-------
TIVES
Z
a:
5
2
•H en
• £
en
a >
3
< t
fr> o
0
z
M
z
3
ex
u
en
a:
o
§
en
r-t
8)
J
1
4J
ID
en
'is
c
0
-H
S
01
jj
c
eo
S
S
>
r4
u
«J
c
u
w
<
11
2
•-4
03
CM
4J
C
3
e
0
V.
a.
•
V*
03
Ut
01
1)
u
a
c
4>
Storage
No cavern storage would b
•
§Q
So
0
in O
•q- in
CN
It
•o
£ C 41
0 01 £
tt 1-4 en
&• 0) £
aj 4J
3 c 3
000
r- n en
Cu
en
S
o1
*
o
•4J
4J
'Vt
1
0
CO
Near surface storage of 4
•
<£
en
en
C!
14-,
0
rf
GO
C
3
Private property work req
•
•n
§
e
c
4ri
"1
<44
0
c
0
C <
4j tn
a) en
5°
Mai or disruption due to c
sanitary sewers in 89% of
•
o
c
u
o
1
f£
W
3
03 en
3 £
s 5T
•n
0)
"o —
C 03
Both Crosstown Diversion
would be constructed at s
•
4*
03
C
w
01
4J
"5
o-
03
0
en
a>
i
s:
0
ra
Remaining impacts identic
Jones Island
•
•0 0
Hi c.
•r4 fH
3 Z
£ |
c
3
3
y_, Q
G 3
An additional 31-45 acres
for expansion. This land
Commission and lakefill.
•
oi
.£ V-<
— 03
0 Q,
41 '5'
•C i
u O
B "
u o
^ 3
U u
4^ 01
Greater shock loads to Ou
peak loads.
Difficult operation of pi,
• •
|
ai
.1
ai
0
en
ai
S
s
c
01
Remaining impacts identic,
South Shore
•
H
4J
01
C
Sj
a>
4J
„-
Storaqe
a>
Impacts identical to Remol
9
3-80
-------
Cfl
U
I
Q£
t*
<
>
S
ch
s:
e'-
en
>
C/l
0
C
1— 1
z
'X
u
o -a JJ
X X 3 - «
13 C
r^ CN jj 0) D
• • i4 M JJ
^* T Qj 01 (0
\0 r*~ 0 D
~" -1 i-i C .C
«• o> a. o o
— i-l 10
II U
1-1 O <"
s en 0
J U
^ 01
0 iJJ JJ
3 0 c
0
JJ ^ C
c jj o
S 30
^ 0
- CO
« to
a w
u o
a JJ
^
JJ M
0 \
JJ M
eo
10 1)
3 JJ
O1 to
11 3
HI
jz! JJ
JJ 01
kJ 10
JJ 10
= s
CJ Pi
u c
a* to
r-i
tfl
qj
o en 1
V J= JJ
O JJ
en o
U t) JJ
1)
~l JJ T3
T3 O D
C 111 1-1
o f-< (o
•H il) CX
jj en S
1 < °
*M
•M -J "3
jj
^ ^1 01
C 11 O
JJ to JJ
~i 10
to T3 C •
cu i-i tn
0) 01 D H
en O JJ w
ni C. -(
!M 0 <0 01
0 *J --^
jj a 3 j=
0} D JJ
O C
CU D -H
3 01
,. a u
JJ 01 .C d)
2 en &. u
« > "
5 -rt -(
. "3 U U
jj C > >
^ d) JJ Jj
7. JJ a id
u -1 C C
O dJ 11
o cr •-( -<
10 < <
Oj li
< 0 d) 0)
S 01 10 to
0 O
T3 JJ JJ
d! en en
!M M d) It
11 HI C C
ffl U S rt
U ™ C C
s:
4J
O
z
3-81
-------
3.13.2 The Final Local Alternative
3.13.2.1 Wastewater Treatment
As discussed earlier in this chapter, the final Local
Alternative was developed using the strategy of treating
wastewater flows within the planning area at numerous lo-
cations. The local alternative for each WWTP that was
identified by the EIS study team as being the most environ-
mentally sound and least costly is shown in Figure 3.13. It
would include the following WWTPs.
Public Private
Jones Island WEPCO
South Shore Sisters of Notre Dame
Thiensville
Germantown
New Berlin Southeast
Caddy Vista
South Milwaukee
Muskego Land Application Facility
3.13.2.1.1 Jones Island and South Shore; With this alternative,
clear water in the MIS system would be reduced by one-half
(Section 3.1.4 discusses the rehabilitation projects). The
Jones Island facility would be expanded to a maximum capacity
of 300 MGD (13.1 m3/sec). Equipment would be added to
upgrade and expand the secondary treatment and solids
handling processes.
Additions to the WWTP would be made on the Jones Island
peninsula into areas presently occupied by oil companies'
storage tanks and Milwaukee Harbor Commission facilities.
Also the MMSD recommends that 9.5 acres (3.8 ha) of the
Outer Harbor to the east of the WWTP be filled in to provide
land for disinfection facilities and to allow space for
future expansion.
The South Shore WWTP would be expanded to treat a peak flow
of 250 MGD CH.O m3) . Secondary treatment and solids handling
equipment would be added to the facility. The MMSD recommends
that thirty acres (12.1 ha) of Lake Michigan directly north
of the present reclaimed land would be enclosed to provide
space for the additional facilities required to treat the
projected year 2005 wastewater flows and loads. Twelve
acres (4.9 ha) would be filled in initially for expansion
and the remaining eighteen (7.3 ha) would be filled in over
the course of the planning period, if needed.
3-82
-------
3.13.2.1.2 Thiensville WWTP; The capacity of the Thiensville
WWTP would be expanded, although the type of treatment
process would remain the same. The expansion would take
place on land to the north and west of the facility. New
facilities for sludge processing would be included. Anaerobic
digesters would be added to stabilize the sludge, which
would then dry on drying beds located on the land to the
north of the facility. The sludge would then be trucked to
a land application site. The effluent discharge location
for the Thiensville WWTP would remain the same at the
Milwaukee River.
3.13.2.1.3 Germantown WWTP; In Germantown, the land ap-
plication alternative was identified as the most feasible.
The existing WWTP would be abandoned and wastewater flows
would be conveyed to a new infiltration-percolation site.
At the new site, sewage would be treated in an aerated
lagoon system and then discharged to infiltration-percolation
ponds.
The conveyance system for the new facility would consist of
two pump stations and a twenty-inch diameter force main.
The conveyance route and new site are shown on Figure 3.13.
The aeration lagoons would occupy 27.5 acres (11.1 ha).
Seven infiltration-percolation ponds, each covering 11.6
acres (4.7 ha), would also be included.
3.13.2.1,4 New Berlin Regal Manors WWTP; In New Berlin,
the Regal Manors WWTP would be abandoned. A new, aerated
lagoon treatment facility would be constructed on a site at
Sunny Slope and Grange Streets, shown on Figure 3.13.
Influent wastewater would be treated in aerated lagoons and
then transported to infiltration-percolation ponds in the Town
of Vernon. The lagoons and buffer area would require approxi-
mately 221 acres (89.4 ha) of land.
The conveyance system for transporting the treated effluent
to the land application site would include a 30-inch (76.2
cm) force main and one pump station. Twenty-one infiltration-
percolation ponds, each 8.2 acres (3.3 ha) would be constructed.
An emergency storage site of 12.1 acres (4.9 ha) and 500
feet (152 m) of buffer area would also be included at the
land application site.
3.13.2.1.5 Muskego; The Muskego Northeast and Northwest
treatment facilities would be abandoned. The wastewater
flows from the existing WWTPs in Muskego would be combined
and pumped to the Town of Vernon. There the flows would be
treated in aerated lagoons, which would require a 222 acre
(89.8 ha) site. The treated effluent would be applied to
seven infiltration-percolation ponds.
3-83
-------
3.13.2.1.6 Caddy Vista WWTP; The existing Caddy Vista WWTP
would be abandoned and demolished. A new advanced waste
treatment facility would be constructed on the site. An
additional 150 feet (45.7 m) would be needed on the south
side of the existing site. Treated effluent from the new
WWTP would be discharged to the Root River. Solids would be
aerobically digested, dried on sand and trucked to a land
application site.
3.13.2.1.7 South Milwaukee WWTP; The South Milwaukee WWTP
would not be expanded, but the operation and maintenance
procedures would be improved. The South Milwaukee WWTP
currently has a solids management study underway.
3.13.2.1.8 Private WWTPs; The Sisters of Notre Dame treat-
ment facility would not be expanded, but would continue
operating with its existing processes. Improvements to the
operation and maintenance procedures might be made during
the planning period. The facility currently has no solids
handling procedures. In the future a private hauler would
be used to transport solids to a land application site or
discharge them into a public sewer system.
The WEPCO facility would also remain in operation using
existing processes. Treated effluent would be discharged
into Lake Michigan. Solids from the activated sludge process
would be applied to land in Germantown, as is the current
procedure. Operation and maintenance procedures might be
improved during the planning period.
The Muskego Rendering Company facilities would not be is
abandoned. However, the treated effluent from this facility
is high in suspended solids and BODs- Therefore, rather
than discharging the treated effluent to infiltration-
percolation ponds, the existing facility would serve as
pretreatment prior to discharge of effluent to the Muskego
sanitary sewer system, about 9,600 feet (2,926 m) away. A
force main and lift station would be constructed to convey
the effluent to the public sewer system.
3.13.2.1.9 Abandoned WWTPs; All other WWTPs in the planning
area would be abandoned. These include:
Public Private
New Berlin-Regal Manor St. Martins Road Truck Stop
Muskego Northwest (Woods Road) Highway 100 Drive-in
Muskego Northeast Cleveland Heights Grade
School
Germantown New Berlin School
Chalet-on-the-Lake Restaurant
New Berlin Memorial Hospital
3-84
-------
All the private facilities would be connected to the nearest
public sewer system.
3.13.2.2 Interceptors
In order to extend sewer service from the local WWTPs to
unsewered areas that were designated for development during
the planning period, the following interceptors would be
constructed.
Northeast Side Relief
Underwood Creek (East-West Alignment)
Root River
Franklin-Muskego (Franklin section only)
Franklin Northeast - the six pump stations would
be upgraded
Oak Creek North
The locations of these interceptors are shown on Figure
3.13.
3.13.2.3 Facilities for the Attenuation of Peak Flows
and Abatement of CSO
The MMSD has recommended that the Inline Storage Alternative
be implemented for the abatement of CSO and attenuation of
peak flows. With the Inline Storage Alternative, 11% of
the CSSA would be completely separated without private
property work. Another 68% of the CSSA would be partially
separated (separation in the public right-of-way only).
Excess wastewater from this area would flow through 20-foot
diameter tunnels to a storage cavern near Milwaukee County
Stadium. The remaining 21% of the CSSA would be partially
separated, and overflows would be stored in 235 acre-feet of
near surface storage. Excess sanitary wastewater from the
separated sewer area would flow through 20-foot diameter
tunnels to the cavern storage at Milwaukee County Stadium.
The Inline Storage Alternative for abating CSO (recommended
by the MMSD) could significantly affect both the man-made
and natural environments. Partial separation of sewers in
most of the streets of the CSSA would require extensive
construction, disrupting traffic and business. In addition,
with partial separation, storm sewers would continue to
discharge urban runoff containing organic pollutants as well
as heavy metals into the lower portions of the Milwaukee,
Menomonee, and Kinnickinnic Rivers. Instream water quality
standards might not be achieved. Also, without proper
precautions, the construction of cavern storage facilities
could have both short-term and long-term impacts on ground-
water .
3-85
-------
In an effort to minimize these and other impacts of the
Inline Storage Alternative, the EPA, DNR, and the EIS study
team developed new alternatives to correct CSO and eliminate
bypassing from separated sewers. These alternatives are
described below. In Chapter 5, their impacts are compared
in detail to the impacts of the Inline Storage Alternative.
1. Complete Sewer Separation (See Figure 3.14)
• Complete sewer separation in 11% of CSSA. No private
property work.
• Complete sewer separation in 89% of CSSA with private
property work.
• Excess flow from the separated area tributary to 20-
foot (6.1 m) diameter tunnels.
2. Modified CST/Inline (See Figure 3.15)
• Complete sewer separation in 11% of CSSA. No private
property work.
• No sewer separation in 68% of CSSA. All CSO tributary
to 30-foot (9.1 m) diameter tunnels in bedrock and 1291
acre-feet (1.6 million m3) of cavern storage at Milwaukee
County Stadium. A 174 acre-feet (0.21 million m3)
storage cavern would be built at Jones Island for grit
removal.
• Partial sewer separation with 235 acre-feet (0.-29
million m3) of near-surface storage in 21% of CSSA.
3. Modified Total Storage (See Figure 3.16)
• Complete sewer separation in 11% of CSSA. No private
property work.
• No sewer separation in 68% of CSSA. All CSO tributary
to 30-foot (9.1 m) diameter tunnels in bedrock and 1291
acre-feet (1.6 million m3) of cavern storage at Milwaukee
County Stadium. A 174 acre-feet (0.21 million m3)
storage cavern would be built at Jones Island for grit
removal.
• No sewer separation in 21% of CSSA. All CSO tributary
to 715 acre-feet (0.88 million m3) of near-surface
storage.
3-86
-------
3.13.2.3.3 EPA PRM 75-34 Analysis; As was outlined in the
introduction to thxs CSO discussion, the EPA will make a
determination of its level of funding for CSO abatement
based on PRM 75-34 requirements. The preliminary data
presented in the MMSD report entitled, "Water Quality
Analysis of the Milwaukee River to meet PRM 75-34 (PG-61)
Requirements," identified a 1/2-year level of protection
system as the CSO abatement alternative necessary to meet
the requirements of PRM 75-34. The EPA will make its final
funding determination based on the data presented in the CSO
Facility Plan, this Draft EIS, comments from other federal,
state, and local agencies, and from the public. This EPA
recommendation will be included in the Final EIS.
3.13.3 The Final Regional Alternative
3.13.3.1 Wastewater Treatment
The final Regional System-Level Alternative (shown in
Figure 3.18) gives the MMSD responsibility for the conveyance,
treatment and storage of all wastewater flows in the planning
area. This alternative employs the Metropolitan Intercepting
Sewer (MIS) system to convey flows to the South Shore and
Jones Island WWTPs. All other public wastewater treatment
facilities in the planning area would be abandoned. In
addition, interceptor sewers would be built to divert
wastewater flows from abandoned WWTPs to the MIS system and
to extend service to some presently unsewered areas.
As with the Local Alternative, the Jones Island and South
Shore WWTPs would be expanded and upgraded. The Jones
Island WWTP would be expanded to a peak capacity of 300 MGD
(13.1 mVsec) • Secondary treatment and solids handling
equipment would be added. Milorganite production would be
abandoned. The MMSD recommends that some expansion take
place on the Jones Island Peninsula, and that 9.5 acres (3.8
ha) of the Outer Harbor be filled in.
The South Shore WWTP would be expanded to a peak capacity of
250 MGD (11.0 m^/sec). Secondary treatment and solids
handling equipment would be added to this facility also.
The MMSD recommends that twelve acres (4.9 ha) of the lake
initially be reclaimed for this expansion and eighteen more
acres be filled in as required.
3.13.3.2 Wastewater Conveyance
All other wastewater treatment facilities in the planning
area would be abandoned. The flows to these existing
facilities would be connected to the MIS system. The
following interceptors would be used to convey these flows
and to extend sewer service to currently unsewered areas.
3-89
-------
Northeast Side Relief
Underwood Creek (East-West alignment)
Root River
Hales Corners
Franklin-Muskego
Franklin Northeast—six pump stations would be
upgraded
Oak Creek
Menomonee Falls—Germantown (East-West alignment)
The MIS sewer system would be rehabilitated, and expanded in
the ways noted in section 3.1.4 of this chapter. These
actions should reduce clear water in the system by one-half.
3.13.3.3 CSO Abatement and Peak Flow Attenuation
The MMSD recommends the Inline Storage Alternative (described
in section 3.12.2.3) for the abatement of CSO and the atten-
uation of peak flows. The EIS also examines the impacts of
the Complete Sewer Separation, Modified CST/Inline, and
Modified Total Storage Alternatives (see section 3.12.2.3).
3.13.4 Final Mosaic Alternative (The MMSD Preferred Alternative)
In addition to considering the most cost effective and
environmentally sound alternative at each systems level and
No Action, a fourth alternative was developed by the MMSD
that combined aspects of all the other final alternatives.
This is referred to as the Mosaic Alternative. Like the
other final alternatives, the Mosaic plan (illustrated by
Figure 3.19) includes conveyance, storage and treatment for
the wastewater from all communities in the planning area.
The alternative was developed by examining the cost and
environmental impacts of the systems levels, and considering
public opinion to evolve an alternative that includes the
most viable aspects of each systems level.
3.13.4.1 Wastewater Treatment
With the Mosaic Alternative, the Jones Island and South
Shore WWTPs would be expanded and upgraded (see section
3.13.2.1.1). The South Milwaukee WWTP would also be included
in the Mosaic Alternative. The facility would not be expanded,
although operation and maintenance procedures might be
improved. All other public WWTPs in the planning area would
be abandoned.
Three private WWTPs would continue operating. The School
Sisters of Notre Dame would operate at its present capacity.
Operation and maintenance procedures might be improved, but
no additional equipment or processes would be needed during
the planning period. Solids from the treatment process would
3-90
-------
be stored in the existing sludge tank. A private contractor
could be hired to periodically empty that tank.
The WEPCO facilities would also be retained. No expansion
or upgrading of the facility would be necessary, although
the operation and maintenance procedures might be improved.
Solids from the WWTP would be land applied in Germantown, as
they are now. The Muskego Rendering Company treatment
facility would be used for industrial pretreatment. The
site's infiltration and percolation ponds would be abandoned.
Effluent would be pumped to the MIS system, 9,600 feet
(2,926 m) away. The conveyance system would consist of one
lift station and a force main.
All other private WWTPs in the planning area would be
abandoned. Flows from the existing facilities would be
connected to the nearest acceptable public sewer system.
3.13.4.2 Wastewater Conveyance
In order to expand sewer service to presently unsewered
areas, the following interceptors would be constructed.
Northeast Side Relief
Underwood Creek (East-West alignment)
Root River
Hales Corners
Franklin-Muskego
Franklin Northeast—six pump stations would be upgraded*
Oak Creek North
Menomonee Falls—Germantown (East-West alignment)
3.13.4.3 CSO Abatement and Peak Flow Attenuation
The MMSD preferred alternative for the abatement of CSOs and
the attenuation of peak flows is the Inline Storage Alternative
(described in section 3.12.2.3). The EIS also examines the
impacts of the Complete Sewer Separation, Modified CST/
Inline, and Modified Total Storage Alternatives (see section
3.12.2.3).
*0n June 5, 1980, the MMSD modified their preferred alternative
to include the construction of the Franklin Northeast
Interceptor rather than the upgrading of the six pump stations,
All EIS analysis is based on the assumption that the pump
stations would be upgraded.
3-91
-------
3.14 ENVIEOSHyENTAL
3.14.1 Water Quality
The future water quality of the streams of the planning area
are compared in Table 3.16. The quality of the waters with
different MWPAP alternatives is compared below.
3.14.1.1 CSOs
With the No Action Alternative, CSO would continue and
could, in fact, increase if sewers deteriorated and levels
of I/I increased. The loads of pollutants contributed
annually by CSOs are illustrated in Table 5.1. With the
Local, Regional, or Mosaic Alternatives, CSOs would be
abated. The loads to the Inner Harbor with various CSO
alternatives are shown in Table 5.4.
3.14.1.2 Bypassing
The bypassing of untreated sewage from the separated sewers
of the planning area would also continue with the No Action
Alternative, but not with the Local, Regional, or Mosaic
Alternatives. The annual loadings from these events are
shown on Table 5.2. It is difficult to determine what
effect bypassing has on water quality because these events
occur when water quality is unusually poor due to runoff and
increased suspended solids from turbulence.
3.14.1.3 The Milwaukee River
With the No Action Alternative, by 2005 the Thiensville WWTP
would be operating with an average flow well above its
capacity. As a result, poorly treated effluent would be
discharged, adding organic matter, suspended solids, and
other substances to the River. The effluent from the WWTP
comprises at most 2% of the Milwaukee River at its discharge
point, so these impacts would not be severe (see Table
3.15).
With the Local Alternative, the Thiensville WWTP would be
expanded and upgraded. The average daily flow would increase
from 0.46 MGD on the average to 0.47 MGD (0.01 m3/sec to
0.02 m^/sec) due to expected reductions in I/I. The increase
in effluent flow would raise slightly the nitrogen and
ammonia levels in the water, but it is expected that all DNR
water quality standards would be achieved.
With the Regional or Mosaic Alternatives, the Thiensville
WWTP would be abandoned. As a result, the low flow of the river
would be reduced from 42 cfs to 41.5 cfs (1.19 m3/sec) at
3-92
-------
TABLE 3.16
COMPARISON OF FUTURE WATER QUALITY
MILWAUKEE RIVER
AT THIENSVILLE
Low Flow
Dissolved Oxygen
Suspended Solids
Total Phosphorus
Un-Ionized Ammonia
Fecal Coliforms
MENOMONEE RIVER
AT GERMANTOWN
Low Flow
Dissolved Oxygen
Suspended Solids
Total Phosphorus
Un-Ionized Ammonia
Fecal Coliforms
TESS CORNERS CREEK
AT MUSKEGO
Low Flow
Dissolved Oxygen
Suspended Solids
Total Phosphorus
Un-Ionized Ammonia
Fecal Coliforms
ROOT RIVER
AT CADDY VISTA
Low Flow
Dissolved Oxygen
Suspended Solids
Total Phosphorus
Un-Ionized Ammonia
Fecal Coliforms
DEER CREEK
AT NEW BERLIN
Low Flow
Dissolved Oxygen
Suspended Solids
Total Phosphorus
Un-Ionized Ammonia
Fecal Coliforms
No
Action
41.9 cfs
high
20 mg/1
0.3 mg/1
0.007 mg/1
4 billion/
dav
1.1 cfs
moderate
9 mg/1
0.8 mg/1
0.04 mg/1
5 billion/
day
0.6 cfs
moderate
15 mg/1
1 mg/1
0.1 mg/1
3 billion/
day
Local
Alternative
42.2 cfs
high
20 mg/1
0.3 mg/1
0.009 mg/1
4 billion/
day
0.01 cfs
low
3 mg/1
1 mg/1
0 mg/1
0/day
0.01 cfs
low
10 mg/1
0.1 mg/1
0 mg/1
0/day
3.4 cfs
moderate
10 mg/1
0.7 mg/1
0.01 mg/1
0.5 billion/
day
0.3 cfs
moderate
10 mg/1
1 mg/1
0.1 mg/1
1 billion/
day
2.9 cfs
moderate
12 mg/1
0.7 mg/1
0.008 mg/1
3 billion/
day
0 cfs
Regional or
Kosiac Alternative
41.5 cfs
high
20 mg/1
0.3 mg/1
0.004 mg/1
0/day
0.01 cfs
low
8 mg/1
1 mg/1
0 mg/1
0/day
0.01 cfs
low
10 mg/1
0.1 mg/1
0 mg/1
0/day
2.7 cfs
moderate
10 mg/1
0.4 mg/1
0.005 mg/1
0/day
0 cfs
3-93
-------
the discharge point. The.quality of.the Milwaukee River
would remain essentially the same as it is now. All DNR
water quality standards for the river would be met at all
times.
3.14.1.4 The Menomonee River
With the No Action Alternative, the Germantown WWTP would be
receiving wastewater flows in excess of its operating
capacity. The effluent from the WWTP would contain high
levels of suspended solids, organic matter, fecal coliforms,
and plant nutrients.
With either the Local, Regional, or Mosaic Alternative, this
WWTP would cease discharging effluent to the river. The
elimination of effluent discharges would reduce the loading
of nitrogen and suspended solids, but phosphorus concentrations
would increase because treatment plant effluent would no longer
dilute nonpoint source contributions. The river should meet
all applicable DNR water quality standards.
3.14.1.5 Tess Corners Creek
Tess Corners Creek receives effluent from the Muskego Northeast
WWTP. With the No Action Alternative, this facility would
be overloaded. The effluent from the WWTP doubles the low
flow volume of the creek at the discharge point, and provides
increased levels of organic matter, suspended solids and
phosphorus which could promote algae growth, reduce clarity,
and increase sedimentation.
With the Local, Regional, or Mosaic Alternative, the WWTP
would be abandoned. The low flow of Tess Corners Creek
would be reduced from 0.6 cfs to 0.01 cfs (0.03 m^/sec to
0.0003 m^/sec). The reduced flow would be slightly lower in
phosphorus and ammonia, but otherwise similar to its present
state.
3.14.1.5 Whitnall Park Pond
This pond receives water from Tess Corners Creek. Phosphorus
and nitrogen have accumulated in the pond causing the growth
of algae. With any of the MWPAP alternatives, this eutrophi-
cation would continue. Dredging and/or the harvesting of
algae would be necessary to reverse the process. However,
reduction of annual loads of nutrients, which would occur
with the Local, Regional, or Mosaic Alternatives, would be
one step towards implementing a rehabilitation program.
3.14.1.6 The Root River
The Root River receives water from Tess Corners Creek and
3-94
-------
effluent from the Caddy Vista WWTP. With the No Action
Alternative, by 2005 the Caddy Vista WWTP would receive
flows in excess of its capacity and its effluent would be
inadequately treated.
With the Local Alternative the Caddy Vista WWTP would be
expanded from 0.07 to 0.11 MGD (0.003 to 0.005 m3/sec).
However, with the abandonment of the Muskego Northeast WWTP,
the low flow of the river would be reduced from 2.4 cfs to
1.9 cfs (0.07 to 0.05 m3/sec). With this alternative the
quality of the water would not change from its present
state.
With the Regional Alternative, both the Muskego Northeast
and the Caddy Vista WWTPs would be abandoned. The low flow
of the Root River would decrease from 3.4 cfs to 2.7 cfs
(0.10 to 0.08 m-Vsec) . Loads of suspended solids, phosphorus,
nitrogen, and ammonia would be reduced slightly and inputs
of fecal coliforms from this source would cease.
3.14.1.7 Oak Creek
With the Local, Regional, or Mosaic Alternatives, an interceptor
'would be constructed along the North Branch of Oak Creek.
This construction would temporarily add silt to the creek.
3.14.1.8 Deer Creek
The New Berlin Regal Manors WWTP discharges effluent to Deer
Creek, greatly augmenting its flow. With the No Action
Alternative, the WWTP would be consistently overloaded and
its effluent would be high in suspended solids, plant nutrients,
and organic matter. With any action alternative, this WWTP
would be abandoned. As a result, Deer Creek would have much
lower flows.
3.14.1.9 Big Muskego Lake
Big Muskego Lake receives effluent from the Muskego Northwest
WWTP* The lake is already eutrophic. The increased loadings
that it would receive due to the overloading of the Muskego
Northwest WWTP with the No Action Alternative could accelerate
the eutrophication process.
With the Local, Regional, or Mosaic Alternatives, the Muskego
Northwest WWTP would be abandoned. Although the cessation
of effluent discharges would facilitate any future lake
rehabilitation projects, the eutrophication would not be
reversed due to abandonment alone.
3-95
-------
3.14.1.10 The Outer Harbor
The harbor receives the waters from the Menomonee, Milwaukee,
and Kinnickinnic Rivers and effluent from the Jones Island
WWTP. Jones Island effluent adds significant amounts of
phosphorus, nitrogen, and cadmium to the harbor. With the
No Action Alternative these loadings would remain about the
same.
The quality of the waters in the Outer Harbor would not
change greatly with the implementation of the Local, Regional
or Mosaic Alternatives. The flows to the harbor from the
WWTP would remain about the same (or perhaps be slightly
reduced) with any of these alternatives. However, the
elimination of the production of Milorganite would increase
loads of ammonia to the harbor from 2.8 million to about 8.5
million pounds (726,000 to 2.7 million kg) per year.
One possible method for improving the water quality of the
Outer Harbor would be relocating the Jones Island effluent
outfall to discharge effluent directly into the main body of
the lake. With this action, the pollutant loads from the
Jones Island WWTP would not be confined to the Outer Harbor,
but rather they would be discharged to Lake Michigan proper
and dispersed by currents. Further study would have to be
conducted to assess the feasibility and environmental impacts
of a new outfall.
3.14.1.11 Lake Michigan
The main body of Lake Michigan receives flows from the Outer
Harbor and from the South Shore, South Milwaukee, WEPCO,
School Sisters of Notre Dame Convent, and the Chalet-on-the-
Lake Restaurant. The lake now has excellent water quality
under most circumstances,and this situation would continue
even with the No Action Alternative. The WWTPs in the
planning area contribute approximately 4% of the recommended
maximum total loading of phosphorus to the entire lake and
the loading would not be reduced with the No Action Alternative,
During the planning period algal growth may become more
noticeable in the near-shore portions.
With the Local, Regional, or Mosaic Alternatives, the South
Shore WWTP would be expanded (see Table 5.8). Effluent
loadings would increase proportionally. However, these
increases would change the water quality of the lake only
slightly. Algal growths may noticeably increase in the near-
shore portions of the lake. The levels of un-ionized ammonia
may exceed the DNR standards for the protection of fish.
3-96
-------
The contributions of pollution from the South Milwaukee,
WEPCO, and School Sisters of Notre Dame WWTPs (with the
Mosaic Alternative) would be very minor sources of pol-
lution to the lake and should not affect its water quality.
3.14.2 Air Quality
The No Action Alternative would not affect air quality in
the planning area. Although pollutant emissions are caused
by generators, the incineration of screened materials, and
trucking sludge to landfills, the greatest source of pollutant
emissions associated with MMSD sewerage facilities is from
the production of Milorganite. Approximately six percent of
annual particulate emissions in Milwaukee County are from
Milorganite production. With the No Action Alternative,
these emissions would continue.
Any action alternative would have both temporary and long-
term effects. The temporary impacts would be construction-
related. The rehabilitation and expansion of the Jones
Island and South Shore treatment plants would require about
four years of construction. With the MMSD's preferred
expansion alternatives, all parameters of air quality would
be increased on the average from 0.01% (sulfur dioxide) to
0.5% (for particulate matter) each year of the construction
period.
The emissions associated with the construction of facilities
to abate CSO and alternate peak flows would vary according
to the alternative selected. Table 3.17 outlines average
annual emissions for different CSO/I/I Alternatives.
The long-term direct impacts would be associated with the
operation of the sewerage facilities included in each final
alternative. The greatest impact of any action alternative
would be the reduction in particulate emissions that would
result from the abandonment of Milorganite production.
Abandoning that process would also alter the use of energy
at the WWTPs. All the action alternatives would require
very similar changes in energy use, so they can all be
compared to the No Action Alternative. Based on energy use,
particulate emissions would be reduced (from the No Action
Alternative) by 9.8% and sulfer dioxide by 8.4%. Other
emissions would increase: carbon monoxide by 136.5%, hydro-
carbons by 189.2%, and nitrogen oxide by 32.5%.
3.14.3 Groundwater
With the No Action Alternative, the infiltration-percolation
pond at the Muskego Rendering Company might be overloaded
before 2005. If the facility is overloaded, groundwater in
3-97
-------
r-
rH
•
CO
W
Hi
CQ
EH
EH
3
EH
Hi
•O
Hi
D
25
HjJ
W
0
K
W
ri!
B
H
EH
U
ID
PH
EH
cn
s
0
CJ
PH
rH
O ^ CN
rH CM
^ c
co o
(1) -rl
4J 4J
(1) fl3
rH V-l
&l (d
£ Pi
O CJ
1 O
4-> CQ
in c cn
00 3 -H
CO 00 rH T
rH r- vo r-
rH rH
-P
C
(0
•P
3
rH
rH
O
ri r*
0) oo
4J CT»
-P 0) rH
nj fl) *O *"•
a T3 -H
•rl X W
cu x o c
-P O C O
(0 -H O J3
rH P a 5H
3 (d
o ^ c o
•H CD 0 O
4J U-4 X! rl
!H rH JH T3
(d 3 (C >i
ft cn u K
00
r~
rH
O
CM
rH
00
CO
rH
CO
cn
rH
00
O
O
..
f«»
vo
0)
•o
-rl
X
o
•H
p
c
(U
tT>
O
rl
-rl
12
»
o
00
cn
rH
•
00
CM
4J
J_l
a
0)
p^
Cn
C
•H
G
G
(d
rH
ft
•»
U
s
J2
W
cn
e
rH
• e
CQ
(U
o
^4
3
0
cn
•
o
CO
cn
rH
•
CO
rl
(U
4J
04
(d
x;
u
»fc
rH
4J
SH
rd
CM
•^
rH
c
rH
O
£>
^
O
cn
u
O
cn
§
e
CM
•
O
CO
cn
rH
«
P
VO
X
•H
•O
c
(U
O-i
pi
ri!
^
CM
-P
rl
(d
ft
«*
CO
•
rH
O
£>
^
O
cn
CJ
p"
cn
a
a
^
m
3-98
-------
the area could be contaminated. Many private wells in the
Muskego area use this groundwater. With any action alternative,
this infiltration-percolation pond would be abandoned.
Instead, the facility would be used to treat the Muskego
Rendering Company wastewater before its discharge into a
local sewer system.
The solids from the South Shore WWTP are now applied to
agricultural land from April to December. During the winter
months the solids are landfilled. Although there would be
some potential for groundwater contamination by toxic sub-
stances in the solids leaching through the soil, the likelihood
of such an event occurring is minimized by DNR monitoring
and controls.
All action alternatives would include abandoning the
infiltration-percolation pond at the Muskego Rendering
Company. Instead, the company's facilities would be used to
pretreat the industrial wastewater before it is discharged
into the local sewer system. This precaution would protect
well users in the vicinity of the Muskego Rendering Company.
Also, the MMSD has recommended that the solids from the
South Shore WWTP continue to be land applied during the
growing season and landfilled during the winter, and that
Jones Island solids be landfilled and not processed into
Milorganite. Adherence to DNR standards for land application
and landfill and a careful monitoring program should protect
groundwater in the vicinity of the landfill and land application
sites.
During the construction needed to implement any action
alternatives, there would be the possibility of groundwater
depletion or contamination. The construction of interceptors,
dropshafts, cavern storage facilities and tunnels would
necessitate excavation. If pumping is necessary to dewater
construction sites, the local water table would be lowered.
One measure to mitigate this impact would be the use of a
recharge well to replenish groundwater levels. Also, spills
of gasoline, oil, or untreated wastewater could contaminate
local aquifers. Caution should be taken to avoid such
spills.
Tunnels and caverns in the Niagaran Aquifer could lower ground-
water levels because they would be constructed below the
piezometric surface of the aquifer, and groundwater would
naturally tend to infiltrate the facilities (see Figure 1.4).
This infiltration could be controlled by grouting fissures
in the rock and lining the facilities. If the facilities
are properly operated, wastewater in the tunnels should not
reach a level above the piezometric surface. Thus, the waste-
3-99
-------
water should not exfiltrate into the groundwater. Exfiltration
could only occur if the system failed, allowing the waste-
water in the tunnels to rise above the piezometric surface
(see Figure 1.4). A proper monitoring and maintenance pro-
gram would greatly minimize the potential for groundwater
pollution.
All action alternatives would include the above impacts.
The Local Alternative would also include the construction of
infiltration-percolation ponds in Vernon, Muskego, and
Germantown. A thorough investigation of the sites for those
facilities would be necessary prior to their construction.
Proper site selection and design would minimize the hazard
to gr oundwa te r.
3.14.4 Cost
The No Action Alternative would not have any direct contruction
costs. However, the MMSD and the City of Milwaukee would
violate two court orders if no action is taken to improve
sewerage facilities or to eliminate CSOs. The results of
these violations could be fines or other penalties.
The costs of the action alternatives are shown in Table 1.5.
These costs are established to be accurate to within +30%
and -15%.
3.14.5 Fiscal Impacts
It is not possible to estimate all of the costs that the
MMSD would incur if no action is taken to upgrade the sewerage
facilities in the Planning Area. Although MMSD capital
costs and user charges would not change greatly from the
present, fines or other penalties could be levied for not
complying with the Federal District Court Order and the Dane
County Circuit Court Stipulation.
It is possible to compare the fiscal impacts of the Local,
Regional, Mosaic, and Combination Alternatives. Table 3.18
shows the debt services for each alternative. Table 3.19
and 3.20 compare the average annual community and household
charges for each of these alternatives. As is shown by
these tables, the Regional Alternative would be the most
*The Combination Alternative is like the Mosaic Alternative,
except that it assumes that communities outside Milwaukee
County finance their own sewer connections to the MIS
system.
3-100
-------
0
o
•H
33
a)
(0
CU
Cn
(8 <8 OH
M 3
CU
•X
m
Q O
w
o
CN
I
in
C X !H co
C (t) 0 cn
< EH fa rH
n
n
CN
•<*
cu
Cn
18
in
cu
£>
iH
CU
C/3
4J
.Q
CU
Q
T3
CU
4->
<8
O
0
rH
rH
<
0
O
•
s
1— I
•H
3S
O
E-i
£>i
4J
!H
cu
Ql
0
iH
DJ
•K
in
o
o
(N
|
in
co
cn
rH
CN
CN
n
..
CO
r-
m
cn
CN
^
cn
r~
(8 (8
*
> in
4J 4-) cn o
0 -H 4J O
18 C C CN
M 3 CU I
6 S "1
C C E >i CO
C 0 O (8
< O U ft.
CO ^D
CO ro
rH O
cn
CO
rH
ro
w
tj
H
CO
§
CU
Cn
(8
M
SH
cu
W
4J
A
cu
Q
*
in
o
o
(N
1
in
CO
cn
rH
0
rH
in
-
CN
co
Q
cn
2
cu
u
t> cn
>•( O
cu o
W CN
I
4J O
£1 CO
cu
EH Q H
CO
00
co
n
in
h.
•<*
co
CN
in
m
r-
CN
cn
r-
in
cn
CN
CN
vo
vo
cn
o
n
cn
rH
(8
O
0
(JJ
rH
(8
C
O
•H
Cn
cu
K
u
•H
IT)
cn
0
S
C
0
-H
4J
t8
C
•H
Q
E
0
u
cn
c cu
O 4J
A 18
C
O
•H
rH
rH
•H
S
o
^o
«•
MH
0
E
3
E
•H
X
(8
E
(8
3
C
C
f8
C
<8
O
•O
MH
O
cn
T3
C
cn
3
0
cn
ij Lj
cn <8
O cu
a
E
3
w
cn
<
c
Cn O
C -H
•H 4J
iH rH TJ <8
CU 0 C rH
4J T3 3 MH
C fa C
•H O -H
00 *
CN kfl rH
cn in
3-101
-------
"co
£
CQ
3
O
^J
£
•H
*•'
CO
W
O
rtj
E
£
0
•H
Iff
£
•H
jQ
e
o
o
a
0
rH
(0
4J
•H
a
u
u
•H
(0
CO
O
a
a
o
,— 1
iHn
(ff
•P
•H
cx
Iff
u
«* n
<«r CNCN-* mr-co
^ *. «. •*
i-H CN rH r-H
CN
rH rH rH CN CN
rH rH O
rH CM
VO VO rH rH
m
(yirHrHinminrovorHooincocNCAia1 CN CN
in r- oo
CN
in
rH rHrH CO CN CO rHHH rHCN rH
U
01
__l
^^
m
W
ffl
^<
E-i
H
s
D
g
O
U
J
» r- co
rH CN
CN
rH rH CN
O rHCN rHrH VOVOrH
in
O
O
CN
I
in
oo
iff
4J
•rH
CM
iff
u
>
•P
•H
a
3
O
U
CN
CN
CN
U7 CT>
CN 00
•
fOCNfO
CN CN
fOOOOvomn^rH
ooooommminvovo
^rc—^CNrnvoi-tooo
» ^ «. ^ ^ *.
rH VO VO rH rH
0)
CU-H
T3 MH
•H X
CO O
>1 O
Iff M
CQ (O
CU
0)
Q *
M
Q)
*
(0
4->
CQ
•H
>
*
CO
*
(U
>
o
>i M
O
•P
C C
•H -H
O H
to X
0)
H
Iff
•d
0)
rH
Iff
-a
£
CO
(U
C
rH
o
u
Iff
CD
(1)
C*
CO g O
(U
(ff 0)
CQ
*
C
•H
CO
CQ
•H
o -d
£ O
-P 4-1
CQ CQ -rH
cu CD x:
4J
£
3
o
u
0)
3
03'
•H
a
(U
-'H
Ul
4-)
3
O
*
3-102
-------
iH fl f>J CM
i
CN »-» **
< <
Z CK
C3
S
r-t OrHOO.HOiH^OrHrHi-Hr—lOOrHOOrHOr-tCNrHOrHi—t
(Nrl'TCS
Q
ID Z
O <
O
ts
I
(fl
a
cooooOr-ti
O
s
; ID >i.c
: 1-1 "O fl
0) 4J
> C C
O -i-« -H
. J* O <->
O 0< X
*
01
r-l
01 -H
M n)
(U Cn
3 ffl
4) H <1> _
^
cojajtuos
s^: a>
raSji>
h 4J 0) 3 +J 4J -P
3
O
3-103
-------
expensive to Milwaukee County, requiring a greater amount of
debt service in the 29 year period from 1980 to 2009 (allowing
20 years for bonds issued in 1989). The higher cost would
be the result of connecting flows from the South Milwaukee
WWTP to the MMSD.
Although the Regional Alternative would have the highest
annual debt payments from 1980 to 2009 ($1,970,574,000), the
tax rate levied by the County to finance the alternative
would be lower. The addition of the City of South Milwaukee
to the MMSD would increase the amount of taxable property by
$400 million. As a result of this increased tax base, the
annual tax rate would be only $4.29 per $1,000 equalized
property value, as compared to $4.37 for the Mosaic Alternative,
The decrease in county-wide taxes would take place at the •
expense of the residents of the City of South Milwaukee.
Their tax burden would increase 600% from a projected $33
per household for the Local Alternative to $238 per house-
hold for the Regional Alternative.
The next most expensive alternative in terms of MMSD capital
expenditures would be the Mosaic Alternative. From 1980 to
2009, the Mosaic Alternative would require a total of
$1,966,223,000 in debt service. Because this alternative
would not include the City of South Milwaukee in the MMSD,
the annual tax rate for the County (except South Milwaukee)
would be higher than the Regional Alternative ($4.37 as
opposed to $4.29 per $1,000 equalized property value). The
higher property tax rate for Milwaukee County residents
would be attributable to the cost of constructing local
connecting sewers and I/I rehabilitation outside the County.
The Combination Alternative is less expensive than the
Mosaic Alternative because the MMSD would not finance con-
struction outside of Milwaukee County. The tax rate needed
to finance the debt service for this alternative would drop
from $4.37 per $1,000 (Mosaic) to $4.29 per $1,000 equalized
property value. However, the costs to contract communities
would increase with this alternative because they would
finance their own repair and rehabilitation for I/I reduction.
The least expensive alternative in terms of total cost to
the MMSD (debt service) would be the Local Alternative. With
this plan, the communities of Caddy Vista, Germantown,
Muskego, New Berlin, Thiensville, and South Milwaukee would
all maintain and upgrade their own treatment facilities. The
average annual debt services for these six communities with
each of the four alternatives are compared in Table 3.21.
The most costly system for these communities (except South
Milwaukee) would be the Local Alternative. Comparison of
3-104
-------
TABLE 3-21
COSTS (IN THOUSANDS)TO LOCAL COMMUNITIES
Local Regional Mosaic Combination
Community Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative
Caddy Vista
Germantown
Muskego
New Berlin
South Milwaukee
Thiensville
166
815
933
2,958
250
356
36
676
576
1,626
1,841
190
36
684
583
1,646
250
192
72
1,116
891
1,993
250
240
3-105
-------
the Local and Regional Alternatives reveals that it is less
expensive for five of the six communities (all but South
Milwaukee) to connect to the district rather than to manage
their own WWTPs. In addition, if construction outside
Milwaukee County is financed locally (as with the Combination
Alternative), the Regional Alternative would still be cheaper
for Caddy Vista, Muskego, New Berlin, and Thiensville.
However, it would be 29% more expensive for Germantown to
connect to the MMSD (Regional Alternative) than for them to
treat their own wastewater.
3.14.6 Economic Impacts
Since the costs of the No Action Alternative cannot be fully
accounted for, neither can its impacts on the Milwaukee area
economy. However, a detailed analysis was performed to
determine the effects of the action alternatives on Milwaukee's
economy. This analysis suggested that the Local, Regional,
and Mosaic Alternatives would have very similar economic
impacts.
TABLE 3.22
RANGE OF NET ECONOMIC IMPACTS
"Least Case" "Worst Case"
Gross Output (x 103) $2,578,133 $ - 981,306
Earnings (x 103 840,042 36,313
Employment 31,390 - 17,100
(Man-years)
If it is assumed that the tax money used to finance the
MWPAP is money that would have been spent outside the
Milwaukee area, ("Least Case"), the project would increase
gross output, earnings and employment. On the other hand,
if it is assumed that the money use^d to finance the MWPAP
would have been spent in the region ("Worst Case"), gross
output and employment would decline and the increase in
earnings would be less. These two scenarios are hypo-
thetical. The actual impacts would fall within this range.
Different CSO abatement peak flow attenuation alternatives
would have varying impacts on the Milwaukee economy. However,
it is assumed that an alternative that uses the local labor
market would have a more positive impact on the local
economy. In general, the construction of deep tunnels and
3-106
-------
cavern storage facilities would require sophisticated equip-
ment that may not be available in the Milwaukee area, but
the total local labor requirements would be similar under
any alternative.
3.14.7 Public Health
Each year, CSOs and sanitary sewer bypasses now allow more
than 6.4 billion gallons (24,032 km ) of untreated sewage
and stormwater to enter the Inner Harbor and the lower
reaches of the Menomonee, Milwaukee, and Kinnickinnic
Rivers. In addition, during wet weather, the treatment
facilities in the planning area are overloaded, discharging
partially treated effluent. These inputs can carry disease-
producing organisms. With No Action, these inputs would
continue. Any action alternative would eliminate these
potential hazards to the public health.
3.14.8 Access and Traffic
All the action alternatives would require the rehabilitation,
expansion, or construction of wastewater treatment facilities,
and the construction of interceptors, connecting sewers, and
facilities for the abatement of CSOs and attenuation of peak
flows. With the local alternative, construction would take
place at more WWTP sites. However, this construction should
not greatly disrupt traffic.
Connector sewers would be open-cut. Usually, however, they
would follow roads with average to wide right-of-ways or
they would be constructed across rural land. Therefore,
they would not affect traffic or access. Most interceptors
would be constructed by the tunnel method. As a result,
their construction should not tear up many roads, but would
be limited to access shafts and storage sites. Construction
and supply vehicles would add to traffic congestion in the
construction area.
The alternatives for the abatement of CSO attenuation of
peak flows would disrupt Milwaukee's central business district
to varying degrees. The Complete Sewer Separation Alternative
would require the greatest amount of sewer construction
(primarily open-cut) of the combined sewer service area
(CSSA). With this alternative, 92% of the CSSA would be
disrupted, including the separation of plumbing within
buildings. The Inline Storage Alternative would disrupt
almost as much area, but would include no private property
work. The Modified CST/Inline Alternative would include
sewer construction in 24% of the CSSA, and only 3% would
require work on private property. The Modified Total Storage
Alternative would have the least severe impacts on traffic
3-107
-------
and access. Only a few sites would require sewer construction.
The construction of storage facilities would require three
to four years. In the vicinity of the construction sites,
traffic would be increased by construction vehicles.
3.14.9 Energy Use
Any of the action alternatives would result in a reduction
of between 27% and 37% from energy use with No Action
Alternative. Total energy use for the alternatives is compared
in Table 3.23.
TABLE 3.23
TOTAL ENERGY USE (IN BILLION BTU)
Natural
Alternative Electricity Gas
Diesel Fuel Digester
Fuel Oil Gas Total
No Action
Local*
Regional*
Mosaic*
325.19
1,247.58
983.44
1,037.79
2249.56
47.50
47.50
47.50
6.0
49.48
79.03
76.42
76.97 249.83
0.81 725.80
0.81 721.33
0.81 724.93
2907.55
2101.17
1832.11
1890.45
*Assuming the Inline Storage Alternative
Energy use for CSO abatement/peak flow attenuation alternatives
other than the Inline Storage Alternative was also evaluated.
The most energy intensive alternatives would be Modified
CST/ Inline and Modified Total Storage which would require
155 billion BTU each year. Inline Storage would require 47
billion BTU and complete separation 45 billion BTU.
3.14.10 Engineering Feasibility
The screening process described in this chapter used engineering
feasibility as a criterion for evaluation. Alternatives
that would include components that are considered unfeasible
were excluded from consideration. Thus, all aspects of the
final alternatives employ sound engineering technology.
Some of the CSO components, deep tunnels and storage caverns,
include innovative technology. Other cities, Chicago and
Rochester for instance, are now in the process of constructing
facilities using these components, although such systems are
not currently in use.
3-108
-------
CHAPTER 4
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
-------
Chapter 4
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
4.0 INTRODUCTION
To evaluate the effects of final alternatives on the
environments of the planning area, it is necessary to
assess the present state of those-environments. Thus, in
this chapter, the human and natural environments of the
planning area are described. The description begins with
the natural environment including the subjects listed below.
The Waters of the Planning Area
Aquatic Biota
Threatened or Endangered Species
Air Quality
Geology
Topography
Soils
Groundwater
Floodplains
Wetlands
Wildlife Habitats
These discussions are followed by descriptions of the human
or man-made environment. Included in this section are the
topics listed below.
Land Use
Population
Industry and Employment
Municipal Revenues and Expenditures
Sewerage System Costs
Noise
Odors
Public Health
Transportation, Traffic, and Access
Archaeological and Historical Sites
Recreation
Energy Consumption
Resource Consumption
These descriptions present those aspects of the environment
of the planning area that could be affected by or that place
limits on planning for the MWPAP. The discussion in Chapter
5, Environmental Consequences, builds on the information in
this Chapter.
4-1
-------
4.1 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
4.1.1 The Waters of the Planning Area
The City of Milwaukee is situated on the shore of Lake
Michigan, at the confluence of three rivers: the Milwaukee,
the Menomonee, and the Kinnickinnic. The Milwaukee Metropolitan
Sewerage District CMMSD) planning area also includes Oak
Creek and parts of the Root River to the south, and tributaries
of the Fox River to the west. All the lakes, streams, and
creeks in the planning area are shown in Figure 4.1.
Lake Michigan, the fourth largest freshwater lake in the
world, is 80 miles (135 km) wide at Milwaukee, and its length
is 350 miles (560 km). The lake retains water for about 100
years before it flows out at the straits of Mackinac or the
Chicago River.
Lake Michigan receives effluent discharges from six waste-
water treatment plants (WWTPs) in the MMSD planning area:
Jones Island, South Shore, and South Milwaukee public WWTPs;
and private facilities at the School Sisters of Notre Dame
and Chalet-on-the-Lake Restaurant in the City of Mequon, and
Wisconsin Electric Power Company (WEPCO) in the City of Oak
Creek.
A portion of Lake Michigan near the City of Milwaukee has
been partitioned off by a breakwater to form the Outer
Harbor. The Outer Harbor receives water from the Milwaukee,
Menomonee, and Kinnickinnic Rivers, and effluent from the
Jones Island WWTP. It has four openings where its water
exchanges with water from the main body of Lake Michigan.
Water flows out of the Harbor at the rate of 730 cubic feet
per second (21 m3/sec), but wind driven currents bring a
small amount of lake water into the Harbor. The Outer
Harbor, acts like a lake with a volume of 1.2 billion cubic
feet (33.8 x 10^ m3) and a water residence time about 6
days.
The Inner Harbor is the artifically deepened and channelized
sections of the Milwaukee, Menomonee, and Kinnickinnic
Rivers. Its waters are slow flowing; the Milwaukee River
section has an average velocity of about six inches per
second (0.15 m/sec) and the flow of the other portions is
almost nil. Many of the MMSD's combined sewers overflow
directly to the Inner Harbor.
The Milwaukee River upstream of the Inner Harbor is large
a'nd shallow, with a watershed which extends well north of
the planning area. Its tributaries within the planning area
4-2
-------
STUDY ARC* IOUNDARY
COUNTY LINE
CORPORATE BOUNDARIES
WATER: RIVERS,CHEEKS,ETC
MAJOR HISHWAYS
OZAUKEE COUNTY
MILWAUKEE [COUNTY
FIGURE
4-1
DATE
November
1980
LAKES AND STREAMS IN PLANNING AREA
SOURCE
MMSD
PREPARED BY
lEcolSciences
J ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
-------
include Pigeon Creek in Thiensville, Indian Creek, in Bayside,
and Lincoln Creek in the City of Milwaukee. The Thiensville
WWTP adds effluent to the Milwaukee River within the study
area.
The Menomonee River is wholly contained in the planning
area. The portion upstream of the Inner Harbor is shallow
and extensively channelized. The river flows along the
industrial Menomonee Valley in the City of Milwaukee.
Effluent from the Germantown WWTP enters the Menomonee River
at an impoundment area near the river's source. The prin-
cipal tributaries of the river are Underwood Creek in the
City of Wauwatosa and the Town of Brookfield, Honey Creek in
the City of West Allis, and the Little Menomonee River in
the City of Milwaukee.
The Kinnickinnic River is very small upstream of the Inner
Harbor. The stream bed is completely channelized. Combined
sewer overflows (CSOs) occur at several points along the
river.
Oak Creek flows through the cities of Oak Creek and South
Milwaukee. Its principal tributary is the North Branch of
Oak Creek. Both streams are very small with tree-lined,
natural channels for most of their length.
The Root River has its source in the planning area, but then
flows south to Racine County. The Muskego Northeast WWTP is
located on Tess Corners Creek, a tributary of the Root
River. The Caddy Vista WWTP is located on the Root River
itself, at the point where the river crosses from Milwaukee
County to Racine County.
The Fox River and its tributaries are in a different drainage
basin than the other watersheds in the planning area. All
the other rivers flow to Lake Michigan, but the Fox River
watershed flows south to the Illinois River and ultimately
the Mississippi River. Deer Creek is a tributary to Poplar
Creek which flows into the Fox River. The New Berlin Regal
Manors WWTP adds effluent to Deer Creek, a small, intermittent
stream. Big Muskego Lake receives treated wastewater from
the Muskego Northwest WWTP, and water from its outlet flows
through a series of lakes to the Fox River.
4.1.1.1 Water Quality Parameters
The chemical and physical properties of a lake or stream
influence the types of aquatic plants and animals that can
exist in the water and the uses to which it can be put.
The Clean Water Act (PL 92-500) included, "whenever attain-
4-3
-------
able, an interim goal of water quality which, provides for
the protection and propagation of fish., shellfish, and
wildlife and provides for recreation in and on the water
to be achieved by July 1, 1983."
There is no one index of water quality; instead, many
factors affect the quality of water for particular uses.
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources CDNRl has set
standards for several parameters to meet designated goals
for the maintenance of waters for fish and human uses Cshown
in Table 4.1}. The classifications of streams and lakes in
the planning area are shown in Table 4.2. They are compared
to DNR standards in Figure 4.2.
Discharges of effluent from wastewater treatment plants and
bypasses of untreated sewage affect stream flow, can reduce
levels of dissolved oxygen, and can introduce suspended
solids, phosphorus, nitrogen, various toxic substances, and
pathogenic organisms into a river. Stream flow is the
amount of water in the stream. Effluent discharges to small,
intermittently flowing streams can greatly increase total
flow. If the sewage is inadequately treated, the stream's
water quality can be greatly impaired. However, if the
wastewater is treated so that its chemical composition
resembles that of the receiving stream, the effluent en-
larges the stream and allows the existence of aquatic
organisms that require permanently flowing water.
4.1.1.1.1 Dissolved Oxygen; The concentration of dissolved
oxygen in water is another parameter of its quality. While
air is 20% oxygen, well-aerated water is only about 0.001%
oxygen. Fish, other aquatic animals, and aquatic plants all
require oxygen. Most fish need at least 5 milligrams of
oxygen per liter (mg/1) of water (0.0005%), but some require
6 or 7 mg/1. These levels can be maintained in lakes and
streams that are low in organic matter and in plant nutrients
and have good natural re-aeration fay wind action or rapids.
Microorganisms that feed on organic matter in the streams
consume oxygen. If there is a large amount of organic
matter in the stream, from the leaves of overhanging trees,
the death of aquatic plants, or discharges of inadequately
treated sewage, the oxygen level may be lowered.
Aquatic plants have a complex effect on levels of oxygen.
During the day, living plants produce oxygen through the
process of photosynthesis, but at night photosynthesis does
not occur. Plants consume oxygen at all times. As a
result, the oxygen concentrations of lakes and streams with
abundant aquatic plants fluctuate from high levels during
the day to low levels at night. If oxygen is completely
4-4
-------
Q
K
g
|
W
e
^
rH <
a
•v Oi
Cd X
3 a
a s
EH 3
1
2
H
01
g
Ul
3
_
3
01
o
c
id
-H
14
5
"a
01
o
c
id
•H
Ul
11
4J
3
rH
id 01
c u
•H id
rj r4
Id 3
S Ul
01 01
4J 14-1
id -H
•H iJ
•o
01 o
S v
u u 2 in
Ul
TJ
•H
rH
0
0) Ul
3 T3
4J S
"J >
ao
Ul
^ S ul
a. E-I Q
x
S
rH
i !
d
x
i
^
X
Oi 1
£ 1
O
X
X
Ol 1
S 1
in
o
*» -^
D 0)
3 -H
X
S XX
id id
rH E S
Ol rH rH
S XX
tjl 0!
in g E
>
x
rt3
s
1— t
Ol
S 1
1
rH
O
o
.
^
I
rH
X.
i1
i
PI i
a
o
d
•H
C
C <
•H
.J rH
0 Id
i 0
o e*
X
C^
t
in
0
d
x
§
^
i1
in
o
d
i
i
i
i
(Q
s
rH
X
Ol
S
o
o
x'
rH
x
g
tN
o
d
z
1
Id
c
g
s
s,
1
N
0
•H
1
X
CO
S
E
O
rH
O
rH
X X
§ I
rH rH
S S
0 O
O O
O O
0 0
0 0
rH OJ
X X
rH rH
S E
0 0
0 0
rH rH
O O
0 0
CN T
. ,
X X
id id
E E
rH rH
E E
0 0
o o
rH rH
O O
0 0
X X
g E
rH rH
E S
0 0
0 0
rH rH
O O
o o
(N ^T
. .
X X
rH rH
S E
O O
o o
rH rH
O O
O O
..
ECU!
O 01 rH
rH O Id
5-H Ul
^
•P 1M
rH U 0
3) 0) O
*
•H
4J
(0
u
-U
CO
•H
C
•H
1
c
en
c
o
o
Ul
•H
3
0)
o
•H
3
o<3
4-5
-------
TABLE 4.2
WATER QUALITY CLASSIFICATIONS OF AFFECTED
MILWAUKEE AREA LAKES AND STREAMS
Affected Stream or Lake Plant
1. Milwaukee River
2. Milwaukee River
3. Milwaukee River
4. Menomonee River
5. Menomonee River
6. Kinnickinnic River
7. Deer Creek
8. Deer Creek
9. Tess Corners Creek
10. Tess Corners Creek
11. Big Muskego Lake
12. Root River
13. Oak Creek: North
Branch
14. Lake Michigan
Thiensville
CSO Area, North of North Avenue
CSO Area, South of North Avenue
Germantown
CSO Area
CSO Area
New Berlin: Regal Manors
New Berlin: Southeast
New Berlins Southeast
Muskego: Northeast
Muskego: Northwest
Caddy Vista
Oak Creek Interceptor
Jones Island, South Shore
Classification
Fish and Aquatic Life,
Recreational Use
Variance (b)
Fish and Aquatic Life
Variance (a)
Variance (a)
Marginal Surface Waters
Marginal Surface Waters
Intermediate Aquatic Life
Intermediate Aquatic Life
Fish and Aquatic Life
Fish and Aquatic Life
Fish and Aquatic Life,
Recreational Use
Special
Source: Wisconsin Administrative Code, NR104
See Table 4.1, Variance (a)
bSee Table 4.1, Variance (b)
See Table 4.1, Lake Michigan
4-6
-------
depleted from the water, many forms of aquatic life are
destroyed. Then, microorganisms that do not need oxygen
take over. These microorganisms generate the foul odors and
toxic substances that make water unsuitable for most
purposes.
The standard measure of oxygen consumption is biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD). This measure indicates the amount of
oxygen that would be consumed under standard laboratory
conditions. Because oxygen consumption depends on numerous
factors, the laboratory BOD measurement is not directly
applicable to natural conditions, but it does serve as an
indicator of the level of oxygen demanding organic matter in
a watercourse.
4.1.1.1.2 Suspended Solids: Suspended solids are particles
of undissolved organic and inorganic substances in lakes and
streams. They'reduce the transparency of the water which
affects plant and animal life. Also, some suspended solids
settle, covering valuable bottom habitats. Suspended solids
and sediment reduce the water storage capacity of harbors,
reservoirs, and lakes, and they interfere with feeding and
spawning habitats and the respiratory organs of fish and
other aquatic life. The decomposition of organic solids
requires oxygen, and may lower oxygen levels in a stream or
lake, potentially causing fish kills and foul odors. Suspended
solids may also transport other forms of pollution, such as
nutrients, pesticides, or heavy metals.
4.1.1.1.3 Plant Nutrients; Phosphorus and nitrogen, sub-
stances present in sewage and effluent, act together to
sustain plant growth. Normally, nitrogen is present in
Wisconsin waters in excess of plant requirements. Thus,
where adequate light is available, plant growth is limited
by the supply of phosphorus in the water.
Algae affect the oxygen levels of a watercourse, and they
can interfere with swimming and boating. A lake with a high
production of aquatic plants is called eutrophic; a lake
with a low production is called oligotrophic. All lakes
gradually accumulate phosphorus and other plant nutrients,
but the process of eutrophication may be greatly speeded by
the addition of large amounts of phosphorus from fertilizers
(agricultural runoff), urban runoff, or from sewage effluent.
Ammonia is a form of nitrogen present in sewage effluent
that can be poisonous to fish. When ammonia enters a lake
or stream, some of it changes chemically (ionizes) and
becomes harmless, but the remainder stays un-ionized.
Un-ionized ammonia has a distinct, pungent odor, and it
is toxic to fish. The percentage of ammonia that remains
4-7
-------
un-ionized varies with the acidity and temperature of the
water; the colder and more acid the water, the less the
un-ionized percentage. Eventually, all of the ammonia
entering a body of water becomes oxidized to a far less
toxic form (nitrate).
4.1.1.1.4 Toxic Substances; Wastewater contains a number of
other poisonous substances from industrial, commercial,
residential and transportation activities, including cadmium,
lead, zinc, chromium, copper, pesticides, and polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs). Chlorine, another toxic substance, is used
by sewage treatment facilities for disinfection of effluent.
Although chlorine is toxic to aquatic animals even in small
quantities, the chemical oxidizes very quickly to chloride
which is not toxic. Therefore, chlorine is primarily a
problem near effluent outfalls. Other toxic substances in
sewage effluent accumulate in sediment, where they are available
for ingestion by bottom feeding organisms, posing the potential
for bioaccumulation. Further, the substances may be resus-
pended in the water.
4.1.1.1.5 Pathogens; Pathogens are microorganisms in
sewage that can cause disease in animals and humans.
Examples are the typhoid bacterium, the polio virus, and
intestinal parasites. Disinfection of wastewater reduces
the numbers of pathogens, but does not eliminate them
altogether. The fecal coliform bacterium (Escherichia
coli) is a harmless bacterium that exists in human and
animal wastes. Since this bacterium is easily detectable,
it is used as an indicator of the possible presence of
pathogens. The abundance of fecal coliforms in a stream or
lake may indicate the presence of inadequately treated
sewage and possibly pathogenic organisms.
4.1.1.1.6 Nonpoint Source Pollution; Nonpoint sources of
water pollution include storm water runoff from urban and
rural land, atmospheric deposition, construction activities,
and malfunctioning septic systems. SEWRPC Technical Report
No. 21, Sources of Water Pollution in Southeastern Wisconsin;
1975 identified sources of nonpoint pollution.In the
Menomonee River and Milwaukee River watersheds, nonpoint
sources were estimated to contribute at least two-thirds of
the total annual loads of all analyzed pollutants except
fecal coliform. In the Kinnickinnic River watershed, non-
point sources contributed most of the sediment and total
nitrogen, and about one-third of the biochemical oxygen
demand and total phosphorus loads. Combined sewer overflows
and sewage flow relief devices were found to be major con-
tributors of fecal coliform in all three watersheds.
4-8
-------
The 208 plan sets forth, general recommendations to abate
nonpoint sources of pollution to a level which would allow
recommended water quality standards to be achieved. Prior
to implementation of a nonpoint source control program, the
208 plan recommends that a detailed nonpoint source control
plan be prepared by local governmental management agencies.
In the following discussion, the quality of all streams and
lakes that could be affected by the MWPAP is described gen-
erally. Also, the degree to which state criteria for water
quality are met is indicated. Additional details on water
quality may be found in the Water Quality Appendix.
4.1.1.2 Water Quality in the Planning Area
4.1.1.2.1 Milwaukee River; Near the location of the Thiensville
WWTP, the Milwaukee River is low in suspended solids (16
mg/1 during low flow conditions) and high in dissolved
oxygen (normally near saturation). DNR has classified the
river as a habitat for warm water fish, and it generally
meets the water quality criteria for this use.
Upstream of the Thiensville WWTP, the river is affected by
nonpoint source erosion and runoff. Downstream from the
WWTP, the river is increasingly affected by sewer system
bypasses and combined sewer overflows. Two bypass points
at North Lydell Street in the Village of Whitefish Bay are
responsible for the addition to the Milwaukee River of
about 200 million gallons (757,000 m^) of raw sewage each
year. Twenty-three other bypass points from the Metropolitan
Intercepting Sewers (MIS) and seventy bypass points from
local collector sewers contribute smaller quantities of raw
sewage. Each year; 62 combined sewer overflow points on
the Milwaukee River from the Village of Shorewood to the
river's mouth add an average or 2400 million gallons (9.21
million m^) of storm water and sewage.
These inputs of raw sewage temporarily lower the concen-
tration of dissolved oxygen, as organic matter decomposes,
and increase turbidity. They create a blanket of sediment
on the river bottom which absorbs oxygen and generates
poisonous and foul smelling gases such as ammonia or hydrogen
sulfide. In addition, the sewage contains plant nutrients,
such as phosphorus, which allow algae to grow in nuisance
proportions in the slower reaches of the river and the Inner
Harbor. The public is exposed to any pathogens present in
the sewage.
4-9
-------
As a result of these inputs, the Milwaukee River, downstream
of Whitefish Bay, does not always meet State criteria
for dissolved oxygen. Also, concentrations of ammonia,
other toxic substances, and fecal coliforms are often in
excess of State limits.
4.1.1.2.2 Menomonee River; At Germantown, the Menomonee
River is a very small creek that goes dry for a few days
each year. An artificial pond was created at the Germantown
WWTP to assure permanent downstream flow. The dissolved
oxygen content of the stream is generally near the saturation
point, except in the pond where it drops to low levels near
the bottom. Suspended solids concentrations are 25 mg/1 on
the average, but drop to 10 mg/1 during low flow. Phosphorus
concentrations are relatively high (1 mg/1).
The Menomonee River flows through the most industrialized
section of Milwaukee. Although there are no substantial
industrial point sources of pollution, the storm water
runoff pollution is substantial. In addition, nonpoint sources
from areas upstream of the CSSA contribute to the pollution.
There are 13 MIS bypass points, 90 bypass points from local
collector sewers, and 26 combined sewer overflow points on
the Menomonee River and its tributaries. The bypasses are
small compared to combined sewer overflows which total 2,400
million gallons (9.1 million nr) a year on about 50 days of
storms. Since the Menomonee River has about 20% of the
flow of the Milwaukee River, the effects of each gallon of
untreated sewage are greater. Oxygen levels decline, organic
sediments accumulate on the river bottom, algal growth is
stimulated, and fecal coliform counts increase tremendously.
Often, the State standards for dissolved oxygen and toxic
substances are not attained, and fecal coliform counts are
high.
4.1.1.2.3 Kinnickinnic River; No sewage treatment fa-
cilities discharge effluent to the Kinnickinnic River, but
there are six MIS bypasses, about 15 bypass points from
local collector sewers and combined sewer overflow points.
CSO is the largest source of pollution to the river, adding
1,000 million gallons (3.77 million m^) of combined sewage
each year. The effects of these inputs are great since
there is so little flow in the river. Like the Menomonee,
the Kinnickinnic River does not often meet State water use
criteria for dissolved oxygen, toxic substances, and fecal
coliforms, especially in its Inner Harbor portion. Storm
water runoff from the river's highly urbanized watershed
is also a substantial contributor to the river's pollution.
4-10
-------
4.1.1.2.4 Oak Creek: The North Branch of Oak Creek has not
been adequately surveyed for water quality. However, the
indications are that, due to its small size and the pre-
dominantly rural land uses surrounding it, the creek is
turbid, rich in phosphorus and nitrogen, and sufficiently
high in dissolved oxygen. It receives bypasses of raw
sewage about five times a year from a pump station near
the creek's northern end. These bypasses probably temporarily
lower dissolved oxygen levels, raise suspended solids,
phosphorus, and nitrogen concentrations, and greatly in-
crease fecal coliform levels.
4.1.1.2.5 Root River: The Root River's tributary in the
City of Muskego, Tess Corners Creek, is intermittant up-
stream of the Muskego Northeast WWTP and permanent down-
stream. The creek has low levels of suspended solids (about
6 mg/1), moderate levels of phosphorus (0.5 mg/1), and
moderate levels of dissolved oxygen (6 mg/1). Much of the
phosphorus comes from the treatment plant.
The Hales Corners WWTP, which presently discharges to the
tributary of the Root River in the Village of Hales Corners,
will cease to operate in 1981 when the Hales Corners Inter-
ceptor is completed. The abandonment of the WWTP will
reduce phosphorus, nitrogen, and suspended solids loadings
to the upper Root River.
When the Root River crosses the Milwaukee-Racine County line
at Caddy Vista, it is slow-flowing and turbid with fluc-
tuating levels of dissolved oxygen (average 8 mg/1,
flutuations regularly occur between 5 and 10 mg/1). The
Caddy Vista WWTP is an insignificant contributor to the
Root River in terms of flow, but the reportedly frequent
overloads and bypasses at the plant may affect the turbidity,
and the levels of oxygen, phosphorus, and nitrogen in the
portion of the river near the WWTP.
There are approximately 15 local collector bypass points on
the Root River and its tributaries. Although there is no
information on the extent of bypass pollution, it is pro-
bably small relative to the runoff pollution from new sub-
divisions and agricultural land in the watershed. These
nonpoint sources add substantial amounts of silt, organic
matter, phosphorus, and nitrogen to the river.
4.1.1.2.6 Big Muskego Lake; The Muskego Northwest WWTP
sends its effluent, via an effluent channel, to Big Muskego
Lake, in the Fox River watershed. The lake is large in area
(2177 acres, 881 ha) but shallow in depth (average 2.5 feet,
4-11
-------
0.76 m, maximum 4 feet, 1.22 jal and it is fringed by cattail
marsh. The waters of the lake contain fairly low levels of
phosphorus (0.1 mg/11 and total ammonia C.04 mg/11, but the
sediments are rich in nutrients and organic matter. When-
ever sediments are stirred up by wind, fish, or boats, they
increase the levels of these materials in the water.
The lake receives large quantities of silt, nutrients, and
organic matter from the Muskego Northwest WWTP and from
agricultural runoff, and it is considered a eutrophic lake.
The residence time (the time it would take for the full
volume of the lake to be replaced by inflowing waters) is
five months. The major inflow to Big Muskego Lake is Muskego
Creek, which is the outflow from Little Muskego Lake, just
upstream. The creek does not appear to be a major source of
pollution.
Big Muskego Lake is well oxygenated in the warmer months at
all depths, since it is very shallow, well mixed by winds,
and since plants add oxygen to the water. In the winter,
when the lake is ice-covered, decaying organic matter
and sediment oxygen demand may consume all the dissolved
oxygen. A lack of oxygen may be the cause of fish kills
that have been occurring during winter.
4.1.1.2.7 Deer Creek: Deer Creek, a small tributary of the
Fox River, flows intermittently upstream of the New Berlin
Regal Manors WWTP discharge point. It is likely that the
creek carries nothing but sewage effluent most of the time.
If this is is so, then the creek has low levels suspended
solids except during wet weather when runoff from the
adjacent agricultural and residential land probably sub-
stantially increases the solids concentration. Phosphorus
and ammonia levels are probably high (5 mg/1 and 8 mg/1
respectively) due to the effluent, and there is a great deal
of free chlorine from the freshly discharged effluent. In
all, the DNR's criteria for un-ionized ammonia and chlorine
are not met in the stream at present.
4.1.1.2.8 Lake Michigan: Because of its size and extensive
currents, Lake Michigan is able to dilute the effluent
directly discharged to it by the South Shore, School Sisters
of Notre Dame Academy, Chalet-on-the-Lake Restaurant, and
Wisconsin Electric Power Company sewage treatment plants.
However, the size of the lake gives it a water retention
time of 100 years, so additions of pollution to the lake are
essentially cumulative. Eutrophication is a naturally occur-
ring process in Lake Michigan, but human activities, particularly
the input of sewage effluent, have accelerated this process.
4-12
-------
The Outer Harbor illustrates the effects of eutrophication.
A breakwater separates the harbor from the main body of Lake
Michigan, and water remains in the harbor six days before
moving to the lake. The Menomonee, Milwaukee, and Kinnickinnic
Rivers empty into the harbor, which also receives effluent
from the Jones Island WWTP. These inflows carry solids,
organic matter, phosphorus, ammonia, heavy metals, and
chlorine. As a result, the Outer Harbor has ten to one
hundred times the concentrations of these materials as Lake
Michigan.
The water in the harbor is more turbid and contains less
oxygen than lake water. The Outer Harbor has greater algal
growth, and over the years a thick layer of sediment, rich
in toxic substances and nutrients, has accumulated on the
bottom. These sediments frustrate attempts to improve the
water quality of the harbor. Removing inputs of phosphorus,
for example, might not lower the ambient phosphorus concen-
tration in the water because sediment decomposition and
resuspension could keep levels high.
Approximately 10% of all the phosphorus added directly to
Lake Michigan from municipal WWTPs located on its shoreline
comes from the Jones Island and South Shore facilities.
They are the sources of 3% of total phosphorus inputs
(including runoff) to the Lake Michigan basin waterways
(IJC, 1978). In addition, the phosphorus contributed by
the WWTPs is more readily usable by algae than many of the
other phosphorus inputs (IJC 1978) .
The WWTPs also have the localized effect of enriching the
waters near WWTP outfalls. Elevated levels of suspended
solids, phosphorus, ammonia, chlorine, dissolved solids, and
temperature are found within 1000 feet (300 m) of the Jones
Island and South Shore outfalls and within 100 feet (30 m)
of the outfalls of the School Sisters of Notre Dame, the
Chalet-on-the-Lake Restaurant, and WEPCO sewage treatment
plants. Fecal coliforms are occasionally found in high
numbers at even greater distances because their distribution
is not uniform, but rather by scattered clumps. The water
intakes for the Linwood Avenue, Howard Avenue, the Cities
of Oak Creek and South Milwaukee, the Peter Cooper Corporation,
and even the City of Waukegan, Illinois water purification
plants report sporadically high counts of fecal coliforms.
These bacteria may be from sewage, soil, or lake sources.
In general, the waters of Lake Michigan texcept in the Outer
Harbor) consistently meet the stringent criteria set by the
State of Wisconsin.
4-13
-------
4.1.2 Aquatic Biota.
One goal of maintaining high, water quality is to allow the
native plants and animals to exist in area waters. The
aquatic organisms of primary importance to people are edible
fish and nuisance algae. To maintain fish populations, it
is also of vital importance to maintain a diverse community
of the aquatic insects, crustaceans, worms, and zooplankton
that fish eat. Most game fish species require dissolved
oxygen in excess of 5 mg/1, a low suspended solids content,
and an absence of toxic substances. Some fish have more
specialized requirements: a. large, shallow, gravelly river
for spawning; a large, deep, well-oxygenated lake for over-
wintering; or a special diet.
Algae float in water or attach to surfaces in shallow water.
Their growth is stimulated by sunlight, warm temperatures,
and the availablity of nutrients. When the conditions are
condusive, algal blooms or mats occur, creating a nuisance
to boaters and swimmers as well as an eyesore. In addition,
like most organisms, algae consume oxygen, and after they
die they are decomposed by oxygen-demanding microbes. During
the daylight hours, the algae exposed to light carry on photo-
synthesis, generating more oxygen than they consume.
However, at night, photosynthesis does not occur; so algae
consume oxygen without creating any. As a result, oxygen
levels fluctuate, reaching a peak at midday and a low point
in the pre-dawn hours.
In the winter and spring when light conditions are reduced
and there are large quantities of decomposing organic matter
and small quantities of photosynthesizing algae, the oxygen
level of a water body can be considerably lowered. This
phenomenon has been observed in the Outer Harbor, Big Muskego
Lake, the impoundment at the Germantown WWTP, Whitnall Park
Pond, and on slower stretches of the area rivers.
Information on the aquatic flora and fauna that may be
affected by the project are gathered from Becker (1976), DNR
(unpublished manuscript), and MWPAP (1979) .
4.1.2.1 Milwaukee River
The Milwaukee River, at Thiensville, has been reported to
support many game fish species including rock bass, green
sunfish, pumpkinseed, bluegill, smallmouth bass, largemouth
bass, and yellow perch. Rare species, like the shorthead
redhorse, the striped shiner, and the longear sunfish, have
also been found in the river. The fish benefit from the
4-14
-------
river's large size, lovr suspended solids load, gravelly to
sandy bottom, and abundant invertebrate food supply.
Nuisance algae are not commonly found at Thiensville.
Downstream in the combined sewer overflow area, the level of
dissolved oxygen is often too low and the concentration of
suspended solids too high for many of these fish to survive.
In these reaches, goldfish, carp, and suckers are the
dominant fish species. The high turbidity limits light
penetration and algal growth, although there is a large
amount of algae in the lower Milwaukee River.
4.1.2.2 Menomonee River
The Menomonee River at Germantown supports warm-water forage
fish like white sucker, carp, minnows, and catfish. The
impoundment and the slower, downstream reaches of the river
are laden with nuisance algae in the summer and fall.
The portion of the river that receives combined sewer
overflows is, like the Milwaukee River, low in dissolved
oxygen and high in suspended solids and nutrients. Only
non-sport fish live there, and algal growths are high,
limited only by the availability of light.
4.1.2.3 Kinnickinnic River
The water quality of the portion of the Kinnickinnic River
affected by CSOs limits the types of fauna that exist there.
A survey carried out by the DNR (1979) found no fish at all
in the river near 6th Street. Algae are abundant in the
Inner Harbor portion of the river.
4.1.2.4 Root River Watershed
Tess Corners Creek has been reported to have game fish
(bluegill and bass) and forage fish (white sucker). It has a
low load of suspended solids and a high dissolved oxygen
content. The shaded areas over much of its length help to
eliminate extensive growths of nuisance algae, except where
openings in the tree canopy occur. Whitnall Park Pond is
full of algal mats in the summer.
The Root River, at Caddy Vista subdivision, carries pumpkin-
seed, largemouth bass, white and black crappie, yellow perch,
and possibly other species of fish. The river is small, and
the populations are not large. Nuisance algae and marsh
(emergent) plants are present.
4-15
-------
4.1.2.5 Oak Creek
The North Branch of Oak Creek has been surveyed fay the
MWPAP (19791 and no fish were found. Nuisance algae are
common in the channelized portions of the creek.
4.1.2.6 Deer Creek
The fauna of Deer Creek, in the City of New Berlin, have not
been surveyed, but due to the intermittent nature of this
stream, it is reasonable to assume that very few fish at all
live there. The creek is filled with cattails.
4.1.2.7 Big Muskego Lake
Big Muskego Lake has populations of bluegill, bass, crappie,
pumpkinseed, and catfish; it also receives northern pike and
walleye from the stocking program at Little Muskego Lake
(DNR 1971; DNR 1969). Because of its shallowness and the
organic sediments, fish that remain in the main part of Big
Muskego Lake over the winter are subject to low oxygen
concentrations, high ammonia and sulfate levels, and
possibly complete freezing. The fish that overwinter in
Bass Bay (a deep, connected kettle basin to the northwest)
have more chance of survival over the winter, but fish kills
occur in both Bass Bay and Big Muskego Lake.
The lake is fringed with cattail marsh, and there are islands
of cattails throughout the lake. Almost all of the lake is
shallow enough to permit aquatic plants like water lilies to
grow. Algal mats are commonly found near the shores.
4.1.2.8 Lake Michigan
The Outer Harbor, in the vicinity of the Jones Island WWTP,
is heavily silted, enriched in plant nutrients, and laden
with poisonous substances. Many Lake Michigan fish enter
the harbor area, including the brown trout, coho salmon, and
alewife, and fishing from the breakwater is a common pastime.
'Attached algae grow in nuisance proportions on shallow
surfaces in the Outer Harbor as a consequence of elevated
levels of phosphorus and nitrogen in the water (Lin, 1971).
At the South Shore plant, there is no breakwater and mixing
with lake water is thorough. The outfall is 1800 feet (549 m)
from the northeast edge of the plant site and it is part
of the habitat for trout, salmon, whitefish, ciscoes, and
other fish.
4-16
-------
Deposition of organic sediment near the outfall has probably
increased the density of deposit feeders, which in turn may
have increased the local density of the fish that eat deposit
feeders, for instance slimy sculpin. These fish are
eaten by predaceous fish like salmon. At each step in
this food chain, persistent toxic substances like PCBs and
pesticides are concentrated and stored. As a result, Lake
Michigan fish contain levels of these poisons in excess of
the safe limit for human consumption (Veith and Lee 1971,
EPA 1976} .
The bottom of Lake Michigan, just north of the South Shore
WWTP, is similar to the lake bottom just north of the Oak
Creek Power Plant site, a few miles to the south. It probably
carries the same community of bottom-dwelling animals (benthos)
including amphipods, isopods, oligochaetes, chironimid midge
larvae, snails, and mayfly nymphs (WEPCO, 1974) . This
habitat and its occupants are commonly found along the
entire shore of Lake Michigan.
4.1.3 Threatened or Endangered Species
The United States Department of the Interior lists species
of animals and plants that are in danger of extinction, so
that steps can be taken to protect them. The DNR prepares a
similar list of endangered species in Wisconsin. Both lists
include two classifications, threatened species and endangered
species. Endangered species are those that might soon become
extinct. Threatened species are those that might soon be
endangered. Species on the Wisconsin Endangered and Threatened
Species list are those whose existence in Wisconsin is in
jeopardy. Species on the Federal list are in danger in all
or a significant portion of their range (DNR Pub 1-1520 80).
There are three species of endangered animals that could be
affected by the alternatives of this project: the longjaw
cisco (Coregonus alpenae) on the Federal list, the striped
shiner (Notropis chrysocephalus) and the longear sunfish
(Lepomis megalatii")on the State list. The long jaw cisco
is a fish that has been reported to live in the deep waters
of Lake Michigan, but its presence is currently in doubt.
The species may have been eliminated by lake eutrophication,
which results in the depletion of oxygen at deeper levels.
The striped"shiner is a fish species that is endangered in
Wisconsin. It is found in the Milwaukee River upstream of
Lincoln Creek and hardly anywhere else in Wisconsin (Becker
1976). It requires a clean, shallow river for spawning.
4-17
-------
The longear sunfish has been reported in the upper Milwaukee
River as well; it is a threatened species in Wisconsin
although it is more common in Michigan. It also prefers
clean, shallow waters.
Several endangered migratory birds Cthe bald eagle, the
peregrine falcon, the osprey, and the Cooper's hawkl have
been seen flying by Milwaukee on their annual migrations.
They are not known to nest or roost in the study area.
4.1.4 Air Quality
The quality of ambient air is quantified by measuring the
concentration of pollutants it contains. Pollutants cur-
rently measured and controlled are suspended particulates
which consist of dust, smoke, and fumes, sulfur dioxide, a
colorless gas, carbon monoxide, a colorless poisonous gas,
nitrogen dioxide, a reddish brown gas, and ozone, another
toxic gas.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency established
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for these
five criteria pollutants in 1971, see Table 4.3. Primary
standards were determined to protect public health, secon-
dary standards to protect public welfare (the environment).
(Some of the secondary standards are the same as the primary
standards.) The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 placed
emphasis on attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.
Specific locations in the MMSD planning area have been
identified as having air quality below the federal standards
(nonattainment areas). In portions of Milwaukee County,
suspended particulate levels are high primarily due to
agricultural tilling and industrial dust (such as wind blown
dust from stock piles). Other area particulate sources are
fuel burning installations (such as power plants) and
automobiles.
Sulfur dioxide standards are exceeded in portions of the
City of Milwaukee. The primary source of sulfur dioxide is
the burning of fossil fuel. Carbon monoxide, of which the
major sources are automobiles and trucks, is in violation of
standards in some 85 square miles of Milwuakee County.
Ozone standards are exceeded in the entire study area.
Ozone is generated primarily from hydrocarbons and nitrogen
dioxide reacting in sunlight. Common planning area sources
of hydrocarbons are fuel combustion and solvent use.
Nitrogen dioxide standards are not exceeded in the MMSD
planning region. The majority of nitrogen dioxide in the
region is emitted from autos and fuel-burning installations.
4-18
-------
TABLE 4.3
SUMMARY OF NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
ISSUED APRIL 30, 1971, AND REVISED SEPTEMBER 15, 1973
AND FEBRUARY 8, 1979
Pollutant
Particulars Matter (PM)
Sulfur Oxides (SCM
(measured as
sulfur dioxide)
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Hydrocarbons (HC)
(nonmethane measured
as methane)
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO~)
Ozonec (Ox)
Period of
Measurement
or Calculation
Annual
(geometric mean)
24 hour
Annual
(arithmetic mean)
24 hour
3 hour
8 hour
1 hour
3 hour
(6a.m. to 9a.m.)
Annual
(arithmetic mean)
1 hour
Concentration
(weight of pollutant per cubic meter of ambient air
corrected to 25°C and 760 millimeters of mercury)
Primary Standard
75 micrograms
260 micrograms
80 micrograms
(0.03 part per million)
365 micrograms
(0.14 part per million)
10 milligrams
(9 parts per million)
40 milligrams
(35 parts per million)
160 micrograms
(0.24 part per million)
100 micrograms
(0.05 part per million)
235 micrograms
(0.12 part per million)
Secondary Standard
60 micrograms
150 micrograms
1,300 micrograms
(0.5 part per million)
Same as Primary
Same as Primary
Same as Primary
Same as Primary
Same as Primary
Concentration not to be exceeded more than once per year.
Formerly expressed as photochemical oxidants.
Concentration not to be exceeded more than one hour averaged over any consecutive three-year period.
Source: Code of Federal Regulations Title 40, Part 50, 1973.
4-19
-------
The Jones Island WWTP is located in an air quality non-
attainment area for particulate matter, carbon monoxide, and
ozone. Air quality data as measured less than one half mile
CO.8 km), from the plant is shown in Table 4.4.
Air pollutant emissions at the Jones Island WWTP are generated
from turbine generators which produce electricity and from
boilers used to create heat for plant processes. Each year,
the combined emissions from these sources total approximately
8.5 tons (7.7 metric tons] particulate matter, 17.1 tons CIS.5
metric tons) carbon monoxide, 13.7 tons (12.4 metric tons)
sulfur dioxide, 87.7 tons (79.6 metric tons) nitrogen dioxide,
and 6.6 tons (6.0 metric tons) hydrocarbons.
The South Shore WWTP is located in an area which has air
quality attainment for particulate matter, carbon monoxide,
nitrogen dioxide and sulfur oxides. It is in the ozone non-
attainment area. Existing air quality as measured near the
South Shore plant or computer simulated based on available
air quality data, are shown in Table 4.4 and are compared to
the NAAQS.
The sources of air pollutant emissions at the South Shore
plant are the seven digester gas fueled stationary engines.
Prom 1978 to 1979, the emissions from these averaged (per
year) 46.4 tons (42.1 metric tons) of carbon monoxide, 94.9
tons (86.2 metric tons) nitrogen dioxide, 134 tons
(121.6 metric tons) sulfur dioxide and 138 tons (125.3
metric tons) hydrocarbons (Environmental Technology and
Engineering Corp, 1980).
4.1.5 Geology
Wisconsin has a long history of geologic activity attributed
to glaciers. The most recent period of glaciation in
Wisconsin occurred approximately 22,000 years ago. The
geology of the planning area is largely the result of glacial
processes, including the erosion of the original bedrock,
glacial deposition of rock and sediment materials, and post-
glacial erosion and deposition by surface waters and wind.
The product of these processes is a surface layer of glacial
drift, which is any rock material, such as boulders, gravel,
sand, or clay that was transported or deposited by glacial
ice or meltwaters. The glacial drift deposits in this
region vary in thickness from approximately 20 (6m) to 200
(60 m) feet. Underlying the glacial drift are sedimentary
bedrock formations which were formed more than 225 million
years ago, in the Paleozoic era of geological time. These
upper bedrock deposits are generally dense, non-porous
dolomite, but also include limestones, interbedded sandstone,
and shales.
4-20
-------
co
< r4
EH CO
CO H
CO
H id
co
si
ss
< EH O
H ffi
EH tJ CO
H D ffi
H O< EH
PQ D
3 H CO
S
S
CO
H
X
H
H
EH
(d
o
•H
1 CO
J2 -P *->
U on
01 0 id S
c -p -a x
0 0 -H O>
N J3 X 3
o o< o ~-
o
0> -H
•rH 01
x e
0 £
•rH 4J
Q -H
c 3
01 ^>
Cfl rH rO
0 C id tP
•H 5 0) 3
2 2 2 *•"
•o
•H T3
X O
0 -rH
C M
0 0)
S fri
C rH
0 3*"*
xi o e
M ffi ^^
(d O1
U co S
U
•rH
4-1
0) 01
21
X 4^
O -H
•?
H H ro"~"
3 id £
iw 3 C X
rH C Id Cn
3 C 0) 3
co i52 E "•*
0
ro in
CN n
ro CN
o
VO
• 13
r~ 0
^s* in
^
0>
0 H
rH
O
01
ro O
in ro
in
ro
(N
o
o
rH
O
oo
iculate Mi
al Geomet:
m3)
4-1 3 C X
rH c id en
(d 3 oj 3
CM < S *•*
f>*
in
CO
•a
c
C
•rH
C
0
•rH
4-1
id
rH
4J
C
0>
U
C
0
U
01
3
C
0)
rij
T3
rH
Q)
•H
MH
C
01
0>
O
H
0
0
^O
4-1
id
•o
o>
rH
3
to
id
0)
2
•
(U
H
•H
a
^i
rH
rH
0)
M-l
rH
3
ro
in
CN
(N
rH
4J
Id
•O
01
M
3
M
id
01
S
Milwaukee .
JS
3
O
co
01
3
C
01
rtj
A
4-1
in
rH
o
0
H
4-1
id
•O
01
rH
3
en
id
-------
The Paleozoic bedrock together with, the Precambrian rock
beneath it form a dome-like structure to the west of the
City of Milwaukee called the Wisconsin Arch. From the
Arch, the bedrock dips slightly eastward to southeastward
to form a bedrock depression known as the Michigan Basin.
The glacial drift deposits at the surface follow this sloping
contour of bedrock. Beneath the Paleozoic era more than
570 million years ago. The Precambrian rock is both igneous
Cformed by intense heatl and metamorphic Cformed in response
to an environment altered with by pressure, heat and chemical
substances). This bedrock includes granite and quartzite.
It does not outcrop within the planning area.
4.1.6 Topography
The planning area is characterized by rolling to flat topo-
graphy. The moderate slopes of the region are the result of
glacial ice which altered the earth's surface through erosion
and deposition. In the urban areas surrounding and including
the City of Milwaukee, the land generally rises less than
10% from horizontal, which is considered favorable to most
forms of urban development and expansion. Shallow slopes
present fewer engineering and technical difficulties for
construction than slopes steeper than 12%. Areas along Lake
Michigan and further out from the urbanized Milwaukee area
contain slopes ranging to 25%. High-angled slopes increase
runoff and erosion rates during periods of heavy rainfall.
The Kettle Moraine, formed by the geologic processes of
glacial ice, is just west of the planning area. The greatest
elevation there is 1320 feet (402 m) above mean sea level at
Holy Hill in Washington County. The lower elevations occur
near the shores of Lake Michigan and are approximately 580
feet (177 m) above mean sea level. Steep cliffs along the
lakeshore and Milwaukee River vary in height between 60-120
feet (1837 m) and dominate these shorelines except for the
area around Milwaukee Harbor.
4.1.7 Soils
The movement of the glaciers in Wisconsin during the Ice
Ages was also chiefly responsible for the types of soil
found in the planning area. Soils differ by composition,
depth, and drainage ability. The characteristics of the
soils determine their suitability for certain uses; shifting
soils will not support some kinds of construction and poorly
drained soils are unsuitable for on-site septic systems.
(Figure 4.3 shows areas in the planning area that are
unsuitable for septic systems on lots less than one acre.)
4-22
-------
The soils in Milwaukee and Waukesha Counties are underlain
by silty loam and silty clay. These soils range from being
well drained to somewhat poorly drained, and in low areas
drainage and flood protection are needed. Generally, the
soils are poorly suited for on-site septic systems. Most of
the area has soils well suited for farming. However, some
of the soils require costly preparation if used for founda-
tions or roads.
Another major soil type in Milwaukee and Washington Counties
is a silty loam or silty clay loam soil on top of sandy
loam. These soils are well drained, but drainage patterns
are irregular, slightly limiting their use for onsite sewage
disposal. These soils are stable and only slightly limited
for construction.
4.1.8 Groundwater
The area surrounding and including Milwaukee is underlain by
three major aquifers (water zones) found in the following
sequential rock layers: surficial sand and gravel deposits
(0 to 400 feet, 0-122 m, thick) deposited by glaciers,
Niagara dolomite (0 to 500 feet, 0-152 m, thick), and sand-
stone formations (more than 1,500 feet, 457 m, thick) (see
Figure 4.4).
The aquifers in the glacial sand and gravel deposits and the
Niagara dolomite are hydrologically connected within the
study area, and function together as a single, shallow,
unconfined aquifer. (An unconfined aquifer is one in which
the water table forms the upper boundary.) This shallow
aquifer is separated from the deeper sandstone aquifer by a
layer of sedimentary rock known as the Maquoketa shale. The
Maquoketa Shale serves as a barrier and prevents water
from passing easily from one aquifer to the other. The
shallow aquifer is recharged (replenished) locally by
downward percolation of surface water, and normal discharge
is through seeps or springs.
The deep sandstone aquifer is confined between the Maquoketa
shale and deeper crystalline rock, both of which are resistant
to water penetration. Recharge to the sandstone aquifer
occurs primarily by downward percolation at points where the
sandstone formation reaches the surface, west of the City of
Milwaukee. Groundwater movement is eastward, toward
the City of Milwaukee. A limited amount of percolation of
water from the Niagara dolomite through the Maquoketa shale
also occurs. The sandstone aquifer generally discharges
through deep wells for industrial, municipal, commerical,
and domestic uses. In southeastern Wisconsin, records
4-23
-------
between I960 and 1970 show the deep sandstone aquifer pro-
vided 65% and the shallow aquifers provided 35% of
groundwater used. Estimates show that recently- the deep
sandstone aquifer has been accommodating most of the in-
creased groundwater usage that is occurring.
Groundwater in the planning area is considered to be of
generally good quality. However, it is very hard and may
have localized high concentrations of chloride and iron.
All three aquifers have similar concentrations of calcium,
silica, magnesium, and dissolved solids. The deepest
aquifer has the smallest concentrations of chloride,
sodium and potassium while the uppermost aquifer has the
smallest concentration of sulfate.
4.1.9 Floodplains
The floodplain of a river is a relatively wide area contiguous
to and often lying on both sides of its channel. The flood-
plain, which is generally flat or gently sloping, was
gradually formed over a long period of time, as the river
meandered through and slowly eroded its surrounding area.
Normally, a river or stream will overflow its channel about
once every two years.
Because of high water tables, flood hazards and limited soil
capabilities, floodplains are not suitable for urban develop-
ment. They often contain valuable wetland, woodland and
wildlife habitat areas. Also floodplains have important
floodwater conveyance and storage functions, and hence must
be considered an integral part of a stream system. In recog-
nition of the importance and sensitivity of floodplains,
Executive Order 11988 was issued in May, 1977 to encourage
all Federal agencies to avoid construction in floodplains
whenever possible.
Each community in the planning area has delineated the
floodplain which would be covered by water by the worst
flood in 100 years (.the 100 year floodplain) . These are
shown in Figure 4.5. To prevent flood damage, new struc-
tures may only be built on the floodplain if they are
floodproof and if they will not raise the flood level. One
treatment plant, the New Berlin Regal Manors WWTP, is loca-
ted on a floodplain (of Deer Creek, a tributary of the Fox
River) .
4.1.10 Wetlands
Wetlands (marshes, swamps, bogs, or peatlandsl are valuable
natural areas, providing habitat for a variety of plants and
animals as well as flood control, groundwater recharge, and
4-24
-------
surface water cleansing. To protect the nation's wetlands,
Executive Order 11990 was issued in May 1977. This order
encourages Federal agencies to take the leadership in pro-
tecting wetlands. All Federally sponsored or funded programs
shall minimize the destruction of these valuable areas.
The location of wetlands in the planning area is shown in
Figure 4.6. There is one marsh in the area that could be
affected by the MWPAP the marsh surrounding Big Muskego
Lake, adjacent to the Muskego Northwest WWTP. The dominant
vegetation species on this marsh are reeds and cattails.
Deer are abundant on this marsh, especially near the sur-
rounding woods. The marsh plants take up some of the
nutrients that are added to the lake by the treatment plant
and agricultural runoff.
4.1.11 Wildlife Habitat
Wildlife habitat includes the woodlands, wetlands, and
prairie in the planning area that support various forms of
wildlife. This discussion focuses on those habitats that
disappear most rapidly with the invasion of civilization.
Figure 4.6 shows the woodlands, wetlands, and prairie in the
planning area. Most of the habitat is found in the peri-
pheral areas, some very near recent urbanization in New
Berlin, Muskego, Franklin, and Oak Creek. In addition, much
of the shoreline bluff of Lake Michigan, which is too steep
for development, has remained natural, and serves as habitat
for birds and small mammals. The bluff area north of the
South Shore WWTP is such a habitat.
The site of the proposed New Berlin Southeast treatment
plant is an abandoned farm that has old-field vegetation
mixed with young woodlots. Its chief value to wildlife is
its size (5500 acres, 2226 ha, of contiguous land). In
addition, the varied nature of the vegetation and the
potential for the woods to mature over the planning period
contribute to the value of this area for wildlife.
The Muskego Northwest WWTP is located just off the marshes
that fringe Big Muskego Lake. These extensive wetlands
support a large deer population as well as a large number of
small mammals and birds.
The floodplain of Tess Corners Creek in Muskego and Franklin
is wooded for much of its length. It is a valuable roosting
area for birds and travelling corridor for small mammals.
4-25
-------
The site of the proposed Muskego WWTP is an abandoned farm
that adjoins a stand of old oak trees. The stand is only a
few acres, but it has some trees that are in excess of 24
inches, (.61 cml in diameter.
4.2 MANMADE ENVIRONMENT
4.2.1 Land Use
The quality of waters in the planning area is affected by
the type, intensity, and distribution of land uses. Agri-
cultural runoff has different characteristics than runoff
from urban areas. Industrial wastewater may differ from
residential wastewater. Densely populated areas have greater
capacity sewer systems than undeveloped areas. Thus, to
evaluate the impacts of the alternatives considered for
MWPAP, it is necessary to analyze existing and planned land
use.
The Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission
(SEWRPC) is the designated planning agency for the areawide
water quality (208) plan for Southeastern Wisconsin. The
SEWRPC Region comprises seven counties: Kenosha, Milwaukee,
Ozaukee, Racine, Walworth, Washington, and Waukesha. The'
MMSD Planning area lies within the SEWRPC Region, and com-
prises all of Milwaukee County, and adjacent portions of
Waukesha, Washington, and Ozaukee Counties.
The original source for the statistical information on
existing and planned land use, is the SEWRPC Planning Report
No. 25, Volumes 1 and 2. This report is one element of the
SEWRPC Regional Water Quality (208) Plan for Southeastern
Wisconsin.
4.2.1.2 Existing Land Use
Figure 4.7 shows the location of existing land uses in the
planning area. In 1970, 1,170,022 persons resided in this
418 square mile (1083 Km2) area. More than half (54%) of
the land in the planning area is developed: 26% for re-
sidential use and the rest for transportation routes,
industry, commerce or recreation. The remainder of the land
is undeveloped, and the majority (31%) is used for agriculture.
The rest (15%) is water, wetland, woodland, or unused land.
Table 4.5 shows the amount of existing land use by type,
in the MWPAP Planning Area.
4-26
-------
Use
Residential
Transportation/Utilities
Recreation
Government/Institutional
Industrial
Offstreet Parking
Commercial
Total Developed
Agriculture
Water/Wetlands
Unused Lands
Woodlands
Extractive
Total Undeveloped
Planning Area Total
TABLE 4.5
PRESENT AND FUTURE
LAND USE
MMSD PLANNING AREA
1975
Acres
69,741
41,384
12,211
9,180
6/073
4,255
3,685
146,499
82,151
15,008
13,059
10,061
1,254
%
26%
15
5
3
2
1
1
(53%)
31
6
5
4
1
121,533 (47)%
268,032 100%
1985
Acres %
73,
42,
12,
9,
7,
4,
3,
153,
77,
13,
12,
9,
1,
114,
268,
577
775
577
246
128
605
792
700
336
054
690
972
253
305
005
27%
16
5
3
3
2
1
(57%)
28
5
5
4
1
(43%)
2000
Acres
84,211
46,257
12,905
9 ,.538
8,291
5,095
3,940
170,237
65,072
13,056
9,678
8,709
1,253
%
32%
17
5
4
3
2
1
(64%)
23
5
4
3
1
97,768 (36%)
268,005
Source: MMSD System Plan EA Table 4-13A
4-28
-------
4.2.1.3 Land Use Planning
In addition to preparing an inventory of existing land uses,
SEWRPC has developed a recommended land use plan for the
year 2QQO, shown in Figure 4.8. This plan allocates future
land use within each county of the Region based on forecast
population levels. The year 2000 plan advocates altering
the recent trend of urban sprawl, and returning to a cen-
tralized pattern of medium density, contiguous development
in planned neighborhood units.
The design of the year 2000 plan incorporates three general
guidelines:
• New urban development should occur at medium density
in planned neighborhood units in areas readily provided
with essential urban services such as sanitary sewers,
water supply, and mass transit.
• No urban development should take place on land desig-
nated as a primary environmental corridor (wetlands,
woodland, 100 year floodplain, or wildlife habitat),
• New urban development should not be allowed in areas
delineated as prime agricultural land.
The year 2000 plan calls for the maintenance and expansion
(as necessary) of existing urban areas. The plan specifically
discourages scattered (leapfrog) development, and emphasizes
the need for filling in those remaining pockets of undeveloped
land contiguous to existing development. Forecast 1985
and year 2000 land use for the MMSD planning area is shown
in Table 4.5.
Land use planning is also conducted on a local level. In an
effort to implement the year 2000 land use plan, SEWRPC encourages
all communities in the Region to prepare local land use plans.
To date, 16 of the 29 communities in the MMSD planning area
have established such plans. Table 4.6 outlines the planning
practices of communities in the MMSD Planning area.
4.2.1.3.1 Land Use Controls; There are various mechanisms
for implementing land use planning within a municipality.
Some of the major mechanisms include zoning codes, subdivision
regulations, sewer moratoria, and septic tank regulations.
4-27
-------
in
8
en
EH
en
0
O
i4
<
z
H
s
I
&
en
EH
H
fa
a
3
H
CQ
>H
EH
H
(4
<
D
CX
erf
<
en
H
>
H
r.
§
w
EH
£
**«
&
s
provement
e
H
*>
c
•rl
4J
C
ecal Colifo:
fa
c
•H
C
(U
CP
>i
S
TJ
ni
IU
>
rH
O
CO
CO
•rl
Q
q
o
w
•H
rH
s
\-/
rH
id
O
entrations
o
c
o
0
tn
C
o
•rl
4J
id
•P
C
0)
o
c
0
u
o
•
H
"
*
' CO
•
o
•o
0)
(£
O (4
en <
sg
gg
§^
Q 0)
O >
0 O
-P 0)
C OS
(U
O T3
^ id
(I) Q
£4 M
C X
0)
M -P
O Ui
o
CTl
m
«
o
n
U5
cn
o
VO
oo
e
en
o
CO
o
CO
U
PH
to
oc
O
ID
0)
O
M
o
en
3-88
-------
3.13.2.3.2 Dane County Court Stipulation Alternatives;
During the MMSD's original CSO abatement analysis, the MMSD
recommended a 2-year level of protection alternative as the
preferred CSO alternative for meeting the requirements of
the Dane County Court Stipulation. As the analysis was
expanded to include joint clear water and CSO alternatives,
the MMSD further refined its analysis. Based on this
additional analysis, the MMSD recommended the Inline/ Near-
Surface Storage 1/2-year Level of Protection Alternative for
meeting the requirements of the Dane County Stipulation.
This alternative is shown in Figure 3.17.
At this time, neither the DNR nor the EPA has approved this
CSO abatement alternative. The DNR has requested that the
MMSD evaluate additional levels of protection and determine
their costs and overall impacts on water quality. These
additional data will- be used in the selection of a CSO
abatement alternative if the U.S. District Court Order is
overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.
To date the MMSD has generated additional level of protection
data to compare different CSO and clear water storage
volumes with the frequency, amount, and duration of over-
flows from the CSSA. Both the U.S. District Court Order and
the Dane County Court Stipulation require that no dry or wet
weather bypasses occur in the separated sewer area. Based
on the MMSD's I/I study and MIS modeling, it was determined
that 550 acre-feet of storage would be necessary to eliminate
wet weather bypassing in the separated area. This value
assumes a capacity at Jones Island of 300 MGD and a capacity
at South Shore of 250 MGD and removal of 50% of the existing
I/I.
Using this minimum storage requirement and additional
storage sizes, various system-wide levels of protection were
developed by the MMSD. These data are summarized in Table
3.15. These values represent the volume of overflow from
the CSSA that could be expected for different levels of
protection. The analysis assumes that all peak wastewater
flows from the separated area would be captured. The
remaining storage was used for CSOs. After the total storage
capacity of the system is reached, the system would close
and all remaining CSOs would be discharged to the surface
waters.
This MMSD analysis was preliminary. It did not maximize the
treatment capacities of the Jones Island and South Shore
WWTPs, nor did it identify the costs or water quality impacts
of each level of protection. It would be necessary to
develop additional information prior to the selection of a
CSO abatement alternative to meet the Dane County Court
Stipulation.
3-87
-------
c
0
4J
a
-rt
0
01
1 °
z
& w M
• 34 4J
Ci] 41 0*
W Cn rH OM C
O ffl S rH
rt Q a: en c.
E^ Z
3
< c
U .H 41
O c 13
N U
tJ
C
3C
«
rH
10
O 01
6 01
3 D
4H
rH
O
3
idor along Lake Michigan shoreline
ential development by Bayside.
idor is zoned for development
veloped with SEWRPC.
veloped with assistance of SEWRPC.
14 T3 14 11 41
rt -rt 14 "O T3
O 01 O
U 41 U 01 01
H 10 10
rH rH TJ 33
10 14 (3 rH
JJ O -U 01 41 C
c <*H c -«H •o to
£ *O £ J£ O £24
o c o o CP 0)
V4 0 14 14 C C
•H N -r4 fl3 -rt -rt
> > CO
c 01 c x on
U -rt U J2 N U
0) 01 01
O 0 41 0) 41
Z Z X X X
01 01 01 01
01 41 01 4)
X X X X
01 — .
3 C
D -H
0.
18
01
41 -H
3* ^0 iJ
01 O 3 rH «O
X 0 O U T3
S14 14 3 (Q
03 03 03 CJ
idor is not properly zoned.
corr
rH
13
4^J
C
s
§
•rt
C
O
01 01
01 01
X X
01 01
01 41
X X
ii
41
O
<0
•o s
3 rH
CJ Cd
idor along Lake Michigan shoreline
corr
rH
13
4J
C
£
0
•rt
a
§
01
01
X
z
4J
C
•H
O
a
X
£
for residential development by
land, environmental corridors
n lands are zoned for development
rH IB
TJ 10 a
01 H 14
C 33
0 -u 1
N rH C
3 0
01 U C
•r4 • -rt
— c ot
(Q 01
14 13
fc.
01
01 01
V 01
X X
01 01
01 01
X X
CO ^O
rs r*
en en
rH rH
c
3
Q 01
s '
c
01
14
.,
-H
0
&
g
01
X
rH
rH
•O
rH
41
• H
UH
C
41
41
U
01 01
0) 0)
X X
01 01
41 41
X X
m
0 C*
Z rH
01
01 rH
14 10
41 Cu
c
841
C
01 i
41 O
rH C
ftj 11
ows for development on prime
The proposed plan would
rH •
rH T3
10 C
10
OlrH
C
•H rH
C 10
0 14
4J
4J rH
C 3
01 O
01 -H
4} 14
O4 10
01
41
X
0
z
01
41
X
01
01
0)
8
04
c
M
£
0
3
IT
41
ning Commission is the only agency
ea to formally adopt the regional
C h
10 (0
rH
0. Oi
c
• 41 -rt
01 01 C
•H X C
£ 3 10
* 3 a
•P rH
0 -1 01
oi s c.
14 4J
14 01
o £ c
0 EH -rl
01
01
X
01
01
X
01
01
0)
8
Q*
c
M
01
0)
3
HJ
3
rH
£
ed for the northern section
However, it includes more
lei
a
"1
4J U)
C
a-u
o
0 41
• rH rH
C 0) «H
10 > 41
"a o —
o
z
01
01
X
01
01
X
01
01
X
0
41
01
1
C,
s non-urban by SEWRPC are zoned
S "
fcl 41 -U
w u c
13 41
CCS
10 & U4
j: -H o
41 01
01 73 >
Ol 41
(0 01 t3
01 (3
14 41 14
o y o
•i
01
41
X
Ul
11
X
c
rH
14
41
03
3
41
Z
ween SEWRPC and Oak Creek plan.
rotecting the environmental
4J a
5 14
o
i:
oj o
(Q -H
S-l »-f
5 §
41 CU
O 0
M Z
0)
41 0
X Z
01 01
01 01
X X
m
r- 01
rH X
01
•^ rH
01 -rl
01 X
41
•^ >
S-rt
OS
Milwaukee River.
S
4J
CT>
C
0
rH
10
14
O
T3
14
0
a
ronmental corridor is not
• H
>
C
0)
c
"J
5
o
s
01
1
o
z
01
4)
X
f*l
10
rH
01
•H
O
C
4J
CO
*u
0)
-u
0
01
o
a
01 01
0) 01
X X
01 01
11 01
X X
01
01
01
o
o
14
04
C Q
H 13
4)
41
3
O SI
3
41 x:
0 3
en c/i
tal corridors are not
nmen
mviro
v
X.
14
13
S
•H
U
o.
01
41
X
S
01
c
TJ
C 0)
tU C
0
>> N
M
T3 £ >"H
" SH >* ><
ta tn en en
O 0) 0) 0)
> >* X >M
CO
r— en
2 S i>
0)
.
X fO
3 CQ
cn ITJ
S-H S J^
r-t rH Ifl
0 M -H -H
AJ < 2 U-i
fl 0)
3 AJ 4J 4J
3 «1 01 -H
f3 CJ f|i r;
3 3 S3
4-29
-------
Zoning is a power granted to local government by state
legislation. By adopting a zoning code, a municipality can
regulate land use, as well as the type, location, freight,
coverage, and bulk of structures on the land. Zoning is,
perhaps, the most effective mechanism for implementing local
and regional land use planning.
Subdivision regulation is another method that allows local
government to guide land use. Most municipalities enact
this type of legislation which requires that developers
submit subdivision plans for approval by local government
before construction can begin. All of the communities in
the planning area, except West Milwaukee and Whitefish Bay,
have adopted subdivision regulations.
Because of inadequate sewerage facilities, the DNR occasionally
imposes sewer moratoria or allocation systems to suspend or
limit further sewer connections. A moratorium limits the
availability of sewered land. From May, 1976 to 1977, the
DNR imposed a sewer moratorium on the MMSD. Following the
moratorium, the current wasteload allocation system was
developed. This system limits the amount by which each MMSD
community may increase its annual wastewater volume and BOD
and suspended solids concentrations. The 1979 allocations
shown on Table 4.7.
When sewer service is unavailable, the use of on-site sewage
disposal (septic tanks) becomes more attractive. Septic
tank use is regulated by local and State health codes on the
basis of soil quality. Soil surveys and analyses are used
to determine the suitability of an area for on-site sewage
disposal. When sewer service is limited or unavailable,
septic tank limitations can become an effective land use
control. Figure 4.3 shows the areas in the MMSD planning
area that are suitable for septic tank use on lots of less
than one acre.
In addition to land use controls initiated by municipalities,
legislation from State and Federal government has established
goals for the control of land use. Legislation concerning
floodplains, the coast of Lake Michigan, and prime agri-
cultural land are examples of this type of land use control
that apply to the MWPAP.
For further information on land use and land use controls,
see the MMSD System Plan EA Chapter 4.
4-3Q
-------
TABLE 4.7
1979 SEWER ALLOCATIONS
Community
Bayside
Brookfield
Brown Deer
Butler
Cudahy
Elm Grove
Fox Point
Franklin
Glendale
Greendale
Greenfield
Hales Corners
Menomonee Falls
Mequon
Milwaukee
New Berlin
Oak Creek
River Hills
St. Francis
Shorewood
Wauwatosa
West Allis
West Milwaukee
Whitefish Bay
TOTAL 2,276,797 2,244,667 99%
1979
Allocation (GPD)
12,942
40,226
27,318
2,551
50,400
8,692
9,048
45,194
37,170
25,384
100,659
13,230
51,168
72,394
1,275,058
85,215
149,917
4,595
22,762
14,343
75,287
102,644
35,070
15,330
1979
Used (GPD)
861
48,575
37,826
5,745
36,808
6,314
0
562,435
27,682
4,018
50,608
2,296
45,719
68,374
791,354
129,602
173,304
9,184
54
0
53,333
106,235
0
15,330
% Used
7
121
138
225
73
73
0
1,245
74
16
50
17
89
94
62
152
116
200
0
0
71
103
0
100
4-31
-------
4.2.2 Population
Metropolitan Milwaukee, including Milwaukee, Ozaukee,
Washington and Waukesha Counties, is studied as the Milwaukee
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area CSMSAI. The SMSA is
the primary study area for this population analysis. The
entire MMSD Planning Area Cwith the exception of Caddy
Vista) lies within the Milwaukee SMSA.
Table 4.8 shows the population trends of the nation, state,
SMSA, SMSA counties, MMSD Planning Area, and planning area
communities from 1900 to 1978. From 1900 to 1960, the pop-
ulation grew steadily in the Milwaukee SMSA at a rate
approximately 1.5 times that of the nation. During this
period the greatest amount of growth occurred in the City of
Milwaukee and adjacent communities.
This trend began to change from 1960 to 1975, when the
Milwaukee SMSA population grew only 11%, in comparison to
the national rate of 19%. During this time, population
growth shifted outward from the central city. In addition,
from 1960 to 1975, the City of Milwaukee declined in pop-
ulation from 741,324 to 670,663, a drop of 10%. Several of
the older suburbs which had been growing rapidly in the
first half of the century also lost population, especially
West Milwaukee (-25%), Shorewood (-10%) and Whitefish Bay
(-12%). Yet, communities such as Germantown, Greendale,
Greenfield, Menomonee Falls, Mequon, New Berlin, and Oak
Creek underwent rapid growth during this period. By 1975,
the MMSD planning area comprised 81% of the SMSA population
(1,141,211 persons).
The trend of dispersed population growth continued from 1975
to 1978. The population of the SMSA declined by 1%, from
1,416,793 persons to 1,399,289 persons, as migration out of
the SMSA began. Twelve communities in the MWPAP planning
area had declining populations during this period, as a
result of migration to newer SMSA (suburban) communities
and migration out of the SMSA entirely. For a more detailed
discussion of population trends in the Milwaukee area, see
the MMSD System Plan EA Chapter 4.
4.2.2.1 Population Forecasts
There are four major sources for population forecasts for
the Milwaukee SMSA: the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis,
the Wisconsin Department of Administration (DOA), the
Milwaukee Department of City Development (DCD), and SEWRPC.
All of these agencies have made population forecasts for
4-32
-------
CO
at
rH
I
I
s.
O CO
o M r-
O at
* b H
u
«
i-H
§1
rH O,
o in
at -in r-
ctt jj cn
10 rH 1
.c s o
U CUtO
O en
«• a, rH
1
*
§
1975
ton Populat
1970
Populat
§
±i
a
o "s
to a
32
So
4J ff\
o ao
0 cn
* O* rH
CA
Of
§
JJ
«
iH
O 3
S §
rH 0.
10
rH
O 3
§ &
rH Cu
S
O
to
1
in
in
(N
0
Ot
O
e
•rt
a
§
U
to
-H
3.
in r-i co
cn I-H co
at at CM
o at m
cn
PI co co
(MOO
i *>• «»
m ^ V
rH in in
p-
in in m
CM IO tO
o
rH
at at 01
T PI PI
CM CO CO
^ cn cn
in to to
o
rH
•V rH rH
O i-H rH
PI ^* ^t
0
rH
at p» r»
H
at cn cn
in PI n
CO
P* (M CM
TJ- 0 O
O cn ot
rH cn PI
p* pi cn
CO
p* ot at
rH cn PI
o in in
Milwaukee County 330
Ozaukee County 23
Washington County 23
CO rH
O Ot
o co
rH (N
in ot
co at
CM cn
rH
O CO
tO O
10 iH
in O
CO O
rH O
rH
r> »
CM tO
(N »T
rH
co r»
cn co
cn co
I-H cn
cn o
CM T
H
en to
^ in
CM CO
CD a
in r»
i-H CM
H
co cn
PI O
rH rH
T O
CO 0
O
H
rH rH
O rH
at 01
in v
« g
rH
cn co
CM at
CM iH
Waukesha County 35
SMSA 405
X
l
m
o
co
rH
CM
rH
rH
rH
S
o
p"
rH
rH
X
z
1
1
z
1
a
o
g1
-H
10
rH
a,
a
i i
cn rH i-H CM
•» to CM i at CM in
O CM rH O 1 iH O
rH 0 CM rH CO CO rH
cn rH rH CM
i-H CM O T tO in ^T
CO rH CO P- Ot P- Ot
rH rH rH
P*
o
i-H
rH CM
1 1 1 0 1 rH 1
P* cn CM
O P* rH
1 1 1 rH in O
at IN o
f» CO
to n in
tO rH
n cn cn
rH « rH
N rH
1 1
cn n rH
•>• O i-H
to r- o
CO ro to
tO rH
en in CM
TOO
r- n o
rH O n
tO rH
> 1 *»
to
CM in ^
TT 0 rH
cn ON m
in CM vo
at •<* to
CM in «»
rH
in
West Allis
West Milwaukee
Whitefish Bay
4-33
-------
the years 1985 and 2000, shown on Table 4.9. However, all
these projections differ, and estimates of the actual 1979
population indicate that they all may be high.
In conformation with EPA regulations, the MWPAP and EIS
have used the SEWRPC forecasts for their studies. The SEWRPC
population forecasts indicate that the decreasing population
trend of the past decade will end. SEWRPC expects Milwaukee
County, which suffered population declines in the 1970s,
(see Table 4.8) to increase in population throughout the
remainder of this century. By the year 2000, the population
would approximately reach its 1970 level. Waukesha County
would experience the greatest numerical increase, but Ozaukee
and Washington Counties would grow by greater percentages
(109% for Ozaukee County and 124% for Washington County).
4.2.2.2 Households
A household is defined as the people living in one housing
unit. Public services are allocated based on the number of
households in a community. In the Milwaukee SMSA, the
number of households increased from 1960 to 1978, and even
during the time from 1975 to 1978, when population was de-
clining. Table 4.10 presents the number of households and
average persons per household for the planning area.
The increase in the number of households is due to pop-
ulation increases in some communities, but also to a decrease
in average household size (persons per household). In
Milwaukee County, population declined from 1960 to 1978, but
the number of households steadily increased. In the other
three SMSA counties, the decline in average household size
was not very great, however the number of households in-
creased due to population increases. SEWRPC forecast the
numbers and size of households through the year 2000. These
estimates are also presented in Table 4.10.
4.2.3 Economy
To assess the economic climate of the Milwaukee area,
industry has been divided into two groups: exporting and
non-exporting. Exporting or basic industries produce goods
and services which are sold outside of the economic area;
non-exporting or non-basic industries produce and sell goods
and services locally. Basic industries provide the flow of
income into an area which is necessary to create and to
support non-basic industries. Therefore, both income and
employment in the area are dependent on basic (exporting)
industries.
4-34
-------
TABLE 4.9
POPULATION FORECASTS FOR THE MILWAUKEE SMSA
AND FOR THE PLANNING AREA
Milwaukee SMSA
Source 1970
OBERS (U. S. Bureau
of Economic Analysis
1977) l,408,675e
DOA (Wisconsin
Department of
Administration 1975) l,403,688a
SEWRPC (1978) l,403,688a
DCD (Milwaukee
Department of City
Development 1977) l,403,688a
Planning Area
SEWRPC (1978) l,146,725a
1985 2000
1,499,300 1,591,100
1,555,990 1,766,240
1,528,300 1,727,200
1,451,500 1,569,700
1,164,600 1,264,200
estimated
actual; from 1970 census (U. S. Department of Commerce 1971).
The actual 1978 population of the Milwaukee SMSA was 1,399,300.
(DOA 1978)
4-35
-------
01 c
3 O
0 tn
23 u
O
a) s a.
tr •"»
18
u a) o
a N a
5 -a
II
. c -u
-u 3 c
§3 §
0 U
u c
0 13
2 3J .y U>
"] J<: s • 0 0 u
in 1-1 i
CO CO £0
0 -H
£ o a.
vex
C T3 C
s ajr-iiMO
cooJi-'CUOdJ
-^ u r-t n3 — i 0 C
3O3
-t!
r n; - ^
co o o u
4-36
-------
4.2.3.1 Manufacturing
The manufacturing sector has the greatest influence on the
economy of the Milwaukee area. This sector contains the
vast majority of the exporting industries in the area and
the greatest percentage of employment. The next largest is
the service sector, including finance, insurance, and real
estate. In 1970, manufacturing employed 201,339 people (35%
of the total employment that yearl/ and contained all the
major exporting industries in the Milwaukee SMSA. Table
4.11 compares the main industrial sectors (.by employment)
for the Nation, the State, and the Milwaukee SMSA. Table
4.12 lists the major exporting industries of the Milwaukee
SMSA.
Machinery manufacture is the largest manufacturing industry
by employment in the area, and it is an important exporting
industry. A number of other manufacturing industries also
employ great numbers of people in the Milwaukee area:
primary metal, fabricated metal, electrical equipment,
transportation equipment, food and kindred products; print-
ing, publishing, and paper; and chemical and allied products.
Tables 4.11 and 4.12 illustrate the number of people
employed in these areas in the Milwaukee SMSA and compare
these numbers to those for the State of Wisconsin and the
Nation.
In recent years, the rate of employment growth in Milwaukee's
basic industries has fallen below the national rate. From
1960 to 1973, employment in the City of Milwaukee declined.
This decline in the City, as well as the slowed growth in
the SMSA and State, can be attributed primarily to the
employment declines of the manufacturing sector. The
result has been a loss of jobs in the City of Milwaukee
and fewer new jobs in the SMSA and the State. Table 4.13
illustrates the changes in employment in the Nation, State,
and SMSA. In the SMSA, the manufacturing employment growth
rate from 1960 to 1970 was 5.5% while for the State it was
6.0%. These rates are considerably below the national
average of 15.2%, for manufacturing employment during the
same period.
While many employment sectors are experiencing declining
growth rates, manufacturing is continuing to lead the
overall economic trend of declining employment growth. This
does not mean that growth in the entire manufacturing
sector is declining. There are a few manufacturing sub-
sectors with increasing growth rates, such as fabricated
metal and chemical and allied products. However, the declines
of the electrical equipment, transportation equipment, food
4-37
-------
en
W
H
0
O <
w en
EH S
ft, en
U
CQ W
D a
en EH
F H /^
^y u
2+r*
£+
H <
tH OH
— i £3 ^
.En 3
.. IP \ »j
id! en
H fa IS
JOO
CQlZ U
2
EH O
53 H
PQ EH
^ J2
o
1
rH
Cu
s
pa
en
s
en
c
•H
CO
c
o
o
w
•H
g
0
•H
-P
-P SH rd
en Cu fa
00 04
rH 00
r~ p^
». w
n ro
00 rH
A
04 en
t-> 04
rH m
^ »*
VO rH
r- 04
A
^ O4 rH
oo oj in
rH in "d*
en o o
o in ^3*
rH
n co oo
VO 04 rH
CO O4 O4
oo in in
01 r^ en
00 i-H Ct\
en en r»
rH rH rH
cn r^ en
r^ vo vo
^j« TJI m
rH H rH
^ 4J
O G
•H CU
M g
-p 4J a
O C-H
d) i (0 -P
H O >H
» ^i
rH H
Tl" O 1
CO 04 1
00 -4< 1
^ % |
rH en i
rH rH
04 vo n
in in 01
CO 00 rH
*» o
04 in
00 VO CO
ao vo in
00 CO TJ<
l^i» rt*i
1^ IM
04 VO
VO CO CO
OO 00 00
oo r^
rH
^f O "^
*jj* en en
r^ r-
rH
CO
•P
O
CQ T)
'd O
O M
O d,
C3
CU CU
x» -a
nj c!
H -H
3 W
Q O
O T3 C T3
3 eu -.
,— |
rH
rH
en
00
^
^i
rH
vo oi en
in o H
in in oo
rH in 01
rH 04
•V O4 VO
CO CO VO
o r- o
fY\ tf\ ^J
VO U ) r**1
O4
Cn rH
^T rH 1
0 H 1
•H rH
OO ^ 1
04 in I
oo a\ I
^i
j_i
^j
CO
en 3
cu -O
rH C
XI H
M TJ
3 cu
Q-H
01 1 H-4
-P C-H
000
3 23 CU
trj Qj
o M en
M CU
Cu .C C
4J 0
o s
en
CO
CO
»
rH
O
04
r-
vo
00
^
0
a\
rH
in
in
vo
O4
rH
in
vo
en
r^
r»T
00
^"
0
0
o
en
CO
an
rH
0
O
0
0
en
r-
••
vo
rH
tJ>
C
S_(
rj
4J
O
MH
^3
C
ret
5j
rH
1C
-p
o
EH
VO
eu en
A rH
4J
*»
M_| tj
0-H
10
CO i-H
O CQ
•H
to
•H -P
rl -P
CU CU
it t I
-P M
O M
nj
eu
-P
(0
o
ll
A
4-38
-------
TABLE • 4 .12
KEY EXPORT (BASIC)INDUSTRIES
. . MILWAUKEE SMSA
Percentage of Total
Sector Manufacturing Employment
Food and Kindred Products 9.3
Printing and Publishing 6.6
Leather and Leather Products 3.7
Primary Metals 6.4
Fabricated Metals 14.3
Machinery except Electrical 26.4
Electric Distribution and
Electronics Equipment 17.3
TOTAL 84.9%
4-39
-------
and kindred products and other manufacturing subsectors more
than offset the gains made by metals and chemicals. The
decline in employment in the area implies that the economic
environment has become unfavorable for some manufacturing
subsectors, and some industries are moving out of the area.
4.2.3.2 Other Sectors
The manufacturing sector is not the only sector with declin-
ing employment growth rates. The SMSA growth rates for the
wholesale and retail trade, the government, and the con-
struction sectors are also below the averages of their
national counterparts. Only the service sectors (finance,
insurance, real estate) have an employment growth rate
higher than the national average. Table 4.13 also compares
growth rates for these sectors.
4.2.3.3 Locational Trends
The locational trends of industry and employment in the
Milwaukee area have been much the same as the trends in
housing. Industries have been moving out of the City to
suburban and rural locations. A report prepared for the
Office of State Planning and Energy in June, 1977 shows that
there have been numerous plant relocations in the SMSA. In
the period from 1964 to 1974, 1,041 firms left the City of
Milwaukee and relocated in suburban Milwaukee, Racine, and
Kenosha. Fifty-three firms moved from the City of Milwaukee
to areas outside the SMSA, yet still in the State of Wisconsin
(firms that left the State entirely were not considered in
the study). Of the relocating firms, 19% were service
sector firms, 17% were wholesale and retail trade firms, and
17% were manufacturing firms. Manufacturing firms, however,
comprised approximately 50% of the relocating employment.
Based upon employment, the majority of the relocating firms
were small. Approximately 57% of the firms had 10 or fewer
employees, and 92% had 50 employees or fewer. There was
only one relocating firm that employed more than 1,000
people.
These locational trends have caused significant commercial
and industrial growth in Waukesha County and suburban
Milwaukee County, much of which is evident in large shopping
centers and industrial parks. There are several reasons for
movement of industry: outdated plants and buildings, lack
of necessary space at locations in the City, pick-up,
delivery and parking problems, high land costs (property
taxes), and the desire to follow the movement of residential
development (particularly in the case of service industries).
4-40
-------
4J
C <0
co tji
u c
t, (ft
0> JS
ft U
0) W
Oi S
Cm
UJ
g-S
C (U
0) Oi
u c
CO £
ft U
t/>
H
S
o c c
O -H -H
H to
EH CO C
rfl O1 O
C) c* M
^"^ ^ *•» w
<• (g to
as us
• Q td" H
•V i-5 EH 4->
ft ^ 1 C i SH
0 3
H +J
g)H
Ig
•rl
H M
£
*
^^
i
en
o
CN
C?
CN
rH
*— '
X
O
o
o
o->
CO
cr>
•rl
c
vo m
in in
rH
in CN
ro ^J1
ro O
rH
r~ o
rH VO
H
m in
ro co
CO 00
CN
CN CN
r~ m
H rH
0 O
0 0
0 0
vO ro
cn in
«a< m
CN
Oi
c c
0 -H
•rl M
±> s
0 -P
3 U
SH id
•P MH
to 3
C G
O
O
rH
H
CN
ro
CM
rH
ro
CN
CN
H
O
0
O
cn
CO
CO
0)
•H
<-3 -P
•H
• rH
g *H
0 D
O
- -H
• H
to A
(fl ft
£j
en
rH
O
ro
vo
CN
in
CN
CM
O
ro
O
O
0
ro
CN
in
ro
CO
•d
(d
EH
id
to
co
i-H
o
s
CO
ro
rH
CN
ro
CN
0
ro
CN
in
CN
rH
0
in
ib
co
" u
c
id
s-i
3
co tn
•a c
id H
<0
M ^
a) o
w o
•a
rl C
1»H O
•H
no 4J
co (fl
ftrH
O 3
rH ft
0) O
CO *
•O CO
Jj ^
(d MH
Q 0
co
o
3
o
03
4-41
-------
Nationally, the locational shifts of industry have been to
the South. This is especially true in the manufacturing
sector. The Midwest and the Northeast have been experiencing
declines in manufacturing employment while the South is
enjoying growth in those sectors. From 1965 to 1975 manu-
facturing employment declined 6.8% in the North and Midwest,
but it increased 44.2% in the South. There are several
possible reasons for this shift of manufacturing firms to
the South: proximity to new markets, better labor markets,
available land, lower land costs, reduced energy costs, and
preferential tax structures. These national and local
trends could contribute to the slow growth of manufacturing
in the Milwaukee area.
4.2.3.4 Employment
Even with the recent trend of declining employment growth in
the Milwaukee area, the unemployment rates have been con-
sistently below those of the State and the Nation. In 1950,
the seven county SEWRPC region had an unemployment rate of
3.4%, considerably lower than the 3.8 % level of the State
and the 5.3%, level of the Nation. By 1972 the regional
unemployment rate had risen to 4.7%, yet it was still below
the 5.0% levels of the State and the 5.6% level of the
Nation.
The Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce has
compiled data on unemployment in the Milwaukee SMSA from
1968 to 1978 (presented in Table 4.14). As is shown in
that table/ the trend of low unemployment has continued.
The Milwaukee area has been experiencing lower levels of
unemployment than the national average, although these
levels parallel the pattern of the national rate. Like the
nation, the SMSA reached its highest level of unemployment
in 1975, when SMSA unemployment reached 8%. By 1977 it had
declined to 4.3%.
4.2.3.5 Income
The recent shifts in industry and employment have resulted
in long-term losses of potential income for the Milwaukee
area, mainly due to the declines in employment in the manu-
facturing sector. This loss in the manufacturing sector
contributes to the overall income loss in two ways: the
first is a decrease of business receipts to the area from
the exporting industries, and the second is a loss of
spendable personal income due to declining employment. The
rise in employment in the service sector has not been able
to offset the decline of the manufacturing sector. Service
industries provide little, if any, inflow of income to the
4-42
-------
Year
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
SABLE 4.14
SMSA EMPLOYMENT
Employment
601,000
613,000
613,000
607,000
602,000
635,000
624,000
616,000
637,000
646,000
680,000
Unemployment
Rate
2.7%
2.7%
2.7%
5.0%
4.4%
3.8%
4.1%
8.0%
6.3%
4.3%
4.3%
Source: MMAC
4-43
-------
economy since they rarely produce exportable services. In
addition, the personal incomes of service employees are
generally lower than those of manufacturing employees.
From 197Q to 1976, the manufacturing sector in the City of
Milwaukee lost 24,000 jobs and therefore $69 million in
potential wages. The service sector gained more than
35,000 jobs, but added only $49 million in wages and income.
Table 4.15 lists the-1978 average household income (.before
taxes) by community for the planning area. These household
incomes are derived by multiplying the 1978 per capita
incomes (as published by the Wisconsin Department of Revenue)
by the persons per household figure for each community
IMWPAP, EA, 1980) .
4.2.3.6 Affected Industries and Firms
The MWPAP may affect industries by increasing property tax
rates for capital expenditures and by raising user charges
for operation and maintenance costs. The 20 firms with the
highest equalized assessed property value (which determines
property tax rates) and the 20 firms with the highest user
charges in Milwaukee County were chosen as those most likely
to be affected by the MWPAP. The list includes 31 firms
since some of the firms were in both categories.
The 31 firms were grouped into three categories for com-
parison: heavy manufacturing (16 firms), malt beverage and
dairy products (5 firms), and food processing, paperboard
products, chemical, and leather tanning (10 firms). Table
4.16 identifies the companies on this list. The 16 heavy
manufacturing firms generally have high taxable property
values and low wastewater discharge. The other firms have
average to low taxable property values with high wastewater
discharge (see Table 4.17).
The income generated for the local economy by the 31 selected
firms is shown in Table 4.18. The value added (final price
less cost of materials) by the firms is shown both in dol-
lars and as a percent of the value added.
Employment in the 31 firms represents a large percentage of
total Milwaukee County employment in their respective
industries. Table 4.19 shows 1977 Milwaukee County employ-
ment for the represented industries as well as the percent-
age of employment provided by the selected firms. Total
Milwaukee County employment in these industries was 96,345
persons, 65,470 of which were employed by the 31 selected
firms. Total Milwaukee County employment in 1977 was 421,280.
4-44
-------
TABLE 4.15
1978 AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD INCOMES BY COMMUNITY*
1. River Hills $89,000
2. Fox Point 52,000
3. Elm Grove 51,500
4. Bayside 51,500
5. Brookfield 37,000
6. Mequon 36,500
7. Whitefish Bay 33,500
8. Hales Corners 29,500
9. Thiensville ' 28,500
10. Glendale 28,000
11. New Berlin 26,500
12. Greenfield 26,000
13. Greendale 26,000
14. Menomonee Falls 26,000
15. Butler 25,000
16. Germantown 25,000
17. Muskego 24,500
18. Wauwatosa 24,500
19. Franklin 23,500
20. Oak Creek 23,000
21. Brown Deer 22,500
22. South Milwaukee 21,000
23. Shorewood 20,500
24. Caddy Vista 20,500 * Estimated
25. Cudahy 19,000
26. St. Francis 18,000
27. West Allis 17,500
28. Milwaukee 16,000
29. West Milwaukee 12,000
30. Planning Area Weighted Average 20,500
Bureau of the Census 1978 Milwaukee SMSA Estimate = 21,896
*Incomes rounded to nearest $500
Source: 1978 Wisconsin Department of Revenue Per Capita
Income by Community multiplied times the Average
Household Size by Community
4-45
-------
TABLE 4.16
FIRMS MOST LIKELY TO BE AFFECTED BY THE MWPAP
Heavy Manufacturing
Paints & Allied Products
1. P. P. G. Industries
Primary Metals
2. Babcock S Wilcox
Fabricated Metals
3. Ladish
Brewing and Dairy Products
Malt Beverages
17. Miller Brewing
18. Pabst Brewing
19. Schlitz Brewing
20. Froedtert Malt
Dairy Products
21. Borden
Machinery Except Electrical
4. Allis Chalmers
5. Briggs s Stratton
6. Rexnord
7. Harnischfeger
8. Cross S Trecker
9. Falk
Electric s Electronic Equipment
10. Allen-Bradley
lie General Motors
12 o General Electric
13. Cutler-Hammer
Transportation Equipment
14. American Motors
15. A. O. Smith
16. Harley-Davidson
Other Manufacturing
Food Processing Excluding Beverages
and Dairy Products
22. Universal Foods
23. Krause Milling
24. Patrick Cudahy
25. S. E. Wisconsin Products
Paperboard Products
26. Wisconsin Paperboard
Miscellaneous Chemicals
27. Peter Cooper
Leather Tanning
28. Pfister-Vogel Tanning
29. Cudahy Tanning
30. Flagg Tanning
31. Gebhardt-Vogel Tanning
Source: MMSD, 1980
One of the six wet industries.
4-46
-------
,_!
^*
H
§
EH
en
w
o
ti
as tn
og
& o
W 03
tn o
D
»j]
Q i^3
§ 5^
E-iS
tn tno
H DO
X QrH
< 35
^| (jjj
E^ Cd
C^ S
W ffi
Pn EH
Q
K OH
cu o
fa
w
o
l£
g
12
H
C
in
4-1
en
8
eu
id
CO
eu
en
en
r-
en
.-,-1
0
•H
6P
O
o
^)
0
M-l
*
4-1
in
3
•n
3
4J
a
X
H
^
id
EH
<
CO
c
•H
. i
rH
O
EH
•P
CO
ft
0 X
M
O
in
Cn
c
•H
4J
tn
•rl
x
&3
Q
£-(
4-)
p.
0 X
te id
0
•H
4-1
ft
e
CO
X
P3
Oj EH
CU
en
M £«4
to xi
D CJ
o
m o o
<* o en
og m oo
O rH in
rH n ro
to-
o o en
§
rH n ro
O n
O
m
•co-
in O H
10 oo (N
H ro r-
r~- o \ri
VJ-
ro
ousands
0
•H
4J
ft
•rl
rl
U
to
S
£
e
•H
to
4J
m
8
ce Levels
•H
»H
04
O
00
en
H
4-1
id
<
ft
3
0
S
m
ft
3
0
SH
O
CJ
ft
3
0
SH
O
*> dP *
O O O
O O O
*
O
o
en
10
ro
•sr
c*> *
O ^<
*
m o rH o
VO CO (N vO
r^ o m ro
ro n r~
H CN oo
ro co m
(N m en
O O O
o o o
rH rH rH
O
O
H
o
in
•CO-
df
00
M-
* <*> 6*>
in en cn
*>
CN
Id EH
4J tn I*H
in id 0
U in co
4J t" < CQ CJ
co e id
Cn 0) 4-> ft ft ft
id C C 3 3 3
M o CO 0 O 0
CO ft O
0
m
?
en
H
c
H
iH r
rj
4-1
4J
Id
XI
S
tn
S
tn
j t
C
CO
0]
3
•n
id
cu
g
v|
rH
£
3
O
0
o
•H
in
-P
•H
0)
w
CO
XI
4-1
IfH
0
0
•H
4J
ft
X
eu
3
••
4-1
ft
g
CD
X
tn
4-1
•H
<
CO
c
•H
CU
XI
4-1
0
>1
^4
CO
e
•H
XI
0
^
id
cu
»
i
<;
tn
4->
0
3
•8
V-i
O<
^i
M
•H
g
-O
G
id
in
CO
•H
SH
CO
CO
SH
n
I
m
en
•H
>H
3
U
id
IW
3
C
1
S
X!
4-1
O
1
CJ
4-47
-------
TABLE 4.18
-VALUE ADDED FOR SELECTED.INDUSTRIES
( 'x $1000)
Description
Meat Products
Dairy Products
Grain Mill Products
Malt Beverages
Misc. Food Prod.
Paperboard Prod.
Paints & Allied
Misc. Chemicals
Leather Tanning
Foundries
Metal Forgings
Engines & Turbines
Farm Equipment
Construction Mach.
Metal Working Mach.
Industrial Mach.
Electric & Electronic
Transportation Equip.
Total
All Manufacturers
Value
Added
$78,000
61,300
17,600
398,000
26,900
66,500
28,100
35,100
70,400
182,000
232,100
453,800
193,600
500,000
152,300
286,200
735,100
397,300
$3,914,300
$5,855,700
Selected
Industries
Estimated
Value Added1
$36,660
43,520
10,560
390,040
7,800
*
20,230
7,720
26,750
36,400
164,790
331,270
19,3,600
225,000
62,440
226,100
433,710
353,600
$2,570,190
*Ratio of selected industrial employment to total
industry employment is too low to estimate value
added.
Value added is the final price of a product less
the cost of materials
Value added for selected industrials estimated by
the ratio of a firm's employment to total
employment in its Standard Industrial Code (SIC)
category and applying this ratio to total value
added in the same SIC category.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of the
Census. "1976 Annual Survey of Manufactuers"
4-48
-------
TABLE 4.19'
EMPLOYMENT IN SELECTED INDUSTRIES
AS A PERCENT OF INDUSTRY EMPLOYMENT
IN MILWAUKEE COUNTY
Selected Industrials
Meat Products
Dairy Products
Grain Mill Products
Malt Beverages
Misc. Food Prod.
Paperboard Prod.
Paints & Allied
Misc. Chemicals-
Leather Tanning
Foundries
Metal Forgings
Engines & Turbines
Farm Equipment
Construction Mach.
Metal Working Mach.
Industrial Mach.
Electric & Electronic
Transportation Equip.
1977
Employment
2,110
420
375
8,080
615
2,575
625
1,030
2,680
4,954
5,895
12,155
up to 2,500
10,475
3,930
6,535
20,195
11,935
96,345
1977-78
Employment
1,000
300
225
7,935
180
70
450
230
1,015
1,000
4,200
8,905
5,895
4,685
1,610
5,160
11,955
10,655
% Of
Industrial
47%
71
60
98
29
3
72
22
f
38
20
71
73
*
45
41
79
59
89
65,470
Note: Manufacturing employment in 1977 in Milwaukee County was
154,000; total employment was 421,280. Employment in the
selected industrials represents about 42% of manufacturing
employment and 16% of total county employment.
* Reason for discrepancy between SIC total and reported
employment for selected industrial cannot be determined.
Assume 100% for purposes of analysis.
Sources: U. S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census.
"County Business Patterns, 1977, Wisconsin" Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources. NRlOl Summary Data
File. 1978. on industrial discharges. MMSD User
Charge files. 1979. MWPAP, 1980,
4-49
-------
Since Line A property items (.including manufacturers' materials
and finished products, merchants' inventory, and livestock,
etc.} are being exempted from property taxation Cand will
be fully exempt by 19811 the taxable property of the 31
firms has declined. In 1979, their taxable property, with a
50% Line A exemption, was approximately $1.016 billion. The
taxable property of the same 31 firms will decline to $615
million (.1975 dollarsl by 1981, assuming that there are no
changes in property.
The sewerage costs for the 31 selected firms are shown in
Table 4.17. There are six wet industries among the 31 and
these have the greatest flows and wasteloads. They also
have the highest user charges, totaling approximately
$5,093 million. The total user charge for the remaining
firms is $2.232 million.
4.2.4 Municipal Revenues and Expenditures
The Milwaukee area has long had a reputation of being a
heavily taxed metropolitan area. Table 4.20 compares
estimates of the state and local taxes paid by a family of
four in Milwaukee and seven other large midwestern cities.
At all income levels the percentage of income devoted to
state and local taxes is much higher in Milwaukee than in
the other cities. It is also much higher than the average
for 30 of the nations largest cities.
At an income level of $22,500, a family of four in Milwaukee
will be taxed 13.2% of their income by state and local
government. In comparison the 30 city average is 9%. At
the other end of the spectrum in Nashville, Tennessee, the
same family of four will be taxed only 4.2% of their income
by state and local government. At a $22,500 income level,
only New York, Philadelphia, and Boston do residents pay a
higher proportion in taxes than Milwaukee residents.
Although the City of Milwaukee has the highest taxes in the
area, the gap between city and suburban tax levels is nar-
rowing due to the rise in suburban tax rates.
Table 4.21 shows 1980 budgets and revenue sources for the
MMSD planning area communities. Table 4.22 shows the
property values and property tax rates for each community.
Average home values have been determined for each community
in order to estimate future household capital charges for
sewer improvements. The property tax is assumed to finance
debt service or directly pay for capital improvements to the
sewerage system.
4-50
-------
in CN m O
^r n co en
o
r*
>* r*
KH cn
fc -
U < 03
J E-
m
OrH^'f»CO
O-ux-r* mr-'vmcno^'^pvD
V> E-i £i CU inCNfNCnfNCNrHcnm
V>
$ C 0>
00 o eorHfiQQ^inenocNi
o SH o
M CU 0 r-t rH
O
o
OrH CNCNCN^^fNCO^O
OJJX--H iHrHCOvDfN^rHvOr*-
O> EH £H fl* TpO4rHCNr«li-4rHCNCN
4J
JJ — ^J
OU Q tNOr-COCNXCNCrvO
UinO
c cj'wc ror^ocor^in^'cocn
M CU 0 H rH
o
o
m^H inrnO^copi£^E-»CU CNrHiHrHi-HrH rH(N
4J
C
1)
o o inoo^rH^oencno
O iH O
' 0 M
o
o
o
•U X -H
0 fl fl
ti E- 0.
ff> CO i/l 01 rn ci d
CO O 03 T O ff^ t^
rH CN 01 r»
0 113 ftj
e> f o.
c
u .-i
•rt nj
C 13
0 C
U 10
iH 41
•H 4J
£ <0
0 •
a* >»
Ol (U d)
"5 H >«
3 at a
4 -U
V ID
•* O K
s >
(Q -H 'O
UJ -H C
ft
01 TT
tT C -
id a o
!-. 4J
D U 3
> g IB
C i>
0 i §
"8 ° S
01 tn -H
as .
a?
a n u
o>
01
u
Q
C
- 0
U] JJ
3 g"
C -H
m j:
0 w
(Q
3 -H
01 U
01 .*
Ij T3
Tl
C
o
a,
nj
c
O C
O M
•a i
HI
4-51
-------
1980
TABLE 4.21
BUDGETS AND BUDGET SOURCES
Communities
Milwaukee
Bay side
Brookfield
Brown Deer
Butler
Cudahy
Elm Grove
Fox Point
Germantown
Glendale
Greendale
Greenfield
Hales Corners
Henomonee Falls
Mequon
Muskego
New Berlin
3ak Creek
River Hills
St. Francis
shorewoof1
3. Milwaukee
fhiensville
Wauwatosa
West Allis
W. Milwaukee
whitefish Bay
Adjusted
1980
Budgets
5320,561,722
1,137,875
8,943,760
3,535,720
724,586
5,743,792
1,792,654
2,474,122
3,179,117
5,017,180
3,768,361
7,921,429
1,638,927
8,398,607
4,613,839
2,969,311
6,293,433
6,893,601
1,120,339
2,999,226
4,570,352
6,252,915
840. 2SO
18,496,172
25,431,924
2,606,265
3,793,289
% Change
Over 1979
11.6%
6.0
8.3
11.1
9.7
6.6
10.6
10.5
12.6
9.6
7.9
13.0
9.6
16.3
7.6
10.0
17.1
10.7
14.1
7.5
5.0
9.5
JO.O
7.6
9.1
1.0
2.4
% of Budgets Financed by
Net
Property
Taxes (i)
19%
50
42
30
36
28
45
46
NA
47
35
28
34
37
35
25
31
26
60
32
40
27
39
40
35
20
40
State
Tax
Credits (2)
6%
7
6
6
13
11
6
6
NA
15
7
5
6
7
6
3
7
12
11
7
7
3
6
11
9
19
6
Other
State
Sources (3)
34%
28
30
35
28*
40
28
21
NA
23
36
31
37
32
29
40
40
41
14
43
22
39
30
22
30
38
26
Federal
Sources
20%
2
3
3
4
5
4
2
NA
3
3
2
2
5
2
3
3
4
1
7
4
4
2
5
4
5
2
Other
Local
Revenues (4)
21%
13
19
26
19
16
19
25
NA
12
19
34
21
19
28
19
19
17
14
11
27
22
23
22
21
18
26
Municipal
Expenditures
Total 1979
Per Person
Cost*
$459
230
232
223
314
255
202
223
291
334
194
232
173
220
258
177
161
388
618
272
307
252
190
316
349
733
234
(1) Net property taxes are after subtraction of estimated state tax credits on general and personal property.
(2) Estimated state tax credits on general and personal property applied to municipal taxes.
(3) "Other State Sources" include state aids, shared revenues, state reimbursement for exempt manufacturers'
machinery and equipment, and personal property tax relief transfer payments.
(4) Other local revenues include: special assessments, fees and fines, licenses, interest in investments,
accumulated surplus, etc.
Source: Citizen's Governmental Research Bureau.
4-52
-------
-------
dHOHC 1V1N3WNOHIAN3
33
V3WV 30IAH3S M3M3S Q3NI8WOO
'n w "»n°s
vaav
30IAH3S «3M3S Q3NIBW03
jf&a
QN393T
-------
INVId H3MOd N33H3 XVO
'03 U3MOd Dlal03T3 NISN03SIM 81
VIS IA
3MOHS HinOS 91 K9in>niuri
aaxrWMIIH MinOS 31 J?i11SA°o5
3ai»3HlNI-3AIMa 001 AVMHOIH l-l ' ,».c«
'03 ONIH30N3H OOSXSnH El
avoa NIIUVH 'is zi
1SV3H1UON ossxsnn n
093XSnH 01
3U1V3H1 NI-3AIUQ VZ AVMHSIH 6
SaONVH 1V03U NHH3a M3N 8
IVlldSOH 1VIUOW3IN NI1H38 M3N L
100HDS 3QVM9 S1HSI3H QNVT3A310 9
ONV1SI S3NOP S
3)IVT-3Hl-NO-i3n»H3
3HVQ 3H10N JO SW31SIS 100H3S
NM01NVMU39 Z
31TIASN3IH1 I
39 01 dlMM 3iV/MMd
Q3NIVi3a 38 OX dlMM
V3UV 33IAU3S
U3M3S OOOZ 03SOdOHd ----
0661 AS NOI131dH03 a3SOdO«d
W3M3S M3N
3NI1
AavaNnoa vaav Aarus
-------
V3HV 9NINNV~ld 3H1 Nl
S3I1I1IOVJ 1N3W1V3H1 H31VM31SVM
•03 J9MOJ ON109I3
DJ
8JOMS
3J4D9M1U) -9A.ua 001 ^DMqBjH £1
pooy SU;
IS8MMPON
•03 6u
r
T juNno'a aaxnVzo ^
\
PUD|S| S9UOp Q
9U1DQ 9J|ON JO 8J9>S|S |OOq3$ £
UMO(UDUIJ»0
9||!A8U8!MX I
-------
STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
COUNTY LINE
CORPORATE BOUNDARIES
WATER RIVERS, CREEKS, ETC
— © -- MAJOR HIGHWAYS
SOUTH MILWAUKEE SERVICE AREA
r~"~""T AREA WHICH CAN BE SERVED BY
I 1 EITHER SOUTH SHORE OR JONES ISLAND
OZA.UKEE~.COUHJJfl \-
MMSP T-ervJce Ares & PJ arming
EcolSciences
ENVIflONM€NTAL GfiOUf
-------
H3M3S HOid30y31NI
NOISM3AIQ NMOlSSOaO 01
i33Mis ms Hinos 6
H3NVM8 U3AIM Dl NNIXOINNI >l 8
HONtfaa 133M1S INVdS 1S3M
ON? 133M1S tt|8 HinOS
HONVbB 133H1S «3H33a 1S3M
QNV iaawis Mtt-a HIDOS 9
H3NVMB X33«3 A3NOH 5
-«3AI« 33NOHON3H t-
NOIS«3Aia 3J33X
-W3Ald 33NOHON3H £
HDN»«8 30N3AV NOldnVH
S1N3H93S
NHOONH W3mOT « M3ddfl
Hll« HONVMfl M3MH 33)inv»niH I
38 01 J.N3N93S SIN
-------
SV3HV 30IAM3S 1VNOI93yanS
s.dlMM 3!
s.diMM ai
Ajopunog
Xjopunog |ouoi6ajqns
-------
(8) SV38V 30IAy3S "WOOl
-------
V3UV 301AU3S IAI31SAS 39Vy3M3S
> I V1 rTTA \ >i
K"\ WS^i—>
r «- , ^....
w^ u-\.%>
\ ? n >•!
aNVlSIS3NOCMO 3MOHS H1009 U3H1I3
AaQ3AH3S39NVDHOIHMV3a« L— J
vsav 30IAS3S 33>inv«nii>i Hinos
V3MV 33IAM3S 3UOHS HJ-OOS
T3HT 30IAii3S aNVlSI S3NOC
-------
SV38V 30IAM3S -IVNOI938
-------
dflOHO 1¥1N3WNOWIAN3
1AI1VN8311V 3QVy01S 3NI1NI
NOIl»MVd3S
H3«3S HVIibVd
39VMOO.S NH3AVO d33a
NOIlVMVd3S
H3M3S HVIIHW
NOI1VH\M3S
3131dWOO
39VM01S NH3AVO d330
HONVMS 'IS UI9 HinOS •••••
NIWW 30HOJ IHIIHIIIHIIIflllU
13NNOJ. VIQ ,,Ot.Z •••••
X33HO MO «3Aia'3XVT . _____ .
AVMH9IH MO 133aiS -
a N3 9 3 1
00 fr
-------
3AI1VNU31"1V IVOCTI 3H1 JO
AiniOVd ONV V3UV 30IAH3S
u-j itnva '-mnmmiuiiniM^fti.iyriimmi.iiiiiijLimi
U409I3 uisuoos.w^S• ~5f5 ^',T7^
\ '-*".*•"" " .;•"•• / ;
ONI38 ;niN3S3Ud 30NVA.3ANOD
39 01 30NVA3ANOO M3N
38 01 SN01J.V1S dWnd
SlNVId 1N3W1V3M1 SlVAIMd
SiNVnd 1N3W1V3M1 DIT9nd
V3MV 30IAM3S M3M3S Q3NI9HOO
AllVOOT 03Ad3S
0 S IN W A.9 Q3AU3S V3HV 3002
snwn asww
SJkVWHOIH
M31VM
S3IHVQNn09
3NIT A1NH03
).anis
-------
0861'AON
31VQ
zi-e
aunou
dflOHD 1ViN3»NOHIAN3
S80U9PSI003
3AI1VNM31~IV NOI10V ON 3H1
JO dVIN AiniOVd QNV V3^V 30IAy3S
INVId HSMOd X33MO XVO
'03 HSftOd OIM10313 NISN03SIM
VJ.SIA AQQ»0
3HOHS HinOS SI
Hinos vi
3MJ,»3H1NI-3AI«0 OOI A.VMH8IH Cl
•03 8NIH30N3M 093MSrt«
doisxonai avou NIIUVH 'is 1 1
J.SV3H180N OS3M8nH 01
oeaxsnM 6
SUONVN HV93H (4111138 M3N I
IVlldSOH 1VIMON3IN Nn«3fl M3N
100H3S 3QTM9 SO.HSI3H QNV13A3n3 9
QNV1SI S3NOr
3NVQ 3M10N JO 3M3J.SIS HOOH3S C
NM01NVMM30 Z
3n~IIA6N3IHl
1x31 NI aaisn saoid3oaaiNi
-------
dOOMO 1V1N3WNOBIAN3
S90U9IOSIO03
aovyois nvioi aaumow
33VMOJ.S
HOIl»MVd3S
I M3W3S ON
Nouvavdas
39VUO1S NU3AV3 d33Q ^
39vaois sovjuns MVSN ^
H3NVHB1S UI9 HinOS •••••
NIVH 30WOJ liniiinll|.«llli>i|ll
13NNH1 Via ,,09C ^MBBB
««HOIH MO 133U1S
a N3 s 3 n
-------
3AiiVNyanv aovaois HNHNI yon yvax JIVH
Ll "E
NOIiVMVd3S U3W3S ON
3SVM01S
NOIi»HVd3S U3M3S ON
39VM01S NU3AV3 d33d
39VMO1S 30VJMOS «V3N
H3NVHS 'IS MI9 HinOS
NIVIN
13NNH1 VIQ U0
AVMHOIH MO 133M1S
Q N3 9 3
-------
oivsow BHI
dOdVWAiniOVJ QNV V3HV BOIAiJBS
Ma 3 ad >ivo
dlMM P"D|S| sauop
-------
~IVNOI93d 3H1
JO dVIAI AiniOVJ QNV V3dV 30IAy3S
r-Wts ' tf«|- 'SfflMfl / »
* *-V, NSSHSNaOO S31VHS % /
t •--'™-vv,4.rf«- ^r--"™-"I -. X
j ^"-"s. at»iii»asa» ^Jy^^^y^ip""^
3NI3a AHlN3S3Md 30NVA3AN03
QiMlSNOD 38 OJ. 33NVA3AN03 M3N
38 01 SNOI1?1S
anand
V3UV 331AM1S M3M3S 03NI8HO')
0 S W H A9 Q3A03S V3«« QOOJ
sunn aswn .......
SAVMH9IH yorvw
313'S>l33b3'Sa3AIM U31V*
S3IWVaNn08 31VHOdHOO
3NI1
Aanis
-------
V3dV ONINNVld 3H1 Nl
JO SNOIJLIQNOO 9NI1SIX3
j s rXL 7\7—
-------
Ainiavuns WBISAS oiidas ion ~nvws
JkiNROJ 3N1DVH
3ZIS N! 3dW 3NO
NVH1 SS31 S101 NO 1V'30dSia
«31»M31SVM H31SAS Dlld3S
SNISn lN3«d013A3Q 1VI1N3Q
-IS3« aOJ NOIIVIIWII 3W3A3S
A.M3A MO 3H3A3S 9NIAVH STIOS
-------
aooid av3A 001
-------
0003 NVld 330 QNV1
QNVT nvynu 3 nvannnoiuov a3Hio
aOOIMMOO lVlN3WNOaiA
Oaov saa i3Na3dSj.iNnoNm3Ma
-0i) 1VllN3QlS3aAllSN3a H9IH
(3aCV S3H 13N M3d S1INH 9NIT13Ma
6 9-fEnvilN3QIS3a A1ISN3Q WniOSlN
Oaov
3 z-io) iviiN3ais3a AiisNsa won
N b3d SlI
ij.N3ais3H Nvsanens
SAVWHOIH HOTVW
013'S)l33B3'Sa3Aia
S3iavaNnoa
3NI1 AiNOOO
AHVQNnOQ V9HW AQRIS
-------
SZ6I - 350 ONV~I 9NI1SIX3
OHOV S3UNON a3d S1INR SNITISWO
Z 2-Z'O) 1VllN3QIS3a A1ISN30 *KT1
-------
dVVM 30N3H3d3y
QNV 'SQNV113M 'SQNV~1QOOM
-------
39V«01S 3NriNI/lSOCI3ldiaOW
-------
AS 03UVd3ttd
gs'ww "UIIOS
NOIlVaVd3S d3M3S 3i31dWOO
W £
NOIltfbVd3S H3W3S
NOI1VO.S d«nd B
HONvwa is 119 Hinos •••••
NIVH 3oaoj
T3NNni via ,,ot>z ^mmm
X33MO WO a3Ald'3)IVl . .
Q N3 9 3 1
-------
0 O
<#> M
co
•o
"o
rH CU
id co
4J 3
0 0
O
r~
10
>i rH 4J 4-1
M Mrlrl rl U rl rl 0) —• M M
cu4J4J4J4->cucueu4J 4JcuPP5Pcucua P cu 4-l4Jld ld4->ldld'4Jld4J4JOX
X
§
•1-1
X X X O
10 (0 (0 S
to
^i ^i >i C!
•P 4J 4-> 0
M W M CJ
i >i 0 0 4J
« Id rl rl 3
* *
U)
X
id
EH
CU
>l 4->
4-i (d
rl K
• cu
""" ft p
o id
• rl rH
S CU b
O
0
O
in
"
id
4-1
CO
•rl
^
•C
T3
id
CJ
•K
?RS
VO VO
CO CO
X X
id id
cu
4J Id 4J
M K rl
cu cu
Q. ^J Qj
o id o
rl r-l M
o o o
0 O 0
m m m
rH rH en
in rH O
H rH
CU P
> c
>i M 0
•C C9 CU
id
15 §
U W Py
*
^^ vi3 u^
l/^ n^ ^0
vO vO
co co
X X
ft! (tJ
&^ 8^
cu
>1 4J >i
4J Id 4J
r4 « rl
ft P ft
O Id O
CU b Cu
000
O 0 0
in in o
oo c^i u^
^D ^O C1*
c
c o cu
•H c id
§£
cu
M CU rH
•X
SK
\D ID
CO CO
X X
g-l g-(
^1 ^1
p p
rl rl
CU CU
ft ft
0 0
rl rl
cu cu
o o
0 O
o m
Cn rH
0 vo
-O
CU rH
rH CD
T3 i 4J
tJ S
cu
ft 4J
o < id
CU 2 b
o o o
0 O O
in o m
r> r> ^r
vo vo en
to
iH
W rH
r! Id
cu b
C
rl CU
0 CU
CJ C
0 C
1) O £3
r-l C O*
nj cu cu
« «
S33
VO
CO
X
^
0) (U
£aa
cu
0 id id
Cu b b
0 0 O
O 0 O
0 O 0
o fi co
V vO vo
C
0) -H
CU rH
3 tn cu
3 -^
rH M 3
•rl 3 CU
« *
rH
vO VO vfl
CO CO CO
XXX
(0 (C (0
£4 g-l £_<
t>t i^*T ^"t
P 4-> P
M rl rl
cu cu cu
Q. Q. Q,
000
cu cu cu
O 0 0
o o o
o o m
co vn r>
rH
a co
rH -rl
X r-l 0
CU -H C
rl rl
cu
3-H4J
O Ctf W
?£
vO
CO
CU
c
*^
X X
id id
EH EH «-•
in
^ ^T rH
P 4J •
rl rl r-l
0) CU
ft a cu
OOP
rl M Id
cu cu M
O 0
0 0
in m
in in
co in
0)
cu
M
3
id
•83
O S
>
0) *C
r-( -P
0 3
.C 0
W W
^ o
VO
vO
CO
X
id
EH
CU
4J >i
id P
K M
4, ft
(d 0
»—$ ^4
b Cu
0 O
O O
in o
rH O
co r>-
cu
iH
rH (0
•H W
> 0
CO P
C id
cu 3
•rj 3
<£* 4j
EH 3
•K
CN n -^
m ^ [^
vO vO vO
co co co
XXX
fd ttj (d
EH EH EH
^1 ^1 ^1
P -P P
U Vl M
cu cu cu
04 ^r 0 r
0 O 0
rl rl rl
Cu CU Cu
0 O O
000
o m o
iH O O
vo m en
cu
CU >!
M id
3 n
co id
•H 3 x:
iH rH CO
rH -H -r-l
< 2 <4-|
CU
4-> P P
CO 10 -H
CU CU £
333
Valuations
4J
rl
CU
0
04
-------
4.2.5 Sewerage System Charges
4.2.5.1 User Charge System
In order to be eligible for funding through the Federal
Construction Grants Program, the MMSD has developed a User
Charge System. The system, which was put into effect on
January 1, 1979, is a method to distribute the annual
operation and maintenance expenses incurred by the MMSD to
the users of the sewerage system. Each municipality in the
MMSD and each contract community is billed for its residential,
commercial, and industrial use. The charges are based on
four parameters: volume of flow, biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD), total suspended solids (TSS), and number of connections
to buildings. A unit cost has been developed for each
parameter and is used to determine individual charges. The
1980 unit costs are $0.1061 per 1,000 gallons ($0.0280 per
1000 liters) of flow, $0.0175 per pound of BOD ($0.0386 per
kilogram of BOD), $0.0887 per pound of TSS ($0.1955 per
kilogram of TSS), and $28.45 per connection per year. The
community distributes their charges by any formula they deem
appropriate.
The residential portion of each community's bill is based on
the average flow and quality (BOD and TSS) of domestic
wastewater, the average number of people per household, and
the number of households in the community.
The commercial charge to the municipality is for those
users, other than residential, that discharge primarily
domestic wastewater, including commercial, governmental, dry
industrial, such as machining or assembling operations,
institutional organizations, and multi-family apartment
complexes. All commercial users are assumed to discharge
wastewater of the same strength (BOD and TSS) as domestic
wastewater, but not the same volume. The flows are deter-
mined for each commercial user on the basis of metered water
consumption or, if the business pumps water from a well, by
the estimated average, hourly employee discharge as estimated
by commercial activity (see the MMSD User Charge Program for
further details).
Industrial users include wet industries such as tanneries,
breweries, food and kindred products, and veterinarian
services. Industrial users are charged according to their
actual water use. However, because the wastewater from
these users has greater strength than domestic flow, they
are charged according to average domestic flow plus a
surcharge formula to account for the strength of their
discharge.
4-54
-------
t> o
0) >i O
N 4-> O
•H M C -
i-4 01 0 O 01
fO di . in 01
• - X «• 3
O1 r)
H 04
PI EH
OJ "
Q
W
H
*••§.
X H
ggo
§0§
EH CO t-f
«
M
CH
a s
X
O 0)
CO 4J JJ
CS CU (0
rH Z X
4-1
OJ -rl
4-1 T3
(0 01
•P SH
W CJ
01 in
0 4->
SH 0
O EH
(0
§
•H r-l
4J 0
10 O
«•§
> to
0)
en
10
a a>
w s
S 0)
s en
c -u
3 (0
O 4J
o w
CU U]
io 01
Qj 0)
'o o
-H a
C SH
3 3
•8 .
•S&
* ft 3
3 H
O^ 3i fl
W rH >
"
en 10 SH
^ EH 4>
G\ (N H Lf)
O p> v£>
00
f«> ^f OJ CTl vO i~f r*1* f") P^ CT"i ^ <"*! GO r** COvOCOOiOCOCJ^pHOf^OOJ^Of^OCN
,_! ^* CO CN OmcOOO^GOiOOHnOQOroroiHmf^O<*itfl(**oiroO
m r-* CTi P*- ONr^COCOC^\X>^COOC^vOrr)^5*ri*'VO'Hr-(CNlOvOfH"cNinvQy3y3vo^t'vo(s*^*
^J1 ro vO P"- Cft O U") vO LOCN0^M^CNtN*^vOP*"'43^yDCft ^i* r** n
oj ^»
vO vO vO vO vO **D v^3 y3 ^O vO vO vO \O \O VQ vO vO \O
GO 00 CO 00 00 CO 00 00 00 CO 00 00 00 CO CO CO CO 00
in-
OJP»OJP^ oip-oioi oiojojojp»inojp-p»oioio!oiojinojoioioj
OJOJO1O1 O1O1OIO1 OJOJOJOIOJOIOJO1O1OIOIOIOJOJOJOJO4OJOJ
^r-lrHi-l iHHr-lrH HHrHi-lrHH f-4 f-l H H H H H iHi-IH
inp>cn'S' vovooin vo>-ivocoooocnpNp^incninincnenop»vOi-i
vOvocnoi m ^" n ^> rH.voop»iHPivomoooinoicni-ieocor»cnoo
«... .... rH
pipipifl" mpi<»oi inpi^Piinnooojoiincop^mmpiinr^pip)
0000 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Oooocn cnp»ovo^iPicoinpivop»op~oinocO'-iinp»copi'p<-^jvovOHCriojininvo
r-IOJP1 ^'OIO|P1O4vO^'vOrHr>'inP)P100^1' i-IPI^}1 VflTOJ'*
H en •-! r-i
3
S
0)
O
•O >H
H 0)
0) 0)
a> -H Q
T) "*H
•H X g
« o S
>i 0 0
<0 M (H
A A DO
• *
a
*>
W
-H
>
0
CC
H <0
CD PL,
C
SH 0)
0(U
O C
SS
*
0) -H
0) i-H
J< 0 SH
§3 O> a)
10 0) A
3 S M
CPH 01 3
Or^-rl-H
M 3 Ul 4J < S >*H
M fa 0) A C (0 0)
1) SH4J4->
> • 0 3 -H 3 CO W "H
•H4J,CO.CHJ
-------
Currently a flat fee is charged per connection for infil-
tration and inflow into the system. This practice will be
reviewed upon completion of the Sewer System Evaluation
Study and the rehabilitation program that follows.
4.2.5.2 Capital Financing
According to Wisconsin law CChapter 59.96, Sec. 71, the
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage Commission shall place the
amount of funds required for financing capital improvements
in the budget. The County Board of Supervisors is required
and directed to provide for this amount by tax levy, by
issuing corporate bonds, or by a combination of the two
methods. If bonds are issued they are limited to a maximum
maturity of twenty years. In order to pay for the debt
service on the bonds, "there shall be annually levied by
said county board a direct tax upon all taxable property in
said district sufficient to pay the annual interest thereon,
and also to pay and discharge the principal thereof at
maturity."
The present method of financing improvements within the MMSD
conforms to these Statutes. The 1980 tax rate levied by
Milwaukee County on all property in the County (except tax
exempt property) to pay for debt service on MMSD capital
improvements is $.86 per $1000. of state equalized property
value. Based on this tax rate, the EIS study team has
estimated the approximate dollar amount the average house-
hold in each Milwaukee County Community would be assessed.
Commercial, industrial, and institutional property in the
County is also assessed at the rate of $.86 per $1000. To
determine any property tax assessment for MMSD capital
improvements in 1980, the equalized value of a property is
multiplied by .00086 (see Table 4.23).
4.2.5.3 Contract Communities
Service to the seven municipalities outside of the MMSD
boundaries is provided on a contract basis. Up until the
institution of the User Charge System, operation and main-
tenance charges were included in the contract formula (they
are now included as part of the User Charge Program). The
contract formula distributes the charges for MMSD capital
expenditures. The distribution is carried out in a two-part
formula, reflecting allowances for reasonable return on
investment (approximately 7.5%) and annual depreciation (2%).
4-56
-------
The contract communities contributed 3,013 million gallons
(.11.4 million m3! of sewage to be treated in 1979, at a
cost of $177.67 per million gallons C$6,940.55 per million m
The 1979 MMSD billing to each, contract community- for capital
costs is outlined in Table 4.24.
TABLE 4.24
Population
Served
Capital
Charges-1979
Cost
Per Capita
MMSD
Brookfield
New Berlin
Mequon
Elm Grove
Butler
Bayside
Menomonee Falls
4.2.6 Noise
998,200 $10,229,368 $10.25
13,867
9,088
12,817
7,850
2,105
N/A
N/A
129,273
110,638
152,311
91,427
50,496
2,161
8,081
544,387
9.32
12.17
11.88
11.65
23.99
Noise is measured on a scale of "decibels" (dB). The scale
runs from zero dB, the threshold of human hearing to 130 dB,
the level at which sound becomes painful. A change in noise
level of five dB or less is generally unnoticeable. The
noise levels of some common activities are shown on Figure
4.25.
Noise is categorized into three types: constant, fluctu-
ating, or intermittent. Constant noises are continuous and
non-varying, such as the hum of a motor. Because they do
not vary, constant noises are the easiest to adapt to and
the least offensive. Fluctuating noises vary on a somewhat
regular basis and the level of fluctuation is not extreme.
Traffic is an example of fluctuating noise. This type of
sound is somewhat irritating, but generally not considered a
nuisance. Intermittent noises are sharp, loud sounds which
occur at irregular intervals. These noises are often loud
enough to be painful, and they are hard to adjust to. A
common example of an intermittent noise is blasting or use
of heavy equipment for construction.
In evaluating the effects of noise on the surrounding en-
vironment, the background or ambient noise level must also
be considered. Ambient noise depends on land use and time
4-57
-------
TABLE 4.25
WEIGHTED SOUND LEVELS AND HUMAN RESPONSE
Sound Source
Jet takeoff at 200 feet
Discotheque,
Riveting Machine
Jet takeoff at 2,000 feet
Shout (0.5 feet)
Heavy diesel truck at 50 feet
Food blender
Garbage disposal
Loud radio or hi-fi •
Freight train at 50 feet
Cash register
Typical large store
Automobile (average) 35-40 mph
Air conditioning unit at 20
feet
Residence
Quiet conference room
Living room
Bedroom
Whisper at 5 feet
Rustling of leaves, broadcast
studio
Faintest possible sound
dBA
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Trend of Response
Painfully loud.
Limit amplified speech.
Maximum vocal effort
Very annoying
Annoying
Complaining possible
Acceptance
Quiet
Very quiet
Just audible
Threshold of hearing
Source: MMSD Appendix 4k
4-58
-------
of day and year. A fluctuating noise at a certain decibel
level that might not be disturbing if located in an urban
area, might be a nuisance if located in a residential area.
The noises associated with the operation of wastewater
treatment facilities are usually constant. These noises are
caused by pumps, blowers, compressors, generators, and other
mechanical equipment. Table 4.26 describes the effects of
noise from the existing WWTPs on surrounding communities,
based on land use in the surrounding area, sensitivity of
the area to disturbances from noise, and relative ambient
noise levels. Presently, noise has not been cited as a
problem at any of the WWTPs in the planning area.
4.2.7 Odors
Odors cannot be quantitatively measured. The perception of
odors is subjective, and it can change the longer an individual
is exposed to an odor. To assess any odor problems associated
with the sewerage system of the planning area, the EIS relied
on records of public complaints.
None of the facilities, except the South Shore WWTP, has
been cited for odor problems. In an independent survey of
odor complaints between January, 1977 and April, 1978, of
the 963 complaints that were registered, the South Shore
WWTP received 167, the second highest number in the survey.
The cause of the odors at the South Shore WWTP is poor
sludge digestion which allows unstabilized sludge to be
pumped to outdoor storage. Since residential areas are
located to the north and west of the WWTP, odors from this
inadequately treated sludge have been a nuisance. In addition,
the two other most frequently cited sources of odors are
located within one half mile of the WWTP, and they may
account for some odors attributed to the South Shore WWTP.
In addition to the treatment facilities, the rivers in the
Inner Harbor area have been cited for odors.
4.2.8 Public Health
Sewage treatment plants disinfect effluent before discharg-
ing it to watercourses to protect people who may come in
contact with the water from dangerous microorganisms.
Sewage can contain microbes Cpathogensl that can cause
typhoid fever, cholera, dysentary, skin infections, and
hepatitis (Wullschleger e_t al. 1974) . Disinfection
kills enough of these pathogens to reduce the public health
risk to an acceptable level.
4-59
-------
TABLE 4.26
SENSITIVITY TO NOISE NEAR LOCAL WWTPs
Facility
Jones Island WHTP
South Shore WWTP
School Sisters of ND WWTP
Chalet on Lake WWTP
Thiensville WWTP
Germantown WWTP
South Milwaukee WWTP
WEPCo. WWTP
Caddy Vista WWTP
Cleveland Heights GS WWTP
U.S. Regal Manors WWTP
Muskego HE WWTP
Muskego NW WWTP
Muskego Rendering WWTP
Hwy. 100 Drive-in WWTP
St. Martin's Rd. Truck Stop
N.B. Mem. Hospital WWTP
Major Area
Land Use
H. Industrial
M. Res./ M. Ind.
L. Res.
L. Res.
M. Res./Comni.
M. Res. /Open
H. Res. /L. Ind-.
L. Res. /Open
M. Res. /Open
M. Res.
M. Res.
L. Res. /M. Res.
L. Res. /Open
Open
M. Res. /Open
M. Res.
M. Res.
Relative Ambient
Noise Levels
High
Low to Moderate
Low
Low
Moderate
Low to Moderate
Moderate to High
Moderate to High
Low
Low to Moderate
Low to Moderate
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Sensitivity to
Expected Levels
Insensitive
Moderately
Sensitive
Very Sensitive*
Slightly
Sensitive
Slightly
Sensitive
Moderately
Sensitive
Moderately
Sensitive
Insensitive
Very Sensitive
Very Sensitive *
Moderately Sensit
Very Sensitive
Moderately
Sensitive
Insensitive
Slightly
Sensitive
Moderately
Sensitive
Moderately
Sensitive
"Close proximity to educational institution. Sensitivity varies as
to whether school is in session. If not in session - moderately sensitive.
L - Light
M - Moderate
H - Heavy
Res. - Residential
Ind. - Industrial
Comm. - Commercial
4-60
-------
None of the facilities, except the South. Shore WWTP, has
been cited for odor problems. In an independent survey of
odor complaints between January, 1977 and April, 1978, of
the 963 complaints that were registered, the South. Shore
WWTP received 167, the second highest number in the survey.
The cause of the odors at the South. Shore WWTP is poor
sludge digestion which, allows unstabilized sludge to be
pumped to outdoor storage. Since residential areas are
located to the north and west of the WWTP, odors from this
inadequately treated sludge have been a nuisance. In addition,
the two other most frequently cited sources of odors are
located within one half mile of the WWTP, and they may
account for some odors attributed to the South Shore WWTP.
In addition to the treatment facilities, the rivers in the
Inner Harbor area have been cited for odors.
4.2.8 Public Health
Sewage treatment plants disinfect effluent before discharg-
ing it to watercourses to protect people who may come in
contact with the water from dangerous microorganisms.
Sewage can contain microbes (pathogens) that can cause
typhoid fever, cholera, dysentary, skin infections, and
hepatitis (Wullschleger e_t al. 1974) . Disinfection
kills enough of these pathogens to reduce the public health
risk to an acceptable level.
At each point where untreated sewage is discharged into
surface waters, whether by bypasses, overflows, or diver-
sions from storm sewers, there is a greatly increased risk
of disease to anyone who comes into bodily contact with
that water. Fecal coliform bacteria are often used as an
indicator of the presence of untreated sewage. The coliforms
are themselves harmless, and soil bacteria are sometimes
mistaken for fecal coliforms. Therefore a positive test for
fecal coliforms does not necessarily mean that the water is
dangerous. In addition, the extreme variability in the
distribution of coliform bacteria in the water makes
quantitative estimates prone to error.
4.2.9 Transportation, Traffic and Access
Construction of sewerage facilities could disrupt traffic
flow within the planning area. Certain routes might be
blocked leading to increased traffic congestion. Further-
more, the disruption of regular transportation routes could
affect commuters, businesses, and access to recreational
and community activities. In order to evaluate potential
negative impacts on traffic flow, it is necessary to identify
major transportation routes.
4-61
-------
There are 239 miles C385 kml of freeways in the seven county
SEWRPC region. SEWRPC forecasts an additional 106 miles
(.171 kml of freeways by the year 2QOO. In Milwaukee County
Cin 19781 there were 64 miles CIO3 kml of freeway, with, an
additional 22 miles C35 kml planned by the year 20QQ.
There are also 734 miles CH81 kml of arterials in Milwaukee
County with, a planned year 2000 increment of 41 miles (66 km) .
There are three railroad companies operating in the area:
the Milwaukee Road, the Chicago and Northwestern, and Amtrak.
Amtrak provides the only passenger service with over 300,000
persons using the service in 1977 (MWPAP, 1978).
General Mitchell Field is the largest airport within the
area, comprising 2,080 acres (842 ha). In 1977, 234,904
flights were generated and a total of 1,310,534 passengers
were served by this facility. Other airports in the area
include, Timmerman Field, a 477 acre (193 ha) midsized
general utility airport, and three small general utility
airports located in western suburbs.
4.2.10 Archaeological and Historical Sites
The study area encompasses a segment of Milwaukee which has-
seen intensive human occupancy for several thousand years.
Its cultural history was influenced primarily by aboriginal
and later Euro-American subcultures. Fourteen archaeologic
sites have been recorded in the study area, and 27 other
buildings, structures, and objects have received some form
of official recognition (Figure 4-9, Table 4-27). Thirteen
properties have been listed in the National Register of
Historic Places.
The Jones Island (West Plant) WWTP was the first large-scale
application of activated sludge wastewater treatment in this
country and has been designated a National Historic Civil
Engineering Landmark. In addition, on September 11, 1979,
the West Plant was determined eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places.
4.2.11 Recreation
Recreational areas in Milwaukee County include playgrounds,
parks, golf courses, zoos, campgrounds, and picnic areas. In
1970, Milwaukee County contained 9,924 acres (4016 ha) devoted
to recreational use, which is approximately 6.4% of the
County. As of 1974, 12,211 acres (4942 ha) of land within
the MMSD planning area were designated for recreational
purposes.
4-62
-------
LEGEND:
_ HISTORIC /
• ARCHITECTURAL STRUCTURE
A HISTORIC SITE
• PREHISTORIC SITE
•—— STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
FOR SITE IDENTIFICATION SEE
TABLE 4-38
O 1876 3780
SCALE IN FEET
FIGURE
DATE
4-9
HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
;.DSOURCE
PREPARED BY
EcolSciences
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
-------
TABLE 4.27
RECORDED ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL SITES
Site Site Or
Number Structure
1 Village/worksite
Campsite
3 Campsite
4 Graves
5 Mounds
6 Campsite/worksite
7 Campsite/worksite
8 Mounds/graves
9 Mound
10 Burials
11 Campsite/village (Potawatomi)
12 Town (Euro-American 1854-1943)
13 Village (Potawatomi)
14 Village CPotawatomi)
15 S. Richards Residence
16 Globe Tavern (ca. 1895)
17 Puddler's Hall (1873)
18 Harbor Entrance Bridge (1974)
19 H. W. Buemming Residence (1901)
20 C. Allis (1909)
21 L. R. Smith Residence (1922)
22 North Point Water Tower (1874)
23 J. Downer Residence (1874)
24 J. D. Inbush Residence (1875)
25 6th Church of Christ Scientist (1901-2)
26 R. P. Fitzgerald Residence (1874)
27 Immanuel Presbyterian Church (1873)
28 Athenaeum Club (1887)
29 Northwest Mutual Insurance Co. (1911-14)
30 Harp Light (1915)
31 Milwaukee County War Memorial (1953-57)
(1972-75)
32 Lincoln Memorial Bridge (1923-26)
33 Buena Vista, Cudahy Tower Apartments
(1908-09) (1928-29)
34 Federal Building
H. S. Courthouse (1892-99)
35 Excelsior Block, Iron Block (1860-61)
36 Mitchell Building (1876-78)
37 Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance
Company (1885-86)
38 Chamber of Commerce
Mackie Building (1879-80)
39 Marine Plaza (1961)
40 Collins/Elwell Residence (1976)
41 Wisconsin Avenue Lift Bridge (1975)
Note: Sites are illustrated on Figure 4-42
AISC American Institute of Steel Construction
HABS Historic American Buildings Survey
ML Milwaukee Landmark
NR National Register of Historic Places
WI Wisconsin Inventory
WRL Wisconsin Registered Landmark
Source: MMSD
Recognition
NR
NR
NR
AISC
HABS
NR, HABS
HABS, NR, WRL
NR
HABS
HABS, WI
ML, WI
HABS, ML, WI
HABS, NR, ML, WI
HABS, ML, WI
HABS
ML
WRL, ML
WI
WI, ML
HABS, NR,
ML, WI
HABS, NR, ML
HABS, NR, ML
HABS, NR, ML
HABS, NR, ML
WI
NR
AISC
4-63
-------
Water is, or can be, a primary recreational resource. The
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 19-72
CPublic Law 92-5QQ1 recognize the importance of water for
recreation by setting a national goal of fishable and
swimmable waters by 1983. However, the lower portions of
the Milwaukee, Menomonee, and Kinnickinnic rivers are now
restricted for recreational use to limited or no body
contact. Also Lake Michigan beaches in Milwaukee County
have to be closed on occasion due to the addition of pollutants
from combined sewer overflows. The Bay View and South Shore
Park Beaches were closed an average of 27 days per year from
1969 to 1976.
Although sport fishing is a popular recreational activity
in the planning area, the lower reaches of the rivers,
where water quality is degraded, do not support extensive
or diverse fish populations. Thus, fishing is limited.
Also, because of the toxic chemicals in the waters, some
of the fish living in the planning area contain chemical
residue in their edible portions in excess of the recom-
mended standards.
4.2.12 Energy
Milwaukee County is the largest consumer of energy in the
planning area. In 1978, energy use in the County was
estimated to be 317.5 trillion BTU per year. If future
growth occurs as predicted, the energy demand should sub-
stantially increase.
In 1978, a survey of energy use at the Jones Island and South
Shore WWTPs and at each local treatment plant was conducted
by the MWPAP (Tech Memo 3/1/79). The results of this survey
are shown on Table 4.28. As the table shows, the wastewater
treatment facilities in the planning area rely heavily on
electricity and natural gas. Electricity is the major or
only power source for most of the WWTPs. The Jones Island
WWTP consumes a great quantity of natural gas, primarily for
power generation and sludge drying. The South Shore WWTP
relies heavily on digester gas, a byproduct of the facility's
solids handling system, as a source of energy.
4.2.13 Resources
A treatment plant survey conducted by the MWPAP in 1978
collected data on chemical consumption used for wastewater
treatment. The results of this survey are shown in Table
4.29. As can be seen from that table, large amounts of
chlorine, pickle liquor, and ferric chloride are used at
the treatment plants.
4-64
-------
CO K
CM EH
«* O
9
w
D
H
I
•p
0)
rH
flj -^
>cn
•H O
1*
H
33
£S
^— »
-o
i
4J
•rl
O
'£]
4J --»
0 r?
roOinocomocMvO
r-HinvOCNP-CncnroCM
Ov0HCMvOrHr^roro
5
CM
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
O 0 O O
o co o co
I o cn r^ in i i i i
i - > » - i i i i
CM in ^* ^*
ro
in
O
O
CO
vO
1 1 VO 1 1 1 1 1
I I cn i i i i i
f£ ,—\
2 CM
ro
OOOOOOOOO
ooooooooo
coocMroOinin^p-
cMCMvovo^rmcNioo
rHCnp-CNOOOOinrHr-H
m rH in H r~ n to
cn a
r^ o
rH ^*
V0 fO
CM
O
O
^,
1 H
I in
00
rH
o
o
cn i
» I
CM
o
o
I p-
I
rH
ro
o o
0 0
O 10
0 rH
C^ ro
vo in
ro
r-
CN
1
1
ril
2
1
O
O
CM
O
V0
CM
CN
CN
CM
in
»
in
CO
rH
cn
o
CO
in
oo
in
CO
CM
CM
CO
df>
p*
VO
*
ro
0
00
CM ro
en
CM
cn
4J
C
rH
ft
$
to
-H
^
^1
•o
'O
Q
-
^
o
4-1
C
£2
M
s
CN
01
^1
C
rl
O
u
cn
Q)
r-H
ffi
lls-Riverside
2
Ils-Parkview
rQ
a
Ul
H
01
0)
c
g
ti
fa
0)
0)
c
0
a
0
c
1
id
fa
a)
0)
c
0
s
o
c
OJ
s,
heast
4-1
0
2
O
tr>
^
01
1
01
4J
rl
O
2
0
U>
01
01
1
01
rl
0
C
2
rH
(t)
0^
flj
0)
Q)
3
%
rH
•rl
S
rf
4J
3
0
W
0)
rl
O
r5
w
JS
4J
3
O
w
0)
rH
r-H
•rl
^
01
fl
•rl
EH
rH
i
4J
0)
r-H
J>
•rl
0*
H
rH
m
4J
8
H
«J
4J
£H
UH
0
4J
q
0)
CJ
ft
for Private l
c
0
•H
•P
s
c
o
<4H
C
H
rH
lant consideri
CM
. 4-1
C
-------
0)
•o
•l-l
s
iH
u .
o
in
X!
o
o
o
d"
o
in
viT
m
O
o
o
o*
o
in
I o
I O
in
o
o
m
0
ft
o
o
vo
o
o
CM
o
o
o
VO
VO
CM
o
o
r~
m
O
O
o
o
id
o o
o r^
o ^o
^ vo
»H .H
^* r*H
VO
O
O
O
VO
cu
•H
O In
H X)
o
in
O
o
o o
C5 r*^
CM rr
ro CN
in
vo
ro
o
o
VO
*k
^*
o
o
rH
^
I-l
o
0
o
«
in
CM
CO
r-T
o
en
m
•»
^i*
f^«
r-
o
o
o
%
en
f—{
vO
CM
0)
4-1
01
>
S
3
O
w
0 O
D^ 0^
tn
3
S
o
tn
C
-------
Chlorine is used as a disinfectant usually as the final step
before the effluent is discharged. Pickle liquor and ferric
chloride are used to control phosphorus. Pickle liquor is
a waste product of metal processing plants, numerous of which
are located in the Milwaukee area, polymer and alum are
used to thicken and settle sludge during the treatment and
solids handling processes.
4-67
-------
CHAPTER 5
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
-------
5.0 INTRODUCTION
This chapter of the EIS describes the environmental impacts
of the four final system-level alternatives and the five
alternatives for the storage of combined sewer overflow
(CSO) and infiltration and inflow. These alternatives were
described in Chapter III. The discussion of environmental
consequences is organized by the criteria used to screen the
alternatives. These criteria represent aspects of the
natural and human environments that could be affected by the
Milwaukee Water Pollution Abatement Program (MWPAP). The
criteria are reiterated below.
Natural Environment Man-Made Environment
Water Quality Future Development
Aquatic Biota Land Use
Threatened or Endangered Species Cost
Air Quality Fiscal Impacts
Groundwater Indirect Fiscal Impacts
Floodplains Economic Impacts
Wetlands Aesthetics
Wildlife Habitat Noise
Prime Agricultural Land Odors
Public Health
Safety
Access and Traffic
Archaeological and
Historic Sites
Recreation
Energy
Resources
Engineering Feasibility
Legality
Each criterion is discussed in a separate section, including
the effects of the No Action, Local, Regional, and Mosaic
(MMSD Preferred) Alternatives. For most criteria, the four
final alternatives are discussed separately. However, when
two or more alternatives would result in the same impacts,
they are discussed togeter. Where insufficient information
exists to assess specific impacts, the alternatives are
grouped together for discussion. Also, where adverse
environmental impacts are identified, possible mitigating
measures are presented.
5.1 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
5.1.1 Water Quality
5-1
-------
5.1.1.1 No Action Alternative
Currently, the lakes and streams in the planning area
periodically receive inputs of sewage-related pollution, and
with the No Action Alternative, this condition would continue
throughout the planning period. There are several sources of
this pollution: combined sewer overflows, bypasses, over-
flows, and diversions in the separated sewer portion of the
planning area, discharges by overloaded Wastewater Treatment
Plants (WWTPs) of inadequately-treated sewage, and discharges
of large volumes of treated effluent into small streams and
lakes.
Combined sewer overflows occur about 50 times each year
during rainstorms and snow melts. As a result of these
overflows, untreated sanitary sewage and storm runoff enter
the Outer Harbor and the Inner Harbor portions of the Milwaukee,
Menomonee and Kinnickinnic Rivers, adding the pollutants
listed in Table 5.1.
In addition, bypasses, overflows, and diversions of waste-
water from the separated sewer systems occur in every
community in the planning area. There are at least 263 permanent
flow relief devices in the planning area (shown on Figure 5.1}
in addition to portable pumps used where necessary to prevent
backups of sewage into basements. The pollution to the rivers
of the planning area from bypasses in the separated sewer
area is outlined in Table 5.2.
Bypasses usually occur during rainfall or snow melt events.
At these times, the flows of the rivers are augmented and they
contain unusually high levels of nutrients and suspended solids
from agricultural runoff and disturbed bottom sediment. Thus,
bypasses occur at times when water quality is unusually poor
and it is difficult to isolate the impacts from bypassing.
Nevertheless, the most severe impact of the bypasses is the
introduction of vast quantities of untreated sewage that could
contain disease-producing organisms (pathogens).
If actions are not taken to upgrade the sewerage facilities,
the sewer system can be expected to deteriorate. Conse-
quently, clear water infiltration would increase, leading to
bypassing more severe than presently occurs. Increased
infiltration would also augment peak flows to WWTPs. As a
result, WWTP overloading during wet weather could worsen.
With the No Action Alternative, every WWTP in the planning
area would be overloaded periodically.
Furthermore, unless sewer moratoria are declared by the year
2005, the Thiensville, Germantown, New Berlin, Regal Manors,
Muskego Northwest, Muskego Northeast,and Caddy Vista WWTPs
would be operating with average flows considerably in excess
5-2
-------
TABLE 5.1
EXISTING ANNUAL CSO POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION AND LOADS
TO THE INNER AND OUTER HARBORS
a
Concentration
—
309
2.0
140
2.0
0.6
0.02
0.1
0.9
7.2 x 105
Inner
Harbor
Load
5,500
14,000
91.5
6,340
98.8
27.2
0.92
4.62
40.9
1.72 x 10
Outerb
Harbor
Load
5,800
2,180
62.9
2,820
95.2
10.1
0.073
2.46
23.3
17 1.48 x 1
Parameter
Water
Suspended Solids
Total Phosphorus
Biochemical Oxygen
Demand-Ultimate
Ammonia Nitrogen
Lead
Cadmium
Copper
Zinc
Fecal Coliform
All concentration values in mg/1 except for fecal coliforms
which are in MFFCC/100 ml.
All loads in thousands of pounds except for water which is in
millions of gallons and fecal coliforms which are in MFFCC
per 100 ml.
Source: ESEI
5-3
-------
rH
s z
o <
a: -
b Cu
03 H
o z:
< EH
O
in r-
Z 03
M < td
J E-> 03
CD n o!
< r5 <
61 J a<
.H a,
< g
z o3
EH
a
c*
t:
U3
^
ro
•rH
O SI
•w O
•H
1 i *—
U
0) ffl
i-, ^
•H ra
C v-3
-Pj
(U
•H
02
4J
0
0
0)
•H
OS
o
c
c
_^
o
•rH
c
d
2
"°.j
0)
—i
OS
a)
a)
c
o
£
0
C
5)
S
•rH
0)
(1)
3
10
31
r- i
£
to
c
0
• H
rfl
.u
C
0)
rj
C
O
U
Lj
CD
4J
0)
£
ro
V-J
ro
a,
c
O 01
• rH C
r- 0
rH rH
"H rH
£ ro
cn
o
in
C
0 01
rH O
rH rH
•rH rH
E to
01
in
tN
c
O 01
"H C
rH O
r-4 i-H
•r4 r-H
£ ro
tN
s
o
•H tn
rH C
-H O
•H r-1
S rH
0 SI
O
c
0
•rH 03
rH C
rH 0
£ rH
O Ol
O
1
1
V.
0)
4-J
03
1 3
O CO O
cm o
o o
o CM r-
O CN ro
, ro
•H '_ X E
rH 0 O -H
or jj
01 a rH -H
01 ro 3
t3 O O 1
0) £ — 1 'S
T3 0, S C
C rj to
CJ -H £ c
a 18 o a)
u! j-i o a
3 Q -H
03 EH C3
V£
rH V^
. t
O O -=r rH
in m *r
CN fN
CO
O CO
m in IN o
tN tN tN
rH rH
CO
o co
in in CN o
tN tN tN
rH rH
ro
ro ro
• •
O. O CO ro
00 CO
in uo
o
.
o o m o
o o tN in
in m IN
rH rH
rH
U3 U3 O -H
O O O O
£
-------
of their design capacities. As a result, these WWTPs would
discharge increasing amounts of oxygen-depleting organic
matter, suspended solids, and phosphorus. The effects of
such increases would be particularly serious for the
Menomonee and Root Rivers, Deer Creek, and Tess Corners
Creek because during low flow conditions their volumes are
at least doubled at the discharge sites by WWTP effluent.
There are five streams that currently receive effluent from
WWTPs in the planning area: the Milwaukee River, the
Menomonee River, Tess Corners Creek, Root River, and Deer
Creek. Table 5.3 outlines their year 2005 water quality
(with No Action) in terms of six parameters. The methods
used to derive the figures in Table 5.3 are described in the
Water Quality Appendix. The analysis assumes that effluent is
completely mixed with stream water.
The Muskego Northwest WWTP is already a major source of
pollution to Big Muskego Lake. If the plant is overloaded,
more organic matter, suspended solids, phosphorus, and
nitrogen would accumulate in the lake. As a result, the
eutrophication process could accelerate.
The Jones Island WWTP should continue to meet WPDES effluent
requirements throughout the planning period. However, effluent
from this facility contributes 47% of the phosphorus, 75% of
the ammonia and 41% of the cadmium loads to the Outer Harbor.
With the No Action Alternative, these percentages would not be
expected to change markedly.
On the average, water entering the Outer Harbor is retained for
six days, which allows silt and other pollutants to settle to the
bottom and plant nutrients to be absorbed by algae. As a
result, the Outer Harbor is much more polluted than the main
body of Lake Michigan. Degradation of the water quality of
the Outer Harbor is due partly to accumulated pollutants
suspended in the water and collected in bottom sediment, and
partly to the inputs of pollutants from the Jones Island WWTP
and the three rivers.
The total contribution of all the directly tributary wastewater
treatment facilities in the planning area is 2,100 pounds
(807 kg.) of phosphorus per day to Lake Michigan. The Jones
Island and South Shore WWTPs discharge more than 97% of these
loadings. This amount is 4% of the recommended maximum total
loading of phosphorus to the entire lake from point and
nonpoint sources (IJC, 1978). Although it may take centuries
for this nutrient input to produce a noticeable increase in
the quantity of algae in the open lake, the quantities of
phosphorus in the lake are cumulative and (for practical
purposes) cannot be removed. Phosphorus is present in several
forms in the lake, some of which are not used by aquatic plants.
5-5
-------
a
m
a 2
o: S
EH
2 i-5
EH O
1-5 SH
< U
O
K 2
ti
•H
rH
-X iH
0) 01
OJ CQ
IH
U 3
01
IH 2
0)
0) 4J
C <
10
JJ
U)
•H
IH >
01
•H T3
a: "o
it!
•P U
o
O JJ
OS <
a)
0)
u
in
^4
01 o
SH 0)
O ^
u in
3
01 £
01
01 JJ
&H 1^
M
01
> C
•H 3
a o
jj
01 C
01 (0
C E
§^
01
o u
0) 4J
z<
Vi
QJ GJ
> rH
•H rH
O1 -H
0) 01
01 C
3 -H
10 or
3 EH
rH
•H JJ
S <
01 JJ
iw fl
O H
0
* O
O E
0)
01 JJ
in 10
U i-l
0)
T -a
• 0
<*> s
,
X
o
>-l
01
iJ
4)
E
(0
V4
B
C-,
T3
3 01
0 >
rH rH
B. 0
01
3 m
S c
rH
X^
c^
£
o
^
iH
\
Cn
E
o
M
•-*
\
C1
£
in
t— i
r-i
\
D1
E
!T>
rH
X
g'
o
(N
01
•H
rH
O
w
•a
0)
c
a
in
3
CO
i— i
x^
C71
£
r-*
i— |
\
CTi
E
P-.
,
O
1-^
\
^
5
i— )
^H
X
t
CO
0
-H
\
1
m
«
o
0!
3
0
.e
a
0
ra
£
c.
rH
10
V
0
\
a-
E
rH
•
O
rH
X
E
rH
0
,
0
rH
\
f
5
i— i
.
O
f— i
\
CP
S
^3*
O
•
0
•^
rji
S
r^
o
o
a
0
(0
c
0
e
E
«C
"S
01
N
-H
C
o
-H
1
c
0
ffl
"3
C
O
•H
rH
rH
•H
J2
rH
10
T3
"V^
c
0
•r-4
i-H
rH
•H
£l
u->
i
0
ro
'V
X
c
0
• H
rH
rH
•H
£>
r-l
>.
10
T3
X
C
0
•H
rH
rH
-H
O
ID
>,
10
•a
'^S
C
0
rH
«— I
-H
A
«T
U3
e
o
M-
-H
f— <
0
u
rH
10
O
01
h
ca
CQ
u
0
co
5-6
-------
The South Shore WWTP would continue to discharge other
pollutants to Lake Michigan, such as heavy metals, dis-
solved solids, chlorine, and phosphorus. This pollution
would not collect locally due to lake currents, but it
would continue to gradually accumulate in lake water.
5.1.1.2 Local Alternative
Implementation of the Local Alternative would affect the
quality of surface waters in the planning area in several
ways: all CSOs would be abated; bypassing at WWTPs and from
the separated sewers would be eliminated; and all public and
private WWTPs in the planning area would meet future WPDES
effluent limits.
5.1.1.2.1 Abatement of CSQ; The abatement of CSOs is the
goal of all four of the CSO alternatives. All of the
alternatives include separating 11% of the combined sewer
service area (CSSA) with the remaining 89% of the area having
different methods and amounts of storm water capture. The
loadings from each alternative to the Inner Harbor are shown
in Table 5.4. The complete storage alternative captures all
the storm water. Therefore, these pollutants would not reach the
rivers. The Modified GST/Inline Alternative has higher
values for the parameters while the Inline Storage and
Complete Separation Alternatives generally have the highest
loads associated with them. While the relative differences
in loadings to the rivers under the alternatives are shown in
Table 5.4, the effects on water quality are more clearly
shown by examining Table 5.5. This table shows both the
loadings from the CSSA and the upstream sources.
5.1.1.2.2 Bypassing; The elimination of bypassing would end
the annual inputs of pollutants outlined in Table 5.2. The
most significant effect would be the reduction of fecal
coliforms. Since discharges of raw sewage would cease, the
chances of pathogens 'existing in the waters of the plan-
ning area would-be greatly reduced.
The final component of the Local Alternative that would
affect water quality would be changes in operation of public
and private WWTPs in the planning area. Table 5.6 sum-
marizes six parameters indicative of future water quality,
at low flow, of the streams in the planning area that
receive effluent from public WWTPs. Effluent and stream are
assumed to mix completely.
5-7
-------
^
LH
a
CQ
O
CQ
os
rn
&a
2
M
w
EH
g
S
3
EH
2
f5j
EH
D
J
O
cu
t-3
D
2
S
Q
2
CO
2
O
H
H
Q
Q
O
g
H
EH
M
H
X
a
OS
Q
2
H3
icjj
03
cn
O
w
S
EH
OS
Pu
T PLANS
2
W
S
H
EH
CQ
^
3
S
S
H
BJ
H
3
pa
w
Q
pa
2
H
CQ
Q
0
H
n
EH
S
OH
w
EH
ne Modified Modified
age CST/Inline Total Storage
•H M
-H 0
G 4-1
H 01
CO
CT* rH
0
r-
o
o
ro ro
m
rH
CO
O
in H
O rH
"sf
C
0
•rH
4-1
(C
ft
CD 0)
4-1 01
0
O CN
rH rH
^
G
0
•H
4-)
u
0
CTi
O
O ro
^J1 i~H
m
G
•H
4J
W
•H
X
w
o
o o
in
m M"
rH
O
in
O
CM
in
m
m
in
If)
a
O
in
o
CO
CN
00
ro
00
CN
co
o
co
o
CO
co
CO
rH
o
o
o
co
in
co
IN
o
ro
o
CO
vO
in
o
ro
o
CO
o
C7I
m
rH
ON
in
o
ro
O
CN
o
LO
CO
CO
CTi
o
en
CN
Cfi
o
in
o
m
CN
•31
O
CN
in
o
C?i
o"
»v
^
0)
4J
n3
S
Ul
G
O
i-H
rH
n3
Cn
D
O
rH
w
•H
rH
0
01
"S
Tl
a
OJ
ft
Ul
3
01
, — *
CO
T3
G
3
O
ft
D
O
r-|
' — •
tn
3
0
ft
01
0
QJ
c
rH
frj
4J
0
EH
^_^
cn
r^
c
3
0
ft
1
o
rH
>^-
Q)
cn
X
o
rH
rd
O
•H
g
0)
0
0
•r)
CQ
Q)
4J
nj
e
•H
4-1
r-H
D
1
TX
G
cd
r±
CD
Q
In
rrj
G
3
0
ft
D
O
rH
— •
2
rfl
•.-r
G
0
R
1?
^^
M
TJ
C
3
O
ft
o
o
,—1
' —
^^
01
r^J
G
3
O
ft
ro
0
Tl rH
o3
rl
e
3"
•H
E
T!
U
^.^
CO
T)
r-l
3
a
0
o
rH
— '
ko
0)
ft
ft
O
O
^— ^
y)
r^
C
3
a
I
o
rH
*— '
C
O
C
•H
IS]
,_^
01
^
G
3
a
0
o
rH
* — '
S
SH
0
•rH
rH
0
O
rH
a
u
(P
rH
g
O
0 —
r-m
u o
U rH
fr.
Pn X
|g^
•*_^
H
pa
CD
o
SH
3
O
ui
5-8
-------
CD
Cn
CD CO
•H
M-l rH
•H cd
T3 4-1
0 0
O
O
0
co
m
o
rH
CN
vO
m
ro
en
o
in
in
H
1-4
PQ
S5
OS
o
0H
rfjj
as
p^
w
2
H
H
as
£*4
g
C/3
Q
rfj
s
EH
f$4
EH
D
r4
|_3
O
S:
D
2
<
co
2
0
H
EH
H
Q
2
O
O
O
2
H
EH
CO
H
X
w
OS
w
Q
2
D
co
w
o
OS
D
O
co
jjj
<
g<
O
OS
fa
CO
2
EH
2
H
2
pa
EH
ffl
3
O
fa
OS
H
^t
O
OS
w
3
H
co
Q
pa
2
H
P3
2
O
0
H
H
EH
2
2
[V]
3
Q
2
M-l
CD
•O EH
0 CO
S O
CD
C rd
•H M
rH O
C 4-1
H CO
C
o
•H
rd
a
CD
CO
0)
li
0 0)
U CO
0
•H
4-1
o
o
2
Cn
c
•H
4-1
en
•H
X
H
O
O
o
CN
CN
o
o
O
in
CN
o
o
o
CN
H
o
o
o
CN
rH
O
O
O
oo
O
r-
CO
CM
CN
CN
CTl
m
CN
CN
rH
CO
ro
rH
co
10
CN
O
in
co
co
o
cn
CO
o
m
co
ro
O
m
en
co
o
r-
co
CO
CN
CO
CN
CO
ro
•SJ1
CO
IT)
CN
CN
O
ro
CM
co
CM
CO
rH
CM
CN
CTl
O
ro
in
o
m
ro
r-
CO
o
in
m
r-
M
— '
en
•H -^
rH en
O TJ
CO C
P
rO O
a) a
'O
OD
0) O
ft rH
w —
P
CO
horus
ft
en
0
On
"to
C
O
ft
ro
rH 0
rd
4J
0
rH
— '
Oxygen
rH
O
•H
e,
CD
O
0
•H
m
timate
rH
D
r^
OJ
cd
CD
Q
"uT
c
P
a
3
O
rH
—
r.
1
-------
U5
vfl
Cd
39
<
u
IX
< M
a e<
os <
< z
OS
z w
< O
O O
.X l-i
^ >.
•H T3
OS T3
to
•0 U
0
O -U
OS ITS
tn
0)
c
>-, -p
O (TJ O
CJ cn
^ aj
in cv jx
ai 14
0) -H 0)
S K CS
(U
-rH
•rH -H ^2
VI
O 1 1
! 1
0 1 1
tu
tn jj i-i
HJ US X
O H Cn
u s
C*l ^
• O IN
CM 6 iH
tn
U-4 i-4
O X,
-I S
0 3
0 0
O iH ^
01
U-l
O ^H
^H cn
0 3 £
0
O r-t 00
tn
O X,
c^J js E
« Cn
CN -H O
S £ £-1 -0- .C CVJ
C M
QJ T3
Cn -H
>^ r— (
X O
O cn
jj
a)
-j
a)
g
i^.
a
Oi
'O 'O
3 oj a)
0 > T3
r-l r-4 C
&* 0 O
tn o.
3 01 tn
0 •« 3
^4 C cn
i
i
i
i-4
\
Cn
£
r--
!
O
,—4
\
cn
c
t-i,
0
1-1
X
cn
£
^
r-i
G^
S
fl
o
in
3
O
a
tn
o
a
r-4
TJ
^j
O
1
1
1
r-l
X
Cn
£
09
O
o
c
O
1-1
X
Cn
£
O
r-l
X
Cn
£
0
X
CT
g
^
o
o
o
as
C
|
<;
T3
0)
N
• r-1
c
0
• H
1
c
0
Z
1
1
1
>*,
ITS
T3
X
c
0
,-!
r-4
•H
J3
ro
>.
us
•a
X
0
>t
HI
•o
X
0
T3
C
0
i-4
1—4
• H
J2
-T
tn
^
O
>u
.^
^
0
U
r-|
IT)
O
0)
Cu
5-10
-------
5.1.1.2.3 Milwaukee River: With the Local Alternative, the
Thiensville WWTP (the only facility within the planning area
discharging effluent to this river) would be expanded.
Secondary treatment and phosphorus removal processes would
be expanded to enable them to adequately treat the average
daily base flow which is expected to increase from 0.46 MGD
to 0.47 MGD (0.02 m /sec). Even with this expansion,
effluent from the Thiensville WWTP would comprise less than
2% of the water in the Milwaukee River at the discharge point,
under low flow conditions. Instream concentrations of dis-
solved oxygen, suspended solids/and phosphorus would be
unaffected by this expansion. However, total nitrogen levels
would increase slightly over upstream levels because of the
large concentrations in the WWTP effluent. It is expected
that all DNR water quality standards would be achieved.
5.1.1.2.4 Menomonee River: The existing Germantown WWTP
would be abandoned with this.alternative. Wastewater would
instead be conveyed to a new infiltration and percolation
facility. Elimination of the WWTP effluent would cause the
low flow rate of the Menomonee River to drop from 1.1 cubic
feet per second (cfs) (0.03 m3/sec) to 0.01 cfs (0.003 zip/sec).
The reduced flow would be lower in phosphorus and ammonia,_but
otherwise the river would be similar to its present condition.
The new land application site, if properly designed and
operated, should not affect surface waters. However, it is
possible that the partially treated effluent in the ponds
could wash into a nearby creek during heavy rainstorms or in
the case of a malfunction. Adequate precautions against
this possibility should be taken in the design for the
facility.
5.1.1.2.5 Tess Corners Creek (Root River): Currently, the
Muskego Northeast WWTP discharges effluent to Tess Corners
Creek. The Local Alternative would include the abandonment
of the existing Muskego Northeast WWTP and construction of a
conveyance facility to transport the wastewater to a new
treatment site in Vernon. The portion of the Creek stretching
from the existing Muskego Northeast facility to the Whitnall
Park Pond is currently kept in constant flow by the effluent
from the Muskego Northeast WWTP. Elimination of the WWTP
effluent would cause the low,flow rate of Tess Corners Creek
to drop fr,om 0,6 cfs ,"0.02 m /sec) to less than 0.01 cfs
(0.0002 m /sec). The reduced flow would be lower in
phosphorus and ammonia but otherwise the creek would be
similar to its present condition.
5-11
-------
5.1.1.2.6 Whitnall Park Pond; This pond is located just
upstream of the junction of Tess Corners Creek and the Root
River, and its water supply is dependent on Tess Corners
Creek. With cessation of effluent discharges, the nutrient
loadings to the pond would be reduced by approximately
one-half. However, this reduction probably will not
dramatically improve the pond's water quality because of
the accumulation of nutrients at the bottom of the pond.
It is anticipated that eventually the bottom nutrients
will be reduced if the upstream loadings are reduced.
5.1.1.2.7 Root River: The quality of the water in the Root
River, downstream of the Caddy Vista WWTP, is partly depen-
dent on the water of its tributary, Tess Corners Creek.
With the abandonment of the Muskego Northeast WWTP and the
expansion of the Caddy Vista facility from 0.07 to 0.11 MGD
(0.003 to 0.004 m /sec) the low flow rate of the Root River
would be reduced from 2.4 cfs to 1.9 cfs (from 0.07 to 0.05
m /sec). Effluent from the Caddy Vista WWTP would not
significantly affect the River's water quality. The Caddy
Vista WWTP is now overloaded and occasionally bypasses
wastewater. With construction of a new facility, these
bypasses would cease.
5.1.1.2.8 Oak Creek: Construction of an interceptor along
the North Branch of Oak Creek would take place with the
Local Alternative. This construction would temporarily add
silt to the Creek, but the siltation would cease with the
completion of construction.
5.1.1.2.9 Deer Creek (Fox River Tributary): The effluent
from the Regal Manors WWTP in New Berlin significantly
augments the flow of Deer Creek. With the abandonment of
the Regal Manors facility, the creek would have very low
flow and it might be intermittent during long periods of
dry weather.
5.1.1.2.10 Big Muskego Lake: The Muskego Northwest WWTP
currently discharges effluent to the Big Muskego Lake, but
the facility would be abandoned with the Local Alternative.
As a result, the Lake would no longer receive 0.5 MGD (0.02
m /sec) of effluent. Nonpoint source pollution (from runoff,
etc.) is considered to be a larger source of sediment,
phosphorus, and nitrogen loadings to the lake, but effluent
supplies almost an equal amount of phosphorus and a large
amount of nitrogen. With the Local Alternative, the amount of
suspended solids added to the lake each year by the WWTP
would be reduced by 60,000 pounds (27.216 kg),or 1% of the
5-12
-------
present annual loads. Yearly phosphorus loads would be
reduced by 40%, or 5,500 pounds (2,495 kg),and nitrogen loads
by 19%, or 34,000 pounds (15,422 kg). However, the already
accumulated nutrients in the Big Muskego Lake would not be
reduced and the problems of eutrophication and fish kills
would continue. The rate of degradation would be slowed,
which would facilitate future rehabilitation projects.
5.1.1.2.11 Outer Harbor; Two components of the Local
Alternative might affect water quality in the Outer Harbor:
rehabilitating the Jones Island WWTP and abating CSOs.
Although the quality of the rivers feeding into the Harbor
could change slightly at the local WWTP discharge sites,
these changes would be so small and so far upstream that
they would have little effect on water quality in the
Outer Harbor.
The Jones Island WWTP would be expanded and upgraded with
the Local Alternative. During the planning period, the
average daily flow to the facility is expected to decrease
from 132 MGD (5.8 m /sec) to less than 110 MOD (4.8 m /sec)
to reductions in clear water infiltration. The expansion
of the facility would enable it to treat peak flows adequately
without bypassing. As a result, the pollutant loads
to the Outer Harbor from the WWTP would be slightly reduced,
as shown in the Table 5.7. The present WPDES permit allows
the WWTP to discharge up to 400,000 pounds (181,400 kg) per
year of phosphorus at present flow rates, but the plant
presently discharges about one-half of that. It also discharges
1.6 million pounds (.725,760 kg) of ammonia and 3,000 pounds
(1,361 kg) of cadmium into the Outer Harbor each year.
One way of alleviating the impacts of Jones Island effluent
on the Outer Harbor would be to move the effluent outfall
beyond the breakwater which separates the harbor from the
main body of Lake Michigan (about 3,000 feet to the east).
Although the pollutants from Jones Island effluent would
still be added to lake water, they would net accumulate in
the confined area of the Outer Harbor. Instead, they would
be discharged to Lake Michigan proper and dispersed by currents.
However, moving the outfall would increase the pollutant
loading to Lake Michigan. In addition, the MMSD, EPA, and DNR
are currently assessing the impacts of moving the outfall and
the results of these analyses will be incorporated into
the Final EIS.
Using the assumptions identified in the Water Quality Appendix,
it has been estimated that levels of ammonia would increase
to 6 million pounds (2.7 million kg) per year due to the
abandonment of the H'ilorganite process at the Jones Island
WWTP. This increase in ammonia would raise levels in -he
5-13
-------
TABLE 5.7
ANNUAL POLLUTANT LOADS
FROM THE JONES ISLAND WWTP
Volume
*Particulate Solids
Dissolved Solids
*BOD
^Phosphorus
Nitrogen
Ammonia
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
*Fecal Coliform
Existing
48,000 million gal/yr
12 million Ibs/yr
370 million Ibs/yr
12 million Ibs/yr
400,000 Ibs/yr
3 million Ibs/yr
1.6 million Ibs/yr
3000 Ibs/yr
100,000 Ibs/yr
28,000 Ibs/yr
0.4 x 1015/yr
Future
40,000 million gal/yr
10 million Ibs/yr
310 million Ibs/yr
10 million Ibs/yr
330,000 Ibs/yr
9 million Ibs/yr
6 million Ibs/yr
2500 Ibs/yr
83,000 Ibs/yr
23,000 Ibs/yr
0.3 x 1015/yr
Bacteria
1 Ib = 0.45 kilograms
1 gallon = 3.78 liters
a Relief Bypass Discharges consist of material in the MIS which is
discharged to the surface waters prior to being treated in the WWTP.
*
Assumes maximum WPDES concentrations. Actual values may be lower.
Source: ESEI
5-14
-------
central Outer Harbor beyond the DNR and EPA standards for '
un-ionized ammonia.
5.1.1.2.12 Lake Michigan: Four WWTPs in the MMSD planning
area, South Shore, South Milwaukee, School Sisters of Notre
Dame and WEPCO, discharge effluent directly to Lake Michigan.
All but the South Shore plant discharge volumes of effluent
and loads of pollutants that are small compared to the other
sources of pollution.to the lake; therefore, they are not
discussed in this section.
The South Shor| WWTP would contribute 42,000 million gallons
(159 million m ) of effluent to the main body of Lake Michigan
each year. The annual loads of pollutants to the lake from
this WWTP would increase slightly (see Table 5.8). This
plume of effluent would rise to the surface of the colder
lake water and be dispersed by wind-driven currents. The
effluent would contribute to the gradual nutrient enrichment
of Lake Michigan, perhaps noticeable near the shore of the
lake. However, Lake Michigan would continue to have
excellent water quality, under most circumstances, for the
entire planning period.
If the South Shore WWTP is expanded by lakefill, there would
be some additional impacts to the lake Construction would
remove thirty acres of near-shore lake area and would cause
some local siltation. Treating or settling the water pumped
out of the lakefill site would lessen these impacts.
5.1.1.3 Regional Alternative
The Regional Alternative would employ the same methods as
the Local Alternative for the abatement of CSO. The impacts
of this portion of the Regional Alternative would, therefore,
be the same as those outlined above. Table 5.4 illustrates
the reduction in pollution loading that would be accomplished
by the abatement of CSO. In addition, like the Local Alter-
native, the Regional Alternative would eliminate bypasses of
untreated sewage in the separated sewer area and at WWTPs.
Table 5.2 outlines the annual pollution from this type of
event.
With the Regional Alternative, all WWTPs in the planning
area, except the Jones Island and South Shore WWTPs would be
abandoned. The effects of this component of the Regional
Alternative are described below. Table 5.9 summarizes the
future water quality of the streams of the planning area.
5.1.1.3.1 Milwaukee River: The Milwaukee River at Thiensville
5-15
-------
TABLE 5.8
ANNUAL POLLUTANT LOADS FROM THE SOUTH SHORE WWTP
Volume
*Particulate Solids
Dissolved Solids
*BOD
*Phosphorus
Nitrogen
Ammonia
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
*Fecal Coliform
Effluent
30,000 million gal/yr
7.5 million Ibs/yr
230 million Ibs/yr
7.5 million Ibs/yr
250,000 Ibs/yr
6 million Ibs/yr
4.5 million Ibs/yr
1700 Ibs/yr
190,000 Ibs/yr
15,000 Ibs/yr
0.2 x 1015/yr
Present
Relief Bypass
Discharge
300 million gal/yr
290,000 Ibs/yr
2.3 million Ibs/yr
250,000 Ibs/yr
13,000 Ibs/yr
95,000 Ibs/yr
20,000 Ibs/yr
25 Ibs/yr
3300 Ibs/yr
320 Ibs/yr
0.007 x 1015/yr
Future
42,000 million gal/yr
10 million Ibs/yr
320 million Ibs/yr
10 million Ibs/yr
350,000 Ibs/yr
10 million Ibs/yr
6 million Ibs/yr
2500 Ibs/yr
280,000 Ibs/yr
21,000 Ibs/yr
0.3 x 1015/yr
Bacteria
1 Ib = 0.45 kilogram
1 gal =3.78 liters
Relief Bypass Discharges consist of material in the MIS which is discharged
to the surface waters prior to being treated in the WWTP.
* Assumes maximum WPDES concentrations. Actual values may be lower.
5-16
-------
c\
in
ca
en w
U EH
« rt!
JH Z
cn as
H
OS <
<
U
64 M
O <
tn
>* O
EH 2
rH
.4 OS
< O
OS Z
w o
E-i H
< C3
tn
0)
c
VI
o
U
•H
«
4J
VI
0)
.,_!
OS
M
(D
ffl
(D
Z
4J
tn
y-i
Q 1
1
(S O J
IS
4J
in
>
^.
'O
•a
IS
Q
.U
IS
O
fl)
24
in
3
4)
to 4J
O IH
^
X
0
iH
0)
rH rH
tu O
tn
3 tn
0 -rt
J C
1
1
1
(— (
\
O1
S
0
rH
i-H
x^
cr>
S
0
r-*
rH
\
D1
s
CO
^
en
S
o
cs
tn
H
rH
0
tn
r-,
(U
T3
C
£
i— t
rH
\,
CP
£
f!
O
tn
3
0
a
01
O
Oi
rH
,TJ
4j
O
1
1
1
rH
X
01
g
in
o
o
o
rH
X
Cn
S
O
rH
X
C"
s
0
X
21
*"
^r
a
o
0
iS
c
I
c
"3
0)
N
• r^
C
0
1
£
0
z
1
1
1
^,
(0
^
X
o
>,
iS
T3
X
0
>,
iS
T3
X
0
^
IS
-------
presently meets DNR water quality standards, except when the
Thiensville WWTP is bypassing untreated sewage or is not
meeting permit limits. Abandoning the Thiensville WWTP would
not greatly alter this situation, although the possibility of
water quality standard violations would be reduced. Effluent
from the existing WWTP comprises less than 2% of the stream flow
at its discharge point. Without the facility,
the low flow of the-,river would change from 42 cfs to 41.5
cfs (1.19 to 1.18 m /sec). Levels of suspended solids and
phosphorus would remain about the same, but ammonia would
be reduced from 0.2 mg/1 to 0.1 mg/1 and nitrogen from 2.3
mg/1 to 2.2 mg/1. Oxygen levels should remain above DNR
minimum goals and inputs of human fecal coliforms from this
WWTP would cease.
5.1.1.3.2 Menomonee River: The Regional Alternative would
include the abandonment of the Germantown WWTP, the only
facility discharging effluent to this river. The most
noticeable effect this action would have on the river would
be to reduce its flow downstream of the WWTP from 1.1 cfs to
0.01 cfs (0.03 to 0.0003 m /sec) during dry weather. In free-
flowing portions of the river, the concentrations of nitrogen,
suspended solids, and ammonia would be reduced: nitroaen
would be reduced from 20 mg/1 to 5 mg/1; suspended solids from
10 mg/1 to 8 mg/1; and ammonia from 8 mg/1 to 0.1 mg/1.
However, levels of phosphorus would increase from 0.7 mg/1
to 1 mg/1 due to the reduction in flow and the naturally high
concentrations of phosphorus in the river. Nonetheless,
the free-flowing portions of the upper Menomonee River would
probably meet DNR water quality standards.
5.1.1.3.3 Tess Corners Creek: With the Regional Alternative,
the Muskego Northeast WWTP would cease discharging effluent
to this creek. Without this effluent, Tess Corners Creek
would have virtually no flow during dry weather. Phosphorus
concentrations in the creek would probably not change, but
suspended solids would be reduced from 14 mg/1 to 10 mg/1,
nitrogen from 20 mg/1 to 1 mg/1, and ammonia from 8 mg/1 to
0.1 mg/1. Fecal coliforms would be eliminated. However,
the flow reduction resulting from the Regional Alternative
might create slow-flowing reaches where sediment and algae
might accumulate. Under such circumstances the levels of
dissolved oxygen might be lowered. Nonetheless, the
free-flowing portions of Tess Corners Creek would probably
meet DNR water quality standards.
5.1.1.3.4 Whitnall Park Pond; The quality of the water of
Whitnall Park Pond is partially dependent on the inputs from
Tess Corners Creek. With the abandonment of the Muskego
Northeast WWTP, nutrient loadings to Whitnall Park Pond
5-18
-------
would be reduced by half. Although this reduction of
nutrients would slow the rate of the pond's eutrophication,
it would not stop or reverse the process. Nutrients have
already built: up in the pond, and removing them would
require measures such as dredging or harvesting algae.
5.1.1.3.5 Root River: The water quality of the Root River/
downstream of the Caddy Vista WWTPris affected by effluent
from the Caddy Vista WWTP and by the waters of its tribu-
tary, Tess Corners Creek. With the Regional Alternative,
both the Caddy Vista and Muskego Northeast WWTPs would be
abandoned. As a result, the low flow downstream of the
Caddy Vista WWTP would-be reduced from 2.4 cfs to 1.7 cfs
(0.07 m /sec to 0.05 m /sec). Without the effluent,
pollutant loadings would be reduced, suspended solids would
decline from 14 mg/1 to 10 mg/1, phosphorus from 1 mg/1
to 0.4 mg/1, nitrogen from 20 mg/1 to 1 mg/1, ammonia from
1 mg/1 to 0.2 mg/1, and inputs of fecal coliforms from this
source would cease.
Samples indicate that the stream occasionally has low levels
of dissolved oxygen due to its slow flow and to agricultural
runoff and algae. With the Regional Alternative, these
occasional low dissolved oxygen levels would persist.
5.1.1.3.6 Oak Creek: The Regional Alternative involves the
construction of the Oak Creek Interceptor. This construc-
tion would temporarily disturb the creek, causing siltation,
but the effects would cease shortly after the completion of
construction.
5.1.1.3.7 Deer Creek: The Regal Manors WWTP in New Berlin
discharges effluent to Deer Creek. Cessation of the dis-
charges with the Regional Alternative would dry the creek
except during rainfall and snowmelt events. However, the
free-flowing portions of Deer Creek would probably meet DNR
water quality standards.
5.1.1.3.8 Big Muskego Lake; The Muskego Northwest WWTP
discharges effluent to Big Muskego Lake. Abandonment of
the WWTP with the Regional Alternative would remove 40% of the
annual phosphorus loading to the lake The nitrogen loading
would also be reduced. This level of pollution reduction
would not reverse the lake's process of eutrophication, but
the process would be slowed. This alternative would make
future lake rehabilitation projects more likely to succeed.
5-19
-------
5.1.1.3.9 Outer Harbor: With the Regional Alternative, all
wastewater flows in the planning area would be treated at
the Jones Island and South Shore WWTPs. However, since
these WWTPs now treat 95% of the wastewater flows in the
planning area, the additional wastewater would not greatly
change the volume or quality of the effluent from these
facilities. Although bypasses of untreated sewage would be
eliminated, potentially increasing flows to the WWTPS, the
increase would be countered by a reduction in infiltration
and inflow. The average flow at the Jones Island, WWTP is
expected to decrease by 15% and the average flow at the
South Shore WWTP should increase by 40%. The net result
would be an increase of 5% in total wastewater flows to
the two WWTPs.
Both regional WWTPs would be rehabilitated and expanded with
the Regional Alternative. The expansion would allow them to
treat peak flows without bypassing and to meet future WPDES
standards
The Jones Island WWTP would continue to discharge effluent
to the Outer Harbor. Since the plant expansion would enable
it to treat peak wastewater flows without bypassing, and
since the flows to the facility would be reduced, the annual
loads to the Outer Harbor of most pollutants would be reduced
slightly, as shown in Table 5.7. However, with the elimina-
tion of the Milorganite production, the levels of ammonia in
Jones Island effluent would increase from 1.6 million pounds
to 6 million pounds (0.7 million kg to 2.7 million kg) annual-
ly. Consequently, the levels of ammonia in the Outer Harbor
would exceed the toxic concentration limit established by
the DNR.
One way of alleviating the impacts of Jones Island effluent
on the Outer Harbor would be to move the effluent outfall
beyond the breakwater which separates the harbor from the
main body of Lake Michigan (about 3,000 feet to the east).
Although the pollutants from Jones Island effluent would
still be added to lake water, they would not accumulate in
the confined area of the Outer Harbor. Instead, they would
be discharged to Lake Michigan proper, and dispersed by
currents. However, moving the outfall would increase the
pollutant loading to Lake Michigan. In addition, the MMSD,
EPA, and DNR are currently assessing the impacts of moving
the outfall and the results of these analyses will be
incorporated into the Final EIS.
5.1.1.3.10 Lake Michigan; The main body of Lake Michigan
would receivi~effluent from the South Shore WWTP with_the
Regional Alternative. Because the flows to the facility
would increase by 40% by the year 2005, the pollutant loads
5-20
-------
would also increase, despite the abatement of bypasses.
Table 5.5 compares present and future pollutant loads to
Lake Michigan from the South Shore WWTP.
Effluent from South Shore would continue to rise to the
surface of the Lake and be dispersed by wind-driven currents,
The effluent would have few noticeable effects on water
quality in Lake Michigan, but would contribute to the
gradual nutrient enrichment of the Lake. Although some
algae might be noticeable in the near shore portions, the
Lake would continue to have excellent water quality under
most circumstances throughout the planning period.
If the expansion of South Shore requires lakefill, there
would be some additional short-term impacts to the lake
Construction would remove thirty acres of near-shore Lake
area and would cause some local siltation. Treating or
settling the water pumped out of the lakefill site would
lessen these effects.
5.1.1.4 Mosaic Alternative
The Mosaic Alternative would have the same effects as the
Regional Alternative on the quality of the waters of the
planning area. The only difference between the two al-
ternatives is that the Mosaic Alternative includes the
operation of the South Milwaukee, WEPCO, and Sisters of
Notre Dame facilities.
The Mosaic Alternative would have the South Milwaukee WWTP
continue to discharge effluent to Lake Michigan, rather than
being tributary to the South Shore WWTP as outlined in the
Regional Alternative. However, the two facilities have the
same effluent limits. Thus, the amount and quality of
effluent entering Lake Michigan from the planning area would
be the same with either alternative.
The two private facilities, WEPCO and Sisters of Notre Dame,
have very small wastewater flows. Because of the small
volume of effluent they discharge and because the effluent
would meet WPDES standards, the operation of these private
facilities would not affect Lake Michigan.
5.1.2 Aquatic Biota
5.1.2.1 No Action Alternative
The natural habitat of fish and other aquatic biota can be
temporarily adversely affected by the periodic addition of
5-21
-------
raw or inadequately treated sewage which contains salts', toxic
substances, and suspended organic and particulate matter.
Salts and toxic substances can poison aquatic biota. Organic
matter decomposes in water, lowering levels of dissolved
oxygen critical to aquatic animals. Particulate matter, grit,
and silt cloud the water making it less habitable for many
types of fish. Also, the phosphorus and nitrogen in sewage
stimulate the growth of algae and other' aquatic plants which
discourages recreational use.
With the No Action Alternative, bypasses would continue
to result in temporary disruptions of aquatic biota in the
planning area. In Milwaukee County, bypasses would pollute
the Milwaukee, Menomonee, and Kinnickinnic Rivers. In
addition, there would be bypasses in Thiensville into the
Milwaukee River and Pigeon Creek, in Germantown into the
Menomonee River, and in Oak Creek into the Root River. The
bypasses would primarily occur during wet weather, when
the flow in the rivers would be high and levels of suspended
solids and nutrients would be increased by land runoff.
Although the bypasses would cause short-term declines in
oxygen content and rises in suspended solids and nutrients,
they would not permanently affect aquatic biota. Fish and
other aquatic animals would temporarily avoid areas where by-
passes occur, but there should be no significant, long-term effects,
Bypasses of sewage to Tess Corners Creek, the North Branch
of Oak Creek and elsewhere would occur during infrequent
power failures. These bypasses would cause temporary decreases
in the oxygen content of the receiving waters and increases in
the levels of suspended solids and nutrients. Fish would
avoid the area until the waters returned to their original
conditions.
Five WWTPs would continue to discharge effluent to Lake
Michigan. Three of these, School Sisters of Notre Dame,
Wisconsin Electric Power Company (WEPCO), and South Milwaukee,
would function adequately. Their discharges would not affect
the water and sediment quality in Lake Michigan during the
planning period.
However, the Jones Island and South Shore WWTPs would not
function properly on a consistent basis. During wet weather,
the Jones Island WWTP presently discharges inadequately-treated
effluent to the Outer Harbor. This situation would continue
if the sewerage facilities are not improved. As a result
of this and other upstream sources of pollution, trout and
salmon would be expected to avoid the Harbor. In addition,
the growth of nuisance algae would be facilitated. Increased
ammonia levels in the effluent from the Jones Island WWTP
might result in toxicity to fish in the central portions of
the harbor.
5-22
-------
The South Shore WWTP would also be overloaded at times
during the planning period, allowing the discharge of parti-
ally treated, chlorinated effluent directly into Lake
Michigan. Although currents would prevent plant nutrients
from collecting near the discharge point, organic matter
would settle there. Fish would avoid the plume of effluent,
but they might be drawn by the beds of bottom dwelling
animals that would feed on the organic deposits around the
discharge point. These beds might contain toxic substances
such as heavy metals and pesticides, and in this way these
substances could enter the food chain.
5.1.2.2 Local, Regional and Mosaic Alternatives
With any action alternative, effluent discharges to the
Menomonee River at Germantown, to Deer Creek at New Berlin,
and to Tess Corners Creek in Muskego would cease, which would
reduce the flows of the upper reaches of these watercourses
close to zero during very dry weather. If the streams should
dry up, many fish would migrate to permanently-flowing reaches,
but less mobile aquatic insects and bottom-dwelling organisms
would die. These organisms would not be replaced until
conditions are more hospitible for them. The fish that feed
on these organisms (white suckers, bass and bluegill, for example)
would move downstream to permanently-flowing reaches. Species
more tolerant of intermittent streams might begin to inhabit
the streams.
Deer Creek is filled with cattails, making it resemble a
marsh. With the reduction in flow, marsh vegetation would re-
main and a marsh community may become established. Tess Corners
Creek and the upper Menomonee River might also develop stands
of marsh vegetation.
Big Muskego Lake and the Whitnall Park Pond already contain
dense populations of algae. With any action alternative,
this growth of algae would continue or even increase due to
the accumulated nutrients that would support eutrophication.
Removal of the accumulated nutrients, by dredging the
sediments or harvesting algae, would be necessary to reverse
the eutrophication. Eliminating inputs of pollutants from
the WWTPs would improve the effectiveness of any rehabilitation
project.
The Outer Harbor also has nuisance algal growths. However, none
of the action alternatives would greatly alter the input of phos-
phorus to the Harbor, so algal growth would continue at a high level
Increased ammonia levels from Jones Island effluent might
result in fish toxicity in the central portion of the harbor.
5-23
-------
In Lake Michigan, effluent from the South Shore WWTP would tend to
repel fish. The area affected by the effluent would vary
depending on currents and winds, but it would probably remain
close to the surface. Organic matter would collect at the
outfall locations, encouraging the growth of large populations
of deposit-feeding worms. These organic deposits would
contain high concentrations of heavy metals, which could be
incorporated into the aquatic worms. Since fish feed upon
these worms, the potential for introducing these toxic
substances into the aquatic food-chain would continue.
5-24
-------
5.1.3 Threatened and Endangered Species
5.1.3.1 No Action Alternative
Two species of fish on the State Threatened and Endangered
Species Lists may inhabit the Milwaukee River near
Thiensville. These are the striped shiner, and endangered
species, and the longear sunfish, a threatened species. In
order to survive, these fish need clear water and a gravelly
stream bed for spawnina. Bypasses and overflows in the
Thiensville sewer system would contribute to the degradation
of the natural habitat of these fish by adding small amounts
of silt to the river. Thus, the No Action Alternative could
reduce the numbers of these species of fish.
The Federal government lists the longjaw cisco as endangered.
This is a deep water fish that has been reported in Lake
Michigan. However, it has not been reported since 1963, and
in any case would not be affected by the No Action Alternative,
5.1.3.2 Local Regional and Mosaic Alternatives
None of these alternatives should disrupt any endangered or
threatened species of fish in the planning area. The quality
of the Milwaukee River would not be altered by either the
expansion or the abandonment of the Thiensville WWTP.
Neither the striped shiner nor the longear sunfish would
be affected.
5.1.4 Air Quality
5.1.4.1 No Action Alternative
With the No Action Alternative, there would be little
change in the amount of pollutants emitted to the air from
sewerage facilities in the planning area. These emissions
result from generators, sludge drying incineration of
screened materials, and the vehicles used for transporting
sludge to disposal sites.
Currently, the greatest source of air pollutants from the
operation of these facilities is the process of drying
sludge to produce Milorganite. In 1979, 1,226 tons (1,112
metric tons) of particulates (dust) were introduced into the
air from this process (about 6% of the total emissions in
Milwaukee County). With the No Action Alternative, the amount
of particulates from Milorqanite production would remain
5-25
-------
the same (Milorganite oroduction is at its maximum),
The amounts of air pollutants associated with the other
sewage treatment processes in the planning area would also
remain about the same throughout the planning period.
Wastewater flows are not expected to increase between
1985 and 2005, so the WWTPs would operate approximately
as many hours as they do now. The pollution from these
sources is relatively insignificant to air quality in
the planning area.
5.1.4.2 Local, Regional, and Mosaic Alternatives
All the action alternatives would include the rehabilitation
and expansion of the Jones Island and South Shore WWTPs and
methods to abate CSO and to reduce peak flows. Each of these
components of the MWPAP would have construction impacts and
long-term operating impacts on air quality.
Construction would create dust (particulate emissions) and
equipment fumes. The amount of pollutants added to the air
would vary depending on the percentage of silt in the soil,
the weather (wind and rain), the moisture content of the
soil and the alternatives selected for WWTP expansion and
CSO abatement and peak flow attenuation. Dust emissions could
have serious effects at construction sites located near
residential areas. Precautions should be taken to limit
dust from construction by sprinkling construction areas with
water or chemical dust suppressors. The construction for the
expansion and rehabilitation of the Jones Island and South
Shore WWTPs would take less than four years. The lakefill
alternatives for these WWTPs would create the greatest amount
of dust.
For the most part, the impacts on air quality from the various
alternatives for CSO abatement would be construction-
related. The CSO solutions involving open cut sewer
construction (Complete Sewer Separation and Inline Storage)
would produce the most dust. Unlike other MWPAP construction
projects which would require only temporary construction
sites, the CSO abatement project would require longer
construction time for dropshafts, access shafts, and near
surface storage facilities. Some of these sites would be
located in or near sensitive residential and recreational
areas. Precautions for minimizing dust should also be
followed for this construction.
Construction vehicles would emit small quantities of fumes.
The amount of emissions would be limited by the small number
of vehicles and their operation time. Vehicles should have
5-26
-------
emission rates within EPA and DNR regulations.
The average, annual construction impacts of the MMSD's
preferred alternatives for the rehabilitation and expansion
of the Jones Island and South Shore WWTPs and the joint
facilities for CSO storage and peak flow attenuation are
shown in Table 5.10. The figures in the table would vary
if alternatives other than the MMSD's preferred alternatives
were selected. The ranges of construction emissions for
the South Shore WWTP and the CSO/peak flow abatement alter-
natives are shown in Table 5.11 (The MWPAP did not calculate
the construction impacts for all Jones Island alternatives).
For more detailed information on the construction impacts
of different aspects of these alternatives, see the Jones
Island, South Shore, and CSO Appendices.
The most significant long-term impact of any action alternative
would be the 6% reduction of county-wide particulate emissions
due to the abandonment of Milorganite production. In addition,
changes in energy use at the WWTPs would affect their
emissions. Table 5.12 compares air pollutant emissions from
energy use with the No Action and Local Alternatives. The
Local Alternative was used in this analysis because it would
require the most energy of any action alternative, although
energy use under all the action alternatives would be similar.
This table does not include purchased electricity. With any
action alternative, the use of electricity would more than
double. The increase in the use of electricity could require
greater use of coal and nuclear energy for generating
electricity.
TABLE 5.12
AIR QUALITY IMPACTS
(YEAR 2005)
RELATED TO ENERGY USE
No Local
Action Alternative
Particulate
Matter 12.8 9.8
Sulfur Dioxide* 52.7 48.3
Carbon Monoxide* 69.5 164.4
Hydrocarbons* 142.5 412.2
Nitrogen Oxide* 312.1 413.5
*In Tons
5-27
-------
TABLE 5.10
AVERAGE
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION
OF MMSD PREFERRED
ALTERNATIVES
IN TONS
1985
MWPAP
Particulate Matter
Sulfur Dioxide
Carbon Monoxide
Hydrocarbons
(1987)
Nitrogen Dioxide
'ones
island1
56
14
425
30
South
Shore2
9
4
9
12
CSO3
144
10
235
30
Total
209
28
669
72
County -
Wide4
Total
13,633
178,437
161,247
74,477
of Total
Emissions
1.5%
0.2%
0.4%
0.1%
160
50
193
403
67,008
0.6%
•'•MMSD, Jones Island Facility Plan Element, 1980
2HNTB, Technical Memo, 1980
3MMSD, CSO, vol. 1, 1980
4SEWRPC Planning Report 28, 1980. The year 1985 is used for comparative
purposes only.
1 ton = 0.9078 metric ton
5-28
-------
TABLE 5.11
RANGES OF AVERAGE ANNUAL
CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
IN TONS
South Shore WWTP CSO 1 Peak Flow Abatement
Least Worst Least Worst
Case Case Case Case
Particulate
Matter 3 34 108 160
Sulfer
Dioxide 257 16
Carbon Monoxide 5 11 235 296
Hydrocarbons 6 13 21 30
Nitrogen
Dioxide 25 56 120 193
5-29
-------
In addition to the direct impacts on air quality from con-
struction and operation of sewerage facilities, any growth
or land use inconsistent with the Regional 208 Plan could
affect regional air quality planning. As urbanization in-
creases, less agricultural land use and more residential
and industrial land use also occurs. With the increased
development, air pollution problems can be expected to
increase.
5.1.5 Groundwater
5.1.5.1 No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative could lead to the degradation of
groundwater quality in Muskego. The Muskego Rendering
Company currently discharges wastewater to a land application
site in western Muskego. Although the facility now operates
properly, planned expansion would create loads in excess of
the site's capacity. With the No Action Alternative, over-
loading could occur during the planning period. Many private
water wells around Muskego use the shallow aquifer to which
the pond discharges. Pollution of the aquifer could
eventually cause a health hazard. There should be no other
impacts on groundwater quality from the No Action Alternative.
5.1.5.2 Local, Regional, and Mosaic Alternatives
With any action alternative, the infiltration-percolation
pond at the Muskego Rendering Company would be abandoned.
Instead, the facility would pretreat its wastewater and
discharge it to a local sewer system. As a result, the
drinking water in Muskego would be protected from these
discharges.
With the Local Alternative, three WWTPs in the planning area
would employ aerated lagoons followed by infiltration-
percolation ponds where the partially treated wastewater would
be applied to land. Because this method uses soil as a filter,
it is important to have the greatest distance possible to
groundwater at the application sites; hence, a deep water
table is essential
Even with a deep water table, uneven filtration characteristics
or underground channels could allow effluent to reach ground-
water before its nutrients and solids are fully filtered out.
The result could be pollution of the shallow groundwater. Due
to the slow movement of groundwater, this would be a long-
term impact.
5-30
-------
Sewage effluent contains many substances that could pollute
groundwater. Soil acts as an efficient filter, and
pollutants like heavy metals and phosphates would be
rapidly taken up by soil particles. The main danger to
groundwater from land application would be pollution by
nitrate, which is highly concentrated in sewage effluent
and poorly filtered by soil. Nitrate has been linked to a
blood disorder, Methemoglobinemia, and so its concentration
in drinking water is limited by the EPA.
To protect users of groundwater in the vicinity of the
land application sites in Vernon, Muskego, and Germantown,
a thorough investigation of the soils beneath potential pond
locations, including percolation tests, should be conducted
before the sates are approved. If the tests are incon-
clusive, tile drains should be installed under the ponds to
monitor the percolate and determine if groundwater quality
is in danger. If the groundwater should be threatened, the
percolate could be pumped to the surface, retreated, and
recycled.
Nitrate contamination could be avoided by planting a fast-
growing wetland plant in the infiltration ponds, allowing it
to take up the nitrogen, and harvesting it regularly. As
an example, the grass Phragmites communis would be capable of
withdrawing three times the amount of nitrate that would be
annually added to these infiltration-percolation ponds
over a growing season.
It is likely that land application facilities could be
successfully designed and operated without jeopardizing
local groundwater supplies. Due to high concentrations of
heavy metals and other toxic substances, infiltration ponds
might be unsuitable for growing crops once they are no longer
useful for sewage disposal.
The MMSD has recommended that the solids from the South Shore
WWTP be applied to agricultural land during the growing season
and stored when the ground is frozen. Landfilling was
recommended by the MMSD for the solids from the Jones Island
WWTP. Both land application and landfill would present some
hazard to groundwater. Treatment plant solids contain toxic
substances such as nitrates and heavy metals that could leach
through the soil and contaminate groundwater.
To prevent groundwater contamination, the DNR has established
criteria for the selection of land application sites. Appli-
cation rates limited are by permissable levels of heavy metals
and nitrates in the soil. Furthermore, the DNR requires
extensive monitoring of sludge composition and groundwater
5-31
-------
conditions. These precautions would minimize the likelihood
of groundwater contamination at land application sites.
The DNR also controls the landfilling of treatment plant sludge,
Sludge must be trucked to a sanitary landfill licensed by
the DNR.
Some leaching of toxic substances at landfills could occur,
and to protect groundwater this leachate should be collected
and treated. The DNR is now in the process of developing
policies for the treatment and disposal of landfill leachate.
Groundwater resources in the planning area might also be
affected by the construction of the interceptors included in
each action alternative. The pumping necessary for dewatering
construction sites could temporarily reduce groundwater
supplies in the surrounding areas. Although this groundwater
would be removed, after construction is completed the supply
of groundwater in the area should soon return to its prior
level. Wells in the area of construction might be depleted
temporarily, and alternate water supplies should be provided
to all affected well owners during the construction phase.
The final five CSO and I/I abatement alternatives would also
have the potential to cause groundwater pollution in the
planning area. Each alternative would involve considerable
near surface construction in the sand and gravel aquifer
and deep work construction in the Niagaran aquifer. No
construction would occur in the deep sandstone aquifer which
presently supplies most of the groundwater in Southeastern
Wisconsin and is the source of most new groundwater usage.
5.1.5.2.1 Short-Term Impacts of CSO/I/I Alternatives: The
construction required to implement the MWPAP could have
temporary impacts on groundwater supply and quality. The
construction of open-cut sewers, shallow tunnelled sewers,
drop shafts and near surface storage facilities could affect
the quality or availability of groundwater. For any of these
operations, there would be the possibility of gasoline or oil
spills which would contaminate the aquifer. Also, both
complete and partial sewer separation could cause spills of
wastewater during disconnection and reconnection. Any spills
would temporarily pose a hazard to nearby wells, but the
soils would repurify minor spills within a short time. The
construction of near surface storage and open cut sanitary
sewers would have the greatest potential for groundwater
contamination. These facilities are generally built near
the top of the water table, where pressure would allow
exfiltration of wastewater.
5-32
-------
It is also likely that groundwater levels would be lowered
near construction sites. The amount of "drawdown" would be
proportional to the surface area exposed within the aquifer.
Construction-related drawdown is usually confined to a small
area near the construction site. Near surface storage
facilities and dropshafts would have the greatest potential
for lowering groundwater levels, but drawdown can occur during
the construction of tunnelled sewers. Some water can be
recycled to the aquifer by recharge wells.
The Complete Sewer Separation Alternative would require the
construction of over 440 miles of new sanitary sewer
construction and the disconnection of sanitary sewer laterals.
The storm sewers that would be constructed for this alternative
would require six dropshafts.
The Inline Storage Alternative would require the construction
of over 475 miles of open-cut and tunnelled sewers for
partial separation and near surface collectors. The older,
combined sewers would continue to convey sanitary wastes.
During surcharge conditions (when the flow in the sewers
exceeds their capacity) exfiltration could occur at the
weaker points in the system. The Inline Storage Alternative
would require the construction of 235 acre-feet of surface
storage and 18 dropshafts.
The Modified CST/Inline and the Modified Total Storage
Alternatives would have similar requirements to the Inline
System. With the Modified CST/Inline Alternative, only 115
miles of sewer separation would be needed, for a total of 132
miles of sewer construction. With the Modified Total Storage
Alternative, only 17 miles of near surface collectors would
be constructed, providing 715 acre-feet of storage.
The deeper Niagaran aquifer might also be affected by the
construction of deep tunnels, storage caverns and dropshafts.
Water in this aquifer is transported through cracks and
fissures in the rock formation. Depending on rock
formations, it might be necessary to dewater construction
sites. Extensive dewatering could lower groundwater levels
in the aquifer. Whenever cracks or fissures are encountered,
they would be filled to minimize infiltration. Because the
water in this aquifer is under pressure it is unlikely that
spills during construction could exfiltrate. All structures
would be lined with concrete prior to completion.
All four CSO/clearwater solution alternatives would require
construction in the Niagaran aquifer ranging from 6 drop-
shafts and 650 acre-feet of storage and conveyance volumes
for the Complete Separation Alternative to 18 dropshafts and
1465 acre-feet of conveyance and storage volume.
5-33
-------
5.1.5.2.2 Long-Term Impacts: The potential groundwater
contamination resulting from exfiltration of pollutants from
any collection, storage, or conveyance component of the CSO
and I/I abatement alternatives would be long-term groundwater
impacts. Most of the proposed components would be located
in aquifers where the water is under pressure (artesian
conditions). Under these conditions, the potential for
exfiltration from tunnels, caverns and dropshafts would be
minimal, but infiltration would be more likely.
For exfiltration to occur, it would be necessary for the
caverns, tunnels, and dropshafts to fill to levels above
the piezometric surface of the Niagaran aquifer. The
piezometric surface is the height to which the groundwater
would rise in an open well. In the Niagaran aquifer, this
surface has been reported to be from 0 to 150 feet (0 to 46 m)
above the top of the Niagaran formation. Since all tunnels
and caverns would be located at least 100 feet (30 m) below
the top of the Niagaran formation, there would be no sewage
exfiltration under normal operating conditions. When the
cavern and tunnels fill, the dropshafts would be closed and
CSOs would be discharged to the rivers, preventing surcharging
of these facilities.
There are exceptional cases, involving multiple equipment
failures and extreme rainfall, where exfiltration would be
possible. Such a situation could occur during a large
rainfall if both the Jones Island pump station and the
gates that close the dropshafts were to fail, allowing
wastewater to fill the tunnels and dropshafts above the
piezometric surface. Such an occurrance would be very
unlikely. The tunnels would be lined with 1 foot (0.3 m)
of concrete to further reduce the possibility of exfiltration.
Sewers and near-surface conveyance components, which would be
situated partially above the water table in the sand and gravel
aquifer, would have the potential for groundwater pollution
by exfiltration. However, standard sanitary sewer construction
practices require joints with rubber gaskets, which should
prevent wastewater from leaking out of the system. Near-
surface storage facilities could also pollute the sand and
gravel aquifer by exfiltration. However, these facilities
would be constructed of poured, reinforced concrete and,
with proper maintenance, they should not leak.
Groundwater, levels might be affected by any component of the
CSO abatement alternatives due to the possibility of ground-
water seeping into collection, conveyance, and storage
facilities. All deep facilities would be lined with concrete
to minimize infiltration. Infiltration should not be great
in near-surface sewers and collectors due to the use of
5-34
-------
rubber sealed joints. The poured, reinforced concrete
near-surface storage facilities, if properly maintained,
should not be subject to significant infiltration. The
decay of the sewerage systems would be inevitable, but
proper maintenance would insure the long-term integrity
of the system.
Minimal seismic activity has occurred in the Milwaukee area
in the recent past and can be expected to continue. Vibrations
generated by earthquakes might cause minor damage to surface
and near surface structures which could increase the infil-
tration or exfiltration potential of any component. Effects
on deep structures due to seismic activity would be minor,
unless the structures were located on a fault line or at
the epicenter of the event. Inspection of facilities as part
of the routine maintenance schedule would identify any
drainage resulting from earthquakes.
In order to evaluate the impact of the deep tunnel, cavern
storage, and near surface storage facilities on groundwater,
monitoring wells could be drilled. Measurements of water
level and quality would be taken on a regular basis with
additional measurements and samples taken after any storm
that causes a discharge to the near surface storage facilities
or pressurization of the tunnels.
5.1.6 Floodplains
5.1.6.1 No Action Alternative
If no action is taken to expand existing wastewater treat-
ment facilities, the amount of housing development that
could take place during the planning period could be somewhat
limited by the capacity of the existing sewer system. For
the most part, new development would take place in areas
that are already sewered. Since there are strict requirements
for septic systems and special permits are required for
construction on floodplains, it is unlikely that pressure
would increase to build in these environmentally sensitive
areas.
5.1.6.2 Local, Regional, and Mosaic Alternatives
Although any community in the planning area has some land
within a 100-year floodplain, the only floodplains that
might be affected by these alternatives are in Oak Creek and
New Berlin. (The Germantown WWTP is located near a flood-
plain, but the floodplain would not be disturbed.)
5-35
-------
All these alternatives include the construction of the Oak
Creek Interceptor to be routed along the North Branch of Oak
Creek. This construction would alter the stream's channel
and could allow the stream to flow more smoothly and rapidly.
As a result, the potential for flooding downstream from the
construction site might increase slightly. Planting marsh
vegetation or placing rocks along the river's banks would
lessen the possibility of downstream flooding. In addition,
this construction might require a temporary damming of the
creek. If such action is necessary, the likelihood of
flooding upstream of the interceptor during a heavy rainstorm
would increase.
All action alternatives would include abandoning the New
Berlin Regal Manors WWTP, which is located on the floodplain
of Deer Creek. The land could then be maintained as an
open floodplain.
Some CSO facilities would be constructed in floodplains.
For the Inline, Modified CST/Inline and Modified Total Storage
Alternatives, three dropshafts would be constructed in the
floodplain. Precautions should be included in design to
protect these structures and to keep them operational if
inundated during a flood. The Modified CST/Inline and
Modified Total Storage would require screening structures
ahead of the dropshafts. If these facilities are also
constructed on the floodplain, access structures should be
flood-proofed for the protection of equipment from flood-
water damage.
All CSO alternatives might require modification or repair
of existing outfalls, many of which lie in floodplains or
stream channels. This work should not affect floodwaters
once construction is completed.
With the implementation and enforcement of the Regional Land
Use Plan (SEWRPC PR25), there would be little chance of
any MWPAP alternative inducing growth on floodplains. The
100-year floodplains of the study area have been designated
by SEWRPC as primary environmental corridors. This designation
would control any potential development in these sensitive
areas.
5.1.7 Wetlands
5.1.7.1 No Action Alternative
Wetlands would be unaffected by the No Action Alternative,
Since there would be no construction of sewer facilities,
5-36
-------
zoning would limit most development to areas that already
have sewer service.
5.1.7.2 Local Alternative
The only wetland in the planning area that could be affected
by the Local Alternative is located in Muskego. The Muskego
Northwest WWTP is surrounded by marsh. The construction of
a new pump station at the WWTP site to convey wastewater to
Vernon would not take place on marshland, but there is a
possibility of short-term disturbances to the marsh from
construction equipment or practices. Contractors should be
careful not to dump soil or place equipment on the marsh.
Erosion control procedures should be strictly controlled
at this site during construction.
Implementation of the Local Alternative should not induce
the development of any wetland areas. Wetlands are
designated by SEWRPC as primary environmental corridors.
Therefore, future development in these areas would be
restricted.
5.1.7.3 Regional and Mosaic Alternatives
Only one wetland in the planning area could be affected by
the construction required by the Regional and Mosaic
Alternatives. The route of the Franklin-Muskego Interceptor
could come close to a small cattail marsh between Forest
Home Avenue and College Avenue. This wetland should be
avoided during construction. Precautions should be taken
at this site to prevent erosion.
Like the Local Alternative, these alternatives would not
induce growth on wetland areas. The Year 2000 Land Use
Plan limits development on primary environmental corridors,
including wetlands.
5.1.8 Wildlife Habitats
5.1.8.1 No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative would not affect wildlife habitat
in the planning area because it includes no new construction,
5.1.8.2 Local Alternative
The Local Alternative would result in impacts to wildlife
5-37
-------
habitats in the vicinity of the South Shore WWTP, in New
Berlin and in Muskego. The South Shore WWTP could be
expanded by building a new lakefill to the north of the
present site, by cutting the bluff to make more land at
lake level, or by building on top of the bluff. If the bluff
is cut, some of its habitat would be destroyed, and the
exposed surface be more susceptible to erosion. These
impacts could be mitigated by replanting vegetation and
initiating erosion control methods, such as terracing.
Neither of the other two options for the expansion would have
significant impacts on terrestrial wildlife habitats.
The New Berlin Southeast plant would be constructed on 55
acres of old fields and young woods, destroying these
wildlife habitats. However, this land is zoned for
residential use, and it is unlikely that it would remain
undisturbed in any case.
The new site of the Muskego treatment facility is a few
hundred feet south of the existing WWTP, bordering a small
stand of old trees that has been set aside as a park by the
City of Muskego. These trees should be avoided during
construction. The wildlife in that area could be tempor-
arily disrupted by the noise and activity of construction.
Because the CSSA is an urban area, the construction of any
CSO Abatement Alternative would have little impact on wild-
life habitat. Most of the construction for any CSO alternative
would take place on paved surfaces. Some vegetation might be
removed for the construction of pump stations, dropshafts, or
storage facilities. However, none of these facilities would
be located in a designated wildlife area and the vegetation
would be restored upon completion of the construction.
As part of the primary environmental corridors of the study
area, wildlife habitat would be protected from future
development. The local alternative would not induce
development in these areas.
5.1.8.3 Regional or Mosaic Alternatives
Either of these alternatives would have the same impacts on
wildlife habitats. The potential impacts of different methods
of expanding the South Shore WWTP and for CSO abatement are
described with the Local Alternative.
Other wildlife habitat that could be disturbed by construc-
tion includes the wooded floodplain of Tess Corners Creek,
in Muskego and Franklin, and the north branch of Oak Creek
near the south end of the Oak Creek Interceptor. The
5-38
-------
construction would require cutting a number of trees, thus
disrupting wildlife. These impacts would be temporary,
and they could be lessened by preserving as many trees as
possible.
Because the wildlife habitat of the planning area is
designated by SEWRPC as primary environmental corridor,
it is unlikely that alternatives would cause their
development.
5.1.9 Prime Agricultural Land
5.1.9.1 No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative could affect prime agricultural
land in three areas: the Caddy Vista subdivision of New
Berlin, Muskego, and Franklin. The Caddy Vista subdivision
is bordered on the north by a floodplain and on the east,
west and south by prime agricultural land, which was
designated for preservation by the Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service. The Caddy Vista wastewater
treatment plant is already hydraulically overloaded and
it would not be able to meet future effluent standards.
Large areas of Franklin and Muskego are presently unsewered.
With the No Action Alternative, little new development would
be allowed to connect to the public sewer system. Therefore,
pressure could increase to develop the area on lots with
septic tanks.
The Caddy Vista Subdivision is surrounded by prime farmland.
In addition, southwest Muskego contains 3,800 acres (.1,537.9
ha) and Franklin 5,000 acres (2,024 ha) of prime agricultural
land. In all these areas, most of the soils are unsuitable
for septic tank development on lots less than one acre (95%
of Caddy Vista area and Franklin, 90% of Muskego). However,
much of their land could be developed with septic tanks on
lots greater than one acre (0.4 ha); 50% of Caddy Vista
and Franklin, 55% of Muskego. With increased pressure for
large lot development, it is possible that the prime farmland
in these areas could be developed in conflict with the SEWRPC
Regional Plan (WSP, 1979).
5.1.9.2 Local, Regional, and Mosaic Alternatives
As urban services, such as sewers, are extended to areas
bordering farmland, the market value of the agricultural
land tends to increase. As the farmland becomes more valu-
able for development, property taxes increase. The farmer
5-39
-------
is often encouraged to sell his property. This conversion
of land from agricultural to urban use is an irreversible
committment of a resource.
If any of these alternatives is implemented, the capacity of
sewerage facilities in Muskego and Caddy Vista could be
expanded, and sewer service could be extended further into
Mequon, Franklin, and Germantown. All of these communities
contain prime agricultural land, which could be threatened
by increased development. Enforcement of land use controls,
such as local zoning for the implementation of the Regional
Year 2000 Land Use Plan, would restrain this development.
In addition, the Wisconsin Farmland Preservation Act (1977)
provides tax relief to some farmers and it could be used to
encourage the preservation of prime agricultural land
(WSP 1979).
This Act was established to ensure the continued maintenance
of productive and potentially productive agricultural land.
It was designed to promote cohesive state, county, and
local planning for protection of a vital Wisconsin resource.
Through exclusive agricultural zoning or individual init-
iative, those persons meeting the necessary legal criteria
(possessing at least 35 acres, 14 ha, of land engaged in
agricultural pursuits that have earned a minimum of $6,000
for the year previous to application or a net income of $18,000
over the previous three years) who wish to qualify under the
program are eligible for an income tax credit, based on a
complicated schedule that considers one's assessed property
tax and earned income. Implicit in the agreement (contract)
is the understanding that the land placed under the Wisconsin
Farmland Preservation Act will not be developed by the owner
without review by the proper officials and a repayment of
deferred taxes. For further details, the reader should
consult Wisconsin State Statutes 91 and 71.
5.2 MANMADE ENVIRONMENT
5.2.1 Future Development
SEWRPC has forecast population and housing growth for all
seven counties in its region. These population forecasts
are based upon three major assumptions: 1) a reduction in
the birth rate to below replacement level by 1985, 2) a
gradual increase in the birth rate to replacement level
from 1985 to 2000, and 3) a cessation of migration out of
the region by 1985. In the SEWRPC Year 2000 Regional Land
Use Plan, the spatial distribution of forecast population
5-40
-------
within each county is normative, meaning that it is based on a
set of guidelines rather than on past trends.
One goal of the Regional Land Use Plan is to avoid urban
sprawl. Within this general policy of "controlled centrali-
zation," the specific allocation of future population growth
within each county was guided initially, in part, by
identifying sub-areas (quarter sections) served by sanitary
sewer facilities. The allocation was also guided by
identifying these sub-areas planned to be served by sewer
facilities in the SEWRPC Regional Sanitary Sewerage System
Plan. Future development was assigned first to the sub-
areas (quarter sections) already platted for residential use.
When the existing supply of residential land under develop-
ment was exhausted, future development was then allocated to
either soils suitable for onsite disposal, or to delineated
sanitary sewer service areas.
These normative population allocations are the projected
numbers of people and households that appear under the
heading SEWRPC Plan in the tables in this section. The
population and household numbers that appear in columns
labeled Action and No Action are projections by the EIS
study team based on market analysis of the amount of
development that is likely to occur in the interceptor
service areas. This type of analysis examines the relative
strength of the housing market in the interceptor areas
or, alternately, it assesses the demand of people and
builders to develop the defined areas. These interceptor
area analyses have, in general, confirmed the existence of
a strong demand to develop in most of the areas.
The Action numbers and the SEWRPC Plan numbers should not
be interpreted as two competing projections but, rather,
as independent analyses of the perceived demand to live
in the service area (Action) and as a normative plan,
guided by adopted principles and an overall county level
population forecast (SEWRPC Plan).
The MMSD interceptors proposed in the Master Facilities Plan
are designed to serve the SEWRPC population forecast as
allocated within each county. The interceptors are an
integral part of the 2000 Land Use Plan. They have a two-
fold function: 1) to help guide the location of metropolitan
development, and 2) to provide sewer service for the
development as forecast by SEWRPC.
If the overall county and regional population forecasts
materialize, the interceptors will have provided sewer
service for new net growth in the SMSA. If, however, the
future population level falls short of the forecast level
5-41
-------
(.for the counties) , the interceptor service areas will
nonetheless remain high demand areas. The difference will
be that, instead of accommodating new net growth in the
planning area, they could serve to disrupt the balance
between the normative forecasts for the City of Milwaukee
and the newly-served areas.
5.2.1.1 No Action Alternative
T.he Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission
(SEWRPC) has projected population and housing growth for
the Southeastern Wisconsin region through the year 2000.
However, no action to upgrade sewerage facilities would
alter the amount and location of growth that could occur.
Table 5.13 illustrates these impacts.
The No Action Alternative involves no new construction of
sewerage facilities other than two small projects which are
already funded (two new interceptors presently under construc-
tion in the planning area). As a result of No Action,
future housing growth that is planned (SEWRPC 2000 Land
Use Plan) in the proposed interceptor service areas could not
occur. By the year 1990, 6,300 new housing units that
might have been accommodated in the interceptor service
areas would have to develop elsewhere. This displaced
development could shift to areas within the existing sewer
service area, such as the Northwest side of Milwaukee,
Menomonee Falls, the Wildcat Creek area of New Berlin, parts
of Greenfield, central Franklin, and much of Oak Creek. SEWRPC
projects a growth of 13,000 units in these areas between the
years 1990 and 2000, assuming no expansion of existing
facilities. Thus, these presently sewered areas could be
developed between 1980 and 1990 to the Year 2000 levels
without overtaxing the existing sewerage facilities. The
6,300 units that could not occur in the proposed interceptor
service areas between now and 1990 could be accommodated in
these areas in addition to their planned 1990 development.
Much of this growth would have to occur on small, infill
parcels of land. Between 1990 and 2000 an additional 11,000
housing units would be displaced from their planned locations.
By this time the housing growth would have to shift out of
the planning area.
It is unlikely that much of the development that would be
blocked from the proposed service areas could take place on
lots with septic tank systems. Over the last two years,
Wisconsin has strengthened and improved enforcement of reg-
ulations for soil percolation tests for on-site systems.
5-42
-------
U 0 Q <
U Z Z J
ec w z: u
S 3 S o3
U. H H 3
rH tal U fa3
Q CD •< en
U
a.
U >—
en £u
r-t *
z z z: z -H
en *
CO *
OS *
< < < < NO*
z z z z m
Z -T *
c
O S
z <
CU
M
0)
u
r-f OJ 3 £ CD 3 W 3 S
1 3Q.CU3Q. 3 O. W
0) OO U Q Q vn OO -4
1 =0" 5 =fc s =a" 1
0 *
rH *
-H *
in
m -K
CO *
CN *
NO
m *
r-. *
rH *
rH
P"» CO
NO CO
r-t
0 O
r* O
in in
CN 0
rH -a-
in rv
0 NO
in NO
^
O m
in rH
CN CO
CO NO
o -a-
o o
CO OS
CN
r* r-
CN
0 0
m r^
O so
m CN
rH* -3-"
0 0
in o
CO O
CN O
O O
03 fl
•3 O
O •*->
J= (Q
0> rH
tn 3
3 O.
i£ S
rH
IN *
NO
CO *
CN -K
m*
sr
o> *
00 *
NO"
m
* *
CM CO
§r^
OS
CN* in
3 S
fN!v°.
« *
OS rH
P4 CO
CM f-t
CO rH
CN OS
•K *
co r>-
OS rH
^T gj*
NO OJ
rH
* -K
OS •£>
CN O
CN NO
r-T-T
rH
rH
m c
T3 O
O JJ
*S P-*
« 3
3 0.
00 O
S cu O
CN
< <
Z Z
O m
r-* co
-3* ^
in os
CN
m
1 ' 0
en
m m in ii
- « m oo
m cr\ __ ^H
o
1*4 0
4) U
N m
m 3
a
Tj 0
rH CU
O
m «N ^ u
mm gj Cu
m in m s£
- - 33
m rH O U
rH j; en
a-o
^ ^
c:
TH C
p-i O
U -H
CU l-l
•3 y
CO O <
mo ts
os m .
in NO c "H
-H Ul OS
!u iw
y
<: jj
c
O QJ
CU
•§ ^H
m os 3
rH »o in o
- - CO
CN rH en
3
•a
S 2
OS U
Os TJ
s u
CN O 0) CO
r^ 0 3 w
in CN ij 03
» »
-------
Most of the soils in the planning area are unsuitable for
septic development on lots less than one acre in size.
Thus, interest in sewered lots has increased and the No
Action Alternative would probably not result in much septic
system development.
Enough sewerage capacity currently exists in the planning
area to accommodate the 4,000 new units of growth projected
by SEWRPC for each year through 1990. Thus, the No Action
Alternative would not significantly affect the level of
growth up until that time. The Dane County Circuit Court
has approved a "Waste Load Restriction and Apportionment"
which allows the MMSD to increase annual wastewater flows to
the Jones Island and South Shore WWTPs by only 2.1 MGD per
year from 1977 to 1985. The 4,000 units that would be
built each year during those years would add only 1.02 MGD
of wastewater flow per year, which is well within the
allocation (User Charge and Industrial Cost Recovery Program,
Technical Memo No. 4A).
Beginning in 1983, if effluent violations should occur at
either the Jones Island or South Shore WWTPs, the allocated
increments of flow and pollutant loadings to the treatment
facilities would be reduced. Table 5.14 outlines these
reductions. Even if there were no new commercial or industrial
connections, the pollutant load allotments would limit
development to 3,764 housing units in 1983. In 1984 and
1985, only 1880 additional residential units would be
allowed, assuming no commercial connections. After 1986, no
new development would be allowed in the MMSD service area if
there were violations at the South Shore or Jones Island
WWTPs.
Since the two WWTPs are presently overloaded during wet
weather, the No Action Alternative would probably result in
the planning area not achieving its planned growth. If the
increment by which MMSD wastewater flows can be increased
each year is severely reduced after 1983, the allocations to
contract communities would be reduced by the same ratio.
5.2.1.1.1 Franklin: With the No Action Alternatives, the
same amount of development would occur in Franklin as with
an Action Alternative. The difference between Action and
No Action would be the location of the future development.
A large amount of sewered, vacant land exists in central
Franklin. Under the No Action Alternative, a greater
proportion of the future development would take place in
5-44
-------
ft
3
Cd
d.
cn o
< 2
3 «
Q
;§
2 t^
•a 2
s <
M ^
a o
^d
:g
< a
Pi
cc
D
U
o
Q O
S "
^3
z o
3 Z
S I
2 j
>* t.
L.
a j
< b
1*3
a
13
c
o,
31
2
Ul
IB
O
£-
rH
t]
0
g
1)
x:
u
o
23
?•»
o
1
Lf>
_Q
3
(— t
< 0)
fn
r- (1J
to 4)
3 !M
-U O
0 C
>»
en o
^— • ;u
to
T3 •
*•» 01
C J
en —
CP
c
-rt 01
Jl JJ
3 -i
0 -
= 3
^
a
o
CQ
^_,
T: >
,3 a
£
*i
0) .
01 01
X iJ
o —
3
0
C-
0)
T3 T3 "0 T3
S S S S ^3
•H
O CO CO O -;
01
4- T3 T3
S 0}
CO 03 CO X > C
Cn CT^ CT\ CTi O CL)
a
m
0
\
s
^*
CN
-a
O O O O rO
O O O
O O O u^
CN rt r-T O
02
4-1
0
r-»
O1
e
•g* 'N ^J O C
^ CO CO O
r^ CO CO r^
m ^ ^ >,
0)
JJ
(3
X
0
^
a
fO
(4-1
0
4J
cn
c
4J
O O O O Jl
000
O 0 O fl
CN - -4 01
—
OJ
4J
T3
3
a
0 O O O 4J
^ rH -4 tl
3
4J
a
g
+ = 2
CO 03 CO CO >-
'^4
C
3
i
(TJ
OJ
5
3>
C/l
3
IB
O
33
3
0
'-w
0
0
IS
cn
c
o
o
o
cn
03
T3
0)
0
IS
a)
ji
^
01
.^4
0
01
•o
0)
U
01
'4^
0
Ul
o
0
o
OJ
s
IS
X
HI
0
c
0
T3
3
0
~
13
3
^
3
0
w
u
3
OJ
4J
IS
3
U
^™
•U
0
-
^
Jl
•w
•1
,
^
0
4J
O
13
•*w
CP
C
g
U
-w
,0
cn
•a
0
01
^
5
Jl
s
-a
S.
•o
s
o
r— 4
5-45
-------
central Franklin (about 2,800 units between 1979 and 1990).
Growth would continue in the Franklin portions of the
proposed interceptor service areas of Franklin (about 500
units in the Franklin-Muskego area and another 500 in the
Franklin Northeast area between 1979 and 1990).
5.2.1.1.2 Germantown: In Germantown, the wastewater treat-
ment facilities have almost reached their capacity. With
the No Action Alternative, development would be limited to
subdivisions in southern Germantown that are already platted,
Once WWTP capacity is reached, no new development would be
allowed. Therefore, only 255 new units would be constructed
between 1979 and 1990, increasing the population by 760
people.
5.2.1.1.3 Mequon; In Mequon, the capacity of the sewer
facilities has already been reached, and there have been
problems with discharges, bypasses, and the availability of
water. The No Action Alternative would result in very
little new growth in the area. Only 200 new units could be
accommodated and these would probably be built by the end
of 1980.
5.2.1.1.4 Muskego: With the No Action Alternative, very
little development would be possible in Muskego because the
public wastewater treatment plants are already at capacity.
Any new development would be scattered, taking place on
large lots with septic systems. It is estimated that 450
new housing units would be constructed by 1990. Most of the
development would take place in the far northwest corner of
Muskego, since that is the only area with soil suitable for
septic tanks. A small amount of development could also
occur in southern Muskego served by the town of Norway's
sewer system.
5.2.1.1.5 New Berlin: Although development would be limited
with the No Action Alternative, New Berlin would be able to
accommodate much more development than most of the previously
mentioned communities. There is capacity for 610 additional
housing units at the Regal Manors WWTP in southern New Berlin
and capacity in the Wildcat Creek service area in eastern
New Berlin and in the Poplar Creek service area in western
New Berlin. Thus, between 1979 and 1990, it is likely that
2,025 housing units would be built in New Berlin, increasing
the population by 6,885, to a total of 41,055.
5-46
-------
5.2.1.1.6 Oak Creek: There is ample capacity throughout
Oak Creek for the forecast increases in population and
housing. However, with No Action little of this development
would occur within the Oak Creek Interceptor area because
there is very little capacity left in the Wildwood lift
station. Only 90 new units could be accommodated in this
area.
5.2.1.2 Local, Regional, and Mosaic Alternatives
The Local, Regional, and Mosaic Alternatives were all
designed to provide sewer service for the same area. For this
reason, the effects of these alternatives on future develop-
ment would be identical. In most of the communities of the
planning area, these alternatives would encourage growth
consistent with the Year 2000 Regional Land Use Plan. However,
the provision of this additional sewerage capacity could have
some "secondary" impacts; some communities might grow more
rapidly than planned, and others might not reach their
recommended level of growth. The impacts of these alternatives
on future development in the planning area are discussed below.
5.2.1.2.1 Franklin; With an action alternative, the level of
development in Franklin would be identical to the No Action
level. However, the location of some of this future growth
would change. Approximately 500 units (1979 to 1990) would
shift out of the central Franklin area to the Franklin-
Muskego Interceptor area (.100 units) and the Franklin-
Northeast Interceptor area (400 units). The development is
illustrated in Table 5.15.
5.2.1.2.2 Germantown and Milwaukee's Northwest Side: The
EIS analysis revealed that Germantown and the Northwest Side
of Milwaukee share the same housing market to some degree.
When development in Germantown was limited by inadequate
sewer capacity, the Northwest Side's share increased. Pro-
vision of expanded sewer service in Germantown could en-
courage development there and slow growth in the Northwest
Side (see Table 5.16 ).
With an action alternative it is estimated that 2,770 new
housing units would be built in Germantown between 1979 and
1990. This growth is 2,520 more than the 270 units that
could be added with the No Action Alternative. With this
increase in housing development, population is expected to
increase by 8,320 people.
The level of population and housing growth projected in
Germantown with the implementation of the Local, Regional,
5-47
-------
TABLE 5.15
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT:
FRANKLIN, 1990
Action No
Alternative Action
Franklin Portion of Franklin-
Muskego Interceptor Area
1979-1985 400
1985-1990 250
1979-1990 650
Franklin Portion of Franklin-
Northeast Interceptor Area
1979-1985 125 125
1985-1990 785 400
1979-1990 910 525
Central Franklin Area
1979-1985 675 675
1985-1990 1,590 2,100
1979-1990 2,265 2,775
City of Franklin Total
1979-1985 1,200 1,200
1985-1990 2,625 2,625
1979-1990 3,825 3,825
5-48
-------
4J
01
0)
O
in
U
03
03
J
J
<
Cu K
O
W EH
u a,
z w
o o
2 25
O W
Z EH
H 30
S Men
en
£H O
ai
QM f^
CJ §
Q tj
63 CJ
U
Q
C
0
4-1
c
IB
e
M
H)
o
a) jj
i 3 a)
.u —i u
•H -r< O
O S &4
u
cu c
OS ifl
2 r-l
u t,
o
o
-p
o
o; «
S r-t
JJ
O
o
c
o
4J
O
O O 00 CO CO 03
o o ON co en co
en n o^ ^* co P*-
n fi ^* o co f"
CN p* i— t CM co
P"> CV
CO O
^* o
!< < < rCC ^ r-|
2 2 32: CM P-
o o P* o P- o
o o o co o oo
ON m in o T <-•)
m ro p-
^3* CM ON CJN f»T r—
«. ^ * *. •.
mo CN ^r n
en c we tn c
'OQ -Um^O 'O C
f-( -H C CO i-H -f-t r-t -H
O4J OJONO-U O 4J
J2 fQ £ r—4 .c^ fl Xi (^
QJ f— I ^* o c yj (0
^* co n CM i~4 o rH o ^
m ON ^* fH CU -H 0)
r-4 jj JJ
O 0 «
* * a* a) E
O«r mvo nin oi-m-H*
VOr-4 CHfH ^O^1 SQ-PCJ
cncn -O«ON mr* WM03O4
CM m p* vo m co S
CM P* m CO «» CU ON DC]
en ,(-( -H
05 -P a tfl
ca -H a >
P£ O f3 <3
O CM P* ^* -U 4J
O ON CO rr O O
m i— ( m vo cu 22 C
" •» * - o
CM "a- o in !-i I
m co a
0 ^
* *
in p*. r-4 P* CN o
O vo VO *J3 P* O
rn CM c^ ^o m CM
i— t ^» in r— i COO dJrH
CN ro o
•H >i
> M
M <3
• OJ 3
• yi c
O (3
O O CM ^ O !-i ^
r* ^ o QJ
« O CM 3<4-t
* * OJ O
rO i— i O Ul
rS JJ W)
M rtj
in ro
co c OJ
ON O S-J
^ -H (3
O O CM VQ jJ
O O ON P* £ -H Cfl
co ^- r-t m o t3 cu
- * - - K «X3 4J
r-t in ^o oo 4-t aj rt3
£• *W
0 O >i
-H rH
-P C jw
we me we djo^
-UOT3O T3Q ^30 (H-r-tcU
C ON (H -H rH -H r-i -H 0 ^ >H
OJcnO-P O -*J O-M CL-H
£ r-4 -C fO rt fQ cj (^ i-* ^
fUlCDr— ( CU-H CU-H CUO"
WLHOT3 OCH3 OU13 -PS-lOJ
O CO 3 pn ON 3 O^ O ,3 pn C 0^ -tJ
CcnOO CJNQO OQO M * 0
Ml— IS3&4 rHSP- CMXCU **S
5-49
-------
or Mosaic Alternatives would be consistent with the Regional
Land Use Plan. If no new sewer capacity were provided for
Germantown, much of the development that would have occurred
in that area would take place on the Northwest Side, where
there is a great deal of vacant sewered land.
5.2.1.2.3 Oak Creek: The City of Oak Creek has a large
amount of vacant land and is encouraging development.
Although construction of the Oak Creek Interceptor would
have little effect on the amount of growth that would occur
in the City, it could affect the location of future develop-
ment in the City (see Table 4.17 ).
Oak Creek is expected to grow by 225 units per year between
1979 and 1990. At this rate of growth, 2,475 new housing
units would be constructed during this period. By 1990, the
Oak Creek Interceptor would lead to the construction of 390
units in that section of Oak Creek designated as the interceptor
service area. Without construction of the interceptor, only
90 units could be built in that area by 1990. Thus, an
action alternative would induce the construction of approxi-
mately 300 units in the interceptor service area between
1979 and 1990. Most of the existing development in Oak
Creek has occurred in the northern sections of the City.
Construction of the interceptor could encourage development
in southern portions of the City. Although the interceptor
is not expected to increase the overall level of growth, it
would open up new portions of the City for development.
5.2.1.2.4 Mequon: The Northeast Side Relief System would
serve Mequon, Thiensville, and a number of communities in
northern Milwaukee County. Most of the municipalities in
this area are fully developed. However, Mequon has a large
amount of vacant land available, and its location makes it
especially desirable for development. The Northeast Side
Relief System could induce additional development in Mequon.
Construction of the relief system will be completed in mid-
1983 . Until that time, 675 housing units are likely to be
built in Mequon (150 units per year for 4.5 years). After
1983, new sewer capacity would allow development to
accelerate. Mequon's growth management system is currently
being formulated, and it will probably limit new development
to between 225 and 250 units per year. Development between
the years 1983 and 1990 could increase to those limits,
approximately 250 units per year. The total increase by
the year 1990 could then be 2,725 units (675 units plus 250
units per year for seven years). The No Action Alternative
would limit growth to 200 units by 1990. Thus, the Local,
Regional, or Mosaic Alternative would result in an induced
5-50
-------
TABLE 5. 17
FUTURE GROWTH
OAK CREEK INTERCEPTOR ALTERNATIVE
1990
Base
1979
Households
Population
Increment
1979-1985
Households
Population
1985
Households
Population
Increment
1985-1990
Households
Population
1990
Households
Population
2000
Households
Population
Action**
1,173
3,343
140
399
1,313
3,742
250
713
1,563
4,455
No
Action
1,173
3,343
90
257
1,263
3,600
0
0
1,263
3,600
SEWRPC
Plan
NA
NA
NA
NA
1,323
4,090
679
1,888
2,002*
5,978*
3,359
9,754
* Interpolation from 1985 to 2000.
**Provision of additional sewer service.
Note: Yearly dates are as of January 1.
Source: RERC projections; SEWRPC Plan.
NA - Not Applicable. 1979 estimates are not available from SEWRPC
5-51
-------
growth of 2,525 households.
Even with the construction of the Northeast Side Relief
System, development in the City of Mequon would probably
not reach SEWRPC forecasts. If growth controls are enacted,
development by the year 1990 could be 1,000 units less than
projections by SEWRPC. The EIS analysis indicates that
without the enactment of growth controls development would
still be within forecast levels.
5.2.1.2.5 New Berlin: New Berlin is desirable for develop-
ment because the area is physically attractive, is access-
ible by major highway, offers local employment possibilities,
and contains large parcels of developable land. With the
provision of increased sewer capacity, New Berlin would
attract a larger share of the suburban Milwaukee housing
market than it has in the past.
A range of forecasts have been determined for population and
housing growth in the New Berlin area. The lower numbers
were derived from evaluation of the regional development
that New Berlin is likely to attract based on the filling in
of easily developable land in Greenfield, West Allis, and
Hales Corners. The higher estimates are based on the EIS
study team's judgment that New Berlin would attract develop-
ment from Greenfield, West Allis, and Hales Corners in
addition to its share of the regional development.
Between 1979 and 1990, an action alternative would allow
between 3,970 and 5,220 new units to be constructed in New
Berlin, compared to only 200 units with the No Action
Alternative. Thus, induced growth would be between 1,950
and 3,200 housing units. New Berlin's population would
increase by 13,960 to 18,470 people by 1990. This growth
exceeds the level expected with the No Action Alternative
by 7,080 to 11,590 people (see Table 5.18). Most of the
development would occur in the southern half of New Berlin
which contains vacant land.
5.2.1.2.6 Muskego: With the Local, Regional, or Mosaic
Alternatives, Muskego could experience development of 1,860
new housing units by 1990, 1,410 more than the 450 units
that could be constructed with the No Action Alternative.
The population would increase by 4,870 people, which is
4,580 more than the increase (of 290 people) that would
occur without additional sewer capacity. SEWRPC's 1985
housing and population projections have already been
exceeded, and it is likely that the year 2000 figures will
be reached by 1990 (.see Table 5.19 ).
5-52
-------
TABLE 5.18
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT:
NEW BERLIN
Action Alternative
(Regional or No SEWRPC
Local Alternative) Action Plan
Base
1979
Households
Population
9,286
34,172
9,286
34,172
9,286
34,172
Increment
1979-1985
Households
Population
1,649-2,136
5,522-7,290
1,224
3,979
1,519
6,728
1985
Households
Population
10,935-11,422
39,694-41,462
10,510
38,151
10,805
40,900
Increment
1985-1990
Households
Population
2,325-3,080
8,440-11,180
800
2,904
1,487
5,167
1990
Households
Population
13,260-14,502
48,134-52,642
11,310
41,055
12,292*
46,067*
2QOQ
Households
Population
15,265
56,400
* Interpolation from 1985 to 1990.
Note: Yearly figures are as of January 1.
Source: RERC projections; SEWRPC Plan.
NA: Not Applicable. 1979 estimates are not available
from SEWRPC.
5-53
-------
TABLE 5 .19
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT:
MUSKEGO 1990
Base
1979
Households
Population
Increment
1975-1985
Households
Population
1985
Households
Population
Increment
1985-1990
Households
Population
1990
Households
Population
2QOO
Households
Population
Action
Alternative
4,686
16,401
935
1,867
5,621
18,268
925
3,007
6,546
21,275
No
Action
4,686
16,401
200
(522)*
4,886
15,879*
250
813
5,136
16,692
SEWRPC
Plan
NA
NA
NA
NA
4,423
16,500
505
1,667
4,928**
18,167**
5,938
21,500
* Muskego's population is projected to decline between
1979 and 1985 under No Action due to the projected
decline in household size from 3.53 to 3.25.
**Interpolation from 1985 to 2000.
Note: Yearly dates are as of January 1.
Source: RERC projections; SEWRPC Plan.
NA - Not Applicable. 1979 estimates are not available from SEWRPC
5-54
-------
5.2.2 Indirect Fiscal Impacts
5.2.2.1 No Action Alternative
Indirect fiscal impacts are the revenues and costs to a
community associated with future growth. Since the No
Action Alternative would not greatly affect growth in the
planning area, the indirect fiscal impacts of the alter-
native would be negligible.
5.2.2.2 Local, Regional, or Mosaic Alternatives
Because the Local, Regional, and Mosaic Alternatives would
have the same effects on future growth in the planning area,
their indirect fiscal impacts would also be the same. As a
community grows, its revenues from taxes increase; but at
the same time, the cost to the communities for providing
educational and municipal services also increases. In most
of the communities in the planning area, these alternatives
would allow growth to occur at a level, rate, and pattern
consistent with the Regional Plan. However, the implementation
of any of these alternatives would encourage growth in several
areas at a level or pattern inconsistent with the Regional Plan.
These areas include the Oak Creek Interceptor service area,
the Menomonee Falls-Germantown Interceptor (Germantown and
Milwaukee's Northwest Side), and the Hales Corners Interceptor
service area (southeastern New Berlin).
An indirect fiscal impact analysis was performed to deter-
mine the net costs or revenues to these communities that
would result from these secondary impacts. The costs
associated with the future population would include muni-
cipal services such as general administration, public safety,
parks, recreational facilities, and primary and secondary
public education. Revenues would result from the increased
tax base. Since future development would probably be
similar in type to the existing development, it was
assumed for the analysis that the relationships in state
and federal aids would remain the same.
In Germantown, Milwaukee's Northwest Side and southeastern
New Berlin, increased sewer -capacity would induce future
development which deviates from the level identified in the
Regional Plan. A quantitative indirect fiscal impact analysis
was performed for these communities (sae Table 5.20), In
Oak Creek, an action alternative would not increase growth,
but it would cause a more dispersed pattern of growth. A
qualitative approach was used to examine the indirect fiscal
impacts of this pattern of development.
5-55
-------
en
£•»
CJ
<
e-
S
0 M
r4
in <
CJ
a cn
rJ M
m Cu
<
EH EH
o
M
B
rH
Q
2
M
O
cn
cn
C
•H
01
JJ
tfl
0
O
o
en
cn
rH
C
•H
in
CU
3
C
CU
^
0)
CX
e*
CJ
^
C-* &(
Ed S
2 M
J cn
< £-1
S-i en
o o
EH U
rH
to
a
•r4
O 01
•r4 JJ
c in
3 O
S U
p*H
0 01
0 JJ
£. 01
0 0
cn cj
Cd
3
J Z
rt w
r_. h>.
r* K*
O Cd
e- ea
CU
3
M C
d)
JJ CU
o os
>1
JJ CU
^•4 3
14 ra 01
a, &- a;
c
o
•H a;
jj in
<0 cd
rH (U
3 U
a o
0 C
ft. IH
>
JJ
• r4
C
a
%.
5
CJ
CO 1—
rH CO
en m
en *o
rH in
en
-l
a o jj
e < m
r4 C
culo o
oiz cj
rH
VO
^r
r^
CO
en
1
u>
en
CN
r-
a
t~
rH
CN
rH
0
O
in
«r
en
rH
^
in
en
(N
CN
CO
en
o
r^
CO
M3
CN
en
CO
rH
rH
rH
U3
*r
CO
CO
en
en
»
r^
IN
CN
^r
^1»
cn
r~
en
o
rH
^r
«
r-l
rH
CJ
3
H
en
o
en
cn
in
en
^r
m
CN
O
O
T
O
VO
in
en
o
o
*T
0
••o
in
^
m
a
o
en
en
u>
O c
IJ * C
cn c
<7\
iH
«• <
O C
CN '
rH •
cn * r
en '
CO t
CN '
0
CN
rH ,
cn *
en
CO
CN
o *
CN
CN
m
cn
cn *
r-*
CN
j
cu
JJ
c
rH
a
JJ -H
0 rH
3 >-l
14 CJ 0)
JJ 0- CO
01 CS
C S 3
O K CU
cj cn z
j- rr y->
30 to-
3 1- rH
T in on
T T T
N rr O
TO O
N CN r~-
TO en
rH
N on m
T CN *D
-t CN r~
» * ib
•n co ID
3 m o
H ^o in
^ « %
-4 CN CN
B CO ~~O
Tl CN CN
N CN 1^
3> <*o en
•n T o\
-1 in rH
•n r* p^
^3 en in
•n ' in «3
oo r~
•> *e *,
-Mr- O
*Q rH O4
en CN r^
•n cn oo
'no en
in «r ^0
en cn rH
* * *
•V CO CN
^M o m
m rH en
* « *
rH en CN
en en rH
CO rH O
O rH \O
r~ co Co
en o ^o
yD rH r^-
CN ys in
en rH y3
co in o
co in vo
« •. «.
us ^o m
rH rH
+
C
O rH
•H CO
JJ CO
O rH 0 -H
< 113 -H 10
O tjl ffl
O 0 CU 0
2 i-3 KS
U3
0
r~
m
r»
CO
CO
^p
CN
m
ID
rH
•«r
CO
V.
in
o
cn
^
rH
r~
T
0
en
rH
VD
T
CN
CO
rH
«
en
•q-
0
ID
en
vo
0
•.
en
en
rH
*
CN
en
rH
rH
VO
rH
on
en
in
en
CO
«.
rH
rH
y
3
M
cn
cu
•o
o
^
jj
0
c
CU
rJ
cn
3
01
cu
JJ
10
S
• H
JJ
01
0)
U
a.
a
cd
en
•K
5-56
-------
5.2.2.2.1 Germantown and Milwaukee's Northwest Side: All
of the alternatives would result in a surplus of revenue in
Germantown of about $56,400 over municipal costs, compared
with a $319,000 surplus with the No Action Alternative. A
lower surplus would occur with the Local, Regional, or Mosaic
Alternatives because of the increased municipal costs to
serve the future populations. These costs would be minimal
with the No Action Alternative.
The housing markets for Germantown and the Northwest Side of
Milwaukee overlap, as discussed previously. The provision
of increased sewer capacity in Germantown would draw some
development away from the Northwest Side, and so the No Action
Alternative would result in greater development in the North-
west Side. With the No Action Alternative, the net indirect
fiscal impact would be a revenue surplus of $23,436,000. If
increased sewer capacity were provided for Germantown, the
result would be a revenue surplus of $19,960,000. The North-
west Side already has an excess of municipal services and
school facilities, so the population increase here would have
less costs than revenue associated with it.
By combining the net fiscal impacts on Germantown and
Milwaukee's Northwest Side, one can see that the construction
of the Menomonee Falls-Germantown Interceptor would result
in a total revenue surplus of $20,017,000. With the No
Action Alternative the surplus would be $23,755,000.
5.2.2.2.2 New Berlin: With either an action or the No
Action Alternative, the costs of future development would
exceed revenues. However, with increased sewer capacity,
southeastern New Berlin would open up for development.
Because of the rate of that development, the net indirect
fiscal impact would be a deficit (costs would exceed
revenues) of approximately $979,000. For the No Action
Alternative, the deficit would be about $280,000. These
costs would primarily be associated with the need for
schools.
5.2.2.2.3 Oak Creek: The construction of the Oak Creek
Interceptor would not greatly affect the amount of development
occurring in Oak Creek during the planning period. However,
the interceptor would open up new areas for development and
could lead to a dispersed pattern of development. Without
the interceptor, new residential development would probably
be concentrated in the already developed areas of the city.
The scattered development pattern would increase the costs
5-57
-------
to communities of transporting students to school and for
providing fire fighting and police service to the greater
area.
5.2.3 Land Use
5.2.3.1 No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative could affect land development in
the planning area. Analysis of the impacts of this alternative
indicates that demand for suburban housing would soon exceed
the supply of sewered lots. The probable result would be
increased incentive to develop infill parcels of land.
This trend would be especially noticeable in Germantown
because 45% of the housing market overlaps the market for
the Northwest Side of Milwaukee. It is expected that 360
housing units would be built in Germantown each year
between 1983 and 1990, if sewer service was available.
However, that development would not take place with the No
Action Alternative because the Germantown WWTP could not
adequately treat increased flow. Therefore, Milwaukee could
expect to capture 45% or 160 of these displaced units each
year. The 160 extra units would increase the number of
housing units built in northwest Milwaukee by 32% from 500
to 600 housing units per year.
5.2.3.2 Local, Regional, and Mosaic Alternatives
Because all three action alternatives were designed to
provide sewer service to the same area, their impacts on
land use would be identical.
The implementation of any of these alternatives would affect
land use in many communities in the planning area. In some
areas, including Muskego, Mequon, Franklin, New Berlin, and
Germantown, the provision of sewer service could result in
the conversion of rural land use to urban use. In these
communities, this conversion would be consistent with the
recommendations of the Regional Plan, as long as measures
are taken to prevent encroachment on prime agricultural land.
In Franklin and the Caddy Vista subdivision, the imple-
mentation of an action alternative would allow development
to occur on sewered lots, with less septic tank development
than would occur with the No Action Alternative. The
construction of the interceptor would open up parcels of
land adjacent to existing development encouraging a compact
type of development.
5-58
-------
In Oak Creek, additional sewer service would discourage
compact development. These alternatives are not likely to
increase the amount of development that would occur in Oak
Creek, but"it would open up new areas for building. Thus,
development may disperse over a larger area.
The Local, Regional, or Mosaic Alternative could also affect
land use in Milwaukee. The City plans to develop its
Northwest Side. However, the construction of the Menomonee
Falls-Germantown Interceptor would attract development from
the Northwest Side to Germantown. It might be necessary to
enact growth controls to mitigate this impact.
5.2.4 Cost
5.2.4.1 No Action Alternative
Although the No Action Alternative would not require capital
expenditures for construction and improvements, significant
costs would likely result. The MMSD is presently under order
from the U.S. District Circuit Court and the Dane County
Court to abate CSO discharges and to upgrade the operations
of its treatment facilities. Failure to comply with these
orders could result in further court action, fines, and
penalties. WWTPs must meet the effluent limitations of their
Wisconsin Pollution Discharge Elimination System permits.
In cases where WWTPs would not consistently meet future
effluent limits, fines and legal action would also be
possible.
5.2.4.2 Local Alternative
The costs of implementing the Local Alternative have been
calculated in four ways using 1980 dollars: construction costs
for new facilities (costs of materials and labor); annual
operation and maintenance costs; sewer rehabilitation costs;
and total present worth (total cost of constructing alternative,
financing construction costs, salvage value, and operation and
maintenance costs through 2005).
The total cost of the Local Alternative would include the
cost for local plant construction and improvement, MMSD
treatment plant improvements, interceptor construction,
improvements to the MIS system, control of peak flows from
separated sewer areas and abatement of combined sewer
overflows. Costs associated with local treatment and
conveyance are detailed in Table 5.21.
Costs for MMSD treatment plant and MIS system rehabilitation,
reinforcement and expansion are detailed in Table 5.22. In
5-59
-------
Community
TABLE 5.21
COST FOR LOCAL TREATMENT PLANTS
Action
Capital
($106)
O&M
Rehab.
($106)
Net
Present
Worth
($106)
Thiensville
Germantown
New Berlin
Muskego
Caddy Vista
S. Milwaukee
Mequon
Expand in Kind
Land App.
S.E. Land App.
N.E. Land App.
Expand in Kind
Upgrade
Extend MIS
3.89
8.77
32.18
10.14
1.
2,
90
38
LOCAL PLANT SUBTOTAL
2.51
61.76
0.128
0.421
0.753
0.435
0.076
0.413
0.001
2.23
0.15
0.40
1.24
0.32
0.04
2.15
5.17
13.17
39.43
14.57
2.64
7.01
2.22
84.21
5-60
-------
TABLE 5.22
MMSD AND MIS SYSTEM COSTS ($ x 106)
MIS System
Annual
Component Capital O&M N.P.W.
Jones Island 337.87 13.817 504.59
South Shore 127.55 9.870 237.45
Treatment Plant Subtotal 465.42 23.687 742.04
Honey Creek Branch 0.26 —• 0.23
S. 6th Street Branch 4.84 0.001 4.42
Hampton Avenue Branch 10.06 0.001 9.19
Menomonee/Burleigh Overflow 0.11 0.001 0.11
Menomonee/Keefe Diversion 0.16 0.004 0.19
81st & Grant Street Branch 0.54 0.001 0.48
84th & Becher Street Overflow 0.12 — 0.10
Upper Lincoln Creek Segment 4.80 0.002 4.39
MIS Rehabilitation 52.00 — 47.44
Local Sewer Programs 89.44 -- 78.50
SSES Program 24.20 — 24.20
MIS Relief Subtotal 186.53 0.010 169.25
Interceptors
Franklin-Muskego (Franklin
only) 0.85 0.021 1.08
Franklin Northeast 0.81 0.115 2.19
Mitchell Field South 1.58 0.002 1.41
Northeast Side Relief 58.26 0.033 53.64
Northridge 0.47 0.017 0.63
Oak Creek North Branch 3.74 0.003 3.45
Root River 13.37 0.027 13.17
Underwood Creek 5.69 0.033 5.79
Interceptor Subtotal 84.77 0.251 81.36
MMSD/MIS Subtotal 736.72 23.948 992.65
5-61
-------
addition would be the costs for CSO abatement and peak flow
attenuation. The costs associated with these programs are
listed on Table 5.23. The total costs with the Local
Alternative are summarized in Table 5.24.
5.2.4.3 Regional Alternative
The Regional Alternative has many components common to the
Local Alternative. With the Regional Alternative, costs for
MMSD treatment plant and MIS improvements, CSO abatement and
peak flow storage would be identical to those costs detailed
in this discussion of local costs. In place of costs incurred
at local treatment works would be costs to connect local
plants to the MIS system. Due to requirements for certain
local connecting sewers, alignment and costs for some proposed
interceptors would also change. Costs for connecting local
communities presently served by independent plants as well
as costs for interceptor are detailed in Table 5.25. A
summary of the costs of the Regional Alternative including
various CSO combination costs is shown in Table 5.26.
5.2.4.4 Mosaic Alternative
The Mosaic Alternative is identical to the Regional Alternative
except in the case of South Milwaukee. The South Milwaukee
WWTP would remain in operation as under the local system.
Local costs are detailed in Table 5.27. Total costs for the
Mosaic Alternative including all CSO configurations is
included in Table 5.28
5.2.4.5 Local Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation
The MWPAP's clear water program involves three sequential
parts: an infiltration/inflow analysis (completed in
November, 1978); a sewer system evaluation survey (SSES)
(currently in progress and to be completed in March, 1981);
and the repair and rehabilitation of local sewers (the
ultimate objective of the clear water program).
The MMSD Recommended Plan (Mosaic Alternative) assumes
district-wide financing of all components of the MWPAP.
Local sewer repair and rehabilitation (R&R), a part of
this program, is assumed to be financed by the MMSD rather
than the local communities. Table 5.29 shows the cost
estimates by community for a specified cost effective
level of infiltration and inflow removal.
5-62
-------
TABLE 5.23
CSO AND PEAK FLOW COMPONENT COSTS ($x!0e
Annual
Component Capital OSM NPM
Complete Separation Alternative
Sewer Separation 250.97 1.940 267.56
Building Seoaration 401.82 — 395.14
Pump Station 29.13 0.195 31.15
240" Diameter Tunnels 238.38 0.160 246.11
Force Main 7.30 — 6.66
Complete Separation Subtotal 927.65 2.295 946.62
Inline Storage Alternative
240" Diameter Sewers 238.38 0.160 246.11
Pump Station 13.97 0.080 14.66
Force Main 7.30 — 6.66
Cavern Storage 80.22 0.043 76.53
Drop Shafts 42.65 0.015 38.64
Near Surface Collection 59.96 0.032 57.21
Near Surface Storage 80.81 0.303 77.18
Partial Separation 372.69 1.832 359.59
Complete Separation 1.75 0.008 1.68
Inline Storage Subtotal " 897.73 2.474 878.26
Modified CST/Inline Alternative
360" Diameter Tunnels
Pump Station
Force Main
County Stadium Cavern
Jones Island Cavern
Drop Shafts
Screening Structures
CSO Solids Handling
Near Surface Collectors
Near Surface Storage
Partial Separation
Complete Separation
Modified CST/Inline Subtotal 904.18 . 3.435 909.90
Modified Total Storage Alternative
360" Diameter Tunnels 3.01.96 0.114 304.43
Puma Stations 13.97 0.080 14.66
Force Main 7.30 — 6.66
County Stadium Storage 126.49 0.061 120.59
Jones Island Storage 49.18 0.237 53.70
Droo Shafts 73.94 0.024 73.13
Screening Structures 61.97 0.245 61.40
CSO Solids Handling ~ 0.603 11.15
Near Surface Storage 177.91 0.614 156.33
Near Surface Collectors 89.00 0.053 34.97
Complete Sewer Separation 11.01 0.012 10.18
Modified Total Storage Subtotal 917.73 4.111 930.91
301.96
13.97
7.30
126.49
49.18
78.94
61.97
—
89.00
80.81
83.55
11.01
0.114
0.080
__
0.061
0.237
0.024
0.245
0.474
0.053
0.303
1.832
0.012
304.43
14.66
6.66
120.59
53.70
73.13
61.40
5.07
84.97
77.18
97.93
10.18
5-63
-------
TABLE 5.24
LOCAL TREATMENT SYSTEMS COSTS
Component Capital O&M NPW
Local Alternative Constants
Local Plants 61.76 2.230 04.21
MMSD Treatment Plants 465,42 23.687 742.04
MIS Relief 186.53 0.010 169.25
Interceptors 84.77 2.251 81.36
Subtotal 798.48 26.178 1076.86
Complete Separation Subtotal 927.65 2.295 946.62
Total System Cost 1726.13 28,473 2023.48
Inline Storage Subtotal 897.73 2.474 878.26
Total System Costs 1696.21 23.675 1955.12
Modified CST/Inline Subtotal 904.13 3.435 909.90
Total System Cost 1702.66 29.613 1986.76
Modified Total Storage Subtotal 917.73 4.111 930.91
Total System Cost 1716.21 30.289 2007.77
5-64
-------
TABLE 5.25
COST FOR REGIONAL ALTERNATIVE
Local Costs
Community
Thiensville/Mequon
Germantown
New Berlin
Muskego
Caddy Vista
South Milwaukee
Independent Local Subtotal
Franklin-Muskego
Franklin-Northeast
Hales Corners
Mitchell Field South
Northeast Side Relief
Northridge
Oak Creek North Branch
Root River
Underwood Creek
Interceptor Subtotal
Action
Connect To MMSD
Connect To MMSD
Connect To MMSD
Connect To MMSD
Connect To MMSD
Connect To MMSD
Interceptors
Capital O&M
($106) (Sin6)
3.50
5.40
3.05
3.26
0.40
2.25
17.36
•s
2.51
0.31
2.28
1.58
58.26
0.47
3.74
13.37
5.69
38.71
0.002
0.085
0.002
0.048
0.013
0.012
0.168
0.041
0.115
—
0.002
0.033
0.017
0.003
0.027
0.033
0.271
Net
Present
Rehab. Worth
(S106) (S106)
0.15
0.40
1.24
0.32
0.04
2.15
3.37
6.35
4.04
3.91
0.59
1.02
20.28
63
19
08
41
53.54
85.04
5-65
-------
TABLE 5.26
SUMMARY OF REGIONAL TREATMENT SYSTEM COSTS
Annual
OSM
Net Present
Worth
465.42
186.53
88.71
17.86
23.687
0.010
0.271
0.168
742.04
169.25
85.04
20.28
Components Capital
Regional Alternative Constants
MMSD Treatment Plants
MIS Relief
Interceptors
Local Connections
Subtotal 758.52 24.136 1016.61
Complete Separation Subtotal 927.65 2.295 946.62
Total System Cost 1686.17 26.431 1963.23
Inline Storage Subtotal 897.73 2.474 878.26
Total System Cost 1656.25 26.610 1894.87
Modified GST/Inline Subtotal 904.18 3.435 909.90
Total System Cost 1662.70 27.571 1926.51
Modified Total Storage Subtotal 917.73 4.111 930.91
Total System Cost 1676.25 28.247 1947.52
5-66
-------
TABLE 5.27
SUMMARY OF LOCAL COSTS
MOSAIC ALTERNATIVE ($106)
Community
Thiensville
Germantown
New Berlin
Muskego
Caddy Vista
South Milwaukee
Local Subtotal
Action
Capital
Connect to MMSD 3.50
Connect to MMSD 5.40
Connect to MMSD 3.05
Connect to MMSD 3.26
Connect to MMSD 0.40
Upgrade 2.38
17.99
Annual
O&M Rehab. NPW*
0.002
0.085
0.002
0.048
0.018
0.414
0.15
0.40
1.24
0.32
0.04
._
3.37
6.35
4.04
3.91
0.59
7.01
0.569
2.15
25.27
*Net Present Worth
5-67
-------
TABLE 5.28
SUMMARY OF MOSAIC TREATMENT SYSTEM COSTS
Annual
O&M
NPW
465.42
186.53
88.71
17.99
23.687
0.010
0.271
0.569
742.04
169.25
85.04
25.27
Components Capital
Mosaic Alternative Constants
MMSD Treatment Plants
MIS Relief
Interceptors
Local Costs
Subtotal 758.65 24.537 1021.60
Complete Separation Subtotal 927.65 2.295 946.62
Total System Cost 1686.30 26.882 1968.22
Inline Storage Subtotal 897.73 2.474 878.26
Total System Cost 1656.38 27.011 1899.86
Modified CST/Inline Subtotal 904.18 3.435 909.80
Total System Cost 1662.83 27.972 1931.50
Modified Total Storage Subtotal 917.73 4.111 930.91
Total System Cost 1676.38 28.648 1952.51
5-68
-------
TABLE 5.29
LOCAL REHABILITATION AND RELIEF SEWER COSTS
I/I Analysis Estimates: Six Gallons Per Minute Removal Rate
(All Costs in Thousands)
Community
Bayside
Brown Deer
Cudahy
Fox Point
Franklin
Glendale
Greendale
Greenfield
Hales Corners
Milwaukee
Oak Creek
River Hills
St. Francis
Shorewood
Wauwatosa
West Allis
West Milwaukee
Whitefish Bay
SUBTOTAL
Brookfield
Butler
Elm Grove
Germantown
Menomonee Falls
Mequon
Muskego
Mew Berlin
Thiensville
TOTAL
Local
Rehabilitation
Private
$
2
1
42
4
12
$67
$68
457
695
,050
,361
372
526
40
7
57
,695
406
298
778
361
,687
,489
510
34
,823
313
13
28
44
286
169
78
85
21
,860
Public
$ 119
138
580
226
166
335
368
780
320
7,288
308
190
300
76
1,016
984
104
413
$13,711
205
52
363
141
314
205
94
416
69
$15,570
Local
Relief
Sewer
V ~~
—
391
917
—
— ,
—
450
45
434
—
— ,
36
451
1,027
1,479
—
1,713
$6,943
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
__
217
$7,160
Total
Public
Costs
$ 119
138
971
1,143
166
335
368
1,230
365
7,722
308
190
336
527
2,043
2,463
104
2,126
$20,654
205
52
363
141
314
205
94
416
286
$22,730
Project
Costs
$ 576
833
3,021
2,504
538
861
408
1,237
422
50,417
714
488
1,114
888
6,730
14,952
614
2,160
$88,477
518
65
391
185
600
374
172
501
307
$91,590
Source: I/I Analvsis, MWPAP November 1978,
5-69
-------
5.2.5 Fiscal Impacts
5.2.5.1 Introduction
Once the costs of each final alternative had been estimated,
a second analysis was performed to determine how the al-
ternative could be funded and how its financing would burden
the communities in the planning area and the households in
those communities. In discussing these fiscal impacts, the
progression from overall cost of the alternative to the
individual household tax burden will be followed, including
funding sources, methods of financing the project, debt
requirements, costs to communities in and out of Milwaukee
County, and costs to the average household. For more detailed
information, the reader is referred to the Fiscal/Economic
Impact Appendix.
5.2.5.1.1 Project Funding: Federal and State funding for
municipal sewage treatment projects, such as the MWPAP, is
controlled and allocated by the Wisconsin DNR on the
basis of a formal priority list. This list, the Project
Priority List (PPL). is prepared according to Wisconsin's
federally approved priority system, which is set forth in
Chapter NR 160 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code (NR 160),
and EPA regulations. The PPL is used to determine the
distribution of funds from two sources: the Federal Construction
Grants Program and the Wisconsin Fund. The priority system
assigns priority values, and ranks projects on the basis of
a six factor formula described in NR 160. The 1980 PPL
priority values and rankings for MWPAP projects are shown
in Table 5.30. Not all of the component projects of the
Milwaukee Water Pollution Abatement Program have been sub-
mitted for funding.
5.2.5.1.2 Federal Funding; Federal funds are administered
by the EPA, and appropriated to the state, as part of the
Construction Grants program of the Clean Water Act of 1977.
This program authorizes 75% federal funding to all eligible
projects. It has been the policy of the Wisconsin DNR to
allocate these funds to all Step 1 (planning) and Step 2
(design) projects regardless of their priority values and
ranking on the PPL. Therefore, a certain percentage
(approximately 62% in 1980) of the total available federal
grant money designated for Wisconsin is set aside for Step 1
and Step 2 grants.
5-70
-------
OS
o
Q a a a a a Q
CO CO CO CO CO CO CO
2 2 2 S S 2 Z
aaaaQQaa so
• COCOCOCOCOCOCOCO DCO
OJ3SZZSSSSS2
DDCJUrHl)DUCUUUDCUDD
skego,
Iwauke
Iwauke
Iwauke
i)
3
a
3
01
3
a
3
3
a
3
SJ
3
a
3
Iwauke
iensvi
D
3
a
Iwauke
D
-Si
3
a
3
u
3
a
3
J
3
3
U
3
a
3
OJ
3
a
3
D
a
3
Iwauke
luauke
IS-SSZSZSSESZ
u
a
I i
.
O 1) "
-
O O -u
03 -^ 'JJ
G\ SJ —i
i-H SU -3
5-71
-------
Approximately 25% of the 1980 federal grant money is avail-
able for Step 3 (construction) grants and the use of these
funds is allocated to eligible projects according to rank
on the PPL. The remainder of the federal money (approximately
13%) is set aside for various other funding requirements. The
DNR estimates (Harder memo, 2/20/1980) that it would be unlikely
for Step 3 projects below number 16 on the PPL to receive
federal funds, although a few projects in the 16-30 range might
receive some funding.
*
5.2.5.1.3 Wisconsin Fund; The Wisconsin Fund, which is
available to municipal projects that are not federally funded,
is authorized to fund up to 60% of eligible municipal sewage
treatment project construction (Step 3) costs. Those
projects too far down on the PPL to be in the fundable range
for federal grants, would be able to apply for Wisconsin Fund
grants. To be eligible for Wisconsin Fund grants, the
municipal project must be on the PPL and the municipality
must submit an Intent to Apply by the end of each year. At the
begining of the following year, those municipalities submitt-
ing Intents to Apply are placed on a new list which is used to
allocate the Wisconsin Fund grants. This list is based on
the priority system, so the projects will be ranked in the same
order as on the PPL.
5.2.5.1.4 MWPAP Funding: It has been estimated that
Wisconsin will receive about $66 million of federal funds in
1980, of which a maximum of nearly $40 million will be
available for allocation to MWPAP projects. The Wisconsin
Fund will have approximately $60 million of available funds
in 1980. Of these funds, a maximum of $20 million will be
available for MWPAP projects. This brings 1980 funding
expectations for the MWPAP to approximately $60 million.
This $60 million ceiling assumes an unchanging level of
available federal funds. However, recent trends and
political opinion indicate that available federal funding
may decline in future years.
With a $60 million ceiling on federal and state yearly
funding of the MWPAP, one approach to implementing the
program would be for the MMSD to spend $80 million per year
for as many years as necessary to complete the project.
This method of meeting the oroject costs would allow the
project to be 75% funded ($60 million is 75% of $ 80 million)
which is the maximum allowable level of funding.
However, due to the construction schedule imposed on the
MMSD by the U.S. District Court Order, the construction
necessary to implement the MWPAP must be completed by the
end of 1989. Averaged over a ten year period, the cost to
implement the Local Alternative would be more than $150
5-72
-------
million dollars per year. Since the maximum funding that
could be expected from the Federal government and the
Wisconsin Fund would be $60 million, the majority (64%) of
the cost of implementing the MWPAP would be borne locally.
5.2.5.1.5 Financing the Local Portion of the MWPAP Costs:
There are several methods that could be used to finance the
local portion of the MWPAP costs. Taxes could be levied to
raise the money to pay construction costs on a "pay-as-you-
go" basis or bonds could be issued to spread the costs of
the project over a longer period of time. Theoretically,
by taxing all the taxable property in Milwaukee County in
proportion to its equalized value (ad valorem), sufficient
revenue could be collected to make cash outlays for MWPAP
improvements as they fall due. The advantage of this type
of "pay-as-you-go" system is that money need not be spent
on interest or-financing costs.
The disadvantage of this type of financing is that the
magnitude of cash outlay would vary greatly from year to
year. The MWPAP must be implemented by 1989, but the costs
of the project would not be distributed evenly over those
ten years. Almost two-thirds of the locally funded share
would be expended within four years. To pay for these costs
directly, tax rates in the County would average $6 per
$1,000 of equalized property value, but in some years, the
rates would climb to more than $10 per $1,000 of property
value.* This rate of taxation would result in severe
hardship to both businesses and residents. As a result,
direct taxation is not seriously being considered as a
financing mechanism.
The other method for financing the local portion of the
project costs would be to raise the necessary money by
issuing either general obligation or revenue bonds. G. 0.
bonds are backed by the "full faith and credit" and the
taxing powers of Milwaukee County, the issuing body, thereby
providing a low-risk investment for the bond purchaser.
Because of this high level of security for the investor and
because of the tax exempt status of the bonds, investors are
willing to accept a lower interest rate on the G.O. bonds.
* (Current tax rates in Milwaukee County range from $15.33
per $1,000 of equalized taxable property value (West Milwaukee)
to $23.86 per $1,000 of equalized taxable property value
(Milwaukee). Included in these total net tax rates is the
$.86 per $1,000 (equalized) for the 1980 MMSD debt service.)
5-73
-------
In Wisconsin, the amount of debt that a municipality (county,
city, town, village, school district or other municipal
corporation) may incur is limited to 5% of the equalized
valuation of its taxable property. Since G.O. bonds are
backed by the full faith and credit of Milwaukee County,
they contribute to the County's debt. In addition, G.O.
bonds issued for MMSD improvements are restricted to a
maturity of twenty years from the date of issue.
Revenue bonds differ from G.O. bonds in that they are backed
by the future revenues of the issuing body, in this case
either Milwaukee County or the MMSD. The obligations from
this type of bond would be payable only from future revenues,
and so they do not contribute to the debt of the community.
Revenue bonds would be considered by investers as a higher
risk than G.O. bonds because revenue bonds are backed only
by future revenues. For this reason, the interest rate
paid on revenue bonds might be slightly higher than the
rate paid on G.O. bonds. Also, revenue bonds solicit a
closer examination by prospective buyers. Since neither
the County nor the MMSD has issued this type of bond in
the past, there is no recored for investors to examine,
and so the bonds might be difficult to market.
Under current Wisconsin law, G.O. bonds for financing capital
improvements to the sewerage system can only be financed by
G.O. bonds issued by Milwaukee County. To change this law
would require a legislateive amendment. Assuming such an
amendment, any combination of the mentioned methods or an
innovative financing scheme could be implemented to finance
the local portion of MWPAP costs.
5-74
-------
5.2.5.1.6 Bond Rating: Implementation of the MWPAP could
affect Milwaukee's bond rating. Municipal bonds are rated
by two major rating agencies (Moody's and Standard and
Poors) to measure the risk of municipal default. The
greater the risk, the lower the credit rating and the higher
the interest rate that must be paid by the municipality to
attract investors. Numerous factors such as accounting
practices, financial statements and past budget and audit
reports are used by the rating agencies to assess the
"credit worthiness" of the municipality.
Another consideration of the credit rating agencies is the
overlapping per capita debt of the residents within the
municipality. Although the annual debt service for capital
improvements may be slight, it must be evaluated in the
context of the other annual tax payments the citizen must
make: municipal and school taxes, for example.
Milwaukee County has had a history of sound debt and financial
practices and had until recently a triple A (Aaa) rating from
both major credit agencies (the highest rating available).
However, on June 16, 1980, Moody's Investors Services
lowered the ratings of the County, City, and MMSD bonds
issued by the County from Aaa to Aa. The June 16th issue
of Moody's Bond Survey characterized the ratings revision:
"Although (the) current financial position and underlying
economic resources remain strong, (the) magnitude of
County funding required for compliance with stringent environ-
mental regulations detracts from overall bond security." The
article concluded by stating, "inherent risks of a sewerage
program of this scale are recognized, as are the potential
problems of managing this program by a district that, as now
constituted, has neither direct taxing nor bonding authority."
It has been estimated by the MWPAP that Milwaukee County's
debt limit would be reached by 1986, if there is no borrowing
for any other County purposes. This projection assumes that
the "non-fundable" portion of the project costs would be
financed by issuing 20-year G.O. bonds at 6% interest, 0%
inflation, and a .4% real annual growth rate in Milwaukee
County property valuation. Once the debt limit is
reached, future projects could only be financed by means
other than G.O. bond issues. As the legal debt limit
approached, the County's bond rating might decline.
Even if the Wisconsin statutes are amended to allow the
MMSD, rather than the County, to issue general obligation
bonds and to levy the necessary taxes, the County's bond
rating could be affected. MMSD bonds would not contribute
to the County's debt, but they would increase the over-
lapping per capita debt. Also, if any political subdivision
5-75
-------
within the County issues bonds, it would affect the over-
lapping per capita debt.
5.2.5.1.7 Cost Distribution: If bonds are issued to meet
MWPAP costs rather than using direct taxation, the payment
schedule for these costs would be spread over a longer
period of time, but the project costs would be increased by
interest payments. The local portion of the project cost
would be distributed to citizens living in the MMSD service
area by one of several methods of apportionment: property
tax, flat rate, user charge, or income tax surcharge.
Wisconsin statutes now require that Milwaukee County must
levy an ad valorem property tax on all taxable property
within its boundaries to provide a direct cash flow or to
finance the debt service on bond issues. The traditional
argument supporting the property tax as a means of dis-
tributing annual revenue requirements is that all property
in Milwaukee County benefits from the sewer service, so all
property should share the burden of raising the needed
capital. Advocates of the property tax point out that
even property that may not receive sewer service would be
enhanced in value because of its location in a sewered
area. Another advantage of the property tax is that it is
deductible on income tax returns.
There are also arguments opposing property taxes to support
sewerage improvements. With such a system, farmers might
have to pay sewer taxes on agricultural land. Residences
in Milwaukee County with septic systems would have to pay
for the rehabilitation of their septic systems, and they
would be taxed for sewer service they would not receive.
A Federal Guideline (PRM 79-8) allows for the establishment
of Septic Tank Management Plans, which could result in
federal funding of septic tank upgrading.
The property tax would not charge users in proportion to their
use of the system, but instead according to their property
value. For example, a valuable property such as a shopping
mall would have to pay a proportionately high amount of
property tax even though it might not be a heavy contributor
of the sewer system. On the other hand, some industries may
be heavy contributors to the sewer system, but may have
property of relatively low value and thus pay low taxes.
An alternative method of distributing the debt service from
municipal bonds would be a flat rate system. Using such a
system, the annual costs would be distributed based on the
number of building connections to the sewerage system.
Residents in the MMSD service area would be charged a set
5-76
-------
fee per connection. Many of the suburban communities
surrounding Milwaukee County use this system to distribute
annual capital costs.
A user charge system could also be employed to distribute
the MWPAP capital costs. Such a system would charge each
user of the sewerage system a fee based on the benefits the
user receives. A payment formula would be developed to
consider the volume and quality (suspended solids and BOD
concentration, for instance) of the wastewater the user
discharges to the sewer system.
A much greater proportion of the project costs would be
borne by industry with a user charge system than with
a tax system. Certain wet industries (those that discharge
high volumes of wastewater) including breweries and
tanneries, would have to pay very high capital charges in
addition to the high user charges they now pay for 'the
operation and maintenance of the MMSD. Location in Milwaukee
County could place these industries at a competitive dis-
advantage to similar industries located outside the County
or the region. Also, since property value would not be
considered with a user charge system, lower income households
would pay relatively higher bills than they would pay with
a property tax system.
Another method of distributing the MWPAP costs would be an
income tax surcharge. Residents of, and businesses located
in the MMSD service area would pay the surcharge. Anyone
who owned property in the MMSD service area, but lived
outside the area would not pay the tax surcharges. Also,
non-profit organizations that are exempt from State income
tax would not pay the surcharge. Like the State income tax,
the surcharge would be "progressive" (lower income residents
would pay a smaller percentage of their income than higher
income residents). Like the ad valorem property tax, an
income tax surcharge would be unrelated to the benefits
received from the sewerage system.
Since current Wisconsin law only authorizes a Milwaukee
County ad valorem property tax for raising capital for
sewerage improvements, any other system of cost distribution
would require legislative amendment.
5.2.5.2 No Action Alternative
It is impossible to measure the severity of fiscal impacts
that the No Action Alternative would have on communities in
the planning area. Capital costs and user charges would not
change dramatically. However, penalties and fines could be
5-77
-------
imposed on these communities if they did not comply with
court orders, or if their treatment facilities violated
WPDES effluent standards.
Projections of the future costs of the final alternatives
were made by the MWPAP using a computer model and audited
by the EIS study team. The model that was used for these
projections is described more fully in the Fiscal/Economic
Appendix of this EIS.
Tables 5.31 and 5.32 summarize the output of the model for
the No Action Alternative. In Table 5.31, future charges to
communities that now contract with the MMSD for waste
disposal are shown as average yearly charges to each community
during the period from 1985-2005. Table 5.32 indicates
the average annual tax rate per $1,QQO equalized property
value required to finance the MMSD debt service during the
same period with the No Action Alternative.
TABLE 5.32
PROPERTY TAX RATES* FOR SEWER
SERVICE WITH NO ACTION
1980-2005
Average Peak
Community Year Year
Milwaukee County $0.62 $1.18
Butler 0.65 0.85
Elm Grove 0.45 0.59
New Berlin 0.41 0.48
Menomonee Falls 0.39 0.54
Mequon 0.39 0.54
*Rates are per $1,000 of equalized
property valuation.
Source: System Plan EA Volume 2-B.
5.2.5.3 Local Alternative
The fiscal analysis for the Local Alternative was made using
the assumptions outlined in Table 5,33 The MMSD would
construct all components of the Local Alternative except in
the Caddy Vista Sanitary District, Germantown, Muskego, New
Berlin, South Milwaukee, and Thiensville. This construction
5-78
-------
TABLE 5.31
MMSD ANNUAL CHARGES* TO EACH COMMUNITY ($xlOOO)
- No Action Alternative -
Community 1980 1985-2005 Avg.
Contract Communities
Brookfield 434 508
Butler 124 117
Elm Grove 244 226
Menomonee Falls 8 787
Mequon 434 562
New Berlin 566 1168
MMSD
Bayside 209 165
Brown Deer 484 429
Cudahy 1135 1002
Fox Point 381 312
Franklin 462 457
Glendale 857 724
Greendale 645 548
Greenfield ]Oil 881
Hales Corners 277 233
Milwaukee 25765 23166
Oak Creek 2031 1962
River Hills 102 83
St. Francis 335 . 320
Shorewood 513 423
Wauwatosa 2479 2049
West Allis 2611 2.199
West Milwaukee ' 961 834
Whitefish Bay 638 513
*Includes O&M as well as Capital Charges,
5-79
-------
TABLE 5.33
ASSUMPTION OF THE FISCAL ANALYSIS
LOCAL ALTERNATIVE
The MMSD would operate the Jones Island and South Shore
WWTPs.
The MMSD would construct all elements of the Local
alternative except in Caddy Vista Sanitary District,
Germantown, Thiensville, New Berlin, Muskego, and
South Milwaukee. All facilities in these six communities
would be constructed and financed locally.
The local municipalities would issue 20-year general
obligation bonds at 7% interest for capital improvements.
Milwaukee County would issue 20-year general obligation
bonds at 6% interest for capital improvements.
All projected design flows would be achieved.
The existing contract formula would continue for
communities outside Milwaukee County.
The methods now used by communities outside Milwaukee
County (whether connected to the MMSD or independent)
to distribute costs to households would continue.
The net annual MMSD debt service after subtracting
payments from contract communities, would be recovered
by ad valorem taxation of property in Milwaukee County.
Grant eligible projects would be 75% funded to an
annual maximum of $60 million.
County equalized property value would rise at a real
growth rate of .4% per year.
No inflation is assumed. Costs are in 1980 dollars.
5-80
-------
would total $1,633,194,000 from 1978 to 1992. Of these
costs, $591,425,000 (36%) would be funded by state and
federal grants and $1,041,769,000 (64%) would be financed
locally. Table 5.34 shows the yearly costs of the project.
The annual distribution of these costs for communities and
households is shown in Table 5.35. In Milwaukee County,
the average annual tax rate would be $4.33 per $1,000 of
equalized property value.
The Caddy Vista Sanitary District, Germantown, Muskego, New
Berlin, South Milwaukee, and Thiensville would finance the
improvements to their local treatment facilities. These
improvements would total $67,808,000. Table 5.36 indicates
the annual construction costs to each of those communities
through 1999, assuming no federal or state funding.
There is a possibility that some of these communities could
receive federal or state funding (or both). Table 5.37
illustrates the annual community and household costs
assuming 0%, 60% (the state limit), and 75% (federal limit)
funding. The State of Wisconsin limits the debt that a
municipality can incur to 5% of its equalized property value,
so Table 5.37 also compares the initial capital required
during the first five years of construction to the current
remaining debt margin of the community (debt limit less
existing debt).
As Table 5.37 indicates, without funding most of the com-
munities would exceed their debt limits very quickly. This
problem could be avoided if communities would issue revenue
bonds (which are not included in the debt level) rather than
G.O. bonds. However, the interest rates would increase with
revenue bonds, and there could be difficulties in marketing
the bonds.
5.2.5.3.1 Bond Interest Rate Sensitivity: The fiscal
analysis has assumed that Milwaukee County would issue 20-
year, general obligation bonds at an interest rate of 6%.
However, it is possible that future economic conditions
could require the County to market the bonds at a higher
interest rate. For this reason, an analysis was performed
by the MWPAP to determine the impacts associated with higher
interest rates. The average annual debt services were
calculated for 6%, 7%, 8%, and 9% interest rates. This
analysis used the MMSD Recommended Plan as an example, but
the findings would be applicable to any of the final
alternatives.
This analysis revealed a fairly constant relationship
between the interest rate and the debt service. Every one
5-81
-------
TABLE 5.34
ANNUAL EXPENDITURES
- Local Alternative -
Grant Funding
Local Share
Year
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
TOTAL
Cash Flow
$ 23,568
38,234
52,291
85,710
146,991
182,787
196,754
156,466
157,135
386,301
172,482
32,472
187
909
907
$1,633,194
%
75
75
75
70
41
33
30
38
38
15
35
75
75
75
75
36%
Dollars
17,676
28,675
39,218
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
24,354
140
682
680
$591,425
%
25
25
25
30
59
67
70
62
62
85
65
25
25
25
25
64%
Dollars
5,892
9,559
13,073
25,710
86,991
122,787
136,754
96,466
97,135
326,301
112,482
8,118
47
227
227
$1,041,769
All Costs x
Source: MWPAP
Model 70A
5-82
-------
TABLE 5.35
AVERAGE DISTRIBUTION OF COSTS ( x 51,000)
- Local Alternative -
1985-2005
Average Annual
Community Charges**
Community
Bayside
Brookfield*
Brown Deer
Butler*
Caddy Vista*
Cudahy
Elm Grove
Fox Point
Franklin
Germantown*
Glendale
Greendale
Greenfield
Hales Corners
Menomonee Falls*
Mequon*
Milwaukee
Muskego*
New Berlin*
Oak Creek
River Hills
St. Francis
Shorewood
South Milwaukee
Thiensville*
Wauwatosa
West Allis
We s t Mi1wa uk e e
Whitefish Bay
*0utside Milwaukee County
Source: MWPAP Model
O&M
$ 99
438
366
93
76
1,002
150
207
608
422
541
393
703
179
* 919
626
22,871
435
754
2,518
50
305
303
414
129
1,584
1,829
893
355
Capital
$ 725
789
1,491
190
166
1,910
358
1,204
1,664
815
3,016
2,022
3,127
778
1,664
1,173
41,313
933
2,958
2,674
403
780
1,480
250
356
6,655
6,153
1,064
1,861
1985-2005
Average Annual
Household Charges
O&M
61
61
61
61
204
61
61
61
61
59
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
79
49
61
61
61
61
51
78
61
61
61
61
Capital
498
138
268
41
445
223
143
474
296
114
325
342
266
292
132
129
173
169
191
251
688
206
370
33
215
303
264
219
390
% of
Average
Income
1.1
0.5
1.5
0.4
3.2
1.5
0.4
1.0
1.5
0.7
1.4
1.6
1.3
1.2
0.7
0.5
1.5
1.0
0.9
1.4
0.8
1.5
2.1
0.4
1.0
1.5
1. 9
2.3
1.3
5-33
-------
TABLE 5.36
CASH FLOWS FOR LOCAL ALTERNATIVES (0% FUNDING)
Muskego
NE To Land
1980 $
81
82
83
84
1994
95
1998
99
$
New Berlin
SE To Land
1980 $
81
82
83
84
1994
95
1998
99
131
241
837
4,797
4,116
858
10
482
5
11,477
417
770
2,676
15,332
13,156
2,581
29
1,026
12
South
Milwaukee
$
30
55
191
1,091
936
225
3
1,275
14
$35,999
$ 3,820
Caddy
Vista
$ 24
44
155
886
760
43
0
0
9£
$2,002
Germantown
Land Application
$ 115
211
735
4,210
3,612
584
7
580
7
$ 10,061
Thiensville
$ 50
93
323
1,850
1,588
119
1
420
5
$4,449
All costs x S10
Source: WPAP Models AL101, 901, 201, 401, 601, 801
5-84
-------
r-
m
*
m
ca
j
rg
^
E-
i-3
3
z cn
S M
< M
EH
W M
< 0
05 S
W S
> O
Cd
J
E- C
z z
W rH
OS 0
w z
&. 3
H
Q &-
O
c
'Z
rH
S
CD
C/1
<
c
•H 4
•H C
rd U r
SCI C
^j '.
CD CD d
ac c c
£
c
4
(
*T rH '
00 «J S
t -H 4
O 4J C
03 -r( J
rH M C
rH
CO w
O c
EH n
T3
0
CD
01
3
0
~
•U —
•H O
C 0
3 ffl 0
£ 4J rH
E 01
0 0 X
CJ CJ ~
c
c
tr J.
c c
•H E
T3 :
C !/
3 0
Ci. 13
>.^*
J C
j tr
a SH
^ to
d S
} ~-
5
J
J
3 rH
H CO
J *J
n -n
: a
Dfll
1O
J CJ
01
e
0
o
c
0 H
13 MH
3 0
s
^
o
rH
tO
4J
•H
5"
CJ
s
'JS
O
r-H
C8
-H
a
CO
CJ
: cu
) en
H CO
J 4J
. C
• 0)
; o
1 SH
CU
CN CN CN
cr\ a\
U3 in CN
^D r^ m
rH
o o m
143 E —
«
CO to fO
JJ 4J U
01 01 01
•rH -H -H
>- >- 5H
T3 T3 T3
'O fl 'O
(fl (0 (tt
CJ CJ CJ
CTi O^ G^ L.O LT) l/l
CO CO CO CN CN CN
in m in in in in
m m CN CN o o
co m CN CN in co
03 i^ CN r- 1 O t/1
co m CN o - c^ c^ c^ a\
m m to r^ r~- P*
^r vo co en co CN
r— t T CN V^ VO •Q*
i— t rH
CN CN CN in tn in
CN CN CN m m m
rr ^r^ ^ rr ^
tn \D m ro o~i n
r- 1 CN o ro r- m
co rn CN c^ f*i
O r-H
O ^3 un
r-H
CO CO CO
r- r* r--
LO ^ ^3"
r-H co m
CN
CA CT^
m «r co
f^ rH
a o m
v^o r^-
OJ > >
cn en en
c c c
0) OJ 0)
.,-t -H -H
r* _^ _^
-^ &H &
r* r- p-
p» r* p*
m m m
rH r-t rH
CO rH i^Q
O CN P-
n c3^ m
CN
rp r*l c^i
iH rH rH
tn in in
m m co
m ,—t
^r -T ^r
rH r- 1 iH
TT ^P ^T
C O CM
in o ^.o
CN rH
o c m
i^O I —
0!
-------
percentage point increase in the interest rate paid on the
bonds would be reflected in an 8% increase in annual debt
service. Table 5.38 shows how increases in interest rates
would affect annual debt payments of the MMSD Recommended
Plan.
TABLE 5.38
THE' EFFECTS OF INCREASED INTEREST RATES
Average Tax Rate
Per $1,000
G.O. Bond Interest Equalized Total MMSD
Maturity Rate Property Value Debt Service
20 year 6% $ 4.37 $1,966,319,000
20 year 7% $ 4.73 $2,117,550,000
20 year 8% $ 5.12 $2,273,957,000
20 year 9% $ 5.53 $2,435,315,000
5.2.5.3.2 Bond Maturity Sensitivity: Although Wisconsin
statutes now limit the repayment period (maturity) of
municipal bonds to twenty years, the effects of extending
the bond maturity were also evaluated. Extending the re-
payment period would decrease annual debt service payments.
However, since the payments would continue for a longer
period of time, the total interest paid on the bond would
increase. This analysis evaluated the reduction in annual
payments in relation to the increase in total interest
payments.
Issuing approximately $1.1 billion in 20-year general ob-
ligation bonds during the 1980s would result in an average
debt service of $86,137,000* between 1985 and 2005 and a
total debt service of $1,966,223,000.* In other words, it
would ultimately cost about $1.9 billion to pay for a $1.1
billion capital expenditure. By the time the last payment
is made, interest on the bonds would total $870 million.*
With a Constitutional amendment, the County or the MMSD could
issue bonds with a longer maturity. Table 5.39 shows that
extending the maturity on $1.1 billion of G.O. bonds for
sewer improvements would affect annual debt service payments
*These figures include a small amount of existing debt service,
5-86
-------
6 §
w
* Eu
0.
«c
a.
O
§-
ifl O
^0 CO
_
03
g
O LT)
o o
o o
» CM
O in
o -i
o o
* C-4
o ^
O
-------
and the total amount of interest paid by the County. This
analysis was performed for the Mosaic Alternative (.the MMSD
Recommended Plan). However, the percentages of increase and
decrease would remain the same for any of the final
alternatives.
As the table shows, increasing the bond maturity to 30 years
would decrease annual payments by 12%, but it would increase
the total debt service by almost $440 million (20%). With
40 year bonds, average annual debt service would be reduced
by 20%, but total debt service would increase by 47%, or
more than $920 million.
5.2.5.4 Regional Alternative
With the Regional Alternative the MMSD would operate two
WWTPs to treat all wastewater flows in the planning area:
Jones Island and South Shore. Since South Milwaukee would
join the MMSD, its residents would pay MMSD user charges,
and they would be assessed at the same property tax rate as
the rest of Milwaukee County to finance the MMSD debt
service. The assumptions used to analyze the fiscal impacts
of the Regional Alternative are outlined in Table 5.40.
Between 1978 and 1992, $1,658,511,000 would have to be ex-
pended to design and construct the Regional Alternative. Of
these costs, only $492,227,000 (36%) would be grant funded.
The remaining 64%, $1,066,284,000, would have to be financed
locally. Table 5.41 shows the yearly cash expenditures that
would be required for design and construction of the Regional
Alternative.
Because most of these expenditures would have to be financed
locally, additional interest costs would have to be included.
The total MMSD debt service with the Regional Alternative
would be $1,970,574,000. The average annual debt service,
between 1985 and 2005 would be $86,331,000 of which $7,036,000
would be paid by contract communities. The remainder of the
average annual debt service, $79,295,000, would be distributed
by ad valorem property taxation in Milwaukee County. The
average annual tax rate, during those years, would be $4.29
per $1,000 of equalized property value. Table 5.42 shows the
average annual allocation of the costs of the program and
interest payments to the communities of the planning area.
The table also indicates the average annual cost per house-
hold in each community.
The discussion of the fiscal impacts of the Local Alternative
includes an evaluation of the effects of higher interest rates
or longer maturity periods of general obligation bonds. The
5-88
-------
TABLE 5.40
ASSUMPTION USED IN FISCAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS
FOR THE REGIONAL ALTERNATIVE
The MMSD would operate two WWTPs: Jones Island, and
South Shore.
The MMSD would finance the construction of all elements
of the alternative, including sewer rehabilitation and
relief work both inside and outside Milwaukee County,
as well as local connector sewers required beyond
Milwaukee County.
Milwaukee County would issue 20-year general obligation
bonds at 6% interest for MMSD capital improvements.
All projected design year flows would be achieved.
The existing contract formula would continue for
communities outside Milwaukee County.
The methods now used by communities outside Milwaukee
County to distribute costs to households would be
continued.
After subtracting contract community payments, the net
amount of annual MMSD debt service would be recovered
by the ad valorem taxation of Milwaukee County property.
Grant eligible expenditures would be 75% funded, to a
maximum of $60 million per year.
Milwaukee County property value would rise at a real
growth rate of .4% per year.
No inflation is assumed. Costs are expressed in 1980
dollars.
5-89
-------
TABLE 5.41
ANNUAL EXPENDITURES
- Regional Alternative -
Year
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
TOTAL
Cash Flow ^
$ 23
38
53
89
162
234
270
239
210
188
112
32
$1,658
,658
,234
,353
,213
,685
,743
,787
,684
,977
,176
,609
,479
187
909
907
,511
75
75
75
67
37
26
22
25
28
32
53
75
75
75
75
36%
Dollars
17
28
40
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
24
592
,676
,675
,015
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,359
140
682
680
,227
. — .
Local
%
25
25
25
33
63
74
78
75
72
68
47
25
25
25
25
64% 1
Share
Dollars
5,892
9,559
13,338
29,213
102,685
174,743
210,787
179,684
150,977
128,176
52,609
8,120
47
227
227
,066,284
All Costs x $10"
Source: MWPAP Model 6SM
5-90
-------
TABLE 5.42
AVERAGE ANNUAL COMMUNITY AND
HOUSEHOLD COSTS
- Regional Alternative -
1985-2005
Average Annual
Community Charges**
Community
Bayside
Brookfield*
Brown Deer
Butler*
Caddy Vista*
Cudahy
Sim Grove*
Fox Point
Franklin
Germantown*
Glendale
Greendale
Greenfield
Hales Corners
Menomonee Falls*
Mequon*
Milwaukee
Muskego*
New Berlin*
Oak Creek
River Hills
St. Francis
Shorewood
South Milwaukee
Thiensville*
Wauwatosa
West Allis
West Milwaukee
Whitefish Bay
* Outside Milwaukee County
**In Thousands
O&M
$ 93
411
344
88
22
946
140
194
570
391
509
369
660
168
862
588
21,566
293
948
2,381
47
287
284
406
77
1,489
1,720
846
333
Capital
$ 717
742
1,472
179
36
1,888
337
1,192
1,642
676
2,972
1,999
3,087
770
1,561
1,100
40,870
576
1,626
2,632
398
770
1,466
1,841
190
6,588
6,093
1,504
1,843
1985-2005
Average Annual
Household Charges
O&M
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
50
57
57
57
57
57
Capital
493
131
266
39
95
221
135
470
294
94
322
339
264
290
124
121
172
104
105
249
682
204
367
238
115
300
262
217
386
% of Average
Income
1.1
0.5
1.4
0.4
0.8
1.5
0.4
1.0
1.5
0.6
1.4
1.5
1.2
1.2
0.7
0.5
1.4
0.7
0.6
1.3
0.8
1.5
2.1
1.4
0.6
1.5
1.8
2.3
1.3
5-91
-------
changes in debt service payments and total debt service are
also applicable to the Regional Alternative because the
project costs are not significantly different.
5.2.5.5 Mosaic Alternative
The Mosaic Alternative is very similar to the Regional
Alternative except that with the Mosaic Alternative the City
of South Milwaukee would manage and operate its own WWTP.
The Jones Island and South Shore WWTPs would be the only
other public WWTPs in operation in the planning area. The
MMSD would finance and construct all aspects of the MWPAP,
both in and out of Milwaukee County. The other assumptions
used in determining the fiscal impacts of the Mosaic
Alternative are described in Table 5.43.
With the Mosaic Alternative, $1,656,209,000 would be expended
between 1978 and 1992. Of this cost, $592,204,000, or 36%,
would be fundable from state and federal sources. The
remaining $1,064,005,000 (64%) would have to be financed
locally. Table 5.44 outlines the annual capital expenditures
that would be required to implement the Mosaic Alternative.
With the Mosaic Alternative, the total MMSD debt service
from 1980 to 2009 would be $1,966,223,000. The average annual
debt service payments from 1985 to 2005 would be $86,137,000,
of which $7,121,000 would be paid by contract communities. The
remaining portion of the annual average debt service,
$79,016,000, would be distributed by an ad valorem taxation
of property in Milwaukee County. For this property, the
average annual tax rate (1985 to 2005) would be $4.37 per
$1,000 equalized property value. Table 5.45 shows the
average annual community and household allocations of capital
costs.
5.2.5.6 Combination Alternative
Historically, the MMSD has not financed any construction
outside Milwaukee County. Therefore, the Mosaic Alternative
(MMSD's Recommended plan) represents a new policy. For
this reason, in addition to evaluating the fiscal impacts of
the four alternatives described previously, a separate analysis
was made for the Mosaic Alternative, assuming that communities
outside Milwaukee County would finance and construct their
own connections to the MIS and sewer rehabilitation and relief.
This alternative is referred to as the Combination Alternative.
The assumptions for the alternative are outlined in Table
5.46.
5-92
-------
TABLE 5.43
ASSUMPTIONS USED IN THE FISCAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS
MOSAIC ALTERNATIVE
The MMSD would operate two WWTPs: Jones Island, and
South Shore. The South Milwaukee WWTP would be locally
owned and operated.
The MMSD would finance the construction of all elements
of the MWPAP, including sewer rehabilitation and relief
work both in and out of Milwaukee County for MMSD
capital improvements.
Milwaukee County would issue 20-year general obligation
bonds at a 6% interest rate for MMSD capital improvements
South Milwaukee would issue 20-year general obligation
bonds at a 7% interest rate for capital improvements.
All projected design year flows would be achieved.
The existing contract formula for communities outside
Milwaukee County would continue.
The current methods for distributing costs to communities
outside Milwaukee County would be continued.
The City of South Milwaukee would distribute costs by
an ad valorem property tax.
After subtracting contract community payments, the net
amount of annual MMSD debt service would be recovered
by ad valorem taxation of Milwaukee County property.
Grant eligible expenditures would be 75% funded to a
maximum of $60 million per year.
Equalized property value within Milwaukee County would
rise at a real growth rate of .4% per year.
No inflation is assumed. All costs are expressed in
1980 dollars.
5-93
-------
TABLE 5.44
ANNUAL EXPENDITURES
- Mosaic Alternative -
Year
Cash Flow
Grant Funding
Dollars
Local Share
Dollars
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
TOTAL
$ 23,568
38,234
53,323
89,158
162,495
233,652
269,851
239,634
210,977
188,176
112,609
32,479
187
909
907
$1,656,209
75
75
75
67
37
26
22
25
28
32
53
75
75
75
75
36%
17,676
28,675
39,992
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
24,359
140
682
680
$592,204
25
25
25
33
63
74
78
75
72
68
47
25
25
25
25
64%
5,892
9,559
13,331
29,158
102,495
173,652
209,851
179,684
150,977
128,176
52,609
8,120
47
227
227
$1,064,005
All Costs x $10'
Source: WPAP Model 60A
5-94
-------
TABLE 5.45
AVERAGE ANNUAL COMMUNITY AND HOUSEHOLD COSTS
- Mosaic Alternative -
1985-2005
Average Annual
Community Charges**
Community
Bayside
Brookfield*
Brown Deer
Butler*
Caddy Vista*
Cudahy
Elm Grove*
Fox Point
Franklin
Germantown*
Glendale
Greendale
Greenfield
Hales Corners
Menomonee Falls*
Mequon*
Milwaukee
Muskego*
New Berlin*
Oak Creek
Piver Hills
St. Francis
Shorewood
South Milwaukee
Thiensville*
Wauwatosa
TATest Allis
West Milwaukee
Whitefish Bay
O&M
$ 9.4
416
348
89
22
956
142
196
576
396
515
373
668
170
872
594
21,804
297
959
2,405
47
290
288
414
78
1,507
1,739
855
337
Capital
$ 732
750
1,502
181
36
1,926
341
1,216
1,675
684
3,032
2,039
3,149
786
1,580
1,114
41,694
583
1,646
2,685
406
786
1,495
250
192
6,721
6,216
1,075
1,880
1985-2005
Average Annual
Household Charges
O&M
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
51
57
57
57
57
57
Capital
50.3
131
271
39
96
225
137
478
299
95
328
345
269
295
126
122
175
105
106
253
695
208
374
33
116
306
267
221
393
% of
Average
Income
1,1
0.5
1.5
0.4
0.8
1.5
0.4
1.0
1.5
0.6
1.4
1.5
1.3
1.2
0.7
0^5
1.5
0.7
0.6
1.3
0.8
1.5
2.1
0.4
0.6
1.5
1.9
2.3
1.3
Outside Milwaukee County
** In Thousands
5-95
-------
TABLE 5.46
ASSUMPTIONS USED IN THE FISCAL ANALYSIS
FOR THE COMBINATION ALTERNATIVE
The MMSD would operate two WWTPs: Jones Island and
South Shore. The South Milwaukee WWTP would be locally
owned and operated.
The MMSD would finance the construction of all elements
of the plan within Milwaukee County, only.
Milwaukee County would issue 20-year general obligation
bonds at a 6% interest rate for MMSD capital improve-
ments .
South Milwaukee would issue 20-year general obligation
at a 7% interest rate for capital improvements.
Communities outside Milwaukee County would issue 20-
year general obligation bonds at a 7% interest rate for
the construction of local connectors and sewer re-
habilitation and relief.
All projected design year flows would be achieved.
The existing contract formula would continue for com-
munities outside Milwaukee County.
The present methods used by communities outside Milwaukee
County to distribute costs to households would continue.
After subtracting contract community payments, the net
amount of annual MMSD debt service would be recovered
by ad valorem taxation of Milwaukee County property.
Grant eligible expenditures would be 75% funded to a
maximum of $60 million per year.
Equalized property value within Milwaukee County would
rise at a real growth rate of .4% per year.
No inflation is assumed. All costs are expressed in
1980 dollars.
5-96
-------
With the Combination Alternative, $1,635,691,0.00 would be
expended between 1978 and 1992. Of this cost, $592,153,000
(36%) would be funded from state and federal sources. The
remaining $1,043,538,000 (64%1 would be financed locally.
Table 5.47 outlines the annual capital expenditures necessary
to implement this alternative.
Because bonds would be issued to pay for this construction,
interest payments would also be,paid. From 1980 to 2009,
the total MMSD debt service would be $1,930,563,000. The
average annual debt service from 1985 to 2005 would be
$84,538,000, of which $6,994,000 would be paid by contract
communities. The remaining $77,544,000 would be distributed
by an ad valorem tax of Milwaukee County property, at an
average tax rate of $4.29 per $1,000 equalized property
value. Table 5.48 shows the average annual community and
household allocations of capital costs.
5.2.5.7 Distribution of CSO Abatement
The analysis of the fiscal impacts of the MWPAP assumed
that the MMSD Recommended Alternative for the abatement of
CSO and I/I would be implemented, that the MMSD would
finance the construction, and that costs would be dis-
tributed to all connected municipalities. Milwaukee County
residents would directly finance the debt service on bonds
by paying a property tax, while contract communities would
pay according to the existing contract formula. CSO costs
are reflected in the previous analysis in a higher tax rate
for Milwaukee County property and slightly higher contract
community payments.
Questions have been raised at public meetings about the MWPAP
Facilities Plan concerning the financing of individual
portions of the MWPAP. Mainly at issue is the MMSD proposal
to distribute all MWPAP costs throughout the MMSD service
area. There has been controversy over the acceptability of
distributing the costs of CSO abatement outside the Combined
Sewer Service Area (CSSA) and of distributing the costs of
interceptor construction to communities within Milwaukee
County.
The effect of distributing the total cost of CSO abatement
to residents of the CSSA only has been estimated. If the
$3 billion worth of property in the CSSA financed the debt
service on the bonds needed for the $636 million MMSD CSO
preferred alternative, the tax rate would average $11 per
$1,000 (equalized). The intention of this analysis is not
to create any cost distribution scenarios. Rather, it is
to demonstrate the magnitude of the burden to CSSA residents
5-97
-------
TABLE 5.47
ANNUAL EXPENDITURES
- Combination Alternative -
Year
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
TOTAL
Cash Flow
$ 23,568
38,234
53,255
87,816
159,285
219,929
268,360
239,062
210,915
188,176
112,609
32,479
187
909
907
$1,635,691
Grant
%
75
75
75
68
38
27
22
25
28
32
53
75
75
75
75
36%
Funding
Dollars
17,676
28,675
39,941
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
24,359
140
682
680
$592,153
%
25
25
25
32
62
73
78
75
72
68
47
25
25
25
25
64^
Local Share
Dollars
5,892
9,559
13,314
27,816
99,285
159,929
208,360
179,062
150,915
128,176
52,609
8,120
47
227
227
i $1,043,538
All Costs X $10"
Source: WPAP Model 61A
5-98
-------
TABLE 5.48
AVERAGE ANNUAL COMMUNITY AND HOUSEHOLD COSTS
- Combination Alternative -
1985-2005
Average Annual
Community Charges**
1985-2005
Average Annual
Household Charges
Community
Bayside
Brookfield*
Brown Deer
Butler*
Caddy Vista*
Cudahy
Elm Grove*
Fox Point
Franklin ^
Germantown
Glendale
Greendale
Greenfield
Hales Corners
Menomonee Falls
Mequon*
Milwaukee
Muskego*
New Berlin*
Oak Creek
River Hills
St. Francis
Shorewood
South Milwaukee
Thiensville*
Wauwatosa
West Allis
West Milwaukee
Whitefish Bay
O&M
$ 9.4
416
348
89
40
956
142
196
576
480
515
373
668
* -170
> 872
594
21,804
345
961
2,405
47
290
288
s 414
78
1,507
1,739
855
337
Capital
$ 718
832
1,474
189
72
1,890
398
1,194
1,644
1,116
2,976
2,001
3,090
771
1,661
1,431
40,917
891
1,993
2,635
398
771
1,467
250
240
6,596
6,100
1,055
1,845
O&M
57
57
57
57
108
57
57
57
57
69
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
63
58
57
57
57
57
51
57
57
57
57
57
Capital
49L3
147
266
41
193
221
159
470
294
155
322
339
264
290
132
157
172
161
128
249
682
204
367
33
145
300
262
217
386
% of
Average
Income
1.1
0.6
1.4
0.4
1.5
1.5
0.4
1.0
1.5
0.9
1.4
1.5
1.2
1.2
0.7
0.6
1.4
0.9
0.7
1.3
0.8
1.5
2.1
0.4
0.7
1.5
1.8
2.3
1.3
* Outside iMilwaukee County
**In thousands
5-99
-------
if they alone pay for the CSO portion of the MWPAP. Many
alternative cost distribution methods are possible. The
$11 per $1000 of equalized property value represents debt
service on the $636 million CSO portion only. If the CSSA
residents were required to share in the financing of
additional MWPAP components, the financial burden would be
greater. Table 5.49 shows the average annual tax (at the
rate of $11 per $1,000 equalized) on $15,000, $25,000
and $35,000 property values. This table also presents
the percentage of income the annual tax burden represents
for three different income categories.
TABLE 5.49
COSTS TO CSSA RESIDENTS
FOR CSO WORK ONLY
% of % of %of
Property $7,000 $10,000 $13,000
Value Tax Income Income Income
$15,000 $165 2.4% 1.6% 1.3%
$25,000 $275 3.9% 2.7% 2.1%
$35,000 $385 5.5% 3.8% 3.0%
Assumptions:
• The 1979 estimated equalized value of CSSA
is $3 million.
• The real growth rate would be .29% per year.
• CSO work would receive a proportional share of
available grant funding.
• The MMSD recommended CSO alternative would be
implemented, although all CSO alternatives have
approximately equivalent costs (the difference
between the Inline and Complete Separation
Alternatives is only 1.8%).
5.2.5.9 Fiscal Impacts of CSO
The MMSD Recommended Plan assumes that all capital costs of
the MWPAP would be spread district-wide, and that all operation
and maintenance costs would be distributed through the User
Charge Program. Since the CSO program is part of the MWPAP,
all CSO-related capital and O&M costs are assumed to be
shared district-wide.
5-100
-------
The costs of constructing the MWPAP facilities, including
CSO costs, would exceed the $60 million maximum level of
state and federal funding for most years; as a result, the
costs of the alternative CSO solutions would not be affected
by funding levels. The percentage increase in the total
MWPAP costs caused by a different CSO solution could be
applied to the Milwaukee County property tax rate for the
MMSD recommended plan. For example, given that a $1,064
billion alternative (Mosaic) results in a $4.37 per $1,000
tax rate, then a $1.098 billion solution, which is a 3.2%
increase, would result in a $4.51/$1,000 tax rate (see
Table 5.50) .
Assuming the continuation of the current contract formula,
costs to communities outside of Milwaukee County would also
increase, but not as much as in-County costs. The contract
formula is not as sensitive to changes in MMSD capital
expenditures because the charges to contract communities are
based on a 2% depreciation of MMSD assets in place. Costs
are spread through the contract formula based on a 50-year
payback period (as opposed to 20-year bonds in Milwaukee
County).
5.2.5.10 Other Methods of Distributing Project Costs
As mentioned previously, there are other methods that could
be used to distribute project costs. A user charge system
could be implemented, by which each community would pay
according to the percentage of the total flow they contributed
to the MMSD. Another form of cost apportionment would be
the ad valorem taxation of all property served by the sewer
system, regardless of jurisdictional boundaries. The costs
to the communities in the planning area under the user charge
or service area tax systems are compared to present dis-
tribution methods in Table 5.51. The assumptions used to
determine these costs are listed in Table 5.52.
A flow-based distribution of MWPAP costs would result in an
average increase of charges to contract communities of 8%
over the charges associated with the Mosaic Alternative.
In addition, the charges to some Milwaukee County communities
would increase even more dramatically: Cudahy by 45%;
Milwaukee by 20%; Oak Creek by 44%; St. Francis by 19%;
and West Milwaukee by 113%. Although these communities
have relatively low property values, they contribute large
amounts of wastewater, which accounts for their increased
costs.
The costs to the 13 remaining Milwaukee County cpmmunities
would be reduced from the costs associated with the Mosaic
5-101
-------
Alternative
1. Inline
2. CST/Inline
3. Modified
Total Storage
4. Complete
Separation
TABLE 5.50
FISCAL IMPACTS OF CSO ALTERNATIVES
Total Initial Average
MWPAP Capital: Percent Annual
Local Share* Increase Tax Rate
$1,064,005
1,074,535
1,088,085
1,097,925
*Costs in thousands
Source: ESEI
Base
1%
2.3%
3.2%
$ 4.37
4.41
4.47
4.51
Annual Burden
to a $50,000
Home in Milwaukee Co.
$
218
220
223
225
5-102
-------
01 ^
0"! rH
c -~
5 g
IHI++ICMI 1 I I I I I++I++I I I I
0<^
i-3+
l I I I
a
H
M-l (0
O 4-1
0
~ £
0)
EH
a
H
s
o
H
EH
MH
S!
§
w
Q
O
g
H
S
H
H
EH
co CM H r- u3 r-
oO\oroOHCNro
H r- in CN
CM VQ H O
in
a) >)
so) -P
0) O SH
CO -H 0)
' 03 -
CD 0 X
rH H Id
f^ CM EH
C —'
id
o §
M
*> fa
MH 1C
0 4J
O
— O
14H (13
0 -P
0
O-P H
•a o
(1) O
Q c*] r** ^O rH ro 0^ CO r*H; CNJ r** rH ^* CN C? rO LO 00 O^
CN rHrH rOCNfO HrHCO Hn H [^r*HCN CTl
^ CTi
r**. LO^O**!—ioroo*icOi—I^OO^OO^OOCN cNfoOco^1 r**
f*sj ^* j—j f*» CO fO rO ^vf CO CO t*H 0^ CO ^J* CO ^^ CO CT^ i~H CTi CN r*H C*^ CO fO
CT^ CO fN ^O v^ ^3 fO rH r*1* LO ^H VO to VJ3 vO ^* C"*11 ^" (0 ^H f*** OJ ^3 CO >*~^
H HH COCNro HHH HCN HO lOiOHH 1
4J
c
3
0)
0)
-0
H
0)
a) -H
id
T3
n3
4J
in
•H
C Q) r^*1
s H -a
" -P T3
o
ffl « O
* *
3 m
T3 £
3 -3
U H
*
4J
c c
•iH -H
0 H
CM _y
c
X id
0 M
fa fa
cn
H
in H
M n3
<1> fa
T3 C
0) H ^ CD
CD H a; o d)
CD
0)
in in
H -H
*H o-g
HCU-HC
0 c! 3 Cn
-------
TABLE 5.52
ASSUMPTIONS FOR ALTERNATIVE FUNDING ANALYSIS
Assumptions of Mosaic Alternative (MMSD Recommended Plan)
Existing contract formula for non-Milwaukee County
Suburbs
MMSD annual debt service (after reduced by contract
communities' payments), is recovered by ad valorem
taxation of Milwaukee County property.
County equalized property valuation is assumed to rise
at a real growth rate of .4% per year.
Assumptions of Flow Based Analysis
Flows used to determine the percent of total are 1995
estimates (Base flow + I/I). The estimates are averages
between 1985 and 2005 design year flows.
Community percentages are calculated by dividing each
community's 1995 flow by the total 1995 flow.
Each community's percentage is multiplied times the
MMSD average annual (1985-2005) debt service, which is
about $86 million.
No assumption is made on how the communities would
distribute the cost to the household level.
County boundaries are ignored.
Assumptions of Service Area Property Tax
Only the property in each community that is served by
the sewerage system is considered in the analysis.
1985-2005 average annual tax rate is $4.06 per $1000.
of equalized property value.
The tax rate is applied equally to all served property
in the sewer service area regardless of jurisdictional
boundaries.
5-104
-------
Alternative. This reduction would range from 16% to 66%.
These communities have relatively higher property values
and would pay more if costs were distributed by ad valorem
property taxation.
If the MWPAP costs are distributed by an ad valorem tax of
all property in the MMSD sewer service area, the costs to
suburbs outside Milwaukee County would increase an average
of 94% over the charges associated with the MMSD Contract
Formula. At the same time, charges to communities in
Milwaukee County would decrease by an average of 8%.
5.2.6 Economic Impacts
5.2.6.1 Introduction
Any of the MWPAP final alternatives (.except No Action)
would have both positive and negative impacts on the
economy of the Milwaukee area. The massive amount of money
spent in the Milwaukee area to implement the MWPAP would
stimulate the economy, creating jobs and increasing income
levels. However, 64% of this money would come from the
taxation of citizens in the Milwaukee area, thus reducing
the amount of money that these taxpayers could otherwise
save or spend within or outside of the region.
Any change in the region's economy sets off ripples of
effects through the entire economy of the area. For example,
contracting a construction firm to build a treatment plant
could cause that firm to hire more employees, in addition
to purchasing the materials needed for the job. This is
called a direct effect. Also, the firms that do business
with the firms supplying the construction company would be
stimulated. These many rounds of economic interactions,
coupled with the effects of the increased consumer spending
due to increased income levels, are called indirect or
induced effects. At the same time, a reduction in
spendable income from increases in the tax rate could
reduce the money being spent locally, thus having a
negative indirect effect on local businesses.
The Regional Industrial Multiplier System (RIMS) model,
developed by the United States Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Economic Analysis, was used by the MWPAP to
estimate specific economic impacts of the program. The
RIMS model is a method of quantitatively estimating the
total effect of a major project like the MWPAP on the local
economy by tracking the many rounds of economic effect it
sets off. The RIMS model was used to measure how the MWPAP
5-105
-------
would affect gross output (regional economic production),
earnings (income), and employment in the study area. The
results of the RIMS analysis for all final alternatives
were similar, so the Mosaic Alternative is used as the
basis for the discussion in this chapter. (For a detailed
description of the RIMS model and its application to this
project, the reader is referred to the Fiscal/Economic
Impact Appendix.)
If the MWPAP could be completely funded by federal grants,
it would be legitimate to examine only its positive impacts.
However, because 64% of the project costs would be funded
locally, negative impacts must also be considered. The
positive and negative impacts of the MWPAP are discussed
separately, and then combined to determine the program's
net impact on the local economy.
5.2.6.2 Positive Impacts
The total dollar amounts of gross output, earnings and
employment stimulated by the direct and indirect effects
of the MWPAP are listed below.
Gross Output = $4,544,452,000
Earnings = $1,173,626,000
Employment = 55,097 man-years
Thus, although the MWPAP would cost $1.6 billion, it would
stimulate the local economy to increase its output by $4.5
billion. The MWPAP would directly and indirectly create
55,097 man-years of work increasing local earnings by
$1.2 billion.
6.2.6.3 Negative Impacts
The negative impacts of the MWPAP are more difficult to
assess. Quantification of the negative impacts of the
project requires analysis of how consumers (the taxpayers)
would have spent the tax money used to support the MWPAP.
There are two extremes to measure the range of negative
economic impacts. The ''least case" assumes that none of the
tax money raised to support the debt service would have
been spent within the region. Therefore, there would be no
ripple effect on the local economy from the lost consumer
income. The negative impacts of the MWPAP under this
"least case" assumption are shown below.
5-106
-------
"Least Case:"
Gross Output = -$1,966,319,000
Earnings = -$ 333,584,000
Employment = -23,707 man-years
The second way that the negative impacts could be generated
is termed a "worst case", which assumes that all of the money
taken out of the private sector to support the debt service
would have been spent in the local economy. This money
would, therefore, have repercussions throughout the local
economy. Just as the $1.6 billion program expenditure
multiplies into a total of $4.5 billion, the $1.97 billion
spent on debt service must also be represented in its multiplied
form. The $1.97 billion would ripple through the economy by
way of direct and indirect effects and create a multiplied
total of $5.5 billion. The same procedure was carried out
for earnings and employment, listed below.
"Worst Case:"
Gross Output = -$5,525,758,000
Earnings = -$1,137,313,000
Employment = -72,197 man-years
In other words, if the negative effects (local burden in
terms of gross output, earnings and employment) of the MWPAP
are subjected to the same "multiplier," or ripple, effects
as the positive, they would potentially cost $5.5 billion in
gross output, $1.1 billion in earnings, and 72,197 in man-
years.
The actual negative impacts of the MWPAP would probably fall
somewhere between the "least case" and "worst case" scenarios.
5.2.6.4 Net Impacts
To measure the net impacts of the MWPAP, the negative impacts
are subtracted from the positive. Table 5.53 summarizes the
net impact of the MWPAP, assuming the least and worst case
scenarios. The economic impact of the MWPAP may be character-
ized as having an initial positive effect, quickly followed
by a period of negative effects in the form of debt service
payments.
5-107
-------
TABLE 5.53
NET ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSUMING LEAST CASE NEGATIVE
Positive - Negative = Net Impact
Gross Output
(x 1000) $4,544,452 $1,966,319 $2,578,133
Earnings
(x 1000) $1,173,626 $ 333,584 $ 840,042
Employment
(man-years) 55,097 . 23,707 31,390
NET ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSUMING WORST CASE NEGATIVE
Positive - Negative = Net Impact
Gross Output $,544,452 $5,525,758 -$ 981,306
(x 1000)
Earnings (x 1000) $1,173,626 $1,137,313 $ 36,313
Employment
(man-years) 55,097 72,192 17,100
5.2.6.5 Impacts of CSO Alternatives on Area Employment
The RIMS model was not used for the final CSO alternatives.
Therefore, no method exists for quantitatively assessing and
comparing the direct and indirect impacts of each final CSO
alternative on the Milwaukee area economy. However, certain
manpower requirements for some CSO alternatives can be
estimated, and statements regarding the availability of
local labor can be made.
The EIS assumes that the implementation of a CSO alternative
which utilizes the local labor and materials market would
have a greater positive impact on the area economy than an
alternative which relies to a greater extent on non-local
labor and materials. Generally, much of the sophisticated
equipment and specialized labor required for cavern and
deep tunnel construction is not available in the local area.
This specialized labor and equipment represents only a small
portion of the labor and equipment required for any
alternative.
It would be difficult to differentiate between the negative
economic impacts of the Inline, Complete Sewer Separation,
Modified CST/Inline, and Modified Total Storage Alternatives
5-108
-------
for CSO and I/I abatement because the amount of local tax
dollars raised to finance construction of any of these al-
ternatives would be nearly equal. Table 5.54 summarizes the
employment impacts of the final CSO alternatives.
5.2.6.6 Tax Climate
Historically, Milwaukee and Wisconsin have had reputations
as high tax areas. However, two important changes have
recently been made in the state tax policy: the property
tax exemption for manufacturing machinery and equipment and
the exemption of inventories and livestock. These tax
exemptions should greatly affect the manufacturing sector
because their taxable property will be reduced substantially.
Businessmen in the manufacturing sector who were interviewed
by the MWPAP indicated that the machinery and equipment
exemptions changed their attitudes about Wisconsin's tax
climate. The inventory exemption should have similar
effects on retail and wholesale businesses.
In addition, Wisconsin makes general property tax relief and
shared monies available to municipalities, based in part on
the local tax level. Municipalities with high property tax
rates receive more state aid than those with lower rates.
Thus, although financing the MWPAP would increase the gross
property tax levy for Milwaukee, this increase should be
partially offset by corresponding increases in state aid.
Another factor would be the increases in property taxes that
could be deducted on itemized federal and state income tax
forms. Only about one-third of all federal taxpayers now
itemize their deductions. The Wisconsin Department of Revenue
estimates that only about 15% of the state taxpayers will
itemize in the future due to recent State tax law changes
encouraging non-itemization. Thus, only a small proportion
of taxpayers would benefit from increased deductions.
5.2.6.7 Business Relocation
Taxes are often an important factor when businesses choose
to locate or remain within the planning area. To study how
tax increases might affect specific industries in the
Milwaukee area, the EIS has relied on a MWPAP survey of 47
firms and on EIS interviews with trade associations. The
businesses sampled represented each major industrial sector
throughout the region. Interviews were conducted with
senior executives of each participating firm.
The objectives of the MWPAP survey were to provide information
on the project, to discuss estimates of the firm's sewer
5-109
-------
TABLE 5.54
CSO ALTERNATIVES: ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Inline: The 11% complete separation and 89% partial
separation required could almost totally draw from the
local labor supply. A small amount of non-local labor
could be supplemented with local labor to satisfy the
deep tunnel, dropshaft, and cavern construction.
Complete Separation: Although this alternative involves
100% separation, it would require 440 miles of sanitary
sewers, as opposed to 460 miles of storm sewers, with the
Inline alternative. The positive economic impacts may be
slightly less than with the Inline alternative.
The local labor required for separation is nearly identical
to Inline, but there would be less local labor required
for near-surface facilities, soft-ground tunnels, screening
structures, and access shafts (the "all other" category).
If current financing practices were applied to the analysis
of the complete separation alternative, homeowners in the
CSSA could be severely burdened with additional costs.
Specifically, current MMSD practices require that homeowners
pay for the costs of connections and repairs made from the
street to the home. Under the complete separation alternative,
there could be this additional fiscal burden to CSSA home-
owners, unless the opinion of the MMSD Legal Staff is
confirmed, that the entire MMSD would pay the costs of
street-to-house connections in the CSSA.
GST/Inline: This alternative involves 120 miles of con-
struction, with 11% complete separation, 21% partial
separation, and 68% complete storage. This may have fewer
positive economic impacts than Inline, but no comparison
with complete separation is possible.
Total Storage; With no sewer separation, the local labor
needs would be more intensified in the tunnel and storage
facility construction. Positive economic impacts will be
limited to the "all other" category, yielding much less
of an economic benefit than Inline or CST/Inline.
5-110
-------
related tax increases due to the project, and to elicit the
company's reaction to the future changes.
Few of the firms surveyed indicated that the tax increases
would put them at a competitive disadvantage to similar
companies outside the planning area. No firm stated a desire
to move outside the planning area to avoid MWPAP costs.
This response may partly be explained by the large exemption
to property valuation granted to the industrial sector.
5.2.6.8 Impacts on Selected Industries
Table 5.55 compares projected 1985 sewerage costs for selected
industries with their 1979 costs. These sewerage costs
include user charges for O&M and property taxes for capital
debt service. For this comparison, the 31 major industrial
firms were grouped into three categories: heavy machinery;
breweries and dairy products; and manufacturing. For these
three categories of industries, sewerage costs would increase
by 24% on the average, with the highest increase (67%) in
the heavy machinery industry.
In all these industries, sewerage costs are now and will
continue to be only a small portion of the cost of doing
business. Table 5.56 illustrates the small percentage of
present and projected value added (the value of a firm's
finished product less the cost of materials) attributable to
sewerage costs. Only in the chemical industry are sewerage
costs a significant portion of value added, and the percentage
of operating cost attributable to sewer costs would not change
drastically if the MWPAP is implemented. The effects on
other industries and households are summarized below.
5.2.6.8.1 Brewing; The project would probably not have any
adverse effect on the brewing industry because capital costs
are recovered by property taxes and not by user charges. The
brewing industry is a heavy water user, but its taxable
property values are not especially high.
5.2.6.8.2 Leather Tanners: The leather tanning industry
faces severe foreign competition and consequently has had
great difficulty passing price increases to its customers.
Interviews revealed that the projected increases in property
taxes would not adversely affect this industry. The leather
tanning industry is far more concerned with federal regulations
regarding industrial pretreatment of toxic discharges than
with cost increases resulting from the MWPAP.
5-111
-------
in
**\
in
a
pa
<
EH
tn
s
M
&H
J
M
Cfi
EH
Ul
3
Q
2
M
rH
OS
O
fa
tn
tn
O
O
a
C3
<*
^
'^
3
m
CO
01
tn
10
01
M
O
c
dp M
ad so ae
r~ rH in
. • •
>H ^o r^*
LD 00 ,
•u
J_j
UJ
a,
0 X
in (B
& EH
c- 1 i— i tn
t * •
m ^ o
["*• "-O P*
CN -
tn
id
U
In
O
C
DC M
cW dP aW
m r** co
f « »
r* r-* a\
iH
D
CT
01 id
tn jS
3 CJ
in \o oo
• « .
o n o
r** 0^ r^J
r^" rn co in
,H
id
4J
O
e*
CN in o^
cs ^H un
r— 4 ro r*r
ro r-)
C 01
Ul
3 11
O O
C
0
•H
4J
a
•H
r^
O
tn
01
Q
£Z -H
jj ^
CL .< CQ CJ
C
•HO Q< O< QJ
CO 333
M OT O O O
JJ r-) M M H
tn o u o
o -u
a (3
Q*>
O
»
^1*
CM
VO
1
*7
en
CO
en
t/>
aft
CM
CO
(^*
rH
VT,
.
Cfl
O
CO
*
rH
dP
ro
.
o
rH
tn
«j"
CO
o
*•
CO
t—t
p^
r^
en
*.
p^
rH
IB
0
6-
OP Of UP
o o o
o o o
rH rH rH
00 UP dP
CM CJ CM
IO rH
00 dP dp
O O O
o o o
rH rH rH
JB dS dP
rH -^ -H
^
UP dp DP
en ^D cn
in en en
G
0
•H rH
-p id
3 4-1
-Q -rH
"H !1
SH id
-M CJ A 0) O
tn
•H c s & a a
TJ Ol <-a 333
HO O O 0
4-> !5 rH rH rH
tn 4-1 -O O O C3
0 01 C
O ^3 id
aP
o
o
rH
Of
CO
rH
dP
CM
CO
dP
0
O
rH
00
CO
dP
CM
en
rH
IS
0
EH
0. S
Ol X
x a)
u
X
x id
id -P
4J
dP
0 0
in rH
-^ .^
0 0
o o
tn tn
- -
w tn
-U 4-1
c c
id fl
o "o
U M
Ol 11
S S
'"O T3
c c
n3 id
~ _
in w
M VH
01 Ol
•3 3
-P -U
O O
id id
M-4 M-i
3 3
C S
id IB
S S
rH PM
>,
iH
01
C
•H
£
0
s
>i
>
id
01
i-5
1
r^
a
3
o
o
tn
4-1
0
3
rQ
o
P.J
><
^
•H
id
Q
T3 0^
c c
(B -H
i_j
tn 3
li w
•H U
in IB
(U 14-1
3 3
(D C
IH id
03 S
1 1
a u
a a
3 3
0 O
o o
.
rH
rH
1
P-
<
Cd
•>
c
(B
rH
a
c
11
4J
tfl
>!
cn
i_,
qj
4J
03
3
01
en
iB
3
D
CO
2^
2*
.•
a)
o
^
3
O
5-112
-------
TABLE 5.56
SEWERAGE COSTS AS A PERCENTAGE OF VALUE ADDED
Sewerage Cost as a Percent
of Estimated 1976 Value Added
Description
Heavy Machinery
Paints and Allied Products
Primary Metals
Fabricated Metals
Machinery Except Electrical
Electric and Electronic
Equipment
Transportation Equipment
Total
Beverages and Dairy Products
Malt Beverages
Dairy Products
Total
Other Manufacturing
Food Processing Excluding
Beverages and Dairy
Products
Paperboard Products
Misc. Chemicals
Leather Tanning
Total
All Groups, Total
1979 Sewerage
Cost1
0.2%
0.2
*
0.1
0.1
it
0.1%
0.8%
0.2
0.7%
2.2%
N/A
16.2
3.2
4.0%
0.3%
Projected 1985
Sewerage Cost
0.5%
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2%
1.1%
0.2
0.9%
2.5%
N/A
18.2
3.6
4.5%
0.4%
*Less than 0.05%
N/A - Not Available
Manufacturers' and merchants' stocks 50% tax exempt.
2
Manufacturers' and merchants' stocks 100% tax exempt.
Source: Table 7-12
WSP: Environmental Assessment.
5-113
-------
5.2.6.8.3 Construction: The MWPAP could create a temporary
upsurge in the construction industry in Milwaukee. In 1984,
employment in construction is expected to rise to a high of
3,000 man-years (employment for one person for one year, not
necessarily 3,000 new jobs). The annual average through
1990 would be 1,800 man-years. This average figure would
represent an increase of about 10% over average annual
construction employment in the Milwaukee area over the past
decade.
Representatives of the U.S. Department of Labor's Office Of
Construction Services, several of its branch offices, and
construction experts at the U.S. EPA all concurred that the
surge in employment created by the MWPAP is not a critical
issue. The construction industry tends to have employment
swings as projects are completed or new projects start up.
5.2.6.8.4 Commercial Buildings: Property taxes are a
relatively large proportion of the operating costs of
commercial buildings, such as offices, hotels, and shopping
centers. Property taxes are important factors in determining
the financial feasibility of a new project and high taxes
can greatly increase the operating costs of commercial
buildings. However, it is unlikely that an average annual
property tax rate of the magnitude proposed ($4.37 per
$1,000) would have a significant effect on this industry.
5.2.6.9 Impacts on Households
Household property would be the most seriously affected by
increases in property taxes. This property does not have some
of the benefits (e.g., inventory exemptions) which lessen
the burden to industries. Also, the property taxes in the
City of Milwaukee are already comparatively high, as
shown in Table 5.57.
TABLE 5.57
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TAX IN
SELECTED LARGE CITIES, 1977
Tax Rate
City Rank Per $1,000
Boston 1 $7.84
Indianapolis 2 4.23
Milwaukee 3 3.59
St. Louis 4 2.14
5-114
-------
Milwaukee should receive some additional state property tax
credits due to the increase in property taxes associated
with the MWPAP, which would lower the net tax levy. Home-
owners who itemize their income tax deductions (usually in
the middle or upper income brackets) would be able to itemize
their increased property tax levy on their state and federal
income tax forms.
5.2.6.10 Construction Impacts on Local Businesses
The construction of MWPAP sewerage facilities would reduce
available parking spaces and disrupt traffic patterns and
access to some businesses. The MMSD has estimated that the
MWPAP construction projects would have durations lasting
from two weeks to two months per block. The disruption of
traffic and access could also disturb businesses in the
vicinity. Businesses which rely on impulse buying (e.g.,
record or book stores) would be more severely affected than
those that sell necessities. Also severely affected would
be businesses that have a high business threshold (require
greater numbers of daily receipts to remain solvent).
Retailers outside the central business district could also
be affected by MWPAP construction because they must rely
heavily on customers using private automobiles. The central
business district has a large customer market readily avail-
able from retail, financial and other businesses. Pedestrian
access would be less disrupted than vehicular traffic.
Further discussion of impacts to traffic and access can be
found in Section 5.2.12 of this volume and the CSO Appendix.
5-115
-------
5.2.7 Aesthetics
5.2.7.1 No Action Alternative
With this alternative, the waters of the planning area would
look very much as they do now. In the Outer Harbor, the
Whitnall Park Pond, Big Muskego Lake, and near-shore portions
of Lake Michigan, algal growth might increase due to additions
of plant nutrients.
5.2.7.2 Local, Regional, or Mosaic Alternatives
The implementation of any of these alternatives would result
in improvement in water quality. Algae would continue to
be present in the small lakes and in the Outer Harbor,
although its presence will be reduced in comparison to the
No Action Alternative.
The abatement of CSOs would reduce the amount of debris in
the lower reaches of the Milwaukee and Kinnickinnic Rivers.
However, debris would still be visible in these rivers from
runoff and discharges outside the planning area.
With any of the action alternatives, some, sewerage facilities,
such as dropshafts, would have to be constructed in parks or
residential areas. These facilities would be incompatible
with their surroundings. This aesthetic impact could be
minimized by landscaping.
The MMSD has recommended that the South Shore WWTP be expanded
by enclosing 30 acres and filling in 12 acres of Lake Michigan
to the north of the existing site. Since the expansion
would take place at lake level, it should not greatly increase
the visibility of the facility except to lakefront property
directly adjacent to the South Shore WWTP. The MMSD plans
to plant trees along property lines on the bluff. These
trees would further reduce the plant's visibility.
5.2.8 Noise
5.2.8.1 No Action Alternative
The operation of wastewater treatment facilities does not
significantly affect the noise levels in the planning area.
Most of the WWTPs are located in residential areas but there
have been no complaints that noise levels are increased by
5-116
-------
WWTP operations. The Jones Island Facility is located near
residential development, but it is surrounded by heavy
industry; and thus noise from the WWTP is not considered a
hazard.
5.2.8.2 Local, Regional and Mosaic Alternatives
The Local Alternative includes the construction of six
interceptors of relief systems and three new wastewater
treatment facilities. In addition, five public and two
private WWTPs would be upgraded or expanded. The Regional
and Mosaic Alternatives have eight interceptors, and the
rehabilitation and expansion of the Jones Island and South
Shore treatment plants. All this construction would require
heavy machinery. This equipment should have internal noise
muffling equipment. Construction noise would be temporary
although some construction periods could be several years;
the South Shore WWTP will require three and one half years
for expansion.
The MWPAP has estimated that construction of sewers, dropshafts,
cavern access shafts, and near-surface conveyance, and storage
facilities for the abatement of CSO and attenuation of peak
flows, would result in outdoor noise levels of approximately
55 decibels on the A-weighted scale at a distance of 570
feet (174 m) approximately 1 1/2 blocks. This 55 dBA noise
level has been identified by EPA as requisite to protect
public health and welfare with an adequate margin of safety
(U.S. EPA, MCD-20, 1976) . Some blasting might be required
for tunnels and storage caverns. The durations of construction
activities to abate CSO are outlined in Table 5.58.
Most sewer construction would occur in streets 50 to 90 feet
(15 to 27 m) from residences. Outdoor noise levels from
this construction have been estimated to be in the range of
75 to 87 dBA (CSO FP). Indoor noise levels would be less
(by approximately 15 dBA) due to the typical noise attenuation
qualities of residential buildings. Exposure to peak sewer
construction noise levels would generally be limited to a
period of one to two days per residence.
The noise associated with the construction of dropshafts,
cavern access shafts, and near-surface conveyance and storage
silos would be in the same range as those expected for sewer
construction. Noise from the construction of screening
facilities for the Modified CST/Inline and Modified Total
Storage Alternatives would be substantially higher due to
the need for pile driving operations. The distance from resi-
dential areas to dropshafts construction sites would be
greater than 600 feet (183 m) for all but four dropshafts.
Of those four, one is located 100 feet (30 m) from residences,
two are 200 feet (61 m) from residences, and one is 300 feet
(91 m) from residences. Construction at these sensitive
5-117
-------
TABLE 5.58
DURATION OF CSO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
Alternative
Complete Sewer
Separation
Entire CSSA affected by sewer construction within
50 feet to 90 feet of buildings.
15 lift, stations.
Duration
10 years total, 1 to 2 weeks
oar residential block.
6 months each
Inline Storage Entire CSSA affected by sewer construction within
50 feet to 90 feet of buildings.
9 miles of near surface collector sewers.
5.5 miles of shallow tunnels w/access shaft
every 1000 feet.
10 years total, 1 to 2 weeks
Per residential block.
1 to 2 weeks per residential
block.
2-6 months per access shaft.
1 year at each site.
14 dropshafts (no screening facilities 1.
4 near surface storage facilities (without screening). 3 years each site.
1 cavern access shaft. 34 years at this site.
Modified CST/
Inline Storage
Modified CST/
Inline Storage
(cont.)
21% of CSSA affected by sewer construction within
50 feet to 90 feet of buildings.
9 miles of neax surface collector sewers.
6.5 miles of snallow funnels with access shafts
every 1000 feet.
14 dropshafts (with screening),
4 near surface storage facilities (with screening).
2 cavern access shafts.
1 to 2 weeks per residential block.
1-2 weeks per residential block.
2-6 months per access shaft.
1 year each.
3 years each.
3% years each.
Modified Total
Storage
9 miles of near surface collector sewers.
6.5 miles of shallow tunnels with access shafts
every 1000 feet.
14 dropshafts (with screening).
4 near surface storage facilities (with screening)
2 cavern access shafts
1-2 weeks per residential block.
2-6 months per access shaft.
1 year each.
3 years each
3% years each
1 Mile = 1.609 Kilometers
1 Foot = 0.3048 Meters
Source: SSEI, 1980.
5-113
-------
sites should employ the best available noise control methods.
The duration of construction at these sites would be
approximately one year.
In general, the CSO alternatives that involve sewer con-
struction would cause the greatest noise disruption throughout
the CSSA. However, specific locations would only be affected
on a short-term basis. Conversely, facilities requiring
long duration construction at specific sites could have major
long-term noise impacts in sensitive residential areas.
Operating noise from the treatment facilities could potentially
have long-term impacts on the surrounding environment. Most
of the facilities (except Jones Island) are located near resi-
dential land. The Jones Island WWTP is located in an industrial
area where background noise levels are fairly high. It is
unlikely that the expansion of this facility would noticeably
increase noise levels in the area.
Noise generated during operation and maintenance of any CSO
abatement component would be minimal. Most facilities would
be underground preventing the transmission of operation and
maintenance noise to the human environment. Some minor
intermittent noise would be generated by maintenance vehicles
and personnel entering and leaving a particular facility.
Ventilation equipment would be operated prior to entry of
sewers, deep tunnels, and caverns. The noise produced by
ventilation equipment could be minimized by proper vent
location, baffling, and vegetative screens.
Pump stations and screening facilities would present the
greatest potential for producing long-term noise impacts.
Proper acoustical treatment of the structures housing these
facilities would limit objectionable noise to the confines
of the buildings. Additional protection could be achieved
by providing buffer zones with vegetative screening around
the facilities.
5.2.9 Odors
5.2.9.1 No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative could increase odor problems in
the planning area. Raw or inadequately treated wastewater
would be periodically discharged into the area's waters.
These discharges would continue to create unpleasant odors
from the rivers of the planning area.
There have also been complaints about odors from some of the
large wastewater treatment plants in the planning area.
5-119
-------
During a general odor survey, the South Shore WWTP received
the second highest number of complaints. Odor problems occur
at this WWTP because the digester system has been operating
inefficiently, allowing inadequately digested sludge to
reach the storage lagoons. Because of the facility's location
near a residential area, these odor problems are a nuisance.
Attempts have been made to alleviate the problem by using
odor masking devices and abandoning the lagoons nearest
residential areas. However, some odor problems remain.
It is also possible that an animal reprocessing plant
located near the WWTP is a source of some of the odors
attributed to South Shore.
The Jones Island WWTP is an older facility and it is sus-
ceptible to odors because technology available at the time
of its construction is now outdated. Also, the WWTP receives
a large volume of sewage from animal and grain processing
plants, and this type of waste is particularly prone to
creating odors. However, Jones Island is located in a
heavily industrial area and odors from the WWTP have not
been cited as a significant concern to the surrounding
community. The WWTP is located near a recreational area,
the Summerfest Grounds. Odors emitting from the Jones
Island facility could potentially disturb activities at this
site.
Most of the other WWTPs in the planning area are located
near subdivisions. Although the surrounding communities
have not complained about odors from these WWTPs, the in-
creases in flows expected during the planning period could
overload the facilities, possibly creating nuisance odors.
Occasionally, the wastewater conveyance systems are also
the sources of odors. These problems generally arise from
a system malfunction or improper maintenance, and they are
usually temporary. None of the alternatives would alleviate
this problem.
5.2.9.2 Local, Regional and Mosaic Alternatives
The interceptors that would be constructed to convey waste-
water flows to treatment facilities would not be susceptible
to odors. Interceptors are usually constructed at con-
siderable depths. The groundwater is under such pressure
at these depths that exfiltration from the sewers is unlikely.
Even if exflitration of sewage from the pipes should occur,
it is unlikely that wastes would surface in sufficient
quantity to cause noticeable odors.
Odor problems during the construction of CSO alternatives
would be minimal. Some objectionable odors could be re-
5-120
-------
leased during sewer construction as a result of disconnection
of sanitary laterals or from the disconnection of existing
separate sanitary sewers from the combined system in portions
of the CSSA. These odors would be eliminated as soon as the
reconnections were made and the trenches were backfilled.
Consequently, these minor odor problems would be short-lived.
Odors might occur at WWTPs. Since the Jones Island WWTP is
located in an industrial area, its expansion and upgrading
would probably not increase odors. The South Shore WWTP is
located near residential areas and has been cited for nuisance
odors. With the upgrading of this facility additional sludge
lagoons at that site would be abandoned. This action and
improvements in operations should minimize the odor problems
from this facility. As has been stated, the South Shore
WWTP may not be the only source of odors in this area. If
this is the case, elimination of the sludge lagoons at South
Shore would not affect nuisance odors in the area.
All other WWTPs in operation with the Local or Mosaic Alterna-
tives are located near residential communities. Improvements
to the operations of these facilities should reduce the
possibility of future nuisance odors. Three of the facilities
would employ land application techniques for partially treated
wastewater. Prior to land application, complete stabilization
of sludge is required to kill any pathogens. This process
would considerably reduce if not eliminate the possibility
of foul odors from the application sites.
The lower reaches of the Menomonee, Milwaukee, and Kinnickinnic
Rivers frequently give off unpleasant odors. The abatement
of CSOs and other bypasses would eliminate one source of
these odors, raw sewage. However, it is not certain that the
rivers' odors would improve noticeably because of their already
degraded condition.
Other long-term impacts would be associated with the final
CSO altenatives as a result of deposits of solids decomposing
in conveyance and storage facilities. Deposition of solids
in conveyance systems is usually avoided by proper hydraulic
design. However, blockages created by large objects lodging
in smaller diameter sewers might trap solids, creating a
localized odor problem. The large size of the majority of
sewers required under each of the CSO abatement alternative
would substantially reduce the possibility of these blockages.
Where deposition of solids in storage facilities v/ould likely
occur, aeration equipment would maintain aerobic (non-septic)
conditions.
The screening equipment used at dropshafts and near surface
storage silos under the Modified CST/Inline and the Modified
5-121
-------
Total Storage Alternatives to collect and store solids, could
produce odors. Since these facilities would be located under-
ground, the odors would reach the surface through ventilation
equipment and during removal of the collected material from
the facility for disposal. Odors escaping through vents could
be eliminated by the use of deodorizing filters. Any odors
released during transfer of stored solids could be reduced
by using covered containers to minimize exposure to the
atmosphere,
In the event that solids would collect in deep tunnels and
storage caverns, odor problems could occur near ventilation
exhausts. As with screening structure vents, deodorizing
filters could be used to eliminate potential problems.
5.2.10 Public Health
5.2.10.1 No Action Alternative
With the No Action Alternative, sewage bypasses and WWTP
overloading would continue. Raw or inadequately treated
sewage can contain disease-carrying organisms (pathogens).
When pathogens are introduced into a water system, there is
the potential of a significant public health hazard. The
pathogens found in domestic sewage can cause typhoid fever,
cholera, dysentary, hepatitis, and skin infections. Anyone
coming into contact with water containing inadequately
treated sewage risks infection. Lake Michigan serves as
the water supply for 70% of the planning area. If these
overflows and bypasses are not abated, the potential for
significant risks to the public health would remain.
In addition, aeration basins can release aerosols that
may contain viable pathogens. The Thiensville, Germantown,
New Berlin, Muskego, Caddy Vista, Jones Island, and South
Milwaukee WWTPs include aeration basins in sewage treatment
processes. Although the risk of this type of infection is
small, it would continue throughout the planning period with
the No Action Alternative.
5.2.10.2 Local, Regional and Mosaic Alternatives
The Local, Regional and Mosaic Alternatives would
eliminate combined sewer overflows and diversions and
bypasses in the separated sewer area and at WWTPs. Actions
to eliminate these sources of untreated sewage to the
Milwaukee, Menomonee, Kinnickinnic Rivers, Oak Creek, and
the Outer Harbor would greatly reduce the chances of disease
carrying organisms existing in these waterways.
5-122
-------
Beaches at Bay View and South Shore are now closed after
heavy rainfalls because of the correlation between high
fecal coliform counts and rainfall. Wastewater bypasses
during rainfall can result in the high bacteria counts.
With the Local, Regional or Mosaic Alternative, the fecal
coliform counts after rainfall would be reduced, and the
formula for beach closings might require change. Partial
contact recreation, such as boating, would be less hazardous
than it is now.
The elimination of discharges of raw sewage would not eliminate
the possibility of pathogenic organisms existing in the area's
watercourses. Runoff and animal wastes would continue to
wash into the streams and creeks, and, effluent from the
Jones Island and South Shore WWTPs would contain fecal
coliforms. Even after the implementation of an action
alternative, occasional power outages might cause pump
stations failures and bypasses.
5.2.11 Safety
5.2.11.1 No Action Alternative
Other than risks to the public health, safety is primarily
a concern during new construction activities. Because the
No Action Alternative calls for no new development, safety
is not a significant issue.
5.2.11.2 Local, Regional, and Mosaic Alternatives
Any major construction project poses a potential threat to
the safety of workers and the public. For the construction
necessary to implement the MWPAP, the MMSD requires the
contractor to be aware of laws and local ordinances governing
safety and responsible for the construction sites. Generally,
the hazards associated with construction are temporary and
they would end when work is completed. Measures to reduce
safety hazards during construction are listed in Table 5.58.
TABLE 5.59
MEASURES TO REDUCE SAFETY HAZARDS
AT CONSTRUCTION SITES
Confer with local utilities to obtain locations and
routes of all utility facilities that might interfere
with the chosen route. Utilities might include water,
storm and sanitary sewer, fuel, gas, steam and elec-
tricity both aerial and underground.
5-123
-------
2. Hold traffic interference from construction activities
to a minimum. This can be done by use of warning
signs, obstruction lights and detouring.
3. Begin trenching and tunneling at lower end of route
to help protect against flooding. Keep water out
of trenches by pumping or well points.
4. Check that adequate shoring and sheeting is used at
excavations.
5. Be sure that methods and equipment used for construction
are the safest alternatives. (Example: Loads should
not be swung over workmen's head as they work in the
excavations.)
6. Sites must have a system of security to protect the
public from unknowingly coming onto the site. This
could be done with placement of equipment and barriers
both during construction activities and off-hours.
There are also hazards associated with the operation of
treatment facilities. Workmen or the public could be
exposed to dangerous chemical or biological dangers in-
cluding poisonous chemicals, corrosives, dust, fumes, smoke,
noise, biological infective agents, and gases. Physical
hazards also exist, including fire, electrical shock, falls,
explosions and equipment related accidents. However, pre-
cautions are taken at existing WWTPs to minimize these
dangers and it is assumed that adequate precautions would be
taken in the future.
5.2.12 Traffic and Access
5.2.12.1 No Action Alternative
Because the No Action Alternative requires no construction,
it would not affect transportation or pedestrian access to
traffic patterns.
5.2.12.2 Local Alternatives
Most of the construction activities required to implement
this alternative would take place in the existing public
right-of-way, mainly in streets with some use of easements
and other public lands. Construction projects of this nature
tend to disrupt traffic patterns, increase traffic congestion
in both arterial and non-arterial streets near the construction
site, decrease parking availability, limit accessibility
to residences and local commercial establishments, and
diminish the general business and residential atmosphere of
the area.
5-124
-------
The Local Alternative would create impacts of both short and
moderate duration. Construction activities at the Jones Island,
South Shore, South Milwaukee, Caddy Vista, Muskego Northeast,
New Berlin Southeast, Germantown and Thiensville WWTPs v/ould
range from minor upgrading to complete reconstruction. Extensive
construction projects would require one to two years, with
impacts primarily created by construction traffic. Short-term
disruption would also occur along the routes chosen to connect
the Germantown, New Berlin Southeast, and Muskego WWTPs to
their proposed land application sites, as well as to connect
outlying portions of New Berlin to the new treatment plant site.
Much of the construction of connector sewers would be open cut.
Many routes would follow roads with average to wide right-of-
ways. Traffic might be impaired, but detours would be
unnecessary. Many of these connection sewers would be routed
through rural and undeveloped areas and would have little
impact on traffic or access.
Also included in the Local Alternative are eight interceptors:
six to be built early in the planning period and two more
which could be constructed prior to the end of the planning
period. Those to be constructed first are the Franklin
portion of the Franklin-Muskego Interceptors, the Franklin
Northeast, Oak Creek North Branch, Underwood Creek, and Root
River Interceptors, and the Northeast Side Relief System.
Large portions of these interceptors would be tunneled,
but some would also use open-cut methods.
Because exact routes and sizes are not finalized, only
general impacts can be addressed. Interceptor construction
would take approximately two years. Open-cut sewers would
cause moderate to severe disruptions to traffic. Portions
in the Franklin-Muskego, Franklin Northeast, and Oak Creek
North Branch would be routed' through rural areas. Their
impacts would be similar to those for connection to land
application sites. The impacts from tunnel construction
would not be as severe because surface construction would be
limited to access shaft and storage sites. Heavier traffic
can be expected in the area due to the large amounts of
soil and concrete that must be transported for such projects.
Access problems associated with tunneling would be minor.
Impacts near access shafts would be of longer duration
than for open-cut methods.
Construction for the Northeast Side, Underwood Creek, and
Root River Interceptors would have more severe impacts
because they are routed through moderately developed areas.
The moderate development would increase the likelihood and
severity of interruptions of access to business and residential
units.
5-125
-------
Facilities for the abatement of CSOs and the attenuation of
peak flows would also disrupt traffic and access. The areas
affected by the construction of the CSO abatement system
could include much of Milwaukee's major industrial and
commercial center and most of the high density residential
areas in the planning area. Table 5.58 outlines the duration
for specific components of the different alternatives for
CSO abatement and peak flow attenuation.
The Complete Sewer Separation Alternative would create the
most access problems because sewer construction (most of it
open cut) would take place in 92% of the combined sewer service
area (CSSA). This alternative would also require separation
of plumbing systems within buildings. Private property work
could hinder access to residential and commercial structures
and would require longer construction periods in the public
right-of-ways.
The Inline Storage and Complete Sewer Separation Alternatives
would cause similar disruption to access, because the same
amount of area would be affected by sewer separation. The
effects would be slightly lessened because no private property
work would be required.
The Modified CST Inline System would require sewer construction
in only 24% of the combined area; 21% would require partial
separation with no private property work and the remaining
3% would be separated with only minor localized modifications
to the existing system. Although some commercial areas would
be affected, the bulk of the separation activites would take
place in residential areas, minimizing short-term access
problems.
The Modified Total Storage System would require only minor
modifications of the existing system to complete any planned
sewer separation. Impacts on access would be minimal.
Sewer construction would occur in small areas in discrete
corners of the service area so that only small areas would
be affected at any one time.
Storage facility construction would require three to four years
of construction activity. Traffic problems would be local
and would be limited to the immediate vicinity of the construc-
tion site (near-surface storage site or dropshaft site). The
major impact would be construction traffic.
Because construction of CSO facilities would cause congestion
in the central business district and the urban areas, public
transportation would be interrupted. The amount of disruption
to public transit would depend on the area affected by sewer
separation. Table 5.60 lists the number of bus routes affected
5-126
-------
by various CSO alternatives. The degree of severity is based
on the number of total routes and importance of the routes
affected.
TABLE 5.60
BUS ROUTES AFFECTED BY CSO ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives Routes Affected Severity
Complete Separation 44 Extreme
Inline Storage 44 Extreme
Modified CST/Inline 17 Minor
Modified Total Storage 1 Minimal
5.2.12.3 Regional and Mosaic Alternatives
Traffic and access impact for the Regional and Mosaic Alternatives
would be similar to those of the Local Alternative except
that instead of construction at distinct plant sites, connecting
sewers would be constructed to transport flows from existing
local plants to the MIS system. The methods for this con-
struction would be similar to those used for interceptor
construction, and thus they would have the impacts discussed
for the Local Alternative. The construction of sewers would
take place mainly in rural areas except for the South Milwaukee
connector. This sewer would be constructed in South 5th
Street in a medium residential area.
5.2.13 Archaeological and Historical Sites
5.2.13.1 No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative would have no impact on arch-
aeological or historical sites in the planning area because
no new construction would take place.
5.2.13.2 Local, Regional, and Mosaic Alternatives
The planning area is rich in historic and cultural resources.
Numerous historic structures reflecting a variety of
architectural styles and a number of archaeological sites
have been identified. Any new construction in the planning
area could uncover previously unknown archaeological sites.
On September 11, 1979, the west plant of the Jones Island WWTP
was determined to be eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places. In accordance with regulations for th'e
Protection of Historical and Cultural Properties (44 CFR
Part 800), the EPA must avoid any adverse impact to any
5-127
-------
property on the National Register. Therefore, the EPA has
prepared a Preliminary Case Report for the proposed rehabi-
litation and expansion of the Jones Island WWTP. This report
includes measures for avoiding adverse impacts to the WWTP.
The Advisory Council will comment on the Case Report to
ensure that all impacts would be avoided or mitigated in
a satisfactory manner. After the Advisory Council has
determined that the Jones Island WWTP would not be adversely
affected, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) will be developed
by the MMSD, EPA, DNR, State Historic Preservation Officer
and the Advisory Council. The MOA will outline the actions
to avoid or mitigate adverse impacts to the WWTP and will
specify those adverse effects that would be acceptable.
The MOA will be signed by all parties and included in the
Final EIS.
The State Historic Preservation Officer and the MMSD's
consulting archaeologist have concurred that previous dredge,
fill, and construction activities may have destroyed any
significant prehistoric or historic archaeological deposits.
However, as stated in the "Jones Island: West Plant Prelimi-
nary Case Report," "it is not possible to demonstrate that
such sites do not exist in the proposed expansion area.
Controlled test excavations will be performed during the
summer of 1980 to determine the presence or absence of
archaeological deposits.
The areas of the City of Milwaukee that could be affected by
CSO alternatives were also generally evaluated for potential
impacts to archaeological and historical sites. A "deter-
mination of effect" survey, required by the Historic
Preservation Act (Section 800.8), has not yet been performed
because the final alternative has not been selected. It is
assumed that this survey would be conducted after the alter-
native is selected, in accordance with EPA Region V guidance
and within a time schedule that would not jeopardize proposed
construction scheduling.
It is possible to generally discuss the impacts that could
occur in the CSSA. It is anticipated that no standing
structures would be destroyed or relocated as a result of
sewer or storage facility construction. Dropshaft facilities
would be visible from some landmarks listed on the National
Register of Historic Places, but this would not directly
affect these structures from any architectural or historical
perspective. New storm sewers would generally be placed
under pavement at the same level as or higher than the
combined sewers in previously disturbed material.
The proposed dropshaft sites are along the Milwaukee and
Menomonee Rivers, which are also areas of relatively dense
concentrations of archaeological sites. Construction activities
5-128
-------
on one-half acre for each dropshaft could disturb an unknown
number of archaeological sites. Many of these dropshaft
locations are in open park-like areas which may not have
been extensively disrupted by previous construction. Addi-
tional field inventories should be performed prior to final
design of drop shaft and storage facilities.
Should archaelogical deposits be encountered during the
expansion of the Jones Island WWTP or any other construction
activities, construction would have to cease until it could
be determined by the State Historic Preservation Officer
whether the site would be eligible for the National Register
of Historic Places. Eligible sites must be recovered in
compliance with the current National Advisory Council
procedures or else avoided altogether.
5-129
-------
5.2.14 Recreation
5.2.14.1 No Action Alternative
A decision not to take action to upgrade the sewerage system
could affect recreational opportunities in the planning
area. Increased flows to the WWTPs would increase the
frequency of sewer overflows and bypasses, adversely affect-
ing water quality. With a continued decline in water
quality, beaches on Lake Michigan would still have to be
closed occasionally to protect public health.
In addition, a decline in water quality could adversely
affect recreational fishing in the Milwaukee River, Big
Muskego Lake, and Whitnall Park Pond. The gradual degrad-
ation of the appearance and odor of the area's waters would
reduce their general recreational value and that of ad-
joining parks and parkways.
5.2.14.2 Local, Regional and Mosaic Alternatives
With implementation of any action alternative, all bypasses
and overflows of inadequately treated sewage would end.
Therefore, Lake Michigan beaches could be closed less
frequently for sewage related problems. Also, the abandonment
of public and private WWTPs could slightly improve the
appearance and recreational value of Big Muskego Lake and
Whitnall Park Pond.
There is the potential for using abandoned wastewater
treatment facilities for recreational purposes. EPA encourages
recreational use of wastewater treatment and conveyance
facilities which are being planned, designed, and constructed.
This concept of dual use has been recently emphasized to
encourage community participation in the planning of wastewater
treatment facilities and to provide an opportunity for
fullest utilization of every public dollar spent. There are
many opportunities for dual use through the coordination and
incorporation of recreation facilities and open space in the
development of new wastewater treatment and conveyance
systems and the modification of existing systems, particularly
in urban areas where land is at a premium.
Although EPA sewage treatment funds cannot be used to fund
recreation projects, the Heritage Conservation and Recreation
Service (HCRS) provides funding for recreational facilities
through its Land and Water Conservation Program CLAWCON) and
Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program. The Wisconsin
DNR funds recreational projects, including multiple use
projects in some circumstances, through the Outdoor Recreation
5-130
-------
Act Program (ORAP) and administers the Federal LAWCON funds
for the State of Wisconsin. The Block Grant assistance
program under the Department of Housing and Urban Development
may also be a source of funding for recreational programs
associated with water pollution control.
Recreational grant programs have eligibility requirements
which a community must meet before specific projects can be
funded by HCRS or the state. These federal and state grants
will enable a community to enhance their local recreational
programs. Communities interested in general information on
LAWCON Programs and dual use facilities should contact the
Heritage Conservation and Recreational Service, Lake Central
Region, in Ann Arbor, Michigan. For further information on
the eligibility requirements for LAWCON or ORAP funds, the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, in Madison,
Wisconsin should be contacted. Also, for information on
block grants, contact Community Planning and Development, in
Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
5.2.15 Energy Consumption
5.2.15.1 No Action Alternative
The wastewater treatment facilities in the planning area
require energy to operate. Most of the energy they use is
purchased as fuel oil, electricity, or natural gas, although
the South Shore WWTP also produces electricity with on-site
generators fueled by methane gas, a by-product of anaerobic
digestion. The No Action Alternative would not significantly
affect energy consumption at the WWTPs, because there would
be no new construction or improvements to existing facilities.
It is assumed that energy consumption would increase at a
rate proportional to increases in wastewater flow. Table
5.61 presents the year 2005 energy consumption of the Jones
Island, South Shore, and local WWTPs, and the MMSD conveyance
system. Of the estimated 2949 billion BTU (3,111 billion kJ)
per year required by this alternative, natural gas would supply
78%, electricity 10.6%, and digester gas (used at the South
Shore WWTP) 8.5%. The remaining 2.9% would be supplied by
fuel oil and diesel fuel.
Because of the unpredictable rises of energy prices in the
future, an energy cost sensitivity analysis has been prepared.
This analysis evaluates how the cost of operating the sewerage
facilities in the planning area would change if the cost of
one energy source doubled. The analysis was conducted for
each type of fuel used by the sewerage facilities. Increases
in the price of natural gas were found to have the most
serious consequences for the costs of operating sewerage
5-131
-------
TABLE 5.61
NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
YEAR 2005 ENERGY USE
(Billion BTU)
Facility
Jones Island
South Shore
Local WWTPs
MMSD Conveyance
Total
Natural
Electricity Gas
152.01
50.06
105.80
17.32
325.19
2196.68
52.88
0.0
0.0
2249.56
Diesel
Fuel
0.0
0.0
6.0
0.0
6.0
Fuel
Oil
76.19
0.0
0.78
0.0
Digester
Ga_s
0.0
249.83
0.0
0.0
76.97 249.83
Total
2424.58
352.77
112.58
17.32
2907.55
NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
YEAR 2005 ENERGY COST
($ x 1000)
Facility
Jones Island
South Shore
Local WWTPs
MMSD Conveyance
Total
Electricity
501.5
165.2
349.2
57.2
Natural
Gas
4942.5
119.0
0.0
0.0
Diesel
Fuel
0.0
0.0
17.2
0.0
Fuel
Oil
214.1
0.0
2.2
0.0
Digester
Gas
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total
5658.2
284.2
368.6
57.2
1073.2
5061.5
17.2
216.3
0.0
6368.2
Electricity:
Natural Gas:
Fuel Oil:
Diesel Fuel:
Digester Gas:
1 kwh = 10,500 BTU
1 Therm = 100 ft = 100,000 BTU
1 gallon = 142,500 BTU
1 gallon = 140,000 BTU
1 Therm = 167 ft = 100,000 BTU
1 BTU = 1.06 kilo joule (.kJ)
5-132
-------
facilities in the planning area with the No Action Alternative.
A doubling of the price of natural gas would increase the cost
of the energy used by these sewerage facilities by 80.3%.
5.2.15.2 Local Alternative
The energy requirements of the Local Alternative would be
less than those of the No Action Alternative. The reduction
of 18.6% to 22.5% (depending on the chosen CSO alternative)
would be due primarily to changes in the processes at the
Jones Island WWTP. The facility now uses 2196 billion BTU of
natural gas. Approximately 260 billion BTU of this amount
is lost as waste heat from the sludge drying operation. The
rehabilitation and expansion of the WWTP would eliminate the
Milorganite process as well as the wasted energy associated
with the process. In addition, anaerobic digesters would
be added for sludge processing. The methane that is a by-
product of this process would be converted to energy, eliminating
the need for natural gas.
Table 5.62 compares the energy required for the Local and No
Acti9n Alternatives. Of the estimated 2094 billion BTU (2209
billion kJ) that would be used each year by the WWTPs and
the MIS system with the Local Alternative, electricity would
supply 58.9% and digester gas (used whenever possible to operate
treatment plants) 34.7%. The remaining 6.4% of the energy
requirement would be supplied by natural gas and diesel fuel.
A sensitivity analysis was also performed for the Local
Alternative. For this analysis, it was assumed that the
Inline Storage Alternative would be implemented. Energy
costs with the Local Alternative would be most sensitive to
variations in the cost of electricity.
The energy costs for CSO and clear water storage systems
would increase these systems level costs. The requirements
for each system and the total systems level requirements for
each CSO alternatives are shown in Table 5.63.
5.2.15.3 Regional Alternative
With the Regional Alternative, energy consumption in the
year 2005 would be reduced between 28.3% and 32.3% (depending
on the chosen CSO alternative) from the requirements with
the No Action Alternative. The reduction in energy use would
result from the elimination of Milorganite production and
the abandonment of local WWTPs. The future energy requirements
are shown in Table 5.64. Of the 1825 billion BTU (1925 billion
kj) that would be used each year by the Jones Island and South
Shore WWTPs and the MIS system, electricity would supply 53.5%,
and digester gas 39.5%. The remaining 7% would be supplied
5-133
-------
TABLE 5.62
LOCAL ALTERNATIVE
YEAR 2005 ENERGY USE (BILLION BTJ)
COMPARED TO ISO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
Natural
Facility Electricity
Jones Island
South Shore
Local WWTPs
MMSD Conveyance
CSO Facilities
735.
192.
262.
49.
7.
63
57
36
98
04
Gas
0.
47
0.
0
0
,0
.50
.0
.0
.0
Diesel
Fuel
29.61
49.42
0.45
0.0
0.0
Fuel
Oil
0.0
0.81
0.0
0.0
0.0
Digester
Gas
274
447
4
0
0
Total
.15
.18
.47
.0
.0
1039.
737.
267.
49.
7.
39
48
28
98
04
Total- No
Action Alt
2424.
352.
112.
17
0.
,38
.77
.58
.32
.0
Total
1247.53
47.50
79.48 0.81
725.30 2101.17 2907.55
LOCAL ALTERNATIVE
YEAR 2005 ENERGY COST
COMPARED TO NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
(S X 1000)
Facility
Jones Island
South Shore
Local WWTPs
MMSD Conveyance
CSO Facilities
Electricity
52,427.5
635.5
865.3
164. 9
23.2
Natural
Gas
5 0
106.9
0
0
0
Diesel
Fuel
S 84.7
141.3
1.3
0
0
Fuel
Oil
S 0
2.3
0
0
0
Digester
Gas
SO
0
0
0
0
Total
52,512.3
38S.O
867.1
164.9
23.2
Total Mo
Action Alt
55,658.2
284.2
363.6
57.2
0.0
Total
4,117.0
106.9 227.3
2.3
Electricity: 1 KWH = 10,500 BTU
Fuel Oil: 1 gallon = 142,500 BTU
Digester Gas: 1 Therm = 167 ft3 = 100,000 3TU
Natural Gas: 1 Therm = 100 ft3 = 100,000 BTU
Diesel Fuel: 1 gallon = 140,000 3TU
1 BTU = 1.06 kiiojoule (kj)
4,453.5 6,368.2
5-134
-------
TABLE 5. S3
ANNUAL ENERGY REQUIREMENT
CSO/CLEARWATER STORAGE ALTERNATIVES
Complete Inline Modified CST/ Modified Total h Year LOP
Separation Storage Inline Storage Storage Inline Storage
Electricity
(10° KWH)
4.30
4.47 14.71
14.17
11.75
Diesel Fuel
(Gallon)
1300.00
1400.00
1400.00
Equivalent Energy
(10 BTU) 45.05
46.90 154.61
154.64
123.10
Local Total
(10 BTU)
2139.13
2141.03 2248.74
2248.77
2217.23
Regional Total
(10 BTU)
1870.12
1871.97 1979.58
1979.71
1948.17
Mosaic Total
(10 BTU)
1888.60
1890.45 1998.16
1998.19
1966.65
5-135
-------
TABLE 5.64
REGIONAL ALTERNATIVE
YEAR 2005 ENERGY USE (IN BILLION BTU)
COMPARED TO THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
Facility
Jones Island
South Shore
MMSD Conveyance
CSO Facilities
Electricity
735.53
192.57
48.20
7.04
Natural
Gas
0.0
47.50
0.0
0.0
Diesel
Fuel
29.61
49.42
0.0
0.0
Fuel
Oil
0.0
0.81
0.0
0.0
Digester
Gas
274.15
447.18
0.0
0.0
"otal
1039.39
737.48
48.20
7.04
Total No
Action Alt
2424.58
352.77
17.32
0.0
Total
983.44
47.50
79.03
0.31
721.33 1832.11 2907.55*
REGIONAL ALTERNATIVE
YEAR 2005 ENERGY COST
COMPARED TO NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
($ x 1000)
Facility
Jones Island
South Shore
MMSD Conveyance
CSO Facilities
Electricity
$2,427.6
635.5
159.1
23.2
Natural
Gas
S 0
106.9
0
0
Diesel
Fuel
S 84.7
141.3
0
0
Fuel
Oil
S 0
2.3
0
0
Digester
Gas
$ 0
0
0
0
Total
$2,512.3
386.0
151.9
23.2
Total No
Action Alt
$5,658.2
285.2
365.5
57.2
Total
3,245.4
106.9
226.0
2.3
3,580.6 6,368.:
Electricity: 1 KWH = 10,500 3TU
Natural Gas: 1 Therm = 100 ft3 = 100,000 BTU
Fuel Oil: 1 gallon = 142,500 BTD
Diesel Fuel: 1 gallon = 140,000 BTU
Digester gas: 1 Therm =167 ft^ = 100,000 BTU
1 BTD =1.06 kilojoule (kj)
* Total includes 112.58 BTD for local plants.
5-136
-------
by natural gas, diesel fuel, and fuel oil.
A sensitivity analysis, assuming the implementation of the
Inline Storage Alternative was performed for the Regional
Alternative. This analysis determined that these energy
costs would be most sensitive to variations in the price
of electricity.
5.2.15.4 Mosaic Alternative
The Mosaic Alternative would have energy requirements very
similar to the Regional Alternative. The only difference would
be that the South Milwaukee WWTP would require 22.68 billion
BTUs (23.93 billion kJ) for operation (82% of which would be
electricity), compared to 3.8 billion BTUs (4.0 billion kj)
for connection to the MMSD system. Table 5.65 outlines the
detailed energy requirements of the Mosaic Alternative.
5.2.16 Resource Consumption
5.2.16.1 No Action Alternative
Wastewater treatment plants consume the major portion of all
resources used by sewerage facilities in the planning area
including chemicals for phosphorus control, sludge thickening,
and disinfection. The resources consumed in the conveyance
system are negligible. The resource consumption of the No
Action Alternative was calculated by adjusting existing
consumption by the expected future wastewater flows. Quantities
required are detailed in Table 5.66.
5.2.16.2 Local Alternative
Resource requirements for the operation of 8 public and 2
private treatment plants included in the Local Alternative
are detailed in Table 5.67. It is assumed that conveyance
and CSO facilities would expend no significant resources.
Materials required for construction cannot be quantified
because the plans are not specific enough at this time.
Massive amounts of concrete and reinforcing steel would be
required to construct the proposed facilities.
5.2.16.3 Regional Alternative
With Regional Alternative only Jones Island and South Shore
WWTPs would treat all wastewater flows in the planning area.
As a result, the annual consumption of alum, ferric chloride
and polymer would be reduced. The consumption of pickle
liquor and chlorine would increase from the No Action
Alternative. Table 5.67 compares the resource consumption
5-137
-------
TABLE 5.65.
MOSIAC ALTERNATIVE
YEAR 2005 ENERGY USE (BILLION BTU)
COMPARED TO THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
Natural
Facility
Jones Island
South Shore
South Milwaukee
MMSD Conveyance
CSO Facilities
Electricity
735
192
18
44
46
.63
.57
.69
.00
.90
Gas
0.
47.
0.
0.
0.
,00
.50
.00
.00
.00
Diesel
Fuel
29.51
49.42
0.39
0.00
0.00
Fuel
Oil
0.00
0.81
0.00
0.00
0.00
Digester
Gas
274.
447.
3.
0.
0.
Total
.15
.13
.50
.00
.00
1039.
737.
22.
44.
46.
39
:48
,68
00
,90
No Action
Total
2424.33
352.77
112.58
17.58
0.0
Total
1037.79
47.5Q
76.42 0.81
724.93 1890.45 2907.55
MOSIAC ALTERNATIVE
YEAR 2005 ENERGY COSTS
COMPARED TO NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
($ x 1000}
Natural Diesel Fuel
Electricitv Gas Fuel Oil
Jones Island $2,427.6 $ 0.0 $ 34.7 SO.O
South Shore 635.5 106.9 141.3 2.3
South Milwaukee 61.7 0.0 1.1 0.0
MMSD Conveyance 145.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
CSO Facilities 1S4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0
Digester
Gas
Total
No Action
Total
$0 $2,512.3 ?5,658.2
0 886.0 284.2
0 62.8 368.6
0 145.2 57.2
0 154.8 0.0
Total
3,424.3
106.9
227.1
2.3
3,761.1 5,368.2
Electricity: 1 KWH = 10,500 BTU
Natural Gas: 1 Therm = 100 ft3 = 100,000 BTU
Fuel Oil: 1 gallon = 142,500 BTU
Diesel Fuel: 1 gallon = 140,000 3TU
Digester Gas: 1 Therm = 167 ft3 - 100,000 BTU
1 BTU =1.06 kilojoule (kj)
5-138
-------
TABLE 5.66
TREATMENT PLANT RESOURCE CONSUMPTION
NO ACTION - YEAR 2005
Caddy Vista
Muskego ME
Muskego NW
N.B. Regal Manors
Germantown
Thiensville
School Sisters of Notre
Dame
WEPCO
South Milwaukee
Jones Island
South Shore
TOTAL
Alum
T/yr
NA
__
—
49
— —
—
NA
„_
__
49
Polymer
T/yr
NA
__
__
—
—
0.8
__
NA
__
1771.5
1771.5
Ferric
Chloride
T/yr
NA
—
—
—
—
—
00
__
NA
1825.0
—
1825.0
Pickle
Liquor
T/yr
as Fe
NA
52.0
49.2
94.7
00
NA
1825.0
1478.3
3499.2
Chlorine
T/yr
NA
3.3
3.2
11.2
6.9
2.3
0.2
0.6
NA
912.5
522.8
1463.0
T = Tons
5-139
-------
TABLE 5.67
RESOURCE CONSUMPTION YEAR 2005
Local Systsm
Level Alternative
Caddy Vista
Muskego NE
Mew Berlin SE
Germantown
Thiensville
Sistars of Notre
Dame
WEPCO
South Milwaukee
Jonas Island
South Shore
Conveyance Systems
(includes MMSD
collection
system)
C30 System
Alum Polymer
T/vr T/vr
143 0.358
4.4
290
510
Pickle
Liquor
T/yr as
Act.
Carbon Lime
Ib/yr T/yr
338
2400
1697
3030
2860
2860
9500 6700
Fly
Ash Chlorine
T/yr T/yr
1.4
24.1
65.6
30.9
5.7
0.5
1.2
36.5
1055
700
352
350
TOTALS
143 800
Regional System Level
Alternative
Jones Island
South Shore
Conveyance Systems
(includes MMSD
collection
system)
CSO System
290
510
2400
4727
1697
3030
5720 9500 6700 1900
2860
2860
9500
6700 1055
700
702
352
350
TOTALS
0 800
2400
4727
5720 9500 6700 1755
702
Preferred System
Level Alternative
Sisters of Notre
Dame
WEPCO
South Milwaukee
Jones Island
South Shore
Conveyance System
(includes MMSD
collection
system)
CSO Svstem
4.4
290
510
338
2400
1597
3030
2860
2860
9500 6700
0.50
1.20
36.5
1055
700
352
350
TOTALS
804
2738
4727
5720 9500 6700 1793
702
5-140
-------
of the final alternatives.
5.2.16.4 Mosaic Alternative
The Mosaic Alternative is also similar to the Local Alternative
except that only the Jones Island, South Shore, South Milwaukee,
WEPC and School Sisters of Notre Dame WWTPs would be in
operation.
A comparison of resource consumption with the Local, Regional,
and Mosaic Alternatives can be found in Table 5.67.
5.2.17 Engineering Feasibility
5.2.17.1 No Action Alternative
The MMSD projected the flows that would be conveyed to each
WWTP in the planning area in the year 2005, assuming that
the growth projected by SEWRPC would occur. Analysis of
each public wastewater treatment facility in the planning
area was performed to determine its ability to adequately
treat these projected wastewater flows. The WWTPs were
evaluated for hydraulic capability and ability to meet the
tentative WPDES effluent limits set by DNR.
To determine hydraulic capacity, average daily base flows
(ADBF) and maximum flows to each WWTP were reviewed.
For each WWTP, the current ADBF was compared to the ADBF
over the planning period. It was determined by this eval-
uation that only four public treatment facilities would have
the capacity to adequately treat year 2005 daily flows.
The analysis of ADBF to a WWTP does not reflect the overloading
that can occur during wet weather. Therefore, a second analysis
compared present and year 2005 maximum daily flow to plant
capacity. This evaluation indicated that the South Milwaukee
WWTP is the only treatment facility that would be able to
adequately treat year 2005 maximum daily wastewater flows.
The Wisconsin DNR has set tentative effluent limits for
the planning period. The future limits are more stringent
than current ones, and the only existing WWTPs that have the
equipment necessary to meet them, assuming ABDF, are the
South Shore, Jones Island, South Milwaukee and Thiensville
WWTPs. However, Jones Island, South Shore, and Thiensville
would have overloading problems during wet weather that
would lead to inadequate sewage treatment and effluent
violations. The South Milwaukee plant has the hydraulic
capacity to treat year 2005 maximum flows, but problems in
facility operation could result in occasional violations.
5-141
-------
In addition, portions of the MMSD conveyance system are in
disrepair. The failures of this system greatly contribute to
the MMSD's infiltration and inflow problems. With the No
Action Alternative, these sewers would continue to deteriorate
throughout the planning period, thereby increasing the total
volume of wastewater in the system and further taxing treat-
ment facilities.
The eight private WWTPs that would operate with the No
Action Alternative were also evaluated. Five of the WWTPs
would not have the equipment to meet tentative future
standards: the Cleveland Heights Grade School in New
Berlin, New Berlin Memorial Hospital, the Chalet-On-The-Lake
Restaurant in Mequon, the Highway 100 Drive-In theater,
and St. Martins Road Truck Stop in Franklin. Only three
private treatment facilities, Wisconsin Electric Power
Company (WEPCO) in Oak Creek, the School Sisters of Notre
Dame in Mequon and The Muskego Rendering Company, are
meeting their current effluent limits. Although the WWTP at
the Muskego Rendering Company has recently expanded its
hydraulic capacity to 82,000 gallons (310 m3) per day, the
plant discharges its effluent to absorption ponds that have
a capacity of only 25,000 gallons (95 m3) per day. The ponds
are adequate for present discharge rates, but flows to the
WWTP are expected to double during the planning period. With
the No Action Alternative, the absorbtion ponds would be
hydraulically overloaded. Effluent limits could also be
violated due to high influent BOD. Only the WEPCO and School
Sisters of Notre Dame treatment facilities would be able to
treat future wastewater loadings adequately to meet the stringent
year 2005 effluent limits.
5.2.17.2 Local Alternative
Although the first phase of facilities planning does not
include actual design of sewerage facilities, a preliminary
evaluation was made of the technical feasibility of the
alternatives. This evaluation included an investigation of
whether the techniques included in the alternative had been
used successfully in other cities, and what the consequences
of a system breakdown would be. Basically, all the alternatives
that survived preliminary screening could be implemented
successfully. In evaluating the technical feasibility of an
alternative, several assumptions had to be made. These
assumptions are listed below.
1. All critical components would be provided with backup
equipment for use during maintenance procedures and in
the event of the component's failure.
5-142
-------
2. All facilities would be equipped with a secondary power
supply that could be used if a power failure occurred.
3. Critical components would be equipped with protective
mechanisms that would relieve them in case flows increase
beyond peak capacity.
4. Maintenance procedures and schedules would be developed
and followed for all equipment. These procedures would
include periodic inspections of all equipment and
structures.
The Local Alternative would include the operation of the
Jones Island and South Shore WWTPs and six smaller WWTPs.
The Jones Island and South Shore WWTPS would continue to
treat the majority of the wastewater flows in the planning
area. The basic treatment processes at these WWTPs have been
proven feasible.
The other treatment plants in the planning area would be
much smaller in capacity, most less than 10 MGD (0.44 m^/sec).
These facilities would use either the activated sludge process
or land application of effluent by infiltration-percolation.
The activated sludge process has been widely used and is a
proven wastewater treatment technique. If the facilities
are properly designed and constructed, the process could be
used successfully. Because activated sludge treatment uses
biological organisms, flows should be fairly constant.
Dramatic increases or decreases in flows could destroy the
biological communities.
Land application has been proposed at the Muskego Northeast,
New Berlin Southeast and Germantown WWTPs. The infiltration-
percolation technique has been used successfully for many
years in climates similar to Wisconsin's. The sites for
these ponds should be carefully selected based on soil
quality and the depth to groundwater.
The conveyance system required by the Local Alternative
would include gravity sewers and force mains. Gravity
sewers do not require pumps for conveyance of wastewater
flows. They are the most reliable means of conveying
wastewater. If properly designed and constructed gravity
sewers would require little maintenance and would have a
long service life. No difficult or innovative construction
techniques would be required to install gravity sewers.
Force mains would also be constructed to implement the Local
Alternative. This type of sewer requires pump stations and
pressure resistant force mains. Pump stations should be
5-143
-------
equipped with multiple pumps for use during maintenance
procedures, for emergency back up, and for peak flow demand.
The pump stations and force mains would require more maintenance
than gravity sewers.
The Complete Sewer Separation Alternative for abatement
of CSOs would require separation of building plumbing
systems. The separation could require a cost of up to
$4000 per house and this cost may have to be borne by the
property owner Cpending a ruling on a MMSD legal staff
opinion that this cost would be borne by MMSD). Property
owners may be reluctant to spend that amount of money.
Also, the inspection of all buildings to make sure that
they are adequately separated would be difficult. Many of
the buildings in the CSSA are older structures, and care
should be taken to preserve their structural integrity.
All the other proposed CSO and peak flow storage alternatives
would require tunnelling in both deep rock formations and
in the softer, surficial glacial deposits. Deep rock de-
posits are generally dolomite, a limestone-like substance.
While the dolomite is impervious, fissures in the rock
structure can convey large amounts of groundwater. Lining
of tunnels would be required but may prove unnecessary de-
pending on the structural quality of the bedrock. Generally,
the dolomite is a good construction medium with minimal
need for structural bracing during construction.
Soft ground tunnels would involve more risk; tunnelling
could degrade the structural quality and bearing capacities
of upper layers of the geologic strata which could lead to
the settling of buildings, the disruption of utilities,
cracking of pavement, and, in extreme cases, the collapse
of buildings and streets. Extreme caution would be necessary
for this type of construction, especially in highly urban
areas.
The proposed subsurface construction would create large
volumes of spoil materials. Table 5.68 gives a comparative
approximation of the amount of spoil that would be generated
by different alternatives. Disposal of such large amounts
of material would require a well designed disposal site.
As previously stated, much of the rock portion would be
dolomite which has some industrial use, mainly in the
concrete industry. Commercial sale of a portion of this
material would significantly reduce the problem of spoil
disposal, but the rock's marketability depends on its quality.
The availability of some construction material may be
severely limited. Concrete, for example, is in short supply.
In 1979, the U.S. had to import 11% of the year's demand
5-144
-------
TABLE 5.68
SPOIL MATERIAL GENERATED
(xlO cubic yards)
CSO Portion I/I Portion Total
Alternative Rock Soil Rock Soil Rock Soil
Inline 1.35 7.24 1.52 0.05 2.87 7.29
Complete Sewer
Separation — 6.80 1.52 0.05 1.52 6.85
CST/Inline 4.25 3.20 1.29 0.05 5.54 3.25
Modified Total
Storage 4.25 4.81 1.29 0.05 5.54 4.86
Note: The above numbers do not reflect the material
which can be retained for backfill.
5-145
-------
for concrete. The deterioration of concrete producing equip-
ment will offset capacities created by new construction of
production facilities. Present concrete production capacity
in the U.S. is projected to be 80 million tons (13 million
metric tons) annually CENR - 6/19/80). Table 5.69 is a
summary of the concrete required for construction of most
of the components for CSO and peak flow storage. As
can be seen, this portion of any final plan is in some
cases in excess of 1% of the national annual concrete
production.
5.2.17.3 Regional Alternatives
A preliminary analysis was also performed to evaluate the
technical feasibility of the components of the Regional
Alternative. The analysis of the technical feasibility
of the Regional Alternative used the assumptions that were
discussed for the Local Alternative: critical components
would be provided with backup equipment, all facilities
would be equipped with a secondary power supply in case of a
power failure, critical components would be equipped with
relief devices, and proper maintenance and inspection procedures
would be followed.
With the Regional Alternative, all WWTPs in the planning
area, except Jones Island and South Shore, would be abandoned.
The wastewater flows that had been treated at the abandoned
WWTPs would instead be conveyed to either the Jones Island
or South Shore facilities. Since the flows from the aban-
doned WWTPs would increase flows to Jones Island and South
Shore by only 5%, the processes proposed for the Local
Alternative could successfully treat the increased capacity.
The wastewater flows from all abandoned WWTPs except Thiensville
and Caddy Vista would be diverted to new or existing inter-
cepting sewers. The sewers connecting the abandoned treatment
facilities to the interceptors would either be gravity sewers
or force mains. Both conveyance systems are feasible, although
force mains would require more maintenance and backup power
sources. Most interceptors would be gravity sewers.
The wastewater flows from the Thiensville WWTP would be
conveyed to the Northwest Side Relief System. The sewers
included in this proposed system would be designed to
incorporate the flows from the Thiensville WWTP as well as
the other flows in the system's service area.
The sewage flows from the abandoned Caddy Vista WWTP would
be connected to a local sewer system in the southern part
5-146
-------
TABLE 5.69
CONCRETE REQUIREMENTS - STORAGE ALTERNATIVES**
Concrete Reauired
Alternative Cubic Yards Ton*
Complete Separation 261,538 529,615 (0.66%)
Inline Storage 402,589 815,242 (1.02%)
Modified Cost/Inline 390,288 790,333 (0.99%)
Modified Total Storage 396,840 803,602 (1.00%)
1/2 yr. LOP Inline 282,442 571,946 (0.71%)
* Parenthetical numbers reflect percentage of U.S. Annual
Concrete Production Capacity.
** Reflects Requirements of Sewer Construction, Deep Tunnels,
Drop Shafts, Storage Caverns, Near-Surface Collection and
Storage Silos. Control Structures, Screening Facilities,
Drop Shaft Energy Disapation Chambers, Connections to Caverns
and Outfall Work is not included.
5-147
-------
of the City of Oak Creek. The local sewer system could
adequately handle these increased flows until late in the
planning period.
5.2,17.4 Mosaic Alternative
Because the Mosaic Alternative is so similar to the Regional
Alternative, the issues of technical feasibility are the same.
The difference between the two alternatives would be the
operation of the South Milwaukee, School Sisters of Notre
Dame, and WEPCO wastewater treatment facilities. An appraisal
of these facilities Csee Chapter III) indicated that they
could meet future WPDES permit standards without bypassing.
Therefore, these facilities are considered technically
feasible.
5.2.18 Legality
The planning for the MWPAP has been guided by a number of
legal requirements, the most significant of which are EPA
and DNR regulations, the U.S. District Court Order, and the
Dane County Court Stipulation. With the Local Alternative,
several individual communities or sanitary districts —
Thiensville, Germantown, New Berlin, Muskego, Caddy Vista,
and South Milwaukee -- would operate their own WWTPs.
Accordingly, they would not be under the requirements of the
U.S. District Court Order or the Dane County stipulation,
although the MMSD would still have to meet those require-
ments. Other legal issues affect all local system-level
actions. These are discussed below for each designated
management agency.
5.2.18.1 MMSD
With any final alternative, the MMSD would be responsible
for four components of the MWPAP: the operation of the
Jones Island and South Shore WWTPs, the construction of CSO
and I/I abatement facilities, the construction of expansion
and relief sewers, and the development of a solids disposal
program. The MWPAP evaluated a variety of alternatives to
select the final Local System-Level Alternative that would
meet both the Dane County and U.S. District Court requirements
and all other Federal, State, and local laws.
The key requirements of the U.S. District Court Order are
the elimination of all dry and wet weather bypassing in the
MMSD. All discharges of "human fecal waste from the combined
sewer system must be eliminated with provision of storage
for the largest storm on record since 1940". Any overflows
caused by a storm of greater magnitude must receive primary
treatment and disinfection before discharge. Bypassing must
5-148
-------
be eliminated at the WWTPs, and the treatment plant effluent
must meet limitations stricter than EPA and DNR requirements.
MMSD appeals of this court order have lessened these re-
quirements. On April 26, 1979, the Federal Court of Appeals
in Chicago rejected the stringent effluent limits and sub-
stituted the DNR secondary effluent limits. On May 1,
1980, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a stay of the District
Court and Court of Appeals rulings pending the final ruling
on the case which will likely occur in 1981.
With the stay of the U.S. District Court Order, the Dane
County Court Stipulation is the legal guide of the MWPAP.
The Dane County Stipulation essentially sets a schedule for
actions required in order for MMSD to meet existing EPA and
DNR regulations. There are four requirements the MWPAP must
comply with: WPDES effluent limitations must be met at all
WWTPs; dry and wet weather overflows from the separated sewer
areas must be eliminated/ a cost effective means of abating
CSOs and meeting applicable water quality standards must be
determined/ and a solids management program must be developed.
The components of the action alternatives have been developed
to meet all of the requirements of both the U.S. District
Court Order (as modified by the Court of Appeals) and the
Dane County Court Stipulation. The recommended CSO Alternative
would eliminate overflows up to the storm of record for the
District Court Order and could be modified to a level to meet
applicable water quality standards for the Dane County Court
Stipulation, if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the MMSD.
Two legal issues remain. The first is the District Court
requirements for primary treatment and disinfection of
any overflows that occur from a storm greater than the storm
of record. The Inline Storage Alternative would separate
combined sewers in the public right-of-way, thus reducing
CSO volumes by 70% and limiting possible inflow from the
remainder of the CSO system. The MMSD has recommended that
screening and chlorination facilities not be built because
the possibility of overflows is remote. If this portion of
the District Court Order is upheld by the Supreme Court, the
MMSD would have to approach the District Court for a ruling
on the screening facilities.
A second question arises regarding the achievement of water
quality standards required by the Dane County Court Stipulation.
No MWPAP alternative alone would achieve these water quality
standards (see the Water Quality Appendix). The Wisconsin
DNR must determine whether the MWPAP has to undertake further
analysis of alternatives to achieve these standards or
whether the issue of water quality standards could be
5-149
-------
delayed until further study after completion of the planning
stages of the MWPAP.
The remainder of the MMSD actions would meet EPA and DNR
regulations and the two court requirements. Both Jones
Island and South Shore would meet their WPDES permit effluent
limits. Dry weather bypassing would be eliminated throughout
the MMSD service area. Wet weather bypassing would be
eliminated in the separated sewer area. Also, the construction
of facilities would proceed under the schedule imposed by
the Courts.
Other executive orders and legislation establishing federal
policies on wetlands, floodplains, and for the protection of
the cultural environment have also affected the development
of the final alternatives. These issues have been addressed
in separate sections of this chapter.
5.2.18.2 Local Agencies
With the Local Alternative, Thiensville, Germantown, New
Berlin, Muskego, and Caddy Vista would operate local WWTPs
during the planning period. The Regional 208 Plan would
have to be amended to incorporate these five communities as
"designated management agencies". Currently, only the MMSD
and South Milwaukee have been so designated.
As designated management agencies, each of the local commuities
would be required to prepare a facility plan addressing
specific issues of their proposed treatment facilities.
Specific treatment alternatives would be developed and
analyzed for cost effectiveness and possible impacts to the
natural and man-made environments as required by EPA and DNR
regulations. The selected treatment alternative would have
to meet a WPDES effluent limits and conform to all other
federal, state, and local laws and regulations.
The treatment alternatives for the local communities analyzed
as part of the MWPAP have been identified only as feasible
concepts. If the concept is found to be part of the cost
effective environmentally sound solution to the MWPAP, it
would undergo further legal analysis as part of a specific
rigorous facility plan and environmental assessment.
5-150
-------
COORDINATION
-------
Coordination .-
Agencies and Individuals Receiving the Draft EIS
A. Federal
Senator William Proxmire
Senator Gaylord Nelson
Representative Toby Roth
Representative F. James Sensenbrenner
Representative Les Aspin
Representative Alvin Bahlus
Representative Robert Kastenmeier
Representative David R. Obey
Representative Henry S. Reuss
Representative Clement Zablocki
Council on Environmental Quality
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
Department of Labor
Department of Commerce
Department of Interior
Department of Agriculture
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Department of Transportation
US Army Corps of Engineers
National Park Service
US Geological Survey
USEPA Regional Offices
B. State
Office of the Governor
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources—Southeast District
Wisconsin Department of Administration
Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services
Wisconsin Department of Local Affairs and Development
Wisconsin Department of Transportation
Wisconsin Department of Justice
Wisconsin Department of Industry Labor and Human Relations
Wisconsin Department of Business Development
Wisconsin Department of Revenue
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction
Wisconsin Department of Agriculture
State Historical Society
-------
C. Local
Southeast Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission
City of Muskego
City of West Allis
City of St. Francis
City of South Milwaukee
City of Oak Creek
City of Glendale
City of Milwaukee
City of Mequon
City of New Berlin
City of Greenfield
City of Wauwatosa
City of Frank-lin
City of Cudahy
City of Brookfield
Village of Hales Corners
Village of River Hills
Village of Fox Point
Village of Bayside
Village of Germantown
Village of West Milwaukee
Village of Shorewood
Village of Greendale
Village of Butler
Village of Elm Grove
Village of Whitefish Bay
Village of Brown Deer
Village of Menomonee Falls
Village of Thiensville
D. Groups and Citizens
Citizen Advisory Committee for the Draft EIS,
Cindy Roth, Coordinator
Robert R. Abrams
Janis M. Arthur
Carole Ann Barth
Jeanette Bell
Donald K. Bulley
P. Ciccantelli
Thomas Crawford
James Doetze
Honorable Lynn Eley
Thomas J. Farrahy
Gerard Froh
Norman Gill
Honorable Chester Grobschmidt
-------
James E. Grootemaat
Randolf A. Gschwind
J. E. Hackel
Honorable Francis P. Havey
Henry Kolbeck
Suzane Kraase
Charles E. Kroeger
Jan Marsh
Shirley Mueller
Helen C. Newman
Leonard Pampel
Suzanne Ratkowski
Terry Rozga
Marvin Schroeter
Gerald M. Schwartz
David Sharpe
Hall Smith
Brian Sobanski
Thomas Spellman
Dawn Marie Staccia
Gail Miller Wray
For a complete list of individuals and agencies receiving the
DEIS, contact U.S. EPA Region V, Chicago, Illinois.
-------
LIST OF PREPARERS
-------
List of Preparers
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Chief of EIS Section
Project Officer
Eugene Wojcik
Michael O'Toole
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
MMSD Environmental Impact Coordinator
MMSD Environmental Impact Coordinator
Special Assistant to MMSD Project
Planning Analyst
Director, Bureau of Environmental
Impact
Dorothy Harrell
Steven Ugoretz
Jay Hochmuth
Charles Burney
U.S. Druckenmiller
ESEI
Principal in Charge
Senior Project Manager
Senior Project Manager
Project Managers
Principal Authors
Editor
Engineering
Socioeconomics
Edward F. Bradley
Thomas L. Meinholz
John H. Baldwin
Kevin J. Fay
Edward J. Powelson
Robert Evangelist!
Peter R. Spinney
Melissa M. McGuire
Kevin J. Fay
Robert Evangelist!
Mark G. Madden
King K. Moy
Steven C. Schory
Reed Rodenkirch
Scott Stanke
Mary F. Kerr
Edward J. Powelson
Mark A. Vannucci
Louise M. Palagano
James W. Hock
-------
Natural Science
Typists
Richard J. Fulk
David L. Haselow
David B. Kendziorski
Bruce F. Leon
Suzanne S. Skone
Sally A. Arnold
Gloria Logan
Benina Vasquez
Wapora, Inc.*
Project Administrator and Editor
Senior Environmental Engineer
Senior Water Quality Scientist
Health Scientist
E. Clark Boli
J.P. Singh
Mirza Meghji
Gerard Kelly
Subcontractors
Real Estate Research Corporation
Vice President
Principal Counselor
Senior Analyst
Senior Analyst
Senior Analyst
Margary al Chalabi
Stephen B. Friedman
Roberta Walker
Shalon Glicksman
Valery Kretchmer
Consoer, Townsend & Associates
Assistant Vice President
Associate
Engineer
Engineer
Engineer
Engineer
Raymond J. Avendt
Wen C. Huang
Peter V. Cavagnaro
Stanley A. Labunski
Shin H. Ahn
Louann Bewersdorf
Harper - Owes
Engineer
Scientist
Scientist
Martin Harper
Clay Patmont
Starr Dehn
* Original EIS consultant for CSO analysis which was
incorporated into this document
-------
GLOSSARY
-------
GLOSSARY
Activated Sludge: Sludge floe produced in raw or settled
wastewater by the growth of zoogleal bacteria and
other organisms in the presence of dissolved oxygen
and accumulated in sufficient concentration by returning
floe previously formed.
Ad Valorem: A tax or duty levied in the form of percentage
of value of property.
ADBF: Average Daily Base Flow.
Aeration: The bringing about of intimate contact between air
and a liquid by one or more of the following methods:
(a) spraying the liquid in the air, (b) bubbling air
through the liquid, (c) agitating the liquid to promote
surface absorption of air.
Aerated Lagoon: A natural or artificial wastewater treatment
pond in which mechanical or diffused-air aeration is
used to supplement the oxygen supply.
Aerobic: Requiring, or not destroyed by, the presence of
free elemental oxygen.
Algae: A class of plants, including single cell plants and
common sea weeds.
Allocation System: Section of the Dane County stipulation
requiring that the MMSD and the DNR, "establish rules
and regulations to restrict the amount of wastewater
discharged,-to the sewerage system of the District
each year.
Anaerobic: Requiring, or not destroyed by, the absence
of air or free (elemental) oxygen .
Annual Capital Expenditures: The dollar amount of bonds
assumed to be issued annually to finance MMSD
improvements.
Aquifer: A porous, water-bearing geologic formation.
Generally restricted to materials capable of yielding
an appreciable supply of water/
-------
Basic Industry: Firms serving markets outside the area of
their location (exporting products).
Benthos: The plant and animal life whose habitat is the
bottom of a sea, lake or river.
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD): The quantity of oxygen
used in the biochemical oxidation of organic matter
in a specified time, at a specified temperature, and
under specified conditions. (2) A standard test
used in assessing wastewater strength.
Biodegradable: The process of decomposing quickly as a
result of the action of microorganisms.
BOD: Biochemical Oxygen Demand.
Bypass: Diversion of untreated wastewater from a sewage
facility into a body of water, or to the effluent
channel of a wastewater treatment facility.
cfs: Cubic Feet per Second.
Chlorination: The application of chlorine to drinking water,
sewage, or industrial waste for disinfection or
oxidation of undesirable compounds.
Clarifiers: A unit of which the primary purpose is to
reduce the concentration of suspended matter in a
liquid.
Combined Sewer: A sewer intended.to receive both wastewater
and storm or surface water.
Construction Grants Program: Section 208 of PL 92-500 creates
a funding program for improvements to municipal waste-
water treatment facilities.
CSO: Combined Sewer Overflow.
CSSA: Combined Sewer Service Area.
DATCP: Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and
Consumer Protection.
DCD: Milwaukee Department of City Development
Debt Limit: The maximum amount of debt that a governmental
unit may incur under constitutional, statutory, or
charter requirements. The limitation is usually a
percentage of assessed valuation.
8
-------
Debt Service: Principal plus interest that a bond issuer
pays the bond buyer over the maturity period of the
bond(s).
DNR: Department of Natural Resources (Wisconsin).
DOA: Department of Administration (Wisconsin).
Draw Down Effect: A lowering of groundwater levels due to
pumping.
Dry Industry: Industry that does not use or discharge large
quantities of water.
Effluent: Wastewater or other liquid, partially or completely
treated, or in its natural state, flowing out of a
reservoir, basin, treatment plant, or industrial treatment
plant, or part thereof.
EIS: Environmental Impact Statement.
Emergent Plants: Plants anchored below water level and
growing above water level, such as a rush or cattail.
Equalized Property Value: The full market value of property
as determined by the Wisconsin Department of Revenue,
Bureau of Property Tax.
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.).
Eutrophication: The normally slow aging process by which a
lake evolves into a bog or marsh and ultimately assumes
a completely terrestrial state and disappears. During
eutrophication, the lake becomes so rich in nutritive
compounds, especially nitrogen and phosphorus, that
algae and other microscopic plant life become super-
abundant, thereby choking the lake.
Exporting Industry: Firms serving markets outside the area
of their location (exporting products).
Facilities Plan: Section 208 of PL 92-500 provides funding
for the planning of municipal wastewater treatment.
These planning documents (such as the MWPAP) are
facilities plans.
Fauna: Animal life.
-------
Fiscal Impact Analysis: An evanuation of the net public costs
or revenues resulting from actual or planned growth.
FNSI: Finding of No Significant Impact.
Forage Fish: Non-game fish such as the common shiner and
fathead minnow.
General Obligation Bond (G.O. Bond): Validly issued and
legally binding evidence of indebtedness secured by
the full faith, credit and taxing powers of the
issuer.
Glacial Drift: ,.&. general term for all types of glacial
deposits.
Grit Chamber: A detention chamber or an enlargement of a
sewer designed to reduce the velocity of flow of the
liquid to permit the separation of mineral from organic
solids by differential sedimentation.
i
Groundwater: The supply of freshwater under the earth's
surface in an aquifer orgsoil that forms the natural
reservoir for Man's use.
Hydrocarbon: Any of the class of compounds consisting
solely of carbon and hydrogen.
Hydrology: The science dealing with thegproperties, distribution,
and circulation of water and snow.
I/I: Infiltration and Inflow.
Igneous Rocks: Rocks that crystallize from a melt within,
or at the surface of the earth.
Indirect Fiscal Impacts: The revenues and costs to a community
associated with growth inconsistent with the 208 Plan.
Induced Growth: The magnitude, timing, location, and density
of residential development has been projected for a
proposed sewer service area, with and without the
proposed sewerage facility. The difference between
the two projections represents the induced growth
attributable to the proposed facility.
Infill Development: Locating new development in existing
urban aread, where most public services are already
available.
10
-------
Infiltration: (1) The flow or movement of water through
the interstices or pores of a soil or other porous
medium. (2) The quantity of groundwater that leaks 1
into a pipe through joints, porous walls, or breaks.
Influent: Water, wastewater, or other liquid flowing into
a reservoir, basin, or treatment plant, or any unit
thereof.
Interceptor Sewers: Sewers used to collect the flows from
main and trunk sewers and carry them to a central
point for treatment and discharge.
Land Application: A process of wastewater treatment by
which treated wastewater is sprayed or spread on
agricultural land.
Leapfrog Development: A development pattern whereby vacant,
developable areas adjacent to existing urban develop-
ment are bypassed in favor of inexpensive, agricultural
tracts.
Metamorphic Rock: Any change in the composition, texture,
internal structure, etc., of a rock produced by
temperature, pressure, or migrating fluids.
MGD: Million Gallons per Day.
Mg/1: Milligrams per Litre.
MMSD: Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District.
MWPAP: Milwaukee Water Pollution Abatement Program.
NAAQS: National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act.
NPDES: National Pollution Discharge Elimination System.
Old Field Vegetation: An abandoned agricultural field which
is undergoing succession to a grass, shrub, or forest
environment.
Oligotrophic Lake: Lake or other contained water body poor
in nutrient. Characterized by low quantity of
planktonic algae, high water transparency with high
dissolved oxygen in upper layer, adequate dissolved
oxygen in deep layers, low organic deposits colored
shades of brown, and absence of hydrogen sulfide
in water and deposits.
11
-------
O&M: Operation and Maintenance.
Organic Matter: Referring to or derived from living organisms
In chemistry, any compound containing carbon.
Overlapping Per Capita Debt: The consideration of debt
from more than one municipal corporation. For example,
the same property may be taxed to support city debt
service as well as county debt service. When the total
debt from all government bodies of a local jurisdiction
is divided by that jurisdiction's population, an
overlapping per capita debt is obtained.
Palezoic: The second era of the geologic time scale.
230-600 million years ago.
Particulates: Finely divided solid or liquid particles in
the air or in an emission. Particulates-include
dust, smoke, fumes, mist, spray and fog.
Pathogens: Disease-carrying microorganisms such as the
typhus or polio viruses.
PCBs: Polychlorinated Biphenyls.
Per Capita Income: Total personal income received in an
area during a year divided by the area's population.
pH: The reciprocal of the logarithm of the hydrogen-ion
concentration. The concentration is the weight of
hydrogen ions, in grams, per liter of solution.
Neutral water, for example, has a pH value of 7 and
a hydrogen-ion concentration of 10
PPL: Project Priority List.
Precambrian: The oldest, major division in the geologic ,
time scale; equivalent to about 90% of geologic time.
Primary Environmental Corridor: Wetlands, woodland, flood-
plain and wildlife habitat preserved from development
by the 208 Plan.
Primary Treatment: The first stage in wastewater treatment
in which substantially all floating and settleable
solids are mechanically removed by screening and
sedimentation.
12
-------
Re-aeration: The absorption of oxygen into water under
conditions of oxygen deficit.1'
Real Growth Rate: The net annual growth rate of property
value after having been discounted by the inflation
rate. A genuine increase in property value holding
all other variables constant.
Residence Time: The time it would take for the full volume
of a lake to be replaced by inflowing waters.
Revenue Bonds: A revenue bond is one payable from charges
made for services provided. The borrower obligates
to operate the utility system to provide sufficient
net revenues to meet the obligations of the bond issue.
RIMS: Regional Industrial Multiplier System; an input-
output model developed by the U.S. Department of
Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). This
model is used by the MWPAP to estimate the net
(negative vs. positive) economic impacts of the
project.
Secondary Impact: The significance of the projected induced
growth is measured in relation to the growth outlined
in the SEWRPC Year 2000 Land Use Plan. A secondary
impact exists when the difference between the Land
Use Plan and the induced growth is meaningful.
Secondary Wastewater Treatment: The treatment of wastewater
by biological methods after primary treatment by
sedimentation.
Sewer Moratorium: A halt in the construction of sewer
extensions, imposed on a community by the DNR.
SEWRPC: Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission.
Sludge: CD The accumulated solids separated from liquids,
such as water or wastewater, during processing, or
deposits on bottoms of streams or other bodies of
water. (2) The precipitate resulting from chemical
treatment, coagulation, or sedimentation of water or
wastewater.
SMSA: Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area.
13
-------
SSES: Sewer System Evaluation Study.
Suspended Solids: Solids that either float on the surface of,
or are in suspension in, water, wastewater, or other
liquids, and which are largely removable by laboratory
filtering.
Turbidity: The cloudy condition of water due to the suspension
of silt or finely divided organic matter.
Urban Sprawl: The pattern of low density residential
development (and accompanying low population density)
fostered by the availability of developable land which
is easily served by public utilities and highways.
User Charge System: A system to distribute annual operation
and maintenance costs of sewerage facilities to the
users of the system. The MMSD's User Charge System
was put into effect on January 1, 1980.
Value Added: The wholesale price of a good minus the cost
of materials.
WAG: Wisconsin Administrative Code.
Water Quality Management Plan (208 Plan): General guide for
water quality management in Southeastern Wisconsin,
completed in 1979 by the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional
Planning Commission, prepared under Section 208 of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (PL 92-500).
WEPA: Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act.
WEPCO: Wisconsin Electric Power Company.
Wet Industry: An industry that uses and discharges large
volumes of water during the manufacturing process.
The discharge is referred to as process wastewater.
Examples include brewing, leather tanning, and food
processing.
WSP: Wastewater System Plan.
WWTP: Wastewater Treatment Plant.
g
Zooplankton: Planktonic animals that supply food for fish.
14
-------
SOURCES FOR THE GLOSSARY
1. American Public Health Association, et al., ed. ,
Glossary; Water and Wastewater Control Engineering
(1969).
2. Robert W. Burchell and David Listokin, The Fiscal Impact
Handbook (New Brunswick, NJ. Rutgers, 1978).
3. R. K. Paull and R. A. Paull, Geology of Wisconsin and
Upper Michigan (Dubuque: Kendall/Hunt Publishing
Co., 1977).
4. Lennox L. Moak, Administration of Local Government Debt,
(Chicago: Municipal Finance Officers Association,
1970).
5. William Davis, The Language of Money, (Boston: Houghton-
Mifflin Co., 1970).
6. Resolution of Dane County Circuit Court, File Number
77-132-92(2) .
7. Robert P. Hanson, ed., Moody's Municipal and Government
Manual, Volume 1, (New York: Moodys Investor
Service, Inc., 1980).
8. SEWRPC, Planning Report 25, Volume I. (Waukesha, Wisconsin,
1975).
9. Gloria J. Studdard, ed., Common Environmental Terms
(Washington: U.S. EPA, 1974).
10. The American Geological Institute, Dictionary of
Geological Terms (Garden City, NY: Anchor Pres^/
Doubleday, 1976).
15
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alvord, Burdic and Howson, 1954. Report on Separation of Storm
and Sanitary Sewage in Areas Served by Combined Sewers.
Metropolitan Sewerage Commission. Milwaukee, WI.
, 1956. Report on Intercepting Sewers and Sewage
Treatment, Milwaukee Metropolitan Area. , MMSD. Milwaukee,
WI.
, 1957. Special Summary of Report on Intercepting Sewers
and Sewage Distict. MMSD. Milwaukee, WI.
, 1958. Report on Design o'f Puetz Road Sewage Treatment
Plant and Main Intercepting Sewers. MMSD. Milwaukee, WI.
, 1970. Design Criteria and Proposed Programming, South
Shore Waste Water Treatment Plant Sewerage Commission of the
City of Milwaukee, WI.
, 1971. Report on Northeast Side Sewer Systems. Metro-
politan and City Sewerage Commission, Milwaukee, WI.
, 1972. Report on Pollution Abatement in the Lincoln
Creek Area. MMSD. Milwaukee, WI.
, 1974a. Environmental Assessment: Northwest Branch
Main Relief Sewer System. MMSD. Milwaukee, WI.
, 1974b. Report on Sludge Disposal, South Shore Waste-
water Treatment Plant. MMSD. Milwaukee, WI.
American Geological Institute, 1976. Dictionary of Geological
Terms. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday.
American Public Health Association, 1969. Glossary: Water and
Wastewater Control Engineering.
American Society of Civil Engineers, 1970, Manual of Practice 9;
Design and Construction of Sanitary and Storm Sewers. New
York: ASCE.
, 1977. Manual of Practice 8; Wastewater Treatment Plant
Design. New York: ASCE.
17
-------
Aware, Inc., 1974. Process Design Techniques for Industrial
Waste Treatment. Edited by C. E. Adams, Jr. and W.W.
Eckenfelder, Jr. Nashville, TN.
Babbitt, Cleasley and Doland, 1967. Water Supply Engineering.
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.
Earret, G. V., and Blair, J. P., 1976. Industrial Development
Potential. School of Business Administration. University
of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
Barton-Aschman Assoicates, Inc., 1973. Comprehensive Plan, 1973:
City of Oak Creek. Barton-Aschman Assoicates, Inc. Chicago,
IL.
Bayside, Village of, 1973. Selected Codes. Bayside, WI.
Becker, G. C., 1976. Environmental Status of the Lake Michigan
Region. Volume 17: Inland Fishes of the Lake Michigan
Drainage Basin. Argonne National Laboratory. ANL/ES-40.
U.S. ERDA. Argonne, IL.
Beverstock, F., and Stackert, R. P., eds., 1972. Metropolitan
Milwaukee Fact Book: 1970. Milwaukee Urban Observatory.
Milwaukee, WI.
Brown Deer, City of, 1977. Zoning Code. Brown Deer. WI.
Bruhy, M. E. and Overstreet, D. F., 1977. Phase I Inventory of
The Franklin-Muskego Interceptor Route Under Task 2-1.3.2.3.
7.2. MMSD. Milwaukee, WI.
Burchell, R. W., and Listokin, D., 1978. The Fiscal Impact Hand-
book. Center for Urban Policy Research. New Brunswick, NJ.
California, State of, Office of Planning and Research, 1978.
Economic Practices Manual. Sacramento, CA.
Camp, Dresser and McKee, Inc., 1978a. Preliminary Total Solids
Management Program. I1MSD* Milwaukee, WI.
, 1978b. Total Solids Management Program. Volume I.
MMSD. Milwaukee, WI.
, 1978c. Total Solids Management Program. Volume II.
MMSD. Milwaukee, WI.
, 1978d. Total Solids Management Program. Volume III, and IV
Apprendices A-Q, MMSD. Milwaukee, WI.
, 1978e Total Solids Management Program: Public
Involvement Report, August 1978. MMSD. Milwaukee, WI.
18
-------
Christensen, K., 1976. Social Impacts of Land Development.
The Urban Institute. Washington, D.C.
Citizen's Governmental Research Bureau, 1978a. 20th Annual
Municipal Budget Bulletin. Washington, DC.
, 1978b. 27th Annual Property Tax Rate Bulletin.
Washinton, D.C.
, 1980a. Bulletin Volume 68, No. 3. Washington, DC.
, 1980b. Bulletin Volume 68, No. 6. Washington, DC.
City Planning Associates, Inc., 1961a. Development Plan,
New Berlin, Wisconsin. Part 1. City of New Berlin.
New Berlin, WI
, 1961b. Development Plan, New Berlin, Wisconsin.
Part 2. City of New Berlin. New Berlin, WI.
Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 6. Preparation
of Environmental Impact Statements.
. Part 35. Municipal Wastewater Treatment Works,
Construction Grants Program.
. Part 50. National Primary and Secondary Ambient
Air Quality Standards.
. Part 1500. Preparation of Environmental Impact
Statements.
The Commission on State-Local Relations and Financing Policy,
1977. Recommendations of the Commission on State-Local
Relations and Financing Policy, January, 1977. State of
Wisconsin. Madison, WI.
Cudahy, City of, 1977. Municipal Code. Cudahy, WI.
Dane County Circuit Court, 1977. Case No. 152-342. Sewerage
Commission of the City of Milwaukee and the Metropolitan
Sewerage Commission of the County of Milwaukee versus The
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Madison, WI.
, 1977. Resolution Adopting Rules to Implement the
Waste Load Restrictions and Apportionment Section as
Provided in the Stipulation Approved by the Circuit Court
of Dane County Relative to Case 152-342. File No. 77-132-
92(2), Madison, WI.
19
-------
Davis, William, 1973. The Language of Money. Houghton-Mifflin
Co. Boston, MA.
EcolSciences, inc., 1977. Handbood for Evaluation of Secondary
Environmental Impacts of Wastewater Treatment Facilities.
Vienna, VA.
,1979. Technical Memorandum: Review of Population
Forecasts for Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District
Facilities Plan. Milwaukee, WI.
Elm Grove, Village, 1973. Codes and Ordinances. Elm Grove, WI.
Engineering New Record "Cement Faces Chronic Shortages". ENR.
June 19, 1980. Vol. 204 No. 25. McGraw Hill, Inc. New
York, NY.
Ferebee, J. L., 1932. Reports, Note and Data Pertinent to
Expansion of Existing Sewage Treatment and Sludge Disposal
Facilities. Sewerage Commission of the City of Milwaukee.
Milwaukee, WI.
Ferebee, J. D., Townsend, S. W., and Hatton, T. C., 1932. Report
Upon Proposed Extension to Existing Sewage Treatment Plan.
Sewerage Commission of the City of Milwaukee. Milwaukee, WI.
, 1933. Report Upon The Probable Future Sanitary
Requirements in the Water-Sheds of the Milwaukee, Menomonee,
Kinnickinnic and Root Rivers, and Oak and Sauk Creeks.
Fitzgerald, M., et. al., 1977. Manual for Evaluating Secondary
Impacts of Wastewater Treatment Facilities. EPA-600/5-78-
003 U.S.
Fox Point, Village of, Wisconsin, 1974. Selected Codes.
Fox Point, WI.
Franklin Common Council, 1974. Franklin, VTisconsin Zoning
Ordinance. Franklin, WI.
Gebert, W. A., and B. D. Holmstrom, 1974. Low-flow Characteris-
tics of Wisconsin Streams at Sewage-Treatment Plants.
U.S.G.S. Water Resources Investigations. Washington, DC.
Glendale, City of, 1973. The Glendale Zoning Ordinance.
Glendale, WI.
Great Lakes National Program, 1978. Lake Michigan Study: Some
Preliminary Findings. EPA. Washington, DC.
Greendale, Village of, 1976. Selected Codes and Standard Speci-
fications. Greendale, WI.
20
-------
, 1976. Zoning District Map. Greendale, WI.
Greenfield, City of, 1977. Selected Codes. Greenfield, WI.
Hales Corners, Village of, 1978. Selected Codes. Hales Corners,
WI.
Harland, Bartholomew and Associates, 1976. Final Report on the
Comprehensive Plan. Glendale, WI.
Huddleston, T. R., and Schein, F., 1976. Economic Change and the
Urban Poor: An Analysis of Changes in the Milwaukee Low
Income Area and the SMSA. Wisconsin Planning Office.
Madison, WI.
International Joint Commission, 1977a. Menomonee River Pilot
Watershed Study. Windsor, Ontario.
. 1977b. Land Use and Land Use Practices in the Great
Lakes Basin. Windsor, Ontario.
Kinney, K. S., 1978. Industrial Drain Hurting Area's Economic
Vigor. Milwaukee Journal, March 26, 1978. Milwaukee, WI.
Lathy, Jr., R. F., et. al., 1980. Treatment Plant Odors and
Neighbors: A Case Study. Journal of the Water Pollution
Control Federation, Vol. 52, No. 7. July, 1980.
Washington, DC.
Lin, C. K., 1971. Availability of Phosphorus for Cladophera
Growth in Lake Michigan. Proc. 14th Conf. Great Lakes
Res.: 39-43.
Linsley, R.K., Kohler, M.A., and Paulhus, J.L.H., 1975.
Hydrology for Engineers. McGraw Hill, Inc. New York, NY.
McFadzean and Everly, Ltd. 1974. Design Program Report for
Community Center Park - Greendale, Wisconsin, City of
Greendale. Greendale, WI.
Meadows, G. R., and Call, S. T., 1977. Property Value Trends
and Resident Attitudes as Guides to Neighborhood
Revitalization: A Case Study of Milwaukee, Milwaukee
Urban Observatory. UWM. Milwaukee, WI.
Meinholz, T. L., Krentgberger, W. A., Harper, M. E., and
Fay, K. J., 1979. Verification of the Water Quality Impacts
of Combined Sewer Overflow. EPA-600/2-79-155. Municipal
Environmental Research Laboratory. Cincinnati, OH.
21
-------
Meinholz T. L., Kreutgberger, W. A. Kobriger, N. P., and
Harper, M. E., 1979. Water Quality Analysis of the Milwaukee
River to Meet PRM 75-34 (PG-61) Requirements. Rexnord
Environmental Research Center. Milwaukee, WI.
Menomonee Falls, Village of, 1973. Zoning Ordinances. Menomonee
Falls, WI.
Mequon, City of, 1976. City of Mequon Code of Ordinances.
Chapter 4: Zoning Code. Mequon, WI.
Metropolitan Milwaukee Assoication of Commerce, 1978. Economic
Fact Book on Metropolitan Milwaukee. MMAC. Milwaukee, WI.
Milwaukee Common Council, 1977. Milwaukee Code of Ordinances.
City of Milwaukee. Milwaukee, WI.
Milwaukee County, 1979. Statistical Report of Property Valuation.
Milwaukee, WI.
Milwaukee Department of City Development, 1976. Overall Economic
Development Program. DCD. Milwaukee, WI.
, 1977a. Historical Trends: A Summary. DCD. Milwaukee,
WI.
, 1977b. Population Projections. DCD. Milwaukee, WI.
, 1977c. Toward a Comprehensive Plan: A Preservation
Policy for Milwaukee. DCD. Milwaukee, WI.
, 1978a. 1978 City of Milwaukee Housing Survey: General
Results. DCD. Milwaukee, WI.
, 1978b. Major Linkages Among Manufacturing Industries
With the Milwaukee Metropolitan Area. DCD. Milwaukee, WI.
, 1978c. Future Economic Trends: An Overview. DCD.
Milwaukee, WI.
Milwaukee Health Department, 1976. Beach, River and Harbor
Pollution Research. Milwaukee Health Department. Milwaukee,
WI.
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District, 1976. Facilities Plan.
MMSD. Milwaukee, WI.
, 1976-1980. WPDES Permit Monitoring Data. Unpublished.
1977a. Environmental Assessment - Hales Corners
Interceptor. MMSD. Milwaukee, WI.
22
-------
_, 1977b. Environmental Assessment - Memononee Falls-
Germantown Interceptor. ilMSD. Milwaukee, WI.
• 1977c. Environmental Assessment - Northeast Side
Relief Sewer System. JIMSD. Milwaukee, WI.
, 1977d. Environmental Assessment - Root River Inter-
ceptor. MMSD. Milwaukee, WI.
, 1978a. Waste Load Allocation Procedures. MMSD.
Milwaukee, WI.
/ 1978b. User Charge and Industrial Cost Recovery
Program, Volume I: Final Reports, Interim Reports,
Technical Memorandum. MMSD. Milwaukee, WI.
, 1978c. User Charge and Industrial Cost Receovery
Program, Volume II: Technical Memorandum. MMSD.
Milwaukee, 'WI.
, 1978d. Comprehensive Facilities Plan: Tork Plan.
MMSD. Milwaukee WI.
, 1978e. Unpublished Biological Sampling Data.
MWPAP. Milwaukee, WI.
, 1978f. Caddy Vista Interceptor, Environmental
Inventory. MMSD. Milwaukee, WI.
, 1978g. Northridge Interceptor, Environmental
Inventory. MMSD. Milwaukee, WI.
, 1978h. Oak Creek Interceptor, Environmental
Inventory. MMSD. Milwaukee, WI.
, 1978i. Mitchell Field Interceptor, Environmental
Inventory. MMSD. Milwaukee, WI.
, 1978j. Franklin Northeast Interceptor, Environmental
Inventory. MMSD. Milwaukee, WI.
, 1978k. Pilot Plant Investigations: Preliminary Phase
T~Technical Report. MMSD. Milwaukee, WI
, 19781. Franklin-Muskego Interceptor, Environmental
Inventory. MMSD. Milwaukee, WI.
, 1978m. r~otal Solids Management, Environmental
Assessment. "MSD. Milwaukee, WI.
, "979a. \ astewater System Plan, South Shore Environ-
mental Assessment Element. MMSD. Milwaukee, VI.
, 1979b. Energy Impact and Resource Recovery Analysis.
MMSD. March 1, 1979. Milwaukee, WI.
23
-------
, 1979c. Probability Curves from Hydrocomp Simulation.
Model. SEWRPC. Waukesha, WI.
, 1979d. Wastewater System Plan, Combined Sewer Overflow
Element. MMSD. Milwaukee, WI.
, 1979e. Combined Sewer Overflow Characterization,
Storage and Pilot Plant Treatment. MMSD. Milwaukee, WI.
, 1979f. Oak Creek Southwest Interceptor, Environmental
Inventory. MMSD. Milwaukee, WI.
, 1979g. Infiltration/Inflow Analysis: Executive
Summary. MMSD- Milwaukee, WI.
, 1979h. Infiltration/Inflow Analysis: Volume I, Part I:
District-Wide Analysis. MMSD. Milwaukee, WI.
, 1979i. Infiltration/Inflow Analysis: Volume II, Part II:
Community Summaries. MMSD. Milwaukee, WI.
, 1979j. Infiltration/Inflow Analysis: Volume III, Fart II
Community Summaries. MMSD. Milwaukee, WI.
, 1979k. Infiltration/Inflow Analysis: Volume IV, Part II:
Community Summaries. MMSD. Milwaukee, WI.
, 19791. Infiltration/Inflow Analysis: Volume V, Part
III: Appendices A-P. MMSD. Milwaukee, WI
, 1979m. Infiltration/Inflow Analysis: Volume VI, Part
III: Appendices Q-£ . MMSD. Milwaukee, WI.
, 1979n. Wastewater System Plan, Environmental Assess-
ment Bibliography. MMSD. Milwaukee, WI.
, 1979o. Wastewater System Plan, Jones Island Facilities
Plan Element. MMSD. Milwaukee, WI.
, 1979p. Wastewater System Plan, Jones Island Environ-
mental Assessment Element. MMSD. Milwaukee, WI.
, 1979q. "Economics Procedures Manual" Technical Memo-
randum. 5/2-13. February 14, 1979.
, 1979r. Wastewater System Plan, South Shore Facilities
Plan Element. MMSD. Milwaukee, WI.
, 1979s. Wastewater System Plan, Facilities Plan. MMSD.
Milwaukee, WI.
, 1979t. Wastewater System Plan, Environmental Assesment.
MMSD. Milwaukee, WI.
, 198Oa. CSO. MMSD. Milwaukee, WI.
24
-------
/ 198Ob. Environmental Assessment, Volumes 2, 2A, and
2B. MMSD. Milwaukee, WI.
/ 1980c. Franklin Muskego Interceptor Facility Plan
Element. MMSD. Milwaukee, WI.
/ 198Od. Franklin Northeast Inerceptor Facility Plan
Element. MMSD* Milwaukee, WI.
/ 1980e. Jones Island Facility Plan Element.. MMSD.
Milwaukee, WI.
» 1980f. Mitchell Field South Facility Plan Element.
MMSD. Milwaukee, WI.
/ 198Og. Northridge Interceptor Facility Plan Element.
MMSD. Milwaukee, WI.
, 198Oh. Cak Creek Interceptor Facility Plan Element.
MMSD. Milwaukee, WI.
, 198Oi. Solids Management, Volumes 1 and 2. MFSD.
Milwaukee, WI.
, 1980J. South Shore Facility Flan Element. MIISD.
Milwaukee, WI.
, 1980k. Underwood Creek Interceptor Facility Plan
Element. MMSD• Milwaukee, WI.
, 19801. Wastewater System Plan, Volumes A, B, C, D.
~MMSb. Milwaukee, WI.
Milwaukee Public Schools, 1978. Enrollment Analysis: 1963^-1983.
Milwaukee Public Schools. Milwaukee, WI.
Moak, Lennox L., 1970. Administration of Local Government Debt.
Chicago: Municipal Finance Officers Association.
Moody's, 1980. Moody's Municipal and Government Manual, Volume I.
Robert P. Hanson, ed. New York: Moody's Investor Service,
Tnc.
Muller, T., 1976a. Economic Impacts of Land Development. The
Urban Institute. Washington, DC.
, 1976b. Fiscal Impacts of Land Development. The Urban
Institute. Washington, DC.
Municipal Ordinance Service, Inc. 1977. Zoning Code of Brookfield,
Wisconsin. City of Brookfield, Brookfield, WI.
, 1978. Zoning Code of City of Brookfield, Wisconsin.
Brookfield, «I.
Muskego, City of, 1972. Selected Codes. Muskego, WI.
25
-------
Mew Berlin, City of, 1978. Zoning Ordinance. Mew Berlin, WI.
Newman, Donald G., 1977. Engineering Economic Analysis. San
Jose, CA: Engineering Press.
Oak Creek, City of, 1977. Selected Codes. Oak Creek, WI.
O'Neel, W. G, Davis, A. L., and Van Dusew, K.W., 1976. SAM:
Wastewater Collection System Analysis Model, User's Manual.
CH2M Hill. Corvallis, OR.
Ozaukee County, 1979. Statistical Report of Property Valuation.
Paul, R. K., and Paul, R. A., 1977. Geology of Wisconsin and
Upper Michigan. Dubuque,. IAr Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co.
River Hills, Village of, 1975. Selected Codes and Ordinances.
River Hills, WI.
St. Francis, City of, 1964. Ordinances. St. Francis, WI.
Schaenman, P. S., 1976a. Using An Impact Measurement System to
Evaluate Land Development. The Urban Institute. Washington,
DC.
, 1976b. Measuring Impacts of Land Development. The Urban
Institute. Washington, DC.
Shorewood, Village of, 1977. Selected Codes. Shorewood, WI.
Slater, T.M., and Barry, J.T., 1975. Brown Deer Land Use Study.
James T. Berry, Inc; Kahler Slater & Fitzhugh Scott, Inc.
Brown Deer, WI.
Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, 1971.
Population of Southeastern Wisconsin: 1960 and 1970.
Waukesha, WI.
, 1972a. The Economy of Southeastern Wisconsin. Technical
Report No. 2. Waukesha, WI.
, 1972b. The Population of Southeastern Wisconsin. Tech-
nical Report No. 11. Waukesha, WI.
, 1974. A Regional Sanitary Sewage Plan for Southeastern
Wisconsin. Planning Report, 16. Waukesha, WI.
, 1975a. A Regional Housing Plan for Southeastern *
Wisconsin. Planning Report Mo. 20. Waukesha, WI.
, 1975b. A Regional Land Use Plan and A Regional Trans-
portation Plan for Southeastern Wisconsin. Volume I. Plan-
ning Report No. 25. Waukesha, WI.
, 1977. A Regional Park and Open Space Plan for South-
eastern Wisconsin for the Year 2000. Planning Report No. 27.
Waukesha, WI.
26
-------
, 1978a. A Regional Land Use Plan and Regional Trans-
portation Plan for Southeastern Wisconsin. Volume II. Plan-
ning Report No. 25. Waukesha, WI.
' 1978b. Printout: Housing Units bv Sewer Interceptor
by Year. Uaukesha, WI.
_, 1978c. Printout: Land Use Data for Northeast Side
Relief System East for Years 1963 and 1970. Waukesha, WI.
, 1978d. Printout: Land Use Data for Northeast Side
Relief System East for Years 1970, 1985, ?nd 2000.
Waukesha, WI.
_, 1978e. Printout: Regional Housing Study: Land Use
Controls Inventory. ITaukesha, WI,
, 1978f. Printout: Total Population for Milwaukee
Metropolitan Sewerage District by Quarter. Waukesha, WI.
_, 1978g. Printout: Total Population by Sewer Interceptor
by Year. Waukesha, W
, 1978h. Data Pertaining to Sewer Service Area Employment
Allocations: 1972, 1985, and 2000. Waukesha, WI.
, 19781. SEWRPC Newsletter. Volume 18, No. 13.
Waukesha, KT.
, 1978J. Village of Butler Zoning Ordinance. Waukesha,
WI.
, 1978k. Codes and Ordinances of the Village of
Germantown, WI . Chapter 17: Zoning Ordinance. Waukesha,
, 1979. A Regional Water Quality Management Plan for
Southeastern Wisconsin - ."000. Vols. I, "I and III.
Waukesha, WI..
, 1980. A Regional Air Quality Attainment and Maintenance
Plan for Southeastern Wisconsin: 2000. Planning Report
No. 28. Waukesha, V7I .
Stevens, Thompson & Runyan, Inc., 1982. CSO Facilities Plan Out-
line for Chapter 2. MMSD . Milwaukee, WI .
, 1978b. CSO Facilities Plan. Chapter 4. MMSD.
Milwaukee, WI.
, 1978c. COS Facilities Plan. Volume II, Chapter 6:
Alternative Development and Analysis. MMSD. Milwaukee, WI.
, 1978d. CSO Facilities Plan. Appendix 10: Conveyance,
Storage and Treatment, and Evaluation. MMSD. Milwaukee, WI.
, I978e. CSO Facilities Plan. General Summary of
Selected Alternative for Out-of-Basin Concept. MMSD.
Milwaukee, WI.
27
-------
Studdard, Gloria J., ed,, 1974. Common Environmental Terms.
USEPA. Washington, DC.
Tec-Search, Inc., 1969. Germantown, Wisconsin: Comprehensive
Plan. TEC-Search, Inc. Wilmette, IL.
Thiensville, Village of, 1974. -elected Codes. "hiensville,
Tiebout, Charles M., 1962. The Community Fccnonic Ease Study.
New York: Committee for Economic Development. Yew York, *7Y.
Torrey, M. S., 1976. Environmental Status of the Lake Michigan
Region. Volume 3: Chemistry of Lake Michigan. Argonne
National Laboratory. ANL/ES-40. U.S. ERDS. Argonne, IL.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1977. Storage, Treatment, Overflow,
Runoff Model "STORM". Davis, CA.
, 1979. "Draft Plan of Study - Chicagoland Underflow Plan,
Phase I, General Design Memorandum." Chicago, IL.
U.S. Congress, Clean Air Act Amendements of 1977. P. L. 95-95,
95th Congress. Washington, DC.
, Clean Water Act Ammendments of 1977. p. L. 95-217,
95th Congress. Washington, DC.
, Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 19.72.
P. L. 92-500, 92nd Congress. Washington, DC;
, National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. P. L. 91-
190 as amended by P. L. 94-83. 94th Congress-
DC.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, Case No. 77-2246,
People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, and
People of the State of Michigan, Intervening Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs. City of Milwaukee, The Sewerage Commission of the City of
Milwaukee, and the Metropolitan Sewerage Commission of the
County of Milwaukee, Defendants-Appellants. Chicago, IL.
United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division - Case No. 72 C 1253, 1977. People of The
State of Michigan vs. The City of Milwaukee, et. al. Judgment
Order. Chicago, IL.
, 1980. People of The State of Illinois and the Peopl-e of
The State Michigan vs. The City of Milwaukee, et.al., Amended
Judgment Order. Chicago, IL.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, 1971. General Popula-
tion Characteristics: Wisconsin 1970 Census of Population.
Publication PCG-E51 Wis. Wasington, DC.
28
-------
_, 1972a. 1970 Census of Population Detailed Characteristics-
Wisconsin. Washington, DC.
, 1972b. 1970 Metropolitan Housing Characteristics:
Milwaukee, vl. SMSA. CPO. rashington, DC.
, 1972c. 1970 Census of Mousing. Volume I: Housing
Characteristics for States, Cities & Counties; Part 51,
\ isconsin. CPO. Washington, DC.
, 1974a. Wisconsin 1972 Census of Retail Trade. RC 72-A-
50. Washington, DC.
, 1974b. 1972 Census of Wholesale Trade: Area Series,
Wisconsin. Washington, DC. .
, 1975a. Wisconsin 1972 Census of Manufacturers. MC 72
(3)-50. Washington, DC.
, 1975b. 1972 Census of Selected Service Industries:
Area Series, Wisconsin. GOP. Washington, DC.
, 1977. Annual Housing Survey, 1975: Milwaukee, WI.,
SMSA. Series H-150-75. GOP. Washington, DC
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1975. Analysis
of the Current Housing Market Situation - Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Second Draft. U.S. Department of HUD. Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1973. "Wastewater Treatment
and Reuse by Land Applications", 2 Volumes. EPA 660/2-73-006b.
Office of Research and Development. Washington, DC.
, 1975a. Handbook for Sewer System Evaluation and Rehabili-
tation. Office of Water Program Operations. EPA-OO/9-75-021.
Washington, DC.
, 1975b. Cost-Effective Comparison of Land Application and
Advanced Wastewater Treatment. Office of Water Program
Operations. EPA 430/9-75-016. Washington, DC.
, 1975c. Guidance for Preparing a Facility Plan. Office
of Water Program Operations. EPA-430/9-76-015.
, 1975d. Cost of Wastewater Treatment by Land Application,
Office of Water Program Operations. EPA-430/9-75-003.
. 1976a. Application of Sewerage Sludge to Cropland:
Appraisal of Potential Hazards of the Heavy Metals to Plants
and Animals. Office of Water Program Operations. EPA-430/
9-76-013.
, 1976b. Direct Evironmental Factors at Municipal Waste-
water Treatment Works. Office of Water Program Operations.
EPA-430/9-76-G03. Washington, DC.
, 1976c. Model Plan of Study. Office of Water Program
Operations. EPA-430/9-76-004. Washington, DC.
29
-------
1976d. Quality Criteria for Water. Office of Water
Planning and Standards. Washington, DC.
, 1977a. Alternatives for Small Wastewater Treatment
Systems. Part 1: On-Site Disposal/Septage Treatment and
Disposal. EPA Technology Transfer. EPA-625/4-77-011. EPA.
Washington, DC.
, 1977b. Alternatives for Small Wastewater Treatment
Systems. Part 2: Pressure Sewers/Vacuum Sewers. EPA
Technology Transfer. EPA-625/4-77-011. Washington, DC.
, 1977c. Alternatives for Small Wastewater Treatment
Systems. Part 3: Cost/Effectiveness Analysis. EPA
Technology Transfer. EPA-625/4-77-C11.
, 1977d. Process Design Manual: Wastewater Treatment
Facilities for Sewered Small Communities. EPA Techology
Transfer. EPA-625/1-77-009. Washington, DC.
, 1977e. October, 21, Issuance To All Interested Govern-
ment Agencies, Public Groups and Citizens. EPA - Region V.
Chicago, IL.
, 1978a Analysis of Operation and Maintenance Costs for
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Systmes. EPA 430/9-77-015.
Office of Water Program Operations. Washington, DC.
, 1978b. Construction Costs for Municipal Wastewater
Conveyance Systems: 1973-1977. Office of Water Program
Operations. EPA-430/9-77-C15. Washington, DC.
, 1978c. Construction Costs for Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Plants: 1973-1977. Office of Water Program
Operations. EPA-430/9-77-013. Washington, DC.
, 1978d. Design Seminar Handout, Small Wastewater Treat-
ment Facilities. Washington.
, 1978e. "Direct Environmental Factors at Municipal Waste-
water Treatment Works - Evaluation and Control of Site
Aesthetics, £ir Pollutants, Noise and Other Operation and
Construction Factors." (MCD-20) EPA 43019-76-003. Office
of Water Program Operations, (WH-547). • Washingtion, DC.
, 1978f. "Energy Conservation in Municipal Wastewater
"Treatment." (MCD-32) EPA 430/9-77-C11. Office of Water
Program Operations, (WH-547). Washington, DC.
, 1978g. Innovative and Alternative Technology Assessment
Manual. (Draft) EPA-43019-78-009. Municipal Environmental
Research Laboratory. Cincinnati, OH.
30
-------
, 1978h. Process Design Manual: Municipal Sludge Land-
fills. EPA Technology Transfer. EPA-625/1-78-010.
Washington, DC.
, 1978i. Report to Congress on Control of Combined-Sewer
Overflow in the United States. EPA-430/9-78-006.
, 1978j. Sludge Treatment and Disposal. Volume I: Sludge
Treatment. EPA-62514-78-012. Environmental Research Inform-
ation Center. Cincinnati, OH.
, 1978k. Sludge Treatment and Disposal. Volume II: Sludge
Disposal. EPA-625/4-78-012. Environmental Research Inform-
ation Center. Cincinnati/ OH*
, 19781. March 23, Issuance To All Interested Government
Agencies, Public Groups, and Citizens. EPA - Region V.
Chicago, IL.
, 1979a. Direct Environmental Factors at Municipal Waste-
water Treatment Works. US EPA #MCD-20. Washington, DC.
, 1978b. STORET listing for Lake Michigan Basin.
Washington, DC.
, 1980. Lawrence Avenue Underflow Sewer System Interim
Report, Planning and Construction. EPA 600/2-80-014, Munici-
pal Environmental Research Laboratory. Cincinnati, OH.
U.S. Geological Survey, 1972. Topographic Maps of the Milwaukee
Area, 7-1/2'. USGS. Washington, DC.
Washington County, Wisconsin, 1979. Statistical Report of Property
Valuation. Wisconsin Department of Revenue: Bureau of Prop-
erty Tax. Madison, WI.
Waukesha County, Wisconsin, 1979. Statistical Report of Property
Valuation. Wisconsin Department of Revenue: Bureau of Prop-
erty Tax. Madison, WI.
Wauwatosa, Citv of, Wisconsin, 1978. Municipal Codes. Wauwatosa,
WI.
West Allis, City of, Wisconsin, 1975. Revised Municipal Code.
West Allis, WI.
West Milwaukee, Village of, Wisconsin, 1972. General Ordinances.
West Milwaukee,
Whitefish Bay, Village of, Wisconsin, 1975. Selected Codes.
Whitefish Bay,
31
-------
Wisconsin Administrative Code. Section NR 102, Water Quality
Standards for Wisconsin Surface Waters. Madison, WI.
, Section NR 103. Waters - Uses and Designated Standards -
Interstate. Madison, WI.
Wisconsin Department of Administration, 1977. Official Population
Estimates for 1977. DOA. Madison, WI.
Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection.
Farmland Preservation Act, 1978. Madison, WI.
Wisconsin Department of Industry, Labor, and Human Relations, 1978.
Employment Review: The Milwaukee Area. Wisconsin Job Service.
Milwaukee, WI.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 1968. Report on an
Investigation of the Pollution in the Milwaukee River Basin
made during 1966 and 1967. Madison, WI.
, 1969a. Reports on the Investigation of the Pollution
of the Milwaukee River, Its Tributaries, and Oak Creek made
during 1968 and 1969. Madison, WI.
, 1969b. Little Muskego Lake. Lake Use Report FX-10 WDNR.
Madison, WI.
, 1971. Big Muskego Lake. Lake Use Report FX-3. WDNR.
Madison, WI.
, 1976. Southeastern Wisconsin River Basins: A Drainage
Basin Report. WDNR. Madison, WI.
Wisconsin Department of Revenue, 1978. Comparisons Among Major
Property Tax Relief Programs. DOR. Madison, WI.
Wisconsin Electric Power Company, 1974. An Environmental Study
of the Ecological Effects of the Thermal Discharges from
Point Beach, Oak Creek, and Lakeside Power Plants on Lake
Michigan. Volume 2 Limnetics, Inc. Milwaukee, WI.
Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act of 1972. 1971 Assembly Bill
875, Chapter 274. Madison, WI.
Wisconsin Water Pollution Control Laws of 1978, Chapter 147:
Pollution Discharge Elimination. Madison, WI.
32
-------
APPENDIX I
NOTICES OF INTENT
-------
,-(£0 .
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION V
230 SOUTH DEARBORN ST
CHICAGO ILLINOIS 60604
FES 18 1976
All Interested Government Agencies, Public Groups, and Citizens:
In accordance with the procedures for Che preparation of environmental
impact statements, a preliminary environmental review has been performed
on the proposed EPA action below:
Xama of Applicant:
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District
Post Office Box 2079
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201
Planning Area:
The combined sewer study area of the City of Milwaukee is the principle
region under study. However, because of the impact of the remainder of
the service area, as veil as the upstream water quality of che rivers
flowing chrough che City, the antire service area is being considered.
These areas are shown on the attached map.
Proposed Action:
Ihe Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District is presently preparing,
with grant assistance from chis Agency, a facilities plan which is
co address the abatement of pollution from che combined sewer overflows
in the Milwaukee area. Upon complaticn of chis facilities plan, it
will be submicted to this Agency for formal approval. If this plan is
approved, it will allow us to provide additional grant assistance for
the preparation of plans and specifications and construction of the al-
ternative selected in the planning process.
The project goals of the facilities planning study are as follows:
(1) Assess the relative impact of combined sewer overflows, storm-
water, and other waste loads on the water quality in the rivers
to identify che cotal wacar quality problem.
(2) Assess the full range of feasible alternatives for abating pol-
lucion from combined sewer overflows.
(3) Determine ths progress toward suitable water quality for full
or partial body contact achieved by the pollution abatement
alternatives.
-------
FEB 18 »37c
-2-
(4) Determine the specific combined sewer overflow pollution abatement
alternative which most cost-effectively and expenditiously improves
the quality of Milwaukee's three rivers.
Our review of the proposed alternatives indicated the possibility of
significant environmental impacts. Specifically, our concern rests
on the items described below.
(a) Potential impact upon groundwater quality;
(b) The primary and secondary impacts of rock disposal;
(c) Disposal of solids that will be captured by cha system;
(d) Cost-effectiveness of wastewater treatment as it may be affected
by the implementation of the recommended alternative;
(e) Impact on achievement of water quality standards;
(f) Impacts from construcion of the recommended alternative;
(h) Resource impacts resulting from implementation, including financial,
labor market and energy resources.
Consequently, this Agency has determined than the preparation of an
environmental impact statement is varrenced.
If you or your organization need additional information or wishes to
provide any information which you feel would be useful in the preparation
of the EIS, or if you would like to receive a copy of the Draft HIS,
please contact this office by March Ij, 1976.
Sincerely yours,
Harlan D. Hirt
Chief, Planning Branch
-------
Milwaukee Combined Sewer Overflow
Pollution Abatement Project Area
New Berlin
yflV-v- -I:'
ix:. -, .:::-
i-:,:-:::.--;-
.: ' .' . Or eendale
•', .'•:•.•;' '. ;-.•:-. .'.-.-. . .-.::'. .•:•.':•. . •
Prqn icii-n
MILWAUKEE COUNTY
COM8INEQ SEWER SERVICE AREA
SEWERAGE DISTRICT SERVICE AREA
UPSTREAM WATERS
RECEIVING WATERS
LAKE MICHIGAN
South MilwauKee
I
NORTH
NO Scaie
-------
APR141S/8
TO ALL INTERESTED GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, PUBLIC GROUPS, AND CITIZENS:
This letter is meant to clarify a portion of the Notice of Intent,
dated February 18, 1976, to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement
for the Milwaukee Sewerage District's combined sewer overflow study.
The following description of the planning area was included in the
February 18 notice:
Planning Area:
The combined sewer study area of the City of Milwaukee
is the principle region under study. However, because
of the impact of the remainder of the service area, as
well as the upstream water quality of the rivers flow-
ing through the City, the entire service area is being
considered. These areas are shown on the attached map.
Apparently, this has lead to some confusion over the scope of the EIS
which will be prepared. The planning area description was made
deliberately broad to account for the fact that water quality in the
combined sewer area is affected by factors outside the combined sewer
area itself.
The combined sewer service area is tre principle region under study.
However, this area is impacted by the surrounding vicinity and if the
two sewer district treatment plants are included in any alternative
solution, their service areas must also be considered. Similarly,
the receiving waters withir the combined sewer service areas are
being investigated, but impacts of the upstream waters must also be
considered. Based upon these considerations, the planning area and
impacting areas are described below.
-------
- 2 -
APR 14 fc{u
Planning Area
1) All combined sewer service areas.
2) All flowing surface waters downstream of the most
upstream combined sewer overflow and that portion
of Lake Michigan directly impacted by combined
sewer overflow abatement alternatives.
3) All subsurface waters directly impacting the flow
ir the sanitary or combined sewers and all subsur-
face waters directly affected by combined sewer
overflow pollution abatement alternatives.
4) All areas impacted by alternatives for combined
sewer overflow pollution abatement.
Impacting Areas
1) All land surface areas presently and proposed to
be serviced by the Jones Island and South Shore
treatment plants.
2) All present and proposed sanitary sewer systems
discharging to the Jones Island and South Shore
treatment plants.
3) All storm sewers discharging from the present
and proposed Jones Island and South Shore treat-
ment plant service areas.
4) All surface waters downstream of the sewerage
district's service area boundary.
PROBLEM AREAS NOT ADDRESSED BY THIS PROJECT
The following specific problem areas are excluded from the study
because they are either local problems or fall outside of the
geographical scope of the study.
1) Local surcharging and overflows of separate
sanitary systems due to undersized collection
lines and laterals. This will not be included
since the problem is of a localized nature; it
is not in the intercepters and not pertinent
to the elimination of pollution from combined
sewer overflows.
-------
APR 14 1975
2) Pollution of river waters upstream of the
combined sewer area. The problem is clearly
outside of the surface water study area
required to evaluate the alternatives for
elimination of pollution from combined sewer
overflows. The magnitude of the problem is of
interest and will be addressed, but solutions
to the problem will not be considered.
3) Local flooding (such as basement flooding and
street flooding) due to undersized storm
laterals and collection lines. The problem
is of localized nature and not pertinent -to
the elimination of pollution from combined
s'ewer overflows.
4) Continued use of the Jones Island Treatment
Plant. This would only be addressed should
the plant be included in a system alternative.
5) Only that portion of Lake Michigan directly
impacted by combined sewer overflows will be
addressed in the project.
6) It is assumed that abatement of pollution from
combined sewer overflows will improve the
water quality in Milwaukee's three rivers.
The rate of these improvements is difficult to
determine. The real benefits will be realized
only in the long run.
All those who expressed an interest in receiving the Draft EIS will
be placed on our mailing list for the study and will be appraised
of progress on the EIS process. Your interest in the development
of the EIS is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely yours,
Hirt
Planning Branch
-------
Planning Branch. - EIS Prep, Section
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION V
330 SOUTH DEARBORN
CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 60604
POSTAGE AND FEES PAID
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EPA-335
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE J3OO
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
-------
©/^\
G
THE STATE HISTORICAL
SOCIETY OP WISCONSIN
816 STATE STREET / MADISON, WISCONSIN 53706 / JAMES MORTON SMITH. DIRECTOR
State Historic Preservation Office October 11 1976
Mr. Gary A. Gagnon, P.E.
Project Engineer
Donohue & Associates, Inc.
Consulting & Design Engineers
1915 MacArthur Road
Waukesha, Wisconsin 53186 SHSW 0579-76
Dear Mr. Gagnon:
Reference your October 1, 1976 letter concerning Caddy Vista Sanitary
District, Racine County, Donohue Ptbject No. 4444.1.
There are no sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places that
would be adversely affected by this project. Furthermore, there are no
sites known to us of archeological, architectural, or historical significance
in the project area that would be eligible for inclusion on the National
Register of Historic Places.
We are informing the local historical society of this project and should
they inform us of a site or building in the project area that we are
unaware of, we will contact you immediately.
A. Erney
Historic Preservation Officer
RAErrdd
cc: Mrs. Margo Drummond
Local Survey Coordinator
Racine County Historical Society
Mr. John Hario
Mr. Bruce Baker
A-l
Exhibit #3
-------
H
*•'
PLATE 331
SELECTED PLAN
CADDY VISTA SANITARY DISTRICT
JANUARY , 1977
ABANDONED SAN i£*£R
-RGPOSEO 8' FORCE MAiN
PnODOSEO MANHOLE
EXISTING MANHOLE
PRO0OSED iQ" SAN StWER
N
I
i
EXISTING \VASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
JENSEM S JOHNSON
Exhibit #4
Division of Oono.Xip H
Elkhorn, WiiCmvn
-------
? . UNITED STATES
~ — _— \ ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
\
% "^»»W^ •? 230 SOUTH DEARBORN ST
"*>, ,C^ CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 50604
^ PRO''4-
APR 13 1977
ID ALL INTERESTED GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, PUBLIC GROUPS, AND CITIZENS:
Notice of Intent
To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement
In accordance with the procedures for the preparation of environmental
impact statements, a preliminary environmental review has been performed
en the proposed EPA action below:
Proposed Action Agency:
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD) '
Post Office Box 2079
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201
Planning Area;
• The Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerago District (MMSD) Service Area which
consists of Milwaukee County and projected service areas including all,
or part of, the Villages of Thiensville, Gerraantown, Menomonee Falls,
Butlar, and Elm Grove, and the Cities of Mequcn, Srookfieid, New Berlin,
and Muskego (see attached map).
Proposed Action:
The Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District is presently preparing, with
grant assistance from this Agency, a facilities plan which, in part, is to
address the construction of intercepting sewers within the planning area.
If this plan is approved, it will allow us to provide additional grant
assistance for the preparation of plans and specifications and construction
of the alternative selected in tha planning process.
The objectives of the facilities planning studies are as follows:
1. To determine the service areas, pipe capacities, interceptor alignments,
timing, and methods of financing for the proposed interceptor alternatives;
2. To complete an environmental assessment of the proposed facilities;
3. Determine the most cost-effective alternative.
-------
-2-
Our review of the possible alternatives indicated the possibility of
significant environmental impacts. Specifically our concern rests on the
items described below.
1. The impacts, individually and collectively, that the Vo^^as- inter-
cepting sewer projects, and their alternatives, will have on the existing
collection and treatment systems. This includes impacts the intercepting
sewers will have on the hydraulic capacities of the collection system,
treatment plant loads, and sludge handling and disposal. The ability to
meet State effluent standards and improve regional water quality, and its
relationship to regional growth and development patterns must be discussed.
2. For those intercepting sewers which are being constructed in developed
areas and will serve initially as relief for those areas, concern rests
with the direction^ of future development in the tributary areas scheduled
to be serviced by these intercepting sewers. This includes the Northeast
Side Interceptor System," a portion of the Menomonee Falls-Germantcwn
Interceptor (Contract No. 813), the Root River Interceptor, and the Hales
Corners Interceptor. Specific issues include: "~~~
a. Future population estimates, as they relate to project sizing,
phasing, and alignment considerations must be examined. In addition,
intercepting sewer construction alternatives, water use, inflow, and
infiltration problems must be identified to aid in developing the most
cost-effective approach to solving the water quality problems of the
tributary area.
b. The accelerated and/or induced potential for growth and secondary
impacts that the alternatives will create in the tributary area must
be evaluated.
c. The direct construction impacts of selected alternatives must be
evaluated.
d. Resource impacts including financial, construction, and energy
resources created by implementation of alternatives must be examined.
3. The impacts of the remaining intercepting sewer projects which include
the Franklin-Muskego, Franklin Northeast, Ryan Creek, Oak Creek, Oak Creek
Southwest, Caddy Vista, and Menomonee Falls-Germantown (excluding that
portion under Contract No. 313) interceptors must also be examined.
Discussions will include the issues previously identified but will be
expanded to include the immediate service area of the proposed intercepting
sewer as well as the tributary area it would eventually service.
Consequently, this Agency has determined that the preparation of an
environmental impact statement is warranted.
-------
-3-
If you or your organization need additional information or wish to provide
any information which you feel would be useful in the preparation of the
EIS, or if you would like to receive a copy of the Draft EIS, please
contact our EIS Preparation Section at the above address bv .
• " " MAY 16 1977
Sincerely yours,
teorge R. Alexander, Jr.
Regional Administrator
Attachment
-------
p-r UNITED STATES
\ ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
§ V?*7V ^ REGION V
% •^•4*1^^' ^ 230 SOUTH DEARBORN ST
A ,p
<>, ,0 CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 60604
*<- PRCrtfc
OCT 21 1977
TO ALL INTERESTED GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, PUBLIC GROUPS, AND CITIZENS:
Amended Notice of Intent
To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement
and
Negative Declaration
This Amended Notice is intended to supplement the Notice of intent dis-
tributed on April 18, 1977, and serve as a Negative Declaration for those
projects, or portions thereof, that will not be included in the environ-
mental impact statement (EIS). This Agency has reviewed additional
information received in response to the original Notice, and as a result
of a public meeting conducted in Milwaukee on June 9, 1977, and has deter-
mined that some clarification and changes in our original position were
appropriate. This was done in accordance with the procedures for the
preparation of environmental impact statements and involved a review of
the proposed EPA action below.
Name of Applicant; Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD)
Post Office Box 2079
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201
Planning Area; The Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD)
Service Area which consists of Milwaukee County and
projected service areas including all, or part of,
the Villages of Thiensville, Germantown, Menomonee
Falls, Butler, and Elm Grove, and the Cities of
Mequon, Brookfield, New Berlin, and Muskego (see
attached map).
Proposed Action: The Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District is pres-
ently preparing, with grant assistance from this
Agency, a facilities plan which, in part, is to
address the construction of intercepting sewers with-
in the planning area. If this plan is approved, it
will allow us to provide additional grant assistance
for the preparation of plans and specifications, and
construction of the alternative selected in the plan-
ning process.
The objectives of the facilities planning studies are as follows:
1. To determine the service areas, pipe capacities, interceptor align-
ments, timing, and methods of financing for the proposed interceptor
alternatives;
-------
- 2 -
2. To complete an environmental assessment of the proposed facilities;
3. Determine the most cost-effective alternative.
The review process did not indicate that any significant environmental
impacts would result from the proposed actions listed in items 1 through
6 below. Consequently a decision not to prepare an EIS on these items
has been made. This action is taken on the basis of a careful review of
facilities planning including the environmental assessments, and other
supporting data which are on file in this office and are available for
public scrutiny upon request. This Agency will, therefore, proceed with
normal administrative action on the projects described in items 1 through
6 below.
1. The entire Northeast Side Relief System including the north
and east branches. The estimated project cost will be $21,033,000
with a potential Agency financial share of $15,774,750.
2. That portion of the Menomonee Falls-Germantown Interceptor that
is proposed from Good Hope Road along 124th Street to Bradley Road
(Contract 813). The estimated project cost will be $2,023,000 with
a potential Agency financial share of $1,517,250.
3. That portion of the Hales Corners Interceptor that is proposed
to be constructed from S. 108th Street and College Avenue along
S. New Berlin Road to the Hales Corners Treatment Plant. The esti-
mated project cost will be $2,801,230 with a potential Agency finan-
cial share of $2,100,922.
4. The Mitchell Field Interceptor which is proposed to be construc-
ted from Pennsylvania Avenue to Howell Avenue along E. College
Avenue. The estimated project cost and potential Agency financial
shares will be $1,000,000 and $750,000 respectively.
5. The Ndrthridge Interceptor which is proposed to be constructed
from Brown Deer Road north along M. 70th Street to County Line Road.
The estimated project cost and potential Agency share will be
$750,000 and $562,500 respectively.
6. The Underwood Creek Interceptor which will run through County
owned land between Wisconsin Avenue and Watertown Plank Road to a
terminus at Blue Mound Road and 124th Street. The estimated project
cost and Federal share will be $3,900,000 and $2,925,000 respec-
tively.
However, our review of the remaining intercepting sewer projects or
portions of projects, identified in itans 7 through 11 below, indicates
the possibility of significant environmental impacts.
-------
- 3 -
7. Tributary area for the Northeast Side Relief Interceptor. This
includes that portion of the Northeast Side Interceptor service area
which occurs outside Milwaukee County.
8. Tributary area for the Underwood Creek Interceptor. This includes
those portions of Broofofield and Elm Grove that will be within the
tributary service area for this project.
9. That portion of the Menomonee Falls-Germantown Interceptor that
will run from Bradley Road north along 124th Street to W. County Line
Road (excludes Contract 813). This will include the proposed inter-
ceptors immediate (within Milwaukee Co.) and proposed (Germantown)
service areas.
10. Tributary area (future service area) for the proposed Hales
Corners Interceptor. This involves the City of New Berlin.
11. The remaining proposed interceptor projects including the
Ryan Creek, FranklirtMuskegp, Franklin Northeast, Root River, Oak
Creek, Oak Creek Southwest, and Caddy Vista Interceptors will be
addressed in the SIS. Discussions will include primary and second-
ary impacts for the interceptor and its entire service area both
immediate (within Milwaukee Co.), and where applicable, proposed
(outside Milwaukee Co.).
Specifically our concern rests with the following issues:
1. The impacts, individually and collectively, that the various
intercepting sewer projects identified in items 7 through 11, and
their alternatives, will have on the existing collection and treat-
ment systems. This includes impacts these intercepting sewers will
have on the hydraulic capacities of the collection system, treatment
plant loads, and sludge handling and disposal. The ability to meet
State effluent standards and improve regional water quality, and its
relationship to regional growth and development patterns will also
be discussed,
2. Future population estimates, as they relate to project sizing,
phasing, and alignment considerations will be examined. In addition,
intercepting sewer construction alternatives, water use, inflow, and
infiltration problems will be identified to aid in developing the
most cost-effective approach to solving the water quality problems
of the tributary area.
3. The accelerated and/or induced potential for growth and secondary
impacts that the alternatives will create in the tributary area will
be evaluated.
\ 4. The direct construction impacts of selected alternatives will be
evaluated.
-------
- 4 -
5. Resource impacts including financial, construction, and energy
resources created by implementation of alternatives will be examined.
Consequently, this Agency has determined that the preparation of an
environmental impact statement is warranted for items 7 through 11.
Comments supporting or disagreeing with this decision may be submitted
for consideration by EPA. In addition, if you or your organization need
additional information or wish to provide any information which you feel
would be useful in the preparation of the EIS, or if you would like to
receive a copy of the Draft EIS, please contact our EIS Preparation
Section at the above address. No administrative action will be taken on
facilities planning and/or projects for at least fifteen (15) working days
from the date of this Notice.
Sincerely yours,
bxander, Jr.
Regional Administrator
Attachment
-------
Summary of Environmental Review
for
Proposed Intercepting Sewer Program
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District
The purpose of this summary is to identify the intercepting sewer projects
in the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD) that will be in-
cluded in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and define the reasons
for these decisions.
BACKGROUND
In a recent Wisconsin Circuit Court stipulation the Milwaukee Metropoli-
tan Sewerage District (MMSD) was required to attain secondary treatment.
A compliance schedule was outlined which required facilities planning to
be cottpleted by December 1978. This comprehensive plan included five
recommended projects consisting of (1) treatment plant rehabilitation,
(2) elimination of combined sewer overflows (CSO), (3) a solids manage-
ment program, (4) sewer system evaluation (SSE), and (5) intercepting
sewers for relief and extension of the District's service area. It was
recognized that these programs must be integrated into a single functional
package since each project is, to varying degrees, dependent on the other
projects. The planning schedule to accomplish this program to meet water
quality standards includes the following:
1. Rehabilitation of the two existing wastewater treatment plants
serving the Milwaukee metropolitan area. This includes capacity to
enable adequate treatment of all CSO flows and flows contributed by
expansion of the service area and provide an effluent of such quality
to ensure use of area waters for their designated purpose.
The capacity to adequately treat additional flows at the Jones Island
Plant is limited by the sludge handling capability. This is a result
of the overtaxing of the sludge dryers and filters. This reduces
the effective treatment capacity of the plant resulting in failure
to consistently meet discharge standards. Upgrading of the sludge
handling facilities is currently underway. This will result in com-
pliance with existing effluent standards and an effective treatment
capacity of 200 mgd by mid-1980.
The South Shore Plant which treats sewage primarily from the periph-
eral areas of the District also is unable to consistently meet
effluent standards. This is primarily a result of greater sludge
volumes created by the addition of secondary, activated sludge,
treatment facilities in 1974. This has created overloaded conditions
in the sludge digestion and lagoon storage facilities. Inadequate
sludge digestion, results in the sludge reaching the lagoons in a
partially septic condition. This, in combination with the overloaded
lagoon facilities, creates the odor problems that are evident to local
residents. As an immediate solution to these problems the District
has, or is implementing, several programs to diminish the overloading
of the lagoons and the accompanying odor. These include trucking
sludge and disposing of it on farmland, an odor modifying (masking)
-------
- 2 -
system, and providing external digester heaters to provide adequate
digestion. In addition, long-term solutions are being implemented
at the South Shore Plant to upgrade plant processes to handle future
flows and solids additions. These include a pilot composting project
beginning in October 1977, and various improvements in plant processes
beginning this year with construction to be completed in July 1982.
2. Combined sewer overflow studies as required by EPA will be
completed by June 1978. Resulting design and construction time is
estimated to be 7-10 years. Presently an EIS is being prepared in
conjunction with facilities planning and is expected to be distrib-
uted in draft form in July 1978.
3. The solids management studies were initiated in February of 1977
and will be completed in July 1978. Detailed design is estimated to
take one year with resulting construction completed by 1983. These
preliminary dates will be expanded when information being developed
in initial planning are formalized. This process will go beyond the
short term solutions presently being implemented by the District and
develop a solids handling approach on a long-term basis for the en-
tire metropolitan area.
4. The Sewer System Evaluation (SSE) study for the District's ser-
vice area will require approximately three years due to size of the
collection system, with ongoing rehabilitation to eliminate excessive
flow lasting up to five years. This program is currently underway
and will result in the elimination of overflows and bypasses in the
separated sewer areas, and should also result in a reduction in flow
to the sewage treatment plants. It has been indicated in previous
facilities planning that these flow reductions will insure reserve
capacity for the design period rather than going to the more costly
alternative of treatment plant expansion.
5. The construction of selected interceptors in the metropolitan
area, to provide relief and expansion of the service area should
begin in October 1977, with the remainder being constructed over a
period of several years. The EPA is requiring that an EIS be pre-
pared on all or portions of most of the interceptors within this
program.
INTERCEPTING SEWERS
The intercepting sewer program presently under consideration is a result
of studies initiated by the Sewerage Coirniissions in November 1951. The
"Master Plan" (Areawide Plan) was completed in 1954 and formally adopted
by the Sewerage Coitmissions in November 1959. It indicated that the
soundest approach to solving the [Milwaukee metropolitan area's water
quality problems was by expanding the intercepting sewer program with
conveyance to two regional wastewater treatment plants.
This "Master Plan" was subsequently used as the basis for development of
the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission's (SEWRPC)
-------
- 3 -
Regional Sanitary Sewerage System Plan (Planning Report No. 16) as it
pertains to the Milwaukee metropolitan subregional area. Shortly after
its development, it was endorsed by rr.cst area municipalities which entered
into agreements with the Sewerage District for collection and treatment
of their sewage. Although this program has not formally been adopted by
the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WENR) and the USEPA it
presently is used as the basis for funding under the Construction Grants
Program.
With the enactment of PL 92-500 in October 1972 and the promulgation of
regulations in February 1974, additional planning requirements made it
necessary for Milwaukee to conduct additional studies. One of these
requirements has resulted in our decision to prepare an EIS on portions
of this interceptor program. In making this decision we have evaluated
all available information. This information was used to determine what
interceptor projects, or portions thereof, needed to be addressed in the
EIS. The following are the results of these evaluations.
Northeast Side Relief System
The interceptor project and the immediate service area that occurs within
Milwaukee County was not included in the EIS for the following reasons:
1. The principal function of the interceptor will be to serve as a
relief system thus alleviating already existing surcharging condi-
tions ;
2. The project will occur in already developed or developing areas
negating potential secondary growth related impacts in the "in-county"
service area;
3. No additional flows are expected to be added to the system by
this project.
Since the Northeast Side Interceptor will also be designed to accom-
modate additional flows from the proposed "future" service area out-
side the county and this area in many places is undeveloped, we have
determined that the EIS should evaluate the direction of future
development that may be induced by providing this additional capacity.
Further, we feel we can allow funding on the interceptor to continue
and not jeopardize the EIS process because the EIS should be completed
prior to the completion of planning for the interceptor. This would
allow us to make changes in the project that may be identified in the
EIS without seriously affecting costs or implementation schedules.
Menomonee Falls-Germantown Interceptor
That portion of the proposed Menomonee Falls-Germantown Interceptor that
will be constructed to allow connection with the two temporary treatment
plants serving the Menomonee Falls area (Contract 813) will not be included
-------
- 4 -
in the EIS. This involves that portion of the project that goes from
W. Good Hope Road northern W. 124th Street to Bradley Road. Ihe reasons
for this decision are:
1. The majority of the service area is developed or is developing;
therefore, we do not feel that the project will create significant
secondary impacts;
2. Removal of treatment plant effluents from the Menomonee River
will have a net beneficial impact on the river downstream;
3. Ihe two treatment plants are considered temporary with Menomonee
Falls under contract with MMSD to abandon the facilities when a con-
nection is provided.
The remainder of the proposed interceptor, that section from Bradley
Road north on 124th Street to W. County Line Road (contracts 921 and
922), will be included in the EIS. Construction impacts as well as
other primary and secondary impacts for both the " Limediate" and
"future" service areas in and outside the county will be addressed.
Hales Corners Interceptor
That portion of the Hales Corners interceptor that will be constructed
along S. 108th Street to W. Janesville Road then west and northwest along
Janesville Road and New Berlin Road to the existing treatment plant will
not be addressed in the EIS. In our estimation the itimediate service
area within Milwaukee County is developed negating potential secondary
impacts associated with the project. In addition the project eliminates
a treatment facility that is frequently overloaded thus improving Root
River water quality.
That additional portion of the proposed interceptor running from the
existing treatment plant northwest along New Berlin Road to Grange and
then west to the county line will be included in the EIS. This is based
on the fact that the primary function of this section will be to provide
an outlet for anticipated flows from the proposed "future" service area
outside Milwaukee County. Therefore we need to evaluate the direction
of future development and associated impacts for this portion of the
service area.
Northridge, Mitchell Field, and Underwood Creek Interceptors
These proposed interceptors will not be included in the EIS since it is
the EPA's opinion that these projects will not create significant primary
or secondary impacts.
-------
- 5 -
Root River, Franklin-Muskego, Franklin Northeast, Ryan Creek, Oak Creek,
Oak Creek Southwest, and Caddy Vista Interceptors
The interceptors, identified above, that are proposed for construction
by MMSD will be included in the EIS in their entirety. Included will be
an evaluation of construction impacts, population estimates as well as
other potential primary and secondary impacts associated with the inter-
ceptors and its service area, both immediate and proposed.
As an additional precaution to insure that the interceptors that we
anticipate to fund immediately, or after the EIS is completed, do not
contribute flows to already overloaded solids or hydraulic capacities
at the two treatment plants, we will further be requiring that:
1. The MMSD demonstrate that it is progressing in an orderly and
timely manner along schedules previously outlined (See Page 2 Item
3) for solids handling and plant upgrading before it will be allowed
introduction of flows to these interceptors.
2. During the interim period between final implementation of the
solids handling program and the addition of new flows, the EPA
will require that any additional solids due to contributions made
by the proposed interceptors will be disposed of in an acceptable
manner other than by disposal to the South Shore Treatment Plant
Lagoons.
These requirements will be in the form of conditions on the grants that
will be made to the District.
-------
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGiON V
230 SOUTH OEAR3ORN ST
CHICAGO ILLINOIS 50604
FEB 0 8 1978
TO ALL INTERESTED GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, PUBLIC GROUPS, AND CITIZENS:
Supplemental Negative Declaration
This Supplemental Negative Declaration is intended to further document the
rationale leading to the Amended Notice of Intent and Negative Declaration
distributed on October 21, 1977. This Agency has determined a need to
further document the environmental review process resulting in our issuance
of a Negative Declaration on the Northeast Side Relief System, Northridge,
Mitchell Field and Underwood Creek Interceptors and portions of the Hales
Corners and Menomonee Falls-Germantown Interceptors. This is being done
in accordance with the procedures for the preparation of Environmental
Impact Statements and involved a review of the proposed EPA action below.
Name of Applicant:
Planning Area:
Proposed Action:
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD)
Post Office Box 2079
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201
The Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD)
Service Area which consists of Milwaukee County and
projected service areas including all, or part of,
the Villages of Thiensville, Germantown, Menomonee
Falls, Butler, and Elm Grove, and the Cities of
Mequon, Brookfield, New Berlin, and Muskego.
The Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District is
presently preparing, with grant assistance from
this Agency, a facilities plan which, in part, is
to address the construction of intercepting sewers
within the planning area. If this plan is approved,
it will allow us to provide additional grant assis-
tance for the preparation of plans and specifications,
and construction of the alternative selected in the
planning process.
Attached with this notice is a Supplemental Environmental Impact Appraisal
discussing issues previously reviewed but not presented in the Amended
Notice of Intent and Negative Declaration. Tonics not covered in this
attachment were covered in the Notice issued on October 21, 1977.
-------
- 2 -
Comments supporting or disagreeing with the information presented may be
submitted for consideration by the SPA. In addition, if you or your organi-
zation need additional information or wish to provide any information which
you feel would be useful in the preparation of the Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS , or if you would like to receive a copy of the Draft SIS,
please contact our EIS Preparation Section at the above address. No admin-
istrative action will be taken on facilities planning and/or projects for
fifteen (15) working dates from the date of this notice.
Kent Fuller
Chief, Planning Branch
-------
SUPPLEMENTAL BWISCMMENTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL
The following information is intended to supplement the Amended Notice of
Intent and Negative Declaration and attached environmental review distri-
buted on Octber 21, 1977.
Unavoidable Adverse Impacts of the Proposed Action:
The construction and operation of the interceptors excluded from the EIS
process will create some unavoidable adverse impacts. These impacts
include:
1. Temporary disruption of land surface in areas surrounding work
shafts, manhole shafts, and tunnel access points. This will be
contributed to by construction machinery used at these sites.
2. Some minor traffic disruption will occur during working hours
in the vicinity of the work sites.
3. Temporary decrease in aesthetic value in areas of work sites
attributable to materials and machinery used in construction.
4. Increase in noise and dust levels during working hours caused
by construction activities and machinery.
5. Surface waters may be somewhat muddied or silted because of
pumpage from the tunnels and runoff from disturbed construction
sites. This is expected to be minor since settling troughs
will be used.
6. There is a possibility that ground water could be contaminated
by surface water entering work shafts and entering ground water
directly. This is considered remote because ground water would
generally flow into the tunnel.
7. Ground water in the vicinity of the sewer route could be drawn
down by dewatering necessary for the tunnel construction. This
draw down will be held to a minimum and is expected to be very
localized and only temporary.
8. Some subsidence is possible from dewatering that may need to be
done during tunneling. In addition there is a limited possibi-
lity that subsidence of the surface could occur due to collapse
of the tunnel. This possibility is remote since mining shields
will be used. In addition, most tunneling will be in rock.
Relatonship Between Short Term Uses of Man's Environment and the
Maintenance and Enhancement of Long Term Productivity;
The construction related impacts identified above are short term and will
generally occur for a period of no more than two (2) years. Balanced
-------
- 2 -
against this are the long term gains of the projects. To varying degrees
this includes the improvement on water quality and public health with
the elimination of failing septic systems and elimination of overloaded
treatment and collection facilities. These improvements will increase
the real and aesthetic appeal of affected waterways and adjacent parkways
and subsequently the recreational usage of these areas.
There may be a short term decrease in property values in areas adjacent
to construction activities. Once construction is completed and the areas
restored, property values should increase because of the improved service.
Although the areas affected by these projects are primarily developed
there is some vacant land that is developable. In addition, by providing
sewer service some larger properties could be split up into smaller
parcels. This is particularly true in the River Hills area associated
with the Northeast Side Relief System. Subsequently there is some poten-
tial for windfall profits as a result of the project. This is expected
to be minor and controllable with strict enforcement of zoning regulations.
Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources
to Implement the Action;
Implementation of the intercepting sewer projects will require a commit-
ment of construction materials, labor, and funds both in construction
and operation.
An irretrievable commitment of construction materials will be made. This
will include stone, sand, cement, and water contained in the concrete
needed for the sewer, and hardwood lumber for support structures and braces.
In addition fuels and lubricants for equipment used, depreciation of equip-
ment, and energy used (electricity) represent other resources consumed
during construction. A significant amount of labor and funds, which also
represent irretrievable resources, will be needed for construction and
eventual operation of the sewer projects.
Vacant land in the service area that may be developed as a result of
the intercepting sewer projects may curtail or foreclose the range of
future uses of that land. This is expected to be minimized by strict
enforcement of zoning ordinances for those vacant areas designated for
uses other than residential.
-------
MAR 2 3 1978
TO ALL INTERESTED GCVERNJOT AGENCIES, PUBLIC GKXJPS, AND CITIZENS:
In accordance with the procedures for the preparation of envirorarental
intact statements, a preliminary environmental review has been performed
en the proposed EPA action below t
Name of Applicant.; Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (PWSD)
Post Office Box 2079
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201
Planning Area*
Proposed Action?
The Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District
Service Area which consists of Milwaukee County and
projected service areas including all, or parts, of
the Villages of Thiensville, Gerrsantown, Menoronee
Falls, Butler, and Ela Grove, and the Cities of
Mequon, Brcokfield, New Berlin, and Muskego (see
attached map).
With grant assistance free this Agency, the HMSD is ,
presently preparing a cocprehensive facilities plan
which is to address the following wastewater problems:
1) The construction of selected interceptors in the
metropolitan area to provide relief and expansion
of the service area.
2) A solids TTtanageipent program designed to go beyond
the short term solutions, presently being Lrple-
mented by the ?&SC, to develop a solids handling
approach en a long-term basis for the entire
metropolitan area.
3) Fehabilitation of the two existing wsstewater
treatanent plants serving the Milwaukee iretrcpol-
itan area. This includes capacity to enable
adequate treatrent of all ccmbinec sewer over-
flows and flows contributed by expansion of the
service area and to provide an effluent of such
quality as to insure use of area waters for their
designated purpose.
Our Notice of Intent, dated October 21, 1977, outlined our concerns with
the potential significant environmental irpacts surrounding the construc-
tion of intercepting sewers. Similarly, this docunsnt will outline the
-------
MAR 2 3 1978
- 2 -
general issues of the solids iflanacercent program and the rehabilitation
of the two existing wastewater treatment plants (Jcnes Island and South
Shore) that we feel may cause significant environmental impacts.
I. ISie solids iranageraent program section of the comprehensive
facilities plan considers four alternatives for sludge disposition.-
2h* solids handling alternatives include (1) incineration; (2) land-
fill; (3) land application of congested liquid sludge, heat dried
product, and digested stabilized sludge; and (4) various combinations
of the above. Cur. preliminary review of these alternatives indicates
the possibility of significant environmental iirpacts, involving the
following issues:
A. The implementation of incineration as a sludge processing
alternative Bay cause significant impacts to air quality, poten-
tial violations to air quality criteria and changes in energy
supply and demand. The extent and magnitude of such impacts
will need to be evaluated*
B» B* isf>le*«ntation of a landfill alternative may require
the development of a new site, use of existing facilities, or
a combination of both... The availability and capacities of
existing facilities and/or the impacts associated with the
develcpHsnt and operation of a new site must be examined. The
impacts associated with the development of new site that roust
be investigated include land use changes, social-political
implications, impacts relative to construction and operation,.
public health, and the potential for grcundwater contamination.
C. There are three land application siethods being considered in
the facilities plan. Hie first,' corcposting of licuid sludge, has
generated a considerable amount of controversy associated with
impacts relative to siting and operation. The second land
application method considers use of the heat-dried product,
Milorganite. Tfce third alternative- involves incorporation of
digested stabilized sludge. Issues arising from these fonrs
of solids handling requiring study may include energy require-
ments, air quality concerns, including odor, particulate ard
pathogen transmission, the monitoring and control of surface
water runoff, rates of application to agricultural land
and crop suitability r socioeccnosnic impacts related to con-
struction and operation, and the applicability of the final
product, which is dependent, in part, on its heavy ratal content.
H. The corprehensive facilities plan is considering a nunber of
alternatives for the rehabilitation of the two existirg wastswater
treatment plants (Jcnes Island crd South Shore). Directly related
to these rehabilitation plans is the solids management rrccrarr pre-
viously discussed; however, expansion will also involve construction
-------
UNITF
MAR 2 3 1978
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT!*.. AGENCY
. 3 .
related impacts to air and water quality. Iirpacts due to land use
changes as a result of physical plant expansion, the related econom-
ic effects and energy requirements also need to ije evaluated. Eeually
iirportant is the necessity to determine the jbipacts to water quality/
aquatic habitat, fish and wildlife, and other liimclogical parameters
if a lake fill program for land acquisition is proposed.
Consequently, this Agency has determined that the preparation of a com-
prehensive environmental impact statement (EIS) is warranted.
If you or your organization (1) need additional infonnation on this project
or the EIS process; (2) wish to provide any information which you feel would
be useful in the preparation of the EIS; (3) wish to receive a copy of the
Draft EIS when it beconss available; or (4) wish to conspent on this EIS
decision, please contact the SIS Preparation Section, Planning Branch, at
the above address.
Sincerely yours,
original
George R. Alexander, Jr.
Regional Administrator
Attachment
Jr.
CONCURENCES
SYMBOL ^
SURNAME }
DATE ^
EPA F«nn 132JM (12-70}
OFFICIAL F1L£ COPY
-------
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION V
230 SOUTH DEARBORN ST
CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 60604
SEP 1 0 1980
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
TO ALL INTERESTED CITIZENS, ORGANIZATIONS, AND GOVERNMENT AGENCIES:
Caddy Vista
Sam'tary 01 strict/Racine/^isrnnsIn
(City/County/State)
C 550266 01
(EPA Project Number)
The purpose of this notice is to seek public input and comments
on EPA's preliminary decision that an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) is noi required to implement the recommendations discussed in
the attached Environmental Assessment of a wastewater facilities
plan submitted by the municipality mentioned above.
How were environmental
issues considered?
Why is an EIS not
required?
How do I get more
information?
The National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) requires all Federal agencies
to include environmental factors in
the decision-making process. EPA has
done this by incorporating a detailed
analysis of the environmental effects
of the proposed alternatives in its
review and approval process. An En-
vironmental Information Document was
prepared by the municipality, as part
of the facilities plan, and was review-
ed by the State, which has been dele-
gated the responsibility for facilities
plan and Environmental Information
Document review. The State prepared
a preliminary Environmental Assess-
ment and our own review has found
that the proposed project does not
require the preparation of an EIS.
Our environmental review concluded thnt
significant environmental impacts will
not result from the proposed action.
Any adverse impacts have either been
eliminated by changes in the facilities
plan or will be reduced by the implementa-
tion of the mitigative measures discussed
in the attached Environmental Assessment.
A map depicting the location of the pro-
posed project is attached. The Environ-
-------
How do I submit
comments?
-2-
mental Assessment, which is also included,
presents additional information on the'
project, alternatives that were con-
sidered, impacts of the proposed action,
and the basis for our decision. Further
information can be obtained by calling
or writing the contact listed in the
Environmental Assessment .
Any comments supporting or disagreeing
with this preliminary decision should
be submitted to me at the letterhead
address. We will not take any action
on this facilities plan for 30 calendar
days from the date of this notice in
order to receive and consider any comments.
In the absence of substantive comments
during this period, our preliminary de-
cision will become final. The municipality
will then be eligible to receive grant assist-
ance from this Agency to design and/or con-
struct the proposed project.
Any information you feel should be considered by EPA should be brought
to our attention. Your interest in the NS?A process and the environ-
ment is appreciated.
What happens next'
Eugene I. Chaiken, Chief
Facilities Planning Branch
Attachments
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A. Project Identification
Project Name: Caddy Vista Sanitary District
Forcemain Connection to Milwaukee Metropolitan
Sewerage District
Address: Caddy Vista Sanitary District
10014 Duane Court, Route 2
Caledonia, Wisconsin 53103
Grant Number: C550266 01
For further information on this project contact: Mark Williams,
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 101 South Webster Street,
Madison, Wisconsin 53707; phone (608) 267-7664.
Project Location: The Caddy Vista Sanitary District is located in
Southeastern Wisconsin, midway between the Milwaukee and Racine
metropolitan areas. Although the Sanitary District encompasses areas
both in Milwaukee and Racine Counties, all of the developed area is in
the N 1/2 of Section 4, T4N, R22E, Town of Caledonia, Racine County.
The developed area is bounded by the Root River on the north, S.T.H.
38 on the west, and undeveloped lands and Nicholson Road on the south
and east.
B. Project Description
1. The project location is described above, and as shown in attached Exhibits
1 and 2. The project consists of the construction of a sewage lift-
station and forcemain. Primary impacts will be limited to the existing
sewage treatment plant site and along the proposed forcemain/inter-
ceptor routes. These areas are shown in Exhibit #2.
2. The proposed project will consist of the construction of a
sewage lift station at the existing treatment plant site, and approxi-
mately 6,450 feet of 8-inch forcemain. The existing sewage treatment
plant will be abandoned and demolished once the lift station and
forcemain are completed. Anticipated grants funding for this project
will be- through the Wisconsin Fund program.
The 8-inch forcemain will discharge to the sewerage system of the
City of Oak Creek. The connection point will be located on Nicholson
Road approximately 400 feet north of Elm Road. Sewage from the Caddy
Vista Sanitary District will flow through the Oak Creek system to
the 84-inch Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD) interceptor
located on Ryan Road. Treatment of the sewage from Caddy Vista will
occur at the MMbl) South Shore Treatment Plant.
The proposed project is intended to serve the existing Caady Vista
Sanitary District only. This project should not be confused with the
proposed MMSD interceptor called the Caddy Vista interceptor, which is
included in the plan of study for the federal-state EIS being prepared
-------
-2-
by the U.S. EPA and Wisconsin DNR on the MMSD proposals. The
proposed MMSD Caddy Vista .interceptor has now been deleted from
consideration as part of the I1MSD project and, therefore, is no
longer of concern. In order to insure consistancy with the EIS,
however, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources will allow
only the existing development at Caddy Vista to be served by the
proposed lift station and forcemain. Future development in Caddy
Vista will not be allowed until the federal EIS for the HI ISO is,
completed.
3. The_average projected flow rate for the year 2000 is 90,000 gpd (62.5 gpm).
The design of the lift station and forcemain, however, will be based on a projected
peak flow of 375 gpm. These flows are based on the findings of the I/I Analysis.
There is an ongoing Sewer System Evaluation Study which will refine these findings.
4. Sewage treatment in the sanitary district is presently accomplished
by an existing trickling filter treatment plant. This plant is not
able to achieve the necessary effluent limits for discharge to the
Root River. Furthermore, the treatment plant's hydraulic capacity
is exceeded during wet weather and bypassing occurs. The proposed
construction of the sewage lift station and forcemain will result
in the abandonment of the sewage treatment plant and discharge to
the Root River.
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has determined that
the Caddy Vista sewage treatment plant must discharge an effluent
which meets secondary effluents limits (30 mg/1 BOD, 30 mg/1 SS) to
comply with water quality standards. The existing treatment facility
cannot meet these limits. This project will result in the abandonment
of the existing plant and the discontinuance of the effluent discharge
to the Root River.
Water Quality surveys have been performed on the Root River in 1966
and 1973. The 1966 study documented a marked effect on the Root
River at the Caddy Vista outfall. The biological evidence showed a
well-balanced biological community above the sewage treatment plant
outfall. This community became unbalanced below the outfall as
tolerant biological species became prevalent while intolerant
species diminished. Furthermore, a slight slime growth on the rocks
in the stream was also noted at this location suggesting an environmental
hazard starting to develop in the stream from effluent discharged
at the Caddy Vista sewage treatment plant. The large number of
pollutional sludgeworms and bloodworms, along with reduced number
of clean water mayfly and caddis fly larvae suggests organic overloading
of the stream which is affecting the benthic community.
-------
-3-
Chemica] analysis of the water indicated a nutrient enriched condition.
Extreme swings in the dissolved oxygen concentration occurred through
the day. It was also noted the pH levels and fecal coliform levels
were elevated through the area.
Biological samples collected above and below the treatment plant
outfall on November 27, 1973 did not show the same decline in biological
quality. However, the Root River continued to display chemical character-
istics normally associated with enriched streams. Nutrient, fecal
coliform and pH were all elevated.
The benefits to the Root River water quality by eliminating the
Caddy Vista effluent are hard to predict. Elimination of the effluent
will reduce the organic loading (BOD) and silt (suspended solids)
loading on the river immediately below the treatment plant outfall.
This will reduce the oxygen utilization of the river dissolved oxygen.
And, an increase in the dissolved oxygen concentration in the river
may be observed. The Southeast Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission
(SEWRPC) has developed frequency curves for flow, temperature, N03,
NHg, BOD, fecal coliform, D.O. and P04 under existing and planned
year 2000 land use and channel conditions. The planned water quality
of the Root River (for the listed parameters) is considerably improved
when compared to existing conditions. The planned quality, in part,
was developed assuming the abandonment of the Caddy Vista treatment
plant and elimination of that point pollutional source.
/
The Qy 10 °f the Root River is 1.8 cfs above the Caddy Vista treatment
facility. Presently average flow from the facility is 78,000 gpd
(0.11 cfs) which is about 6% of the stream flow. Elimination of the
effluent flow will not significantly reduce the dry weather stream
flow of the Root River.
C. Population Data
o
Population estimates prepared by the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional
Planning Commission (SEWRPC) list the 1975 Caddy Vista population at
1,035 persons. The year 2000 SEWRPC population projections estimate
1,400 persons. The consulting engineer for the project estimates the
ultimate service population for the sanitary district at 1,600
persons. This compares with the 20 year population and is used for
designing the lift station and forcemain. Cost of the project will be
shared by 266 residences and a grade school.
D. Impact of Project on Environment
1. Primary impact.
a. The proposed project will result in the abandonment of the
inadequate existing sewage treatment plant and the discontinuance
-------
o
-4-
of effluent discharge to the Root River. An improvement in the
water quality of the Root River is anticipated, as described
above.
It must be recognized that the abandonment of the existing
effluent discharge has a potential for water quality impacts
elsewhere in the Milwaukee area. It has been determined that no
overflow/bypasses exist in the sewers in Oak Creek nor the MMSD
interceptor downstream of the Caddy Vista connection point to the
Oak Creek system. The connection of Caddy Vista will not,
therefore, contribute to the discharge of raw sewage through
overflow or bypasses.
Sewage will be treated at the MMSD's South Shore treatment plant.
South Shore presently has treatment capacity, during average flow
periods, to adequately accept and treat the discharge from Caddy
Vista. The 72,000 gal/day and 134 Ibs BOD/day to be contributed
from Caddy Vista is insignificant in comparison to the 67,000,000
gpd and 175,000 Ibs of BOD presently received at South Shore.
South Shore does experience some hydraulic problems at the final
clarifiers during wet weather flow periods which result in
violations of effluent suspended solid limits. The discharge of
Caddy Vista to South Shore may add to this wet weather problem.
The extent of the impact is nearly impossible to predict.
However, it is felt the impact is so small as to be immeasurable,
and therefore is not significant. Furthermore, the Milwaukee
Metropolitan Sewerage District is currently involved in planning
for the expansion of the South Shore treatment plant. Once
completed, this impact will be eliminated.
b. The impact of construction on the present plant site and
along the easement will be primarily limited to erosion during
construction and removal of vegetation within the areas of
excavation. The contractor will be required to take necessary
precautions against erosion and sedimentation during construction.
Affected areas will be fertilized and seeded as part of the
construction work.
The construction along Nicholson Road will cause limited disruption
of traffic due to the movement of materials end equipment. The
trench will be located to the side of the pavement off the
traffic lanes and shoulder. The excavation and backfilling
operations will contribute to erosion and sedimentation.
Restoration and reseeding will be included in the contract work.
The forcemain will be installed parallel to the ground surface
with approximately six feet of cover to prevent freezing. The
shallow six to eight foot depth of the trenching will therefore
-------
-5-
minimize the need for dewatering. Those areas where ground
waters are encountered will require temporary dewatering of the
trench area during construction. Since the dewatering depth is
limited, the zone of influence will be limited to the immediate
area. There are some agricultural lands along Nicholson Road
(and the forcemain route). The dewatering which may be needed
may have a limited impact on these agricultural lands. The
extent of this impact is not anticipated to be severe.
c. The Root River crossing will disrupt the stream bed, stream
bank and adjacent areas. The excavation and backfilling operations
will result in a temporary increase in water turbidity and sediment
at the site of construction and downstream. Disruption of the
stream bed and banks will increase the suspended solids in the
water downstream. Since some of the material will be organic,
the dissolved oxygen may be reduced. The impact on the stream
will be temporary and kept to a minimum by the requirements of
the construction specifications.
Surface waters at the stream crossing will be sealed off from the
trenching and backfilling by a cofferdam. The dam construction
will divert flows around the construction. Diverting the flow
will cause a temporary disruption of the stream because of the
changes in stream flow direction and velocity around the
construction.
The Caddy Vista Sanitary District has already applied for a
permit under Chapter 30, Wisconsin Statutes, to construct the
forcemain crossing. This application has been reviewed by the
DNR Southeast District personnel, and has.been found acceptable.
The crossing permit was issued on May 22, 1980.
d. ' The project is expected to affect flora and fauna in the
area. The construction of the forcemain will result in the destruc-
tion of some trees and shrubs along the forcemain route. The
area will be reseeded after construction. The destruction of
this ground cover is minimal and not considered to be severe.
Impacts to wildlife are also expected to be marginal. The des-
truction of vegetative cover will result in the displacement of
small mammals due to loss of habitat. The disruption will be
temporary and habitats will be restored when the ground cover is
reestablished. No endangered nor threatened species are known to
inhabit the area.
e. The construction will not affect any historic/cultural
areas. Refer to attachment #3.
-------
-6-
f. The only irreversible impact of the construction is the
commitment of material and energy resources to build the lift
station and forcemain.
g. Employment opportunities or loss of jobs resulting from the
project are difficult to predict. The impact, however, is
considered to be marginal considering that the project is not
large.
h. O&M impacts related to this project are the commitment of
energy resources to operate the lift pumps and other electrical
equipment in the lift station, and the occasional manpower which
will be needed for equipment maintenance.
i. The project will not significantly affect any agricultural
lands. Other land uses are also expected to remain unchanged.
j. There have been no changes to the proposed project as a
result of regulatory review.
k. This project will not affect the air quality in the area.
Nor, will it conflict with the state air quality implementation
plan for the Milwaukee area.
2. Secondary impacts.
a. No land use changes are expected to occur during the planning
period as a result of this project. The lift station will be
constructed on the existing treatment plant site. The forcemain
will be constructed on an easement from the existing plant site
to Nicholson Road, and along the right of way of Nicholson Road.
This construction will not change the land use. The lift station
and forcemain may induce some population growth in the sanitary
'district. However, the growth rate in the district is not
expected to be large. Furthermore, the sanitary district is
primarily residential. Any growth in the district is expected to
be residential. Land use in the district will not change.
As noted earlier, approval of this project by the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources will be conditioned that only
existing development in the Caddy Vista Sanitary District may be
served by the new facilities. Future services in the sanitary
district will not be allowed until the Environmental Impact
Statement being prepared by the U.S. EPA and DNR for the
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District has been completed.
-------
-7-
Wetland/floodplains.
The area of the Root River near the existing treatment plant
is shown in Exhibit #4. This area is considered to be a
wetland. Construction of the lift station and forcemain will
not be in the wetland, nor is the construction expected to
affect the wetland area.
As stated earlier, the average flow through the Caddy Vista
treatment facility is 72,000 gpd (0.11 cfs) which is about 6%
of the upstream OJJQ (7-day, 10-year low flow) for the Root
River. The elimination of the effluent discharge will not
significantly alter the flow characters of the river. Flow
reduction due to the elimination of the effluent is not
expected to have a significant affect on the wetlands down-
stream of the treatment plant discharge point.
The existing treatment plant is in the floodplain of the Root
River. At present, the treatment tanks are built up to
protect the facility during flood periods. The existing
facilities will be abandoned and demolished. Plans and
specifications for this project have been received by the
Department of Natural Resources. According to the plans and
specifications, the following steps will be followed when
demolishing the existing plant:
1) All remaining sewage and sludge in the plant at the time
of shutdown are to be properly disposed of by the
contractor.
2) Above and below grade structures and manholes will be
removed to a depth of 18 inches below the finished grade.
All structures will be filled.
o
3) Exposed open ends of piping and manhole inlets and
outlets will be 'plugged with concrete bulkheads.
4) Drainage holes will be drilled or broken in the walls and
bottoms of all structures remaining below qrade.
5) The area will be graded.
The location of the new lift station will be outs'-de of the
floodplain. The forcemain will be in the floodplain at the
point of crossing the Root River. Temporary disruption of the
river banks and bottom will occur during construction. This
floodplain area will be restored at the completion of the
crossing construction. These impacts are temporary and will
be mitigated by the construction i:;ethods discussed earlier.
-------
-8-
F. Pub!ic Hearing
1. The public hearing for the project was held in the Caledonia
Town Hall, Racine County, Wisconsin on April 7, 1977. No objections
to the project or the selected alternative were raised. Issues
discussion were general questions regarding the facilities plan.
2. A brief presentation of the costs of the project were given.
The engineer stated that the estimated construction costs are
$280,000, the O&M costs are $4,500/year, and the service charge.
levied by the MMSD would be about $23,000. Based on 266 residences
and the Caddy Vista grade school, the user charges were estimated
at $70-$90/year. Since these costs were developed in 1977, the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has performed an analysis
of the user costs in terms of 1980 dollars. The parallel cost
analysis submitted to the Wisconsin ONR in compliance with Wisconsin
Fund requirements shows a total construction cost (including
engineering fees, etc.) of $395,100. (Approximately $227,600 will
be funded by Wisconsin Fund.) This cost represents an increase of
about 10% per annum. Using this annual increase, the O&M costs are
estimated to cost $6,350/yr. Recent information also projects the
annual MMSD service charge will be $21,500. Therefore, the total
annual costs are:
Construction Cost (20 years @ 7-1/8%) = $16,000
O&M ' = 6,350
MMSD Service Charges = 21,500
$43,850
The 1977 cost allocation projected a service charge against the
Caddy Vista School to be $105/month, or $1,260/year. The 1980
estimation (using 10%/year) is that the school will pay $l,800/year,
leaving the remaining $42,050 to be paid for by the Caddy Vista
residences. This amounts to an annual charge of $158/residence, or
$13/residence/month.
G. Following is a list of agencies which have been contacted during
the development of the plan:
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District
City of Oak Creek
Caddy Vista Sanitary District
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Wisconsin State Historical Society
Wisconsin Wildlife Federation
Racine County Zoning Administrator
Izaak Walton League of America
-------
-9-
Pertinent correspondence from these groups are included as part of
the facilities planning file.
H. There will be no significant adverse impacts associated with the
project. The construction of the sewage lift station and forcemain
will result in the abandonment of the existing wastewater treatment
plant and the elimination of inadequately treated sewage effluent
discharge to the Root River. The primary impacts associated with
projects are the short term impacts due to construction. Some
ground vegetation will be destroyed, but will be replaced. Some
temporary displacement of ground mammals may occur. The secondary
impacts of the project are limited to a potential growth inducement
in the sanitary district. Growth is expected to remain small. No
wetlands will be affected.
I. This project does not preclude the attainment of any significant
environmental benefit.
0. Cost Comparison of Alternatives.
The facilities plan for this project evaluates the following
alternatives for wastewater treatment in the Caddy Vista Sanitary
District.
1. No project/upgrading Operation and Maintenance of existing
facilities.
2. Connection to the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District.
-Alternative A: Remodel existing lift station and construct
new forcemain.
Alternative B: Construct new lift station at existing treatment
facility and a new forcemain.
-Alternative C: Construct gravity sewer to a new lift station
at Nicholson Road^and a new forcemain.
•-Alternative D: Construct gravity sewer to Nicholson Road and
Elm Road, and a new lift station and forcemain.
Alternatives to provide upgraded treatment at the existing Caddy
Vista plant through construction of plan modifications or a new
treatment plant were not evaluated. These alternatives were
ignored because of the recommendations of the South Eastern Wisconsin
Regional Planning Commission which require the abandonment of the
existing Caddy Vista treatment facility and connection to the
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD). As stated in the
project description, an MMSD interceptor is not available at this
time for connection, therefore, Caddy Vista proposes to connect to
the MMSD through the City of Oak Creek.
-------
-10-
The first alternative listed above has been rejected from consideration
for environmental reasons. As stated earlier, water quality tests
indicate the existing treatment plant discharge causes a degradation
of the quality of the Root River. The No Project alternative would
allow this discharge to continue in violation of water quality
standards. This is not acceptable. Upgrading the operation and
maintenance of the existing plant is not practical. The level of
treatment attainable with optimal performance of the trickling
filter plant at Caddy Vista cannot be expected to meet the requirements
of defined secondary treatment particularly in the winter months.
In addition, it would be necessary to construct permanent effluent
disinfection facilities. Furthermore, upgrading operation cannot
be expected to overcome the adverse effects of existing and future
hydraulic overloads. Consequently, untreated or inadequately
treated sewage would be discharged to the Root River, and it would
not be possible to meet the fish and aquatic life standards in the
river.
Table I shows the costs associated with the four alternatives for
connection to the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District. Based
on the lowest total present worth, Alternative B has been selected
for implementation.
Table I
Capital 0/M State* Local Present
Alternative Cost Cost_ Share Share Worth
A ' $275,000 $56,770 $158,400 $116,600 $342,600
B 280,000 51,090 161,280 118,720 335,220
C 364,000 51,660 209,664 154,336 405,660
D . 689,000 38,040 396,864 292,136 660,030
Note: All cost estimates made in 1977
^Construction will be funded by a Wisconsin Fund grant. State/Local
shares computed using a grant share of eligible costs of 57.6% (taken
from parallel cost estimate).
Although not considered in the facilities plan the consulting
engineer for this project has been asked to submit a monetary
evaluation of constructing a new wastewater treatment plant at
Caddy Vista, in comparison to connecting to the Milwaukee Metropolitan
system. Based on the information developed in the Caddy Vista
facilities plan and that developed for the draft Milwaukee Metropolitan
Sewerage District's facilities plan the engineering has submitted
the following total present worth information for other alternatives:
-------
-11-
Table 2
Alternative Total Present Worth
Plant abandonment with discharge to MMSD $801,000
Expansion of Existing Facilities 987,000
Treatment and Land Application of Effluent 2,153,000
From this analysis, it is concluded that the selected alternative
of the facilities plan is the alternative which should be implemented.
(The discrepancy between the total present worth figure shown in
Table 1 for Alternative B and the total present worth figure shown
in Table 2 for discharge to the MMSD is obvious. It must be noted
that these costs are comparable. First, the costs shown in Table 1
are the 1977 costs which were estimated at the time the facilities
plan was prepared, while the costs shown in Table 2 are estimates
prepared in late l979--early 1980. Secondly, the costs shown in
Table 1 neglect to include the annual service charges which will be
charged by the MMSD for treating the sewage from Caddy Vista.
Since this cost is constant for all transportation alternatives it
can be safely omitted without effecting the cost effectiveness
analysis. However, when comparing transportation systems against
treatment systems, these costs must be recognized and considered.
The alternatives shown in Table 2 includes these costs.)
K. Environmental Impacts of Non-selected Alternatives.
The environmental impacts associated with the four transportation
alternatives of the facilities plan are essentially the same. Each
alternative is comprised of the construction of a lift station and
forcemain and/or gravity sewers. The difference in impacts between
the projects are minor and not of consequence. Some of the differences
might be that alternative A would involve some construction at the
existing treatment plant which is in the floodplain of the Root
River. Alternative C would require a greater commitment of materials
since more sewer would be constructed. Alternative D would require
deeper trenches to accomodate the gravity flow of sewage. More
energy would be used during construction, and more dewaterining of
the trenches would be necessary. There is also a difference
between the energy commitments for operating the lift stations
because the lift station would be different locations and the
amount of lift will vary with location.
-------
-'II _0iK*:L00_ _ ttj?
1-
. 11
CADDY
VISTA
SANITARY _
DISTRICT U
PLATE I
LOCALITY MAP
CADDY VISTA
SANITARY DISTRICT
JANUARY ,1977
NO SCALE
ELM
ROAO
' RACINE ceu:;rr// • •••
/ / •*
Exhibit #1
L _ 3CVEWMIJ.E
(.„
JENSEN a JOHNSON
Engineers and Surveyors
Division of Donahue & Assoc,,lnc.
Elkhorn, Wisconsin
_ ^ ^ ^
-------
UU
_l
o
cc
H-
C/5
CQ Q
LU cr
M
i S
b i^
< £
Q
Q
O f<8
in > «, _
£ COMVIE L'NE
Exhibit #2
-------
f
'< ,' •
f.
•'/ ~i
o
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION V
?30 SOUTH DEARBORN ST.
CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 60604
OCT 1 7 1930
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
TO ALL INTERESTED CITIZENS, ORGANIZATIONS, AND GOVERNMENT AGENCIES:
Milwaukee "SP/Mllwaukee/l-H scons in
CcTtyVCounty/State)
C550879 01
(EPA Project Number)
The purpose of this notice is to seek public input and comments
on EPA's preliminary decision that an Environmental Impact Statement
(SIS) is not required to implement the recommendations discussed in
the attached Environmental Assessment of a wastewater facilities
plan submitted by the municipality mentioned above.
How were environmental
issues considered?
Why is an EIS
required?
not
The National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) requires all Federal agencies
to include environmental factors in
the decision-making process. EPA has
done this by incorporating a detailed
analysis of the environmental effects
of the proposed alternatives in its
review and approval process. An En-
vironmental Information Document was
prepared by the municipality, as part
of the facilities plan, and was review-
ed by the State, which has been dele-
gated Che responsibility for facilities
plan and Environmental Information
Document review. The State prepared
a preliminary Environmental Assess-
ment and our own review has found
that the proposed project does not
require the preparation of an EIS.
Our environmental review concluded that
significant environmental impacts will
not result from the proposed action.
Any adverse impacts have either been
eliminated by changes in the facilities
plan or will be reduced by the implementa-
tion of the mitigative measures discussed
in the attached Environmental Assessment.
How do I get more
informat ion?
A map depicting the location of the pro-
posed project is attached. The Environ-
-------
How do I submit:
comment s?
mental Assessment, which is also included,
presents additional information on the"
project, alternatives that were con-
sidered, impacts of the proposed action,
and the basis for our decision. Further
information can be obtained by calling
or writing the contact listed in the
Environmental Assessment.
Any comments supporting or disagreeing
with this preliminary decision should
be submitted to me at the letterhead
address. We will not take any action
on this facilities plan for 30 calendar
days from the date of this notice in
order to receive and consider any comments.
In the absence of substantive comments
during this period, our preliminary de-
cision will become final. The municipality
will then be eligible to receive grant assist
ance from- this Agency to design and/or con-
struct the proposed project.
Any information you feel should be considered by EPA should be brought
to our attention. Your interest in the NEPA process and the environ-
ment is appreciated.
What happens next?
Eugene I. Chaiken, Chief
Facilities Planning Branch
Attachments
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A. Project Identification
Underwood Creek Interceptor Relief Sewer
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD)
Wauwatosa, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin
C55-0879-01
For further information on this project contact:
William Baumann
WDNR
101 S. Webster Street
Madison, Wisconsin 53707
. (608) 266-3906
B. Project Description
The proposed project consists of a 31.7 milljon gallon per day (f'GD)
lift station near the intersection of West Potter Road and Underwood Creek
Parkway and about 13,500 feet of 30 inch diameter force main in
Underwood Creek Parkway and Watertown Plank Road to a new connection
to the existing 96 inch diameter Metropolitan Interceptor Sewer
(M.I.S.) at N 85th Street and Watertown -Plank Road. (See attached
map - recommended plan).
The project design flow is 31.7 MGD. This is the anticipated peak
flow which will occur between 1983 and 1986 prior to completion of
the sewer rehabilitation program. After completion of the sewer
rehabilitation program (scheduled to be 'completed by July 1, 1986),
the peak design flow is projected to be approximately 16.5 MGD.
The Underwood Creek service area (see attachment) is currently served by a 39
special section M.I.S. This sewer surcharges during wet weather
causing basement back ups and overflows of sewage to surface water.
Without construction of the proposed project, the overflows and
basement back ups and attendant health hazards would continue.
The Underwood Creek Interceptor Relief Sewer or a portion thereof
may be eligible for either- an EPA or Wisconsin Fund construction
grant. However, the extent of this eligibility has not been determined
at this time.
In 1978 it was determined that an evaluation of secondary impacts
of the Underwood Creek Interceptor Relief Sewer should be included
in the environmental impact statement (E.I.S.) being prepared for
the MMSD water pollution abatement program. However, it has become
apparent as a result of subsequent analysis performed as part of
the E.I.S. that there will be no significant secondary impacts from
the proposed relief sewer since its service area is essentially
fully developed. Therefore, the proposed project will only serve
to relieve the existing MIS when it is overloaded during wet
weather periods.
-------
It has become apparent in the process of preparing the draft EIS that the
confiDuration of the I'nderwood Creek Interceptor Relief Sewer is not affected .
by any other portion of the M?*SD water pollution abatement program. As a
result of these considerations, and based on consultation with the Office
of Environmental Review and the Council on Environmental Quality, on
/Hicmst 11, 19^° the subject relief sewer was deleted from the EIS. Also, sires
the Dane County Stipulation requires the construction of relief sewers by
July 1, 1983, it is necessary to proceed with this project as soon as possible.
The completion of this project enhances the prospects of eliminating the
pollution and health hazards resulting from the existing bypassing and basement
backups at an earlier date than would otherwise be possible.
C. Population Data
The 1978 sewered population of the service area was 19,373. The
year 2000 population projection is 25,251 (Southeastern Wisconsin
Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC) estimate). Year 2005 and
2025 population projections are 26,754 and 27,395 respectively.
The year 2005 and 2025 projections are extrapolations of SEWRPC
data done by the MMSD and concurred with by SEWRPC.
The service area of the proposed sewer is approximately three
fourths urban and one fourth rural. The urbam area is predominatly
residential (65%) with transportation being t.h-s next largest land
use category (22%). Commercial and industrial land use each comprise
less than 2 1/2% of the urban area.
D. Impact of Project on the Environment
Completion of the project will improve surface water quality
and lessen health hazards by providing adequate conveyance capacity
during wet weather periods and hence eliminating basement back ups
and overflow events.
Construction of the project will result in short term construction
related impacts. Construction activity may generate dust, but this
can be mitigated by water spray application, cher.ical treatment
(calcium chloride), or surface treatment with licht petroleum or
bituminous material. Any chemicals, petroleum or bitumens must be
used according to manufacturer's instructions and must be approved
by EPA, DNR and USDA-SCS.
Noise v/ill be generated by construction activity, but can be
mitigated by maintaining mufflers on equipment, locating work sites
as far as possible from private residences, providing acoustical
barriers, and by operating equipment only during specifi sd daylight
hours.
Project construction will disrupt ground surfaces along the
interceptor relief sewer route. This can be mitigated by using
construction techniques which minimize the amount of surface disruption,
and by restoring the original topography and replanting native
vegetation after construction.
-------
Construction activities could cause sedimentation of Underwood
Creek. However, any adverse impacts on water quality would be
short term in nature since Underwood Creek is channelized and would
quickly carry the sediments downstream during high flow to the
Menomonee River. The sediment load to the Menomonee River would be
negligible since Underwood Creek contributes only about 8% of the
flow in the Menomonee River under average conditions. The potential
for sedimentation could be mitigated by minimizing the amount of
ground surface disrupted at any one time, by using berms, hay
bales, etc. to prevent runoff from the construction site from
rapidly reaching Underwood Creek, and by covering spoil stockpiles
with tarpaulins, burlap, or mulch. Wherever possible, a band of
undisturbed vegetation should be left between the worksite and the
creek.
No stream crossings are necessary for this project.
Impact on flora and fauna "'ill be negligible. The area of the
proposed construction is primarily urban in nature, and the majority
of the proposed interceptor route is along existing street right of
ways. Any disturbed vegetation will be replanted after construction.
No disruption of significant wildlife habitat v:i!l occur.
While prehistoric aboriginal sites and a historic structure have
been identified near the proposed construction corridor, field
surveys of the construction route have not identified any cultural
resources. The portion of the proposed route which is within
street right of ways has already been disturbed. (See attached letter)
No long term impact on employment is anticipated as a result of the
project. Some short term employment could be generated by the
proposed construction.
Irreversible impacts due to construction consist of the consumption
of fuel by the construction equipment and commitment of materials
(pipe, concrete, etc.) to the project.
Routine operation and maintenance of the proposed facility will
resu-lt in the consumption of some electrical energy. Basement
backups and sewage overflows will be eliminated by the operation
of the facility.
No adverse impacts which could not be mitigated or avoided have
been identified.
No significant secondary impacts or land use changes are anticipated
as a result of the proposed project. The Underwood Creer. Interceptor
Relief Sewer is intended as a relief sewer to eliminate wet weather
bypassing and basement backups. The Underwood Creek service area
is almost entirely developed, and the remaining potential development
is expected to take place regardless of whether or not the Underwood
Creek Interceptor Relief Sewer is built.
No wetlands will be affected by the project. In the area of the
project, Underwood Creek has been channelized. No impact on the
100 year floodplain is anticipated.
-------
-4-
E. Summary of Mitigative Measures
The construction impacts identified in D above can be mitigated as
follows:
1. Water spray application, chemical treatment, or other surface
treatment to control dust.
2. Proper mufflers on construction equipment, judicious location
of work sites, use of acoustical barriers, operation of equipment
during specified daylight hours to control noise.
3. Using appropriate construction techniques, regrading and
replanting disrupted land surface areas.
4. Minimizing exposed soil and removal of vegetative cover, use
of berms, etc. to inhibit runoff, covering stockpiled soil to
lessen rain induced erosion, and leaving an undisturbed vegetation
band between construction sites and Underwood Creek to control
sedimentation.
F. Public Hearing
A series of five public hearings was held throughout the metropolitan
Milwaukee area during April 1980 on the MMSD Master Facility Plan.
The prefered alternative for the Underwood Creek Interceptor was
presented at those hearings. No significant issues involving the
interceptor itself were raised. Costs were presented.for implementation
of the entire master plan, although not for the Underwood Creek
Interceptor by itself. The local share of any MflSD system improvement
is expected to be financed on a district wide har.is.
G. Agencies Contacted During Plan Development
INTERNATIONAL
International Joint Commission
Federal
Army Corps of Engineers, Chicago District
Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service
Department of Commerce, Bureau of Labor Statistics
Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census
Department of Housing and Urban Development, National Flood
Insurance Program
Department of Interior, Geological Survey, Water Resources Division,
Madison, Wisconsin
Environmental Protection Agency, Region V, Chicago
State
Wisconsin State Historic Preservation Office
University of Wisconsin - Madison
University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
University of Wisconsin - Stevens Point
University of Wisconsin - Waukesha
-------
-5-
University of Wisconsin Sea Grant College Program - Madison
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources - Madison
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Southeastern District -
Milwaukee
Wisconsin Department of
Wisconsin Geological
Revenue
and Natural History Survey
Wisconsin Office of State Planning and Energy
Wisconsin Public Service Commission
REGIONAL AND LOCAL
City of Brookfield
Village of Elm Grove
Milwaukee County
Milwaukee County Public Museum
Milwaukee Water Works
Northshore Water Commission
Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission
Southeastern Wisconsin Health Services Agency
Milwaukee County Parks Commission
OTHER
Great Lakes Basin Commission - Ann Arbor, Michigan
Finding of No Significant Impact
No significant adverse primary or secondary impacts have been
identified which are unavoidable or which cannot be mitigated.
Precluding Attainment of Significant Environmental Benefit
The preferred Underwood Creek Interceptor alternative does not
preclude attainment of any significant environmental benefit nor
does it impact the choice of alternatives for other elements of the
MMSD master facility plan.
Cost comparison of alternatives. Briefly describe each feasible
alternative.
Alternative 1 is the "no action" alternative and has no costs
associated with it. Feasible alternatives are numbered 2, 4, 5,
and 9. The alternatives vary in route and in type of conveyance
(gravity, force main, or combination) See attached sketches of
alternatives.
7,
Alternative
Capital
Cost
Yearly
0/M Cost
State*
Share
Local
Share
Present
Worth
12,251,000
10,421,000
14,854,000
5,355,000
4,885,000
1,100
700
1,100
33,200
33,200
7,350,000
6,252,600
8,912,000
3,213,000
2,931 ,000
4,900,000
4,168,400
5,941,600
2,142,000
1 ,954,000
11,629,000
10,000,000
14,096,000
5,447,000
5,021,000
2
4
5
7
9
*No eligibility determination has been made for the project. The most
likely source of funding is the Wisconsin Fund. The 60« State share is
the maximum possible; a parallel cost estimate (yet to be done) will
determine the evict eligible percentage.
-------
-6-
Environmental Impacts of Non-Selected Alternatives
Alternative 1 (no action) would result in a continuation of bypassing
and basement backups and continued deterioration of Underwood Creek
water quality. The remaining alternatives have environmental impacts
similar to those of alternative 7 (the recommended plan) which were described
in "D" above.
One item of note is that alternatives 4 and 9 would be tributary to the
proposed Root River Interceptor. Additional capacity would have to be
provided in the Root River Interceptor to carry the additional flow
from the Underwood Creek service area, and the incremental cost
associated with this additional required capacity is not reflected
in the cost table in "J" above. Including this incremental cost in
alternative 9 would increase its total present worth to approximately
$4.1 million more than alternative 7 (the recommended plan).
-------
—-r-l
,
{
•
' v \r ^.'~—t
^-^•N^' .'U^A*! . i izdilli::::;. f- f-r-: —>••--j- ••
h^^iS^V^Tl
r^l i i -J / ull-L'J-ii.'1 : ' i-Lj ' L' ~^~j
J; " V ,^cd;_ >^^- j^4l/r TTTT T!?
i C^*.^^^"**"^^'"^---*^' ! : ' i ' rt'"TT-^^
H ^T^l'^l^iJ " -\v-4-s ^^TTfrrniTt~r
'
H rnthrtrn n-K^tt;
• r--J-
1
*• ^^i.'1)- ! L' l^'y-A—;• ! i—t her ? ! !->*•>• "7- --<}'< i | i''1'' ' I ln "^ „
vCS;>n ^ ^J-iirtai^y^^
v i)^ jmMJ^ncnii^ -;4^/^
.. ..N'-^^y^^^.Brn i i \ ,'—>•• !li^ju^iS^:->——^
y
LEGEND
"'"» 30" FORCE MAIN
A PROPOSED PUMP STATION
... PROPOSETO MIS (ROOT RIVER INTERCEPTOR)
EXISTING MIS
4.000
2,000
SCALE IN FEET
FIGURE 1-2
RECOMMENDED PLAN
UNornwooo CHEEK
-------
\ \ '^'
I v ^*V. " ' 7 • '"-*
1 ' ^ ^ F -V •->, " ' ^
I *». 1 "•<-'*' "1- '
• v • . •
- \ > -,. > \ . k\- • —
SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
BYPASS LOCATION
6.000
3.000
SCALE IN FEET
mrnso
FIGURE 2-2
SERVICE AREA MAP
UNDE.MWOOD C
-------
r^.\
;_X -Vi'V—"' ! ''' "T-T';'^\ ,,.T.- r~
^rfjS . \ ,,-iuvV^T.; r
LEGEND
««O 43" GRAVITY iNTHRCEPTOR IN TUNNEL
•••« PROPOSED MIS (ROOT RIVER INTERCEPTOR)
—— EXISTING MIS
3,000
tCAL£ IM FEET
6.000
FIGURE 7-1
ALTERNATIVE 2
UNDERWOOD CRGEK INTERCEPTOR PR
-------
n
I
LEGEND
ean 60" GRAVITY INTERCEPTOR IN TUNNEL
.... PROPOSED MIS (ROOT RIVER INTERCEPTOR)
—• EXISTING MIS
5.000
3,000
SCALK IN FHET
FIGURE 7-2
ALTERNATIVE 4
UNDERWOOD CREEK INTERCEPTOR PR
-------
-J:^,:v
( ~~ '' • ! -,-,^-f
~
I -s — s\
.--'-V»T
, . ^ / / j~t ~^ — ___•-
.-T-T '
' — " --- ' — T^^S^iN
ife'H^-r
LEGEND
000 48" GRAVITY INTERCEPTOR -N TUNNEL
**** 60" GRAVITY INT=RCEPrOR :N TUNNEL
•••• PROPOSED MIS iROOT RIVER INTERCEPTOR)
— EXISTING MIS
8.000
3.000
SCALE IN FEET
FIGURE 7-3
ALTERNATIVE 5
UNDERWOOD CRESX INTERCEPTOR ?•
-------
/ v_^;~_j ~
LEGEND
B^3 30" FORCE MAIN
/\ PROPOSED PUMP STATION l\65 MGO1
PROPOSED MIS (ROOT RIVCR INTERCEPTOR)
EXISTING MIS "
0,000
3.0OO
&CM.S. IN FEET
FIGURE 7-4
ALTERNATIVE 7
UNDCflWOOO CREEK iNTSHCEPTOR PR
-------
LEGEND
BP5a 30" FORCE MAiN
,/\ PROPOSED PUMP STATION (16.5 WGO)
.... PROPOSED MIS (ROOT RrVER INTERCEPTOH)
— EXISTING MIS
8,000
3.003
OCJUJI IW FuffT
FIGURE 7-5
ALTERNATIVE 9
UNDERWOOD CHEEK IN
-------
>s
-* O
HISTORIC FTiCSrF'VATiOr; DIVISION
September 17, 1979
T -. Environmental Pr-tAction
. iio:i 5, Library i^L-iol
;«b s Dearborn Street, Room 1670,
Chicago,, JL 60604
L: STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF WISCONSIN'
Mr. Fred J. Meinholz SHSW: 793-79
Manager/Facilities Planning RE: Interceptor routes; ]
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District archeological survey •
735 North Water Street . )
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202
Dear Mr. Meinholz: ;
Our staff archeologists have reviewed the "Field Reconnaissance of •
the Underwood Creek Interceptor Route Report," by the Greaf, Lakes
Archaeological Research Center. ',
The survey and testing procedures utilized were sufficiently thorough •
to justify the conclusion that there are no archeological resources •
eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places ;
within this project area. • , '•
As indicated in the report, ic is always possible that deeply buried : .
archeological sites may be found during construe t iop. If such finds are ',
made, please contact the State Archeolo'gist , Dr. Joan E. Freeman i
(60S/2'62-9566), immediately. i |
\
Sincerely, , •
i
Richard A. Erney |; \
State Historic Preservation Officer i! {
.•'/V/- A I;
• / i/ c-i . '^- UC (_ ii. SI
$} William Green -j \
Archeologist ! j
! •.
RA£:rdd i: !
i
cc: Great Lakes Archaeological Research Center : {
-------