•rH
e
rH
(0
3
•rH
co
cu
rH
rH
JJ
. O
HJ
0)
G
•rH
rH
0
£j
O
tn
C
•rH
4J
M
O
ft
CU
rH
•d
cu
+J
4J
5?
*
4-?0
-------
Table 17. Quality of the wastewater treatment plant effluent measured in
1978, Portage, Wisconsin (USEPA 1979b).
Parameter
N03-N02 (mg/1)
NH3 (mg/1)
TKN (mg/1)
Total phosphorus
BOD (mg/1)
Fecal coliform (MPN/100
Dissolved oxygen (mg/1)
Temperature ( C)
Fluoride (mg/1)
Cd (ug/1)
Cr (ug/1)
Cu (ug/1)
Fe (ug/1)
Mn (ug/1)
Ni (ug/1)
Pb (ug/1)
Zn (ug/1)
As (ug/1)
Hg (ug/1)
Aroclor 1242 (ug/1)
Aroclor 1248 (ug/1)
Aroclor 1254 (ug/1)
Aroclor 1260 (ug/1)
Aldrin (ug/1)
June
0.46
10.70
16.90
6.42
65.50
ml)170.00
17.00
5.80
<2.00
20.00
12.00
1,240.00
272.00
<5.00
<20.00
67.00
30.00
3.40
<0.10
5.00
<1.00
<1.00
<0.01
July
2.47
8.32
17.00
10.00
54.50
63.00
18.00
0.46
17.00
17.00
26.00
1,780.00
288.00
<5.00
<20.00
123.00
<2.00
4.00
13.00
6.90
<1.00
<1.00
<0.50
August
6.27
3.67
7.18
2.66
37.00
130,000.00
21.00
0.53
<2.00
27.00
17.00
748.00
106.00
<5.00
23.00
72.00
<2.00
3.60
2.30
1.00
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
September
3.83
3.36
6.36
5.24
27.00
33,000.00
20.00
0.43
<2.0
19.00
17.00
680.00
108.00
<5.00
62.00
261.00
8.00
3.40
3.00
<0.50
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
4-21
-------
treatment requirements may be necessary (Section 8.2.2). The PCB concen-
trations (as Aroclor) also were high in June (Aroclor 1248), July (Aroclor
1242, Aroclor 1248), August (Aroclor 1242, Aroclor 1248), and September
(Aroclor 1242). Presently there are no standards that apply to heavy metal
and PCB concentrations in municipal wastewater effluent.
PCBs were used by the National Cash Register plant in Portage in the
manufacture of carbonless papers prior to 1971, and some have remained in
the plant's holding tank and at the WWTP. PCBs have continued to occur in
the wastewater effluent, although substantial decreases have been demon-
strated since 1971. PCB measurements from the National Cash Register and
the Portage WWTP, and from an industrial-commercial-residential PCB survey
are summarized in Appendix B, Table B-7 to B-9.
USEPA also performed tests on the sludge from the plant (Table 18) 4
Significant concentrations of PCBs were found in the sludge' and in the
water over the sludge, which were considerably higher than the PCB con-
centrations in the effluent. The concentrations of heavy metals in sludges
are similar to those found in sludges from purely domestic wastewater
(USEPA 1976d.).
WDNR analyzed additional samples of effluent wastewater and sludge
during 1979 and January 1980 (WDNR 1980). PCB concentrations results are
shown below:
Month
August 1979
September 1979
December 1979
January 1980
Sample
Effluent
Digested Sludge
Effluent
Digested Sludge
Effluent
Digested Sludge
Effluent
Digested Sludge
Results
Not available
27 mg/kg
Not available
31 mg/kg
<1 ug/1
10 mg/kg
-s-l ug/1
9.7 mg/kg
These levels are lower than those measured by USEPA in 1978.
A new WPDES permit for the Portage WWTP Fox River discharge was issued
on 30 November 1979 (Appendix B). It includes effluent limitatipns and
monitoring requirements for a design average flow of 1.3 mgd and final
effluent limitations and moriitoring requirements for a design average flow
of 2.0 mgd; the final effluent limitations are presented below:
Final Effluent Limitations (mg/1)
May - October
Effluent Parameter
BOD (monthly)
BOD;? (weekly)
Suspended Solids (monthly)
Suspended Solids (weekly)
Residual Chlorine (daily)
Ammonia Nitrogen (weekly)
Phosphorus (monthly)
Average
30
35
30
35
4.0
1.0
Maxi mum
November -April
Average Maximum
30
45
30
0.4
45
12
1.0
0.4
4-22
-------
Table 18. Chemical characteristics of sludge from the Portage wastewater
treatment plant that was collected in 1978 (USEPA 1979b).
Parameter
June
August
September
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Mn
Ni
Pb
Zn
As
Hg
Fluoride
Aroclor
Aroclor
Aroclor
Aroclor
Aldrin
1242
1248
1254
1260
168
1
4
1
(mg/kg)b
(mg/kg)b
(mg/kg) b
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
7.0 ug/1
346.0 ug/1
752.0 ug/1
,000.0 ug/1
,300.0 ug/1
60.0 ug/1
974.0 ug/1
,040.0 ug/1
27.0 ug/1
53.3 mg/kg
,600.0 mg/kg
<30.00
36.00
<0.05
<0.05
<0.01
0
89
30
3,700
82
49
16
160
5
12
9
46
92
<10
2
.2
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.2
.3
ug/g
ug/g
ug/g
ug/g
ug/g
ug/g
ug/g
ug/g
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/la
3.
160.
330.
50,000.
500.
17.
270.
1,400.
3.
52.
31.
60.
122.
<1.
<0.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
1
8
4
0
0
0
5
ug/g
ug/g
ug/g
ug/g
ug/g
ug/g
•ug/g
ug/g
mg/kg
ug/1
mg/1
3.
24.
15.
5,200.
260.
15.
51.
760.
0 ug/1
0 ug/1
0 ug/1
0 ug/1
0 ug 1
0 ug/1
0 ug/1
0 ug/1
NA
no
13.
36.
40.
<1.
<0.
sample
1 mg/1
0
0
0
0
5
Water over, .sludge
Aroclor
Aroclor
Aroclor
Aroclor
Aldrin
1242
1248
1254
1260
(ug/1)"
(ug/1)
(ug/l)C
(ug/l)C
(ug/1)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
30
14
<1
<1
<0
.0
.5
.0
.0
.5
12.
20.
<0.
<0.
<0.
0
0
1
1
1
36.
40.
<0.
<0.
<0.
0
0
1
1
05
.Rounded from 9.25 mg/1.
"dry" values.
"wet" values.
NA - Not available.
4-23
-------
Provisions have been added to monitor PCB levels in the sludge quarterly.
Land disposal of sludge will not be feasible if PCB concentrations exceed
50 mg/kg (ppm), on a dry weight basis. Copies of sections of the WPt)ES
permit are included in Appendix B.
4-24
-------
5.0. FUTURE SITUATION WITHOUT ACTION
The "no action" alternative would entail continued operation of the
existing WWTP with discharge to the Fox River, without any significant
expansion, upgrading, or replacement during the current design period (to
the year 2000). The present facility does not achieve an effluent quality
that meets the interim or final requirements of the WPDES discharge permit
(Section 4.5.5.; Appendix B). In 1979, averages of 52 mg/1 BOD and 46
mg/1 SS were recorded. Implementation of this alternative, therefore,
would result in violations of State and Federal laws and would not elimi-
nate existing environmental problems.
Under the "no action" alternative, pollutant loads discharged would
remain the same or possibly increase as the treatment plant components
deteriorate. Because of low flow and already poor water quality conditions
of the Fox River, continued wastewater discharge at present levels of
treatment could degrade water quality further. Aquatic communities of
fish, macroinvertebrates, and plankton could become less diverse and pol-
lution-tolerant species (i.e., carp, suckers, midges, and bloodworms) would
become more abundant. Game fish such as pike, bass, and sunfish, as well
as many macro!nvertebrate species on which fish feed, could become less,
abundant and could disappear from the Fox River near Portage. Algal blooms
could occur downstream from the WWTP discharge.
Implementation of the "no action" alternative would restrict the
growth of the Portage economy. It would be difficult for the City of
Portage to attract new industries because of a lack of sufficient capacity
and treatment capability at the existing WWTP. WDNR imposed a sewer exten-
sion ban on Portage for one year (from 1 May 1979 to 1 May 1980). Such a
ban could be imposed again if the plant capacity or level of treatment were
not increased. A prolongation of the sewer extension ban could affect
property values, and planned, stable growth in the Portage area could be
inhibited severely. Development may shift to locations outside the study
area where public sewerage facilities are available. If development were
to occur in or adjacent to the study araa, it could result in the installa-
tions of private septic tank systems (where soil and groundwater conditions
permit) or "package sewage treatment facilities" that could result in
random development patterns.
Because the existing WWTP is located on the floodplain of the Fox
River, it would continue to be subject to seasonal flooding. The site also
is located within the flood-prone area for the Intermediate Regional Flood
of the Wisconsin River and would continue to be subject to severe flooding
by the Wisconsin River if the levees along ' the Wisconsin River were
breached (US Army COE 1972). Access to the WWTP is limited during flooding
(Section 4.4.).
Recreational use of the Fox River and of recreation sites along the
Fox River (Section 4.2.7.4.) would continue to be low under the "no action"
alternative, due to water pollution attributable to the existing dis-
charges. In addition, the aesthetic (visual) impacts of the WWTP on the
Fort Winnebago Surgeon's Quarters and the Fort Winnebago Site would per-
sist. These impacts, however, are minimal and do not affect the integrity
of these National Register sites. (The sites were placed on the National
Register while the WWTP was in operation).
5-1
-------
A sewer system rehabilitation program is already underway, independent
of this EIS, which will reduce the excess clearwater entering the WWTP and
thus improve its treatment ability. However, this rehabilitation program
will not provide by itself enough hydraulic capacity for present or future
treatment needs.
In summary, the "no action" alternative is not acceptable. Imple-
mentation of one of the "build" alternatives will be necessary to eliminate
the environmental problems that are associated under existing conditions
and with the "no action" alternative.
5-2
-------
6.0. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
6.1. Wastewater Load Factors
Wastewater flow projections for the Portage Service Area to the year
2000 were developed 'by the Municipal Wastewater Section of WDNR, based on
the Infiltration/Inflow Analysis Report (1976) and the Wastewater Facili-
ties Plan (1977) prepared by Owen Ayres and Associates, and the Sewer Sys-
tem Evaluation Survey for the City of Portage (1977) prepared by Donohue
and Associates (letters dated 20 December 1978 and 15 January 1979 from the
Municipal Wastewater Section, WDNR, to the Facilities Planning Branch,
USEPA, are included in Appendix D). The design flows for the year 2000,
after sewer system rehabilitation, as determined by WDNR and USEPA are as
follows:
• Average design flow: 2.0 million gallons per day (mgd)
• Peak hourly flow: 3.3 mgd
• Peak instantaneous flow: 4.23 mgd.
These flows are based on population projections that account for a
reasonable amount of growth in the Portage service area (Section 4.2.5.).
There is, therefore, a design reserve capacity that is available for domes-
tic wastewater flows or equivalent flows from industries or institutions.
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. These values were applied to the
projected year 2000 population of 9,150 (Section 4.2.5.), and the following
estimates were obtained:
• Design BOD = 0.17 x 9,150 - 1,555.5 pounds per day
• Design SS = 0.20 x 9,150 - 1,830.0 pounds per day.
Using these values and the design average flow of 2.0 mgd, the BOD
and SS design concentrations were calculated to be approximately 95 mg/I
and 110 mg/1, respectively. These concentrations appear to be low for the
design of a- WWTP. The derivations of a design BOD of 130 mg/1 for a plant
that would discharge to the Wisconsin River and a design BOD,, of 150 mg/1
for a plant that would discharge to the Fox River are included in the
Facilities Plan. WDNR also recommended using a BOD of 130 mg/1 for the
design of the Portage WWTP. The recommended design BOD concentration for
the Portage WWTP for the year 2000 is 130 mg/1. For purposes of design, it
is assumed that the total SS concentration is equal to the BOD concen-
tration.
6.2. 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
interest rate of 6.875%; a service factor of 27%; and service lives of 20
6-1
-------
years for treatment and pumping equipment, and SO years for structures and
conveyance facilities. The salvage value was computed from the initial-
value of the land and the nondepreciated parts of the structures and con-
veyance facilities. Costs are based on the USEPA STP Construction Cost
Index of 321.3 and on the USEPA Sewer Construction Cost Index of 353.9 for
the fourth quarter of 1978. The total capital cost includes the initial
construction cost plus 27% for engineering, legal, fiscal, and administra-
tive costs. The economic cost criteria are summarized in Table 19.
6.3. Design Factors
6.3.1. Hydraulic and Organic Factors and Industrial Pretreatment
Expansion and upgrading of the existing WWTP with discharge to the
Wisconsin River or the Fox River would require the use of additional sec-
ondary treatment units for the removal of BOD and SS and a chlorination
unit for disinfection of the plant effluent. If discharge would be to the
Fox River, additional phosphorus removal facilities also would be required.
The design flows for the year 2000, after sewer system rehabilitation,
were determined by WDNR. For the year 2000, influent concentrations of
BOD , SS, ammonia-nitrogen, and phosphorus were projected to be 130 mg/1,
130 mg/1, 20 mg/1, and 10 mg/1, respectively (Section 6.1.). A summary of
hydraulic and organic design factors is given in Table 20. WDNR and the
City of Portage are conducting a survey of industrial users. Results are
anticipated in 1980. The survey results could be used to develop an in-
dustrial pretreatment program to control heavy metals, toxic substances,
extensive organic loads, or whatever else could present a problem to the
WWTP operation.
6.3.2. Effluent Quality
Effluent limitations for discharge to the Fox River and to the Wis-
consin River vary, and therefore, the required levels of treatment also
vary. Discharge to the Fox River requires advanced secondary treatment,
and discharge to the Wisconsin River simply requires secondary treatment.
The effluent quality to be achieved for discharge to the two rivers are
presented in Table 21; the effluent quality for the Fox River discharge
meets the final effluent limitations of the WPDES permit (Section 4.5.5.).
A new WPDES permit would have to be issued for a Wisconsin River discharge.
6.4. Alternative Components
Wastewater management alternatives for the Portage study area, as
presented in this chapter, were developed to meet the needs/requirements of
the current and future populations of the service area and to conform with
State of Wisconsin and Federal regulations. The principal objective was to
explore the feasibility of land application and disposal options. Another
objective was to reduce pollutant loads to surface waters. All alter-
natives must provide treatment to achieve the effluent requirements de-
termined by WPDES permit (Section 6.3.2.) or pretreatment requirements for
land or wetlands disposal (Sections 6.4.4.2. and 6.4.4.3.).
6-2
-------
Table 19. Economic cost criteria.
Item Units
Amortization period
Interest rate
Service factor
STP construction cost index, Dec. 1978
Sewer construction cost index, Dec. 1978
Service life
Equi pment
Structures
Land
Salvage value
Equi pment %
Structures %
Lands %
Value
years
7
fo
%
years
years
years
20
6-7/8
27
321.3
353.9
20
50
permanent
0
60
100
Table 20. Hydraulic and organic design factors for the Portage wastewater
treatment plant for the year 2000.
Parameter
Average design flow
Peak hourly flow
Peak instantaneous flow
BOD loading at 130 mg/1
Suspended solids loading at 130 mg/1
Ammoni a-ni trogen concentrati on
Phosphorus concentration
Units
mgd
mgd
mgd
Ib/day
Ib/day
mg/1
mg/1
Value
2.0
3.3
4.23
2,168
2,168
20
10
6-3
-------
Table 21. Effluent quality for discharge to the Wisconsin River and the
Fox River.
Parameter
Units
Average Weekly
Concentration
Summer
Winter
Average Monthly
Concentration
Summer
Winter
Fox River Discharge
Suspended solids
Ammonia-nitrogen
(NH3-N)
Dissolved oxygen
(minimum)
Total phosphorus
PH
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
35
35
4
45
45
12
30
30
— —
30
30
—
mg/1
6-9
6-9
1
6-9
6
1
6-9
Wisconsin River Discharge
BOD
Suspended solids
PH
mg/1
mg/1
45
45
6-9
45
45
6-9
30
30
6-9
30
30
6-9
The treatment level for the Wisconsin River discharge should be secondary
treatment as defined in the Federal Register, 26 July 1976, and in accord-
ance with PL 92-500, as well as the Wisconsin Administrative Code NR-210.
6-4
-------
The development of alternatives began with the identification of
functional components within the wastewater collection and treatment sys-
tem. The components considered were:
• Flow and waste reduction — including I/I reduction and
water conservation measures
• Collection system — including interceptor sewer from
existing WWTP site to a new WWTP site
• Wastewater treatment — including biological and/or
physical unit processes for treating wastewater t'o the
desired effluent quality
• Effluent disposal — including available means for dis-
charge, land application, or reuse of adequately treated
wastewater
• Sludge treatment and disposal — including processes for
stabilization, conditioning, dewatering, volume reduc-
tion, and disposal of wastewater treatment residues.
The methods considered for fulfillment of the functions of each of these
five system components can be termed "component options" or "options".
The selection of options for any one component is, to some extent,
dependent upon the options considered for the other components, so that a
compatible system can be produced. For example, the type of effluent
disposal being considered would determine the quality of the effluent that
would be required after wastewater treatment. For the rapid infiltration
option of the effluent disposal component, chemical/mechanical/physical
wastewater treatment processes that remove phosphorus should not be neces-
sary. However, a phosphorus removal process would be required for effluent
discharge to the Fox River. This is an example of functional dependence,
in which consideration of one component option may either preclude or
necessitate consideration of a dependent option in another component. This
type of dependence normally can be distinguished from design dependence, in
which the capacity, length, strength, area, etc., of an option depend upon
the selection of the options for a different component. For instance,
selection of the option of sewer rehabilitation to reduce I/I can .have a
decisive effect on the hydraulic design of wastewater treatment processes
and effluent disposal options.
In the following sections, component options for the Portage -WWTP are
identified and discussed to the extent necessary to justify or reject their
inclusion in system-wide alternatives. Reasonable combinations of com-
ponent options that comprise complete system alternatives are identified.
Note that ' the level of technical detail is suitable for this planning
stage. Detailed engineering plans and specifications will be developed for
this project after the EIS process is complete, with a "Step 2" grant
(Section 1.0.).
6-5
-------
6.4.1. Flow and Waste Reduction
6.4.1.1. Infiltration/Inflow Reduction
The I/I analysis, prepared by Owen Ayres and Associates (1-976), con-.
eluded that the possibility of excessive I/I exists within the collection
system. It was estimated in this analysis that during periods of high
river levels the clearwater entering the collection system was approxi-
mately 4.2 mgd. In .the cost-effective analysis section of the report, it
was indicated that it would be more economical to remove part of the clear-
water than to provide treatment.
Donohue and Associates, Inc. (1977) completed a Sewer System Eval-
uation Survey (SSES) of the Portage sewer system. The purpose of an SSES
is to provide a more detailed analysis of a community's sewer problems if
the I/I warrants it. The results of the SSES constituted verification that
the Portage sewer system is subject to excessive I/I. The maximum I/I rate
was determined to be approximately 1.86 mgd. The estimated maximum I/I
rate during the SSES was less than the estimated maximum I/I rate in the
I/I analysis report, because severe high groundwater and maximum precipita-
tion conditions were not encountered during the SSES. Therefore, the ,1973
measured maximum I/I of 3.578 mgd was utilized in the cost-effectiveness
analysis presented in the SSES report. In the SSES report, it was con-
cluded that the cost-effective solution of treating sanitary wastewaters,
taking into account rehabilitation, facilities construction,- transporta-
tion, and operation and maintenance total costs, consisted of rehabilita-
tion of the sewer system to eliminate approximately 49% of the maximum I/I.
The total cost for rehabilitation of the sewer system was estimated to be
$478,400.
6.4.1.2. Water Conservation Measures
Water conservation as a means of significantly reducing wastewater
flows is usually difficult to attain and often is only marginally effec-
tive. Traditional water conservation practices have proven to be socially
undesirable except in -areas where water shortages exist. One such 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. None of the
luxury uses impose a load on a separated sewerage system, such as the
existing system at Portage. Therefore, the use of price control probably
would not be effective in significantly reducing wastewater flows.
Mandatory water conservation through the imposition of plumbing code
restrictions could reduce domestic sewage flows. Two primary targets would
be toilet tanks and shower heads. Typical plumbing code restrictions
include a requirement that all new or replacement toilets have a 3.5-gallon
capacity and that new or replacement shower heads deliver 3 gpm. Such
measures would reduce water demand and sewage flow directly.
6-6
-------
Other conservation measures include educational campaigns, retro-
fitting of water-saving devices in toilets and showers, and the instal-
lation of pressure-reduction valves in areas where the water pressure 'is
excessive (greater than 40-60 pounds per square inch). Educational cam-
paigns usually take the form of spot television and radio commercials, and
the distribution of leaflets with water bills or independently. Water
saving devices must continue to be used and maintained for flow reduction
to be effective. Pressure reduction valves can be used where water pres-
sure is higher than necessary, sometimes on a neighborhood basis. However,
where older pipes (especially iron pipes) are present, the excess pressure
is necessary.
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 document. In the case of Portage, the
amount of I/I entering the sanitary sewer system is a far greater factor
for WWTP sizing and design than flow reduction. As discussed in Section
6.4.1.1., the excessive clear water can be as much as 4.2 mgd, over twice
the proposed size of the WWTP. Controlling excessive I/I, in the case of
Portage, would be more effective than flow reduction in reducing the amount
of water that must be treated. However, implementation of conservation
measures at such future time could reduce flows and could extend the design
capacity of the collection and treatment components.
6.4.2. Collection System
/
The existing wastewater collection system in the study area was de--
scribed in Section 4.6.1. In general, the system adequately serves the
present developed areas. The existing wastewater collection system is
being rehabilitated and/or replaced according to the recommendations of the
SSES report (Donohue and Associates, Inc. 1977). The public sector sewer
system rehabilitation work should be completed during 1980, and the private
sector rehabilitation work should be completed prior to June 1982 (By
telephone, Mr. Mike Horken, Director of Public Works, Portage WI, to Mr.
J.P. Singh, WAPORA, inc., July 1979). Some additional sewers may be re-
quired to serve the future population, but they are not included in this
funding request.
The existing WWTP site and four new alternate WWTP sites are con-
sidered in the development of system alternatives. One of the alternate
sites is adjacent to the Fox River, and three are adjacent to the Wisconsin
River (Figure 8). Site 1A is the site proposed in the Facilities Plan,
located between US Highways 16 and 51 and the Wisconsin River. Site IB is
located just north of US Highways 16 and 51, near the WPDR radio tower and
approximately 0.1 mile west of Site 1A. Site 1C is located near the Chi-
cago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad, approximately- 0.7 miles
north of Site 1A. These sites have been discussed in previous reports
(i.e., Addendum to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1979,
and Addendum to Portage Facilities Plan 1979), but the site identification/
reference numbers used have not been consistent, as shown below:
Report Site Identification/Reference Number
Final EIS Existing WWTP Site 1A IB 1C 2
Addendum to Draft EIS 2 3451
Addendum to Facilities Plan 4 123
6-7
-------
STUDY BOUNDARY
EXirriN* TREATMENT PLANT SITE
, IB, 1C ALTERNATE WISCONSIN RIVEN TREATMENT PLANT SITES
ALTERNATE FOX RIVER TRCATMENT PLANT SITE
FIGURE 8 EXISTING AND ALTERNATE WWTP SITES
6-8
-------
The impacts of construction on the various sites are presented in Section
7.0. New interceptors would be required to transport the wastewaters from
the existing WWTP site to the new sites.
A new WWTP located near the Wisconsin River, at one 'of three sites,
would require the construction of a new interceptor to carry the flow from
the existing treatment site to the new one. The interceptbr would be 27
inches in diameter and would be approximately 9,850 feet in length if it
extended from the existing WWTP to the site proposed in the Facilities Plan
(Site 1A; Figure 9). The design basis of ,this proposed interceptor is as-
sumed to be the same as that described in the Facilities Plan. The route
has been altered slightly to avoid the route of the Wauona Trail (Section
6.7.1).
The proposed interceptor sewer would be constructed at a sufficient
depth to eliminate the Albert Street, Superior Street, Coit Street, Wash-
ington Street, and Mullet Street lift stations. The interceptor connec-
tions from the lift stations are shown in Figure 9 and are numbered for
easy reference. The Albert Street lift station would be replaced by ap-
proximately 600 feet of 27-inch-diameter sewer pipe (#1) connected to the
proposed interceptor. The Superior Street lift station would be replaced by
approximately 200 feet of 8-inch-diameter sewer pipe (#2) connected to the
proposed interceptor. The Coit Street lift station would be replaced by
approximately 1,000 feet of 8-inch-diameter sewer pipe (#4) connected to
the proposed interceptor. The Washington Street (#4) and the Mullet Street
(#5) lift stations would be replaced by approximately 450 feet of 8-inch-
diameter sewer pipe and 1,760 feet of 8-inch-diameter sewer pipe, respec-
tively, connected to the proposed interceptor.
A new WWTP at the alternate Fox River site would require an intercep-
tor from the existing WWTP site. The proposed interceptor would divert
wastewater from the existing 20-inch-diameter interceptor coming into the
existing WWTP north to the Fox River site via a 27-inch-diameter intercep-
tor. The proposed interceptor is assumed to have the same size and layout
as that described in the Facilities Plan (Figure 10). It would be approxi-
mately 4,000 feet long and would be placed at a depth that would allow for
elimination of the Albert Street lift station. The interceptor would pass
under the Canal by means of a siphon.
Utilization of the existing WWTP site, with phosphorus removal and
nitrification facilities and discharge of treated effluent to the Fox
River, would not require the construction of a new interceptor. The use of
the existing WWTP with modification, upgrading, expansion, and effluent
discharge to the Wisconsin River would require the construction of an
outfall sewer.' The proposed outfall sewer would consist of approximately
8,200 feet of 27-inch-diameter sewer pipe (Figure 11). The outfall sewer
would start at the existing WWTP site and would follow Route 33 to Superior
Street. It then would run southwesterly on Superior Street and would dis-
charge into the Wisconsin River at the intersection of Superior Street and
Wisconsin Street.
The land application and wetland application alternatives for the
Portage area would require gravity sewers and/or forcemains from the exist-
ing WWTP site to the sites considered for the disposal of the treated
6-9
-------
I
FIGURE 9
STUDr BOUNDARY
IB EXISTINS TREATMENT PLANT SITE
^P ALTERNATE WISCONSIN RIVER WWTP SITES
r^—r. INTERCEPTOR ROUTE TO ALL SITES
—— SUAVITY IEWER
« . _i INTERCEPTOR EXTENSION TO SITCS IA • IS
• ••••• INTERCEPTOR EXTENSION TO SITE 1C
A LIFT STATION
PROPOSED INTERCEPTOR ROUTES TO ALTERNATE WISCONSIN
RIVER TREATMENT PLANT SITES (ALTERNATIVE I)
6-10
-------
STUDY BOUNDARY
EXItTIM TMATMCNT PLAMT MTE
ALTCMMTC FOX MIVM TMATMCNT PLANT SITE
MWTt
UTT
FIGURE 10
PROPOSED INTERCEPTOR FOR THE ALTERNATE FOX
RIVER TREATMENT PLANT SITE (ALTERNATIVE 2 )
6-LJ
-------
MOO'- tT "«ta.
OUTFALL SCWCM
STUDY BOUNDARY
THEATMtHT PLANT SITE
PMPOTCD OUTMLL HWf * NOUTt
FIGURE II OUTFALL SEWER TO THE WISCONSIN RIVER FROM THE
REMODELED EXISTING PLANT (ALTERNATIVE 4 )
6-12
-------
effluent. The requirements and layouts of these gravity sewers and/or
forcemains will be discussed under these system alternatives.
6.4.3. Wastewater Treatment Processes
The Facilities Plan considered a variety of treatment options. In
general, wastewater treatment options include conventional physical, bio-
logical, and chemical processes and land treatment. The conventional
options utilize preliminary treatment, primary sedimentation, secondary
treatment, and tertiary treatment (including chemical addition) for phos-
phorus removal. 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 6.4.4.). Where disposal of treated wastewater is
by effluent discharge to surface waters, effluent quality limitations
determined by WDNR (Section 6.3.2.) establish the required level of treat-
ment .
6.4.3.1. Preliminary Treatment and Primary Sedimentation
All options considered in this document incorporate conventional
preliminary treatment and primary sedimentation. These unit processes
serve to remove coarse solids, readily-settleable SS, floating solids, and
grease from the influent wastewater. The preliminary treatment generally
consists of a bar screen (a screening device) or a combination of a coarse
bar screen and a comminutor, followed by a grit chamber. Solids are ground
in the comminutor and left in the waste, thereby eliminating the separate
disposal of screenings. The grit chamber is used for the removal of in-
organic solids such as sand. The next treatment unit is a primary sedi-
mentation tank, in which heavy solid matter settles to the bottom and light
solid matter floats to the top. The sludge (settled solids) and the scum
(floating solids) are removed to the solids (sludge) handling facilities.
The clarified liquid flows out of the primary sedimentation tank to the
subsequent treatment units. It is assumed for each treatment option con-
sidered that these processes will remove approximately 30% of the BOD and
approximately 50% of the SS from the wastewater.
6.4.3.2. Secondary Treatment
Secondary treatment consists of biological processes in which soluble
and colloidal-sized organic substances are removed from wastewater. The
most frequently used processes provide a fluid media such as the activated
sludge process or a fixed media such as the trickling filter, rotating
biological contactor (RBS), or activated biological filter (ABF) process.
Three processes were selected for cost-effective analysis in the Facilities
Plan: activated sludge systems, the RBS system, and the ABF system. These
systems were described in detail in the Facilities Plan. For comparative
purposes, a brief discussion of these processes is presented here.
Activated sludge consists of an aerated suspension of microorganisms
that utilize organic wastewater for respiration and reproduction. Aeration
generally is provided by diffusion of air from the bottom of the tank or
6-13
-------
mechanical agitation of the surface of the suspension. Separate settling
facilities are used to remove viable organisms from the treated wastewater.
There are a number of modifications to the basic activated sludge process,
each specific to a different strength of waste. Efficiencies of BOD removal
by primary treatment and conventional diffused air and pure oxygen system
options range from 85% to 95%.
RBS and ABF systems are recent advances in fixed-medla-type treatment
systems (trickling filter process). These systems are more compact and the
cost of providing a cover over the units to eliminate freezing also is
considerably less than the cost of providing a cover for the conventional
rock trickling filter system. RBSs consist of a fixed medium, (disks) on
which biological growth develops. The disks rotate partially through the
wastewater. Separate settling facilities are used to remove slough (excess
biomass) from the treated wastewater. ABFs consist of a bio-cell with
open, fixed growth biomedla, followed by short-term aeration and clari-
fication. The efficiencies of both the RBS and the ABF processes are
comparable to that of activated sludge.
Based on the present worth analysis of the liquid and solids handling
processes presented in the Facilities Plan, Owen Ayres and Associates
concluded that the RBS system was the most cost-effective secondary treat-
ment process. Therefore, a RBS system is used as the secondary treatment
process in the system alternatives described in this document.
6.4.3.3. Tertiary Treatment
Tertiary, or advanced, wastewater treatment involves treatment beyond
the primary and secondary processes. Tertiary treatment processes may
include chemical treatment, biological nitrification, and land application.
Tertiary treatment is required by the WPDES permit for a discharge to the
Fox River.
All three secondary treatment processes discussed in Section 6.4.3.2.
are capable of providing nitrification. Basically, an increase in reten-
tion time during the process will produce the effects of nitrification
(oxidation of ammonia to nitrates). The selected RBS process can be de-
signed easily to produce nitrification.
Chemical treatment consists of adding a chemical to promote the re-
moval of suspended and/or colloidal matter or to precipitate dissolved
pollutants such as phosphates. The chemical agents are added in a mixing
tank; the water then is passed through a flocculation chamber and clarl-
fier.
Chemicals commonly used for phosphorus removal are lime, alum, and
iron salts. A detailed analysis of chemical addition and phosphorus re-
moval was presented in the Facilities Plan. In the present worth analysis
of the liquid and solids handling facilities presented in the Facilities
Plan, It was concluded that the addition of lime for phosphorus removal was
the most cost-effective method. Therefore, lime addition for phosphorus
removal is used in the system alternatives.
6-14
-------
Land application consists of applying primary or secondary effluent to
sites having proper vegetation, soil, bedrock, and groundwater conditions.
The economics of this process depend upon allowable application rates, site
preparation costs, pretreatment and storage lagoon requirements, and the
distance of the application site from the WWTP.
6.4.3.4. Disinfection
Disinfection processes are used to remove disease-causing organisms.
One alternative is chlorination, which can reliably meet the present bac-
teriological standards. Residual chlorine, however, can reach toxic levels
if chlorine is not applied properly or if the retention time is not suf-
ficient. Another alternative is ozonation, but it is significantly more
costly than chlorination. Therefore, chlorination is the disinfection
process in all alternatives, assuming that chlorine will be .carefully
applied and that residual levels will be monitored regularly.
6.4.4. Effluent Disposal Methods and Sites
Three WWTP effluent disposal options are available: discharge to
receiving waters, disposal on land or wetland, and reuse.
6.4.4.1. Stream Discharge
The proximity of the Fox River and the Wisconsin River to Portage
allows the flexibility of discharging WWTP effluent into either river. The
existing WWTP site and four alternate sites are considered for the location
of the Portage WWTP (Figure 8). Four discharge options are considered:
two of these options would discharge effluent to the Fox River and two
would discharge effluent to the Wisconsin River. The effluent requirements
for the Fox River and the Wisconsin River were determined by WDNR and are
presented in Section 6.3.2. The alternatives that include the stream
discharge options are:
• New Wisconsin River plant with discharge to the Wisconsin
River (3 alternate sites)
• New Fox River plant with discharge to the Fox River
• Remodeled Fox River plant with discharge to the Fox
River (existing discharge point)
• Remodeled Fox River plant with discharge to the Wisconsin
River at the intersection of Superior Street and Wiscon-
sin Street.
6.4.4.2. Land Application
Land application or land treatment of wastewater utilizes natural
physical, chemical, and biological processes in vegetation, soils, and
underlying formations to renovate and dispose of domestic wastewater. Land
application methods have been practiced in the United States for over 100
years and presently are being used by hundreds of communities throughout
the Nation (Pound and Crites 1973).
6-15
-------
Land disposal (including subsurface disposal and irrigation) involves
transport of effluent to an acceptable site. The acceptable site must have
suitable geological conditions to prevent contamination of groundwater. In
addition to wastewater renovation, the advantages of land application may
include groundwater recharge, soil conditioning, and augmented plant
growth. The applicability of this disposal option depends significantly on
social acceptance, costs, and the amount of energy required to transport
the effluent from the treatment facility to its disposal site.
The three principal processes utilized in the land disposal of treated
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 30% to 60% on a con-
centration basis (USEPA 1977a). The overland flow method would not meet
even the general effluent standards (Table 21) set by WDNR, and thus was
rejected for'further consideration.
In the slow-rate method, treated wastewater is applied to the land to
enhance the growth of crops or grasses. Wastewater is applied by spray,
ridge and furrow, or flood methods, depending on the soil drainage char-
acteristics and the type of vegetation. Application rates range from 0.5
to 4.0 inches per week. Final renovation of wastewater occurs in the first
2 to 4 feet of soil, as organic matter, phosphorus, heavy metals, and
bacteria are retained by adsorption and other mechanisms. Nitrogen is
taken up by the plants as they grow, and removals may be as high as 90%.
Water is lost from the system through infiltration and evapotranspiration.
The probability of affecting groundwater quality is moderate, and a minimum
depth to groundwater of 5 feet is required (USEPA 1977a). Large amounts of
land are needed for the slow-rate process. A preliminary cost analysis
indicated that the slow-rate process is more expensive than the rapid
infiltration process. Based on this preliminary cost analysis and the
unavailability of a large parcel of land, the slow-rate process was re-
jected for further consideration.
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 filtering, adsorption, precipitation, and other geochemical
reactions. In most cases, SS, BOD, and fecal coliform are removed almost
completely. Phosphorus removal can range from 70% to 90%, 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 1977a).
6-16
-------
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 at a
rapid infiltration site, the minimum depth to the water table should be 10
feet. Due to extremely rapid rates of infiltration, 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.
Recovery of renovated water usually is an integral part of the system.
Recovery can include groundwater recharge, natural treatment followed by
pumped withdrawal or underdrains for surface recovery, and natural treat-
ment with renovated water moving vertically and horizontally in the soil
and thus recharging surface waters. Removals of wastewater constituents by
the filtering and straining action of the soil are excellent.
6.4.4.2.1. Land Suitability
A land suitability map (Figure 12) was constructed using soil maps,
well records, topographic maps, and hydrologic investigations atlases
(Olcott 1968; Hindall and Borman 1974). Soil types were grouped into five
categories on the bases of soil texture and permeability, depth to bedrock,
depth to groundwater saturation, and character of underlying sediments.
The northwestern and eastern parts of the expanded study area contain
areas of bedrock outcrop or areas where the depth to bedrock is less than 5
feet. Soils in these areas generally are well-drained, silty and loamy
soils that exhibit moderate to rapid permeabilities. The bedrock consists
predominantly of permeable Cambrian sandstones. Because the bedrock often
is highly fractured and the overlying material is thin and rapidly per-
meable, effluent applied to these areas would receive little treatment.
The potential for pollution of the bedrock aquifer is high.
Areas of low, nearly level topography are characterized by seasonally
high water levels and periodic flooding. The depth to groundwater satura-
tion commonly is less than 5 feet. Soils consist largely of poorly-
drained, rapidly permeable, sandy to loamy soils overlying stream and
lakebed sediments. Sand and gravel aquifers may exist at or near the
surface. Due to rapid infiltration rates and high groundwater levels,
wastewater would be disposed of in the zone of saturation with little
treatment. Widespread movement of pollutants in the zone of saturation
would create a high potential for pollution of shallow groundwater and sur-
face water.
Scattered throughout the expanded study area are small areas where
soils or substrata have permeabilities of less than 0.2 inch per hour.
Soils consist primarily of poorly-drained to well-drained clays that are
underlain by fine, lacustrine sediment or glacial till. Low areas may
contain deposits of muck or peat. The pollution potential generally is low
because pollutants are confined and unable to reach usable groundwater
sources. The suitability of these areas is poor, however, due to localized
ponding or flooding.
6-17
-------
Uplands often are characterized by well-drained, loamy soils that
overlie glacial till or lacustrine sediments* The soils and -the underlying
material have moderate to rapid permeabilities, but contain a sufficient
amount of clay material for reduction of leachate. These areas may be
suitable for slow-rate land application systems. Their suitability may be
reduced by steep slopes.
Numerous, irregularly-shaped areas are present that consist of well-
drained, rapidly permeable, sandy to loamy soils underlain by stratified
sand and gravel. These areas usually exhibit nearly level to moderately
steep topography. Hydrologic properties may be suitable for rapid infil-
tration systems where depths to groundwater exceed 10 feet. Soils and
substrata that contain large amounts of coarse sand and gravel may provide
little reduction of leachate and create a high potential for groundwater
contamination. The information presented in Figure 12 may be used for
preliminary selection of potential rapid infiltration sites.
Excessive slope is an undesirable characteristic for land application,
because it increases stormwater runoff and erosion, leads to unstable soil
conditions when the soil is saturated, and makes crop cultivation difficult
or impossible. Steep slopes also affect groundwater movement and may
produce groundwater seeps in adjacent lowland areas. Areas where slopes
exceed 15% grade are shown in Figure 13. Although land application may be
possible in many of these areas, extensive site work may be necessary.
6.4.4.2.2. Drilling and Monitoring Program
Rough estimates of the cost for a rapid infiltration alternative
indicated that this alternative was potentially viable. Approximately ten
200-acre sites were considered initially as potential land application
sites. After consideration of the natural conditions, present land use,
and proximity to the existing WWTP, five sites were selected for further
investigation (Figure 14). Harza Engineering Co. served as a subcontractor
to WAPORA to conduct a site selection study and to assist in evaluation of
the technical feasibility of implementing a rapid infiltration system for
Portage. A Drilling and Monitoring Program was initiated in November 1978
to investigate a maximum of six sites selected from the land suitability
map (Appendix C). Soil and water samples were tested to determine the "two
best" sites for land application of treated effluent by rapid infiltration.
Each site investigated was evaluated by the following factors:
Distance of the application site from the WWTP
Depth to the water table
Depth to bedrock
Soil types
Permeability measurement (vertical and horizontal)
Topography
Land use
Proximity of residences and wells.
The detailed field investigations and site evaluations for the five
sites were described in a report prepared by Harza Engineering Co. (1979).
It was concluded that only Site B (Figure 14) deserved further considera-
tion as a natural land application site. This site is located 3.5 miles
6-19
-------
m
a:
UJ
0.
6-20
-------
-------
5
-------
r 5
o I
2 S
© 5
>: O ~ 31
1 o° 2
S z
-------
Cl W M -*
o S
3> X
m o
S o
O r-
3) >
O m
S
O
Z >
O o
5 II
g So
Q »;
o
8
g
-n 5
2 >
n r > -Sg
3J > 03 O -f
P
m 31 g 3
o c o H
E o
CD f^l
o o
§1
C 3
O c
O r-
II
m w
3
w
-------
o q
o m
O
*
S|
II
O o H
§§|
o sz
i!
1 2
2 O
o
2
•
-* 5 oi
j. O M
i \ \\ <
So. \
—I m in
< 3 I
5 £
§ 1
5 s
o o
C 31
2
O
O
-n
S
C > Z
2 O O
3! " c
5 ™
*
O 3 X
ZOO
03-0
2
O
-------
M
Q. 'I 5 - S S H
© 5
Ol b> fO _•
*: i"
Is
I §
r'
r
IDS
T K °
?§i
H z >
> O O
G :< 5
O o r
> s s
H n;
m 2!
^ 3)
o °s ^5
^ -K m ^ >
il
Is
H ^
I Z
z o
15
00 I
3 i
p
m"
- 5
H
II
—i ^
s^
3J > 03
< ^ i m
Ss>i
O
3
o
o
>
z
o
5
3
-n
|
O
-n
s
z
8
O c-
is
-------
-------
6-21
-------
east of Portage, north of Route 33. The report also stated that the deter-
minatdon of the feasibility of establishing an economical, safe, rapid
infiltration system at Site B would depend upon the results of more de-
tailed subsurface investigations. The rapid infiltration system at Site B
is used as the land application alternative, based on the assumption that
Site B may be feasible for this option. Pertinent sections of the Harza
Engineering Co. report are contained in Appendix C.
6.4.4.2.3. Regulations
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 dis-
posal system shall not exceed 50 mg/1 in more than 20% of
the monitoring samples that are required during a calen-
dar quarter
• The discharge shall be alternately distributed to in-
dividual sections of the disposal system in a manner
to allow sufficient 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.
6.4.4.3. Wetlands Application
Wetlands, which constitute approximately 3% of the land area of the
continental United States (USEPA 1977a), are hydrologically intermediate
areas. Wetlands usually have too many plants and too little water to be
called lakes, yet they have enough water to prevent most agricultural or
forestry uses. The use of wetlands to receive and satisfactorily treat
wastewater effluents is a relatively new and experimental concept. In
wetland application systems, wastewater is renovated by the soil, by
plants, and by microorganisms as it moves through and over the soil pro-
file. Wetland systems are somewhat similar to overland flow systems in
that most of the water flows over a relatively impermeable soil surface and
the renovation action is more dependent on microbial and plant activity
than on soil chemistry.
The wetlands application option is included in the system alternatives
because of the proximity of wetlands to the existing WWTP site. The exist-
ing wetland area within WDNR land east-southeast of Portage could provide
over one lineal mile of wetlands for treated effluent disposal (Figure 15).
No detailed investigations were conducted regarding the assimilative capac-
ity of these wetlands to treat wastewater. It was assumed that the avail-
able wetlands are large enough and have sufficient assimilative capacity to
6-22
-------
o
FIGURE 15 WETLANDS APPUCATION SITE
6-23
-------
accept treated effluent from the Portage WWTP. If chosen, such a system
must be designed using local site criteria.
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 Mr. J. P. Singh, 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 ex-
ceed 20 mg/1
• Disinfection is required prior .to discharge to the wet-
lands disposal system
• Storage shall be provided to store the treated effluent
from the WWTP for the winter months.
6.4.4.4. Reuse
Wastewater management techniques included under the category of
treated effluent reuse may be identified as:
• Public water supply
• Groundwater recharge
• Industrial process uses or cooling tower makeup
• Energy production
• Recreation and turf irrigation
• Fish and wildlife enhancement.
Reuse of treatment plant effluent as a public water supply and for
groundwater recharge could present a potentially serious threat to public
health in the Portage area. There are no major industries in the Portage
area that require cooling water. The availability of good-quality surface
water and groundwater and the abundant rainfall limit the demand for the
use," of treated wastewater for recreational and turf irrigation purposes.
Organic contamination and heavy metal concentrations also are potential
problems. 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 is not currently a feasible
management technique for the study area.
6.4.5. Sludge Treatment and Disposal
All of the wastewater treatment processes considered will generate
sludge. The amount of sludge generated will vary considerably, depending on:
the process. The sludge is largely organic, but significant amounts of in-
ert chemicals are present if phosphorus removal has been performed. A typi-
cal sludge management program would involve interrelated processes for re-
ducing the volume of the sludge (which is mostly water) and final disposal.
6-24
-------
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.
Sludge thickening, sludge digestion, dewatering and/or drying pro-
cesses (including filter press, centrifuge, vacuum filtration, sludge
drying beds, and sludge lagoons), land disposal of liquid or dried sludge,
and incineration processes are described in detail in the Facilities Plan.
Based on the discussion given in the Facilities Plan, thickening and di-
gestion processes were selected for further consideration. Brief discus-
sions of these processes and of sludge disposal are presented in the fol-
lowing sections.
6.4.5.1. Sludge Thickening
Sludge thickening involves increasing the solids content of the raw
sludge in order to reduce the volume of sludge to be further handled, thus
reducing costs. Commonly used thickening processes include gravity, air
flotation, and centrifugation. Air flotation and centrifugation produce a
greater percentage of solids than the gravity thickening process. Both air
flotation and centrifugation have greater operational and maintenance costs
than gravity thickening, but the capital costs of all three processes are
similar. Also, chemical addition may be needed in the air flotation and
centrifugation processes. After gravity thickening, the solids content of
the sludge is about 3%. A greater percentage of solids would not be neces-
sary for the digestion process. Because of these reasons and the extra
costs, it was recommended in the Facilities Plan that the gravity thicken-
ing process be used for some of the solids handling alternatives.
6.4.5.2. Sludge Digestion
During sludge digestion processes, organic sludge solids are oxidized
biologically to reduce and stabilize the sludge solids. The digestion
processes considered in this document are aerobic digestion and anaerobic
digestion. In aerobic digestion, primary or biological sludges are oxidized
by aeration in open tanks. This process has relatively low capital costs
and entails little operational complexity, but it requires a high energy
input. In anaerobic sludge digestion, organic matter in sludge is broken
down by anaerobic microorganisms in a closed tank. Because the biological
processes are complex, continuous control of the operation is required.
Although the capital costs for this process are relatively high, the energy
input is minimal, and the methane produced in the digester usually is used
to further reduce operating costs.
WDNR has recommended a 60-day storage period for either method used.
The basic design assumptions for both processes are assumed to be the same
as those mentioned in the Facilities Plan. The use of an aerobic digester
will produce a 4% solids concentration, and the use of an anaerobic di-
gester will produce 6% solids concentrations.
6-25
-------
6.4.5.3. Sludge Disposal
Sludge hauling and disposal is required for all treatment systems and
is the last step in the sludge handling process. The type of vehicle used
for sludge hauling will vary depending upon whether the sludge is in a
liquid or a solid form and whether land application is required. Sludge
disposal sites may be located at sanitary landfills, on agricultural land,
or in forests. At sanitary landfills, sludge and other wastes are covered
and maintained to prevent seepage or other environmental hazards. Although
disposal costs are relatively low, the sludge is not utilized at these
sites. Sludge can be used as a fertilizer and soil conditioner at agri-
cultural land or forest disposal sites. Its utilization may be limited by
the metals and pathogens in the sludge and by the soil conditions at the
application site. Costs for utilization of sludge on farms or in forests
are dependent upon hauling distance, assuming that there are no limitations
on the application of the sludge.
Various methods of sludge disposal were examined in the Facilities
Plan. Four possible sludge disposal alternatives (Figure 16) were con-
sidered in detail:
• Sludge drying beds and land disposal of dried sludge
• Earthen storage lagoons, with land disposal of sludge
during non-frozen conditions
• Direct hauling from the digester, with year-round liquid
application on agricultural lands
• Dewatering of digested sludge by vacuum filtration, with
year-round disposal.
In the present worth analysis in the Facilities Plan, it was concluded
that direct hauling of liquid sludge from the digester is the most economi-
cal method. It was further concluded that anaerobic digestion and direct
hauling are more cost-effective in the case of the RBS liquid treatment
process. Therefore, anaerobic digestion and direct hauling of liquid
sludge to the agricultural lands are used as the sludge treatment and
disposal methods in the system alternatives.
The sludge would be applied to agricultural lands within a 5- to
6-mile radius of the City of Portage. There are over 1,500 acres suitable
for sludge application, and additional land is available further from the
City (Owen Ayres and Associates 1977). In addition to the agricultural
land, standby or emergency sites are located at the sanitary landfill and
at the airport. These sites are owned by the City and would be utilized
during periods when application to crop lands would be impractical, such as
during the planting and harvesting seasons.
The sludge would be injected into the soil subsurface by means of a
subsoil applicator attached to the delivery truck. When the ground is
frozen, the sludge would be applied to the surface on slopes of 0-2%. The
winter application program is subject to WDNR approval.
6-26
-------
Secondary
Sludge
Primary
Sludge
Gravity
Thickener
i.
Aerobic
Digestion
JJL
Anaerobic
Digestion
Sludge
Beds-
Lagoons
Vacuum
Filter
Liquid Land
Spreading
Figure 16. Alternative sludge disposal methods.
6-27
Land
Spreading
-------
The final sludge disposal program would be designed to comply with
current limits for heavy metals and PCBs. Both substances have occurred in
past samples of Portage sludge.
6.5. System Alternatives
Feasible and compatible sets of component options were combined into
system alternatives. The alternatives represent combinations of different
treatment processes, siting options, effluent disposal options, and sludge
processing and disposal options. The components, construction, and opera-
tion and maintenance (O&M) costs of the alternatives considered are pre-
sented in the following sections.
In the Draft EIS, disinfection of the effluent (i.e., chlorination)
was included in Alternatives 5A, 5B, and 6, which involve wetlands applica-
tion or land application of the wastewater. Chlorination should not have
been included in these particular alternatives because of potentially
adverse environmental impacts. Chlorination, therefore, has been elimi-
nated from Alternatives 5a, 5B, and 6 in this Final EIS. The alternatives
involved are not considered cost-effective and have been rejected for
further consideration. This slight reduction in costs by the elimination
of disinfection would not make the alternatives any more cost-effective or
change their innovative and alternative status. Please note that Table 22
and the tables in Appendix D present the original costs, including chlori-
nation.
The costs of alternatives, which are summarized below and are pre-
sented in detailed in Appendix D have not been updated to 1980 price le-
vels. The cost for materials, construction, and O&M are based on indexes
for December 1978. Recently published indexes would increase the alterna-
tive costs. However, any index values may or may not correspond with
actual project bids because of local economic conditions. What is impor-
tant is that the costs provide a means to rank alternatives and to deter-
mine which is most cost-effective. Updated costs for the selected alterna-
tive will be developed during Step II of the facilities planning process.
These costs will be based on the detailed designs for the facilities.
6.5.1. Alternative 1 - New Wisconsin River Plant with Discharge to the
Wisconsin River
6.5.1.1. Components
This alternative is similar to the alternative proposed in the Facili-
ties Plan as the "Wisconsin River Plant - New Site." However, three dif-
ferent WWTP sites are considered (Figure 8). A 27-inch-diameter inter-
ceptor would be required to divert wastewater from the existing WWTP to the
Wisconsin River plant site. Sufficient depth would be provided to elimi-
nate the Albert Street, Superior Street, Coit Street, Washington Street,
and Mullet Street lift stations. The interceptor is described in Section
6.4.2, and the layout of the interceptor if it were to extend to the site
proposed in the Facilities Plant (Site 1A) is shown in Figure 9.
This alternative consists of a secondary treatment plant. The treat-
ment facilities would include: a raw wastewater pumping station with screw
6-28
-------
lift pumps; preliminary treatment consisting of a comminutor (which would
be placed in the system prior to the raw wastewater pumps) and aerated grit
chambers; primary sedimentation (clarification); secondary treatment con-
sisting of RBSs and final clarification; chlorination; primary and sec-
ondary anaerobic digestors; effluent pumps (suspended in the chlorine
contact tank); and an outfall to the Wisconsin River. The liquid digested
sludge would be spread on or injected into agricultural lauds. The sche-
matic flow diagram for this alternative is shown in Figure 17.
6.5.1.2. Costs
The different costs of this alternative vary with each of the three
Wisconsin River sites considered. The initial estimated capital cost
ranges from $5,729,300 to $6,193,000; the estimated salvage value after 20
years of use ranges from $1,447,400 to $1,812,600; and the estimated total
present worth ranges from $6,840,900 to $7,208,000. These estimated ranges
reflect the differences in the cost of land for the WWTP site (from $9,750
to $375,000). It is assumed that the costs of the interceptor from the
existing WWTP site to the alternate Wisconsin River sites are comparable.
The annual O&M cost, therefore, does not vary and was estimated to be
$139,700. A cost comparison of the alternatives is presented in Table 22.
The estimated general improvement costs required at the plant site are
presented in Appendix D, Tables D-l, D-3, and D-5. A detailed cost esti-
mate for the various process components of this alternative is shown in
Appendix D, Tables D-2, D-4, and D-6.
6.5.2. Alternative 2 - New Fox River Plant with Discharge to the Fox
River
6.5.2.1. Components
Alternative 2, a new Fox River plant with discharge to the Fox River,
is similar to the alternative proposed in the Facilities Plan as the "Fox
River Plant - New Site". The wastewater from the 20-inch-diameter in-
terceptor coming into the existing WWTP would be diverted north to the Fox
River site (Figure 8) via a 27-inch-diameter interceptor. This interceptor
would be constructed deep enough to allow for elimination of the Albert
Street lift station. This interceptor was described in Section 6.4.2., and
the layout of the interceptor is shown in Figure 10.
This alternative would utilize an advanced secondary treatment plant.
The treatment facilities would include: a raw wastewater pumping station
with screw lift pumps; preliminary treatment, including a comminutor (which
would be placed prior to the raw wastewater pumps) and aerated grit cham-
bers; primary sedimentation; advanced secondary (secondary-tertiary) treat-
ment, consisting of RBSs with nitrification capabilities; chemical addition
(lime) for phosphorus removal (the flexibility of chemical feeding at
various points should be included in the "Step 2 Design" of this prcfject)
and final clarification; primary and secondary anaerobic digestors; ef-
fluent pumps suspended at the end of the chlorine contact tank; and an
outfall to the Fox River. The liquid digested sludge would be spread on or
injected into agricultural lands. The schematic flow diagram for this
alternative is shown in Figure 18.
6-29
-------
P4
M
-------
en
V-4
n)
14-1
O
co
T)
§
CO
3
O
si
4-T
CO
O
CJ
CX)
0)
a
0)
p
CO
cu
Ct)
CO
4J
Cfl
o
o
•a
ai
4J
CO
cu
cd
14-4
O
CN
01
0) 01 41 O
oo cj LI > z
IB B 01 iH
u cj x: 4-1 x: 01
.C LI 4J CO 4J >
01 ot o c -rt 1-1
CJ VW U J 4J
LI i4-i M-t ty co
01 i-l O 4J 6
p-'a P-I LI
< 01
iH
iH CO
n) O
9 cj
B
B 4J
< C
01
01 iH
00 IB
IB >
01 3
> CT
< U
r-1
IB
4J
0
H
4J
n
«X cS
g s
3 0
4J
B
0) 01
gg 00
01 IB
L. >
PL. rH
CO
M
>*v
t-l
CO
•H
CM
CB
O
u
r-4 01
9.3
c
c s
Q
01
00 4J
CB CO
> 0
A cj
eg
en
B
O
•H
4J
U 4J
3 CO
icS
CO
E
O
CJ
0)
iH
JJ
1-4
H
1
Ll
01
e
3
Z
01
•H
4J
(H
6
l-i
01
4J
^J
^•6
O
O
VO
Ov
vC
ON
O
to
•H
02 4J
E
i-l OH
to H
B 3
O 3
o
•H
3 <
3
01
z
^
^H
E
IB
iH
P-i
B CO
•H O
i-t
01 i-l
CO i-l
a u
O CO
a
01
o) ,n
4J 4J
•H
cn
^ i»g
0 0
.— 1 i-H
a« ^a-
co co
v£> vO
O CM
00 — <
O 00
CM CO
p"» ^D
"•d" *^
-a- -a-
<• *3-
s~*. s-*,
+y ifl
O^ CO
r*» o\
•3" CO
s» x s»^
O en
m o
o eo
f-H P-
vO m
^ 't
Os ^
co en
vO vO
^H CO
co
CM in
en CM
CM CM
CO O
i-H CM
O in
%O in
•fl- CM
C3 -tf
m \o
CM CM
-a- CM
CM O>
^H
CO vO
-* \o
CO -tf
r^* co
I
c
to
«~H O
a oo
E 01 _c
CB > U
iH iH to
a « 1-1
•u
u X
01 O Li
^ fc 01
•H >
oi a£
0 (11 X
(»< 13 O
^ E
01 01
z «
B
CM CO
ihS
o
•^t
vO
-fl1
VO
0-
f^
Oi
vO
r^
00
m
((^
00
r-.
CTv
CM
i— 1
CM
m
cs
m
-^
rO
CO
f-H
^
.
vD
CM
,_4
m
in
2
^
01
•H >
Oi -H
«
X
O B
CO
T) E
0) O
OJ O3
•O i-l
g
oi
.
-3-
fr-S
^n
CM
pv.
CO
^ •
00
CO
Oi
m
0
O
CM
/»v
CO
o
vO
m
**-*
o
CM
CM
CM
•
O
CM
T-t
CM
00
„
in
O
CM 0
o to
CM OJ >-.
00 CO
= |o
i-l to —
4J iH O
co ~o x: B
O 4J 1-t
•H tn in to
iH t/3 S CO
O.-- XI
a. o co
co o 'o cj
pa E oo
CO CO CO
E ' — 4J o
IB 00 01 u
1-1 e 3 to
4J
01
^
m
&•£
m
CM
CM
tn
00
in
t-H
^^
Ov
' vC
-a-
CM
CM
^^
O
00
•a-
m
ON
i>^
VO
(^
m
^>
^H
CM
00
O
CM
in
o
CO
o
CO 0
o to
ro 01 >v
00 CO
1 Li T3
19
E x: o
i-t CO i— 1
4J 1-t U
co *u x: E
CJ 4J 1-t
•H tn 1-1 to
iH 00 » C8
O* C CO
10 O T3 0)
pa B oo
to co eg
B -^ 4J 0
CO 60 01 4J
i-i e » co
01
3
pa
m
^
m
CM
vO
00
r*.
CO
-a
m
00
CM
00
m
CM .
CJ
i— i
vO
CO
s^
•o
CM
Ov
ON
CO
VO
-a
m
en
CM
_l
•
CM
CO •
-H CO
o>
LI
01
B
Ov ^5
00
eS 7
vO
4J
CO
CO
rt
o
o
CM
O Ll
pa o
T3 CJ
O.1-I 01
CB CO 4J
4J Q.
S>v « E
XI . O
E 0
4-1 O
C i-l to
01 4J i-l
e co
« 4-1 4J
01 rH Ll
4J 14-1 §
s
13 ft 4J
C B
CO 01
l>-4 tO
P*
VO CO
*
to
CJ
•H
0
B
01
00
B
•H
B
O
T)
E
CO
i— t
CO
W
01
B
O
1-1
4J
IB
U
CO
•H
E
•H
E
•O
CO
00
E
•H
Ll
CJ
01
E
i-l
E
CJ
O
M-l
5*£
r--
CM
CO
3
r-t
a.
4J*
09
O
CJ
E
0
i-t
4J
CJ
3
4J
CO
B
0
y
CO
01
•o
3
M
O
B
M
X!
„
to co
B i-l
•H LI
CO 4J
XI 1-1
Ll
01 CJ
00
IB E
Ll 00
O i-t
4J CO
to 01
•a
u o
E x:
01 4J
00
Li E
01 01
E x:
CJ 4J
Ll *
0 C
UH O
•H
W *J
4J CS
CO Ll
O 01
U T3
01 CO
•0 E
3 0
**H tl
CJ
E Ll
•H 01
X
4J 4J
O Ll
B 3
to
CJ Ll
C u-i
•o
• 01
tO 4J
4J U
CO 01
O 1-1
o a)
3
x
oo n
3 -H
O
Ll CO
CJ
01 4J
> CO
B
01 Ll
h 01
CO 4J
i-t
E co
O
i-l 01
u to
CO 01
cj X
iH 4J
D. 14-1
a o
CO
T> E
E co
CO
I-t ^
•O i-l
E CO
n • 4j
CO 01
B -H -0
O -H
•H 01 01
4J S Ll
CJ >•, 6
i-l 01 E
a > n
• a. o
CO O T3
CJ 01
to Li -H
E Ll 3
CO O U
i-l to
4J »
cj to a)
3 E XI
•H
O H <-<
'M-l T3 3
01 Ll X
> 01 CO
o -o
X E CO
CO 3 CJ
4J
§- n
to E
0 E -3
X -H 4J
to to co
CO -O
4-1 4J
to E en
0 11 0
U CO U
01 Ll TT
X 3 E
H CJ co
8
O
O
o
4J
m
o
o
*3 *O
c c
CO *0
rH rH
n J-i
7 O
r-f 14-t
a
Q)
4-1 3
CO -4
o «
0 >
iH 01
CO CC
4-1 eg
•H >
a IH
CO IB
tn co
01 01
•O T3
3 3
i-t i-t
U U
E E
i— I t— t
•O 01
6-31
-------
SS— T
££ '
iS '
SS
3
W W
H H S
sgi
t
W C4 H H
S x E ^
U D H <
w fc j g
t
Bi
§
t
IH
H
* s
rtj S
K W
CQ
CM
M
a)
0)
01
CM
0)
ao
cd
C
4-1 CO
rH -H
00
00
•H
6-32
-------
6.5.2.2. Costs
This alternative would have an initial estimated capital cost of
$6,013,200. The estimated annual O&M costs would be $250,400. The esti-
mated salvage value after 20 years of use would be $1,239,400. The total
present worth was estimated to be $8,364,000, as presented in Table 22.
The estimated general improvement costs required at this plant site are
presented in Appendix D, Table D-7. A detailed, cost estimate for the
various process components of this alternative is shown in Appendix D,
Table D-8.
6.5.3. Alternative 3 - Remodeled Fox River Plant with Discharge to the
Fox River
6.5.3.1. Components
Alternative 3 is identical to the alternative proposed in the Facil-
ities Plan as the "Fox River -Plant - Remodel Existing". In this alter-
native, several major revisions to the existing WWTP are required. The
design capacity needs to be increased from 1.3 mgd to 2.0 ragd. The plant
must be upgraded to provide for nitrification and for chemical addition for
phosphorus removal. New solids handling and chlorination facilities would
be needed (Section 4.5.4.). This alternative consists of an advanced
secondary treatment plant. The following modifications or additions would
be required to expand and upgrade the plant: replacement of the existing
comminutor wi'th a new comminutor; remodeling of the wet well of the exist-
ing raw wastewater pumping station, replacement of the four existing 500
gpm pumps with three 1,500 gpm centrifugal pumps, and replacement of
existing piping in the wet well and the dry well areas of the existing
pumping station; construction of new grit chambers; replacement of all
mechanical equipment in the existing primary clarifiers and construction of
one new primary clarifier of the same size as the existing primary clari-
fiers; addition of advanced secondary (secondary-tertiary) treatment units
consisting of RBSs with nitrification capabilities; chemical addition
(lime) for phosphorus removal (the existing trickling filter would be
abandoned); use of existing final settling tanks, with the addition of new
mechanical equipment and a new 50-foot-diameter final clarifier; construc-
tion of new primary and secondary anaerobic digesters; construction of new
chlorination facilities; addition of new effluent pumps suspended at the
end of the chlorine contact tank; and construction of an outfall to the Fox
River. The liquid digested sludge would be spread on or injected into
agricultural lands. The schematic flow diagram for this alternative is
shown in Figure 19.
6.5.3.2. Costs
This alternative would have an initial estimated capital cost of
$5,520,200 and an estimated annual O&M cost of $264,200. The estimated
salvage value after 20 years of use would be $973,200. The total present
wprth was estimated to be $8,089,000, as presented in Table 22. The esti-
mated general improvement costs required for the modification of the exist-
ing WWTP site are presented in Appendix D, Table D-9. A detailed cost
estimate for the various process components of this alternative is shown in
Appendix D, Table D-10.
6-33
-------
0)
M)
M
0)
•a
co
•H
T)
CD
rt
i
CO
> K
•H O
C 0)
M 43
0) -U
4-1
d °
<3 4J
1-1
0)
^
00
•H
6-34
-------
6.5.4. Alternative 4 - Remodeled Fox River Plant with Discharge to the
Wisconsin River
6.5.4.1. Components
Alternative 4 was not considered in the Facilities Plan. This alter-
native of remodeling the existing WWTP and discharging to;- the Wisconsin
River via an outfall sewer was described in a letter dated 15 August 1977
from Owen Ayres and Associates to Mr. Gary A. Edelstein of WDNR. This
alternative is similar to Alternative 3, except that the effluent would be
discharged to the Wisconsin River. Thufe nitrification and phosphorus
removal facilities are not required. This alternative consists of a sec-
ondary treatment plant. All the modifications or additions explained in
Alternative 3 (Section 6.5.3.1.) would be required, except for the follow-
ing: RBSs would not require nitrification capabilities; chemical addition
facilities for phosphorus removal would not be required; sludge digestion
facilities would not be required to treat chemical sludges; and a chlorine
contact tank would not be required. The schematic flow diagram for this
alternative is shown in Figure 20.
A 27-inch-diameter outfall sewer is required in this alternative to
carry treated effluent for discharge to the Wisconsin River. The outfall
sewer is described in Section 6.4.2., and the layout of the interceptor is
shown in Figure 11. Chlorine contact time would be provided in this out-
fall sewer. A chlorine mixing unit would be provided at the WWTP. The
five existing lift stations, which would be eliminated by the construction
of an interceptor sewer to the new Wisconsin River site in Alternative 1,
would not be eliminated in this alternative.
6.5.4.2. Costs
This alternative would have an initial estimated capital cost of
$5,252,100 and an estimated annual O&M cost of $183,100. The estimated
salvage value after 20 years of use would be $1,126,400. The total present
worth was estimated to be $6,913,000, as presented in Table 22. The esti-
mated general improvement costs required at this plant site are presented
in Appendix D, Table D-ll. A detailed cost estimate for the various pro-
cess components of this alternative is presented in Appendix D, Table D—12.
6.5.5. Alternative 5A - Wetlands Application - Overland Flow Type Sys-
tem (20 mg/1 BOD - 20 mg/1 SS discharge to wet-
lands)
6.5.5.1. Components
This alternative was considered because of the proximity of wetlands
to the existing WWTP site. There is approximately one linear mile of
wetlands available southeast of Portage (Figure 15). WDNR discharge cri-
teria to wetlands are described in Section 6.4.4.3. This alternative
requires several major revisions to the existing WWTP. The design capacity
would need to be increased from 1.3 mgd to 2.0 mgd. The plant must be
upgraded to meet 20 mg/1 BOD and 20 mg/1 SS criteria for discharge to the
wetlands (Section 6.4.4.3.). The following modifications or additions
6-35
-------
A
01 > I
< H :
5 E- i
0)
oo
M
efl
-.C
o
co
4-1
•H
T)
0)
T3
I iH
CO
•* §
(U CJ
> co
•H -H
±J ^E
ed
-u
O
O .
CM
CU
\->
00
6-36
-------
would be required at the existing WWTP: replacement of the existing commi-
nutor; remodeling of the wet well of the existing raw wastewater pumping
station, replacement of the four existing 500 gpm pumps with three 1,500
gpm centrifugal pumps, and replacement of the existing piping in the wet
well and the dry well areas of the existing pumping station; construction
of new grit chambers; replacement of all mechanical equipment in the exist-
ing primary clarifiers and construction of one new primary clarifier of the
same size as the existing primary clarifier; addition of new RBSs (the
existing trickling filter would be abandoned); addition of new mechanical
equipment and a new 50-foot-diameter final clarifier to the existing final
settling tanks; and construction of new primary and secondary anaerobic
digestors. The liquid digested sludge would be spread on or injected into
agricultural lands.
A pumping station would be required to pump treated effluent to the
storage basin through an approximately 0.75-mile-long forcemain. This
alternative would require a storage period of approximately 130 days (USEPA
1977a), A storage basin with a surface area of approximately 80 acres
would have to be constructed in the wetland areas. At an application rate
of 4 inches per week (USEPA 1977a), the approximate area of wetlands re-
quired for disposal would be 130 acres. The effluent would be distributed
through irrigation pipes with holes spaced 40 inches apart, similar to a
ridge and furrow distribution system. The schematic flow diagram for this
alternative is shown in Figure 21.
6.5.5.2. Costs
This alternative would have an initial estimated capital cost of
$7,542,000 and an estimated annual O&M cost of $224,400. The estimated
salvage value after 20 years of use would be $2,120,200. The total present
worth was estimated to be $9,381,700, as presented in Table 22. A detailed
cost estimate for the various process components of this alternative is
presented in Appendix D, Table D-13.
The estimated total present worth of this alternative is approximately
137% of the estimated total present worth of Alternative 1A (Table 22).
Based on the total present worth analysis, Alternative 5A is not considered
to be a viable alternative and has been rejected for further consideration.
6.5.6. Alternative 5B - Wetlands Application - Overland Flow Type System
(30 mg/1 BOD -30 mg/1 SS discharge to wetlands)
6.5.6.1. Components
This alternative was included for consideration on the basis of the
assumption that WDNR would relax its discharge limitations to the wetlands
and would allow a 30 mg/1 BOD and a 30 mg/1 SS discharge to the wetlands,
which is presently considered unlikely. The alternative also includes
consideration of the application of the treated effluent to the same wet-
land areas that were described in Section 6.4.4.3. Implementation of this
alternative would require upgrading of the existing WWTP to meet design
requirements.
6-37
-------
SSI
sl
ff
rt
o
CO
o
CN
I
IT)
Q
O
O
C-4
I
4J
CO
>>
CO
4)
CU
o
rH
a
0)
>
O
c
o
tfl
o
a.
ex
CO
•a
T3
•H C
JJ tO
CD rH
a w
cvl
0)
00
•H
6-38
-------
The modifications and additions to the existing WWTP would be the same
as those described for Alternative 5A (Section 6.5.5.1.), except that new
RBSs would not be constructed. Instead, the existing trickling filter
would be modified and upgraded. The rock media, underdrains, distribution
arms, recirculating pumps, and other miscellaneous mechanical equipment in
the existing trickling filter would be replaced. It is assumed that the
existing WWTP would be capable of meeting the design requirements of this
alternative, with the proposed modifications and additions. The treated
effluent would be pumped to the storage basin and distributed through the
irrigation pipe, as described in Alternative 5A (Section 6.5.5.1.). The
schematic flow diagram for this alternative is shown in Figure 22.
6.5.6.2. Costs
This alternative would have an initial estimated capital cost of
$7,367,900 and an estimated O&M cost of $214,500. The estimated salvage
value after 20 years of use would be $2,071,800. The total present worth
was estimated to be $2,144,500, as presented in Table 22. A detailed cost
estimate for the various process components of this alternative is pre-
sented in Appendix D, Table D-14.
The estimated total present worth of this alternative is approximately
137% of the estimated total present worth of Alternative 1 (Table 22).
Also, this alternative is based on the assumption that WDNR would relax its
discharge limitations to the wetlands. Based on the total present worth
analysis and the lack of interest by WDNR in the relaxation of the dis-
charge limitation, Alternative 5B is not considered to be a cost-effective
alternative and has been rejected for further consideration.
6.5.7. Alternative 6 - Land Treatment by Rapid Infiltration at Site B
6.5.7.1. Components
This alternative consists of pretreatment at the modified, upgraded,
and expanded existing WWTP, followed by land treatment of the effluent. The
existing WWTP would be modified, upgraded and expanded as described in
Alternative 5B (Section 6.5.6.1.). The effluent from the modified existing
WWTP would be pumped through a 14-inch-diameter forcemain for approximately
3.5 miles to Site B (Figure 14). At an application rate of 15 inches per
week and with alternate use of the infiltration beds, the approximate land
area required would be 70 acres. The total land area required for the
rapid infiltration system, including a buffer zone, would be approximately
90 acres. It is assumed that the effluent would be applied to the land
treatment infiltration basins on a 52-week-per-year basis. In the report
prepared by Harza Engineering Co. (1979) it was indicated that curtain
drains could be constructed locally to maintain the present groundwater
table either at the beginning of the project or later, if necessary. The
component storage basins, curtain drains and/or underdrains, and recovery
wells are not included in this alternative. If WDNR requires the use of
emergency storage basins, and if after further subsurface investigations of
land treatment at Site B it is concluded that curtain drains and/or under-
drains and recovery wells are needed to prevent nuisance conditions down-
hill near Swan Lake, then these components should be included in this
alternative. The schematic flow diagram for this alternative is shown in
Figure 23.
6-39
-------
01
00
M
a
o
CO
60
ITl
Q
O
PQ
60
O
CO
CO
^
to
O)
13
n)
0)
I
fi
O
CO
O
D.
ft
cfl
CD
T3
cfl
PP
QJ CO
> 13
•rt C3
W cd
cd ^H
C 4->
M 0)
-------
RA
NFILTR
TION
BASIN
C
o
cd
M
U
i-l
•H
<4-l
C
•H
•H
a.
id
cu
M
O)
>
(0
a
M
0)
0)
M
3
•H
En
6-41
-------
6.5.7.2. Costs
This alternative would have an initial estimated capital cost -of
$6,399,200 and an estimated annual O&M cost of $235,400. The estimated
salvage value after 20 years of use would be $1,332,100. The total present
worth was estimated to be $8,541,300, as presented in Table 22. The costs
associated with the emergency storage basins, curtain.drains and/or under-
drains, and recovery wells were not included in the cost analysis of this
alternative. A detailed cost estimate for the various process components
of this alternative is presented in Appendix D, Table D-16.
The estimated total present worth of this alternative is approximately
125% of the estimated total present worth of Alternative 1A (Table 22).
The estimated total present worth of this alternative, as presented in
Table 22, does hot include costs for the following components: emergency
storage basins, curtain drains and/or underdrains, and recovery wells. If
the costs of these components are added to the present worth cost of this
alternative, as given in Table 22, the difference between the estimated
total present worth for Alternative 6 and the estimated total present worth
for Alternative 1A would be even greater than 25%. Based on the total
present worth analysis, Alternative 6 is not considered a cost-effective
alternative and has been rejected for further consideration.
6.6. Reliability
Federal^ 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 satis-
factorily during power failures, flooding, peak loads,
equipment failure, and maintenance shutdowns.
The wastewater control system design for the study area will consider
the following types of factors to insure system reliability:
• Duplicate sources of electric power
t, • Standby power for essential plant elements
• Multiple units and equipment to provide maximum flexibil-
ity 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
6-42
-------
• Provision for emergency storage or disposal of sludge
• Dual chlorination units
• Automatic controls to regulate and record chlorine re-
siduals
• Automatic alarm systems to warn of high water, power
failure, or equipment malfunction
• No treatment plant bypasses or upstream bypasses
• Design of interceptor to permit emergency storage without
causing backups
• Enforcement of pretreatment regulations to avoid industrial
waste-induced treatment upsets
• Floodproofing of treatment plant
• Plant Operations and Maintenance Manual to have a section on
emergency operation procedures
• Use of qualified plant operators.
Through the incorporation of these types of factors in the design and
operation of the wastewater control system for the Portage study area, the
system will be virtually "fail-safe.." This is necessary to insure that ef-
fluent standards would be met during the entire design life of the system.
6-43
-------
7.0. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES
The potential environmental consequences associated with the four
conventional alternatives (Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4) are presented in
the following sections. Three of these (Alternatives 1, 2, and 3) were
presented in the Facilities Plan. The innovative alternatives of land
application-rapid infiltration (Alternative 6) and wetlanfds application
(Alternatives 5A and 5B) have been eliminated from further consideration
because of the significantly higher projected -costs involved in their
implementation (Sections 6.5.5., 6.5.6., an.d 6.5.7.).
Both the primary (direct) impacts (those that result from construction
and operation of the WWTP facilities) and the secondary (indirect) impacts
(those effects induced by construction and operation of the facilities) are
discussed. Mitigative measures are indicated where possible.
7.1. Air Quality
Air quality in the study area would not be affected significantly by
providing WWTP capacity for the year 2000. Improved wastewater treatment
facilities could encourage industries to locate in or near the study area;
however, growth in the study area is not expected to be significant (Sec-
tion 4.2.5.). No major changes in particulate or oxidant levels are ex-
pected to occur.
7.1.1. Construction Impacts
Fugitive dust emissions may occur in connection with the stockpiling
and handling of dry, finely divided materials (such as chemicals for waste-
water treatment), but are of concern primarily during project construction.
The types of construction activities ordinarily associated with the cre-
ation of dusty conditions include land clearing, blasting, demolition,
excavation, loading, transporting, unloading, leveling, and grading. In
addition, the increased vehicular highway and access road traffic associ-
ated with the transportation of the construction crew members, their equip-
ment, and the required materials to and around the study area would be
expected to increase the local levels of dust, especially in the case - of
unpaved access roads. The projected impacts are expected to be short-term
and localized at the alternative sites. Measures to keep these impacts at a
minimum will be developed in Step 2 - Plans and Specifications.
Exhaust emissions of CO, HC, NO , SO , and particulate matter would be
associated with the increased vehicular traffic, as well as with any sta-
tionary and/mobile internal combustion engines that may be utilized at the
construction site. A cursory air dispersion analysis was performed on a
large construction project to aid in quantifying approximate ground-level
concentrations that might be attributable to construction of the proposed
facilities. An examination of the results of the air dispersion analysis
indicated that the impacts that would result from mobile and stationary
source emissions (internal combustion engines) associated with construction
of any of the four alternatives will be minimal and well within the NAAQ
standards (Appendix A, Table A-2).
7-1
-------
Emissions from a stationary point source that may be associated with
construction, such as a cement batching plant, present less of a problem.
Emissions can be reduced substantially through the utilization of bag-
house filters, cyclones, various types of scrubbers, and other air pollu-
tion abatement devices. The controlled emissions from these types of
facilities generally are less than the emissions from internal combustion
engines associated with construction of the facilities.
Alternatives 1 and 2 would have potentially greater impacts on air
quality during construction, because they involve new site locations.
Impacts on air quality, however, would be insignificant for all four alter-
natives.
7.1.2. Operation Impacts — Aerosols
Aerosols are defined as solid or liquid particles, ranging in size
from 0.01 to 50 micrometers (urn), that are suspended in the air. These
particles are produced at wastewater treatment facilities during the vari-
ous treatment processes, especially those that involve aeration. Some of
these aerosols could contain pathogens that could cause respiratory and
gastrointestinal infections. Concentrations of bacteria and/or viruses in
aerosols that could be generated during various stages of wastewater treat-
ment, however, have been found to be insignificant (Hickey and Reist 1975).
The vast majority of aerosolized microorganisms are destroyed by solar
radiation, dessication (drying), and other environmental phenomena. There
are no known records of disease outbreaks that have resulted from pathogens
present in WWTP aerosols. No adverse impacts, therefore, are expected from
aerosol emissions for any of the alternatives.
7.1.3. Operation Impacts — Gases
Gaseous emissions could be associated with the operation of the WWTP.
These emissions can be attributed to two general types of operations within
the facility: the treatment of the water itself, and gaseous emissions
from boilers and other equipment. Explosive, toxic, noxious, lachrymose
(causing tears), and asphyxiating gases found at a WWTP include chlorine,
methane, ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, carbon monoxide, and oxides of nitro-
gen, sulfur, and phosphorus. Discharges of these gases could be hazardous
to public health and/or could affect the environment adversely. The know-
ledge that • such gases could escape from a WWTP in dangerous or nuisance
concentrations might affect adjacent land uses. Gaseous emissions, how-
ever, can be controlled by proper design, operation, and maintenance, and
are not expected to be significant under normal operating conditions.
7.1.4. Operation Impacts — Odors
Incomplete oxidation of organic material containing sulfur or nitrogen
can result in the emission of byproducts that may be malodorous. The most
frequently emitted odors found in a study of 300 WWTPs were methylmercap-
tans, methyIsulfides, and amines. These odors were followed by indole,
skatole, and hydrogen sulfide, and to a lesser extent by sulfur dioxide,
phenolics, and chlorine compounds (USEPA 1976a). Some organic acids,
7-2
-------
aldehydes, and ketones also may be odorous either individually or in com-
bination with other compounds. Sources of wastewater treatment-related
odors include:
• Fresh, septic, or incompletely treated wastewater
• Screenings, grit, and skimmings containing septic or pu-
trescible matter
• Oil, grease, fats, and soaps from industry, homes, and
surface runoff
• Gaseous emissions from treatment processes, manholes, wells,
pumping stations, leaking containers, turbulent flow areas,
and outfall areas
• Chlorinated water containing phenols
• Raw or incompletely stabilized sludge.
No odor problems associated with any of the alternatives are expected
to occur if the WWTP is designed, operated, and maintained properly.
7.2. Sound
For each of the alternatives, possible noise impacts on local sound
levels would be related primarily to construction activities and thus would
be of relatively short duration. Construction noise generally is exempt
from State and local noise regulations. The extent of the impacts would
vary, depending on the amount of construction required for each alterna-
tive. Alternatives 1 and 2, which require new WWTP construction, would
have greater noise impacts. The highest sound levels would occur during
excavation, which would produce a level of approximately 55 dBA at 1,000
feet from the center of activity. This level would be in accordance with
USEPA guidelines to protect public health and welfare (USEPA 1974a).
Noise created by the construction of the interceptors or outfall sewer
would have more widespread impacts than WWTP construction, because this
construction would extend into residential and other noise-sensitive land
use areas. It was estimated that sewer line construction (based on an
8-hour construction day) would produce the equivalent daytime sound level
of 57 dBA at 500 feet. This estimate was made on the basis of equipment
generally used during sewer line construction and sound levels that result
from the use of the equipment (Table 23). The day/night sound level during
sewer line construction would be approximately 65 dBA. Such levels would
exceed USEPA guidelines by 10 decibels (USEPA 1974a). Portage, however, is
an urban area, and the existing day/night sound levels at the locations
surveyed range from 42 to 63 dBA (Draft EIS, Section 3.2.), which exceeds
the USEPA guidelines by 8 decibels. Sewer construction contracts generally
prohibit construction during evening and night hours.
7-3
-------
Table 23. Equipment used and resultant sound levels during construction
of sewer lines (USEPA 1974a).
No. of
Equipment Units
Backhoe 1
Truck 1
Air Compressor 1
Paving Breaker 1
Crane, Mobile 1
Welding Machine 1
A-weighted
sound level
(dBA) at 50 feet
85
88
81
88
83K
83b
Usage
Factor
0.4
0.16
0.5*,
0.25
0.16,
0.25
fraction of time equipment is operating at its loudest mode.
Estimated.
During the operation of the WWTP, noise would be generated by pumps
and aeration equipment. With the exception of Alternative 2, no adverse
impacts to nearby residences are anticipated, because no residences are
located near the proposed WWTP sites. The Old Indian Agency House is
located adjacent to the WWTP site proposed in Alternative 2, and may be
impacted by increased noise levels (Section 7.7.2.). Regardless of the
proximity of residences to any of the alternative sites, above-ground pumps
would be enclosed and installed to minimize sound impacts.
7.3. Geology, Soils, and Groundwater
7.3.1. Alternative 1
The predominant soils at the proposed WWTP sites near the Wisconsin
River and along the proposed interceptor route are Alluvial land, Granby
loamy sand, and Morocco loamy sand (US Soil Conservation Service 1978).
The underlying sediments consist of alluvial sand and gravel. The presence
of a high water table and the granular nature of the soils and underlying
sediments constitute severe limitations for shallow excavations. Extensive
slope stabilization and dewatering would' be necessary. Dewatering op-
erations would result in a lowering of the water table in the immediate
vicinity of the site. Impacts to water levels in nearby wells would be
negligible because they are deeper. Small bodies of surface water close to
the operation may be affected. The presence of a high water table should
be considered as a major factor in the design of below-ground structures,
so that uplift would not occur.
f
Proper construction of the new interceptor should minimize any ex-
filtration or infiltration. Exfiltration probably would not occur because
of the high water table. Thus the potential for groundwater contamination
would be minimal.
The land application program for digested sludge would be developed to
conform to current State and Federal application limits. Particular at-
tention would be paid to cadmium and PCB levels.
7-4
-------
7.3.2. Alternative. 2
The predominant soils at the proposed WWTP site adjacent to the Fox
River and along the proposed interceptor route are Sandy land, Alluvial
land, Wyocena loamy sand, and Marcellon loam (US Soil Conservation .Service
1978). Because the underlying sediments, the nature of the soils, and the
depth to the water table at this proposed site are similar to those at the
site of Alternative 1, the construction impact considerations would be the
same as those recommended for Alternative 1. Sludge impacts are comparable
to Alternative 1.
7.3.3. Alternative 3
The existing WWTP site is characterized by granular soils and a high
water table. The presence of a high water table should be considered as a
major factor in the design of below-ground structures, so that uplift would
not occur. Sludge impacts are comparable to Alternative 1.
7.3.4. Alternative 4
The predominant soils at the existing WWTP site and along the proposed
outfall sewer route are Alluvial land, Granby loamy sand, and Morocco loamy
sand (US Soil Conservation Service 1978). The underlying sediments consist
of alluvial sand and gravel. Because the underlying sediments, the nature
of the soils, and the depth to the water table at this proposed site are
similar to those at the site of Alternative 1, the construction impact
considerations would be the same as those recommended for Alternative 1.
Sludge impacts are comparable to Alternative 1.
7.4. Surface Waters
The design flow of the proposed WWTP is 2.0 mgd, which is equivalent
to 3.1 cfs. This would be about O.ff4% of the average flow of the Wisconsin
River (7,137 cfs at the Wisconsin Dells gage). During the 7-day, 10-year
low flow event (1,850 cfs at Portage), the effluent would be about 0.17% of
the flow in the Wisconsin River. On the Fox River the effluent would
represent 7% of the average flow of 44 cfs and 21% of the 7-day, 10-year
low flow of 15 cfs. This design flow is not anticipated to be reached
until late in the 20-year planning period. Earlier flows will be smaller,
and their impacts will be less pronounced.
The concentration of any substance in the effluent, therefore, would
be diluted both in the Wisconsin River and in the Fox River. Dilution is
not a substitute for the basic pollution control requirements, but the
extent of dilution does serve as a means of predicting the impacts of a
discharge to the Wisconsin River versus the impacts of a discharge to the
Fox River.
The following sections present the pollutant loadings associated with
the alternatives and the resultant impacts on background in-stream concen-
trations. Average river flows are used to assess impacts. Impacts during
low flow conditions cannot be discussed quantitatively in this document
because background in-stream concentrations in the rivers under these
conditions are not known. The effluent limitations for the different
7-5
-------
discharges, however, were set so that the discharges would not cause any
violations of in-stream water quality standards and thus affect any de-
signated stream uses.
7.4.1. Alternative 1
In Alternative 1, the Portage wastewater that presently is discharged
into the Fox River would be discharged into the Wisconsin River, and the
bypass to the Fox River would be eliminated. This alternative, therefore,
would reduce significantly pollutant loads discharged to the Fox River, and
in-stream water quality would be improved, especially during periods of
low flow. Bypasses to the Wisconsin River also would be eliminated.
Wasteloads discharged from the WWTP depend on the effluent require-
ments of the WPDES permit and the WWTP capacity. The effluent requirements
for discharge to the Wisconsin River necessitate secondary treatment (Sec-
tion 6.4.3.2.). The effluent would meet, the requirements of 30 mg/1 BOD
and 30 mg/1 SS, which would represent a significant reduction over the
average monthly 1978 discharge concentrations of 52 mg/1 BOD and 46 mg/1
SS. The proposed 2.0 mgd plant would discharge 500 pounds/day of BOD
(monthly average) and 500 pounds/day of SS (monthly average). The amount
of ammonia-nitrogen that would be discharged also would be related to the
amount removed by secondary treatment. The concentration of ammonia-
nitrogen is approximately 25 mg/1 in raw sewage and 17.5 mg/1 after secon-
dary treatment (USEPA 1975c). Therefore, discharge of ammonia-nitrogen to
the Wisconsin River would be 292 pounds/day.
These pollutant loads are insignificant when compared to the loads
present in the Wisconsin River and the loads entering Lake Wisconsin. The
average in-stream concentration of BOD is approximately 2.7 mg/1 (Table
5), which represents 103,870 pounds/day under normal flow conditions (7,137
cfs at Wisconsin Dells). Because the discharge is only 0.04% of the aver-
age streamflow, the average BOD concentration would be increased by only
0.01 mg/1 to 2.71 mg/1 under normal flow conditions. Background concentra-
tion of SS in the Wisconsin River are not available, but the increase in
the SS concentration under average flow conditions is expected to be as
insignificant as the increase in the BOD concentration. The average
concentration of ammonia-nitrogen in the river during the 1978 USEPA survey
(Table 5) was 0.06 mg/1, which represents 2,308 pounds/day during normal
flow. Therefore, the average in-stream concentration under average flow
conditions would be 0.068 mg/1 with the addition of the Portage discharge.
This does not represent a significant increase that would have any measur-
able impacts in the Wisconsin River and in Lake Wisconsin.
The effluent discharge to the Wisconsin River also would contribute an
insignificant amount of phosphorus to the Wisconsin River and Lake Wiscon-
sin. The phosphorus concentration in raw sewage is approximately 10 mg/1
(USEPA 1976b), and the RBS process would remove up to 20% of the phosphorus
(Water Pollution Control Federation 1977). Thus the effluent from the WWTP
would contain 8 mg/1, which represents a loading to the Wisconsin River of
133 pounds/day. However, the level of background phosphorus in the Wiscon-
sin River is estimated to be 0.1 mg/1 (By memorandum, Mr. Jerome McKersie,
WDNR, to Mr. Bob Krill, WDNR, 29 July 1977), which would equal 3,847
pounds/day during normal flow conditions. Therefore, the phosphorus load
7-6
-------
from the new WWTP would increase the in-stream concentration to only 0.104
mg/1. This additional phosphorus load would have no significant impact on
the water quality of the Wisconsin River.
In addition, the phosphorus load from a new WWTP discharging to the
Wisconsin River at Portage would cause no adverse impacts in Lake Wiscon-
sin. The present phosphorus concentrations in the Lake are extremely high.
Based on the National Eutrophication Survey initiated in 1972, USEPA con-
cluded that the phosphorus load to the Lake from point and nonpoint sources
is already more than six times the loading rate known to cause lake eutro-
phication (Section 3.6.4.3.). Furthermore, about 94% of the phosphorus
load to the Wisconsin River between Wisconsin Dells and Lake Wisconsin is
from nonpoint sources (Section 3.6.4.6). Phosphorus loads from nonpoint
sources would have to be reduced substantially before the discharge from
Portage could have any impact. However, the amount of reduction in the
phosphorus load from nonpoint sources that would be required cannot be
achieved (WDNR 1979a).
It also must be noted that not all of the phosphorus present in a
river or lake cause adverse impacts. Only the orthophosphate form of
phosphorus and the phosphorus loosely associated with sediment can be used
by plants and thus result in excessive plant growth and related water
quality problems. Significant amounts of phosphorus are in forms 'more
tightly bound to sediments and thus are unavailable to plants. The dy-
namics of the changes between these forms is complex. No separate sampling
data are available for orthophosphate in the Wisconsin River, but this form
is always in concentrations less than the total phosphorus concentrations.
PCB discharges to surface waters would be reduced if the existing WWTP
were decommissioned. However, it is not possible to predict the concentra-
tions of PCBs that would be discharged from a new or remodeled WWTP. The
most recent samples of the existing WWTP effluent contained undetectable
levels of PCBs, and concentrations in the sludge have been decreasing
(Section 4.5.5.). It is highly desirable that PCBs are not discharged. A
program for their control at Portage would be required for all alternatives
and will be presented generally for the selected alternative in the discus-
sion of mitigative measures (Section 8.4.2.). Such a program would control
any adverse impacts to an irreducible minimum.
It is likewise difficult to predict the levels of heavy metals that
will be entering the Portage WWTP and that will be discharged in the ef-
fluent. Heavy metals, however, should( be removed at their industrial
sources rather than at a WWTP. An industrial pretreatment program to
control heavy metals at Portage is presented in Section 8.4. Such a pro-
gram would be implemented as part of any alternative.
The effluent discharged to the Wisconsin River would not cause any
violations of in-stream water quality standards and thus would not affect
any designated stream uses. In fact, present clean up efforts along the
Wisconsin River will result in a overall improvement of water quality, even
with the addition of the Portage WWTP effluent. BOD and SS loads to the
Wisconsin River and to Lake Wisconsin from other point sources have been
reduced significantly and will be reduced further in the next few years.
In 1973 the upstream paper mills discharged approximately 582,000 pounds/
day of BOD . Since 1977, the paper mill loads of BOD have been reduced to
7-7
-------
60,000 pounds/day. By 1983, BOD loads from the paper mills are expected
to be reduced to 21,200 pounds/aay. The upstream paper mills also dis-
charged approximately 266,000 pounds/day of SS in 1973. Since 1977, SS
loads have reduced to 56,000 pounds/day. They are expected to be reduced
to 13,900 pounds/day by 1983. In addition, two primary discharges from the
municipalities of Wisconsin Dells and Lake Delton are to be eliminated. A
j.oint WWTP will be constructed that will provide secondary treatment for
both municipalities. The two secondary plants, Portage and Dells-Delton,
will discharge less total BOD than is presently being discharged by the
upstream existing primary WWTPs, which will result in a net improvement to
the Wisconsin River.
Construction activities can result in the addition of significant
pollutant loads to surface waters. The 'major nonpoint source pollutant
from these activities is sediment. Other pollutants may include organic
matter, plant nutrients, and pesticides. A control plan would be devised
to reduce erosion and sedimentation. Impacts from siltation and sedimenta-
tion, therefore, should be of short duration. Water quality and riverbed
characteristics would revert quickly to present conditions if mitigative
measures are implemented.
The construction of a new WWTP near the Wisconsin River could result
in sediment runoff to the Wisconsin River. However, because of the exist-
ing levee along the River and the relatively level topography of the site,
the potential for significant siltation and sedimentation would be mini-
mized by conventional control measures. The potential for sediment runoff
to the Portage Canal would be minimal and also could be controlled, because
the interceptor connecting the Albert Street lift station to the main
interceptor will pass under the Canal by means of a syphon.
Local development induced 'by the increased WWTP capacity would con-
tribute pollutant loads via runoff. These loads would be minimal because
of the moderate rate of population growth foreseen at Portage. In addition
local land use controls would be used to reduce these impacts. Development
adjacent to the rivers would be limited by the existing floodplain zoning.
The City also may choose to pass ordinances limiting construction site
erosion or runoff.
7.4.2 Alternative 2
In Alternative 2 the wastewater effluent would be discharged to the
Fox River. A new 2.0 mgd WWTP would provide advanced secondary treatment to
meet the final WPDES requirements (Section 4.5.5.). Bypasses to both Fox
River and the Wisconsin River also would be eliminated.
Although" the effluent quality would be higher than the existing efflu-
ent quality, the ultimate loadings to the Fox River may be larger than the
present loadings because the design flow is larger than the existing dis-
charge. The loadings, assuming a 2.0 mgd discharge, would include 500
.pounds/day of BOD (monthly average) 500 pounds/day of SS (monthly aver-
age), 67 pounds/day of ammonia-nitrogen during the summer and 200 pounds/
day of ammonia-nitrogen during the winter (weekly averages), and 17 pounds/
day of total phosphorus (monthly average).
7-8
-------
These loadings would be significant in terms of the background loads
in the Fox River and would cause greater in-stream impacts than the impacts
that the loadings associated with Alternative 1 would cause in the Wiscon-
sin River. The BOD load upstream from the existing WWTP is approximately
474 pounds/day under normal flow conditions, assuming an in-stream concen-
tration of 2.0 mg/1 (Table 7) and a flow of 44 cfs. The discharge from the
proposed WWTP, therefore, would would increase the in-stream BOD concen-
tration to 3.8 mg/1 under average flow conditions. In-stream SS concentra-
tions that would result from the discharge cannot be calculated because
background concentrations are not available. The increase, however, pro-
bably would be of an order of magnitude similar to the increase in the BOD
concentration. The average concentration of ammonia-nitrogen in the Fox
River upstream from the existing WWTP is approximately 0.08 mg/1 (Table 7),
which represents 19 pounds/day under normal flow conditions. The in-stream
conditions. The in-stream concentration that would result from the dis-
charge under normal flow conditions therefore would be 0.34 mg/1 during the
summer and 0.86 mg/1 during the winter. The phosphorus load in the Fox
River upstream from the existing WWTP is estimated to be 20 pounds/day
during average flow conditions, based on an average concentration of 0.085
mg/1 (Table 7). The in-stream concentration downstream from the proposed
discharge would be approximately 0.15 mg/1.
Other impacts associated with Alternative 2 that are related to PCBs,
heavy metals, secondary development, and construction activities are simi-
lar to those described for Alternative 1. Because of the PCB concentration
of the local Fox River fish population, it is especially desirable to limit
these substances if Alternative 2 is selected.
7.4.3. Alternative 3
Water quality impacts for Alternative 3 are similar to those described
for Alternative 2. However, the amount of construction required to remodel
the existing WWTP would be less than the amount required to build a new Fox
River WWTP. Accordingly, construction impacts will be somewhat less for
Alternative 3.
Because Alternative 3 retains the existing WWTP, it will be more
difficult to control residual PCBs. This is because part of the residual
is concentrated in the sludge units and possibly in other components of the
WWTP.
7.4.4 Alternative 4
Water quality impacts for Alternative 4 are similar to those described
for Alternative 1. PCB considerations are comparable to those for Alterna-
tive 3. Construction impacts at the WWTP site are comparable to those for
Alternative 3 and to those for Alternative 1 at the outfall sewer construc-
tion site.
7.5. Terrestrial and Aquatic Flora
The construction associated with the alternatives would impact the
vegetation at WWTP site and along the interceptor route. Construction
7-9
-------
activities should be kept at a minimum and erosion controls must be imple-
mented to minimize adverse impacts to both terrestrial and aquatic plants.
On sites with sensitive areas, such as wetlands, floodproofing would be
accomplished by filling, which requires fewer acres than floodproofing by
diking, about 12 acres vs. 15 acres. These values allow for buffer zones
and future expansion area, should they be needed beyond the 20 year plan-
ning period. Reducing the construction area also would reduce the compac-
tion of wetland soils by heavy equipment. Such construction impacts could
have long term adverse effects. Section 404 permits may have to be ob-
tained for construction in wetlands involving fill.
f
7.5.1. Alternative 1
Alternative 1 would provide effluent discharge to the Wisconsin River.
Because of the treatment required, the effluent would not result in viola-
tions of water quality standards. A portion of the nutrients available in
the effluent would be available for plant use. As discussed in Section
3.6.4.3., this addition would not contribute significantly to an over-
abundant algal population downstream.
The site of Alternative 1A contains wooded wetland areas that surround
an elevated area of upland meadow vegetation. Plant species that we noted
during the field visit in the fall of 1979 included golden rod, wild car-
rot, sedges, big blue stem and saw grasses, blue lake iris, river birch,
cottonwood, maple, oak, and cedar trees. Constructing elevated facilities
at this site would involve filling 3.2 acres of upland grasses and 1.4
acres of wetland (Owen Ayres & Associates 1979) plus some additional area
for an access road. Generalized wetland mapping previously classified Site
1A as either a floodplain forest (Figure 4) or as a Type 7 wooded swamp
(maps are on file at the SCS offices in Portage, Wisconsin).
Alternate site IB has been classified as a wetland (Figure 4) and as a
Type 1 seasonal flood area (SCS). Field visits determined that this site
was cultivated farmland that now consists of grasses. Except in several
small pothole areas that would not be used, no wetland vegetation was
noted. Enough acreage is available to dike the site, if desired, for a
visual screen from the roadway.
Previous mapping has classified site 1C as swamp forest (Figure 4) and
as a forested area (SCS). Field inspection determined that the site is an
upland area with a secondary growth of oak-hickory forest, composed of
trees 3 to 7 inches in diameter. The interceptors and access road, how-
ever, would have to traverse wetland areas to reach the site. An estimated
3.5 acres of .wetlands would have to be filled to use site 1C. Floodproofing
by elevation would be necessary for treatment facilities at this site.
7.5.2. Alternative 2
A Fox River discharge would meet the effluent limitations for the
WPDES permit. Some of the remaining nutrients left in the effluent would
be in forms that would make them available for plant use (Section
3.6.4.4.).
The construction of the WWTP at the new Fox River site would require
approximately 12 acres. A field investigation, conducted by USEPA during
7-10
-------
September 1979, revealed that the site consists predominantly of upland
vegetation, although the generalized vegetation maps indicate wet meadows
(Figure 4) and Type 6 shrub swamp (SCS). The construction of an interceptor
along the Portage Canal from the existing WWTP to the proposed Fox River
site would create excavation spoils and could create sedimentation problems
in the Canal and along the edges of the marshland that border the Canal.
The sedimentation impacts can be minimized by proper construction tech-
niques. Dewatering of trenches during the construction phase temporarily
would lower the local water table. Any wet meadows adjacent to the
trenches especially could be impacted as a result of desiccation or pond-
ing.
7.5.3. Alternative 3
Effluent impacts to aquatic flora are comparable to impacts of Alter-
native 2.
Remodeling of the existing WWTP near the Fox River would have to be
accomplished behind the existing facilities in order to maintain required
isolation distances from existing housing. Although the area in front of
the existing WWTP does not contain wetland vegetation, the area behind the
WWTP is almost entirely wetlands, as confirmed by field observation. (The
Draft EIS assumed WWTP expansion in front of the existing facilities.)
This area has been mapped as swamp forest (Figure 4) and as inland open
fresh water, Type 5 (SCS). Four or more acres of wetlands would be filled
to accomplish the expansion. Erosion and sedimentation impacts to the Fox
River and adjacent wetlands would be minimized by controlled construction
techniques.
7.5.4. Alternative 4
The impacts of remodeling the existing WWTP near the Fox River (with a
subsequent discharge to the Wisconsin River) on the vegetation would be
similar to those described for Alternative 3. The impacts associated with
outfall sewer construction would be similar to those that would result from
interceptor construction Alternative 1. A Section 404 permit may be re-
quired if the outfall sewer were to cross any wetland areas.
7.6. Terrestrial and Aquatic Fauna
7.6.1. Alternative 1
Construction activities for a new WWTP that would discharge to the
Wisconsin River would result in the destruction of habitat and the mortal-
ity of some of the less mobile members of the wildlife community (e.g.,
various small mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and young of the year). More
mobile animals would be displaced and likely would take refuge in neigh-
boring undeveloped areas. Wildlife in areas adjacent to the WWTP Site
likely would become stressed, due to increased competition for food and
shelter with displaced animals and to increased human activity in the area.
A few animals would perish, but most would become acclimated to the envi-
ronmental change or would move to similar habitats in the vicinity. Alter-
nate sites 1A and 1C have a greater diversity of habitat than Site IB,
which makes them more valuable as a wildlife resource. Following comple-
tion of construction activities, the wildlife community in the vicinity of
7-11
-------
a new WWTP would be expected to be very similar in composition to that of
the preconstruction community. Impacts on the aquatic fauna resulting from
construction activities should be insignificant* Sediment loads to surface
waters from construction-related erosion are expected to be minimal.
Impacts on the aquatic fauna resulting from construction activities
should be insignificant. Sediment loads to the Wisconsin from construction-
related erosion are expected to be extremely minimal, because of proper
construction techniques and the protection provided by the contours of the
existing road and levee.
Wastewater discharge from the proposed WWTP is not expected to affect
water quality in the Wisconsin River significantly beyond the mixing zone,
primarily because of the relatively large flow of the River and because the
effluent will be compatible with the in-stream water quality standards.
Changes in the aquatic fauna are not expected if the quality of the river
water is not degraded significantly. Minor changes in macroinvertebrate
and plankton communities may occur in a small area immediately downstream
from the discharge, but changes are not anticipated to occur beyond this
zone, downstream, or in Lake Wisconsin. The Fox River habitat would
greatly improve because of improved water quality.
7.6.2. Alternative 2
The impacts on terrestrial fauna as a result of the construction of a
new WWTP near the Fox River would be similar to those described for Alter-*
native 1 (i.e., impacts resulting from construction of a new WWTP near the
Wisconsin River). Wildlife would be disturbed temporarily and mortality of
some individuals would occur, but species populations affected would be
maintained in neighboring habitats.
Construction could create temporary changes in the community of aqua-
tic fauna near the site as a result of erosion and sedimentation. Various
species of fish avoid turbid waters, but bottom-dwelling organisms could be
suffocated by the deposition of silt. Measures, however, could be taken to
reduce sedimentation. Following completion of construction, affected
populations likely would return to preconstruction levels.
Advanced secondary treatment would result in improved water quality and may
result in increased species diversity. Game fish may become more abundant
as a result of this improvement. The improvements in the Fox River would
be less pronounced than the improvements that would be associated with
Alternative 1.
7,6.3. Alternative 3
The impacts on terrestrial fauna that would result from remodeling the
existing WWTP would be less than Alternative 2, because a relatively small
amount of construction would be required to complete the project. The
impacts on the aquatic fauna in the Fox River are expected to be the same
as those described for Alternative 2.
7.6.4. Alternative 4
The construction impacts on terrestrial and aquatic fauna for this
alternative would be the same as those described for Alternative 3. The
7-12
-------
impacts on the aquatic fauna from the effluent discharge would be the same
as those described for Alternative 1.
7.6.5.. Threatened or Endangered Species
Species of terrestrial and aquatic fauna that are listed on the
Federal Register as endangered or threatened are not known 'to be present
within the study area. However, three species of birds that have been
listed as endangered and four species that have been listed as threatened
by the State of Wisconsin have been observed in the study area since 1970.
The birds are not known to reside at any of the proposed WWTP sites, al-
though suitable habitat is available at or adjacent to all proposed sites,
especially the Wisconsin River site (Alternative 1).
7.7. Cultural Resources
Primary and secondary impacts on cultural resources are summarized in
Table 24. All impacts, however, are considered insignificant.
Table 24. Impacts on known cultural resources in the study area.
Alternatives
Site
Fox-Wisconsin Portage Site, '
Old Indian Agency House ' ,
Fort Winnebago Surgeon's Quarters '
Portage Canal '
Fort Winnebago Site '
Tollgate House ,
Wisconsin River Levee ,
Grands tand-Fai rgrounds
P = Primary Impact; S = Secondary impact;
National Register of Historic Places.
b
State Historical Society of WI.
1
P
S*
S
S*
P
S
S
* =
2 3
P
S
S* S
S
S S
or S
Beneficial Impact
4
P
S
S
S
S
In addition, the State Historical Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurs
that the construction of wastewater treatment facilities at the alternate
sites or the expansion of facilites at the existing site would result in no
adverse effect to properties that are listed on or eligible for inclusion
on the National Register of Historic Places (By letter, Mr. Richard Erney,
State Historical Society of Wisconsin, to Mr. Charles Sutfin, USEPA, 14
April 1980).
New development that would be permitted by increased WWTP capacity may
impact both known and unknown historical, architectural, or archaeological
resources. This secondary-type of impact could occur in sections of the
study area most likely to undergo development (i.e., to the north and east
of Portage). Comprehensive surveys of potential development areas would be
desirable to assess adequately impacts at the time of sewer extensions.
7-13
-------
7.7.1. Alternative I
The proposed interceptor route and the alternate WWTP sites have been
given "archaeological clearance" by the Wisconsin SHPO. The supporting
documentation is contained in Appendix E.
The Fox-Wisconsin Portage Site (Wauona Trail) would be crossed at two
points: one near the Wauona Trail-Route 33 intersection, and one at the
Wauona Trail-Thompson Street intersection. The impacts would be related to
the construction of the interceptor and would be temporary. Minimal dis-
turbance to the roadway would be involved and would not result in loss of
the historical integrity of this National Register site. The roadway has
been disturbed previously. A professional archaeologist should be present
when excavations are started at the two impact points, in case buried
cultural resources are encountered.
The Portage Canal would be impacted during construction of the inter-
ceptor from the Albert Street lift station to the main interceptor. No
primary impact to the Canal would occur during construction, because the
construction methodology, such as tunneling, would be planned in consulta-
tion with the SHPO. A professional archaeologist would monitor construc-
tion, in case new resources were discovered beneath the Canal.
The Fort Winnebago Surgeon's Quarters and the Fort Winnebago Site
would be impacted by implementation of this alternative. The elimination
of the existing WWTP would result in a beneficial aesthetic (secondary)
impact to these National Register sites. The existing WWTP is in a direct
line of sight from these properties.
7.7.2. Alternative 2
No archaeological materials were encountered at the new WWTP site
located adjacent to the Fox River (Section 4.4.1.). Therefore, construc-
tion of the WWTP would have no adverse impact on archaeological resources.
The Fox-Wisconsin Portage Site impacts would be comparable to those
described for Alternative 1, except that there would be only one crossing
instead of two.
The Old Indian Agency House would be impacted during both the con-
struction phase and operation phase. The aesthetic and noise impacts
during operation would detract from the historical and architectural inte-
grity of the Agency House. Construction impacts would include disruption
of public access to the Agency House during interceptor construction and
increased noise levels. If this alternative were implemented, mitigative
measures would be taken, subsequent to SHPO and Advisory Council consulta-
tion.
The Portage Canal would be impacted during construction of the inter-
ceptor that would run under the Canal and along Agency House Road to the
proposed plant site. The aesthetic impact would not affect the historical
integrity of the Canal. Mitigative measures should be followed during the
construction phase to insure bank stabilization and to prevent any primary
impacts (such as siltation/sediraentation) to the Canal.
7-14
-------
The Fort Winnebago Site would be impacted during both the construction
phase and the operation phase of this alternative. This secondary minor
aesthetic impact would occur because there is a direct line of view from
the Fort Site to the proposed WWTP site. The impact, however, would not
alter the archaeological significance of this National Register site.
Possible mitigative measures could include "screening" of the WWTP site.
The Fort Winnebago Surgeon's Quarters would not be impacted signifi-
cantly by implementation of this alternative. Elimination of the existing
WWTP would result in a minor beneficial aesthetic impact, because the
proposed WWTP site also is in a direct line of view from the Surgeon's
Quarters, although 0.5 miles farther away.
7.7.3. Alternative 3
No archaeological materials were encountered at the existing WWTP site
(Section 4.1.1.). Therefore, expansion of the facilities at the site would
have no adverse impacts.
The Fort Winnebago Surgeon's Quarters would be impacted during both
the construction and operation phases of this alternative. This secondary
aesthetic impact already occurs and would continue with implementation of
Alternative 3. The historical and architectural integrity of the Surgeon's
Quarters would not be affected further than at present. Possible mitiga-
tive measures could include "screening" of the proposed WWTP.
The Fort Winnebago Site also would be impacted during both the con-
struction and operation phases of this alternative. The Fort Site is
closer to the existing WWTP than to the proposed Fox River WWTP site in
Alternative 2, and therefore, the secondary aesthetic impact would be
greater with Alternative 3. However, this impact aready exists and would
continue if Alternative 3 is implemented. Possible mitigative measures
could include "screening" of the proposed WWTP.
7.7.4 Alternative 4
Alternative 4 involves expansion of the existing WWTP site and dis-
charge to the Wisconsin River (via an outfall sewer). Archaeological
investigations were conducted at the existing site and along portions of
the outfall sewer route and no archaeological materials were found. The
proposed outfall sewer route is identical to the interceptor route surveyed
in Alternative 1, with the exception of a 0.12-mile section under Superior
Street from Thompson Street" to the Wisconsin River. Given the results of
the archaeological survey, the probability that buried archaeological
resources would be encountered along portions .of the outfall sewer route
that were not surveyed is minimal. However, it is recommended that a
professional archaeologist be present when excavations are started in the
0.12-mile segment, in case buried archaeological resources .are encountered.
The Fox-Wisconsin Portage Site would be impacted near the Route 33-
Wauona Trail intersection. Impacts and recommendations for mitigative
measures would be identical to those described for Alternative 2.
The Fort Winnebago Surgeon's quarters would be impacted during both
the construction and the operation phases of this alternative. The impacts
7-15
-------
and recommendations for mltigative measures would be identical to those
discribed for Alternative 3.
The Fort Winnebago Site would be impacted during both the construction
and operation phases of this alternative* The impacts and recommendations
for mitigative measures would be identical to those described for Alterna-
tive 3.
7.8.. Socioeconomic Environment
7.8.1. Financial Impacts
7.8.1.1. User Charges
User charges are the costs periodically billed to customers of a
wastewater collection and treatment system. User charges generally consist
of two parts: debt service (repayment of principal and interest) and O&M
costs. Estimated residential user charges for each alternative are pre-
sented in Tables 25-28.
Capital costs of wastewater treatment facilities fo,r which Federal
grants are received are funded under Section 201 of the 1972 Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments and the Clean Water Act of 1977. These
acts enable USEPA to fund 75% of the total eligible capital costs of con-
ventional systems and 85% of the eligible capital costs of innovative or
alternative systems. The State of Wisconsin does not fund any wastewater
projects for which Section 201 grants have been awarded. ' The funding
formula thus requires localities to pay 25% of the eligible capital costs
of conventional systems and 15% .of the capital costs of innovative or
alternative systems. Ineligible costs must be paid entirely at the local
level. O&M costs also are not funded by the Federal Government. These must
be paid by the users of the facilities.
Estimated annual residential user charges for the alternatives assum-
ing Federal funding range from $52 to $73. Alternatives 1 and 4, which
include discharge to the Wisconsin River, are less expensive for system
users ($52 to $60) than Alternatives 2 and 3 ($72 to $73), which include
discharge to the Fox River (Tables 25 and 27). The calculation of the debt
service part of the estimated user charges is based on the payment of local
costs through the use of a 20-year bond at 6.875% interest. None of the
four alternatives involve innovative/alternative technologies and thus are
eligible only for 75% Federal funding.
If Federal funding were not available for the Portage project (it is
priority number 65 on the 1980 Wisconsin Project Priority List) then the
City may receive a grant from the Wisconsin Fund (established by the Wis-
consin Legislature; 144.24 Wisconsin Statutes). This program covers 60% of
eligible capital costs and has comparable, coordinated planning require-
ments to the Federal funding program. State funding covers comparable
eligible items to Federal funding with the exception of less funding for
reserve capacity and industrial capacity. If State funding were used, the
estimated cost per household would increase, as shown in Tables 26 and 28.
7-16
-------
oo
c
•a
(U
u
01
S §
NO
in
O
in
00 r-
\o i—
0)
rH
J)
00
I
to
CO
co
o
T3
CO
CO
a
•rl
B
O
00
(N
§
o
o
S
NO
§
O m
-a- m
en —i
-H 00
-4 00
ON
ON
n ON
ON
CO
0)
£
NO rs
O
O
o
o
m
en
-T
o
S
13
B
a
b
oi
cu
o
00
ON
(U
CO
cfl
4-)
n
0)
o.
a
rQ
5
B
01
TJ
CO
a
u a
-rl 3
a s
« c
O <
rH B
a a
£ *
a <
u a.
Cd
14-1 en
C rH 00
o a
AJ 01 4"J
3 TJ a
ja u u
•H Cu 0]
c
u
•o
3
TJ
B
CO
S
<-H
|
•8
O
0 § .
b -a a
0) iH -rl
= a t
U 111
rH CO
a i
•rl U
B 5 "S
01 O •O
T)
•n X X
CO rH rH
0) ft j:
U
•H
a
H
oi
oo
ki 01
a oo
J= h
" 5
rH U
s
•a
ki U
X §
rH -O
j: -H
u n
B oi
B
O
•o
01
a
2 2
a
o
01
a.
oo
ki
a
3
B
•a
01
oi
TJ
7-17
-------
00
(3
•H
T3
§
01
4-1
CO
4-1
C/J
ts
•H
e
CO
CO
to
o
CO
CO
0)
CO
C
Q)
4-1
iH
<
O
co
01
00
(-1
IB
0)
CO
CO
•H
4J
0)
13
•H
CO
Ol
CO
1
Cl)
tH
^3
CO
H
o
o
o
00
o
o
o
00
00
sD
00
O
o
o
ao
O
eM
-3
O
u a
•H s
o. B
cQ C
O ^*J
CO
8
a
a
u
3
r?
•H
IH
4J
CO
•rl
a
M
oo
00
01
JJ
to
8
a
3
C
«2
O
in
•^
00
to
0
m
-3-
00
tO
o
in
• -3-
00
XI
a
«H
CJ
M
g
O
CJ
rH
a
•H
4J
CO
3
"S
•H
1
1
o m
m -H
CM u-l
rH CM
r~ rH
rH
O O
in es
CN O
CO >
01 \4
I-l 01
CO
1
u
§£>
01
• o
in
o
in
00
P-.
to
en
o
^
r^
a
•H
JJ
e
cu
•H
CO
01
1
01
CJ
•H
01
CO
*J
01
a
•a
4J
n
o
ej
M
01
CO
^H
a
e
•a
•H
CO
s
a
CJ
•H
CU
>t
H
rH
CM
rH
CN
CN
rH
•H
c
CU
•H
CO
01
1
5
o
>.
4J
C
£
r~
-T
en
O
>
S
00
in
m
r-
rH
to
rH
m
m
cu
00
M
a
a
CJ
rH
a
•H
4J
•O
•H
CO
cu
X
rH
4J
i
rH
4J
£
CJ\
tO
tO
-3-
O
•3-
r~
tO
VO
u
00
a
CJ
M
u
CO
3
rH
a
•H
4J
B
CU
01
cu
M
rH
1
4J
CO
O
U
rH
CO
4J
•H
Cu
a
u
u
rH
J3
•H
00
•H
rH
CU
B
•H
0
0
o
•a
c
a
4J
CO
O
CJ
rH
a
4-1
•H
CU
a
CJ
01
^
00
•H
rH
M rl
4J X
co B
-3" rH
4J B
a o
•H
•O 4J
oi a
4J rl
a 4-1
B i-H
•H iH
4J UH
CO C
M tH
.0
CO
a
cu
X
0
CN
4J
a
4J
CO
u
rl
01
s
8^
m
00
o
u
a
cu
N
•H
4J
M
«
01
rl
a
JB
CO
rH
a
CJ
o
rH
01
4J
U-l
o
£•&
at
4J
a
•o
01
4J
i
•H
4J
CO
CJ
sons per household unit (7,870 -i- 2.8 = 2,810 Units).
cu
o.
CO
eM
4-1
a
o
00
ON
B
«H
11
rH
a.
o
01
a
o
ao
r
B
O
TJ
11
CO
a
CO
cu
00
a
.B
CJ
rH
a
•H
4-1
B
01
•0
•rH
CO
01
at
7-18
-------
60 •»
C 31
•rH >
T3 2
C w
.2 5
MH
•rt
•* •"
to
—4 C
T3 ^4
c 2
cfl £
>r^
4J
CO
QJ
J-j CM
.H
•rt
rJ 4J
0 *
MH £
01
Cfl u
»i H
Six •*
60
^;
Cfl
(*•*
U »
M
CU
CO
3
t-H
Cfl
•H
i-J
ft!
QJ
•H
CO
CU
rH
cfl
3
1
•
OJ
oi
i — i
»D
CO
H
o o o o o
o o o o
i— t *— 4 ^0 LO
CM en r* **
»n CO CM CM
CM — * co •> *
m ^ ,-»
0 0
o\ -»
CM CO
rH rH
O O
0 O
r^ r~
tN r-
CM CM
rH rH
_,,
rt
CO
•rt
O
i
0
u
— . rt
CO *rt
•rt JJ
M B
JJ 01
CO 13
3 -rt
•3 to
C 01
•rt |H
jj
to 1 I
O
OSS
-3 w3
rt O O
CO
3
C
in in
\O CM
CM a*
m r^
vO ^
m o
CO CM
CO rt
CO rt
vo r~
m o
r^- CM
CM CM
CM m
CJ
rH
•rt
O
rl
01
o
CJ
rt ffl
IH B
4J D
CO "O
3 -H
T) CD
B 01
1 1
01 01
CJ O
01 01
JJ JJ
01 01
a a
•a
to
3
CU
CO
rH
CO
•rt
JJ
. e
01
T3
•rt
to
01
an
rt
CO
U
•rt
a
H
r-.
r~
•
CM
§
<•
r—
CO
rt
eg
•rt
JJ
B
tu
•rt
CO
01
1
5
o
^
f-f
U
c
tr>
o
CM
O
CM
-H
CM
(—1
a]
•H
4J
C
0)
•H
0)
01
1
0)
CJ
•H
ot
CO
1
•a
X
i-H
J3
JJ
B
O
CO
-3-
O
*O
§
vO
U
CO
U
rt
CO
B
HI
•rt
to
01
rl
rH
JJ
C
Q
CO
JJ
O
H
O
^O
*
r~
,in
O
CM
CO
r^
jj
to
o
u
rt
tO
JJ
•rt
a
to
u
at
rt
43
•rt
00
•rt
rH
tu
B
•rt
O
0
o **
o
CM O
r*- rH
B
to
to
o
u
rt
CO
jj
•rt
a.
to
o
tu
rH
•rt
00
0) -rt
00 rt
rl 01
CO
0 O
oi in
tfl CM
3
B
rt 0
*rH ^
JJ (U
C 0)
CU CO
iH
CO CO
Q) i-l
M
0)
rH r-t
3 ,S
C CO
4 rH
CO
y
o
id
H
01
•Jl
3
M
0)
JJ
CO
3
g
O
IH
UH
•rj
CU
•rt
14
01
CO
•rt
•^p
^
rt
01
JJ
X
O
a
a.
CO
UH
O •
0) vO
oo r^
co tJi
CO rH
3
to
rt CU
co JJ
•rt Id
CJ TH
rl O
o o
B cfl
3 to
0 <
o
rH
co en
•rt tU
rl IH
JJ X
3
13 B
B cu
Q
• K
JJ tU
to ta
o ca
u jj
ui
S o
<•£ CJ4
o
rH O
CO
3 X
B JJ
B -H
CO CJ
rt •>
CO to
JJ
>»
x: 4v >>4v x: in
4J C 4J C t—
O QJ QJ
«*- o»- 3 x:
O **~ ^ • 4J
QJ O H- E
§X> V)4- QJ<«~
QJ 4V o
f- ^ QJ VI
4->P- E QJ >>4V
ro 3 ro .c v> P—
•r- S VI VI
E QJ QJ -r- QJ
re QJ x: t x: £
JXl "4- QJ
ro >> aj u- x:
4J X) X) O
C-34
-------
S
£
t. a>
O> i— CM Q) t +J •
-o .c f- i > c *P- n
t • QJ 4-> OlOlt^O*^- M*^
^" ^-M"O4JJ->f- C-C W£ Uh--C*i- *€>4>*
§ca, ,_ ^-^-UHJ+JTOI—= *> 3-r-
CT) 5 X 3 tf) (rt 4J O) L. +J 1-
O-^- OlO «-C**K *^JT«^O tflU
oirec