EIS801072DD
&EPA
tales
ental Protection
Region V
230 South Dearborn
Chicago, Illinois 60604
November, 1980
Water Division
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Bureau of Environmental Impact
Box 7921, Madison, Wisconsin 53707
Environmental Draft
Impact Statement
Milwaukee Metropolitan
Sewerage District
Water Pollution
Abatement Program
Appendix V
Combined
Sewer Overflow
Abatement
-------
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT
WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROGRAM
Prepared by the
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION V
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
and
WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
MADISON, WISCONSIN
with the assis+ance of
ESE! - ECOLSC1ENCES ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN
November 1980
U.S. Environmental Protection Agor
pe^on 5, Library (5P.L-1S)
r-J S. Dearborn Street, Room 1670
Chicago, IL 60604
SUBMITTED BY:
HOWARD S. DRUCKENMILLER
DIRECTOR
BUREAU OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
MeGUI RE
IONAL ADMINISTRATOR
VIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT
WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
APPENDIX V
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW
NOVEMBER 1980
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Number
1 Executive Summary
2 Introduction
3 Affected Environment
4 Alternative Screening
5 Environmental Consequences
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Number Page
2-1 Communities Lying Within the CSSA 2-2
3-1 Summary of Wisconsin Department of Natural 3-4
Resources Water Use Objectives and Water
Quality Standards For Surface Waters Affected
by Combined Sewer Overflows: 1980
3-2 Areawide Water Quality Management Plan 3-7
Recommended Water Use Objectives and Water
Quality Standards For Surface Waters
Affected by Combined Sewer Overflows: 2000
3-3 U.S. EPA Sediment Quality Guidelines for 3-9
Great Lakes Harbor Sediments
3-4 Hydrologic Data Summary for the Milwaukee 3-10
River Watershed
3-5 Hydrologic Data Summary for the Menomonee 3-13
River Watershed
3-6 Hydrologic Data Summary for the Kinnickinnic 3-16
River Watershed
3-7 Existing Water Quality Conditions 3-18
3-8 Existing Sediment Quality 3-24
3-9 South Shore Beach Closure Formula - 1977 3-30
3-10 Excerpt of Modified Mercalli Scale of 1931 3-36
3-11 Summary of Chemical Analysis of Groundwater 3-44
3-12 Summary of National Ambient Air Quality 3-46
Standards Issued April 30, 1971, and Revised
September 15, 1973 and February 8, 1979
3-13 Milwaukee Ambient Air Pollution Levels 3-47
3-14 Population Data 3-53
3-15 Population Projections 3-55
3-16 1977 Land Use - CSSA 3-56
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table
Number Page
3-17 Annual Sales By Sector 3-57
3-18 Labor Distribution in 1975 3-58
3-19 Commercial and Industrial Land Use Change 3-60
3-20 Employment Data 1970-1977 3-62
3-21 Median Household Effective Buying Income 3-63
3-22 Disposable Personal Income Per Capita 3-63
3-23 Socioeconomic Characteristics of the CSSA 3-64
3-24 Tax Burdens in Milwaukee, Compared with 3-66
Average of 30 Largest Cities, By Income
Level - 1976
3-25 Forecast Employment Levels in the Region 3-68
by Major Industry Group
3-26 Forecast Levels of Employment 3-70
3-27 MMSD Energy Consumption (1978) 3-77
3-28 Recreational Land in CSSA 3-78
4-1 Effluent Limitations for CSO Abatement 4-6
4-2 Water Quality Standards Applicable to 4-9
the CSSA
4-3 District Wastewater Flows Milwaukee 4-33
Metropolitan Sewerage District
4-4 Preliminary I/I Control Alternatives 4-38
4-5 Cost Estimate - Remote Storage Alternative 4-42
with Complete Sewer Separation
4-6 Cost Estimate - Jones Island Storage 4-43
Alternative with Complete Sewer Separation
4-7 Cost Estimate - Inline Storage Alternative 4-45
with Complete Sewer Separation
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table
Number Page
4-8 Cost Estimate - CST Extension Alternative 4-47
4-9 Cost Estimate - Flow Through Treatment 4-48
Alternative with Complete Sewer Separation
4-10 Pure I/I Solutions 4-49
4-11 Cost Estimate - CST Extension Alternative 4-54
with No Private Property Work
4-12 Cost Estimate - Remote Storage Alternative 4-56
with No Private Property Work
4-13 Cost Estimate - Jones Island Storage 4-57
Alternative with No Private Property Work
4-14 Cost Estimate - Inline Storage Alternative 4-59
with No Private Property Work
4-15 Cost Estimate - Flow Through Treatment 4-60
Alternative with No Private Property Work
4-16 Summary of Costs 4-61
4-17 Near Surface Storage Requirements 4-66
4-18 Cost Estimate - Inline Storage Alternative 4-75
4-19 Cost Estimate - Complete Separation 4-78
Alternative
4-20 Cost Estimate - Modified CST/Inline Storage 4-81
4-21 Estimated Near Surface Storage Requirements 4-82
4-22 Cost Estimate - Modified Total Storage 4-83
Alternative
4-23 System-Wide LOP Analysis 4-86
5-1 Existing Pollutant Concentrations in Storm 5-8
Runoff, Untreated Sewage, and Combined
Sewer Overflows
5-2 Annual Pollutant Loads to the Inner Harbor 5-11
Under Existing Conditions and Alternative
Combined Sewer Overflow Abatement Plans
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table
Number page
5-3 Annual Pollutant Loadings to the Milwaukee 5-15
Outer Harbor Under Alternative Combined
Sewer Overflow Abatement Plans
5-4 Comparison of Predicted Existing Water 5-20
Quality Conditions to Measured Water
Quality Conditions of the Inner Harbor
5-5 Predicted Average Pollutant Concentrations 5-21
in the Inner Harbor Under Existing Conditions
and Alternative CSO Abatement Plans
5-6 Comparison of Predicted Existing Water 5-23
Quality Conditions to Measured Water Quality
Conditions of the Outer Harbor
5-7 Predicted Average Pollutant Concentrations 5-24
in the Outer Harbor Under Existing Conditions
and Alternative CSO Abatement Plans
5-8 Annual Pollutant Loads into the Inner 5-25
Harbor Sediments
5-9 Annual Pollutant Loads into the Outer 5-27
Harbor Sediments
5-10 Assumptions for Sediment Loading Calculations 5-32
5-11 Sediment Concentrations in the Inner Harbor 5-33
5-12 Sediment concentrations in the Outer Harbor 5-34
5-13 Verification of Sediment Quality Assumptions 5-35
5-14 Sediment Classifications 5-46
5-15 Sediment Oxygen Demand and Dissolved 5-49
Oxygen Relationships for the Milwaukee
River Under Low Flow Conditions
5-16 Water Quality Conditions in the Outer 5-55
Harbor Under Alternative CSO Abatement
Plans If the Jones Island WWTP is Relocated
Outside of the Outer Harbor
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table
Number Page
5-17 The Effect of the Jones Island WWTP Effluent 5-59
Discharge Location on the Milwaukee Outer
Harbor Sediment Quality and Loading
5-18 Annual Pollutant Loads to the Kinnickinnic 5-65
River
5-19 Predicted Average Pollutant Concentrations 5-68
in Kinnickinnic River Inner Harbor
5-20 Annual Pollutant Loads into the Kinnickinnic 5-69
River Sediments
5-21 Sediment Concentrations in the Kinnickinnic 5-71
River
5-22 Pollutant Loads to the Inner Harbor for April 5-73
to October
5-23 Predicted Pollutant Concentrations in the 5-78
Inner Harbor During a Storm Event
5-24 Annual Pollutant Loadings Into the Inner 5-79
Harbor Bottom Sediments, The Effects of
the Sedimentation Rate Assumptions and
Particulate Portion Assumptions on Sediment
Loads
5-25 Sediment Pollutant Concentrations - Inner 5-83
Harbor, The Effect of the Sedimentation
and Particulate Assumptions on Sediment Quality
5-26 Average Pollutant Loadings to the Milwaukee 5-85
River and Percent Removal Under Existing
Conditions and LOP Alternatives
5-27 Average Water Quality Improvement Under 5-86
Existing Conditions and LOP Alternatives
for the Milwaukee River at St. Paul Avenue
5-28 Comparison of Marginal Costs to Marginal 5-87
Water Quality Benefits under LOP Alternatives
5-29 Pollutant Loading and Cost Analysis for 5-91
Nonpoint Source Control Measures Under
Alternative CSO Abatement Plans
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table
Number Page
5-30 County-Wide and Construction Emissions - 1985 5-93
5-31 Comparative CSO Abatement and Peak Wastewater 5-105
Storage Alternatives
5-32 Fiscal Impacts of CSO Alternatives 5-107
5-33 Costs to CSSA Residents for CSO Work Only 5-109
5-34 Work Force Estimates by Facility Type 5-110
5-35 Extent and Duration of Short-Term Noise Impacts 5-115
5-36 Extent and Duration of Short-Term Aesthetic 5-121
Impacts
5-37 Transportation Impacts Related to Dropshaft 5-125
Construction
5-38 Architecturally or Historically Significant 5-131
Structures
5-39 Historic Archaeological Sites 5-138
5-40 Prehistoric Archaeological Sites 5-140
5-41 Total Recreational Acreage Within the CSSA 5-143
5-42 Construction and Annual Operation and 5-147
Maintenance Energy Requirements
5-43 Concrete Requirements - Storage Alternatives 5-149
5-44 Spoil Material Generated 5-150
5-45 Effect of CSO Treatment on Solids Management 5-153
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Follows
Number Page
1-1 Areas Affected by Open Cut Sewer Construction 1-6
1-2 Available Storage Volumes 1-6
2-1 MMSD Planning Area 2-2
2-2 Combined Sewer Service Area 2-2
2-3 Operational Schematic of Existing Combined 2-3
Sewer System
3-1 Surface Water Affected by Combined Sewer Overflow 3-3
3-2 Existing DNR Water Use Objectives in CSSA: 1980 3-3
3-3 Areawide Water Quality Management (208) Plan
Recommended Water Use Objectives: 2000 3-8
3-4 CSSA Study Area 3-19
3-5 Milwaukee Outer Harbor Sections 3-23
3-6 Stratigraphic Column 3-36
3-7 Faults in the Milwaukee Area 3-36
3-8 Summary of Groundwater Levels in the Niagaran 3-40
Aquifer
3-9 Piezometric Surface of Sandstone Aquifer 1973-1974 3-42
3-10 NonAttainment Areas for Carbon Monoxide and 3-47
Suspended Particulates
3-11 Summary of Existing Noise Exposures by Day and 3-49
by Night in Different U.S. City Areas
3-12 Employment and Unemployment Trends for the SMSA 3-60
3-13 Single Family Housing Average Assessment, 1978 3-66
3-14 Proposed Freeway and Mass Transit System 3-71
3-15 Major Rail Lines and Port Facilities 3-71
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
(Continued)
Figure Follows
Number Page
4-1 Milwaukee River Watershed 4-1
4-2 Out-of-Basin Alternative 4-15
4-3 InBasin Alternative 4-18
4-4 New Gravity Flow Sanitary Sewer Complete 4-20
Separation
4-5 2 Year LOP Out-of-Basin CST System 4-25
4-6 Instream Measures 4-25
4-7 2 Year LOP InBasin CST System 4-26
4-8 Complete Separation-New Sanitary Sewer 4-28
4-9 Combination of 2 Year LOP Out-of-Basin CST System 4-28
Sewer Separation
4-10 Base Separation Areas for CSO Plan 4-30
4-11 Inadequate MIS Sewers - No I/I Removal 4-34
4-12 CST Extension Alternative 4-54
4-13 Remote Storage Alternative 4-54
4-14 Jones Island Storage Alternative 4-56
4-15 Inline Storage Alternative 4-58
4-16 Flow-Through Treatment Alternative 4-58
4-17 Inline Storage Alternative 4-64
4-18 Near-Surface Collection and Storage Facilities 4-66
4-19 Near-Surface Storage Structure 4-66
4-20 Kinnickinnic River Basin Near-Surface Storage Site 4-66
4-21 Lake Michigan North Near-Surface Storage Site 4-66
4-22 Lake Michigan South Near-Surface Storage Site 4-66
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
(Continued)
Figure Follows
Number Page
4-23 Lincoln Creek Basin Near-Surface Storage Site 4-66
4-24 Proposed Dropshaft 4-71
4-25 CSO Storage Cavern - Typical Section 4-71
4-26 Inline Storage CSO Cavern Layout 4-71
4-27 Complete Sewer Separation Alternative 4-76
4-28 Modified GST/Inline Storage Alternative 4-80
4-29 Modified Total Storage Alternative 4-82
4-30 Half Year LOP Inline Storage Alternative 4-84
5-1 Surface Waters Affected by Combined Sewer Overflow 5-2
5-2 Combined Sewer Overflow Abatement Water Quality 5-2
and Sediment Quality Analysis Procedure
5-3 Average Concentration of Biochemical Oxygen 5-5
Demand During a Combined Sewer Overflow Event
5-4 Percent of No Action Total Pullutant Loads to the 5-9
Inner Harbor Under Alternative Combined Sewer
Overflow Abatement Plans
5-5 Percent of No Action Total Pollutant Loads to the 5-16
Outer Harbor Under Alternative Combined Sewer
Overflow Abatement Plans
5-6 Percent of No Action Total Sediment Loads to the 5-29
Inner Harbor Under Alternative Combined Sewer
Overflow Abatement Plans
5-7 Percent of No Action Total Sediment Loads to the 5-30
Outer Harbor Under Alternative Combined Sewer
Overflow Abatement Plans
5-8 Water Quality Conditions in the Outer Harbor 5-56
if the Jones Island WWTP Outfall is Relocated
Outside of the Outer Harbor
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
(Continue)
Figure Follows
Number Page
5-9 Percent of No Action Total Sediment Loads 5-60
to the Outer Harbor Under Alternative Combined
Sewer Overflow Abatement Plans - the Results of
the Jones Island WWTP Discharge Relocation
Sensitivity Analysis
5-10 Comparison of Predicted Water Quality Conditions 5-63
in the Kinnickinnic River to the Total Inner Harbor
5-11 Comparison of CSSA Portion of the Total Inner 5-75
Harbor Pollutant Loads Under the Seasonal and
Annual Loading Analysis
5-12 Comparison of Predicted Inner Harbor Water Quality 5-80
Conditions During a Storm Event to Average Annual
Water Quality Conditions
5-13 Critical Parking and Access Zones 5-118
5-14 Bus Routes in CSSA 5-120
5-15 Insert CSSA Bus Routes 5-120
5-16 Affected Historical and Archaeological Sites 5-130
in CSSA
-------
CHAPTER 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.0.1 Background
The Milwaukee Combined Sewer System serves approximately 23
square miles/ encompassing the older central portions of the
City of Milwaukee/ most of the Village of Shorewood and
small portions of the City of Wauwatosa and Village of West
Milwaukee. Construction of combined sewers began in 1870 in
accordance with standard drainage practices of the time.
The combined sewers were originally designed to convey both
urban runoff and sanitary waste to the nearest available
receiving water. The combined sewers were later connected
to the Metropolitan Intercepting Sewer (MIS) System. The
MIS System was originally developed to convey sewage away
from smaller water bodies which were becoming heavily polluted,
and later became the main conveyance system for the Milwaukee
Metropolitan Sewerage District's (MMSD's) two wastewater
treatment plants. The intercepting sewers were of limited
capacity and could not convey large storm flows carried by
the combined sewers. As the MIS and Combined Systems de-
veloped, the sewers were equipped with regulating and relief
devices to limit flows entering the MIS system (and treatment
plants). In wet weather, flows in excess of the MIS capacity
would be discharged to a nearby receiving water from the
regulating and relief devices. These discharges are called
Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO). Combined sewers remained the
state-of-the-art in Milwaukee until 1920. Over 450 miles of
combined sewer were ultimately constructed.
1.0.2 Milwaukee's CSO Abatement Program
The MMSD's CSO Abatement Program began in 1974 as a pre-
liminary engineering study in response to the Southeastern
Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission's (SEWRPC) report
entitled "A Comprehensive Plan for the Milwaukee River
Watershed" (completed in 1971). The report identified CSO
as a major source of pollution in the lower reaches of the
watershed and recommended numerous methods of abating the
CSO problem. The preliminary engineering study was under-
taken to determine, with greater precision and detail, the
measures required to abate CSO pollution using the current
state-of-the-art technology.
In 1977, two court cases involving the MMSD were settled. In
May, an agreement was reached in the Dane County Circuit
Court between the parties represented by the MMSD and the
State of Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) in
a dispute over compliance with Federal and State wastewater
treatment and discharge standards. In the Court Stipulation,
the MMSD agreed to upgrade its treatment facilities, expand
1-1
-------
and improve the MIS system, to eliminate overflows from the
separated sewer system, reduce infiltration and inflow from
the sewers of the service area, and abate pollution caused
by CSO to a level such that water quality standards in
Milwaukee's rivers and harbors could be met. The Stipu-
lation also included a time and expenditure schedule for
compliance.
On November 15th of that same year, a decision was reached
in the U.S. District Court in Chicago on a suit filed by the
States of Illinois and Michigan against Milwaukee and other
Wisconsin cities along Lake Michigan. The suit charged that
pollution, discharged by the defendants, had detrimental
effects on Lake Michigan and posed a threat to the health
and well being of the peoples of Illinois and Michigan. The
Court Order imposed by Judge John F. Grady required the MMSD
to upgrade its treatment plants to tertiary treatment levels,
eliminate overflows from the separated sewer system and to
eliminate bypassing of any CSO flows containing "human fecal
wastes" for storm events up to, and including, the worst
storm on record since 1939. An appeals court later over-
ruled the requirement for advanced treatment at the MMSD's
wastewater treatment plants An appeal of the requirements
to eliminate CSO is currently pending before the U.S.
Supreme Court.
In response to these court requirements, several facilities
planning efforts have been undertaken as part of the Milwaukee
Water Pollution Abatement Program (MWPAP). Included in this
effort is the development of the Combined Sewer Overflow
Facility Plan Element (MWPAP/CSO 1980) .
1.0.3 The EIS Process
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Wisconsin
Environmental Policy Act (WEPA) require that an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) be written for any federal, or state
project which could significantly affect the natural or
human environment. Because of the broad reaching scope of
the MWPAP, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the
DNR recommended that an EIS be written as an independent
environmental analysis to be used in the decision making
process for final approval of the MMSD's Master Facilities
Plan.
The EIS is an attempt to identify all impacts to the natural,
social, and economic environment of the planning area as a
result of proposed actions by the MMSD. This document will
deal specifically with those impacts involved with the
abatement of CSO.
1-2
-------
1.0.4 Appendix Format
The format is as follows:
Chapter 1: Executive Summary, provides an overview of the
project and its related conclusions.
Chapter 2: Introduction, provides background information
necessary to understand the purpose of the CSO
program and how the program and related EIS
proceeded.
Chapter 3: Affected Environment, discusses the existing
and future conditions of those criteria
which could be affected by some aspect of
the CSO program.
Chapter 4: Alternative Development and Screening,
discusses how early alternatives were de-
veloped and why some were retained for detailed
discussion while others were eliminated.
Chapter 5: Environmental Consequences, provides detailed
discussion of the possible environmental impacts
which could result from the final alternatives.
1.1 THE MMSD's CSO FACILITY PLANNING EFFORT
1.1.1 Development of the CSO Abatement Program
The CSO Abatement Program began in 1974 as a preliminary
engineering study to provide greater precision and detail for
recommendations made in SEWRPC's comprehensive planning
report on the Milwaukee River Watershed. During this study,
detailed data were collected to evaluate the quantity,
quality and mechanics of CSO, as well as environmental,
socioeconomic and geologic conditions in the Combined Sewer
Service Area (CSSA). Several studies were done in conjunc-
tion with this effort, to aid in identifing and implementing
the ultimate CSO abatement solution. Of significant impor-
tance was the "Evaluation of Milwaukee River Water Quality to
Meet PRM 75-34 (PG-61) Requirements". PRM 75-34 requires
that the EPA fund CSO abatement projects only to the level at
which the marginal benefits to the community as a result of
the program are greater than or equal to the marginal costs
of implementing the program. During the data analysis for
this study, it was found that in addition to pollutants
discharged during a CSO event, aquatic degradation was also
the result of resuspending highly polluted sediments which
settle in the lake-influenced reaches of the Milwaukee,
Menomonee, and Kinnickinnic Rivers. It was found that these
1-3
-------
sediments, at times, reduced the dissolved oxygen concen-
tration Ca parameter which reflects the degree of pollution
in a water sample; higher concentrations are indicative of
better water quality) in the river to levels at or near zero.
The engineering study and later, the facilities plan, pro-
posed four "concepts" for the abatement of CSO.
Out-of-Basin: CSO would be collected and conveyed from the
Milwaukee, Menomonee, and Kinnickinnic River basins, the
Lincoln Creek basin, and the Lake Michigan basin to a central
treatment and discharge location.
In-Basin: CSO would be conveyed to a central treatment and
discharge point within each of the same five river basins in
which it originated.
Sewer Separation: New sanitary and/or storm sewers would be
constructed to replace the existing combined system with a
separate system for sanitary wastes and a system for urban
runoff.
Instream Measures: measures which would reduce or eliminate
the effects of CSO and sediments after they entered the
rivers (aeration or dredging for example).
For each concept, numerous components were evaluated for
conveyance, storage and treatment of CSO. These components
were evaluated individually for cost, reliability, and com-
patibility. The best components were combined into a final
alternative for each concept. Each concept was then eval-
uated for cost, feasibility, reliability, and impacts to the
environment. Each alternative was also evaluated for its
ability to meet requirements of the Dane County Court Stipu-
lation and the U.S. District Court Order.
The "Instream Measures" concept was eliminated as a CSO
abatement technique because although it would reduce the
effects of the instream pollutants, it would not reduce the
pollutant loads. These alternatives would, therefore, not
satisfy either court's requirements without other measures
being taken. The MMSD's legal staff further stated that the
MMSD does not have the legal jurisdiction to implement such
measures.
The "In-Basin" concept was also eliminated during this
screening phase because it was very similar in nature to the
"Out-of-Basin" concept, offered no better benefits than that
concept, and would also cost more and be more difficult to
implement.
-------
On May 24, 1979, upon recommendation of the consultants and
technical staff of the MMSD, the Sewerage Commissioners of
both the City and County of Milwaukee, adopted a resolution
selecting their CSO abatement alternatives. Highlights of
the resolution include:
• To meet the U.S. District Court Order, Complete Sewer
Separation was the recommended plan. Further analysis
was recommended in order to limit the amount of private
property work to be done.
• To meet the Dane County Court Stipulation, sewer separ-
ation would be recommended for a portion of the CSSA.
The remainder of the CSSA would be served by an Out-of-
Basin Convey-Store-Treat (CST) system providing a 2-year
Level of Protection (LOP), i.e. the system would over-
flow once every two years on a long-term average.
Develop, with SEWRPC and DNR, a program of necessary
instream measures, and the necessary administrative
framework to implement such a plan.
1.1.2 Development of a Joint CSO/Clearwater Solution
At this point in the CSO analysis, the Infiltration/Inflow
(I/I) analyses had reached a level where storage concepts
were developed for peak flow attenuation. The CSO planners
had been analyzing a system including partial sewer separ-
ation as a means of avoiding private property work. However,
the partially separated sewers would still require some
amount of storage for CSO. These storage costs could be
greatly reduced by expanding I/I storage facilities to
accommodate CSO flows. The joint use philosophy, using the
deep tunnel storage for both I/I and CSO storage, was carried
through the remainder of the alternative development and
analysis.
Four final alternatives for conveyance and storage were
developed, based on data developed from a series of prelimi-
nary alternatives. Of the final alternatives, the Inline
Storage alternative was chosen by the MMSD as the preferred
CSO/Clearwater alternative because the MMSD believed that it
had the least relative cost and greatest flexibility.
1.2 EIS CSO ANALYSIS
In evaluating MMSD's Recommended Plan, the EPA, DNR and
the EIS study team found that certain significant impacts
might be mitigated by implementing variations of the MMSD re-
commended Inline Storage alternative. These impacts included
1-5
-------
the effects of urban runoff pollutant loads, continued scour
of polluted sediments and disruption due to sewer construction.
The agencies and EIS study team then developed new alterna-
tives to mitigate the effects of these impacts. These
alternatives are investigated in detail in Chapter 5 of this
document. The alternatives are:
Inline Storage (MMSD's Preferred Alternative)
Complete Sewer Separation
Modified CST/Inline Storage
Modified Total Storage
1.2.1 EIS Screening Results
In evaluating impacts, a trend relationship was found between
construction of certain facilities and the severity of cer-
tain impacts.
Sewer Construction - A correlation was found between the
amount of area to undergo sewer separation (complete or
partial) and the severity of disruption to traffic, to
utilities, and the decrease of access to businesses and
homes.
Figure 1-1 is a graphic comparison of the amount of area to
be affected under each alternative. The Remote Storage and
Jones Island Storage Alternatives were chosen in order to
compare the most contrasting alternatives. Sewer construc-
tion would also have a positive impact in that the local
labor force, up to the limits of its capacity, could be used
for much of this construction activity, keeping more con-
struction dollars in the local economy.
Deep Storage - As deep storage volumes increase, the volume
of urban runoff discharged to the rivers decreases. Figure
1-2 is a graphic comparison of the amount of storage provided
for each alternative. Those alternatives which discharge
less urban runoff would be expected to show the greatest
improvement in water quality both from the standpoint of
decreased pollutant loads and from decreased sediment scouring,
While sediment quality in the rivers could improve under all
alternatives, this material would remain polluted, primarily
due to upstream loads. Major improvements to the sediment
would be in the form of reduced loadings and concentrations
of organic substances.
Deep storage construction would have three negative impacts.
As the volume of deep storage increased, so would the total
project cost from the standpoint of both capital invested and
in annual operation and maintenance. Operating costs would
1-6
-------
oo g
o tr
fD
hi
(D
B)
Hi
Hi
(D
O
rt
fD
Cb
tr
n
c
rt
cn
fD
s
fD
hi
O
§
cn
rt
hi
C
o
rt
H-
o
20
CTi
O
03
O
O
O
§
H
O
cn
i-3
O
O
H
SB
IT" D
H H
a ^
M H
H
M D
i-3
o n
tfl
cn
>-3
o
O
W
2
o
H3
cn
>-3
o
3
cn
i
H
cn
cn
O
cn
i-3
O
£
O
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
-------
Q
W
u
o
c
o
in
(0%
Q)o
OS
0)5
05
£i
OS
> o>
« UJ5
o
CM
(N
O
o
in
o
o
o
CM
r-
co
m
in
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
in
o
rH
X
m
CN
iH
II
-P
IH
I
O
(B
10
i-i
O
-p
-H
<0
w
H
o
EH
W
I
W
O
8
w
H
H
U
<
K
° 8
Q W
W
M W
Pu 2
H H
Q J
o a
2 H
o
EH
W
H
D
W
H
tN
r-l
I O
-------
increase because of the large amounts of energy required to
lift the stored wastewater to surface treatment facilities.
Finally, much of the construction expertise required for
this type of work is not readily available in the Milwaukee
area. Outside contractors would be required for some of the
tunneling work, drawing construction dollars away from the
Milwaukee area.
Numerous other impacts, both positive and negative have
been identified for each alternative. A complete analysis
of impacts due to each of the final four alternatives is
discussed in Chapter 5. No conclusions or recommendations
are reached in this draft of the EIS. However, in the Final
EIS, EPA, in accordance with NEPA, will describe a preferred
alternative for the abatement of CSO and peak flow attenuation,
This alternative will be based upon findings set forth here,
comments received from various review agencies, and comments
received during the public comment period and at the public
hearings on this document.
1-9
-------
CHAPTER 2
INTRODUCTION
-------
2 .0 INTRODUCTION
2.0.1 Purpose
This appendix provides a summary of the detailed environ-
mental impact analysis of the alternatives for Combined
Sewer Overflow (CSO) abatement and Infiltration and Inflow
(I/I) control which are considered in the Milwaukee Water
Pollution Abatement Program (MWPAP). This document also
serves as the data base for the CSO and I/I alternative
screening and impact analysis presented in the main body of
the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
2.0.2 Historical Data
Milwaukee was founded as a trading post on Lake Michigan in
1795. From the City's inception, the Lake was its focal
point, serving as means of transportation, and supply of
food and water. In the nineteenth century, with the arrival
of the railroad, the City had a period of tremendous growth
and change. The population quadrupled between 1850 and 1880
and industry became increasingly important to the local
economy. The rapid growth and industrialization brought
pollution, health, and transportation problems previously
unknown. At this time, there was no public system for
disposal of domestic and industrial waste. Common practice
was merely to deposit wastes in the nearest body of water.
By the 1860s the leaders of Milwaukee were aware of a decline
in the quality of their rivers caused by this method of
sewage disposal. A well-known engineer, E.S. Chesborough,
was hired to design the City's sewer system. Using the best
technical knowledge of his day, Chesborough designed a
system to collect domestic sewage and storm water and direct
the flows away from the smaller watercourses to the City's
major rivers. This "combined" sewer system was constructed
over the next fifty years. Discharge of untreated sanitary
sewage into the area rivers and Lake Michigan continued.
In 1913, the Sewerage Commission of the City of Milwaukee
was formed to deal with the increasing problems caused by
sewage disposal in the City of Milwaukee. The Sewerage
Commission began pilot testing new sewage treatment processes
in 1918 and, after much study, the first full-scale activated
sludge wastewater treatment plant in the country was built
at Jones Island. The plant began operation in 1925 and the
facilities were expanded over the course of the next 30
years.
The Metropolitan Sewerage Commission of the County of Milwaukee
was formed in 1921 to have similar responsibility for the
rest of Milwaukee County and additional areas within the
County's general drainage area.
2-1
-------
Over the next twenty years, sewerage facilities were expanded.
In 1951, both Sewerage Commissions initiated a joint study to
develop a strategy for future sewerage facilities. The
"Master Plan" (areawide plan) was formally adopted by the
Sewerage Commissioners in November, 1959.
This plan indicated that the soundest approach to providing
areawide sewer service was to construct a new wastewater
treatment facility and expand the intercepting sewer system.
As a result, the South Shore Wastewater Treatment Plant was
designed and construction was completed in 1968. Additional
interceptors were constructed to convey wastewater to the new
facility.
In 1960, the Sewerage Commission of the City of Milwaukee and
the Metropolitan Sewerage Commission of the County of
Milwaukee combined to form the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage
District (MMSD) which exists today. The MMSD directly
serves 18 communities within Milwaukee County and is em-
powered to deal with any city, town, village, sanitary
district, or metropolitan sewerage district within the
planning area shown in Figure 2-1.
2.0.3 Current Situation
Although the MMSD has expanded greatly in the past 60 years,
little work has been done to alleviate the combined sewer
overflow problem. Since new combined sewer construction
ended in the 1920s, several communities have undertaken
programs to separate their combined sewers. Presently,
combined sewers serve approximately 16,300 acres in the
Cities of Milwaukee and Wauwatosa, and the Villages of
Shorewood and West Milwaukee (Figure 2-2). The extent of the
combined sewer service area (CSSA) in each community is
summarized in Table 2-1.
TABLE 2-1
Area Served by
Combined Sewers Percent of
Community (Acres) Total CSSA
Milwaukee 15,670 96.1
Shorewood 600 3.7
Wauwatosa 12 0.1
West Milwaukee 18 0.1
The CSSA represents about six and one-half percent of the
total planning area and serves approximately 291,000 people.
2-2
-------
-------
;
v*\C &' '
t$*x
x>,
;^fc.
&*4
<***
O>
0 UJ2
O ^~^~n ?
uj ^ fe^Tn
= 1 pnf|
3 Ul XlT^
°j^™
w^j
'
UI
o:
UJ
o
>
-------
The combined sewer system consists of approximately 560
miles of combined sewers and associated appurtenances.
These sewers are tributary to both the low- and high-level
Metropolitan Intercepting Sewers (MIS) along the Milwaukee
and Menomonee Rivers and ultimately the Jones Island WWTP.
A schematic diagram of the system is shown in Figure 2-3.
Several areas within the CSSA are served by separate sanitary
sewers. Sewers in these areas are connected directly to the
MIS or to the combined sewers. No flows from outside the
CSSA enter the combined sewer system.
2.0.3.1 Combined Sewer Overflow
During rainfall events, the capacity of the Metropolitan
Intercepting Sewers is often exceeded because of high flows
received from the combined sewer system. This excess flow
is diverted to the Milwaukee, Menomonee, and Kinnickinnic
Rivers, Lincoln Creek, and Lake Michigan as combined sewer
overflow (CSO). Four types of diversions are used:
• Intercepting structures
• Diversion structures
• MIS overflows
• Crossovers
Intercepting stuctures divert a majority of the overflow
volume. These structures were designed to regulate flow
from the CSSA into the MIS system. Under dry weather condi-
tions, all of the sanitary flow is diverted to the MIS.
During wet weather conditions some storm runoff is also
diverted to the MIS. However, combined flow in excess of
the capacity of the regulator device is diverted to an
outfall sewer or into an overflow relief sewer. An outfall
sewer conveys flow from an overflow point directly to re-
ceiving water. An overflow relief sewer conveys flow back
into the combined sewer system and eventually to another
overflow point. Most of the 140 intercepting structures in
the CSSA divert overflows to outfall sewers.
Diversion structures divert excess wet-weather flow from the
combined sewers either into an outfall sewer or into an
overflow relief sewer. Most of the diversion structures
divert overflows to outfall sewers.
All but one of the MIS overflows discharge directly into an
adjacent river. The one exception discharges into a combined
sewer outfall.
Crossovers are sewer lines that connect combined sewers with
separate storm sewers in order to reduce surcharging of
combined sewers. There are eight crossovers in the CSSA.
2-3
-------
I OW I VINO
I HIHUFARY
AHtA
OVi Rl- I OW
CHAMHtH
COMBINED SEWERS
I OUAL I HUNK OH
BRANCH IjtWFH
INTERCEPTING
STRUCTURE
OVERFLOW
RELIEF StWER
HIGH-LEVEL INTERCEPTOR
TO [HfAIMF-NI
I'I ANT
INTERCEPTING
STRUCTURE1
INTERCEPTINt
STRUCTURE
OVERFLOW
CHAMBER
LOW LEVEL INFERCEPTOR
MIS OUTIAUH
TO TtUATMENT
PLANF
OUTFAl L
SEWERS
MIS OUTFALLS
FIGURE
2-3
DATE
NOV I960
OPERATIONAL SCHEMATIC OF EXISTING
COMBINED SEWER SYSTEM
SOURCE M.M.S.D.
PREPARED BV
EcolSciences
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
-------
There are 131 outfalls in the CSSA that discharge combined
sewage into the receiving waters. Of these, 113 outfalls are
from the combined sewer system, and 10 are from the MIS
system. There are also eight storm sewers which are known to
discharge combined sewage in the CSSA.
2.0.3.2 Condition of Combined Sewers
As was discussed above, most of the combined sewers in the
Milwaukee area were constructed prior to 1920. Since 1920,
combined sewers have been built as relays of older combined
sewers. Approximately 70% of the combined sewers (400 miles)
are concrete, 18% (100 miles) are brick, and 11% (60 miles)
are clay.
A physical inspection of the combined sewers that were con-
structed before 1950 was conducted by the MMSD. From the
inspection, it was determined that approximately 20 miles, or
3.6%, of all combined sewers need replacement or rehabil-
itation. Of the 20 miles of sewer, 4 miles exhibited some
form of structural failure. These sewers are brick, wider
than 30 inches, and older than 75 years. Four miles of com-
bined sewers exhibited excessive infiltration. The sewers
also were brick, wider than 30 inches, and older than 75
years. The remaining 12 miles of sewers have poor joints.
They are either concrete or clay, usually narrower than 24
inches, and 90% are older than 75 years.
2.0.3.3 Separated Sewer Area
The remainder of the planning area is served by separated
sewers. These sewers were designed to convey only sanitary
flow. However, during wet weather, the hydraulic capacity of
the sewers are often exceeded due to ground water entering
cracks and joints in the system (Infiltration) and to flows
entering through manhole covers, roof leaders, and sump pumps
(Inflow). When the hydraulic capacity of the sewer is
exceeded, flows backup in manholes, tributary lines and, in
some areas, into basements. To prevent the severe health
hazards associated with these backups, separated sanitary
sewers are also equipped to bypass excess flows to the
rivers.
2.1 LEGISLATION AND COURT ACTIONS
2.1.1 Federal and State Requirements
The public's concern about the quality of the environment
has grown tremendously over the past decade. With this
increased concern has some stricter federal and state
legislation and a new awareness of the importance of eval-
2-5
-------
uating existing techniques for waste disposal. In 1969,
Congress passed the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
which recognizes each person's right to a healthful environ-
ment and directs the Federal Government to "promote efforts
which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment
and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man."
NEPA requires that all federal agencies use a systematic,
interdisciplinary approach for planning and decision-making.
An environmental impact statement (EIS) is required for all
federally funded actions that could significantly affect the
quality of the human environment.
The State of Wisconsin created the Wisconsin Environmental
Policy Act (WEPA) in 1972. Patterned after NEPA, WEPA sets
a policy which encourages "productive and enjoyable harmony
between man and his environment." It also states require-
ments for integrated planning and the preparation of
environmental impact statements. The Wisconsin Administrative
Code sets effluent limitations and design specifications for
waste treatment and conveyance facilities.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
(Public Law 92-500) which was revised by the Clean Water Act of
1977 (Public Law 95-217) sets national water quality goals
of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the Nation's waters. Section 201 of
this Act establishes a three-step funding procedure to
encourage the construction of new wastewater treatment
facilities. Step one of the program provides funding for
the planning of wastewater treatment systems, called "facilities
planning." The second step provides funding for the actual
design of the facilities, and the third step subsidizes
their construction. Regional water quality planning is
required by Section 208 of this act. The National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program is
established in Section 402. This section requires that a
permit be obtained for the discharge of any pollutant to
surface water. The Wisconsin DNR has been authorized to
administer this program by issuing Wisconsin Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) permits.
2.1.2 Court Orders
Two legal events have raised questions about the adequacy of
the MMSD's facilities. In December 1974, a WPDES permit
issued to the MMSD by the DNR required that secondary treat-
ment standards be met at the Jones Island Wastewater Treatment
Plant by January 1, 1975. MMSD challenged these requirements
in the Dane County Circuit Court, arguing that the deadline
set by federal legislation for secondary treatment standards
was July 1, 1977.
2-6
-------
The case resulted in a stipulation, agreed and signed into
orders in the Dane County Circuit Court on May 25, 1977.
The Stipulation sets forth a pollution abatement program
which the Sewage Commission of the City of Milwaukee and the
Metropolitan Sewerage Commission of the County of Milwaukee
must undertake to meet DNR and EPA standards. The Court
Stipulation set deadlines for the completion of treatment
plant improvement and rehabilitation, relief sewer construc-
tion, interceptor construction, and the abatement of combined
sewer overflow. Compliance with secondary treatment stand-
ards for treatment plants and completion of a Total Solids
Management Program are required by July 1, 1982.
Secondly, in a Federal lawsuit filed in 1971, the States of
Illinois and Michigan alleged that wastewater discharged by
the City of Milwaukee and the MMSD into Lake Michigan en-
dangered the health of their citizens and caused accelerated
eutrophication of the Lake. An initial application for
resolution by the U.S. Supreme Court was denied in April
1972, and the case was assigned to the U.S. District Court,
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. In a
verbal opinion issued on July 29, 1977, Judge John F. Grady
ruled that Milwaukee and the MMSD must eliminate its combined
sewer overflow problem and meet wastewater treatment standards
more stringent than the secondary treatment standards imposed
by federal and state legislation. The Court Stipulation,
issued on November 15, 1977, sets requirements and deadlines
for a program for the abatement of pollution in the Milwaukee
area.
On April 26, 1979, the Federal Court of Appeals in Chicago
partly reversed the District Court ruling. The Court of
Appeals rejected the stringent effluent standards for sus-
pended solids, five-day biochemical oxygen demand (3005),
and fecal coliforms substituting the DNR standards. The
Court of Appeals reaffirmed the District Court's phosphorus
limit in sewage effluent and that all overflows and bypasses
must be eliminated.
Since that partial reversal of the U.S. District Court's
decision, the MMSD has continued to petition the U.S. Supreme
Court, in appeal of the original District Court Decision and
the Federal Appeals Court ruling. On March 17, 1980, the
Supreme Court agreed to hear the MMSD's case. This hearing
is now pending and it is likely that the proceedings before
the Supreme Court will not be concluded until mid-1981.
2.2 PREVIOUS PLANNING STUDIES
In response to the continued CSO and Infiltration/Inflow
(I/I) problems, several studies have been initiated. These
studies have set the foundation for the CSO and I/I analysis
of the MWPAP.
2-7
-------
2.2.1 Milwaukee River Watershed Plan
A 1971 report prepared by the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional
Planning Commission (SEWRPC) entitled A Comprehensive Plan
for the Milwaukee River Watershed identified pathogenic
contamination,nutrient pollution, low dissolved oxygen
levels, and poor aesthetics as serious problems in the
river. The report investigated a number of methods for
abating CSO pollution and recommended that a Deep Tunnel/
Mined Storage/ Flow-Through Treatment alternative be further
evaluated.
2.2.2 Areawide Water Quality Management (208) Plan
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
required the development of areawide water quality planning.
In 1974 SEWRPC was designated the 208 agency for the seven
county region of southeastern Wisconsin which includes the
MMSD planning area. The 208 plan was completed in 1979 and
has been adopted by the DNR. The 208 Plan has set water
quality objectives for portions of the CSSA. Final objec-
tives are pending the outcome of the MMSD's CSO planning.
2.2.3 PRM 75-34 (PG-61) Requirements
Program Requirements Memorandum PRM No. 75-34 (formerly
Program Guidance Memorandum PG-61) sets EPA's guidelines for
the determination of the fundable size of CSO abatement
projects. In order for a CSO abatement project to be eligible
for EPA funding, it must show that marginal costs are not
substantial compared to marginal benefits. A report entitled
"Water Quality Analysis of the Milwaukee River to Meet PRM
75-34 (PG-61) Requirements" was completed in 1979.
2.3 MILWAUKEE WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROGRAM
The Milwaukee Water Pollution Abatement Program (MWPAP) was
the result of the legislation and legal actions discussed
above. With grant assistance from the EPA and the DNR pro-
vided through the Clean Water Act of 1977, the MMSD has
prepared a facility plan to determine the most environ-
mentally compatible and least cost methods for the conveyance,
treatment, and disposal of sewage within its planning area.
The goal of the MWPAP is to end the discharges of inade-
quately treated sanitary sewage to the waters of the planning
area, in order to meet applicable water quality standards and
the requirements of the U.S. District Court Order and the
Dane County Court Stipulation. Also, the sewerage facilities
must meet the federal and state effluent limitations. These
actions, in the context of the SEWRPC Regional Water Quality
2-8
-------
Plan, seek to bring the region's water quality closer to the
national goal of fishable and swimmable waters by 1983.
This EIS appendix evaluates the impacts of the CSO and I/I
abatement alternatives of the MWPAP.
2-9
-------
CHAPTER 3
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
-------
3.0 INTRODUCTION
This chapter describes the natural and man-made environment
of the planning area that would be affected by the implemen-
tation of any of the joint CSO I/I abatement alternatives.
3.1 PRECIPITATION
Located within the Central Plains region of North America,
the Milwaukee urban area has a semi-humid, continental
climate typified by extremes in weather conditions and
sudden changes in weather patterns. Summers are typically
warm, accompanied by occasional periods of hot, humid conditions,
Winters can be long, cold, and interspersed with moderate
snowfall. Spring and fall, because of their transitional
nature, tend to be periods of unstable weather patterns,
resulting in day-to-day weather changes.
Precipitation in the urban area can take the form of rain,
snow, sleet, freezing rain, or hail and can fall in gentle
showers or in violent thunderstorms. Average annual preci-
pitation totals 29.5 inches. Within the southern Wisconsin
region, thunderstorms usually occur during June and July,
averaging 36 storms per year. In the Milwaukee area, heavy
rainfall can be so localized that one portion of the city
can be receiving the equivalent of several inches per hour,
while another portion is receiving little or none
(MWPAP/CSO 1980) .
During the winter months, cold air masses regularly move in
from Canada, and a single storm can produce more than 6
inches of snow. Sometimes these storms are accompanied by
0.25 to 0.5 inch of damaging ice. If the prevailing weather
is from Lake Michigan, snowfall can be considerably heavier
along the nearshore region than in areas farther inland.
The average snowfall for the Milwaukee area is 44 inches per
year (MWPAP/CSO 1980) .
According to the Wisconsin Statistical Reporting Services,
frost conditions prevail in the ground between November and
March. During this period, very little runoff is absorbed
into the soil. Heavy rains, although not common during this
season, have caused severe flooding in the past.
3.2 WATER RESOURCES
3.2.1 Introduction
Surface waters in the CSSA region include the Milwaukee
River and its tributary, Lincoln Creek, the Menomonee River,
the Kinnickinnic River, the Milwaukee Outer Harbor and Lake
3-1
-------
Michigan. These waters are used primarily for the following
purposes:
Commercial Navigation
The Outer and Inner Harbors and up to 3 miles of river
are accessible to ore and cargo ships, tugs and barges,
providing an important avenue to commerce and transpor-
tation.
• Aesthetics
The aesthetic value of the surface waters is important
because of their proximity to the Central Business Dis-
trict (CBD), the Menomonee Valley industrial area, and
the residential, recreational, and commercial areas
throughout the Milwaukee area.
• Preservation and Enhancement of Aquatic Life
The rivers in the Milwaukee area support aquatic biota,
although the diversity of biological communities in the
segments in the CSSA is low. Improved water quality,
however, would increase the potential for a more highly
diversified aquatic biota.
• Recreation
The waters in the area and the adjacent parks have the
potential for numerous recreational uses. Improved
water quality would increase their attractiveness for
activities such as swimming, boating, fishing, picnicking,
ice skating, and cross-country skiing.
• Waste Assimilation
All natural water bodies have the ability to assimilate
limited amounts of waste materials. The capacity of
streams to assimilate wastes can be measured in terms
of the amount of degradable and nondegradable wastes
that the stream can carry in solution without reducing
the quality of the stream below acceptable levels.
• Water Supply
Lake Michigan provides drinking water to the City of
Milwaukee and all other cities along its shores.
Industries along the lower reaches of the rivers, draw
cooling and some process waters from the rivers in
limited qualities.
3-2
-------
The streams and portions of Lake Michigan affected by CSO
are shown in Figure 3-1. As can be seen, the Milwaukee
River is affected from its confluence with Lincoln Creek
south to its mouth; Lincoln Creek from N. 35th St. east to
the Milwaukee River; the Menomonee River from Hawley Road
east and the Kinnickinnic River east of Layton Blvd. (S.
27th St.). In addition, two combined sewer outfalls dis-
charge directly to the Outer Harbor of Lake Michigan. The
combined sewer overflows which discharge to the rivers and
directly to the lake, also affect the water quality of the
Inner Harbor, Outer Harbor, and to a lesser extent, Lake
Michigan.
3.2.2 Water Use Objectives, Water Quality Standards, and
Sediment Quality Guidelines
Water use objectives, or intended use designations of surface
waters, provide a means for assessing the water quality im-
pacts of alternative combined sewer overflow abatement measures.
Water use objectives for all surface waters affected by
combined sewer overflows have been established by the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources (DNR). To allow evaluation
of the attainment of these water use objectives, the DNR has
established supporting water quality standards. In addition,
recommended year 2000 water use objectives and supporting
water quality standards for portions of the combined sewer
overflow-affected surface waters have been included in the
areawide water quality management (208) plan for southeastern
Wisconsin adopted by the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional
Planning Commission (SEWRPC), DNR, and U.S. EPA as an overall
guide for water quality management (SEWRPC, 1980).
Existing DNR water use objectives for combined sewer overflow-
affected surface waters are shown on Figure 3-2 and supporting
water quality standards are set forth in Table 3-1.
The Milwaukee River from the confluence with Lincoln Creek
to North Avenue is classified for recreational use and
fish and aquatic life. All other affected streams are
currently granted variances. Due to one or a number of
conditions including; the presence of inplace pollutants,
low natural streamflow, natural background conditions, and
irretrievable cultural alterations, those waters are unable
to meet the standards for full fish and aquatic life and all
lawful uses. These variances are temporary and may be
changed if conditions in those waters change. To support
the variance classification and prevent further degradation,
standards have been established for fecal coliform, dissolved
oxygen, temperature, and pH. In addition, all surface
waters in Wisconsin shall meet minimum standards, which
prohibit objectionable deposits on the shore or bed of a
3-3
-------
UJ
o
UJ
_J
I-
IU
UJ
K
Ul
tc.
o
K
O
of
Ul
u
•x.
8 »
u o
< CO
* o
iu y
U-
<
tra
• 3AV VINVAUSNNBd
3AIMO 3XV1
IS
-------
UJ
CD
UJ
_J
UJ
UJ
K
U
g
JS w
> o
I-
Ul
UJ
ac.
I
MO 3XVH
•3AV VINVA1ASNN3d
3M8Q 3XV1
Oil AVB N3388
Qti 3NI1 39NVd
-------
co
W
O CO
PS Q
D 2
O ^
1 Coliform
03
0
0)
fa
E
3
E
•H
X
(C
rH
e
o
o
rH
*\
O
CJ
fa
fa
s
dual Chlorine
•H
CO
0)
PS
^-s,
C ^""i
3 \
•S g1
W -".^
f^
s
onized
•H
1
C
D
g
3
E
•H
X
(0
s
trogen
• H
Z
1
(C ^»
•H rH
c \
O Cn
(£jj
olved Solids
CO
CO
•iH
Q —
rH
E X
r3 CT1
E _S
'x
T3
s
0)
x:
4J
o
3-4
-------
i Q
rr, W
D
W 2
r3 H
03 EH
i
rH
cu
en
SH
CU
j>
T3
td
4-1
td
XI
4J
en
CU
Cn
G
(d
XJ
u
CU
SH
p
4J
(0
SH
CU
ft
g
CU
4-1
O
G
CU
XJ
rH
rH
(0
XI
en
CU
SH
CU
XI
EH
0
•
G
(0
Cn
•H
XJ
O
•rH
a
CU
^
(d
j
O
4J
!>i
rH
ft
ft
(0
en
T3
rl
tO
T3
C
tO
4-1
en
cu
SH
td
x:
o
en
-H
rQ
rH
(0
g
SH
CU
r]
4-1
rH
(0
G
O
•H
4-1
•H
T3
T3
idj
X!
O
o
o
rH SH
0
T) G
CU
cu x;
0 4J
X C
CU 0
^
0 SH
G CU
ft •
rH XJ
H en 4-i
(0 CU G
x; M o
in ft g
^^» (0 ^*i
•H en G
g (0
10
o cn
o G G
rH tO -H
\XJ SH
CJ 4-1 P
U T3
Ct, en
EL, cn en
S cu cu
-~ rH rH
ft
-U 4-1 g
C 0 (0
P C en
o
UGH
0 H
g (0
SH T3
0 Q) MH
MH en O
•H (0
i-H X! o¥>
O 0
O C rH
(0
rH CU G
(0 g (0
o x:
CU O -P
MH -H
M CU
SH 4-> SH
cu cu o
4-1 g g
rH 0
•H CU G
MH CJi-H
CU >iO
G rH 0
to x; o
SH 4-i *
XJ G CN
g o
CU g T3
g CU
(0 cu
cu o
xl en x
EH (0 CU
CJ
not exceed
es per month
h.
rH 4->
rH ft C
rH g 0
tO (0 g
xl en
en >i
in G
-^ (d
rH G
g C en
G 0
P rH
0 T3 rH
0 CU 03
en
g (0 MH
M XJ 0
0
MH G OP
•H (0 0
rH CU rH
0 g
0 G
U (0
rH -H XJ
to SH 4-1
0 4-1
1'H
•H rH
MH x; o
4-1 0
CU G ^
G O
(0 g T3
SH CU
XJ (0 cu
g 0
cu en X
g td cu
0) 0 4-1
xl o o
EH CN G
^
e nor exceed
Cn
10
cu
£»
US
^1
f-H
XJ
4J
G
O
g
to
en
to
rH
\
en
g
o
o
m
T3
CU
cu
0
X
cu
4-1
o
c
rH
rH .
to cu
fG £5
cn -H
4-1
en
T3 £>i
•H G
rH tO
O
cn 4-i
to
CU rH
f> \
rH cn
0 g
en
cn o
•H 10
Q r-
cu
shore or in the bed
as to interfere
shall not be
s in waters of
H 4-1
cu en td xi
x; 4J --H cn
4-1 C SH -H
P cu SH
GO 4J
O g (00
(0 g -H
••in I-H
en 4-1 X! MXJ
T3 -H CJ CU P
SH en p x: ft
to O en 4J
•a ft ox;
G cu G 4J
td T3 -H • SH -H
4-i CU O 3
cn cu 4J 4J
rH G (d g CU
g XJ cu 4-i p SH
P id tn en o cu
g c cu en MH
•H o SH cu SH
G -H ftX! •> CU
•H 4-1 4J H 4-1
g 0 CU -H G
CU Xt MH 0 -H
Cn-n O
G X) 4-) «. O
•H o O en en 4J
3 G SH-H
O cu cu SH en
rH in rH 4-1 Xi (0
rH P rH (0 CU
O (0 (0 3 : 'TD en
MH u xl 4J
en C T3 G
CU rH -H CU P
x; rH - en o
4J -H SH en SH g
3 cu 4-) cu (0
-P 4-1 X! g
CU 4-1 id CnXi X!
cu (0 3 -H p u
g x: M en p
4-) MH en
rH O O SH
rH tn -HOC-
(0 CU >(H en to XI <0 en
cu XJ 4-) o cu 0)
4-1 P MH -H rH SH XJ
(0 cn O 3 r4 ft-H
3
rH -^ -v
rH (0 XJ
rfj — ' — '
MH
4J
0 G
G -rt
rH CO
rH 4->
td XJ
x; cn
en -H
SH
en
en o
CU -H
G rH
•H X)
rH P
4-J ft
XJ
CnxJ
•H 4-1
in -H
G 3
p
cu
M SH
o cu
MH
cu SH
4J CU
en 4-)
(0 G
4-> -H
- 0
SH 4-i
O
t3 en
O (0
- en
SH 4->
O C
rH P
0 0
u g
(0
Cn
G X!
•H O
CJ P
p en
rQ
0 G
SH -H
ft
4-1
en G,
rH CU
(d cn
•H CU
SH SH
cu ft
4-1
(0 CU
S xJ
^— »
o
' — '
SH
O
O
•H
X
o
4-1
cu
SH
(0
XI
O
•H
x;
en
G
O
•H
4-1
(0
C
•H
XJ
g
0
o
SH
O
en
G
O
•H
4-1
tO
SH
4-1
• G
CU CU
4-1 0
tO C
4-1 O
en o
CU G
X! -H
4-1
cn
MH 0)
O CJ
G
cn to
SH -P
cu en
4J XJ
(0 P
3 m
,_
id
^•^
cu
4-J *rH
O rH
G
CU -H U
XI -H
4-1 4-1
0 G id
4-1 CU P
en CJ1
"O CU tO
G SH
P ft SH
0 0
MH cu
X! 4-)
cn G
4J in to
G CU rH
P o ft
0 C
g id -
(d 4-1 rH
en ro
C XI g
•H P -H
en c
4-> tO
G rH
CU rH O
cn to 4J
CU X!
SH en H
ft P
SH MH
cu O g
X) C SH
tO
4-1 *• .*"!
O CU
G CJ >i
G rH
rH (0 CU
rH O 4-1
tO -H P
x; MH o
en -H rcj
G
en en cu
G -H SH
tO en to
g
P X! XI
XJ 4-1 O
rH -H
o to x:
4-1 CU 3
x;
rH cn
P 0 4-1
MH -H G
g rH P
SH XJ 0
id G
•H -iH
SH SH
ftQ
O
SH CU
ft O
ft-H
td >
SH
>i cu
XJ cn
4-1 X!
(0 4-1
X! H
4-1 Id
CU
x; as
o
P 0
en -H
i-H
cu XJ
Xl P
O>
rH
rH CU
•H XI
3 4-1
I>1 4-1
rH CU
ft CU
ft g
P
en H
r-H
SH -H
cu 3
4-1
(0 4-1
3 -p^
cu in
y T3
(d SH
4-i td
G P
•H en
cu
CU MH
X! id
EH en
XI
H
w
in
PL)
13
G
(0
OS
2
Q
••
CU
o
SH
P
O
cn
3-5
-------
body of water; floating or submerged materials; substances
producing color, odor, taste, or unsightliness; and sub-
stances which, are a public health hazard or acutely toxic to
other biota.
Lake Michigan is classified by the DNR for recreational use,
coldwater fish and aquatic life, and public water supply.
Standards established for Lake Michigan by the DNR are also
set forth in Table 3-1. The Milwaukee Outer Harbor is clas-
sified by DNR to support recreational use and warmwater fish
and aquatic life. Although coldwater fish species do enter
the Outer Harbor, there is no requirement that the water
quality within the Outer Harbor be able to sustain reproduc-
tion of the coldwater fish species.
The areawide water quality management (208) plan recommended
water use objectives and supporting water quality standards
for only the free-flowing streams in the combined sewer
service area. No specific water use objectives for the
estuary reaches of the streams or for Lake Michigan were
assigned. Because of the complexity of the estuary reaches,
the plan recommended that further studies be conducted to
assess the water quality problems of these estuaries, and to
assign appropriate objectives and standards. Of the free-
flowing reaches, as shown on Figure 3-3, the Milwaukee River
from the confluence with Lincoln Creek to E. North Avenue is
recommended for recreational use and warmwater fish and
aquatic life; and Lincoln Creek from W. Congress Avenue to
the confluence with the Milwaukee River, the Menomonee River
from U.S. Highway 41 to the Falk Corporation Dam, and the
Kinnickinnic River from S. 27th Street to S. Chase Avenue
are classified for limited recreational use and limited fish
and aquatic life. Standards supporting these water use
objectives are set forth in Table 3-2. In general, the
areawide water quality management plan recommends standards
which are more stringent than existing DNR standards. Unlike
the DNR standards, the recommended standards in the 208 plan
are not enforceable.
The DNR water quality standards and the 208 water quality
recommendations will be used to interpret expected water
quality conditions under alternative combined sewer overflow
abatement measures. The use of standards allows an assess-
ment of the expected water uses which would be supported
within the affected stream reaches and portions of Lake
Michigan.
Guidelines for the evaluation of Great Lakes harbor bottom
sediments have been developed by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA, 1977). The guidelines, which were
developed to assist decision-makers regarding the disposal
of dredged material, have not been accurately related to
specific recreational uses or aquatic biological communities.
3-6
-------
Q
Cd
Q
Z
Cd
S
Q
%
'Z
J
a<
e^
z
s
o
£
g
^
M
-J
3
O<
Ci]
3
Q
2
S
S
"*
t£
O
ft.
Ul
Q
a:
<
a
EH
Ul
>4
EH
M
] ."]
^
OI
Cd
3
a
,5
Ul
Cd
t-4
s
Cd
l-l
aa
O
Ul
D
ce.
I
3
O
O
o
CN
Ul
Q
ft*
2
Cd
a:
Cd
Ul
Q
Cd
Z
H
0]
5
u
•^
m
a
Cd
8
Cd
i
Ul
Cd
EH
3
Cd
%
£
a
M
Warmwater Fisher'
^,
IH
0)
'to
ft.
SH
0)
JJ
IB
3
^
fl
3
IH
01
SI
01
>H
ft.
rH
01
4J
g
• H
J
& Aquatic Life &
ui
01
UH
•H
rJ
0
•rl
JJ
fl
3
<
^d
^3
01
•rl
r4
O
•H
JJ
fl
3
&
rf
-3
Use Recreational Use
rH
fl
C
0
•tH
JJ
fl
01
IH
Q
01
a!
•a
01
g
j
01
01
rH
fl
C
O
JJ
fl
u
01
us
*o
01
JJ
•»H
g
•3
J
Si
JJ
-H
rH Ul
iB IH
3 Oi
OI JJ
M i
0) fl
fl fl
3 CU
01
CO
fl
CO
0
in
0
fi
o
m
0)
rH rH
O X
01 Cfl
01 _g
Q
C
§01
31
•§ x"
C 0
A
o
o
^
£
o
CN
O
o
X
0
o
CN
.Q
0
O
X
o
0
CN
O rH
rH O
0 0
CJ rH
rH ^4
fl 01
0 O.
01
ft. "1
4J
i s
as
X •"**
•
r-l
1
•H
01
rH
fl
JJ
f.4
3
•rl
M
rH
O
d
rH
O
O
Ul
d
rH
X
en
*•*
01
c
•fH
r)
0
rH
s:
u
T3
01
c
o
•H
1
C
23
• rl
^
•o
a
>
O rH
O O
T3
0
1 1
1 1
Ol
O
o
u
1 1
f 1
CN
d
rH 01
Cn rl
s o
~~ 'a
c 01 in
01 0 g
31 .c fl
•rl O, 01
U SH
JJ rH JJ
•rl IB Ul
H EH
•H «
C S rH
I rl g 01
3 X -5 j3
ly affect aquatic life. Natural daily and
The maximum temperature rise at the edge of
hall not exceed 5 P.
01
01
01
T3
fl
rH
rH
fl
01
JJ
JJ
01
01
cn
c
fl
"o
O)
3
OJ
CU
O
c
J!
rH
rH
fl
In
0)
!-l
OJ
,C
ir1
*
T3
C
•H
fl
.JJ
C
fl
s
0)
rH
rH
fl
in
01
c
0
fl
3
JJ
rH
UH
OJ
3
jj
fl
VI
0!
a
jj
rH
fl
C
0
01
IB
01
01
01
0)
3
jj
iB
M
01
04
s
4J
rH
U
3
fl
C
cn
• rl
JJ
• r-l
J^
01
cs
s:
jj
01
>
fl
01
i
O"1
.5
X
e
OJ
jj
u
01
Q.
in
01
rH
O<
01
O)
•H
C
fl
JJ
01
01
01
rH
JJ
O
c
0
01
01
&
s
o
o
rH
J^
0)
a,
o
o
CN
0
c
fl
01
g
o
•H
IH
JJ
01
g
OJ
en
2>,
.c
JJ
c
B
•8
01
u
01
o
G
H
rH
fl
Ul
cn
C
•H
3
U
01
a.
01
fl
O
jj
C
01
o
0
c
rB
JJ
01
i
C
•H
,_)
g
o
o
rH
JH
8,
o
o
0
G
fl
01
g
a
•H
u
0)
Q
01
cn
g
JJ
C
O
s
fl
O 4J
C G
O
.c e
jj
C i"i
0 C
g fl
ted that alone or in combination with
ic life.
jj jj
•H IB
S 3
01 fl
a
JJ 01
O 4=
C JJ
o
01
fl 0
01 s
0) 01
o -n
G «H
JJ 0
0! JJ
A
3 O
01 iH
X
U4 0
0 JJ
01 01
C rl
O fl
•H
JJ JJ
fl C
>H 01
JJ 01
C 01
01 14
u a
c
O 01
O rH
fl
•O -H
01 IH
N 01
•rl JJ
-4 fl
0 g
£:
JJ ^4
3 01
fl J=
C -U
3 0
all times and under all flow conditions:
jj
fl
01
TJ
fl
T3
C
(B
JJ
a
s
3
S
c
•H
s
£P
C
•H
3
0
rH
o
0)
4J
4J
(U
OJ
s
rH
fl
cn
en
OJ
*J
fl
3
rH
rH
shore or in the bed of a body of water
h public rights in waters of the State. Floating
not be present in such amounts as to interfere
01 4->
4J 3
C O
O U
o
cn M-I
4-1 !M
•H OJ
cn jJ
O G
1
-H
G J-J
3 3
o y
u- -3
'Jl j
*i w
3
0 -C
£ U
.T) H
C 3
H
fl
•U -J
C G
O 3
cn o
u 3
"* G
w -1
jj
iJ G
0 -U
C 'J)
i)
^H ^4
r-< CU
13
"5 -d
u
^
2
CO
a
o
3
O
Ul
3-7
-------
Based on dry weight sediment analysis, sediments are classified
as heavily polluted, moderately polluted, or nonpolluted.
The overall classification of the sediments is based on the
predominant classification of the individual parameters.
The sediment guidelines established by U.S. EPA are shown in
Table 3-3. In classifying sediments, other chemical, physical,
biological, and aesthetic factors are also considered on a
case by case basis. While these guidelines do not permit
definitive determination of the specific water uses which
could be supported by different sediment quality classi-
fications, they do provide for qualitative judgment on the
relative polluted condition of the sediments.
3.2.3 Waters of the Planning Area
3.2.3.1 Milwaukee River Watershed
The Milwaukee River watershed comprises an area of 694
square miles. The major axis of drainage is oriented approxi-
mately north to south. The pattern of drainage is basically
branched; however, much of the channel system has been
modified by the erratic surficial topography. The stretch
of the river downstream from North Avenue Dam is influenced
by Lake Michigan. The lake controls the velocity and elevation
of the river in that reach. A large fraction of suspended
material carried by the river settles out of the water within
the lake influenced reach (estuary).
The Milwaukee River receives combined sewer overflows from
the confluence of Lincoln Creek to the mouth of the river.
Sixty-two combined sewer and seven MIS overflows discharge
to the river within the CSSA. Streamflow constitutes the
major part of the surface water resources in the watershed.
Continuous streamflow data for the Milwaukee River watershed
are available from six permanent stream gaging stations in
the watershed. The gaging station on the Milwaukee River
near Estabrook Park at Milwaukee is located within the
limits of the MMSD. The drainage area at this gage is 686
square miles.
The average annual discharge of the Milwaukee River at
Milwaukee is 396 cfs, which is equivalent to an annual
runoff depth of 7.84 inches over the watershed (Table 3-4).
Recorded mean daily discharges ranged from a maximum of
15,100 cfs to a minimum of 4.2 cfs. The annual instantaneous
peak flows are mostly concentrated during spring. The
seasonal low flow generally occurs during the period from
August through February with flow at its lowest ebb during
August and September. The 7-day, 10-year low flow for the
Milwaukee River at Milwaukee is 24.3 cfs.
3-i
-------
o
z
LJ
O
LJ
*
£
I
X
Ul
£C
O
CE
O
of
UJ
>
i- E
ui
UJ UJ
££
< ._ UJ
z* >
UJ
CE
u
u
LJ
OD
O
< «(- u
Ul •> < «
ssi t
HQ 3XV1
•3AV VINVA1ASNN3d
BAItia 3XV1
NVHM3HS-
1S U109-
IS M»92-
0
e
J
•IS Mi/Z
-IS pJ£fr
IS M»09
IS
1 I
E-t D
ro
I
n
<
a
-------
TABLE 3-3
U.S. EPA SEDIMENT QUALITY GUIDELINES FOR
GREAT LAKES HARBOR SEDIMENTS
Parameter
Volatile Solids (%)
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Total Phosphorous
Ammonia Nitrogen
Oil and Grease
Lead
Zinc
Iron
Nickel
Manganese
Cadmium
Arsenic
Chromium
Copper
Barium
Cyanide
Mercury
Total PCB's
Sediment Quality Classification
Heavily
Nonpolluted Moderately Polluted Polluted
<40,000
< 1,000
< 420
< 75
< 1,000
< 40
< 90
,000
20
3 OD
D
3
25
25
20
0.10
5-8
40,000-80,000
1,000-2,000
420-650
75-200
1,000-2,000
40-60
90-200
17,000-25,000
20-50
300-500
— —
3-8
25-75
25-50
20-60
0.10-0,25
b
b
> 8
>80,000
> 2,000
> 650
> 200
> 2,000
> 60
> 200
>25,000
> 50
> 500
> 6
> 8
> 75
> 50
> 60
> 0.25
> 1
> 10
a All units in mg/kg unless noted otherwise.
Lower limits not established
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Guidelines for the
Pollutional Classification of Great Lakes Harbor Sediments,
April, 1977.
3-9
-------
«sr
i
m
W
PQ
i^
r i
^
Q
Ul
X
CJl
Q£
LJ
^
2
CZ
UJ
»
cx
LkJ
UJ
5jj
<
2
_j
1—4
• x
UJ
cr
a
u.
>-
<
55
en
^
^_
^
a
C_)
i
-j
a
tr
^
4J 0^^
c i co
-1 0 14.
o ~* cj
a. u. — '
^ 0
O 1 .— .
-4 r- co
u. i ti-
er U
2 ^»
O
—1
u
^-. u'co'
CN >•<*-
2 O^"
o <-
-H
U.
O fcn
o a ^->
— ( 1) CO
LJ- >-<<-
1 U
o--i
*~
f^ p*
IX t-
I
o
u
4J
f\ vA
*.
5 33
c
^
•D
u.
a o
° 2
J\ CO
^- >*
•-^
a
c
CO
*~
cu
co en 2 co
l* 3 O '*-
> c CH -— •
*^ ^
2
5
\c cn
f> f-H
CO
u
3
4^
a
•z
•o -o
O l-i
S ^ o
u o u
CU OJ
o. c2
-.u C
— t i) u —
-H ^ L« CO »— *
Q.C> 3 >• "
<-<-> u
Q.
h-
co
•o c
c
o
^1
^
a
0
3
u £ S S
cu u cj r:
> CO « CO
-i cu a. u «
cr u «
^ J£ 2 CX.
CU 3 O O
cu ca a -H 01
11! I I
••* jj 1 1 1 jj ^
V^ 13
t/) a
CJ jj
a? n
o 5
a e
cu
S
CO
CJ
° ° «
r- t, co
1 LO CD U. LJ
o a
i/)-* -~- -" -
nO •- CN
H^
U
8.
U
U
4}
U
•-4
(fc.
1
c
CO
a
.a
a
s.
4J
5
CO
2
O
— ^
l4_
i
CO
>-l
CO
—
CJ
cu
<4W
(4.
CO
CO
cu
at
CO
u
CO
••4
•o
cu
CO
o
£
2
CO
cu •
o co
u cu
3 Ol
§(„,
CO
JT
J-l O
C CO
2 ^
^j
^ c
O "H
gl a.
— *
CO —1
.U CO
cu
o
o §
w co
i "S
a. -u
«^ c
s
-Q S
to
JZ
O ->J
"" c
u "*
cu a,
(^> ti
CU CU
f^
u
8.
a.
CD
CO
4->
CO
•o
Q-
Z
C
cu
— H
••H
CO
1
cu
u
(0
CO
CO
4-H
co
i
*•
c
§
CT
CU
u
<4_
1
2
O
— H
14-
•a
i
0
^j
CO
u
3
•o
j
O
—4
tt_
>,
»^
t^
a
' '
3
U
u
a)
a.
CO
CO
•o
o
CT
O
O
•a
a
c
o
i »
•a "«
<£14-
^
,
o
CO
rH
0
CO
u
eu
OH
s
«s
0)
o
3
0
3-10
-------
Flooding often occurs in the Milwaukee River system. Major
floods in the watershed tend to occur throughout the late
winter, spring, and summer. Spring floods, the result of
snowmelt coupled with early spring rainfall, are more fre-
quent than summer floods. However, because of steep banks
on either side of the river, the flood potential within the
CSSA is small, except near the confluence of Lincoln Creek
and the Milwaukee River. The nature of the direct runoff
flood hydrograph is influenced markedly by the type of the
meteorological event that causes the flood. The river rises
to a maximum discharge two to four days after significant
overland runoff occurs. Nearly all of the runoff volume
from a storm passes the Milwaukee gage within 12 days, with
a ratio of time of peak to time of recession of approx-
imately one to four.
The natural hydraulic characteristics of the stream system
have been influenced by the basin topography. The slope of
the Milwaukee River system is irregular with steep slopes
near the channel heads and often alternating flat and steep
slopes in the mid and lower reaches. This results in
generally low streamflow velocities and long flood peak
travel times.
A considerable part of the perennial stream system has been
modified to improve its hydraulic characteristics. The most
significant channel modification is in the Lincoln Creek
subwatershed, which is entirely within the MMSD boundaries.
A major portion of Lincoln Creek, which drains 19.8 square
miles of high density urban area, is a concrete-lined
channel bordered by a grassy parkway that serves as the
floodway. About 6.4 miles of the Creek have been channelized
to provide artificial urban drainage to a 9.9 square mile
urban area. Modifications included concreting the bed and
lowering the slopes of widened stream channel reaches,
seeding the higher portions of embankments, and alterating
or removing structures that created significant backwater
during high flows.
The most important water control structures on the Milwaukee
River within the study area are the North Avenue Dam in the
City of Milwaukee and the Milwaukee River flushing tunnel.
The impoundment at the North Avenue Dam has an 8 foot to 11
foot deep midpond channel that extends upstream from the dam
to beyond the North Avenue bridge. This depth decreases
near the banks, where pool depths average about 2 feet. The
spillway consists of an overflow weir with a pair of 13- by
23-foot tainter gates. The elevation of the spillway crest
is about 595 feet above mean sea level (MSL).
3-11
-------
The Milwaukee River flushing tunnel, with a maximum flow
rate of 422 cfs augments low flow during the summer months
and provides relief from odor problems. The tunnel is
operated approximately 80 hours per week between May and
October. The tunnel adds flow to the river which is equi-
valent to between 3% and 100% of the normal range of river
flow.
3.2.3.2 Menomonee River Watershed
The Menomonee River begins in a woodland-wetland area at the
northeastern corner of the Village of Germantown in Washington
County. It drains 137 square miles of which 132.8 square
miles (97%) lie within the MMSD. River reaches east of 29th
Street, where the Falk Corporation Dam is located, are
considered to be under the influence of the Lake. The river
is free-flowing above 29th Street. The stretch of river
from Hawley Road to the river mouth receives discharge from
26 CSO and three MIS outfalls.
The western boundary of the Menomonee River watershed is
formed by the major subcontinental divide that separates the
Mississippi River drainage basin from the Great Lakes drainage
basin. Surface drainage within the watershed is very diverse
with respect to the channel slope, the channel shape, the
degree of stream sinuosity, and the floodland shape and
width. This variation is caused by the natural effects of
recent glaciation on the underlying bedrock as well as the
channelization of 48 miles of streams within the watershed.
The drainage orientation is mostly southeasterly until the
river leaves the City of Wauwatosa. After entering the City
of Milwaukee, the river flows east to it confluence with the
Milwaukee River.
The average flow for the Menomonee River at the gaging
station at Wauwatosa is 85.6 cfs based on daily flow records
for the water years 1962 through 1977 (Table 3-5). The
instantaneous peak discharge of the Menomonee River at the
Wauwatosa gage was 13,500 cfs. The 7-day, 10-year low flow
is 4.04 cfs. Streamflow characteristics show that seasonal
low flow generally occurs from August through February with
lowest flow during December, January and February. Urban-
ization has increased the impervious soil cover area and
reduced the rate of groundwater recharge within the watershed.
Normally groundwater in the glacial deposits discharges to
surface water streams. However, the magnitude of recent
river system flows during rainless low flow periods indicates
that external sources, such as sewage treatment plant effluent
and industrial wastewater discharges outside the CSSA, are
contributing significantly to the total volumes in the
river. The increased development on the moderately flat
flood plain has greatly increased flood risks.
3-12
-------
in
i
n
EQ
t-i
-N
^
Q
UJ
s
cc
UJ
X
CE
UJ
>
^•4
CC
UJ
UJ
Z
o
z
UJ
UJ
X
S
u.
>.
ce
TT
—t
in
^
Q
O
(J
o
o
ce
e
31
^ CO ""•*
4-1 I CO
C p *•-
•rt -5 o
o u. >_.
Q_
a
•
^
,^-k
CM
X
u. T <*-
r- O
x a*—
o
a
*
a--^
co a
-^ i a
CM a — '
co a
-91"
u.
T3
O
a u
u. co co
1 U
a--'
S
r*
•>
^—
o
•t
•o
g
>. 3^.
— < e a
•f^ r4 **.
a c o
Q -1^-
co
CM
~ §
CD O
fG 3--.
a g a
cr 4-i t <»-
c x o
x a a *-*
O-uZ
— ( o
u. c
a
a
•k
f^\
i—
^— V
CO —1
a 3 o a
u c -H <«-
CO C U. CJ
^
^o
*
CD
JJ
(4.
°^
•o u
28
U CO
CO CE
Q.
>- C
\O 03
T- CD
• Q-
CJ 1
O 1
4^
C
o
•f4
a
0
a
a a
a
£. 0
a a
3
• a
z x
14 O
CO CM
> r-
-i a r-
cr co co
o o
CO CO 4J >
a —i
CD CD
•*4
co a
) . v*^
12
<-> o
£•"
CD
a 3
T3 T3
u
o ^
O CO
C £
ki U
Q
O 1-
—1 CO
^ a
3 *j
£g
OT (U
u
co aj
CJ
t/) TO
-C
0 3
o
0) Ul
H .C
tn -t-t
— H C^J
03
C •
aj o
^.^^
X -I
in u
CO
a
u u
3 CD
4-1 T3
a c
Z 3
a
" a
H-l J)
CO -U
a c^ a
•O >N
U f— U
8O
C "-
CD O
u ax
u o
x a -i
O CO <4-
-1 Q- S
<»- a
CO -J 4-1
<-i .
a js <<-
o
in -a
u CD a
in 4-1 CD
u a a
24-1 a
a c
u. uj a
*-* ^,
4)
f*
*•
a
CO
u
CO
S2
T3
O
u
a
2
CD
3
C31
i-^
1
*
C
-^4
to
J^t
C
i
o
- u
o a
CO U
— < CO
>H -H
a -o
CD 4->
•o c
sa
v^
r^ *H
i a
Q-
O
CD
>-i £
J 3
a a
-o
O CO
4-1 4J
Refer
eatima
^
•
ID
0]
"3
(w
jj
^
a
a
3
ca
a
la
•o
|
c
i
a
-H
co
a
CO
a
CO
a
^
a
c
a
>^
o
c
o-
co
b
X
o
-H
(4_
•o
c
a
c
o
"*
4J
a
^
«
o
•H
U_
j^
.
a
•^
a
*
^
CO
a.
a
a
•o
u
o
o
>s
^-4
a
c
o
Additl
^v
o
CO
0^
^_j
o
o
ft
rt
P-I
2
urce:
0
3-13
-------
Major flooding in the Menomonee River watershed occurs
throughout the late winter, spring, and summer. Flood
waters have damaged channel embankments, overtopped roads,
parks and playgrounds, and washed out bridges.
The MMSD has been responsible for identifying and implement-
ing flood control measures by improving drainage of the
stream systems. Extensive channel modifications have been
made to improve the overall hydraulic capacity of the streams.
3.2.3.3 Kinninkinnic River Watershed
The Kinnickinnic River source is at the junction of a piped
storm water drain and Lyons Park Creek in the 2600 block of
south 60th Street in the City of Milwaukee. The watershed
drains 25 square miles and is entirely within the County of
Milwaukee. Within the CSSA, the river receives discharges
from 19 CSO and one MIS outfall. The summer low flow in the
Kinnickinnic River is augmented by flow from the Kinnickinnic
River flushing tunnel. The tunnel is operated on the average
of 80 hours per week from May through October to reduce odor
problems.
The Kinnickinnic River basin exhibits an irregular topography
which is the result of the Wisconsin stage of glaciation.
The slope of the main channel varies from 0.0025 ft/ft to
0.0052 ft/ ft. The overall length of the main channel is
approximately 8 miles; the tributaries are 10 miles long.
About 14 miles of the Kinnickinnic system are perennial
streams. The stretch of the river downstream from Chase
Avenue is influenced by Lake Michigan. The velocity and
level of the river in this reach is controlled by the lake.
The main channel is navigable by large commercial vessels
from its junction with the Milwaukee River to West Becher
Street in the City of Milwaukee. The river and its main
tributaries form an integral part of the major stormwater
drainage system. Channelization has been completed along
12.8 miles of the system by the MMSD and the City of Milwaukee,
Long-term continuous streamflow data are not available for
the Kinnickinnic River. A continuous stage recorder gage
has been in operation since September 1976 near South 7th
Street within the Milwaukee city limits. This station
monitors the flow from a 20.4 square mile drainage area that
comprises 82% of the total watershed. A low flow gage at
South 27th Street in Milwaukee has been maintained by the
USGS in cooperation with the DNR since 1962; however,
continuous records are not available for this gage. In
addition, the MMSD operates 16 crest stage gages and the
City of Milwaukee operates 17 staff gages used to monitor
flow levels during and after flooding.
3-14
-------
The average daily flow recorded in 1977 by the USGS on South
7th Street was 21.2 cfs. The maximum daily peak flow was
700 cfs with an instantaneous peak discharge of 4,790 cfs on
18 July 1977. These data were combined with flood stage
data throughout the watershed in order to calibrate a
hydrologic-hydraulic model to simulate flows for a 37-year
period. These simulated flows are summarized in Table 3-6.
Based on analysis of a series of simulated 10-day average
low flows, the 7-day, 10-year low flow in the river at South
7th Street is about 6 cfs. Seasonal low flow occurs between
August and February with lowest flows during the winter
months.
Extensive urbanization in the watershed has increased the
risk of flooding in the floodprone areas of the system.
Major flooding is the result of rainfall rather than snowmelt.
There have been seven major floods since 1912 which resulted
in large-scale inundation in the lower watershed. Flow was
over the bank along a portion of the Kinnickinnic River from
16th Street to 6th Street within the CSSA, and bridge decks
were overtopped. From time to time, basement flooding along
the river has been reported.
Flood problems in the Kinnickinnic River watershed have been
addressed by the MMSD since 1950. Stream bed clearing,
channel straightening, widening, and deepening; and in-
stallation of concrete linings are some of the measures
which have been taken to alleviate flood problems.
3.2.3.4 The Outer Harbor
The Outer Harbor encompasses 1,445 acres of Lake Michigan
enclosed by a breakwater. The depth of the Outer Harbor
ranges from four to 36 feet. An area along the south shore-
line of the harbor is diked and filled with dredge spoils.
A second breakwater extends 1.9 miles south from the Outer
Harbor, paralleling the shore. Two combined sewer outfalls
discharge to this portion of the Harbor.
The Outer Harbor receives water from the Milwaukee, Kinnickinnic,
and Menomonee rivers, and wastewater flows from the Jones
Island Wastewater Treatment Plant. The rivers carry an
average flow of 506 cfs to the Outer Harbor while the treat-
ment plant discharges an average flow of 83 cfs. There is a
continual water exchange between the Outer Harbor and Lake
Michigan through three major openings along the breakwater.
Water is withdrawn from the Outer Harbor for low flow
augmentation of the lake influenced reaches of the Milwaukee
River and Kinnickinnic River during the summer. Two flushing
tunnels pump water from the Outer Harbor to the estuaries of
3-15
-------
ffl
HYDROLOGIC DATA SUMMARY FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED^
Average^' Flow flange^)
Annual Instantaneous Daily Flood Flows-5' Low Flow3' Point*
Period of Flow Maximum Minimum 10-year 100-year Q7-10 Flows
on Record (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs)
H
4J
CO
U
o
.3
o
CN
in
§
CO
CN
NO
r*\
o
p»
-*
a.
91
to
E
O
ream
CO
u
91
•^
§1 1
3| 3
i
^£
c
CO
9)
Q-
!
1o
CO
f
J3
llwauke
z
4J
-M
in
CM
.
fl
3
03
Q
N
Ui
3
a
13
91
4J
CO
•-H
3
E
en
«4_
0
en
91
•*H
U
91
ca
ca
3
C
<*-
O
CO
• H
en
F-H
CO
i
ca
o
w
I
u.
r—
CJ
tn
:D
>>
c
o
[^
CO
>,
u
01
a
z
ai
c
-H
U
3
13
CO
c?
co
z
_g
ecorded
cr
CN
?
•^
4W
CO
• ^
X
co
u
91
13
•o
0
b
8.
id
a
V
i
P**
c^
a
u
£
i
o
•^
u-
>.
F^
u
3
O
.C
1
»-t
•r*
31
CO
CJ
a.
cr
u-
o
en
en
ca
i
in
*-i
eg
u
3
4^
ca
z
i— i
CD
a
c
Q
CO
co
9]
a.
0
f
u
st imati
LJ
r*s
etails of point sources whose discharges affect stream flows in the river. The figure reported here is the
discharges.
•
en
c
c
8
1
"*
13
u
O
lt_
03
1
0.
91
3
H-
o
u
cc
^-*.
-^>
J-)
c
a
^H
a
o
CO
91
4J
C9
e
ca
CO
, particularly flow duration and flow frequency analysis, are available in WPAP data support files.
CO
CO
T3
o
O!
O
O
5
to
ddltlon
<£
\f\
O
oo
r-H
o
co
O
0,
S
S
0)
0
3
0
CO
3-16
-------
the two rivers. The Milwaukee River flushing tunnel pumps
up to 420 cfs, while the Kinnickinnic River flushing tunnel
pumps up to 410 cfs of water.
The flow and current patterns in the Outer Harbor are caused
by four primary forces: tributary inflow, wind stress,
water level oscillations, and density currents. During
periods of heavy rainfall, high flows from the rivers enter
Lake Michigan and disperse as a plume outside the Outer
Harbor. Tributary inflows vary seasonally with maximum
discharge during spring runoff and high precipitation periods.
During these large flows, river inflow dominates the harbor
circulation regime by forcing a continuous outflow through
openings in the breakwater. However, under average conditions,
river flow into and through the Outer Harbor is controlled
by the action of the lake and of harbor seiches (DNR 1977).
3.2.4 Existing Water Quality
3.2.4.1 Introduction
Each of the rivers affected by CSO may be divided into three
reaches: free flowing above the combined sewer service area
(CSSA), free flowing within the CSSA, and Lake Michigan in-
fluenced reaches within the CSSA. The lake influenced
section will be defined as the Inner Harbor (Figure 3-4),
Additional pollution loadings to these surface waters and to
the Outer Harbor are contributed by nonpoint source runoff
(both within and outside of the CSSA), upstream wastewater
treatment plants, sewage bypasses, industrial wastewater
discharges and the Jones Island WWTP effluent.
3.2.4.2 Upstream and Free Flowing CSSA
The upstream and free flowing CSSA reaches of the Milwaukee,
Menomonee and Kinnickinnic Rivers will be discussed together
in this section. The importance of these river reaches to
this study is primarily related to the pollutant loads they
transport to the Inner Harbor. The upstream and free flowing
CSSA reaches are defined as those regions upstream of North
Avenue for the Milwaukee River, as upstream of 29th Street
for the Menomonee and upstream of Chase Avenue for the
Kinnickinnic Rivers.
The dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations in the upstream
reaches ranged from 1.5 to 15 mg/1. The free flowing CSSA
reaches ranged from 5.4 to 9.9 mg/1, but these data represent
a much more limited data base than the upstream values (See
Table 3-7) .
3-17
-------
TABLE 3-7
EXISTING WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS
Variable
Upstream
Average Range
Free Flowing CSSA
Average Range
Suspended Solids,
mg/1
Total Phosphorus
mg/1
28
0.27
1 - 132
0.01- 0.89
23
0.23
13 - 120
0.14 - 0.32
BODs
mg/1
3.0
- 5
4.2
3.0 - 5.3
Ammonia
mg/1
Lead
mg/1
Codmium
mg/1
0.19
0.01 - 0..63
- 2
0.11
23
0.5
0.01 - 0.35
Copper
mg/1
Zinc
mg/1
Fecal Coliform
Count/100 mla
7.0
39
5-13
18 - 77
- 10'
6-4
52
4-9
40 - 60
- 10
Disdolved Oxygen
mg/1
pH
Standard Units
7.3
1.5 - 15
7.3 - 8.0
7.1
5.4 - 9.9
5.8 - 8.9
3-18
-------
TABLE 3-7 (cont.)
EXISTING WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS
Inner Harbor
Outer Harbor
Variable
Flow
m3/s
Suspended Solids
mg/1
Total Phosphorus
mg/1
BOD 5
mg/1
Ammonia
mg/1
Lead
ug/1
Cadmium
pg/i
Copper
ug/i
Zinc
ug/l
Fecal Coliform
count/100 ml
Dissolved Oxygen
mg/1
pH
Standard Units
Average Range
14.60
19.00 1-250
0.19 <0. 05-0. 70
4.50
-------
r—i
FREE FLOWING ABOVE
CSO AREA
FREE FLOWING BELOW
CSO OUTFALL
|::::::fl LAKE INFLUENCE WITHIN
CSO AREA
OUTER HARBOR
LAKE MICHIGAN
FLUSHING TUNNEL
CSSA BOUNDARY
Note
The Milwaukee River Reach From Lincoln Park to Capitol Drive
•s not considered under CSO influence within this study
INNEL
UNNEL
JND
0 6,000
SCALE IN FEET
FIGURE
SOURCE
3.4
DATE
M.M.S.D.
PREPARED BY
EcolSciences
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
-------
Data for the upstream reaches are derived from year round,
dry weather monitoring projects while the free flowing CSSA
data are primarily April through October measurements. The
DO in these reaches rarely drops below 5 mg/1 for extended
periods as it does in the Inner Harbor reaches.
The mean ammonia concentrations for both reaches are quite
similar (0.11 mg/1 and 0.19 mg/1) . The reported ranges for
the upstream concentrations are about twice as high in the
free flowing CSSA. This is likely due to the larger data
base used for upstream values. The mean total phosphorus
concentrations of 0.27 mg/1 upstream and 0.23 mg/1 in the
free flowing CSSA were also approximately equal .
The total suspended solids concentrations were 28 mg/1 in
the upstream reach and 23 mg/1 in the CSSA. Increases in
suspended solid concentrations are often related to storm or
runoff events. These particulates are >90% silt and clay
sizes (< 0.062 mm) according to USGS data. Zinc and copper
were the metals highest in concentration for both defined
reaches.
Fecal coliform counts ranged from less than 10 to
colonies/100 ml. High counts were generally related to
runoff events. The duration of fecal coliform violations in
these free flow river reaches is usually quite short.
3.2.4.3 Inner Harbor
Inner Harbor water depth varies from 2 to 10 feet in the
upstream reaches to 35 feet in the lower reaches, at the
confluence of the Milwaukee, Menomonee and Kinnickinnic
Rivers. River velocities are highly variable and subject to
lake-influenced reversal. The mean flows cited in Table 3-7
fluctuate one or more orders of magnitude from low flow to
high flow conditions.
Dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations range from 0.1 to
17 mg/1, with the highest levels occurring in March and the
lowest levels in July and August. The lower summer DO
concentrations were due, in part, to the lower oxygen
solubility at higher temperatures and increased biological
activity. Other studies (Meinholz, 1979b) have attributed DO
depletions following rain events to sediment scour at the
point of combined sewer overflow discharge. Depending on
the nature of the CSO event, the DO depletion may last for
two to three days. Algal photosynthesis and respiration
exert diurnal DO fluctuations on the Inner Harbor. Bottom
sediments in all three rivers also place a demand on water
column DO. The sediment oxygen demands (SOD) for undisturbed
sediments ranged from 1.8 to 7.3 g 02/iti^d and appear to be
3-20
-------
responsible for most of the dry weather, summer oxygen
consumption. Lake water influx can cause significant DO
concentration changes with depth. The cooler lake water
tends to increase DO concentration in the lower depths.
The DO standard applicable to the Inner Harbor is a minimum
of 2 mg/1. DO water quality violations C% violations in
samples tested) were most frequent in the Menomonee River
(55%) . Violations in the Milwaukee and Kinnickinnic Rivers
averaged 6% to 18% respectively.
Mean ammonia concentrations in all three rivers were quite
constant at approximately 0.7 mg/1. The ranges reported in
Table 3-7 may be related to bioassimilation, subsequent die-
off and anaerobic reduction.
Total phosphorus concentrations averaged about 0.2 mg/1 and
also showed very little variation. The main source of
variation within the total phosphorus was in the form of
phosphorus. Phosphorus uptake during the months of high
algal activity results in high particulate (nonsoluble)
phosphorus concentrations. Subsequent die-off and reduced
photosynthetic activity results in sedimentation and release
of biologically bound phosphorus. Inner Harbor chloride
concentrations varied seasonally. Summer concentrations
ranged from 10-50 mg/1; winter values were approximately
an order of magnitude higher.
Total suspended solids concentrations ranged from 1 to 250
mg/1; however, most samples were in the range of 10-30 mg/1.
Secchi disk readings ranged from 30 and 60 centimeters.
Metal concentrations were highest for zinc and copper, but
lead showed the greatest variation. None of the average
lead concentrations exceeded the EPA recommended drinking
water level of 50 ug/1. Studies have shown that a large
percentage of the total metal concentration is associated
with the particulate phase and settles out in the low
velocity Inner Harbor reaches (Meinholz 1979a, Bannerman
1979) .
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) ranged from below detection
limits to 0.57 mg/1 within the Inner Harbor water. The in-
secticide DDT and its analogs (DDE, DDD) ranged from below
detection limits to 0.02 mg/1. These upper values exceed
recommended EPA criteria for surface waters. No data were
available on other priority pollutant concentrations in the
Inner Harbor.
3-21
-------
3.2.4.4 Outer Harbor
Flows are primarily contributed to the Outer Harbor from
the Milwaukee, Kinnickinnic, and Menomonee Rivers and from
the Jones Island wastewater treatment plant. Water is
pumped from the Outer Harbor for low flow augmentation of
the Milwaukee and Kinnickinnic Rivers during summer. The
assumed boundaries of the Outer Harbor sections are shown in
Figure 3-5. The north section contains the McKinley Marina
and the frontage of Juneau Park recreation land. The central
section is used as a commercial shipping lane and receives
the Jones Island WWTP discharge. The south section contains
the Port of Milwaukee docks and the Bay View and South Shore
public beaches (inside the rubble mound breakwater). Outer
Harbor depths range from 10 to 35 feet. The total harbor
volume, including the area within the rubble mound break-
water, is approximately 3.68xl07m3.
Dissolved oxygen values cited in Table 3-7 represent daytime
measurements taken during June, July and September, 1973 to
1976. The north and south sections had the fewest violations
(<5% of samples) and were generally within 2 mg/1 of saturation.
Twenty-nine percent of the measurements taken in the central
section were in violation of the DNR DO standard. This may
have been due to incomplete mixing of the lower DO, warmer
Inner Harbor water with the Outer Harbor water. Another
source of oxygen depletion is increased oxygen demand caused
by the resuspension of organic bottom sediments in the
shipping channel due to ship traffic.
The mean ammonia concentration in the central section was
higher than in the north and south section. Concentrations
fluctuated seasonally, with the lowest concentrations
occurring during the summer months (perhaps as a result of
increased nitrification activity and algal uptake). Total
nitrogen concentrations followed the same trend as ammonia.
Total phosphorus levels were highest during spring and
winter. Within the Outer Harbor boundaries, total phosphorus
was higher in the central section near the river mouth than
in the north or south sections. Resuspension of the harbor
sediments which contain phosphorus may also increase the
total phosphorus concentrations in the water.
Fecal coliform counts followed the same trend as ammonia and
phosphorus, i.e. numbers were higher near the Inner Harbor
mouth. The largest source of coliform bacteria to the Outer
Harbor was combined sewer overflows from the Inner Harbor
reaches and sewage bypass events.
3-22
-------
Sulfate levels were reported from 21 to 35 mg/1. Chloride
concentrations varied from 50 mg/1 in winter to 10 mg/1 in
summer. Suspended solids concentrations were slightly higher
than those found in Lake Michigan during dry weather. The
Outer Harbor average suspended solids concentration was
8 mg/1. Rain generated overflows and runoff impose an
increased solids load on the Outer Harbor. These solids
settle in the low energy, relatively quiescent hydraulic
regimen of the inner and Outer Harbors. Increased suspended
solids levels are most likely to occur near the river mouth.
Secchi disk readings averaged 1 to 2 meters.
Data on priority pollutant concentrations in the Outer
Harbor was unavailable. A single water column sample taken
in the northern section of the harbor contained <10 ug/1 PCS
and chlorinated pesticides.
Copper was the only trace metal whose average concentration
was above detection limits. None of the reported upper
ranges exceeded EPA drinking water recommended concentrations.
3.2.5 Existing Sediment Quality
The existing sediment quality data were separated into five
sections defined as:
1) Non-CSSA. Those sediments in the free flowing upper
reaches of the Milwaukee, Menomonee, and Kinnickinnic
Rivers which do not receive CSO discharges.
2) CSSA Loaded-Free Flowing. Those sediments which are
located within the CSSA but still have a free-flowing
hydraulic regimen. These flows are not influenced by
Lake Michigan inflow.
3) Inner Harbor. The lower reaches of the three main
rivers which are influenced by Lake Michigan. These
are the low velocity reaches of the rivers.
4) Outer Harbor. That section of Lake Michigan located
within the breakwater and receiving the discharge from
the Inner Harbor and the Jones Island WWTP.
5) Nearshore Lake Michigan. The Lake Michigan area located
within 6,000 ft. of the Outer Harbor breakwater.
These data are summarized in Table 3-8. The data were taken
from studies conducted by the DNR, the MMSD, CDM/Limnetics
and EPA. The 95% confidence interval is given whenever
possible.
3-23
-------
NORTH HARBOR
SECTION
CENTRAL HARBOR
SECTION
SOUTH HARBOR
SECTION
e I«TB 37^0
SCALE IN FEET
FIGURE
3.5
DATE
MILWAUKEE OUTER HARBOR SECTIONS
SOURCE
PREPARED BY
ESEI
EcolSciences
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
-------
TABLE 3-8
EXISTING SEDIMENT QUALITY'
A Non CSSA Loaded Sediments
Milwaukee R.
Mean
95% C.I.(a) Mean
Menomonee R. Kinnickinnic
95% C.I. Mean 95% C.I.
Total Phosphorus
mg/kg (a)
100
+ 87
138
SOD
- d
2.3
0-3.9
COD
mg/kg
Organic-N
mg/kg
Ammonia-N
mg/kg
11,800 + 13,000 13,900
17
+ 12
143
Lead
mg/kg
58
+ 97
82
375
Cadmium
mg/kg
Copper
mg/kg
14
+ 4.2
27
17
36
Zinc
mg/kg
63
+ 114
70
250
PCS
mg/kg
3.9
8.2
0.6
3-24
-------
TABLE 3^8 (.CONT).
EXISTING SEDIMENT QUALITY3
B CSSA Free Flowing Area
Milwaukee R. Menomonee R. Kinnickinnic
Mean 95% C.I. Mean 95% C.I. Mean 95% C.I.
Total Phosphorus
mg/kg 1200 + 566 139
SOD 2
gO /m - day _ _ - _
COD
mg/kg 121,000 + 49,000 16,900
Organic-N
mg/kg - _ _
Ammonia-N
mg/kg 171 + 97 103
Lead
mg/kg 512 + 103 104 - 650
Cadmium
mg/kg 9 + 2.0 16 - 3
Copper
mg/kg 128 + 104 316 - 78
Zinc/kg 470 +_ 236 179 - 825
PCB
mg/kg 17 136-213ic) - - 7.3
3-25
-------
TABLE 3-8 (Cont.)
EXISTING SEDIMENT QUALITY0
Milwaukee R.
Mean 95% C.I.
C Inner Harbor
Menomonee R.
Mean 95% C.I.
Kinnickinnic
Mean 95% C.I.
Total Phosphorus
mg/kg
1560
+ 488
1300
+ 727
1380
+ 372
SOD
g°2//m2 ~
COD
mg/kg
Organic-N
mg/kg
Ammonia-N
mg/kg
Lead
mg/kg
Cadmium
mg/kg
Copper
mg/kg
Zinc
mg/kg
5.2 +_ 1.7
104,000 + 28,000
3800
370 + 105
539 + 210
14 +2.2
138 +_ 23
517 + 70
4.0
88,6'
2980
396
406
14
146
489
3.9-4.1(G) 4.2
+ 2.6
88,600 + 21,000 141,000 + 51,000
3210
+ 760
+ 101
+ 3.0
+ 17
+ 69
257
594
19
118
736
+ 50
+ 225
+ 7.8
+ 28
+ 281
PCB
mg/kg
18
9.6-26
(c)
9.7
3-26
-------
TABLE 3-8 (Cont. )
EXISTING SEDIMENT QUALITY
D Outer Harbor
Mean
E Nearshore Lake Michigan
95% C.I.
Mean
95% C.I.
Total Phosphorus
mg/kg
SOD 2
gO /m - day
COD
mg/kg
Organic-N
mg/kg
Ammonia-N
mg/kg
Lead'
mg/kg
Cadmium
mg/kg
Copper
mg/kg
Zinc
mgAg
PCS
mg/kg
1340
2.1
94,400
2340
144
164
19
55
355
18
+ 1393
+ 2.6
+ 39000
+ 118
+ 92
+ 44
+ 312
+ 12
(a) All concentrations based on a dry weight basis
(b) 95% confidence interval calculated from +_ t • s
(c) Range of two observations.
Source: Table 4P-17 CSO Facility Plan, Bannerman 1979
and Torrey 1976.
700
4.1
+ 340
500
25
1.2
15
50
3.1-5.0'
,(0
+ 470
+ 17
+ 1.1
+ 14
+ 37
3-27
-------
The sediments which are most germane to this study are the
CSSA loaded reaches of the rivers, the Inner Harbor and the
Outer Harbor. Those sediments located upstream of the CSSA
and nearshore Lake Michigan are presented to evaluate CSSA
boundary effects. Sediment quality will be defined in terms
of the ten parameters cited in Table 3-8.
Total phosphorus concentrations in the sediment increase
approximately ten-fold from the non-CSSA river sediments to
the CSSA loaded sediments. The concentrations are quite
similar for all three river reaches within the CSSA and the
Outer Harbor. The near shore sediments have about one-half
the phosphorus levels reported for the CSSA area. Phosphorus
loading to sediments varies seasonally. Soluble phosphorus
is used as a nutrient by phytoplankton and converted to
biomass during the summer months. This biomass is deposited
in the sediments through die-off where it decomposes and
releases phosphorus. These sediments were sampled throughout
the year which tended to average out the seasonal effect.
The differences between the upstream phosphorus and CSSA
phosphorus concentrations are large enough to be considered
real and not analytical scatter.
Oxygen demand is measured by chemical oxygen demand (COD)
and sediment oxygen demand (SOD). COD is a concentration
variable (mg/kg dry basins weight); SOD is an areal parameter
with the units of g 02/m2d. COD represents the organic load
present in the bulk sediment. SOD represents biological
respiration at the sediment-water interface. It may also
include reduced chemical species released from the sediment
by diffusion or advection. COD increases one order of mag-
nitude from non-CSSA to CSSA sediments. SOD approximately
doubles in the same non-CSSA to CSSA sediment. The increase
in COD within the CSSA indicates a condition of organic
overload, i.e., organics accumulate at a rate greater than
biologic assimulation.
Organic nitrogen concentrations are presented for the Inner
and Outer Harbors. Although the samples showed a large
variance, the mean concentrations within the Inner and Outer
Harbors were similar. The slightly lower concentration
reported for the Outer Harbor may be due to the anaerobic
decomposition of organics in the Inner Harbor. This is
further supported by the higher ammonia levels in the Inner
Harbor sediments. Ammonia is a highly soluble pollutant.
Its presence in sediments is usually indicative of the
active anaerobic decomposition of organic nitrogen. The
Inner Harbor has the highest concentrations of ammonia
within the CSSA. It is reasonable to assume this ammonia is
being released by diffusion or advection to the water column.
3-28
-------
Toxic metals are often associated with particulates in the
form of organo-clay complexes. Because of their association
with the finer silts and clays, they are transported to the
regions of low hydraulic energies such as the Inner Harbor.
All four toxic metals analyzed show an increase from non-
CSSA to CSSA sediments. For lead, copper, and zinc, the
increase is about one order of magnitude for the Milwaukee
River. Cadmium increases on the order of two to three fold.
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were found in the Milwaukee
and Kinnickinnic River sediments as well as the Outer Harbor.
Concentrations vary significantly within a given section but
on the average are higher in the downstream reaches.
These data generally describe an environment where particulate-
bound pollutants settle and accumulate. The sediments
within the CSSA receive particulates from upstream as well
as CSO events. These particulates are removed from the
water column by sedimentation. The sediment, in turn,
exerts an oxygen demand on the slow-moving water column and
releases the products of anaerobic decomposition (i.e.
ammonia and phosphorus) back into the water column. Studies
have shown these heavily loaded sediments can exert an
extended oxygen demand when disturbed (Meinholz, 1979b) . The
Inner and Outer Harbors serve as settling basins which
remove suspended material from the water column.
3.3 PUBLIC HEALTH
Since the late 1950s the Milwaukee Health Department has
occasionally closed the beaches at South Shore and Bay View
parks because swimming in polluted waters represented a
potential health hazard to the community. A sampling program
in 1957 and 1958 showed that pollution in the waters of
these beaches was in excess of safe levels prescribed by the
State of Wisconsin. Pollution was attributed to surface
runoff, CSO and poor disinfection at the Jones Island WWTP.
South Shore and Bay View beaches were closed until 1963.
In 1963, a beach closure formula was developed based strictly
on rainfall. In 1977, the 1963 Beach Closure Formula was
revised, based on surveys of the sanitary conditions within
the Outer Harbor. The existing beach closure formula is
listed in Table 3-9. This formula still relies solely on
amount of rainfall and is applicable only to South Shore
Beach. In addition, daily samples are taken at 12 locations,
near the McKinley, Bradford, South Shore and Bay View Beaches
for coliform counts. If samples show high concentrations of
coliforms, the nearby beaches are closed.
3-29
-------
TABLE 3-9
SOUTH SHORE BEACH CLOSURE FORMULA - 1977
Time Beach is to be Closed
(Hours after end of rain-
fall; measured from earliest
Rainfall Amount of Rainfall rainfall when rain occurs
Classification (Inches) on consecutive days.)
1 0.3 to 0.69 48 Hours
2 0.7 to 1.49 72 Hours
3 1.5 or More 96 Hours
4 0.3 to 0.69 on
One Day,
0.7 to 1.49 on
Preceding or
Following Day 96 Hours
Source: Milwaukee Health Department, 1978
3-30
-------
3.4 AQUATIC BIOTA
3.4.1 Benthos
The benthic community in the Outer Harbor, and lower reaches
of the Kinnickinnic, Menomonee/ and Milwaukee Rivers is
generally large and is dominated by very pollution tolerant
organisms. Sludgeworms were the most numerous organisms
although clams, snails, leeches and midge larvae also were
present in small numbers. The populations were smaller and
the species composition more varied at the three breakwater
openings in the Outer Harbor. Species composition and
abundance of organisms show no significant seasonal changes
in these waters. Above Capitol Drive, the Milwaukee River
benthic community is dominated by pollution-tolerant insect
larvae including caddisflies, midges, black flies, and
mayflies.
3.4.2 Algae
Few site-specific data are available to describe the species
distribution and abundance of attached algae in the Milwaukee
River and Lincoln Creek. However, many commonly reported
species are considered to be tolerant of organic pollution
(Palmer 1979). Above North Avenue, Milwaukee River phyto-
plankton follow patterns of seasonal sucession typical of
temperate aquatic systems. Larger populations occur in the
summer and are dominated by green algae. Winter populations
consist primarily of diatoms and blue-green algae. Higher
concentrations of blue-green algae and pollution-tolerant
green algae are indicative of polluted waters. Most species
of floating algae reported in the CSSA are tolerant of
organically enriched waters. Phytoplankton concentrations
were measured in the summer and the fall of 1977 for the
stretch of the Milwaukee River from Brown Deer Road to the
Inner Harbor. The chlorophyll a concentrations, recorded in
July and August, ranged from 3.T8 mg/m3 to 152 mg/m3.
Limited data are available on periphyton and phytoplankton
populations in the Kinnickinnic and Menomonee Rivers. How-
ever, many of the reported species are tolerant of organic
pollution (Palmer 1979). Diversity indices show that the
environmental quality of the Kinnickinnic and Menomonee
Rivers within the CSSA is low but improves near the mouth,
where cleaner water enters from Lake Michigan.
A filamentous green algae, Cladophora glomerata, is the most
abundant periphytic alga in the Outer Harbor, Because of
its abundance in enriched areas of the Great Lakes, detached
mats of the algae have created nuisance conditions near
Milwaukee since 1959. The abundance of phytoplankton in the
3-31
-------
Outer Harbor fluctuates seasonally. Very high chlorophyll
a levels have been measured in summer, indicating that this
Ts a highly enriched area. Data on seasonal species succession
are not available.
3.4.3 Zooplankton
Limited sampling indicates that winter populations of
zooplankton in the Menomonee, Kinnickinnic and Milwaukee
Rivers are small and dominated by rotifers, which increase
in water receiving sewage effluent. Cladocerans and copepods
also were reported in low numbers. Given the high level of
nutrients, it is probable that large summer zooplankton
populations may develop in the rivers, particularly in the
lake-influenced area. Seasonal abundance of Outer Harbor
rotifers displayed a unimodal distribution with highest
values in July. Species composition and abundance were
similar to those reported from other enriched, highly pro-
ductive areas of the Great Lakes (Stemberger, 1974). Data
on other forms of zooplankton are not available.
3.4.4 Fish
A total of 37 species of fish have been reported in the
Milwaukee River and Lincoln Creek. The majority of those
collected above North Avenue were pollution-tolerant forage
fish. The striped shiner was recorded in moderate numbers
from the Estabrook Park area. It is an endangered species
in Wisconsin (DNR 1979) . However, existing specimens in the
Milwaukee River probably do not enter the CSSA, because they
cannot tolerate high silt levels.
Most of the species of fish reported from the Milwaukee
River below North Avenue are probably transients from Lake
Michigan. It is unlikely that any fish spawn in this reach
of the river except goldfish, carp, and alewives because of
the highly organic sediments and generally low dissolved
oxygen levels.
Eighteen fish species have been recorded from the Menomonee
River below Silver Spring Drive. Most of these were tolerant
or very tolerant of pollution. Brown and rainbow trout have
been caught in the Inner Harbor portion of the river but are
probably transients from Lake Michigan. The five species of
fish reported in collections from the Kinnickinnic River are
all classified as tolerant to very tolerant. Of these, only
the very pollution-tolerant fathead minnow has been found in
large numbers.
The most frequently observed fish in the Outer Harbor was
the alewife (MMSD 1979) . Numerous other Lake Michigan fish
enter the harbor, but habitat limitations probably prohibit
successful spawning within the Outer Harbor and lower river
reaches.
3-32
-------
3.5 FLOODPLAINS
Floodplains for Milwaukee's three rivers are confined mainly
to the watercourses. Channelization has been done to all of
the Kinnickinnic and Menomonee Rivers and portions of the
lower reaches of the Milwaukee River (below North Avenue)
within the CSSA. Some segments of the Kinnickinnic are
concrete lined. Above the North Avenue Dam on the Milwaukee
River, the banks rise steeply allowing for very little flat
land and a very small floodplain.
Heavy urbanization in the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic River
watersheds has drastically altered the runoff and flood
plain hydraulics in these basins. Some encroachment has
taken place in the natural floodplain of the Menomonee
River, increasing risks due to flood damage.
Continued urbanization in all three watersheds could further
alter the hydrologic-hydraulic regimen in these river basins.
3.6 GEOLOGY
3.6.1 Introduction
The project area is located in the Great Lakes section of
the Central Lowland physiographic province. The topography
is generally level to slightly rolling. The difference in
elevation between the highest point in the CSSA and the low-
est point over a distance of approximately 5 miles is approx-
imately 170 feet. The land forms are the product of pregla-
cial and glacial erosion of the Paleozoic bedrock, glacial
deposition, and postglacial erosion and deposition by streams
and lakes.
The CSSA includes portions of three major river basins. The
three river basins have similar topography, with slopes
generally less than 10%. The north and south lake shore
basins have steep embankments slightly inland from the lake,
generally following the shoreline. In these areas, slopes
in some instances exceed 25%.
The region is covered with glacial sediments that range from
a few feet to over 600 feet in thickness. The surface of
the glacial deposits in some areas is level or very gently
undulating, indicating the presence of ground moraine laid
directly from the glacial ice or glacial lake deposits. The
glacial deposits in other areas have long ridge forms called
end moraines that mark the terminus of glacial ice advances.
Within the glacial deposits are glacial outwash deposits
left by glacial meltwater streams and rivers.
3-33
-------
The bedrock beneath the glacial deposit mantle is a thick
sequence of early to middle Paleozoic sedimentary rocks.
This sequence has a general north-south direction and dips
uniformly in an east-southeast direction at 10 to 100 feet
per mile. The sequence of sedimentary rocks dips away from
a regional anticline west of Milwaukee, the Wisconsin arch,
and dips toward a regional syncline centered in the lower
peninsula of Michigan, the Michigan basin.
The sequence includes carbonate Climestone and dolomites),
sandstones, and shales. The parts of the sequence rich in
shale underlie valleys because the shales are less resistent
to weathering, stream erosion, and glacial erosion than the
adjacent sandstones and carbonate rocks. Lowlands formed on
outcrop bands of shale include the Lake Michigan basin and
Green Bay. The carbonate outcrop bands form the higher
lands such as the west shore of Lake Michigan, including the
Milwaukee area.
3.6.2 Stratigraphy
3.6.2.1 Surficial Deposits
Surficial deposits of the Milwaukee area are five to 242
feet thick, with an average thickness of 110 feet. Fifty-
four percent of the soils are clayey glacial till, 29% are
sand, 13% are clay, and 4% are silt and organic soils. The
granular soil units, including sand and silt, occur at all
levels in the surficial deposits, but lateral extensions of
the units appear to be unusual. Thus, the granular soils
are mainly lenses within a clay soil matrix. The general
character of the surficial deposits along the downstream
segments of the river corridors in the project area is
defined by soil borings from 53 foundation investigation
programs for other projects and is summarized below.
3.6.2.1.1 Milwaukee River: The 8-mile long and 0.5-mile
wide corridor from Hampton Avenue Bridge to the river mouth
is characterized by glacial till and outwash deposits. On
the west side of the river, the glacial till is covered by a
10- to 20-foot thick deposit of medium to very loose silts,
silty sands, and organic materials formed in postglacial
marshes. The glacial deposits east of the river are remnants
of morainal ridges. Bedrock is a few feet below the surface
at the northern end of the corridor and more than 200 feet
below the surface at the mouth of the river.
3.6.2.1.2 Menqmonee River: The 5-mile long and 0.5-mile
wide corridor from 60th Street to the junction with the
Milwaukee River contains glacial till, outwash deposits, and
postglacial silt and organic soils. The glacial deposits
are exposed outside the Menomonee River Valley and partially
3-34
-------
fill the bedrock valley. A 50- to 100-foot unit of silt and
organic soil mantles the glacial soils within the valley.
Bedrock depth generally ranges from 50 to 150 feet between
60th Street and County Stadium, and ranges from 0 to 250
feet from County Stadium to the Milwaukee River junction.
Occasional outcroping occurs east of 60th Street.
3.6.2.1.3 Kinnickinnic River: The 6-mile long and 0.5-
mile wide corridor from 36th Street and Forest Home Avenue
to the confluence with the Milwaukee River contains mainly
glacial till and glacial outwash deposits, with local, thin
deposits of peat and loose silt. Surficial deposits are
typically 100-feet thick.
3.6.2.2 Bedrock
The sequence of Paleozoic bedrock in the Milwaukee area
ranges in age from Cambrian to Devonian (Figure 3-6). The
underlying Cambrian and Orodovician age formations have been
explored by water wells in the Milwaukee area and by exami-
nation of outcrops to the west. The overlying Silurian and
Devonian age formations also have been explored by water
wells and borings, and are exposed in scattered natural out-
crops and quarries in the Milwaukee area. Regional studies
show that the Paleozoic sedimentary rocks are underlain by
igneous and metamorphic basement rocks of Precambrian age.
3.6.3 Seismicity
There have been earthquakes in the Milwaukee area, and
others may occur during the useful life of the project. The
data indicate that significant earthquakes would occur some
distance from the Milwaukee area and that damage in the area
caused by these seismic events would be the result of ground
vibrations.
The last significant earthquake near Milwaukee occurred in
northern Illinois on 26 May 1909. If the intensity in
Chicago, 80 miles from the epicenter, was VI or VII, the
intensity in Milwaukee, 65 miles from the epicenter, probably
also would have been VI or VII. These intensities are rated
on the Modified Mercalli Scale. This scale rates intensity
according to damage incurred and activity perceived on a
scale of I through XII. Table 3-10 shows an exerpt of the
description including intensities of V-VIII.
3-35
-------
TABLE 3-10
EXERPT OF MODIFIED MERCALLI SCALE OF 1931
V. Felt by nearly everyone, many awakened. Some
dishes, windows, etc., broken; a few instances of
cracked plaster; unstable objects overturned. Disturbance
of trees, poles, and other tall objects sometimes
noticed. Pendulum clocks may stop.
VI. Felt by all; many are frightened and run outdoors.
Some heavey furniture moved; a few instances of fallen
plaster or damaged chimneys. Damage slight.
VII. Everybody runs outdoors. Damage negligible in
buildings of good design and construction; slight to
moderate in well-built ordinary structures; considerable
in poorly built or badly designed structures; some
chimneys broken. Noticed by persons driving motorcars.
VIII. Damage slight in specially designed structures;
considerable in ordinary substantial buildings, with
partial collapse; great in poorly built structures.
Panel walls thrown out of frame structures. Fall of
chimneys, factory stacks, columns, monuments, walls.
Heavy furniture overturned. Sand and mud ejected in
small amounts. Changes in well water. Persons driving
motorcars disturbed.
Source: Wood and Neuman, December 1931
Surface and subsurface structures may be damaged by earth-
quake activity in two ways: by ground translation along
faults that cross the structure and by vibrations. Ground
translation is localized in narrow zones where active faults
are exposed and cannot be restrained by manmade structures.
Damage to the structures, however, can be minimized by de-
signs that accommodate future movement. Ground vibrations
may affect large areas, causing damage that is a function of
vibrational intensity, site geology, and structural design.
The risk of damage from future ground translations is present
but is considered negligible. There may be two faults in
the Milwaukee area along which the damage could occur (Figure
3-7). The faults along which the ground motion occurred
during the previous earthquakes in the Milwaukee area could
not be determined because of the thick soil cover and because
offsets along the faults probably were small.
3-36
-------
AGE
HOLOCENE
PLEISTOCENE
DEVONIAN
SILURIAN
ORDOVICIAN
CAMBRIAN
PRECAMBRIAN
SYMBOL
-~T UCES
,W.C., 1918; "THE QUATERNARY GEOLOGY OF SOUTHEASTERN
JSIN WITH A CHAPTER ON THE OLDER ROCK FORMATIONS " USGS
3APER NO. 106.
^L-\ '. 1970; "PLEISTOCENE GEOLOGY OF WISCONSIN," WGNHS INFOR-
i M CIRCULAR NO. 15.
H, G.O., 1935; "DEVONIAN OF WISCONSIN," KANSAS GEOL SOC
llNUAL MEETING GUIDEBOOK
-ACHER, D., 1971A; "CONODONTS FROM THE MIDDLE DEVONIAN
-4—^-T-;HURCH AND MILWAUKEE FORMATIONS," IN CONODONTS AND
—L-J 'JATIGRAPHY OF THE WISCONSIN PALEOZOIC EDITED BY D L
•=~3^~, WGNHS INFORMATION CIRCULAR NO 19.
-ACHER, D., 1971B; "CONODONTS AND BIOSTRATIGRAPHY OF THE
/ / T^OD'SHALE (UPPER DEVONIAN)," IN CONODONTS AND BIOSTRATI-
^~y OF THE WISCONSIN PALEOZOIC, EDITED BY D.L.CLARK WGNHS
/IATION CIRCULAR NO 19
7VI, M.E., 1967; "PALEOZOIC STRATIGRAPHIC NOMENCLATURE FOR
3SIN,' WGNHS INFORMATION CIRCULAR NO. 8.
~"WS. A.A.. 1977: "MILWAUKEE CSQ POLLUTION ABATFMPNT STUDY
TI^HNICAL REPORT OF TUNNELS AND CHAMBERS," PREPARED FOR
JS, THOMPSON AND RUNYAN INC FEBRUARY 1977
_JIG,G.T., 1971; "MAQUOKETA SHALE," IN CONODONTS AND BIO-
GRAPHY OF THE WISCONSIN PALEOZOIC, EDITED BY D.L. CLARK
-'INFORMATION CIRCULAR NO 19
I . I
=M.. 1935; "ORDOVICIAN SYSTEM IN THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI
f.<'," KANSAS GEOL. SOC. 9TH ANNUAL MEETING GUIDEBOOK.
— J.G., AND HUTCHINSON, R.D., 1965; "GROUNDWATER PUMPAGE
-ATER-LEVEL CHANGES IN THE Ml LWAUKEE-WAUKESHA AREA
—SIN, 1950-1961," USGS WATER SUPPLY PAPER 1809-1.
• F.C., WALTON, W.C., AND DRESCHER, W.J., 1953; "GROUNDWATER
• IONS IN THE MILWAUKEE-WAUKESHA AREA WISCONSIN " USGS
SUPPLY PAPER NO 1229
FIGURE
3-6
DATE
NOV I960
SOURCE
MMSD
PREPARED BY
EcolSciences
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
-------
WASHINGTON COUNTY
WAUKESHA COUNT™ ""
VULCAN MATERIALS
CORP. QUARRY
'\
"
iPEWAUKEE
WAUKESHA STONE
COMPANY QUARRY
[WAUKESHA
iiiiiiiini
Fault-Postulated By
Distelhorst & Milnes
(1967)
Fault Observed in Quarry
5' Vertical Offset
.......................... Fault Observed in Quarry
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 100' Vertical Offset
OZAUKEE COUNTY
LAKE MICHIGAN
MILWAUKEE COUNTY
RACINE COUNTY
NORTH
1 0
MILES
FIGURE
3-7
DATE
NOV 1980
FAULTS IN THE MILWAUKEE AREA
SOURCE M.M.S.D.
PREPARED BY
EcolSciences
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
-------
Field observations and theoretical studies indicate that
ground motions from earthquakes are less severe in under-
ground openings in rock than on the surface at the same
location. Damages in underground openings can occur when
the intensity is VIII, and only minor damages occur when the
intensity is VII. Only two such events have occurred in the
Northern Illinois/Southern Wisconsin area in the past 200
years.
3.7 GROUNDWATER
3.7.1 Introduction
Water which seeps into the ground and moves below the soil
zone which is affected by evapotranspiration, is considered
groundwater. Groundwater is stored and transported in
openings of the rock and soil, including pores between
mineral grains, joints and fractures.
The ease with which water moves through a material is called
the permeability. Geologic materials much as shale or clay
have small openings with poor interconnections and low per-
meabilities. Geologic materials with large, interconnected
openings, such as sand or fractured rock, have medium to
high permeabilities.
An aquifer is a geologic unit containing staturated, per-
meable material which yields enough water to wells to
encourage well development. An aquiclude is a geologic unit
which does not yield significant water to wells and has low
permeability. Aquifers can be either artesian or non-
artesian. In an artesian aquifer,-the water level in a well
rises above the top of the source unit; in a nonartesian
aquifer, the water level is within the aquifer. The water
levels in wells define a surface called the peizometric
surface. When water is pumped from an aquifer, the pie-
zometric surface in the vicinity of the well is lowered,
forming a cone of depression. The coefficient of storage of
an aquifer is the volume of water taken into or released
from storage per unit area per unit change in the level of
the piezometric surface of the aquifer. The coefficient of
storage in nonartesian aquifers is usually 0.05 to 0.30.
The coefficient of storage in artesian aquifers is about
0.00001 to 0.001. In nonartesian aquifers, water is stored
in or withdrawn from voids in the aquifer. In artesian
aquifers, water is stored or withdrawn by compression or
decompression of the water.
3-38
-------
Three aquifers are present in the study area. The uppermost
aquifer is the sand and gravel aquifer, composed of the sand
and gravel beds within the surficial deposits. Below it is
the Niagaran aquifer, which consists of the Silurian and
Devonian formations. The sandstone aquifer occupies the
lowest level. This aquifer incorporates the sandstones,
limestones, and dolomites that are between the bottom of the
Maquoketa group and the top of the precambrian basement
complex. The Maquoketa group forms an aquiclude composed of
relatively impermeable, thick shale beds between the Niagaran
and Sandstone aquifers.
3.7.2 Aquifer^)escriptions
3.7.2.1 Sand and Gravel Aquifer
The thickness of the sand and gravel deposits reported in
143 well logs ranges from 1 to 160 feet, and averages 42
feet. The thickness of the surficial deposits ranges from 5
feet to 242 feet, and averages 110 feet. The sand and
gravel deposits occur as beds, lenses, stream channel-
fillings and pockets within the surficial deposits. The
individual sand and gravel units generally are too small and
occur too sporadically to be defined as separate hydro-
geologic units within the surficial deposits. The aquifer
is hydraulically connected to the underlying Niagaran aquifer
where the sand and gravel deposits directly overlie the
bedrock. For this reason, the sand and gravel and Niagaran
aquifers are often treated as a single hydrogeologic unit.
Well yields in the sand and gravel aquifer range from 0 to
1500 gallons per minute (gpm). The yield varies with the
gradation and thickness of the sand and gravel, the aereal
extent of the deposit, and the degree of interconnection
between the adjacent permeable materials. Large well yields
are generally obtained only from thick coarse-grained sand
and gravel deposits, unless the deposit has a limited aereal
extent or is isolated by clayey soils. Because of the spo-
radic occurrence of the sand and gravel deposits, well
yields cannot be accurately predicted prior to drilling and
testing.
The sand and gravel aquifer is recharged by downward perco-
lation of surface water and, in some areas, by the upward
movement of groundwater from the underlying bedrock. The
discharge is mainly into wells, streams, rivers, lakes and
the underlying dolomite bedrock where the piezometric sur-
face in the Niagaran aquifer is lower than that of the sand
and gravel aquifer.
3-39
-------
3.7.2.2 Niagaran Aquifer
Artesian conditions exist throughout most of the Niagaran
aquifer. The groundwater level is near the ground surface
in much of the CSSA, except in the cone of depression centered
on the Milwaukee River (Figure 3-8).. The coefficient of
storage for the Niagaran aquifer ranges from 0.0001 to
0.005, which is within the range of artesian conditions.
The piezometric surface ranges from 0 to 150 feet above the
top of the aquifer. Nonartesian conditions exist in some
locations where the basal sand and gravel of the surficial
deposits is unusually thick, or where pumpage has lowered
the piezometric surface below the top of the rock.
Well yields in the Niagaran aquifer range from 5 to over
1,000 gpm. The yields vary with the characteristics of the
well itself, including diameter, depth of penetration into
the aquifer, degree of well development, and pump capacity.
Bedrock characteristics, including the number of joints
intercepted, the joint width, the joint filling, and the
groundwater recharge to the intercepted joints are also
important. The wide range of well yields is mainly a func-
tion of bedrock conditions.
The Niagaran aquifer is recharged by surface waters perco-
lating through the surficial deposits in a 20- to 30-mile
belt along the western shore of Lake Michigan. Most of the
water moves down the dip of Niagaran bedrock to discharge
into Lake Michigan. Some of the water in the CSSA discharges
to wells, some to the underlying sandstone aquifer by way of
wells open to both aquifers and slow percolation through the
Maquoketa, and some to the three rivers. The hydrologic
balance of the Niagaran aquifer in the CSSA cannot be defined
from existing information, but fragmentary information indi-
cates that the lateral flow is on the order of 10 million
gallons per day (MGD), and the losses to the sandstone
aquifer are on the order of 0.6 MGD.
3.7.2.3 Sandstone Aquifer
The sandstone aquifer comprises more than 1,500 feet of
sandstone, limestone, dolomite, siltstone and shale located
between the base of the Maquoketa group and the top of the
precainbrian basement bedrock. It is actually a series of
separate aquifers which were partially interconnected prior
to the development of deep wells. Wells in the sandstone
aquifer are either uncased or fully cased with openings to
the more productive intervals. This creates flow between
the aquifers, allowing them to act as a single hydrogeologic
unit.
3-40
-------
SHOREWOOD
LAKE MICHIGAN
MAITLAND FIELD SITE
ST. FRANCIS
*695
• Boring into Bedrock
® Boring into Surficial Deposits N o K T
A Well in Niagaran Group
588 Post-1970 Water Level
•636 Pre-1970 Water Level
600— Piezometric surface contours from Groundwater Pumpage and Water Level Changes in
The Milwaukee-Waukesha Area, Wisconsin, 1950-1961
by J.H. Green and R.D. Hutchinson, 1965. U.S.G.S. Water Supply Paper1809-1
Contours slightly modified to show more recent information.
FIGURE
3-8
DATE
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER LEVELS
IN THE NIAGARAN AQUIFER
PREPARED BY
SOURCE M.M.S.D.
EcolSciences
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
-------
Groundwater conditions differ among the geologic units
within the aquifer. The limestone and dolomite units are
similar to the Niagaran aquifer in that groundwater is
stored and transported in joints and fractures of the rock.
The sandstone units are more similar to the sand and gravel
aquifer because the groundwater is stored and transported in
pores in the rock.
Well yields in the Milwaukee area range up to 1,800 gpm in
wells penetrating the sandstone aquifer. Yields are less
variable than in Niagaran or sand and gravel aquifers
because the sandstone has a more uniform permeability.
The groundwater in the sandstone aquifer is artesian, with
the piezometric surface located within the Niagaran group
about 150 to 300 feet above the top of the aquifer. The
coefficient of storage for the sandstone aquifer is about
0.0004, well within the artesian range. Typical piezometric
surface elevations for this aquifer are shown in Figure 3-9.
The sandstone aquifer is recharged by downward percolation
through the surficial deposits in the outcrop belt of the
formations west of Milwaukee. The eastern limit of this
outcrop belt is about 24 miles west of Milwaukee; the
western limit of the recharge area is a groundwater divide
between the Mississippi River and Lake Michigan drainage
basins about 28 miles west of Milwaukee. Groundwater
movement in the sandstone aquifer is eastward down the dip
of the strata towards the major pumping centers which include
Milwaukee, Waukesha and Racine.
The sandstone aquifer also is recharged by downward perco-
lation of water from the Niagaran aquifer. The sandstone
aquifer discharges into the Niagaran through the Maquoketa
group in areas where the piezometric surface of the sand-
stone aquifer is higher than the piezometric surface of the
Niagaran aquifer.
3.7.3 Groundwater Quality
The groundwater quality in the Milwaukee area is good,
although it is classified as "very hard". Groundwater
composition in the three aquifers is summarized in Table 3-
11. Groundwater quality has changed little since 1947,
although there has been a slight increase in the pH of the
groundwater and an increase in the nitrate concentration in
the Niagaran aquifer.
3-42
-------
WASHINGTON
IN CO. I OZAUKEE CO.
_ 400— — Winter 1973-74
(Some supplementary
25-foot contours)
Shows altitude at which water
level would stand in tightly
cased wells. Hachured to
indicate closed areas of lower
altitude. Dashed where location
is approximate. Interval is
50 feet. Datum is mean sea level.
FEET
FIGURE
3-9
DATE
NOV I960
PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE OF
SANDSTONE AQUIFER-I973-I974
SOURCE M.M.S.D.
PREPARED BY
ITlEcolSciences
-SjU ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
-------
f^
1
a co
L, a
CO cu
r c
_,
01
E CO
i -a
en ••*
a'o
o
KN
Z
j
or
UJ -9
X ^H
i "CT
— s e
O • KN
ce o
CJ C U
a
U. -H
O 4J
co
in u KN
in CD
3 i §
1 —1 C
<* o
n cj — i
W z °
pq cj
Pj (j^ J£
0
a: a
in c
*
CO
CO
u cu c
cu — * cu
€ E co
z in *"
jj
CO
Q
CO
4->
CO
cu
UN
UN UN NO
pli-tr-:
CM •* NO
°.°,S
UN \o r»
UN co
UN
«- r- CM
a o a
r~ -* O
•— CM KN
t 1 1
! NO NO
-^ ^f t
cu
co o
u CU CU
cj 4J aice
CO CO
•a cu u 4J
•o eu co
in
UN ^ r»
UN UN NO NO «- NO P~ UNCM •* O VO UN ON CM ON
r> r»r-rs r- 03 p. r- co r- r- r~ r- NO oo r-
^ODQ"tf r*»(A f*»Q3OQoJ-^OO ^J
sO 00 ^ in ^1 *^ "*^ in *•" O vfl O\ ON O CO *f\ C
f*i ^™ U^ fO ^ Nfl ^ CO ^O ^^ ^ ON ^ ^ ^^ ^f Q]
«- c
o
CJ
KN oNNor* NoaocM soco co ^OOD oao co
<— ONCMON KN *— ON KN«— CM ONKNC3 O^KN "D
UN CMr*
U CO O
UN CM KN ON O U CO
CO CQONCO -^ ON COCM UN CMO->
0 CO CO
J3 <*- -0
tH — < 'H
a 3 u
cj in o
r* UNOOKN UNONOO XCO *— UN^-vO CO'tfCM — ^
M3 KNONr** OKNCM P*-sQ NO ^-^-^ -CT^CO 1 1 f-
CM CMCMCM r- ..cr <. zcjzco tu
cocoojcxcocucx cocxococucxcococx co n
u CO ov* CO u CV-* CD 4J CT"1 C8 *J CO ov* CO u CT""* CO 4J -f | | aj ^
COT3CSSCOC2ESCOCZZCOTrCZSCOCZSCO — C *"l
CT— < CO >CO OCO T3 — < CO >CO OCUCUCO CT"O 3
cooa:
-------
The level of dissolved solids and the ion content increase
with depth. Thus they are highest in the sandstone aquifer
and lowest in the sand and gravel aquifer as the result of
slower water movement in the deep aquifers than in the
shallow aquifers.
Groundwater in the shallow aquifers is becoming polluted in
the Milwaukee area. The increase in nitrate concentration
may reflect this pollution. Saline groundwater from north
of Milwaukee reportedly is intruding upon the sandstone
aquifer. This intrusion has not yet become serious, but
Holt and Skinner (1973) suggest that wells be installed to
monitor movement of the saline waters. Continued lowering
of the piezometric surface of the sandstone aquifer could
increase the rate of saline intrusion.
3.8 AIR QUALITY
The EPA has established national standards for ambient air
quality (primary standards to protect health; secondary
standards to protect the public welfare, specifically
property, vegetation, and aesthetics). In April 1971, EPA
established standards for major air pollutants—sulfur
dioxide, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons,
nitrogen dioxide, and photochemical oxidants. Areas of the
nation which do not meet these standards have been designated
as "non-attainment areas". These national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS) are shown in Table 3-12.
In 1977 the DNR operated 25 ambient air quality monitoring
sites in Milwaukee County. Total suspended particulates,
sulfur oxide (measured as SO2), carbon monoxide, nitrogen
oxide (measured as NC-2) , and photochemical oxidant (measured
as 03) were sampled at the monitoring sites. Not all pollu-
tants were sampled at each site. Air quality measurements
were used to predict air quality levels for the study area.
The annual data show approximated pollutant levels (see
Table 3-13). In all cases the concentration of the pollutant
is highest near downtown Milwaukee. As can be seen from
Table 3-13, portions of the CSSA have been designated as non-
attainment areas. The most notable parameters for which
this area is in excess are carbon monoxide and suspended
particulates. Figure 3-10 shows the boundaries of designated
non-attainment areas for these parameters.
An inventory of 1977 total pollutant emissions from point,
area, and line sources in Milwaukee County was conducted.
Point sources are stationary facilities such as steel mills
and power plants. Large area sources include residential
and coiranercial areas where there are emission from fuel
usage. Line source emissions are those generated by motor
vehicles on roadways.
3-45
-------
•0
o
co
co-
ca
w JH
D «
co d,
co p
H PS
ffl
CO Cd
EH -
co
>i (d
SH SH
fl) 3
ft 0
fl)
O fl)
G • G
0 tn o
4-1
G C C
id (d id
.C fl X!
X
0) O fl)
SH rl
0 rH 0
g id g
0
fl -rH fl
fl) g 0)
a) x; fl)
0) O fl)
o o o
X 4-1 X
fl) O D
X!
fl) a a>
n Q
tn
0 id 0
•P 4-1
4J D 4J
0 tn o
G in G
0)
G SH G
o a o
•H X -H
4-1 fl) 4-1
id id
SH >i SH
4J rH -P
C M G
0) fl) 0)
O g 0
G rl C
0 O 0
CJ Cn CJ
ifl fl U
•
00
-------
TABLE 3-13
MILWAUKEE AMBIENT AIR POLLUTION LEVELS
Pollutant
Period of
Measurement
of Calculation
Concentration
in Study Area
Particulate Matter
(PM)
Annual
(geometric mean)
55-75 micrograms*
Sulfur Oxides (SOX)
(measured as
sulfur dioxide)
Annual
(arithmetic mean) 35-50 micrograms
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
8 hour
2-14 milligrams*
Hydrocarbons (HC) 3 hour
(nonmethane measured (6 a.m. to 9a.m.) 100-200 micrograms*
as methane)
Nitrogen Dioxide (N02) Annual
(arithmetic mean) 100-200 micrograms
Ozone (Ov)
1 hour
>235 micrograms*
a Weight of pollutant per cubic meter of ambient air
corrected to 25° C and 760 millimeters of mercury
* Pasameters for which portions of the CSSA have been
designated as Non-attainment Areas
Source: SEWRPC
3-47
-------
LEGEND
V77A
TOTAL SUSPENDED PAR-
TICULATE PRIMARY NON-
ATTAINMENT AREA
BOUNDARY
TOTAL SUSPENDED PAR-
TICULATE SECONDARY
NONATTAINMENT AREA
BOUNDARY
CARBON MONOXIDE
NONATTAINMENT
AREA BOUNDARY
0 3
SCALE IN MILES
FIGURE
3-10
DATE
NOV 1980
NONATTAINMENT AREAS FOR CARBON
MONOXIDE AND SUSPENDED PARTICULATES
PREPARED BY
SOURCE M.M.S.D.
EcolSciences
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
-------
Industry was the dominant source of particulate matter,
contributing almost 50% of the total emissions in the county.
Emissions from four land use sectors (transportation,
industrial, commercial, and residential) contributed over
92% of the total sulfur dioxide emissions. The largest
contributors to total carbon monoxide area source emissions
were internal combustion sources, with utility engines,
aircraft, and power boat operations contributing 43%, 29%,
and 12%,of the total emissions, respectively. Fuel com-
bustion was the largest source of nitrogen dioxide emissions,
and total hydrocarbon emissions were generated primarily by
utility engines, gasoline marketing, and dry cleaning operations,
The total emissions from all sources for all pollutants,
with the exception of carbon monoxide, show a projected
increase between 1977 and 2000. This indicates a deter-
ioration in ambient air quality. Carbon monoxide emissions
from point sources are expected to increase between 1977 to
2000. Anticipated industrial expansion and the concurrent
increase in energy consumption is one factor. Emissions of
all five pollutants from area sources are projected to
increase from 1977 to 2000 as a result of continued urban
growth. The expected reduction in carbon monoxide, nitrogen
dioxide and hydrocarbon emissions from line sources between
1977 and 2000 is a result of the federal motor vehicle
exhaust emissions standards. The elimination of lead com-
pounds in gasoline is one reason particulate emissions will
decline. Because sulfur dioxide emissions from motor vehicles
are not controlled, the increase in these emissions can be
attributed to the increase in vehicle miles traveled.
3.9 NOISE
The noise level of an area depends on the land uses in that
area and its adjacent areas (Figure 3-11). Different land
uses will generate different sounds. There are natural
sounds, such as the wind in trees, and man-made sounds, such
as those produced by transportation vehicles, consumer
products, commercial and industrial activities, and con-
struction equipment. There are also different types of
sound: constant, fluctuating, and intermittent sounds.
Waterfalls, turbine engines, and electrical sub-stations all
produce constant, uniform noises. Traffic and manufacturing
noises periodically fluctuate in intensity, and construction
work and explosions produce intermittent periods of loud
noise interspersed with periods of quiet. In addition, the
sound characteristics of an area may vary during different
times of the day.
3-49
-------
QUIET RESIDENTIAL
AVQ RESIDENTIAL
DAYTIME
SEMI-COMMERCIAL
RESIDENTIAL
60 70
A-LEVEL (db)
Source HUD Report No TE NA 172 Technical Assessment Guideline Technical Background
FIGURE
3-11
DATE
NOV I960
SUMMARY OF EXISTING NOISE EXPOSURES
BY DAY AND BY NIGHT IN DIFFERENT U.S. CITY AREAS
SOURCE M.M.S.D.
PREPARED BY
EcolSciences
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
-------
There are few documented measurements of noise levels in the
Milwaukee area. However, noise levels ranging from 65-70
decibels on the A scale CdBAl are representative of the am-
bient noises in the central business district (CBDl and the
industrial zones. The representative background noise in
residential areas is considered to be 50 dBA. Because of
the many variables affecting ambient sound levels, studies
would have to be made throughout Milwaukee to obtain more
detailed information.
3.10 WILDLIFE HABITAT
Because of the high amount of urbanization in the CSSA,
vegetation is limited to species of plants found in parks,
lawns and other lands typical of the urban setting. Urbani-
zation has restricted wildlife in the area in terms of both
abundance and diversity. Species found in the CSSA must be
tolerant of human activity and be able to find both food and
shelter in residential, commercial and parklands. Certain
sections of parks have been set aside as low maintenance
areas, allowing vegetation to re-establish in its natural
successional stages. Many animals, mainly migratory birds,
frequent Milwaukee on a seasonal basis. Exotic plant species
and intentional planting of preferred wildlife food species
attract wildlife which would not otherwise frequent urban
areas.
In five different surveys conducted at Whitnall Park (out-
side of the CSSA, in the Milwaukee Metropolitan area), 246
different varieties of birds were sited. Of these 246, 112
species were considered uncommon or rare to the Milwaukee
environs and one was considered "very rare or accidental"
(Strehlow, E.W., 1973; Bielefeldt, J., 1977).
The Milwaukee area is known to support 20 different species
of mammals (Long, 1974). Most are small rodent-like animals.
The area also supports 14 species of amphibians and 14
species of reptiles. This inventory includes 8 varieties of
frogs and 9 varieties of snakes (Briggs, J., 1977).
Of the 57 species of trees known to exist in southeastern
Wisconsin, the DNR has identified 17 as known to be found in
the CSSA. Also identified were 10 varieties of aquatic
plants found in the Milwaukee River (DNR, 1977) . Various
inventories of Wisconsin vegetation have identified 55
different species of shrubs and vines (U.S.D.A., 1971), 38
species of common wild flowers (Tyler, 1964) , and 18 species
of common ground covers (Hasselkes, E.R.). Of these species,
it is not known how many exist within the confines of the
CSSA.
3-51
-------
3.11 THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES
The U.S. 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 an analogous
list of endangered species in Wisconsin. There are three
species of endangered animals that could be affected by the
alternatives of this project: the longjaw cisco CCoregonus
alpenae) on the Federal list, and the striped shiner(Notrppis
chry soc'ephalus) and the longear sunfish (Lepomis megalotis)
on the State list. The longjaw cisco is a fish that has
been reported to live in the deep waters of Lake Michigan.
Its presence in Lake Michigan is currently in doubt; the
species may have been killed by lake eutrophication, which
results in the depletion of oxygen at deeper levels.
The striped shiner is endangered in Wisconsin. It is found
in the Milwaukee River upstream of Lincoln Creek and rarely
anywhere else in Wisconsin (Becker 1976). It requires a
clean, shallow river for spawning. 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, e.g., the bald eagle,
the peregrine falcon, the osprey, and the Cooper's hawk,
have been seen flying by Milwaukee on their annual migrations.
They are not known to nest or roost in the study area.
3.12 POPULATION
The 1970 population in the CSSA was approximately 336,200
persons, approximately 47% of the population of the City of
Milwaukee. Population in the City of Milwaukee began de-
clining during the 1960's. Between 1960 and 1970, the net
population loss was 3%. During that same period, population
in the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA)
increased by 10%. This phenomenon is explained, in part, by
the relocation of a portion of the city's middle and upper
middle classes to the suburbs. As these groups have left,
they have been replaced by minority populations moving to
the city seeking employment. The influx of different ethnic
groups has resulted pronounced social and cultural changes,
particularly in the inner city.
The trend away from the city continued between 1970 and
1977 (see Table 3-14). While the population again declined
in the City of Milwaukee, for the first time, the population
also declined in Milwaukee County. Most of the decline in
the county was due to population losses in the cities of
West Allis, Cudahy, and Wauwatosa and the Villages of
3-52
-------
TABLE 3-14
POPULATION DATA
CSSA
City of Milwaukee
Milwaukee County
Milwaukee SMSA
Southeastern
Wisconsin
1970
Census
336,200
717,372
1,054,249
1,403,887
1975
Estimate
295,700
670,663
1,012,536
1,416,793
1976
Estimate
293,400
654,548
1,004,139
1,419,066
1977
Preliminary
Estimate
291,000
637,315
981,744
1,405,673
1,756,086 1,789,871 ,793,623 1,778,127
Sources: SEWRPC
U.S. Bureau of the Census
Department of Administration, Bureau of Program
Management, State of Wisconsin
CSSA figures developed by STRAAM.
3-53
-------
Shorewood and West Milwaukee. The population in the SMSA,
however increased during the 1970-1975 period. All of the
growth took place in Washington (20.0%), Ozaukee (19.2%),
and Waukesha (13.6%) Counties. In particular, the cities of
Greenfield, Waukesha, and New Berlin experienced sizable
population increases. Projections indicate that these
trends will continue.
The City of Milwaukee is expected to experience a 4% decline
in population between 1975 and 2005, while the county popula-
tion will stabilize near 1975 population levels and then in-
crease to near the 1970 level. The standard metropolitan
statistical area (SMSA) is expected to increase by 23%, a
net increase approximately 323,000 people (Table 3-15).
The population decline in the CSSA was caused, in part, by
the loss of housing as a result of the extensive freeway
construction program prior to 1975. Thus, the rate of
population loss may be less than previously experienced.
However, the central city may continue to lose population at
least through the year 2000. The loss will range between
21% and 26% if current trends prevail. Much of this loss
will be caused by out-migration and declining birth rates.
Despite the drop in population, the demand for housing could
grow as larger numbers of young adults establish one- or
two-person households and as more elderly people continue to
live alone.' This demand could lead to pressures that would
produce further residential redevelopment in the city or
reduce moves to the suburbs. Increased industrial and
commercial land use, and the demolition of deteriorated
housing would further intensify these pressures.
Overall, the percentage of the city's population living in
the CSSA and directly affected by the CSO abatement program
is expected to remain approximately equal, about 47% in 1970
and 39% in 2005.
3.13 LAND USE
The major land use within the CSSA is residential and accounts
for almost 30 percent of the land area. Public and semipublic
land use, which includes parks, recreational, religious,
educational and governmental uses, account for a little
under 20 percent of the land area. The third major land use
is commercial which uses a little over 10 percent of the
total area. With the exception of public streets and highways,
the other major categories of land use account for less than
5 percent of the total CSSA (See Table 3-16).
3-54
-------
O O
ai a a.
OICM
T- CM O
u> O *~
'V T i
O CN »>
-»
CO
I
o
*••
I
<
^
o o o
^-. o o o
•* ON O *O
O V" «^ K1
a IA •» -»
CM CN» VO O
01
?
O
u
.u
3.
8.
O
a.
cc
o
5
o
c
a>
§
a
a
a
a
o
a
a
a
1
•.
ON
S
O
o
a
o
CM
r-
CM
r—
a
3
ON
CM
CM
a
a
a
o
a
•1
o
u
a.
a
a
Lt
a
a
u
c
a
r- t- CM
S
ffl
z
a
a
cr
a.
a.
£
a
o
CM
§0
O
I/N 1^
a
a
CO
O
a
o\
CM r<> K\
CM ON -*
O ^A O
*? r- CM*
CO
f-*
CM
f- lA
lA ^*
VO O
O
a
ao
CM
lA
a
o
a
§
§
U
a.
or
o
u
Q.
8-
u
CS|
CM
CM
a
CM
t.
r-
r~
01
V
i
X
•-*
•M
z
t^
o
>,
J^
o
o
lA
-»
o
ft
S?
CM
0
CM
^y
lA
O
T-
>s
4J
O
U
4?
S
^
S
Z
•H
a
a
•t
f^
r**.
-*
r-
00
00
c^
5
•k
^
<
S
D
3
03
S
^-1
C
u
CD
CO
a
u
3
O!
•H
S
Q ("S
CO C
55
.u
CJ o
O_ 9)
ce --5
2 o
LJ U
LO Q.
O
CO
O
OT
U
a.
<
cu
S
a
D
O
W
3-55
-------
Table 3-16
1977 LAND USE - CSSA
Use Percent
Residential 29
Commercial 13
Manufacturing 3
Transportation 4
Pufalic-Semipublic 18
Vacant 4
Unclassified 3
Streets 25
Total Area (acres) 16,300
Streets are assumed to occupy 25% of the CSSA as assessor's
records utilize street center lines for calculations
Source: STRAAM Engineers, City of Milwaukee
The northern third of the CSSA is primarily residential,
especially along the eastern edge. However, along the
northern boundary there is a mixture of extensive industrial
and commercial areas. The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee,
located in the northeast portion of the CSSA, is a major
institutional landmark.
The middle third of the CSSA is predominantly commercial and
industrial. Most of the freeway development is in this
area. It includes the Central Business District (CBD) and
part of the industrial area of the Menomonee Valley. Much
of the Menomonee Valley industrial area is not in the CSSA,
but is nearly surrounded by the CSSA. The CBD, which is
almost entirely encircled by the freeway system, houses most
of the governmental buildings, office complexes, financial
institutions and numerous retail stores.
The Menomonee Valley and the port area contain the greatest
amount of industrial development of any location within the
study area. In the harbor area of this heavily industrialized
area are shipping facilities that accommodate large ocean-
going vessels. Inland, a system of small canals, coupled
with the rivers, allow for barge traffic. Besides the
numerous manufacturing operations in the area, there are
also extensive rail-yard facilities along the flat valley of
the Menomonee.
In the western portion, there is some residential usage,
although commercial activities are expanding along Wisconsin
3-56
-------
Avenue. Between this residential area and the CBD is the
site of Marquette University, one of Milwaukee's major
educational facilities.
The southern third of the CSSA is a mixture of residential,
commercial, and industrial use. Much of the Menomonee
Valley industrial development and port facilities extends
into this area. Other industrial usage along the Kinnickinnic
River is included.
The basic land use patterns in the CSSA are expected to
remain much the same as at present. The CSSA is a highly
urbanized area with very little vacant land remaining.
There have been renewal attempts to revitalize the urban
core both in housing and in commercial activities, and to
revitalize the Menomonee Valley industrial area. Most of
these projects are limited to specific locations, and will
not change appreciably the overall urban character of the
inner land use patterns. Furthermore, the City of Milwaukee
no longer utilizes long-term urban renewal plans. Instead,
the Milwaukee Department of City Development approves spot
clearance based on building inspection. In addition,
Milwaukee's Common Council has adopted a preservation policy
to help stimulate an inflow of residents and jobs into the
inner city, or at the least, to maintain the status quo.
3.14 ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
3.14.1 Industrial and Commercial Sectors
The manufacturing, wholesale, retail, and service industries
account for most of the trade within the SMSA. These four
sectors account for approximately $18.5 billion in annual
sales (Table 3-17) .
TABLE 3-17
ANNUAL SALES BY SECTOR
Sales
Sector (billions of dollars)
Manufacturing 8.0
Wholesale 6.6
Retail trade 3 . 2
Service firms 0.7
Source: MWPAP/CSO 1980.
3-57
-------
Industries in the Milwaukee SMSA are major producers of
machinery, primary metals, and fabricated metal goods. Two-
thirds of southeastern Wisconsin's largest manufacturers
(300 or more employees) are located in the Milwaukee area.
As a result, the county ranks tenth in the nation in volume
of industrial production. Because of this manufacturing
base, much of the construction equipment and materials
required for the CSO abatement project could be obtained
locally.
3.14.2 Labor Force
More than 80% of the Milwaukee SMSA work force is employed
in four sectors: manufacturing, wholesale and retail trade,
services, and government (Table 3-18). Approximately one-
third of the total labor force is employed in the manufacturing
sector. This sector is divided into sub-sectors: durable
goods and non-durable goods. About 75% of those employed in
the manufacturing sector produce durable goods such as elec-
tric and nonelectric machinery and fabricated metal products.
The other 25% produce nondurable goods such as food products,
textiles, and paper.
Average employment in the manufacturing sector declined
about 5% overall between 1965 and 1975. Average employment
fell by a greater percentage in the nondurable goods sector
than in the durable goods sector.
TABLE 3-18
LABOR DISTRIBUTION IN 1975
Percent
Economic Segment of Employment5
Manufacturing 31
Contract Construction 3
Transportation, Communication,
Electric, Gas & Sanitary Services 5
Wholesale & Retail Trade 20
Finance, Insurance & Real Estate 5
Services & Miscellaneous 18
Government 12
All Other Nonfarm Workers 5
Farm 1
a Based on data from the Wisconsin State Employment Service
and Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce estimates,
Source: MWPAP/CSO 1980.
3-58
-------
The number of employees in both the service industry and the
trade industry increased rapidly between 1965 and 1975. By
1975 the service industry employed 18% of the workforce, an
increase of 63% over 1963 levels. During the same period,
employment in the wholesale and retail trades increased 23%;
thus by 1975, 20% of the workforce was employed in this
sector.
The contract construction industry was severely depressed in
the period between 1965 and 1975. Employment declined 20%,
partly because of a cutback in the highway construction
program affecting work on major highway and freeway exten-
sions. The slow down in housing construction caused by
limitations on sewer extensions in the MMSD also was a con-
tributing factor.
In recent years, more industrial and commercial expansion
has occurred in the suburban areas than in the CSSA (Table
3-19). Because of this decentralization, job opportunities
increased in suburban areas between 1960 to 1970. However,
the suburban labor force always has exceeded the job poten-
tial. Thus, Milwaukee County is still a major supplier of
jobs to area residents, despite the trend towards the subur-
ban areas.
Unemployment rates have varied considerably during the past
seven years. For the SMSA, the period of least unemployment
occurred during 1972-73; and of greatest unemployment occurred
during 1975-76 as a result of energy problems, cutbacks in
work hours, and shortages of material (Figure 3-12). The
SMSA consistently has a lower rate of unemployment than
either Milwaukee County or the City of Milwaukee (Table 3-20).
It appears that unemployment becomes more acute nearer the
urban center.
3.14.3 Income
Residents of the Milwaukee SMSA have relatively high income
levels in comparison to residents of other major metropolitan
levels. In one survey, using median effective buying income
(EBI) or net personal income as the indicator, the Milwaukee
SMSA was the tenth wealthiest of the twenty-five SMSAs sur-
veyed. The survey, conducted in 1976, showed that each
household in the Milwaukee SMSA had a median EBI of $15,867.
This was considerably higher than the median EBI for either
the State of Wisconsin or the United States (Table 3-21).
Income levels, however, are not uniformly distributed
throughout the Milwaukee SMSA. The median EBIs in the
suburban areas were much higher than that for Milwaukee
County. Furthermore, the suburban EBIs showed a greater
increase between 1971 and 1976 than did Milwaukee County.
3-59
-------
TABLE 3-19
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL LAND USE CHANGE
Net Percent
Area 1963 Acres 1970 Acres Change Change
Milwaukee County
Ozaukee County
Washington County
Waukesha County
SMSA* Total
CSSA
* SMSA: Ozaukee, Washington, Waukesha, and Milwaukee Counties.
Source: SEWRPC, Economy of Southeastern Wisconsin, Technical
Report No. 10, December 1972, pg. 12.
6,958
594
555
1,922
10,029
3,423
7,773
775
733
2,866
12,147
3,615
815
181
178
944
2,118
192
11.7
30.5
31.9
49.1
21.1
5.6
3-60
-------
675
g 650
O
01
>
O
Q.
s
01
Z
D
I-
Z
IU
o
DC
01
Q.
10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
4.6
4.6
5.0
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
(Sept.)
IGURE
3-I2
DATE
NOV I960
EMPLOYMENT AND UNEMPLOYMENT TRENDS FOR THE SM
SOURCE M.M.S.D.
PREPARED BY
EcolSciences
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
-------
p^
r-
5
ON
<~j
"V) '
^
<£
m 0
w S
1 UJ
9 5
^ o
EH —1
^ 0_
5
^
r—
ON
vO
2
lA
ON
^
ON
PA
cjv
CM
ON
J^
ON
*~
O
ON
0
^
r«^
I—
lA
CO
VO
lA
ON
.^
NO
lA
ON
lA
ON
^
^
C
0)
s
o
^
CD
C
0
CD
jj
CO
ce
co
r3
ss§
o a o o
•
b- S 0"-
t< o a
o -^ s to
J3 Q. CO 4-1
< co s Si «
en _j i3 -J ce
£7)
§8g
ON vo PA vo
o 'A r-. IA
o a o
o o a
CM r^ .
2: 5
z a
O CO CO
CJ O JJ <0 C
u C S 3
LJ O CO >.
LJ U. S 0 !t-
x: >,-. o
3 u o a.
< a -H s nj
5 ^ i" i "to
s
o o o
§00
-* NO ON
rCvoo NO
ON r* CM
CM CM
§o o
oo
O OO r»
ON PA VO CO
ON r- CM
CM CM
o oo
ggioN
PA PA O ON
PA CM
CM CM O
o o o
U"N lA O lA
CO*^^ 'A
O ON ^™
PA CM
O OO
§O O
O O ON
PA iA CO WN
X CM
O O O
§93
O O PA
>T O IA IA
oo r~ ^>
CM CM
O O O
o o o
O O O ON
r- o r* IA
03 l~*-
CM CM
a a a
o o o »-
PA r~ vo IA
PA CM
_,_,
C
UJ >s
LJ o
^ -H
3 a
-> u c s a
z a a> >.
U. S 0 <"-
U. >,-H O
a u o a.
o -H s CD
>• J3 O. CD 4J
>— CO g C (0
i- _j i55 ce
u
o
a
o
a.
u
•H
f~
to
81
cS
•k
0)
U
a
•H
CO
t/J
T3
O
»
J3 O
U- (U
O C
co 3
3 4J
co c -a
3 li
U 4J
• CO C
O5 Q. CO
=54 E
o
O . —1
r^ (/) ex
CD
U
!H
3
U1
CD
01
co
u
CD
CO
-H
3
i
CD
'
.C
U
i
CO
a
in
^
CH
o
I i
a.
to
a
X
r*
Ov
«IK
CD
•§
4J
a
CD
in
o
<4-
to
CO
CO
to
3
Ol
(^
— H
*
T~
0
CO
rH
CO
u
/-i
P-4
OH
S
_.
O
a
0
CO
3-62
-------
TABLE 3-21
MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD EFFECTIVE BUYING INCOME
Area
Milwaukee County
Ozaukee County
Washington County
Waukesha County
SMSA
Wisconsin
1971
1976
9,493
11,255
9,711
11,852
9,820
8,566
14,749
18,617
17,192
19,977
15,867
14,212
Percent Change
55
65
77
69
62
66
Source: Sales Management Survey of Buying Power, 1972 and 1977
TABLE 3-22
DISPOSABLE PERSONAL INCOME PER CAPITA
Area
Milwaukee County
Ozaukee County
Washington County
Waukesha County
SMSA
Wisconsin
United States
1972
1976
4,131
4,309
3,817
4,291
4,151
3,513
3,783
5,970
6,587
5,625
6,492
6,078
5,311
5,506
Percent Change
45
53
47
51
46
51
46
Source: Marketing Economics Guide, 1973-74 and 1977-78.
Source: MWPAP/CSO 1980.
3-63
-------
Disposable personal income per capita is another measure of
relative income levels. Per capital income in Milwaukee
County, the State of Wisconsin, and the United States rose
by approximately the same percentage between 1972 and 1976.
The percentage increases in the suburban counties were
slightly higher (/Table 3-22) .
3.14.4 Socioeconomic Indicators
Because the residents of the CSSA must finance a significant
portion of the CSO abatement project, the community's ability
to pay were evaluated. Four socioeconomic characteristics
were recommended as indicators to facilitate this assessment
(R.L. Polk Company 1978). These parameters are:
• percentage of lower income households
• percentage of jobless heads of household
percentage of retired heads of household
• percentage of owner-occupied households.
For three out of four of these factors, the CSSA ranks below
the city in terms of desirable characteristics (Table 3-23).
With respect to the third parameter, percentage of retired
household heads, the CSSA and the City are approximately
equal.
TABLE 3-23
SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CSSA
Total North South
CSSA CSSA CSSA Milwaukee
% Lower income heads
of household 58.8 62.6 50.1 47.9
% Jobless heads of
households 27.7 33.2 14.9 12.9
% Retired heads of
households 22.5 19.8 28.5 21.3
% Housing units
owner occupied 35.4 29.6 48.5 48.8
Source: MWPAP/CSO 1980.
Income levels in the CSSA are lower than those in the City
of Milwaukee as a whole. While the figures have changed
considerably since the 1970 census, the income pattern has
remained relatively constant. The lowest income groups are
located in the center of the city and irregular bands of
gradually increasing income surround this central area.
3-64
-------
Socioeconomic differences are evident within the CSSA as
well. The northern half of the CSSA has significantly
greater percentages of lower income heads of households and
jobless heads of households than are found in the south
CSSA. Conversely, a smaller proportion of the north CSSA
residents own their own homes, and fewer households are
headed by a retired person.
3.14.5 Taxation
In comparison to the 30 largest cities in the United States,
Milwaukee has one of the highest tax burdens, equal to that
of Boston and New York City (Table 3-24). In 1976, a family
of four in Milwaukee ranked either second or third, depending
upon income level, in the burden of taxes borne (District of
Columbia, 1978). Milwaukee has a progressive state income
tax structure; thus, lower income families pay a smaller
percentage of their income in taxes than do higher income
families.
Of the 1980 property tax levied by the City of Milwaukee,
52% was used to finance the public school system, 29% was
used for municipal purposes, and 3% was used to finance the
MMSD debt service. Operation and maintenance of the MMSD
system is financed by the User Charge System. Average annual
charges are approximately $58 per household.
3.14.6 Residential Property Values
3.14.6.1 Single Family Housing
Typically, housing values in the CSSA range from $3,000 to
more than $51,000 (Figure 3-13). In general, the average
value on the north side of the Menomonee River Valley is
lower than it is on the south side. One exception is the
northeast side around the University of Wisconsin —Milwaukee
campus; there, valuations exceed $51,000. This region
borders the lakefront, extending as far south as Wisconsin
Avenue.
The percentage of lower income ownership in the northern
region seems to have little, if any, correlation to the
average assessment value. However, there is some correlation
between the average assessment value and the percentage of
lower income owners, in the southern region of the CSSA.
3.14.6.2 Duplex Housing
Duplex housing assessments are higher than those for single-
family housing. Geographically, the valuations are greater
south of the river, just as they are for single-family
3-65
-------
TABLE 3-24
TAX BURDENS IN MILWAUKEE, COMPARED WITH AVERAGE OF 30 LARGEST
CITIES, BY INCOME LEVEL - 1976
Tax
Income
Sales
Auto
Property
Total
Percent
Tax
Income
Sales
Auto
Property
Total
Percent
Tax
Income
Sales
Auto
Property
Total
Percent
Milwaukee
$ - 47
$ 84
$ 53
$ 474
$ 564
5.3
Milwaukee
$ 764
$ 181
$ 76
$1,202
$2,223
14.8
Milwaukee
$2,697
$ 282
$ 132
$2,296
$5,407
15.5
$5,000
30 City
Average
$ 23
$ 110
$ 64
$ 160
$ 454
9.1
$15,000
30 City
Average
$ 413
$ 220
$ 110
$ 743
$1,390
9.3
$35,000
30 City
Average
$1,517
$ 341
$ 213
$1,495
$3,211
9.2
Percent
Diff.
-304.3
- 23.6
- 17.8
82.3
24.2
Percent
Diff.
85.0
- 17.7
- 30.9
61.8
59.9
Percent
Diff.
77.8
- 17.3
- 38.0
53.6
68.4
Milwaukee
$ 364
$ 136
$ 53
$ 875
$1,428
14.3
Milwaukee
$1,728
$ 240
$ 76
$1,822
$3,865
15.5
Milwaukee
$4,150
$ 347
$ 132
$2,915
$7,544
15.1
$10,000
30 City
Average
$ 194
$ 169
$ 78
$ 515
$ 912
9.1
$25,000
30 City
Average
$ 926
$ 289
$ 127
$1,157
$2,282
9.1
$50,000
30 City
Average
$2,392
$ 419
$ 287
$1,969
$4,509
9.0
Percent
Diff.
87.6
- 19.5
- 32.1
69.9
56.6
Percent
Diff.
86.6
- 17.0
- 40.2
57.2
69.4
Percent
Diff.
73.5
- 17.2
- 54.0
48.0
67.3
SOURCE: "Tax Burdens in Washington, D.C. Compared with Major State and
Local Tax Burdens in the Nation's 30 Largest Cities, 1976."
District of Columbia Department of Finance and Revenue,
June 1978.
Source: MWPAP/CSO 1980.
3-66
-------
d.
to
S
5
E
a
o
00
N
g>
H
UJ
CO
CO
UJ
CO
CO
<
UJ
UJ
CO
^
o
X
O O)
O) O>
O) O)
"
in"
co
UJ
CO
E
r
ra
a
o
CO
10
I
JO
-------
homes. The lowest assessments are found in the northwest
section of the CSSA.
3.14.7 Future Economic Conditions
Many suburban communities are finding it difficult to meet
the costs of maintaining and expanding utilities and other
city-related services. In contrast, the City of Milwaukee
has already made the investment in utilities and in main-
taining basic services. The city also has an excellent
water system with sufficient capacity to serve new manu-
facturing activities. These conditions have created a
considerable interest in revitalizing the Menomonee Valley
as a major industrial area. The advantages include a
location near the transportation network of freeways, rail-
roads, and harbor facilities, as well as readily available
city services and utilities. Other industrial sites within
the central city are now being evaluated for redevelopment.
These sites generally are located near freeways and rail
facilities.
Along with industrial revitalization, the city also is
considering the potential for downtown redevelopment. This
will include new housing, additional retail activities, and
better tourist and convention facilities. Implementation of
these redevelopment strategies should help reduce the rate
of urban sprawl and help stabilize the population within the
City of Milwaukee on a long-range basis by maintaining a
strong, diverse employment base.
Employment projections by industrial categories can be used
to identify changes in the economic structure of the CSSA.
Employment projections, at 10-year intervals to the year
2000, for southeastern Wisconsin as projected by SEWRPC are
shown in Table 3-25.
The manufacturing industry is expected to continue to employ
the most workers, although employment in government,
education, trade, and private service should rise significantly
by year 2000. Construction, transportation, communication,
and utility services also are expected to experience signi-
ficant percentage increases. However, total employment
numbers are relatively low in these categories compared with
other industry groups. Agricultural employment should
continue to decline as the industry becomes less labor
intensive and available agricultural land is lost to residential,
commercial, and industrial development.
3-67
-------
in
CN
i
ro
W
03
EH
CM
D
Q
O
S
EH
D
Q
"Z.
H
O
si
^
Q
B
H
O
ffi
w
E-i
2
H
CO
J
H
H
iJ
EH
3
H
a
§
i-5
CM
a
a
1
u
S
o
o
o
(1) O
DI CN
G 1
rj cn
1-1
4->
C
(1)
O
i
^_|
4-1
in
3
13
G
H
^
O
rd
a
CN T
• •
cn m
CN CN
i •+•
r-l H
ro ^o'
1 +
in H
• •
r- o
ro O
• •
CO CO
CN
in o
CTi VO
CN
VD O
• •
O ^*
i-H CN
C
0
D -H
4-i in
» rd 0)
CO U
CP O 'H -i-l
C -H C >
•H 4J 3 H
3 4-1 1 CO
4J MO
u o o a)
rd CM 4-1
M-I CD in 13 td
3 13 C C >
C rd rd rd -t-l
S EH EH CM
r~
•
VO
^o
-f
m
CN
m
-l-
CN
•
H
ro
H
^
•
ro
H
H
CN
CTl
r-
•
CO
in
0)
u
•H
^>
^i
T3 H
0
O
r-
ro
CN
CN
cn
n
co
10
0)
4-1
in
rd
0)
4-1
3
0
cn
M
o
lt-4
rd
CM
G
O
•H
rd
4J
a
co
cn
H
4-1
3
m
CN
•a
CM
(1)
in
a
•H
G
CM
CN
(X I
C
•H
W
U C
O
s 8
33
S
0
cn
3-68
-------
Although employment is expected to increase in Milwaukee
County (Table 3-26) , the distribution of employment within
the SMSA is expected to shift towards the suburban counties.
Waukesha County is expected to show the highest proportionate
increase.
3.15 TRANSPORTATION
3.15.1 Introduction
Metropolitan Milwaukee is served by air, rail and water, in
addition to roads. The CSSA encompasses the heart of the
transportation network serving the city.
3.15.2 Roads
3.15.2.1 Surface Streets
There are over 500 miles of streets and highways in the CSSA
forming an extensive arterial and collector system. Most
major arterials are at or under their design traffic capacities,
The present street system should remain in tact throughout
the planning period. With any CSO alternative, surface
street traffic will be disrupted to varying degrees dependant
on spoil quantities to be hauled, miles of gravity sewer to
be constructed and other requirements.
3.15.2.2 Mass Transit
Mass transit in Milwaukee consists of an extensive system of
interurban bus routes. These buses rely on major streets as
their main routes. Milwaukee County Transit System operates
61 regular bus routes throughout the county including 10
freeway flyer routes. Of the 61 routes, 44 pass through the
CSSA. Wisconsin Coach Lines, Inc., a private transit operator,
provides bus service linking downtown Milwaukee to outlying
communities beyond the limits of Milwaukee County.
Future rapid transit plans are based on the bus as the major
vehicle of mass transit. Rapid transit and modified rapid
transit proposals depend on developing exclusive bus lanes
and/or high-occupancy vehicle lanes. This type of transit
system would be supported by other nonstructural systems
such as an operational control system including:
• Freeway and ramp monitoring
Freeway ramp metering and signalization
• Accident detection
Driver information systems
3-69
-------
^
CO
0
u
C0
o
u.
z
UJ
o
a,
S ^
CN
U.
1 =>
•n 2
UJ
K? UJ
CQ -J
E$
- c
U O
C -I
CO Ol
O CO
£^
o
Ll
-Q
I
o
CD
•— N
"" C
AJ O
C -H
(0 CT
O
• •» •* »
\A 1^ f**i C*^
(A t"
§u o
c u-
-3- -H
^N U ^H
p» ffl a.
£ c
.3 .3
-£ -^
X 0
- u
•^ C*J ^ *~
'•O <"—
^ co o
co a
CM -H CO
CO jj C
§aj
LI
cS
i— 4
go o o
o o o
-------
The remainder of the mass transit program centers on improving
and expanding existing service using existing arterials.
3.15.2.3 Freeways
Three highways in the federal Interstate System pass through
the CSSA. These highways form the North-South Freeway
(1-94 and 1-43), the East-West Freeway (1-94), and the Lake
Freeway (1-794). US-41 (The Stadium Freeway) also passes
through the CSSA. These highways are shown in Figure 3-14.
The Lake Freeway presently connects downtown Milwaukee to
the south end of Jones Island via the Daniel Hoan (Harbor)
Bridge. This highway is proposed to continue southward
through the Bay View area, the cities of St. Francis, Cudahy,
Oak Creek and continue southward out of Milwaukee County.
The existing portion of this freeway is presently connected
to arterial streets, as further development of this project
is questionable.
The Stadium Freeway is complete from W. Lisbon Avenue south
to W. National Avenue. Land acquisition and design is
preceding on the southern portion and is proposed to extend
south to 1-894 in the City of Greenfield. This construction
would take place outside of the CSSA. The freeway is developed
to its proposed extent northward and was originally planned
to connect to the now defunct Park-West Freeway.
Approximately one mile of the Park Freeway is completed,
extending from the intersection of 1-43 near W. Vliet Street
east to N. Broadway. Proposed extension westward has been
cancelled but eastward extension to connect to the Lake
Freeway at the Hoan Bridge is still being developed.
The existing freeway system is in good condition. Certain
portions of the system are over their design capacity but
the majority of the system is at or under capacity.
3.15.3 Railroads
Two railroads provide freight service to the Milwaukee area,
the Chicago and Northwestern Railroad (CNW) and the Chicago,
Milwaukee, St. Paul, and Pacific Railroad (the Milwaukee
Road). Both have extensive yard facilities in the Menomonee
River Valley. Major track routes follow the river routes to
industrial centers throughout the CSSA. Two other major
track corridors parrallel N. 27th Street and S. Kinnickinnic
Avenue (See Figure 3-15). Passenger service is provided
daily by Amtrak.
3-71
-------
SHOREWOOD
EXISTING FREEWAYS
I PROPOSED FREEWAYS
(POTENTIAL FREEWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY
ST. FRANCIS
!••••••• CSSA BOUNDARY
PROPOSED TRANSIT STATION
PRESERVATION
SOURCE: SEWRPC,X» Regional Land Use Plan and A Regional Transportation Plan-2000, August 1978.
FIGURE
3-14
DATE
NOV 1980
PROPOSED FREEWAY AND MASS TRANSIT SYSTEM
SOURCE M.M.S.D.
PREPARED BY
ITIEcolSciences
-±HU ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
-------
SHOREWOOD
ST. FRANCIS
Port Facilities
Rail Lines
FIGURE
3-15
DATE
NOV 1980
MAJOR RAIL LINES 8 PORT FACILITIES
PREPARED BY
SOURCE M.M.S.D.
EcolSciences
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
-------
3.15.4 Port of Milwaukee
Port facilities are located at Jones Island and in the Inner
Harbor. Ship traffic can pass as far north as the North
Avenue Dam in the Milwaukee River, Layton Blvd. (N. 27th
St.) in the Menomonee River to the west and one-half mile
south of the Inner Harbor in the Kinnickinnic River. The
port is a major Great Lakes port handling both foreign and
domestic cargo. Shipping peaked at nearly 7 million tons in
1970. Tonnage has dropped to nearly half that amount in
recent years, owing to various factors.
3.15.5 Air Transportation
Mitchell Field is and will continue to be the region's major
air facility for both passenger and cargo service. Service
is provided by many of the major airlines. Timmerman Airport
also provides air facilities to the region, but is primarily
geared to general aviation needs. Both Mitchell and Timmerman
Fields are outside vthe CSSA and are not anticipated to be
affected by this project. Maitland Field, located north of
Jones Island, has not been an active airfield for at least
15 years. No air facilities exist there now and none are
planned.
3.16 ENERGY
3.16.1 Electric
The Wisconsin Electric Power Company (WEPCO) supplies the
electrical power for the entire Milwaukee metropolitan
area -approximately 35.4% of the total electricity sales in
Wisconsin. In addition to its own generation, WEPCO is
interconnected with neighboring utility companies for greater
system reliability. The existing capacity is sufficient to
serve the Milwaukee area. The consolidated electrical gene-
rating capability for the WEPCO system is approximately
3,600 megawatts with a reserve margin equivalent to approxi-
mately 15% of the total capacity. Peak demands are currently
being met with the existing generating capacities. Because
the base-loaded capacity is insufficient to meet peak demands,
gas fired turbines must be used to meet these short-term
peak demands. WEPCO relies on coal for over 55% and nuclear
power for nearly 40% of its raw fuels.
The use of electricity in the residential and commercial
sectors has increased since 1972. Industrial use declined
between 1973 and 1975 partially in response to the economic
recession. It has since returned to 1973 levels.
3-74
-------
Projections of future electrical power needs may be used as
a measure of the availability of fuel in adequate quantities.
The Wisconsin Electric Power Company has made projections
for peak load conditions in their service area through 1997.
Peak demand is expected to double over the next 20 years.
No new oil-burning plants are likely to be built, although
petroleum will be available for use in existing oil-burning
plants. Natural gas probably will not be available as a
fuel for electrical generation in the future. Processed
refuse is presently being used in Oak Creek as a source of
electric power; however, its future contribution is considered
negligible. Fuel for nuclear generation of electric power
will be available in the future. Its cost, however, is
expected to rise substantially.
To meet future peak demand requirements, the utility plans
to install 1,373 megawatts of plant capacity by 1982. It is
projected that an additional 2,057 megawatts will be needed
by 1990.
3.16.2 Natural Gas
Natural gas is distributed and marketed in the Milwaukee
metropolitan area by the Wisconsin Gas Company and the
Wisconsin Natural Gas Company. The Wisconsin Gas Company
serves most of Milwaukee, Washington and Ozaukee Counties,
and the eastern part of Waukesha County. The Wisconsin
Natural Gas Company serves the remaining parts of Milwaukee
County and Waukesha County.
Since 1970, sales of natural gas have remained stable. How-
ever, natural gas for electricity generation has declined
sharply since 1974 as a result of tighter supplies. Currently,
the Wisconsin Gas Company has a peak day supply of 592
million cubic feet for the Milwaukee metropolitan area.
There are sufficient supplies to meet the needs of its
existing customers. However, Wisconsin Gas has a controlled
service program, limiting both new and expanded service to
an additional 6 million cubic feet per year or an average of
16,400 cubic feet per day (based on 365 days).
The Wisconsin Natural Gas Company currently has a controlled
service program in effect for all classes of commercial and
industrial customers and is not adding any new customers in
these categories. The company has been limiting new residen-
tial connection to 50,000 cubic feet per day or less. This
is an amount equal to heating 50,000 to 60,000 square feet,
or 30 to 40 average-size homes.
3-75
-------
The controlled service policies of both gas firms should in-
crease the attractiveness of the inner city for industrial
use. Service already is available in most locations. The
number of residential customers is expected to increase
moderately over the next several years on a controlled
service basis. Although natural gas consumption will depend
primarily on winter temperatures a steady decline, totaling
75 million therms, is projected through 1982.
3.16.3 Petroleum
Petroleum products accounted for 40% of Wisconsin's total
energy consumption in 1976. The fact that nearly 60% of all
petroleum products were used in the transportation sector
indicates the predominant energy consumption of autos and
trucks since 1972 compared with other types of transportation.
Energy consumption by all users declined during 1974, when
the economic recession, combined with conservation measures,
decreased the demand for petroleum.
Distillate oil usage in Wisconsin has increased since 1974.
In 1976, 94% of the distillate oil was used for heating pur-
poses, primarily in the residential and commercial sectors.
When natural gas supplies were curtailed, many users turned to
oil for electric generation.
3.16.4 Coal
Nearly 60% of the coal used in the metropolitan area is for
the generation of electric power. Strict air pollution
standards have resulted in the reduction of industrial coal
use. Similarly, users in the residential and commercial
sectors, particularly those in urbanized areas, have converted
to natural gas and oil. However, because of recent develop-
ments which have led to increasing prices and uncertainty
of the availability of imported oil, a greater use of coal
is expected in the future, especially for electrical power
generation.
3.16.5 MMSD Energy Consumption
The MMSD presently consumes over 2700 billion BTUs of energy
per year at the Jones Island, South Shore WWTPs and in its
conveyance system. A majority of this is consumed at Jones
Island as natural gas. The South Shore WWTP generates a
large portion of its energy on site. Generation facilities
are powered by methane rich digester gas from its solids
handling facilities. Energy in the conveyance system is
consumed at the 16 MMSD operated pump stations (See Table
3-27).
3-76
-------
CD
EH
0)
4J
C
rH
•H iH
3 -H
IT1 ffl
CO
CO
CM
>y
CN
CN
r~
in
m
o
r^
CN
CUJ\
A O
•U rH
O <-
VO
r--
en
i-H
CQ
O 00
U r-
CTi
PS
H
Q
W
O
M
0)
4J
tn
-------
3.17 RECREATION
Over 1,300 acres of land are dedicated to recreational uses
in the CSSA (Table 3-28). These facilities, provided by the
Milwaukee County parks, the school system, and the privately-
owned establishments, offer opportunities for individual
activities as well as for organized programs. Traditional
youth organizations such as the YMCA, the YWCA, the Boy
Scouts, and the Girl Scouts provide many of the group
activities.
TABLE 3-28
RECREATIONAL LAND IN CSSA
Ownership Acres
Milwaukee County Parks
Schools
City Parks
Private facilities
Total 1,324.3
Source: MMSD/CSO 1280.
Milwaukee County operates 35 park sites within the CSSA,
covering over 850 acres. The parks offer facilities for
athletics, water activities, winter sports and passive
recreations. Over 185 acres of this parkland is within 500
feet of one of Milwaukee's three rivers, and over 350 acres
are located along the Lake Michigan shores. Connecting many
park sites is a 76 mile bike trail maintained by the county.
The county also operates Milwaukee County Stadium, on the
western edge of the CSSA. The stadium is used by two pro-
fessional sports teams as well as for concerts. Large
parking lots surround the facility providing ample parking
for all events.
The City of Milwaukee also maintains more than 50 small
parks and tot lots in vest-pocket areas within the CSSA.
Many are neighborhood play lots, while others are dedicated
to historical markers. Together, the facilities provide the
CSSA with over 143 acres of open space and playgrounds.
The school system also is a major source of recreational
facilities. Ninety-six schools within the CSSA provide
approximately 317 acres of outdoor recreational areas.
Nearly half of these facilities are located on elementary
school grounds. Approximately 20% of these are privately
operated educational institutions.
3-78
-------
Two yacht clubs and a gun club also are located in the CSSA.
These privately-run facilities supply additional recreational
opportunities to their members. Social and cultural organi-
zations also may provide private recreation facilities.
In the' CBDv the city and county operates many recreational
and cultural facilities. The Milwaukee Exposition, Conference
Center and Arena (MECCA) provides arena, and convention
facilities. The Arena is the home court of Milwaukee's
professional basketball team as well as that of a major
collegiate team. The arena, and auditorium are used both
individually and jointly for a variety of concerts, shows,
sporting events, conferences, and conventions.
Three blocks east of MECCA is the Performing Arts Center
(PAC). The PAC is host to Milwaukee's Symphony Orchestra and
Repertory Theatre Company. In addition to these, various
shows, concerts and ballets perform here. The PAC is the
site of various civic functions throughout the year, including
outdoor summer music festivals.
At the lakefront, just north of the entrance to the Inner
Harbor, are two significant cultural features. The Milwaukee
Art Center is located at the east end of Wisconsin Avenue.
To the south at the harbor entrance is Milwaukee's Summerfest
Grounds. Summerfest is a major annual cultural event which
attracts top-name performers and over 700,000 persons. In
addition to a variety of music performances, the festival
features all types of ethnic food and drink. Various pro-
posals are presently being considered to expand the summer-
fest grounds. In addition to Summerfest, the grounds are
used for various other concerts, festivals and other civic
events.
Mitchell Park is the site of a unique nature exhibit. The
exhibit operates year round within three large geodesic
domes. Climate is controlled and each dome houses an exhibit
of a different climatic habitat.
Future plans call for approximately 283 acres of additional
parkland in the CSSA. This represents a 33% increase in
county parkland facilities.
3.18 HISTORICAL & ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
The combined sewers serve the oldest parts of the Milwaukee
area. Numerous historical and architecturally significant
structures, many of which are listed in the National Register
of Historic Places, the Historic American Building Survey,
or the Wisconsin Historical Worker. Other structures in the
CSSA are recognized as Milwaukee Landmarks or as significant
3-79
-------
structures by professional groups such as the American
Institute of Architecture, American Society of Civil Engineers,
and the American Institute of Steel Construction.
Artifacts show that early man inhabitated the Milwaukee area
as far back as 10,000 years ago. Numerous cultures have
inhabited the area since that time, leaving behind artifacts
ranging from small tools to elaborate burial mounds. The
first recorded visit to the state was not until 1634 by the
explorer Nicolette. Explorers, enterprenuers, trappers and
merchants followed Nicolette, with Milwaukee becoming a hub
for trade and transportation. With the industrial revolution,
Milwaukee grew into an important manufacturing center on the
Great Lakes.
Many sites of archaeologic importance have been found,
heavily concentrated along Milwaukee's rivers. Early city
growth has disturbed or destroyed many of these sites. Many
have been recorded and preserved.
In the alternative analysis in Chapter 5 of this document,
those sites and structures located in close proximity to
major construction activities will be noted.
3-80
-------
CHAPTER 4
ALTERNATIVE SCREENING
-------
4.0 INTRODUCTION
A comprehensive plan, which attempted to resolve Milwaukee's
combined sewer overflow (CSO) problem, was finalized by the
Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC)
in 1971. The plan, which was limited to the watershed of
the Milwaukee River, included consideration of many methods
of abating pollution from CSO. Numerous alternatives were
evaluated for the combined sewer service area (CSSA), which
included 2,100 acres of the Milwaukee River watershed up-
stream from the North Avenue Dam and 5,800 acres downstream
from the Dam (Figure 4-1) . In addition, the relationship of
each alternative to the entire CSSA (16,280 acres) which
includes 176 subbasins, was evaluated. The SEWRPC plan
identified three basic alternatives to abate and control
CSO: storage and slow release for conventional treatment at
the existing wastewater treatment facilities; flow-through
treatment; and complete separation of the combined sanitary-
storm sewers system. Consideration of ten storage alter-
natives, two flow-through treatments, and two different
methods of combined sewer separation as components of the
three basic alternatives necessitated the evaluation of
fifteen different combinations of alternatives. The alter-
natives were evaluated and screened according to five major
criteria:
• The ability of the alternative to meet recommended
water use objectives
• The aesthetic characteristics of the alternatives
The potential disruptive effects of the alternative
on recommended urban development
• The potential for acceptance by the public of the
alternative
Costs
The study recommended the combination of deep tunnel, mined
storage/flow-through treatment as the CSO abatement element
for the lower Milwaukee River watershed. The study also
recommended a preliminary engineering study to determine
with more precision and detail the configuration of the
recommended system relative to the entire CSSA.
Based on the preliminary findings of SEWRPC, the MMSD
initiated two CSO-related studies. The first study was
based on the guidelines contained in EPA's Program Require-
ments Memorandum (PRM) No. 75-34 (formerly Program Guidance
4-1
-------
COMBINED SEWER SERVICE AREA
The Milwaukee River watershed is a natural surface water drainage basin about 693 square miles
in extent, of which about 62 percent or 430 square miles, are located within the jurisdiction of
the seven-county Southeastern Wisconsin Planning Region. The remaining 38 percent, or about
264 square miles, are located in Dodge, Fond du Lac, and Sheboygan Counties. A sound approach
to the growing environmental and developmental problems of the watershed requires that the
entire watershed, including the headwater protions beyond the geographic boundaries of the Region,
be included in the comprehensive planning program.
FIGURE
4.1
DATE
MILWAUKEE RIVER WATERSHED
SOURCE SEV7RPO
PREPARED BY
slflEcolSciences
-±UU ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
-------
Memorandum PG-61). This study evaluated the impacts of
various abatement alternatives and levels of pollutant
removal or water quality in the Milwaukee River. The second
study was the Combined Sewer Overflow Facility Plan Element,
which is a part of the Milwaukee Water Pollution Abatement
Program (MWPAP). This CSO facility plan was initiated in
response to the requirements of the U.S. District Court
Order and the Dane County Court Stipulation, and was pre-
pared in accordance with EPA and DNR rules and regulations.
The CSO facility plan investigated a number of methods for
the abatement of CSO and the improvement of the quality of
surface waters.
4.0.1 PRM 75-34
PRM 75-34 defines EPA's policy on the use of Construction
Grant Funds for the treatment and control of combined sewer
overflows and storm water discharge during wet weather con-
ditions. The two requirements contained in PRM 75-34 that
affect the screening of CSO abatement alternatives are:
• Monetary, social, and environmental costs should be
compared to the beneficial uses to be protected by the
project.
• Marginal costs must not be substantially higher than
marginal benefits.
The PRM 75-34 analysis conducted by the MMSD was done only
on the Milwaukee River. Based on that analysis, the following
conclusions were made concerning the abatement of CSO to the
Milwaukee River.
1. The removal of sediments from the lower reaches of each
river would provide an immediate and significant improve-
ment in the water quality of the rivers as indicated by
dissolved oxygen (DO) impacts.
2. The results of dredging or scour removal would surpass
the effectiveness of any alternative to improve water
quality as measured by DO conditions.
3. The short-term water quality impact of CSO, as measured
by DO, is marginally affected by CSO loads and signifi-
cantly affected by sediment scour.
4. The cost versus water quality improvement analysis for
dissolved oxygen indicates that the out-of-basin concept
should be sized at less than a one-half year protection
level if selected as the CSO abatement alternatives.
4-3
-------
5. The cost versus water quality improvement analysis for
fecal coliform indicates that the out-of-basin concept
should be sized at a less than one-half year protection
level if selected as the CSO abatement alternative.
Complete sewer separation results in the best improve-
ment in fecal coliform standards violations at a cost
similar to the one year level of protection for the
out-of-basin system.
4.0.2 Combined Sewer Overflow Facility Plan Element
The CSO facility plan was prepared under the facility planning
requirements of EPA and the DNR. The goals of the plan were
established as a result of the two court cases.
4.0.2.1 Dane County Court Stipulation
The Dane County Court Stipulation became effective on May
25, 1977. The Stipulation set the following conditions
regarding the abatement of CSO:
• The abatement of CSO was best addressed by a District-
wide effort implemented by the Sewerage Commission of
the City of Milwaukee and the Metropolitan Sewerage
Commission of the County of Milwaukee.
• The project would be accomplished on the following
schedule:
1. Complete design by July 1, 1981;
2. Complete construction and achieve applicable
water quality standards by July 1, 1993, if federal
and state funding are available.
• If federal and state funding were not available, the
Commissions would raise and obligate at least $13
million (expressed in 1976 dollars), in local funds
towards the abatement of CSO.
• All dry weather bypassing from the separated sewer
system must be eliminated by July 1, 1982.
• All wet weather bypassing from the separated sewer
system must be eliminated by July 1, 1986.
4.0.2.2 U.S. District Court Order
The U.S. District Court Order was a result of litigation
brought against the City of Milwaukee, the Sewerage Commission
of the City of Milwaukee, and the Metropolitan Sewerage
Commission of the County of Milwaukee by the States of
4-4
-------
Illinois and Michigan. The Judgment Ordered was entered
November 15, 1977, and set a number of requirements for the
MMSD and the City of Milwaukee.
• A CSO abatement system must be implemented that would
prevent the discharge of any human fecal waste into
area waters. The system must be sized such that it
would not overflow for any series of rainfall events
based on records since 1940. The selected conveyance/
storage/treatment (CST) system must be able to screen
and chlorinate any overflows that would occur.
If MMSD alternative analyses were to show that a
partial or complete sewer separation system would
provide a collection and treatment system equal to or
better than the (CST) system, then the MMSD could apply
to the Court for a modification of the Order.
• All wet weather bypassing from the separated sewer
system must be eliminated by July 1, 1986.
• The CSO abatement project must be completed on the
following schedule:
1. The first stage must be completed by December 31,
1985;
2. The second stage must be completed by December 31,
1987;
3. The entire system must be in operation by
December 31, 1989.
The abatement project must be completed on the above
schedule regardless of the availability of federal or
state funding.
4.0.2.3 Effluent Limits
The effluent limitations for the treatment of wastewater
from both the combined sewer service area and the separated
sewer area were determined for both court cases. Both cases
also established the treatment requirements for any CSO that
would occur after the required CSO abatement system was
implemented. The Dane County Court Stipulation effluent
requirements are the same as the requirements set in the
Jones Island and South Shore WPDES permits. These require-
ments are shown in Table 4-1 and compared with the requirements
of the U.S. District Court Order.
4-5
-------
TABLE 4-1
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS FOR CSO ABATEMENT
Parameter
Treated Effluent
BOD_
Suspended Solids
Chlorination
Fecal Coliform
Phosphorus
PH
Dane County Court
Stipulation
30 mg/1 Monthly Average
45 mg/1 Weekly Average
30 mg/1 Monthly Average
45 mg/1 Weekly Average
Residual After 30
Minute Residence
(Peak Daily Flow)
or 60 Minute Residence
(Minimum - Average
Design Flow)
200/100 ml Monthly
Average
400/100 ml Weekly
Average
1 mg/1 Monthly Average
6.0 - 9.0
United States District
Court Judgment Order
5 mg/1 30 Day Average
10 mg/1 Daily Maximum
5 mg/1 30 Day Average
10 mg/1 Daily Maximum
Free Residual After
15 Minute Residence
(Peak Daily Flow)
40/100 ml Maximum
1 mg/1 Monthly Average
N/A
System Spills
Frequency
Treatment
Not Yet Determined
Secondary Treatment
Same as Above (60 mg/1
BOD Peak Daily)
Infrequent, Approximately
One Per Century
Screening and Chlorination
Based on WPDES Permit numbers WI-0024767 (the Jones Island permit) and
WI-0024775 (the South Shore permit) as indicated in the State of
Wisconsin, Circuit Court of Dane County Case No. 152-342.
DNR interpretation of Section 147.04(3)(a), Wisconsin Statutes for
CST overflows. (Letter from DNR; 9 May 1979).
Source: MWPAP/CSO 1980.
4-6
-------
4.0.2.4 Water Quality Standards
The key requirement of the CSO-related portions of the Dane
County Court Stipulation was the achievement of applicable
water quality standards. In Chapter NR 104 of the Wisconsin
Administrative Code, the DNR has established uses for the
various intrastate waters and has set water quality standards
in accordance with these uses. It is the DNR goal that "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 be achieved by 1983" (NR
104.01 General).
The DNR has recognized that some surface waters may not meet
this goal. Some reasons for not meeting these goals are:
1. The presence of polluted sediments,
2. Low natural streamflows,
3. Natural background conditions, and
4. Irretrievable cultural alterations.
Where it has been determined that one or more of these
factors might interfere with the attainment of water quality
goals, a variance could be provided.
Variances have been granted for the Milwaukee River below
North Avenue Dam, the South Menomonee Canal, and the Burnham
Canal in NR 104.06 (2):
" (b) The following surface waters in the Southeast district
shall, meet the standards for fish and aquatic life
except that the dissolved oxygen shall not be lowered
to less than 2 mg/1 at any time, nor shall the membrane
filter fecal coliform count exceed 1,000 per 100 ml as
a monthly geometric mean based on not less than 5 sam-
ples per month nor exceed 89° F at any time at the edge
of the mixing zones established by the department under
Wis. Adm. Code section NR 102.03 (4):
1. Milwaukee River in Milwaukee County downstream
from the North Avenue Dam.
2. South Menomonee Canal and Burnham Canal Milwaukee
County."
Additional variances have also been granted for the Menomonee
River, Lincoln Creek, and the Kinnickinnic River in NR
104.06 (2):
4-7
-------
"(2) OTHER VARIANCES. la). The following surface waters in
the southeast district shall meet the standards for
fish and aquatic life except that the dissolved oxygen
shall not be lowered to less than 2 mg/1 at any time,
nor shall the membrane filter fecal colifom count
exceed 1,000 per 100 ml as a monthly geometric mean
based on not less than 5 samples per month nor exceed
2,000 per 100 ml in more than 10 percent of all samples
during any month:
1. Underwood Creek in Milwaukee and Waukesha
Counties below Juneau Boulevard.
2. Barnes Creek in Kenosha County.
3. Pike Creek, a tributary of Pike River, in Kenosha
County.
4. Pike River in Racine County.
5. Indian Creek in Milwaukee County.
6. Honey Creek in Milwaukee County.
7. Menomonee River in Milwaukee County below the
confluence with Honey Creek.
8. Kinnickinnic River in Milwaukee County.
9. Lincoln Creek in Milwaukee County."
The applicable water quality standards for the CSSA are
summarized in Table 4-2. Although the variances are subject
to change, the values in Table 4-2 were assumed for planning
purposes. The CSO abatement alternatives developed for the
Dane County Court Stipulation were developed to meet these
existing water quality standards.
4.1 PRELIMINARY SCREENING
The MMSD filed a petition with the U.S. District Court of
Appeals and later with the U.S. Supreme Court to appeal the
U.Sl District Court decision. Thus, there was reason to
include in the planning process one set of alternatives that
would meet both the U.S. District Court Order and the Dane
County Court Stipulation and another set that would meet
only the Dane County Court Stipulation in case the U.S.
District Court Order should be reversed or modified.
The alternatives that would meet both the U.S. District
Court Order and the Dane County Stipulation and four basic
requirements:
1. Eliminate the discharge of human waste into waters;
2. Meet applicable effluent limitations and water quality
standards;
3. Meet all other state and federal facility planning
requirements; and
4-8
-------
01
ai
I
Dissolved
Oxygen Fecal Coliform
01
LI
3
fl
LI
01
a
g
0)
^H
g
fl
11
Ll
JJ
01
rH rH rH
s a e
O O O
o o o
rH rH H
Li LI L!
01 01 11
a a a
000
o o o
0 O 0
rH rH rH
V V V
H rH rH
\ X \
e e s
000
IN IN IN
A A A
n rn f^i
&4 [14 &4
0 O 0
en en en
CO CO CO
V V V
3 >-i
o fl
ft G
CQ (3 U
L| 01
01 11 1)
> 3 rH C
•H G fl 0
as 01 C S
o) < u c
0) U
3 JJ I
30 C JJ
rH Z Ll 3
•H 30
S 03 en
in rH rH
H a 6
00
o o o
O rH rH
rH
Ll L,
L| 11 01
u a a
04
o o
o o o
000
IN rH rH
V V V
rH rH rH
Oi Ol Ol
ass
000
m CN CN
A A A
[Vj faj JV|
0 0 O
Crt Cft fl^
CO CO CO
V V V
0)
-M £ M
< (D 0)
Q >
IH SM -H
tU tU tU Q-
•-H G -H O
OS HJ OS -H
i^ 2
Q < O
11 fl
4-1
Ll Ll
O 3
\ 01
13
e «
O
> 0
01
Ll JJ
3 -H
01 rH
•H
>-. a
Ll fl
fl JJ
JJ -H
•H 3
G 01
fl
01 01
< 4J
nder all flow conditions: Substances that will cause
3
13
fl
01
11
e
-H
jj
rH
fl
JJ
fl
01
C
O
-H
Jj
•r-4
c
o
o
Oi
a
•H
3
0
rH
rH
0
U-l
u
JG
JJ
JJ
01
01
g
rH
IS
A
01
01
Ll
11
JJ
3
01
Li
11
*J4
Li
U
JJ
G
-H
3
in
fl
01
jj
C
3
0
0
3
tn
c
jj
§
01
11
Ll
a
01
A
S
I-t
ft
W
H
OJ
•U
s
0
>«
Q
J5
cj
4-1
o
oi
•°
01
5
c
'H
L|
0
01
Ll
0
JG
01
S
Jj
G
O
tn
jj
•H
tn
0
0)
13
01
rH
fl
G
0
•H
JJ
'J
2,
0
rged debris, oil, scum, or other material shall not be
01
|
M
LI
0
Oi
c
•H
rH
rT|
0)
Jj
fl
Jj
en
11
/—
jj
U-l
O
01
LI
D
jj
fl
3
C
•H
01
JJ
_G
Oi
•H
Li
O
• H
.H
J
3
jj
• H
3
the waters of the State. Materials producing color, odor,
to be of public health significance, nor shall substances
C 13
•H G
3
tn o
r?
en tn
•H JJ
Ll G
3
0 O
•H g
£1
a-S
.H g
3 in
oi
D Ll
LI a
u
J-4 .2
01
JJ JJ
G 0
•H C
O rH
JJ rH
fl
01 A
fl Ul
0] 0]
jj tn
c n
3 C
EH
rH
fl JJ
A
A Oi
U -H
3 01
01 G
3
C
H L|
O
JJ
01 01
0) 01
LI fl
a y
m
0)
jj
rH
fl
JJ
«
rH
04
a
«
rH
rH
01
fl
11
JJ
c
19
j=
01
01
01
rH
01
Ll
fl
tn
3
O
rH
144
C
01
3
01
1
•H
Ll
D
Oi
C
•H
3
JJ
a
o
X
0)
ent to natural surface waters. In determining the seven-day
ydraulically altered flow regimes.
3 A
rH
UH o
0)
jj
^o o
0) D
JJ T-l
fl a
1) 3
LI tn
tn
fl e
01 Ll
> JJ
c in
o
u o
JJ
A
u c
•H 01
.c >
3 -H
Ol
tn
-4 11
D -Q
G
C rH
fl rH
.£ H
0 3
C G
•H O
•H
13 JJ
G fl
fl Li
11
- 13
~~. -H
001
•HG
Ol 0
u
fl -
T3 3
1 0
C rH
01 U4
01 O
01 -H
quatic life. Natural daily and seasonal temperature fluctuations
fl
jj
CJ
U-l
UJ
fl
>,
rH
01
Ll
01
>
13
fl
jj
fl
jj
01
01
Oi
G
fl
JG
U
1)
Ll
3
(fl
Ll
11
a
jj
0
c
Q
r-4
,_!
S
en
o
i"4
2
C"*
CN
e of the mixing. zone above the existing natural temperature
jji
«
ii
ii
JG
jj
4J
fl
t
11 01
H Jri
Ll fl
rH
U
Ll Ll
3 O
4J UJ
ft
LI a,
11 0
a fi
H
3 13
fl
3 01
= c
H fl
x a
fl 14
S 4J
01
.G Li
t- 0
• [L,
11 LT
•H ^3
fl 01
G C
H X
2 a
jj
•J 0
r-l rH
3 2
(1 .1
C
•H
S!
C
0
%
-H
3
Ll
01
T3
3
Z
a
c
11
S
Li
1
T3
OJ
^J
T3
OJ
"cn
•H
rH
l-a
4J
cn
D
Ul
a
c
0
fj
gi
•r-t
>!
-(
D
^Z
j_)
ti-t
0
OJ
I
J
4J
JJ
TJ
U
e
4VJ
^
TJ
Il4
3
•5
'J
^
_.
~
-*
T
j"j
^
«-^
m
O
tN
O
r— 1
OS
S
c
o
•H
o
L/l
11
13
o
CJ
>
JJ
"3
L,
^J
Jl
c
g
<
JJ
i
LI
u
a
01
01
rH
a
g
fl
01
01
• H
U4
j
JJ
M
U
rH
JJ
g
G
O
T3
11
0]
fl
G
fl
1)
~
O
Li
C
s
o
a
fl
VI
fl
r-*
>J
O
5
"3
0
o
o
X
4J
3
rH
3
'^
^r
>
rH
JJ
G
0
g
fl
14
a
Jj
o
g
LI
01
a
01
ii
rH
a
tn
D
>
•H
G
fl
JJ
01
01
11
rH
JJ
O
C
O
13
0)
01
fl
A
rH
g
O
o
rH
Li
U
a
o
o
0
c
1)
2
rj
H
l-i
4J
3
r-i
0
=
TJ
-J
D
X
JJ
0
^
-
"
-^
JJ
c
fl
Ol
H
Ll
13
01
J
rH
i"
fl
Ji
rH
ft
0
^J
c
CJ
0
M
,y
^
O
(H
2
T3
JJ
0
S
c
_<
O
— j
i_(
•J
o
^
0
T
-^
1)
--1
M
2
5
-^r
fl
V4
0
iJ
c
0
s
r-l
0)
U] *J
CJ C
r— t O
c< s
? >1
LO C
n3
(U
•-f C
M
S 3
S "°
-W 0)
CU
cn .-H
Ji 04
rH fl
4J
O rH
C rH
fl
0 tw
0
Ijj
Jl G
3 Ii
J 0
Ll
rH i)
g a
0 0
O rH
rH
Ll fl
U A
a — j
O i/
0 L,
0 0
H £
o 5
~ — i
5 O
O
H
-1 ^
O C
D D
~*j
— J ^,
0 T
- i
-3 7
""3 "•
^ — '
"-' J
C* 5
"J
*^ T1
c
— *
— ' -I
^ "^
'"' Z
-
o
en
4-9
-------
4. Be constructed in accordance with the schedule set by
the Federal District Court.
The alternatives that would meet the Dane County Court
Stipulation had three basic requirements:
1. Meet applicable effluent limitations and water quality
standards;
2. Meet all other state and federal facility planning
requirements; and
3. Be constructed in accordance with the schedule cited in
the Dane County Stipulation.
The CSO abatement program began much earlier than the other
components of the MWPAP. Accordingly, the initial CSO
alternatives developed by the MMSD were separate and distinct
from other components of any clear water storage treatment
alternatives developed later in the planning process.
The MMSD initially investigated six basic CSO abstract
alternatives:
Out-of-basin conveyance-storage-treatment CCST) method,
which consists of intercepting the combined sewer over-
flows, storage, and centralized treatment. The treated
effluent would be discharged to Lake Michigan
In-basin CST method, which consists of intercepting the
combined sewer overflows, storage, and treatment within
each river basin. The treated CSOs would be discharged
within each respective river basin
Sewer separation method, in which all sources of sani-
tary discharges are located and separated from storm
flows. Sanitary sewage is conveyed to treatment faci-
lities, and storm water is discharged to the rivers
Instream methods, in which discharge of CSO to receiving
waters could continue, and various mitigating techniques
would be implemented in the three receiving rivers.
These techniques include dredging, aeration, and/or
flow augmentation
Innovative and non-structural alternatives
No Action Alternative.
4-10
-------
The following sections describe the MMSD development of the
most feasible configurations of each of the five action CSO
abatement methods. Following the conceptual discussion, the
most feasible methods are refined into CSO abatement alter-
natives to meet the U.S. District Court Order and the Dane
County Court Stipulation.
4.1.1 Out-of-Basin CST Concept
The out-of-basin conveyance/storage/treatment (CST) concept
would consist of several components which, combined together,
would capture the combined sewer overflows and convey them
first to a storage facility, and then to a treatment facility.
An out-of-basin CST system for the Milwaukee CSSA could in-
volve conveyance of CSO from all three basins to a single
central storage and treatment facility. The treated effluent
would be discharged to Lake Michigan. The MMSD developed
feasible conveyance, storage, and treatment alternatives for
the out-of-basin concept using the following three-step
process:
Identify, evaluate and select feasible conveyance,
storage and treatment components
Determine the compatibility between the feasible
components
Integrate the most feasible components into a viable
CST system.
The CST components were evaluated and screened individually
on the basis of technical and environmental criteria. The
technical criteria included performance, practicality, cost,
and compatibility with the various control components. The
environmental criteria included disruption during construc-
tion; demands on resources such as energy, chemicals, and
land; aesthetics; impact on terrestrial and marine biota;
human uses; surface water and groundwater quality; and land
use compatibility. The components that were considered
viable were combined in conveyance-storage configurations.
4.1.1.1 Conveyance Components
The MMSD evaluated six conveyance components:
Gravity pipelines
Pressure pipelines
Shallow softground tunnels
Deep rock tunnels
River conduits
Existing South Shore interceptor
4-11
-------
Two of the components were eliminated: river conduits and
the use of the South Shore interceptor. The river conduits
were uneconomical and impractical to construct. The South
Shore interceptor was not feasible because its capacity was
limited by wet weather flows from the separated sewer area.
The other conveyance methods were found to be feasible.
Gravity pipelines, because of limited capacity, were fea-
sible for conveyance from individual outfalls. Pressure
pipelines were feasible for force main application such as
conveyance from a storage facility to a treatment facility.
Shallow softground tunnels would be feasible for both primary
and major conveyance systems. The unit construction cost of
a lined, shallow tunnel was about 50% higher than the unit
cost of a lined, deep tunnel. However, at the more shallow
depths, the maintenance, inspection, and solids removal were
less costly than for deep-rock tunnels. Soft-ground tunnels
appeared to be more economical than bored, deep-rock tunnels
in short lengths and would be feasible for CSO conveyance
over short distances. Deep-rock tunnels, on the other hand,
appeared suitable for major CSO conveyance functions.
4.1.1.2 Storage Components
The storage components were evaluated by the MMSD. These
components included:
• Existing interceptors
• Shallow pits
• Deep shafts
• Mined caverns
• Oversized deep tunnels
• Artificial offshore island
• Floating concrete tanks
• Inflatable tanks
Quarries
The existing interceptors, floating concrete tanks, inflatable
tanks, and quarries were determined by the MMSD to be infea-
sible. The existing MIS interceptors to both Jones Island
and South Shore have limited capacities and would provide
little usable storage. The floating tanks would have been
located in the Outer Harbor. This location was considered
environmentally and aesthetically unacceptable. Inflatable
tanks were eliminated because of cost, large land area
requirements, navigational hazards if they were located in
the rivers, and because they would not be aesthetically
pleasing. Quarries were rejected because the existing
quarries within a reasonable distance of the CSSA lacked
adequate storage or were still being used.
4-12
-------
The feasible storage components for the Milwaukee CSSA
included shallow pits, deep shafts, mined caverns, and
oversized deep tunnels. The shallow pits would consist of
circular concrete tanks interconnected to form a single
storage unit. This method of storage would be compatible
with gravity pipeline and shallow soft-ground tunnel convey-
ance methods and would be suitable for decentralized storage.
Shallow pits require substantial space and thus the degree
of utilization would depend on the availability of sites.
The cost of shallow pits would range from $77,000 to $144,000
per acre-foot (MWPAP/CSO 1980). They would be one of the
most expensive storage components.
The deep shaft storage, which would penetrate the overburden
and bedrock, would consist of circular vertical shafts with
maximum diameter of 250 feet. The shaft would be covered to
reduce odor problems. Deep shafts would be compatible with
deep lined tunnels or shallow conveyance systems. The unit
cost of deep shafts range from $35,500 to $66,000 per acre-
foot (MWPAP/CSO 1980) .
The mined caverns storage would consist of 35-foot wide by
70-foot high arched roof caverns constructed in the Niagran
dolomite at a depth of about 300 feet. The caverns would be
best suited to relatively large storage volumes in a centralized
location. The major concern with the cavern storage would
be infiltration of groundwater, exfiltration of wastewater,
sludge removal, and access. If caverns were unlined there
would be a potential for groundwater contamination by
exfiltration. To avoid the exfiltration, the water level in
the tunnel would have to be maintained below the cavern roof
so that the conveyance-storage system would not be pressurized.
The unit cost of mined cavern storage would be between
$52,000 to $53,500 per acre-foot (MWPAP/CSO 1980).
The oversized deep tunnel would combine both conveyance and
storage functions. Depending on the storage volume required,
the tunnel could be the only storage facility or could com-
prise only a portion of the total system storage. If the
tunnels were not lined, the major impacts of the deep tunnel
would be the infiltration of groundwater and potential ground-
water pollution by exfiltration. If not properly designed,
the storage of CSO in the tunnel might also result in sludge
accumulation that would be difficult to remove. The sludge
accumulation could be minimized by designing tunnels to be
self-flushing. The unit cost of a bored 30-foot diameter
tunnel is about $55,000 per acre-foot (unlined tunnel)
and $95,500 per acre-foot (lined tunnel) (MWPAP/CSO 1980).
4-13
-------
4.1.1.3 Treatment Components
Four centralized treatment components were evaluated for
CSO treatment. These components included:
• Treatment at an expanded Jones Island plant
• Treatment at an expanded South Shore plant
Treatment at a new CSO treatment plant
Land application
Land application was considered infeasible by the MMSD
because of lack of available land near the CSSA. A separate
CSO treatment facility located near the Jones Island plant
was recommended, pending the outcome of a future MMSD study
to upgrade the Jones Island plant.
4.1.1.4 Combined Systems
The feasible conveyance, storage, and treatment components
were combined into two major CST arrangements. The first
would be shallow conveyance combined with either shallow
or deep storage. These combinations were estimated by the
MMSD to be 50% more costly than the least cost arrangement
of deep storage. The pumping cost from shallow storage
compared to deep storage may result in power savings of
from $180,000/year to $300,000/year (MWPAP/CSO, 1980) .
However, this difference in evergy cost would not offset the
overall cost advantage of deep storage over shallow storage.
The shallow storage would also require substantial amounts of
urban land during construction, which eventually could be
restored as park land or for light industrial uses. The shallow
storage could also have severe short-term construction impacts
on the area around the storage site. On the basis of cost
and land requirements, the shallow conveyance/storage alter-
native would not be feasible for the entire CSSA. However,
this alternative would be feasible and practical for some
of the subareas or for parts of the basin where deep tunnels
might not be feasible.
The second viable arrangement would be deep tunnel conveyance
combined with either local or central deep storage. The
central storage site would be lower in cost and it would
maximize reliability by minimizing the number of storage
sites, pumping stations, and force mains. The central storage
would also minimize surface construction disturbances, as
well as the operation and maintenance effort associated with a
number of storage sites and force mains. The major concerns
of a deep tunnel/deep storage arrangement would be groundwater
infiltration, energy demands for sampling and the potential
4-14
-------
of high construction costs due to the uncertainty of geo-
logical conditions.
Both the shallow conveyance/shallow storage alternative and
the deep tunnel/deep cavern alternative would be compatible
with the centralized CSO treatment plant on Jones Island.
4.1.1.5 Summary
The most feasible out-of-basin CSO alternative would combine
deep tunnels with deep cavern storage and treatment at a
separate CSO treatment plant near Jones Island. Near surface
collectors would intercept CSO at each outfall and convey
the CSO to eight dropshafts along the Milwaukee River, six
dropshafts along the Menomonee River, and five dropshafts
along the Kinnickinnic Rover. The dropshafts would connect
to a network of three deep tunnels which would be tributary
to a deep cavern storage facility. Stored CSO would be
treated at a treatment plant on Jones Island. The location
of each CSO abatement component is shown in Figure 4-2.
4.1.2 In-basin CST Concept
Under the in-basin concept, combined sewer overflows would
be intercepted, treated, and discharged within each respec-
tive drainage basin. The concept could vary from individual
treatment facilities at the outfalls (end-of-pipe treatment)
to a more complicated storage/treatment arrangement in which
overflows would be intercepted and conveyed to either several
satellite storage/treatment facilities or to a central storage/
treatment facility in each basin. The final discharge in
all cases would be to the river.
The conveyance and storage findings discussed under the out-
of -basin concept would also apply to the in-basin concept.
These feasible alternatives would be combined with the various
in-basin treatment methods. These treatment methods are dis-
cussed below.
4.1.2.1 End-of-Pipe Treatment
The end-of-pipe treatment could be achieved by use of screens
and/or swirl concentrators and/or disinfection. These methods
would be designed on a flow-through basis, operating only
when combined sewer overflows occurred. Multiple treatment
units would generally be required to handle the wide range
of flows exhibited by outfall hydrographs. Macroscreens
remove from 10% to 30% of BOD5 and from 35% to 55% of suspended
solids CSS). Swirl concentrators remove 10% to 20% of
and 20% to 50% of SS. Disinfection of overflows using
4-15
-------
©MILWAUKEE MAP SERVICE
MILWAUKEE DROP SHAFT
MENOMONEE DROP SHAFT
KINNICKINNIC DROP SHAFT
TUNNEL ALIGNMENT
STORAGE
TREATMENT
LAKE DROP SHAFT
FIGURE
4-2
DATE
SOURCE M.M.S.D.
OUT-OF-BASIN ALTERNATIVE
PREPARED BY
EcolSciences
EmV'l«ON«*ENTA4. GROUP
-------
chlorination would remove 98% of the fecal coliforms. A
combination of screening and disinfection or swirl concen-
tration with disinfection might meet the fecal coliform
effluent standards, but would not continuously meet the
Dane County or the District Court BOD and SS effluent stan-
dards (Table 4-21• In addition, the application of this
alternative could be severely restricted because of land
limitations and sewer hydraulic limitations.
A combination of screening and chlorination treatment would
require at least 20 acres of land along the highly developed
river corridors. Acquisition of treatment sites could be
difficult and costly. Because end-of-pipe treatment would
not consistently meet secondary treatment or AWT requirements
and because of the scarcity of available sites, the end-of-
pipe sub-alternative was not considered viable for the
Milwaukee area.
4.1.2.2 Satellite Treatment
The satellite treatment alternative would involve capturing
overflows from one or more outfalls and conveying it to a
storage/treatment facility located in the vicinity of the
outfalls. The application and performance of this alter-
native using physical-chemical treatment has been demonstrated
in Milwaukee. The 5 MGD demonstration facility at Hawley Road
and West State Street has averaged 60% BOD removal and 70%
SS removal. Application of this alternative to the entire
CSSA would require 22 satellite facilities.
The major disadvantages of the satellite facilities would
be the substantial land requirement, personnel requirements,
and solids handling. The satellite treatment for the entire
CSSA would require 9 to 27 acres of land, much of which is
currently in private ownership. The facility would require
between 44 and 75 people per year to operate and maintain
the liquid treatment facilities. If solids treatment were
added to each satellite treatment facility at least twice as
many people would be required. The solids could be handled
at each individual treatment plant or hauled to a central
processing location. Solids processing at individual treat-
ment plants could result in noise and odor problems. The
central processing location would require several hundred
truck loads to be transported from the sites every day.
Returning the solids to the interceptor would require further
expansion of Jones Island solids facilities.
The application of satellite treatment to all CSO outfalls
is not feasible. However, this does not preclude its appli-
cation at a few isolated outfalls. These facilities would
have to meet the effluent limits of the U.S. District Court
order and the Dane County Court Stipulation.
4-17
-------
4.1.2.3 Local Treatment
This alternative would involve intercepting overflows
and conveying them to a single location within each
basin for storage and treatment. The conveyance and
storage could be accomplished fay either near-surface convey-
ance and storage facilities or by deep tunnel and deep cavern
facilities. The cost screening for conveyance and storage
components determined that the deep tunnel conveyance storage
combination was the least cost alternative. The shallow
conveyance-shallow storage, shallow conveyance-deep
shaft storage, and shallow conveyance-deep cavern storage
alternatives were between 50% and 85% more costly than the
least cost arrangement. In the Lincoln Creek basin area,
deep tunnel conveyance was not considered feasible. This
area was located so far from the tentative deep tunnels
that a short distance of shallow conveyance to deep shaft
storage was the least cost alternative.
4.1.2.4 Summary
The most feasible in-basin CSO abatement technique is
shown in Figure 4-3. The system would include three separate
deep tunnel/cavern storage/treatment systems. Along the
Milwaukee River, near surface collectors would convey CSO
to eight dropshafts and a deep tunnel system. CSO would
be stored, treated and finally discharged to the Milwaukee
River. The same type of system would be constructed along
the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic Rivers.
4.1.3 Sewer Separation Concept
An alternative to the conveyance, storage and treatment of
CSO would be separation of the combined sewers. There are
two types of sewer separation: complete separation and
partial separation. Complete separation eliminates all
storm water runoff from the sanitary sewer system. At least
one new sewer system would have to be constructed and all
buildings would have to separate their plumbing. CSO would
be eliminated with a completely separated system. All storm-
water would be discharged directly to the area surface waters.
Partial separation eliminates some storm water from the
combined sewer system. Usually storm water from streets
and other public areas are conveyed in the storm system.
The sanitary system would continue to convey domestic and
industrial sewage, and storm runoff from roofs, foundation
drains and some yard drains. At least one new sewer systems
would have to be constructed. No building separation would
be necessary. CSO, although reduced, would still occur unless
a system were developed to capture, store and treat this
overflow.
4-18
-------
$ **•«•* ****•**»»»•••****"•
©MILWAUKEE MAP SERVICE
- TUNNEL ALIGNMENT
STORAGE
TREATMENT
FIGURE
DATE
4-3
MILWAUKEE DROPSHAFT
MENOMONEE DROPSHAFT
KINNICKINNIC DROPSHAFT
LAKE DROPSHAFT
INBASIN ALTERNATIVE
SOURCE M.M.S.D.
PREPARED BY
EcolSciences
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
-------
A partially or completely separated system could be provided
by constructing one of the four following systems:
New gravity flow sanitary sewer system
• New low pressure sanitary sewer system
• New gravity flow storm sewer system
• New gravity flow sanitary and a new gravity flow storm
sewer system
Although the partial separation systems were less costly
than the complete separation systems, partial separation was
dropped from consideration because a partially separated system
would continue to contribute CSO to the area receiving waters.
Of the remaining complete separation systems, the low pressure
system and the construction of both a new storm and a new
sanitary system were both eliminated. The low pressure
system would have high capital and operating costs compared
to a gravity system. In addition, the system will require
grinder and pump units in each building. The construction
of two new sewer systems was not deemed practical because
the existing combined sewer could be used as either a storm
or sanitary sewer in a new separated system.
Both a completely separated new gravity flow sanitary sewer
system and a completely separated new gravity flow storm
sewer system would eliminate CSO. The new sanitary sewer
system was chosen by the MMSD as the preferred sewer separ-
ation alternative because of its lower cost. The existing
combined sewer would be used as a storm sewer. All building
drainage systems would be separated and a new lateral would
be constructed to convey the sanitary waste to the new
sanitary sewer. The existing building lateral would be used
to convey roof, yard, and foundation drainage to the storm
sewer. Figure 4-4 illustrates the operation of the MMSD
preferred CSSA sewer separation alternative.
4.1.4 Instream Measure Concept
Three instream mitigation techniques, which were considered
physically feasible for use in the Milwaukee area, were
evaluated by the MMSD. Flow augmentation and dredging
would be effective in mitigating the adverse effects of
CSO on the dissolved oxygen (DO) content of the rivers,
but would have little or no effect on fecal coliform concen-
trations in the rivers.
A water quality analysis of the Milwaukee River (MMSD, 1978)
indicated that the DO standards in the CSO-affected reaches
of the river would not be met immediately after implementation
of a CSO abatement project. This was due to the influence of
organically-enriched sediments in the river, which would
continue to exert oxygen demands until the sediments stabilized,
4-20
-------
OOF DRAIN
SURFACE RUNF
FROM
RAINFALL
SNOWMELT\\
DOMESTIC
STORM LATERAL
FOOTING DRAINS
NEW SANITARY LATERAL
CATCH BASIN
EXISTING COMBINED SEWER
USED AS A STORM SEWER
NEW SANITARY SEWER
\ \ \ \
METROPOLITAN
INTERCEPTOR SEWER (MIS)
TO WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANTS
/ f
STORM SEWER OUTFALL
DISCHARGING INTO THE
RECEIVING WATERS
FIGURE
4-4
DATE
NOV 1980
NEW GRAVITY FLOW SANITARY
SEWER COMPLETE SEPARATION
SOURCE M.M.S.D.
PREPARED BY
EcolSciences
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
-------
Based on above analysis, the MMSD concluded that instream
measures alone did not abate CSO, but could be effective in
mitigating adverse effects on the DO content of the receiving
waters due to overflows and other sources of pollution. It
was concluded that dredging the sediments from the Inner
Harbor would allow an immediate increase in DO levels of
the rivers. Aeration was found to have little benefit
for the Milwaukee River above the North Avenue Dam from
the standpoint of DO levels or the control of odors during
low flow conditions. Flow augmentation was found to
improve DO levels and past experience on the Milwaukee and
Kinnickinnic Rivers has shown that flow augmentation also
improves river aesthetics and acts as an odor control.
4.1.5 Innovative and Alternative Techniques
The MMSD evaluated a number of innovative and alternative
(I&A) techniques for the control, storage, and treatment of
CSO. These techniques were evaluated and screened using the
following criteria:
Adaptability to highly variable operating conditions
• Flexibility to site-specific problems
• Capability of reliable automatic operation
• Effective BODs removal (treatment process)
• Practicality
Both structural and nonstructural techniques were evaluated.
All of the structural techniques were discussed as part of
the development of the out-of-basin, in-basin, and sewer
separation CSO abatement alternatives. ISA techniques such
as oversized deep tunnels and mined caverns were found to be
feasible for use in Milwaukee. The other structural I&A
techniques, which were not considered feasible because of
either cost, feasibility or both, were low pressure sanitary
sewers, river conduits, artificial offshore islands, floating
concrete tanks, inflatable tanks, quarries, swirl concentra-
tors, screens, land application and ozone disinfection.
Nonstructural I&A techniques were means developed to abate
CSO by improving the operation and maintenance of the existing
combined and MIS systems. Techniques which were investigated
included remote monitoring and control, fluidic regulation,
polymer injection, combined sewer flushing, and flow reduc-
tion measures.
Remote monitoring and control could be used to monitor flows
in the combined sewer system and the MIS in order to maximize
inline storage and reduce overflows. This alternative was
determined to be infeasible because the existing system has
no reserve storage capacity.
4-22
-------
Fluidic regulation would maximize flow from the CSSA into
the MIS. This alternative would also be infeasible due to
limited MIS capacity.
Polymer injection reduces turbulent friction in sewers,
thereby increasing their capacity. Any increased flow would
be negated by limited MIS capacity.
Combined sewer flushing removes some settled solids from
the system. However, the system would still overflow during
rainfall events.
Some flow reduction measures, such as replacing vented man-
hole covers and raising depressed manholes were considered
feasible alternatives. Others, such as rooftop, street or
parking lot storage were investigated by the MMSD and found
to be impractical for application in the CSSA.
4.1.6 No Action
The No Action Alternative is defined as the continued use of
the existing facilities in the CSSA. Under this alternative,
discharge during an average rainfall year of approximately
5.8 billion gallons of CSO per year into the Milwaukee,
Menomonee and Kinnickinnic Rivers and the Outer Harbor would
continue. All bypasses in the remainder of the separated
sewer system would be eliminated. Water quality standards
would continue to be violated. This situation would not
meet the requirements of the two court decisions nor would
it be acceptable in terms of existing federal and state
water quality regulations. For these reasons, the No Action
Alternative is not considered feasible for meeting the MMSD's
CSO abatement requirements. Nevertheless, the No Action
Alternative was retained for comparison with the preferred
action alternatives. This comparison is made in Chapter V,
Environmental Consequences.
4.1.7 Summary of the Feasible CSO Abatement Concepts
The MMSD identified four feasible concepts for the abatement
of CSO and the achievement of water quality standards:
1. Out-of-basin concept
• Deep tunnel conveyance and storage
Deep cavern storage
Centralized CSO treatment
4-23
-------
2. In-basin concept
• Deep tunnel conveyance and storage
• Deep cavern storage in three watersheds
CSO treatment in each watershed
3. Complete sewer separation concept
• New gravity flow sanitary sewer system
Existing combined sewer serves as storm sewer
• All buildings are completely separated
4. Instream Techniques
• Dredging
• Aeration
• Flow augmentation
4.2 DEVELOPMENT OF PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES
At this point in the facility planning process, these concepts
were analyzed in detail by the MMSD in order to determine the
specific alternative components necessary to meet the require-
ments of the two courts. Based on the water quality modeling
data available at that time, the MMSD concluded that in order
for the waters of the Milwaukee, Menomonee, and Kinnickinnic
Rivers to meet DNR water quality standards, it would be
necessary to combine the instream measures with the three
CSO abatement techniques. Using these combined abatement/in-
stream systems, four alternatives were proposed by the MMSD
to meet the requirements of the Dane County Court Stipulation.
Two additional alternatives were proposed to meet the require-
ments of the U.S. District Court Order. These alternatives
are described in the following two sections.
4.2.1 Dane County Court Stipulation Alternatives
The four alternatives developed by the MMSD to meet the Dane
County Court Stipulation included two CST alternatives, one
sewer separation alternative, and one combination CST/sewer
separation alternative. All four would include instream
measures.
4.2.1.1 2-Year LOP Out-of-Basin CST System with
Instream Measures
Combined sewer overflows would be collected and conveyed to
a deep mined cavern through oversized deep tunnels. CSO
treatment would occur at a new CSO treatment plant near the
existing Jones Island VvWTP. The CSO treatment plant would
have to meet the DNR effluent limits discussed in Section
4.0.2.4. The storage system would be sized to provide a
"2-year level of protection (LOP)," meaning that on a statis-
4-24
-------
tical basis, only one storm in a two-year period would cause
an overflow of the system.
The 2-year LOP was selected based on further analysis of
the pollutant removal and water quality improvement versus
cost for 1/2-,!-,2-, and 5-year LOP GST systems as first
developed in the PRM 75-34 report. In the CSO Facility Plan,
the MMSD concluded that the least possible expenditure for
a CST system would require a capital investment of $604.0
million for a 0.4-year LOP system. Based on this assump-
tion on new system costs, new curves relating pollutant
removal and water quality improvements versus costs for
the 1/2-,!-,2-, and 5-year LOP CST systems were developed.
Based on these curves, the MMSD concluded that a 2-year
LOP provided the greatest marginal costs versus marginal
benefits.
Figure 4-5 shows -the major components of the 2-year LOP Out-
of-Basin CST systems. Because of cost considerations, the
Lincoln Creek basin would be served by shallow pit storage
structure instead of by a deep tunnel.
In order to achieve the DNR water quality standards, the MMSD
proposed that the instream measures of dredging, aeration, and
flow augmentation be implemented in conjunction with 2-year
LOP Out-of-Basin alternative and the Regional Water Quality
Management Plan for Southeastern Wisconsin-2000 (208 Plan).
Figure 4-6 shows how these instream measures would be imple-
mented.
4.2.1.2 2-Year LOP In-basin CST System and Instream Measures
The 2-year LOP In-basin CST System would be very similar to
the out-of-basin CST system except that three separate deep
tunnel, deep storage, and CSO treatment facilities would be
used. The three CSO treatment facilities would discharge
to the Milwaukee, Menomonee, and Kinnickinnic Rivers. Advanced
waste treatment physical-chemical treatment would be provided
at each plant in order to meet anticipated effluent require-
ments of 5 to 10 mg/1 BOD and suspended solids. Lincoln Creek
would still be served by a separate shallow pit storage system
and the same instream measures would be implemented. Figure
4-7 shows the major components of the 2-year LOP In-basin CST
system.
4.2.1.3 Complete Sewer Separation and Instream Measures
For this alternative, a new gravity flow sanitary sewer would
be constructed. The existing combined sewer would serve as
a storm sewer. New sanitary laterals would be constructed to
all buildings currently served by combined laterals. This
lateral construction would occur on private property. Internal
4-25
-------
Ul
CO
cr
O
1
o i JP 5
8 2 o *
Ul £ DC UJ
3 o 1 S
u- li O O
a: < z
-------
«*n
\
\ SHOREWOOD
• •
\
MILWAUKEE FLUSHING TUNNEL
Lake Michigan
KINNICKINNIC FLUSHING TUNNEL
ST. FRANCIS
LEGEND
EXISTING FLUSHING TUNNELS
EXISTING PUMPING FACILITY
PROPOSED AERATION
PROPOSED DREDGING
FIGURE
4-6
DATE
NOV 1980
INSTREAM MEASURES
SOURCE
M.M.S.D.
PREPARED BY
EcolSciences
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
-------
(0
£E
O
O
LU
_J
O
O
LU
O
CO
V)
\~
(/)
O
CD
z
Q-
O
_J
cr
<
UJ
>
i
CM
4
a
-------
plumbing changes would be required in all buildings in which
roof leaders, drain tiles, and other storm water collection
systems are connected with domestic and industrial waste flow
piping. It could be necessary to construct pump stations in
some areas of the MIS in order to lift sanitary flows to the
MIS for conveyance to the existing Jones Island plant. The
Jones Island plant would have to meet the secondary effluent
limits outlined in the Dane County Court Stipulation. The
instream measures would be the same as the measures implemented
for the 2-year LOP Out-of-Basin CST alternative. Figure 4-8
shows the major components of the Complete Sewer Separation
alternative.
4.2.1.4 2-Year LOP Out-of-Basin CST System With Sewer
Separation and Instream Measures
As a means of developing the least cost CSO abatement to meet
the Dane County Court Stipulation, the MMSD used various combi-
nations of the CST and the complete sewer separation alterna-
tives. The resulting least cost alternative was a combination
of the 2-year LOP Out-of-Basin CST alternative and the Complete
Sewer Separation alternative. As shown in Figure 4-9, the
Out-of-Basin CST alternative would serve a portion of the Mil-
waukee and Menomonee River basins (36 percent of the total CSSA)
In the remainder of the Milwaukee and Menomonee basins and
throughout the Kinnickinnic River, Lake Michigan, and Lincoln
Creek basins, complete sewer separation would be employed. All
freeway drainage areas presently tributary to combined sewers
would be completely separated. Stored CSO would be treated at
a new CSO treatment plant which would meet the secondary efflu-
ent limits required in the Dane County Court Stipulation. The
same instream measures described for the other CSO abatement
alternatives would also be implemented for the combination
laternative.
4.2.2 U.S. District Court Order/Dane County Court
Stipulation Alternatives
In order to meet both court decisions, a CSO abatement order
would have to meet DNR water quality standards, eliminate all
CSO for storms up to and including the largest storm of record,
be able to treat any CSO that might occur, and treat all cap-
tured and stored CSO to 5 mg/1 BOD and 5 mg/1 suspended solids
effluent limits. The MMSD developed two alternatives to meet
these requirements.
4-27
-------
4.2.2.1 U. S. District Court Order CST System and Instream
Measures
All components of this system would be the same as those
described for the 2-year LOP Out-of-basin CST alternative
except for the following:
Storage volume at the Jones Island cavern facility
would be increased in order to provide sufficient
storage to contain the storm of record.
Drum screening and chlorination structures would be
required at each dropshaft to treat any overflows that
might occur.
Advanced waste treatment would be required at the
CSO treatment facility near the Jones Island plants.
The same instrearn measures described for the Dane County
Court Stipulation CSO abatement alternatives would be
recommended for implementation.
4.2,2.2 U.S. District Court Order Sewer Separation and
Instream Measures
All components of this sewer separation alternative would be
identical to the sewer separation alternative for the Dane
County Court Stipulation. A new sanitary sewer system would
be constructed and all building plumbing would be separated.
The same instream measures would be implemented. The only
difference between the two alternatives would be the require-
ment for the Jones Island plant to meet the more stringent
effluent limits imposed by the U.S. District Court.
4.2.3 Results of Preliminary Screening
In April 1979, the preliminary report of the CSO Facility
Plan was submitted to the MMSD Commissioners. The report
included an evaluation of the legality, technical feasibility,
cost, and environmental impacts of each of the six CSO
abatement alternatives. The report also recommended the
alternatives that were felt to be the most viable for meeting
the requirements of the U.S. District Court Order and the
Dane County Court Stipulation. Complete Sewer Separation in
the CSSA with instream measures was recommended to meet both
the District Court and the Dane County Court conditions.
The combination 2-year LOP Out-of-Basin CST/Complete Sewer
Separation alternative with instream measures was recommended
in order to meet the Dane County Court conditions.
On April 26, 1979, the United States Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit ruled on the MMSD's appeal of the original
4-28
-------
CO
LU
I
o
o
u. co
£ 1
m <
I «
> t
5 -
z 2
< CO
co o
5 8
UJ OC
Z 0.
en
CO
<
UJ
DC
< I
= z
ui £
§ ->
CO
I •
Q § ,
z z
b:O OC =-.
^ OT^!
S <5
co
cc
UJ
g
in
CO
DC
<
CO
CO
UI UJ
OC CO
<>
UI OC
O UJ co
UI O
i li . ..
O UJ OC UJ UJ <
O CO U. CO CO CO
o
CO
cr
UJ
LU
co
>-
tr
z
<
CO
£
UJ
z
I
o
6
cr
s
UJ
CO
UJ
UJ
_l
Q.
^
o
o
cr
UJ
UJ
CO
>-
cr
<
z
<
CO
^
UJ
I
o
^
cr
UJ
CO
UJ
h-
UJ
O
o
O 2
CO
o
-------
-J
0
Z
Ul
O
Ul
.ECTORS
_J
1
-SURFACE COI
Pf*
^
UJ
z
c?
UJ
UJ
5
<
Q
§
1-
EL ALIGNMEN
Z
Z
1-
Ul
oc
D
AFT STRUC
x
ENING/DROPS
UJ
cc
o
co
g
co
UJ
Z
ID
O
CO
T-
o
cr
U.
CO
cr
UJ
5
SANITARY SE
^
UJ
Z
A
*l
1
co
0
i-
2
co
t
Q
UJ
O
Q.
O
CC
Q.
,M SEWER AREAS
cc
O
co
( AND/OR
cc
RATE SANITAI
<£
Q.
UJ
n
1*1
|||
|>;j
|'J
Q
CO
CO
Si
LdUJ
xco
N5
U.UJ
°fe
z>
OCO
gfc
?<->
CQ
S
O
o
-------
U.S. District Court Order. The Appeals Court upheld the
District Court requirements that all CSO be eliminated for
storms up to and including the largest storm of record and
that any overflows that might occur must be treated prior to
discharge. The Appeals Court, however, determined that the
5 mg/1 BOD and suspended solids effluent limits of the
District Court were too stringent and instead substituted
the DNR secondary limits. The impact of this decision was
to make both of the sewer separation alternatives described
above identical.
On May 10, 1979, after reviewing the findings of the CSO
Facility Plan preliminary report, the MMSD Commissions
selected the alternatives they believed would be the most
effective, most technically feasible, most environmentally
compatible, and least costly means of meeting the Dane
County Court Stipulation and the amended U.S. District Court
Order. The Commissioners resolved that, to meet the District
Court Order, CSO be eliminated by sewer separation in the
public right-of-way.
Properties outside of the public right-of-way would be
required to abate CSOs in accordance with cost-effective
findings. Each of the 176 individual basins in the CSSA
could then be evaluated to determine whether sewer separation
or some other alternative would be the most cost-effective
means of abating CSO.
In order to meet the Dane County Stipulation, the Commissioners
proposed sewer separation in a portion of the CSSA. The
remainder of the CSSA would be served by a deep tunnel
system with facilities being developed to capture infiltra-
tion and inflow from the separated sewer area. The Commis-
sioners also concluded that the MMSD did not have the authority
to undertake the proposed dredging, aeration, and flow
augmentation instream measures. Nonetheless, because water
quality analysis had suggested that standards might not be
achieved without instream measures, the Commission requested
that SEWRPC and the DNR work with the MMSD to implement an
instream program.
4.2.4 Refinement of the Preliminary Screening Results
The analysis of each of the 176 CSSA basins was undertaken
as a means of minimizing the need for construction work on
private property. The MMSD had estimated that approximately
60,000 single-family, duplex, and small commercial buildings
in the City of Milwaukee and the Village of Shorewood, and
approximately 2,750 large multi-family, commercial, industrial,
and public buildings would require new sanitary laterals if
a sewer separation alternative were implemented. In addition,
4-29
-------
many buildings would require internal plumbing changes.
This private property work was estimated to cost from $2,000
to $4,000 per building and would have to be born exclusively
by the private property owner.
In order to minimize this cost and construction disruption,
different storage and separation measures were compared for
each CSSA basin. The result of these analysis was the
following CSO abatement plan to meet the District Court
requirements.
Complete separation in 11% of the CSSA. No private
property work would be required.
Partial sewer separation of the public right-of-way
with local, near-surface storage of CSO for 41% of the
CSSA.
In the remaining 48% of the CSSA, complete sewer
separation with private property work was cost-effective,
This modified U.S. District Court Order CSO abatement plan
was adopted awaiting the results of the clear water storage
(I/I) alternatives. It is illustrated in Figure 4-10.
4.3 SCREENING OF I/I CONTROL ALTERNATIVES
During the preliminary analysis of CSO alternatives, the
MMSD began its program to determine the extent of infiltra-
tion and inflow (I/I) in the separated sewer system in the
planning area. The aim of this analysis was to determine
the most cost effective means of controlling the excessive
I/I that was overflowing from the MIS during wet weather
conditions. Both the U.S. District Court Order and the Dane
County Court Stipulation prohibit the MMSD from bypassing
untreated sanitary sewage from the separated sewer system.
Accordingly, unlike the CSO analysis, only one set of I/I
control alternatives were developed.
4.3.1 Infiltration/Inflow Study
The existing treatment plants and conveyance facilities in
the sewerage system have adequate capacity to convey and
treat dry weather flow. While sanitary sewers are designed
to convey wastewater only, clear water inevitably enters
these sewers during wet weather. Clear water is classified
as either infiltration (groundwater which enters the sewer
system through cracks and joints in sewers and manholes), or
inflow (storm water which enters the sewer system through
manhole covers, roof drains, sump pumps and other drainage
connections). Peak flows created by this clear water during
wet weather often cause bypasses of raw sewage directly to
4-30
-------
DC
m
OT CO
aim
CEO
ill
cr
O
CE^ Q.
-------
receiving waters due to inadequate capacity in sewers and
treatment plants.
Theoretically, inflow could be almost completely eliminated
from sanitary sewers by disconnecting all roof drains, sump
pumps and other inflow points. However, it is not possible
to completely eliminate all infiltration. Even using the
best construction technologies available, sewers will
deteriorate as they age. Variations in temperature cause
changes in soil pressure which can crack pipes. Roots find
their way into joints and cracks. These cracks allow ground-
water to enter the sewer. Thus, as the sewers age, infiltra-
tion generally increases.
The I/I study was developed to determine the amount of
infiltration entering the sewer system in the planning area
and its variation between dry and wet weather periods. For
this study, the separated sewer service area was divided
into 363 subareas. These subareas were developed based on
sewer system configuration, topography, and municipal
boundaries. The combined sewer areas of Milwaukee and
Shorewood were not included in these subareas, but a separate
infiltration study of this area was carried out. The ultimate
goals of the I/I study were to identify the extent of the
clear water problem, to determine if the clear water was
excessive, to determine if removal of this excessive clear
water was cost effective (i.e. more costly to treat than
remove) and to determine in which areas the clear water
problem was most severe. For those subareas where clear
.water flow was found to be excessive, a Sewer System Evalu-
ation Survey (SSES) would be recommended to determine where
the system needed rehabilitation or reinforcement.
Previous studies, flow records, and water use, population
and land use data were evaluated to estimate dry weather
base flow. A flow monitoring program was developed to
verify estimated flow rates and determine how much flow was
in excess of those estimates. Both automatic and manual
flow monitoring equipment was operated at critical locations
in the separated sewer system from late February through
early May in 1978. This period was chosen because ground-
water levels are lowest in late February and many peak flow
events occur during the spring due to heavy seasonal rain
events and snow melt. Monitored flow rates during the low
groundwater period were compared with base flow estimates in
representative areas where the groundwater level was lower
than the pipe invert to determine the minimum infiltration
rate.
4-31
-------
Two peak flow events were monitored during April and early
May. Flow rates recorded at peak flows were compared to
base flow rates to determine the quantity of I/I entering
the system. Flows were measured at the treatment plants as
well as at all major overflow points in the system (90 in
all). During one rainfall, these overflows bypassed an
estimated 100 million gallons of water to surface waters in the
Milwaukee area.
Based on existing flow, and population and land use fore-
casts, a future average day base flow was developed for each
of the 363 subbasins in the planning area. Using peak flow
data and future flow rates, a determination of whether clear
water flows would be excessive was made. In those subareas
where clear water was considered excessive, an SSES was
recommended.
The SSES study utilized smoke tests to identify illegally
connected house and yard drains, sump pumps and cross
connection to storm sewers. Colored dyes were used to
identify areas of excessive infiltration. Physical in-
spection was used to identify poorly constructed manholes
and deterioration (leaks, mineral deposits, root intrusion,
and structural failures) within the sewers. In problem
areas, each foot of sewer was television-inspected.
Within the CSSA/ sewage base flows were determined in selected
representative areas to be 100 gallons per capita per day
(gpcd) based on water use records for non-Central Business
District (CBD) areas. CBD area flows were estimated because
flow contributions from many industrial and commercial users
were not proportional to their measured water use. Estimates
were prorated on the gpcd per acre basis.
From flow monitoring results a base flow of 46 MGD, plus
22.38 MGD of infiltration was determined for the CSSA. To
quantify a peak design flow for the CSSA, the base flow was
increased by 100%. The infiltration was then added on to
arrive at 114 MGD. While the existing regulators can pass
more flow, it is believed that the 114 MGD is a reasonably
close estimate of interceptor capacity available in the
CSSA.
To determine a system design flow, the subarea hydrograph
data and CSO data were combined to give the results shown in
Table 4-3.
A cost effectiveness analysis was conducted to determine the
amount of clear water which could be economically removed
from the system. The analysis was carried out on two dif-
ferent levels; the first to determine the amount of infil-
4-32
-------
TABLE 4-3
MMSD WASTEWATER FLOWS
Separated Sewers
Dry Weather Flow
Infiltration
Inflow (Maximum Day)
Annual Infiltration
Annual Inflow
Existing Flows Design Flow
106 MGD
90 MGD
530 MGD
27,200 MG
7,400 MG
166 MGD
90 MGD
530 MGD
27,200 MG
7,400 MG
Combined Sewers
Dry Weather Flow
Dry Weather Infiltration
Design Regulator Flow
46 MGD
22 MGD
114 MGD
46 MGD
22 MGD
114 MGD
Maximum Design Flow (Year 2005)
Dry Weather Flow 166 MGD
Infiltration 90 MGD
Inflow 530 MGD
Combined Regulator Flow 114 MGD
Total 900 MGD
Includes a peaking factor of 2.5 to 1 for future flows based on 100 gpcd.
The value for dry weather flow considering no peaking factor is 130 MGD.
Recommended maximum flow allowed from the combined sewer area to the
MIS System. Combined sewer flows in excess of this amount are considered
to be directed to CSO facilities.
1 MG (Million Gallons) = 3785 cubic meters
1 gpcd (gallon per capita per day) = 0.003785 meters per capita per day
Source: MWPAP/I/I 1979.
4-33
-------
tration removal from the CSSA and the second to determine
the total amount of infiltration and inflow to be removed
from the separated areas.
For the combined sewered areas, various measures for cor-
rection of the infiltration problems were developed. The
corrective measures included sewer separation, conveyance
and storage, and existing system improvements. Costs for
these improvements were compared graphically to the cost of
treating the amount of infiltration to be removed. In all
cases it was found to be less costly to treat infiltration
flows than to remove them from the system.
The cost effectiveness analysis for I/I removed from the
separated area was somewhat more complex. The first step in
the process was to determine the capacity of the MIS system.
The MWPAP utilized a computer Systems Analysis Model (SAM)
to analyze the interceptor system on a branch-by-branch
basis. The overall system was analyzed, assuming that as
much flow in the MIS system as possible was routed to the
South Shore WWTP (in keeping with present MMSD practices).
Branches which were inadequate were identified (see Figure
4-11).
There are several general methods for handling the clear
water in a separated sewer system: the sewers can be reha-
bilitated, sewer reinforcements can be constructed, peak
flows can be stored for later treatment, or treatment plants
can be expanded. Combinations of these improvements were
examined which would reduce I/I flows entering the system by
27%, 45%, 52%, 81%, or 91%. Using output from the SAM model
and flow data for the 363 subareas, cost estimates were made
for each corrective measure and associated level of clear
water removal. These costs were compared with the cost of
treating clear water in the present system. The analysis
indicated that removal of between 40% and 70% of the I/I
would be less costly than treating the clear water.
Given the efficiency of current construction techniques, the
effectiveness of I/I removal was reduced from 100% to 80% of
the original estimate as stated above. Of the 900 MGD
design flow, 620 MGD was attributable to I/I. Applying the
removal factor (60%) and efficiency rate (80%) to the 620
MGD produced a reduction of 300 MGD. This would leave the
system with a peak wet weather flow of 600 MGD.
Further analysis of the 363 sub-basins showed that, in 44 of
the basins, no suitable means of removing I/I from the
sewers could be found at a reasonable cost. These flows
would therefore not be affected by the removal and efficiency
factors. The re-evaluation process also identified flows
4-34
-------
3s
S 3s 2g
j
UJ
o:
i
(O
o:
UJ
UJ
en
UJ
o
UJ
f
o
oo
UJ
cc
3
(3
o
-------
not considered in the original calculations. By including
these factors into final flow estimates, it was calculated
that only approximately 200 MGD of the I/I could be removed,
requiring a system design flow of 700 MGD.
4.3.2 Development of Preliminary Alternatives
The I/I analysis determined the volume of clear water enter-
ing the separated sewers in the planning area and the cost
effective level of I/I reduction. Using this information,
the future wastewater flows for the planning area were esti-
mated . In planning for methods to treat future flows, it
was assumed that the Regional System-level Alternative would
be implemented. This alternative would result in maximum
flows in the MIS. Because more than 95% of the flows in the
MWPAP planning area are from areas currently served by the
MMSD, the future estimates would not change greatly, regard-
less of the selected system level alternative.
Ten alternatives were developed to accommodate the expected
future wastewater flows. These alternatives included storage
facilities at treatment plant sites, at a remote site, in
deep tunnels, and combinations of two or more types of
storage. Since these alternatives were developed assuming
the implementation of a Regional Alternative, the possibility
of one, two, and three WWTP configurations with adequate
capacity to treat peak flows were also considered.
4.3.2.1 Storage Facilities
The existing system was analyzed to determine the available
storage, if any, in the system. The SAM model analyzed all
major sewers in the MIS system and concluded that the storage
capacity of the system would be exceeded with even small
amounts of I/I.
Other alternatives, utilizing cavern storage facilities
similar to those developed in the CSO Facility Plan, were
developed for the storage of peak flows. The cavern storage
facilities would have to be located so that flows from the
MIS could easily be diverted to them. Locating the storage
facilities at WWTP sites was a likely possibility because
all collector systems are routed toward the treatment plant.
Another possible site was identified near the intersection
of N. 58th Street and W. State Street. This portion of the
MIS system contains structures to divert flows to either
Jones Island or South Shore, making a large portion of the
system tributary to this location. A second advantage of
this location is the shallow depth of the Niagaran dolomite
which would make construction easier and less costly due to
the thin layer of overburden.
4-35
-------
4.3.2.2 Treatment Plants
Combinations of three regional wastewater treatment plants
were considered by the MMSD. For the one plant alternative,
the South Shore (WWTP) was used for the analysis because
expansion of this plant would be more feasible and less
costly than the Jones Island plant. Where two plants were
considered, the Jones Island and South Shore WWTPs were
evaluated because the existing facilities could remain in
operation while required modifications were made to the
plants. Where a third plant was required, a site on the west
bank of the Root River, just north of Ryan Road in the City
of Franklin was identified. Flows from many parts of the
planning area could be diverted to this location through the
existing MIS system. This treatment plant would discharge
to the Root River or possibly to a stream in the Fox River
watershed.
4.3.2.3 Preliminary Alternatives
Ten alternatives were developed for peak wastewater storage
and treatment by various combinations of the storage and
treatment concepts. These alternatives are described below:
1. Treatment would be provided at Jones Island (300 MGD)
and South Shore (400 MGD) WWTPS. No storage,
1A. Treatment would be provided at Jones Island (490 MGD)
and South Shore (200 MGD) WWTPs. No storage would be
provided. The Crosstown Diversion would be constructed
to divert flows from the 58th and State Streets area to
Jones Island, providing relief to the South Shore
interceptor.
2. Treatment would be provided at Jones Island (300 MGD)
and South Shore (200 MGD) WWTPs. 850 acre-feet (ac-ft)
of storage would be provided in a mined cavern near
58th and State Streets.
3. Treatment would be provided at Jones Island (190 MGD)
and South Shore (150 MGD) WWTPs. 2945 ac-ft of storage
in two caverns; one at Jones Island (1765 ac-ft) and
the other near South Shore (1180 ac-ft).
4. Treatment would be provided at Jones Island (190 MGD)
and at South Shore (200 MGD). 1405 ac-ft of storage
would be provided in lined 30-foot diameter tunnels
along the Milwaukee River and Crosstown Diversion
corridors. The tunnels would provide 780 ac-ft of
clear water and 625 ac-ft of CSO storage. This system
is an extension of the CSO 2-year Level of Protection
4-36
-------
(LOP) Out-of-Basin CST system previously developed for
CSO abatement.
5. Treatment would be provided at Jones Island (490 MGD),
South Shore (150 MGD), and Franklin (54 MGD) WWTPs. No
storage would be provided.
6. Treatment would be provided at Jones Island (300 MGD),
South Shore (150 MGD), and Franklin (54 (MGD) WWTPs.
830 ac-ft of storage would be provided in a mined
cavern near 58th and State Streets.
7. Treatment would be provided at the South Shore WWTP
only (700 MGD). No storage would be provided.
8. Treatment would be provided at the South Shore WWTP
(350 MGD) only. 2180 ac-ft of storage would be
provided. A 50 ft. diameter tunnel would convey flows
from the existing Jones Island location to the expanded
South Shore plant site. In addition to conveyance, the
tunnel would provide 850 ac-ft of storage. A cavern
would also be constructed near the South Shore plant to
provide 1330 ac-ft of storage.
9. Treatment would be provided at Jones Island (190 MGD),
South Shore (125 MGD), and at the Franklin (30 MGD)
WWTPs. 2655 ac-ft of storage would be provided in
mined caverns near the Jones Island (1765 ac-ft), South
Shore (710 ac-ft), and Franklin (180 ac-ft) WWTPS.
4.3.3 Screening of Preliminary Alternatives
-' The 10 preliminary alternatives were screened for their
technical, environmental, and economic feasibility. Of the
ten, only those which were easily implementable, reliable,
and of reasonable cost were studied further. Table 4-4 is a
summary of the alternatives and screening results.
Based on the screening analysis, Alternatives 1, 1A, 5, and
7 were eliminated because they provided no storage. The
proposed treatment plants would rely on biological communi-
ties in the aeration basins. If no storage was provided,
peak flows could be three to four times greater than average
daily base flows. These peaks could upset the biological
communities resulting in poorly-treated effluent.
Alternative 5, 6, and 9 were eliminated because they required
the Franklin treatment plant. While it is possible to
construct a plant at the proposed site, discharge to the Fox
River basin would involve pumping effluent several miles to
the Fox River Watershed. Discharge to the Root River would
4-37
-------
C/j
K
>
H
^
<
2
OS
C£
6;
^
<
J
o
- K
T £
i 5
" 0
wo
53 H
S\
g M
EH ri
>4
OS
<•
2
i-^
^
h-4
J
w
OS
Oj
Cn
C 01
•H 4J
C C
0) 0)
o o —
MH 0)
0 <7>
10
0) U
Q.I 0
^ 1 i
EH t/3
>•
01 4J ~
t^-rt 4J
10 0 V
M (8 1
o a o
4-1 10 10
o; u —
c
• H
rH
^
c
10
Vj
64
x: a)
4J VJ
3 0
o s:
U3 M
tl
01 C
ai 10
C rH
O 01
ID H
0)
>
•r4.
4-1
10
c
Vj
0)
4->
^H
<
C C
•H | -rl
rH C • rH
T3 ^ T3 0 0) J* >
(DC CCtlrHOlOJCrH
3>H 3(0 !03lO-HX)3lH 3M (OrH
OQ OrH iHQrH >(OOO OO rJIO
rHj: rHtfl D-rHOl C4-J,H.C rHj: 6<4J
MHO1 MHM T3 »O I4HH 0) Q. 4H CA MHU3 C
0) . Q) <4H 01 01 UH 0)
JriJT X01 rH 4J rH OJiOl 4JO^£.4-IJ<:£ 4JOE
(04J (001 -rl 01 -H (CO)-CU(04J01(04-> 01C-
0)3 0)C 10 O (0 C01CO) lOTJ 0)3 O013 OCOO)
C-O c.0 4J o 4J oaorHrHc ao oao ooiJrH
C/) r3 Q) 0) •r|r3j2Cl|rj y^ yj -H-H^2
01 0) "O-O) •O'4-l'OlO 1) 014) 4)4-l>(8
>4J >4J 01 > OT OC4J4J C >i > -P >>4J >OC4J
•H 10 -H (8 M -H -rt ^ -H 3 (0 (0 & -rl rH -H (0 -H -H (0 -H 3 0) Q
01 01 O0101 OU1M OlrHrHOl 0101 (Ot-lO>
raO* 010' MH >, 01 UH>i 4J4JOU X a in O 0101O- 014-I.PU
01 -HO. 0) -H G. rH 0) rH IflC-HU C4-> 0) -H (VOI-rlO, 0) OT C O
U4JEH O4JE-1 41(0 0 OliTJ C*4J(0 IOC U4J OO4JE- OC(8iO
X(02 X(fl2 01C X 01C 0>H(OC W4) XlO XX(02 XOrHC
Id VJ S W M 2 3(0 H 3(0 CJOiMS bg U M W K ^ 3 W O (X 3
fN (N (N CN CH m CT\ m fN ^P
. * .. .. ..« >
CO m OrH CAin rHfrfin m
rH in in r— o m CN CN ^ o
r— ^C'^DCA cor— r^coo o
rH rH
TJ
0) 0) -C 0) C
4-1 01 4-1 4-1 •- (0
ra C 3 (0 m
4-» O 0 4-1 73 (S> •-
10 >H r-l rH
•O4J4J!/] T3 rHO f- •
ClOlOrH C OIJ^IO
(0 01 18 H C/3 1 CO
mOC rHrH^rHE
fvococ £ 0)4)x:4)C01 4)
4-lr-rH 3 4J 0>C4->CIO>H| 4J
COrHrHEH CO CC3CrHQ 01
in in O3O30i.cc >,
tn -^ HI rj EI Cn EH- M W -H 01
C C TJ • C C rH
>H iHCOI-rl tH II 01.C.X '01
0)4)>0)HiJ 0) 0 0) -U C £
>>^oi > o^cnuj 4J
< < (0 (8 in £ c < (0 < mm OOM
Z Z U O H W M Z CJ Z COrH t-JUJCn C
•o
01
ooommo ooo m "c
in ^* o m vc in -H
CO C*. ^" CO rH ^O S>
CN rH CN CN 0
^
01
•H
ooooo^r TTOO o 4)
in in m cr
10
©.,.
4J
ra
0
oooooo ooo m c
o o oin oin inoin CN
^PCNCNrHCNrH rHI—m rH 01
10
4)
rH
43
OOOOOO OOO O 10
OCAOCACACAO CA U
m «5« m r— i rH ^* m rH -H
rH
a
-- - - - _ _____ ... . . ..- .- - - _ ... . f^
— k-M
10
4J
0
Z
1
1
.
>l^*>«> ... . 1^
rHrHCNm^in VOt—CO CA Z
4-38
-------
require tertiary treatment to meet the river's stricter
water quality standards. Tertiary treatment is expensive,
it requires additional solids handling facilities and it is
generally less reliable than secondary treatment processes.
This wastewater could be treated at a lower cost at an
expanded South Shore WWTP.
Alternatives 3, 8, and 9 were eliminated as being too costly.
Cost estimates were prepared for each alternative based on
Engineering News Record's Construction Cost Index of 3300.
This index is used to compare construction and material
costs and is based on historical cost trends for both labor
and materials. The Cost Index of 3300 represents costs in
April, 1980 dollars. The cost estimates were considered
accurate by the MMSD, within a range of +50 to 30%.
4.3.4 Development of Feasible Alternatives
Alternatives 2 and 4 were retained for further study. Using
information gained in the development and screening of the
above nine alternatives, the MMSD developed three new
alternatives incorporating feasible portions of the elimi-
nated alternatives. These new alternatives were referred to
as:
Remote Storage (formerly #2)
CST Extension (2-year CSO LOP) (formerly #4)
Inline Storage
Jones Island Storage
Flow-Through Treatment
In developing costs for all of the above alternatives
except the CST Extension Alternative, it was assumed that
CSO abatement would be achieved according to the MMSD
Commissioners' original recommended plan. This plan en-
tailed complete sewer separation for the entire CSSA,
including private property work. CSO costs must be con-
sidered in comparing system costs for all alternatives
because the CST Extension Alternatives would utilize storage
facilities which would convey both clear water and CSO
flows. For these facilities, flows and costs will be divided
according to the design storage capacity required for each
(CSO versus clear water).
During the systems analysis, it was determined that the
flows to the South Shore V7WTP would be limited by the 144-
inch diameter South Shore Interceptor to 250 MGD. Replace-
ment or reinforcement of this interceptor would be more
costly than to store peak flows or divert them to the Jones
Island WWTP. Hence, the South Shore WWTP would be limited
to a maximum day design capacity of 250 MGD, with all flows
4-39
-------
in excess diverted to Jones Island. In comparing treatment
expansion costs to storage costs, expansion of the Jones
Island WWTP to approximately 300 MGD was determined to be
the optimum maximum day treatment capacity for this plant.
Flows in excess of these design capacities would be diverted
to various types of storage facilities. The Flow-Through
Alternative is the one exception to these limits as no
storage would be provided in this system. The Jones Island
WWTP. would be expanded to a capacity of 450 MGD.
In addition to the South Shore Interceptor, the system
analysis also identified numerous other portions of the
conveyance system which could not adequately convey wet
weather flows. The critical areas in the system were
identified and solutions were developed to reinforce the
hydraulic capacity in these areas. These reinforcements are
common to all alternatives and include construction of the
Hampton Avenue Branch
Upper Lincoln Creek Branch
Menomonee River/Burleigh Street Overflow Structure
Menomonee River/Keefe Avenue Branch
South 6th Street Branch
South 81st Street and West Grant Street Branch
South 84th Street and West Becher Street Overflow
Structure
Other reinforcements are required, but they vary for each
alternative. They will be discussed in the detailed des-
criptions.
4.3.4.1 Remote S torage
The Remote Storage Alternative was carried over from the
original analysis with some modifications. Maximum day
design flows at the Jones Island and South Shore treatment
plants would be expanded to 300 and 250 MGD respectively as
described. The South 6th Street branch would be constructed
to divert flows from hydraulically inadequate sewers in the
Kinnickinnic River Valley to the South Shore Interceptor
instead of replacing or reinforcing the inadequate sewers.
In addition, the western segment of the Crosstown Diversion
Sewer (west of 58th & State Street) as well as the Milwaukee
River and Lower Lincoln Creek Branches would be constructed.
A storage cavern would be constructed near 58th and State
Streets to capture flows in excess of the treatment capacities
at the Jones Island and South Shore WWTPs. This cavern
would contain 550 ac-ft of storage capacity. In most cases,
the cavern would be pumped out to the South Shore WWTP but
diversion of these flows to Jones Island would be possible.
4-40
-------
The storage cavern would be equipped with solids handling
facilities because it is expected that solids would settle
during storage period. Aeration equipment would also be
provided to minimize solids settling and to reduce septic
conditions which could occur in the cavern.
A cost estimate was developed for this alternative and can
be found in Table 4-5.
4.3.4.2 Jones Island Storage
This alternative would utilize the Jones Island and South
Shore WWTPs, having maximum day design capacities of 300 and
250 MGD, respectively. The reinforcements listed above
would also be constructed. In addition, the Milwaukee River
Main Segment, Lower Lincoln Creek Segment, and the entire
Crosstown Diversion Sewer would be built.
A mined storage cavern would be constructed near the Jones
Island WWTP. This cavern would provide 550 ac-ft of storage.
During dry weather, the cavern could be pumped out either to
Jones Island directly or to the South Shore WWTP via a force
main connected to the S. 6th Street Branch. The cavern
would be equipped with both solids handling and aeration
equipment.
A cost estimate was developed for this alternative and can
be found in Table 4-6.
4.3.4.3 Inline Storage
This alternative would utilize both the Jones Island and
South Shore WWTPs. The plants would have a maximum day
design capacity of 300 MGD and 250 MGD, respectively. Also,
240-inch diameter sewers would be built along the Milwaukee
River and Crosstown Diversion corridors. In addition to the
reinforcements described above, as common to all alternatives,
the Honey Creek Branch and a force main connecting the 240-
inch sewers to the South 6th Street Branch would also be
constructed.
The 240-inch diameter sewers would have an approximate
length of 91,000 feet. The total volume capacity of these
sewers would be 650 ac-ft. Of this volume, 100 ac-ft would
be required for the conveyance of flows in excess of the
capacity of the existing sewers in the Milwaukee and
Menomonee River corridors. The remaining 550 ac-ft would be
available for storage. Because of their flow configuration,
solids would not be expected to settle in the tunnels; thus
no solids handling facilities were included in the design.
The tunnels would be constructed in the Niagaran Dolomite
4-41
-------
TABLE 4-5
COST ESTIMATE*
REMOTE STORAGE ALTERNATIVE WITH COMPLETE SEWER SEPARATION
Capital
Item Cost
Cavern Storage $ 89.17
Conveyance to Storage 2.50
Force Main From Storage 1.13
Cross Town Diversion 12.40
Milwaukee River Branch 143.59
S. 6th Street Branch 4.11
MIS Rehabilitation 52.00
MIS Reinforcement 15.79
SSES Program 24.20
CLEARWATER SUBTOTAL $ 332.49
Sewer Separation 652.79
Pump Station 15.21
CSO SUBTOTAL $ 688.00
Jones Island 292.50
South Shore 132.13
TREATMENT PLANT SUBTOTAL $ 424.63
TOTAL
$1425.12
Annual
O&M
Costs
$ 0.549
0.002
0.001
0.001
0.004
0.009
$ 0.566
1.940
0.115
$ 2.055
13.582
8.437
$22.019
$24.640
Net Present
Worth
$ 93.51
2.31
1.04
11.32
153.05
3.75
45.65
14.46
24.20
$ 349.29
626.70
16.49
$ 643.19
442.04
229.34
$ 671.38
$1663.86
*A11 costs in millions of dollars. (ENR CCI = 3300)
Source: MWPAP/WSP 1980.
4-42
-------
TABLE 4 — 6
COST ESTIMATE*
JONES ISLAND STORAGE ALTERNATIVE
WITH COMPLETE SEWER SEPARATION
Item
Cavern Storage
Conveyance to Storage
Force Main from Storage
Cross Town Diversion
Milwaukee River Branch
S. 6th Street Branch
MIS Rehabilitation
MIS Reinforcement
SSES Program
CLEARWATER SUBTOTAL
Sewer Separation
Pump Stations
CSO SUBTOTAL
Jones Island
South Shore
TREATMENT PLANT SUBTOTAL
TOTAL
Capital
Cost
$ 89.17
8.76
4.38
94.03
116.44
4.84
31.20
15.79
24.20
$ 388.81
652.79
15.21
$ 688.00
292.50
132.13
$ 424.63
$1501.44
Annual
O&M
Costs
$ 0.549
0.003
0.004
0.009
$ 0.565
1.940
0.115
$ 2.055
13.582
8.437
$22.019
$24.639
Net Present
Worth
$ 93.51
8.00
4.00
99.26
124.89
4.42
23.46
14.46
24.20
$ 401.20
626.70
16.49
$ 643.19
442.04
229.34
$ 671.38
$1715.77
*A11 costs in millions of dollars. (ENR CCI = 3300)
Source: MWPAP/WSP 1980.
4-43
-------
approxmately 300 feet below grade. Flows would be pumped to
the surface with capabilities to divert flows to either
Jones Island or South Shore via the S. 6th Street for treat-
ment.
A cost estimate was developed by the MMSD for this alternative
and can be found in Table 4-7.
4.3.4.4 CST Extension (2-Year LOP) ,
The CST Extension Alternative would require operation of
both the Jones Island and South Shore WWTPs. The respective
maximum day flow capacity of these plants would be 300 MGD
and 250 MGD as described previously. The system would
require construction of 360-inch diameter tunnels along the
Milwaukee River and Crosstown Diversion corridors. In addition
to those reinforcements detailed above as common to all
alternatives, the Honey Creek branch and a force main con-
necting the 360-inch diameter tunnels to the S. 6th Street
Branch would be constructed.
The 360-inch diameter tunnel concept was originally developed
as part of the out-of-basin CST concept for the abatement of
CSO. The 2-year LOP CSO system was expanded to incorporate
an additional 550 ac-ft of storage by extending the tunnels
to a length of 91,000 ft. The net storage capacity of the
tunnels would be 1403 ac-ft. These tunnels would be con-
structed in the dolomite layer approximately 300 feet beneath
the surface.
In addition, CSO from 68% of the CSSA would be stored in the
tunnels. This area includes all of the CSSA except the
Lincoln Creek, Lake Michigan, and Kinnickinnic River basins.
Sewers in the 68% area would remain combined with all over-
flows diverted to the tunnel system. A total of 2737 ac-ft
of storage would be required. A storage cavern would be
constructed near Jones Island to provide an additional 1,334
ac-ft of storage. Because the sewers would convey runoff,
screening structures would be provided prior to dropshafts
to remove sticks, logs, and other debris. Solids handling
equipment would be provided in the cavern to remove settled
solids.
Of the remaining 32% of the CSSA, 12% of the sewers would be
partially separated and new storm sewers constructed. All
remaining overflows would be captured in near surface storage
facilities. These facilities, (based on the shallow pit
storage facilities developed in the CSO Facility Plan) would
provide 127 ac-ft of storage. Sewers in the remaining 20%
of the CSSA would be completely separated. Some work in
private property would be required.
4-44
-------
TABLE 4-7
COST ESTIMATE*
INLINE STORAGE ALTERNATIVE WITH COMPLETE SEWER SEPARATION
Capital
Item Cost
240" Tunnels $ 238.38
Pump Station 13.97
Force Main From Storage 7.30
Honey Creek Branch 0.26
S. 6th Street Branch 4.84
MIS Rehabilitation 52.00
MIS Reinforcement 15.79
SSES Programs 24.20
CLEARWATER SUBTOTAL $ 356.74
Complete Sewer Separation 652.79
Pump Stations 15.21
CSO SUBTOTAL ' $ 668.00
Jones Island WWTP 292.50
South Shore WWTP 132.13
TREATMENT PLANT SUBTOTAL $ 424.63
TOTAL
$1449.37
Annual
O&M
Cost
$ 0.160
0.080
0.001
0.009
$ 0.250
1.940
0.115
$ 2.055
13.582
8.437
$22.019
$24.324
Net Present
Worth
$ 246.11
14.66
6.66
0.23
4.42
47.44
14.46
24.20
$ 358.18
662.70
16.49
$ 679.19
442.04
229.34
$ 671.38
$1708.75
*A11 costs in millions of dollars. (ENR CCI = 3300)
Source: MWPAP/WSP 1980.
4-45
-------
A cost estimate for this alternative was developed and can
be found in Table 4-8. As stated previously, costs for the
tunnels, caverns, and pumpout system would be divided between
the CSO and clear water storage subtotals because these
facilities would be used for both purposes. The costs of
these items would be divided on the basis of required
storage volume. CSO abatement would require 2187 ac-ft of
storage or approximately 80% of the total volume provided.
Clear water storage would require only 550 ac-ft or ap-
proximately 20% of the total volume. Accordingly, costs for
the above mentioned items would be divided as 20% to clear
water storage and 80% to CSO abatement. This procedure
would be used wherever facilities are jointly used.
4.3.4.4 Flow-Through Treatment
This alternative is similar to Alternative lA developed for
initial screening. The South Shore WWTP would be expanded
to 250 MGD as discussed above. No storage would be provided
in the system. The Jones Island WWTP would be expanded to
450 MGD to treat the remaining peak wastewater flows. In
addition to those reinforcements noted earlier as common to
all alternatives, the Crosstown Diversion Sewer, Milwaukee
River Main Branch, and the Lower Lincoln Creek Branch would
be constructed.
A cost estimate was developed for this alternative and can
be found in Table 4-9.
4.3.5 Screening of Feasible Alternatives
The five feasible peak wastewater storage and treatment
alternatives were screened for cost and technical merit.
Table 4-10 is a summary of the screening results. The cost
estimates were similar to those used in the previous screening
effort, although these estimates were somewhat more refined
because of the increased level of detail developed for these
alternatives. These costs are accurate within the range of
+30 to -15%. As can be seen from Table 4-10 all costs are
within the range of accuracy and thus cost was not used to
eliminate any alternatives.
For the Flow-Through Treatment Alternative, the required
capacity of the Jones Island WWTP would be increased to 450
MGD. This maximum day capacity at the Jones Island plant
would result in a peaking factor of 4.5:1. This large
variation in flows could disrupt the biological treatment
processes at the Jones Island plant degrading the quality of
its effluent. Based on this data, the MMSD eliminated the
Flow-Through Treatment Alternative from further consideration
4-46
-------
TABLE 4-8
COST ESTIMATES**
TWO YEAR LOP CST EXTENSION ALTERNATIVE
Item
360" Diameter Tunnels*
Cavern Storage*
Force Main From Storage*
Dropshafts
South 6th Street Branch
Honey Creek Branch
MIS Rehabilitiation
MIS Reinforcement
SSES Program
Lower Lincoln Creek Segment
CLEARWATER SUBTOTAL
Capital
Cost
$
$
290.63
77.28
4.38
21.34
4.84
0.26
52.00
15.79
24.20
6.70
263.53
Annual
O&M
Costs
$ 0.143
0.489
—
0.008
—
—
—
0.009
—
0.001
$ 0.246
Net Present
Worth
$ 294.04
73.52
4.00
20.32
4.42
0.23
47.44
14.46
24.20
6.12
$ 250.95
Near Surface Collectors
Screening Structure
Dropshafts
Complete Sewer Separation
Lift Stations
CSO Solids Treatment
CSO SUBTOTAL
61.76
33.25
52.98
255.83
2.97
—
$ 0.044
0.144
0.013
1.863
0.025
0.391
$ 645.06
$ 2.480
$ 59.03
33.07
50.37
253.33
3.09
4.18
$ 640.87
Jones Island WWTP $ 292.50 $13.582 $ 442.04
South Shore WWTP 132.13 8.437 229.34
TREATMENT PLANT SUBTOTAL $ 424.63 $22.019 $ 671.38
TOTAL
$1,333.22
$24.745
$1,563.20
* Costs are apportioned as 36% to Clearwater Subtotal and 64%
to CSO Subtotal.
** All costs in millions of dollars. (ENR CCI = 3300)
Source: MWPAP/WSP 1980.
4-47
-------
TABLE 4-9
COST ESTIMATE**
FLOW THROUGH TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE
WITH COMPLETE SEWER SEPARATION
Capital
Item Cost
Crosstown Diversion $ 94.03
Milwaukee River Branch 116.44
S. 6th Street Branch 4.11
MIS Rehabilitation 31.20
MIS Reinforcement 15.79
SSES Program 24.20
CLEAR WATER SUBTOTAL* $ 393.27
Complete Sewer Separation 652.79
Pump Stations 15.21
CSO SUBTOTAL $ 668.00
Jones Island WWTP* 400.00
South Shore WWTP 132.13
TREATMENT PLANT SUBTOTAL* $ 424.63
TOTAL $1485.90
Annual
O&M
Costs
$ 0.003
0.004
0.009
$ 2.434
1.940
0.115
$ 2.055
16.000
8.437
$22.019
$26.508
Net Present
Worth
$ 99.26
124.89
3.75
27.39
14.46
24.20
$ 421.91
662.70
16.49
$ 679.19
570.00
229.34
$ 671.38
$1772.48
*Because the Jones Island plant is expanded from 300 MGD to
450 MGD for the purpose of treating peak flow, treatment
plant subtotals reflect a peak capacity of 300 MGD. The
additional capital cost of $107.5 million and O&M of $2.418
million required for the Jones Island expansion are reflected
in the Clearwater Subtotal.
**All costs in millions of dollars. (ENR CCI = 33001
Source: MWPAP/SWP 1980.
4-48
-------
co
w
H
H
O EH
rH J
I <
* J
rH
8
rH
CQ
H
co
<
H
CM
•1
4J
en
O
O
Cn
03
O
4-1
co
en
4J
G
n3
rH
Oj
4J
G
0)
G
4-1
03
cu
rH
§-i
4-1 O
C rH
cu £
en 4-i X
4-> cu SH
CU SH 0
S Cu 3 ~
O
H H
03
3 X
G 2
C <-3
< O "•'
H 0
03 rH
4-1
•H 4J X
ft en
03 0
CJ CJ ~
VD
CO
•
ro
vO
^O
1-1
^-ji
l^Q
*
^i
CN
CN
rH
*
in
CN
^3*
rH
CU
ti 1 1
rt3 03
CU 4-1
C
iH O
O -H
4J
(U nj
ft O
>i 0
EH J
C CO
tn
G <3 4-1
SH CU
CU J3 CU
> 4-) SH
03 CO 4-1
CJ in co
4J
CU
>i CU
4J HH
•H 1
O 0)
ft O
03 03
U —
4-1
•H
js cu o —*
4-1 rH 03 Q
3 O ft O
0 JS 03 S
CO CO CJ -^
O
in
in
O
in
CN
^1
4J
T3 -H
en G O — .
CU 03 03 Q
G rH ft CJ
O en a) 2
hi H U ~
o
o
ro
CU
cn
03
0
4J
co
cu
•H
4-1
03
G
CU
rH
<
CU
4J
Q
£j*
cu
«
rH
r~
r^
•
in
rH
[•*.
rH
^1*
^Q
t
^
CN
^y
*
rH
0
in
rH
HH T3
O G
4-1 TI H
03 G en
CU H
G
SH A tn
CU 4-1 CU
> 3 C
o3 0 0
cj tn hi
o
m
m
o
in
CN
o
o
ro
rrj
C
rH
en
H CU
cn
en 03
cu SH
G 0
O 4-1
hi co
CN
in
r**
•
CO
o
t — .
rH
CN
ro
•
T
CN
ro
•
CTi
^i
rH
cu Cn
4-1 C ^
0) 0
6 rH CU CU
03 03 CU 0)
•H ^ C •
Q en 3 0 tn
M 03 £ SH
: CU 3 0 CU
0 3 rH G >
•*r cu -H cu -H
CN en s s a!
o
in
in
o
in
CM
0
o
ro
cu
cn
03
SH
O
co
0)
G
•H
rH
C
H
ro
CO
*rj*
•
CN
r~-
r*~
iH
iH
in
•
vO
CN
O
cn
•
in
CO
^r
rH
CU
G
0
0
in
CN
O
in
^
JS
Cn
3
0 4-1
rC S
EH 6
1 4-1
3 03
0 CU
rH SJ
pL4 £H
T
0
CN
•
ro
&
m
rH
in
c^-
•
<3*
CN
CN
CN
•
ro
ro
ro
rH
CU G
4-1 O ^3
CU rH
S 03 0) CU 4-1
03 CU CU 03
•H en ^ G •
T3 rH 3 0 tn G
CU 03 6 M in
s C 3 0 CU CU
0 C -H C > >
|JD 3 -H CU -H n3
cn 4-> S S OJ U
C »
•H tn — ,
rH G G
in cu -H SH
r~ G cu
o o c m >
rtl H 3 i£ o!
in — 4J ^r o
rH
O
m
CN
0
O
ro
C
0 —
•H &i
en o
C iH
CU
ij ^J
X 03
H CU
^H
EH 1
CO CN
O -'
in
•
G
cc)
H
en
H
en
0)
C
o
t
4J
en
0
U
rH
0)
£>
cu
iH
1
S
cu
4->
en
*>i
en
rH
o3
4-1
0
EH
H
5 Cubic Meters/Day
05
ro
II
^
>>i
03
Q
^s^
en
G
0
rH
rH
03
0
G
0
•H
rH
rH
•H
S.
Q
S
rH
en
SH
cu
cu
2
0
•H
A
3
CJ
ro
ro
CN
H
II
4J
0
0
1
(U
SH
o
rH
•
o
co
rH
0.
CU
CO
S
x^
&4
rf3
P-I
S
2
it
cu
o
3
O
CO
4-49
-------
in their analysis. The EIS study team, however, decided to
carry the Flow-Through Alternative into the joint CSO/ clear
water facilities analysis because the Flow-Through Alternative
was the only alternative which did not require storage
facilities. After the joint facilities are developed, a
more thorough comparison of the Flow-Through Alternative can
be made.
4.4 DEVELOPMENT OF JOINT CSO/CLEAR WATER PROGRAM TO
MEET U.S. DISTRICT COURT ORDER
To this point, in the clear water analysis only one system
considered joint use of facilities for clear water storage
and CSO abatement. Other than the CST Extension system, all
alternatives assumed complete sewer separation of sewers in
the CSSA. Because sewer separation would require extensive
private property work, the MMSD Commissioners recommended
that modification of the complete separation plan be made to
find a less disruptive solution to the combined sewer problem.
As a means of minimizing private property work, partial
separation or complete storage were considered. The result
of that analysis was the modified U.S. District Court Order
CSO abatement plan described in Section 4.2.2.
Further analysis by the WPAP determined that approximately
1/3 of the storm water in the CSSA reached the sewers via
private connections (roof leaders, tile drains, yard drains
sump pumps, etc.). The remainder of the storm water entered
the sewers via catchbasins in the public right of way.
Further evaluation showed that disconnection of private
storm water connections represented 60% of the cost of
complete separation. Thus a second strategy, partial separ-
ation, was reintroduced to take advantage of this information.
Partial separation would be accomplished by laying new
gravity flow storm sewers and removing public right of way
connections from the combined sewer system, reconnecting
then to the new storm sewers. Methods for partial separation
using new gravity flow sanitary sewers and low pressure
sanitary sewers were also considered. New sanitary sewers
were found to be less desirable than new storm sewers.
Hydraulic requirements in gravity sewers and protection from
frost heave requires sanitary sewers to be constructed at a
greater depth. The depth factor would result in higher
construction costs and increased risks of disrupting other
utilities. The low pressure sewers were shown to be un-
acceptable because pneumatic injectors and garbage grinders
for sanitary sewers would be required at each connection to
the pressurized system(which would result in an unacceptable
cost to homeowners).
4-50
-------
Because flows from partially separated combined sewers would
still be in excess of the intercepting sewer capacities,
some storage would be required. Storage systems designed
for clear water flows from the separated area were evaluated
to determine the feasibility of expanding the available
volumes to fulfill storage requirements for CSO abatement.
An analysis was then made by the MWPAP of each subbasin in
the CSSA to compare the cost of completely or partially
separating the sewers, or allowing the sewers to remain com-
bined (and storing all CSO). Where storage was recommended,
a further analysis was performed to determine whether flows
should be stored in centralized storage facilities, or in
smaller localized facilities. Using information obtained in
these analyses, the clear water solution alternatives were
modified.
The analysis identified portions of the CSSA which would be
completely separated under all alternatives. These subareas
represent 1778 acres (approximately 11%) of the CSSA. Of this
area, 953 acres (approximately 6% of the CSSA) is already
completely separated, but storm sewers in these areas are
tributary to CSO outfalls either upstream or downstream of the
flow regulators. Freeway corridors represent 270 acres
(approximately 2% of the CSSA). There are no sanitary flows
from these basins, but because they pass through the heart
of the CSSA, the storm sewers are tributary to nearby combined
sewers. The remaining 555 acres (approximately 3% of the
CSSA) are served by separated sewers which are tributary to
combined sewers. Of these acres, 485 are tributary to a
combined sewer in Capitol Drive. Separation of this sewer
would eliminate bypassing of sanitary flows at the CSO flow
regulator, eliminating combined sewer problems in this area.
The remaining 70 acres are small isolated areas on the
fringes of the CSSA.
4.4.1 Joint CSO/Clear Water Storage Alternatives
Based on the above analysis, five joint CSO/Clear Water
Storage alternatives were developed. The following compo-
nents would be common to all joint use alternatives developed
to meet the U.S. District Court Order.
1. Jones Island would have an average day design capacity
of 95 MGD with maximum day capabilities of 300 MGD.
2. South Shore would have an average day design capacity
of 103 MGD with maximum day capabilities of 250 MGD.
3. The 11% area of the CSSA previously described would
have complete sewer separation under all alternatives.
4-51
-------
4. The following reinforcements would be constructed on
the MIS system:
Hampton Avenue Branch
Upper Lincoln Creek Branch
Menomonee River/Burleigh Street Overflow
Menomonee River/Keefe Avenue Branch
S. 6th St. Branch
S. 81st Street and W. Grant Street Branch
S. 84th Street and W. Becher Street Overflow
5. Localized storage would use near surface facilities.
A silo design was assumed for the analysis. Silos
would be 58 feet in diameter and would have a maximum
depth of 100 feet. A 100 foot deep silo would provide
approximately 3 ac-ft of storage.
6. Construction on private property required for sewer
separation would be minimized or eliminated where
possible.
The components of the five joint CSO/clear water storage
alternatives described below are only those portions of the
regional system level necessary to convey, store, and treat
CSO and excess clear water. The systems were designed by
the MMSD to meet the CSO and separated sewer area bypass
abatement requirements of both the U.S. District Court Order
and the Dane County Court Stipulation. The systems have
been sized such that no bypasses would occur from the
separated sewer system and all storms up to and including
the storm of record would not cause any CSO.
Based on the MMSD Commissioners' May 10, 1979 resolution,
the MMSD no longer included instream measures as means of
achieving water quality standards. The inclusion of any
instream measures is pending SEWRPC and DNR determination of
the administrative framework for the implementation of these
measures. Also, because the use of partially separated
sewers would reduce CSO volumes by approximately two-thirds,
the MMSD concluded that overflows of the system would be
very unlikely. For this reason, the drum screens and
chlorination facilities at each dropshaft overflow pipe were
not included with the system costs.
At this point in the facility planning process it became
necessary for the MMSD to begin the selection of a final
alternative for implementation. Accordingly, planning was
limited to only those overflow abatement alternatives that
would meet the requirements of both courts. For this reason
the 2-Year LOP CST alternative was replaced with the CST
4-52
-------
alternative with sufficient storage capacity to meet the
U.S. District Court overflow abatement requirements. This
alternative and the other four joint alternatives devised to
meet both requirements are discussed in detail below.
4.4.1.1 CST Extension (U.S. District Court)
The CST Extension Alternative would remain very similar to
that previously described. The storage system would consist
of 91,000 ft. of 360-inch diameter tunnel providing 1405 ac-
ft of storage, and a mined cavern at Jones Island to provide
1334 ac-ft of storage.
In 68% of the CSSA, no sewers would be separated. All flows
in excess of the regulators' capacities would be diverted to
the central deep tunnel system. Of the CSSA, 11% would be
completely separated. In the remaining 21%, sewers would be
partially separated with flows tributary to local near
surface storage which would provide 235 ac-ft of storage.
No private property work would be required. This system is
outlined in Figure 4-12. Costs for this system are detailed
in Table 4-11.
In 9% of the 21% of the CSSA to be partially separated, the
cost effective alternative would be complete sewer separation,
This level of separation would involve private property work
in these areas. If private property work is allowed, the
capital cost of the CST Extension Alternative would be
$1,436 million, annual O&M would be $26.07 million and the
net present worth would be $1,689 million.
4.4.1.2 Remote Storage
The Remote Storage Alternative would use the same conveyance
and central storage configurations as previously described.
A CSO abatement system was then developed based on data from
each sub-basin in the CSSA. The sub-basin analysis showed
that 59% of the CSSA should be completely separated, 18%
partially separated with CSOs stored in the central storage
cavern, and 23% partially separated with CSOs stored in near
surface storage facilities. The central cavern at 58th and
State Streets would be enlarged to 757 ac-ft (an increase of
207 ac-ft). Near surface storage facilities would provide
233 ac-ft of storage. Capital cost for this system would be
$1,382 million with an annual O&M of $25.05 million. These
cost represent a net present worth of $1,609 million. This
alternative is outlined in Figure 4-13.
In order to eliminate work on private property, the system
was altered to have 89% of the sewers partially separated
with the remaining 11% completely separated. Of the 89%,
4-53
-------
TABLE 4-11
COST ESTIMATE**
CST EXTENSION ALTERNATIVE WITH NO PRIVATE PROPERTY WORK
Capital
Item Cost
Cavern Storage* $ 190.25
Deep Tunnels* 332.79
Force Main From Storage 4.38
Dropshafts 21.34
S. 6th Street Branch 4.84
Honey Creek Branch 0.26
MIS Rehabilitation 52.00
MIS Reinforcement 15.79
SSES Program 24.20
CLEARWATER SUBTOTAL $ 224.42
Near Surface Collector 82.42
Screening Structures 44.29
Dropshafts 63.13
Partial Sewer Separation 44.86
Near Surface Storage 35.45
Complete Sewer Separation 76.96
CSO SUBTOTAL $ 875.33
Jones Island WWTP 292.50
South Shore WWTP 132.13
TREATMENT PLANT SUBTOTAL $ 424.63
TOTAL $1524.38
Annual
O&M
Costs
$ 1.001
0.126
0.008
0.009
$ 0.243
0.055
0.216
0.017
1.930
0.318
0.035
$ 3.470
13.582
8.437
$22.019
$25.732
Net Present
Worth
$ 198.32
335.09
4.00
20.32
4.42
0.23
47.44
14.46
24.20
$ 219.06
78.73
44.30
57.76
59.98
35.14
67.78
$ 773.11
442.04
229.34
$ 671.38
$1663.55
* Costs are apportioned as 20% to Clearwater Subtotal and
30% to CSO Subtotal.
**A11 costs in millions of dollars. (ENR CCI = 3300)
Source: MWPAP/WSP 1980.
4-54
-------
-------
-------
CSO in 18% of the CSSA would remain tributary to the cavern
at 58th and State Streets. The remaining 71% would be
tributary to near surface storage facilities. The central
storage cavern would remain at 757 ac-ft of storage. An
additional 795 ac-ft of storage would be provided by the
near surface storage facilities. Costs for this alternative
without work on private property are shown in Table 4-12.
4.4.1.3 Jones Island Storage
The conveyance and storage configuration for this alter-
native would be similar to that previously described.
Sewers in 59% of the CSSA (including the 11% described
above) would be completely separated. The remaining 41%
would be partially separated with CSO flows tributary to 437
ac-ft of near surface storage. No CSO flows would be stored
in the Jones Island Cavern, therefore/ its size would remain
at 550 ac-ft. Of the 59% to be completely separated, 48%
would require work on private property. Capital costs for
this alternative would be $1,436 million and the annual O&M
would be $25.21 million. This represents a net present
worth of $1,666 million. This alternative is outlined in
Figure 4-14.
In order to eliminate work on private property, 89% of the
CSSA would undergo partial sewer separation with CSO tributary
to near surface storage facilities. These near surface
facilities would provide 1002 ac-ft of storage capacity. In
the remaining 11% of the CSSA, sewers would be completely
separated with no work on private property required. Costs
for this alternative are detailed in Table 4-13.
4.4.1.4 Inline Storage
This alternative would utilize the 240-inch diameter tunnels
previously described. Within the CSSA, 11% of the sewer
system would be separated, but no private property work
would be necessary. Sewers in the remaining 89% of the CSSA
would be partially separated. Of the 89%, overflows from
21% would be stored in 235 ac-ft of near surface storage and
the remaining 68% would be tributary to the deep tunnel
system. In addition to the volume afforded by the tunnel
system, an underground storage facility would be constructed
in the vicinity of Milwaukee County Stadium to provide 767
ac-ft of storage. The storage cavern would be built so that
the invert of the cavern would be at a height above that of
the deep tunnel invert. Flows entering the cavern would be
backed up into the cavern and be the first portion of the
storage system to drain. Because of the detention time and
the preliminary design of the cavern, the MMSD does not
expect solids to accumulate in the cavern. Therefore, no
4-55
-------
TABLE 4-12
COST ESTIMATE**
REMOTE STORAGE ALTERNATIVE WITH NO PRIVATE PROPERTY WORK
Capital
Item Cost
Cavern Storage* $ 119.70
Force Main From Storage 1.13
West Crosstown Diversion 12.40
Milwaukee River Branch 143.59
S. 6th Street Branch 4.11
MIS Rehabilitation 52.00
MIS Reinforcement 15.79
SSES Program 24.20
CLEARWATER SUBTOTAL $ 339.88
Partial Sewer Senaration 372.69
Near Surface Collection 12.79
Near Surface Storage 286.93
Complete Sewer Separation 1.75
CSO SUBTOTAL $ 706.78
Jones Island WWTP 292.50
South Shore WWTP 132.13
TREATMENT PLANT SUBTOTAL $ 424.63
Annual
O&M
Costs
$ 0.684
0.001
0.001
0.004
0.009
$ 0.514
1.832
0.010
2.360
0.008
$ 4.395
13.582
8.437
$22.019
Net Present
Worth
$ 124'. 87
1.04
11.32
153.05
3.75
45.65
14.46
24.20
$ 343.91
359.59
11.77
285.56
1.68
$ 693.03
442.04
229.34
$ 671.38
TOTAL
$ 1471.29
$26.928
$ 1708.32
* Costs are apportioned as 27% to CSO Subtotal and 73% to
Clearwater Subtotal.
**A11 cost in millions of dollars.
Source: MWPAP/WSP 1980.
(ENR CCI = 3300)
4-56
-------
g
cc
f-
V)
o
o
-------
TABLE 4-13
COST ESTIMATE**
JONES ISLAND STORAGE ALTERNATIVE WITH NO PRIVATE PROPERTY WORK
Capital
Item Costs
Cavern Storage $ 89.17
Conveyance to Storage 8.76
Force Main From Storage 4.38
Crosstown Diversion Sewer 94.03
Milwaukee River Branch 116.44
S. 6th Street Branch 4.84
MIS Rehabilitation 31.20
MIS Reinforcement 15.79
SSES Program 24.20
CLEARWATER SUBTOTAL $ 388.81
Parital Sewer Separation 372.69
Near Surface Storage 337.00
Complete Sewer Separation 1.75
CSO SUBTOTAL $ 711.44
Jones Island WWTP 292.50
South Shore WWTP 132.13
TREATMENT PLANT SUBTOTAL $ 424.63
TOTAL $1524.88
Annual
O&M
Costs
$ 0.549
0.001
0.003
0.004
0.009
$ 0.566
1.832
2.651
0.008
$ 4.490
13.582
8.437
$22.019
$27.08
Net Present
Worth
$ 93.51
8.00
4.00
99.26
124.89
4.42
28.46
14.46
24.20
$ 401.20
359.59
316.42
1.68
$ 677.69
442.04
229.34
$ 671.38
$1750.27
*A11 costs in millions of dollars (ENR CCI = 3300)
Source: MWPAP/WSP 1980.
4-57
-------
solids handling facilities have been included with the
system. Costs for this alternative are illustrated in Table
4-14. This system is outlined in Figure 4-15.
4.4.1.5 Flow-Through Treatment
As discussed above, the EIS study team elected to evaluate a
joint CSO/Clear Water Flow-Through Alternative. The joint
alternative was developed by combining the original Flow-
Through Alternative with the modified U.S. District Court
Order CSO Abatement Plan. For the joint alternative, both
the Crosstown and the Milwaukee River Branches would be
constructed as near surface interceptors in order to convey
the additional peak clear water flows to the Jones Island
WWTP. Within the CSSA, 11% of the sewer system would be
separated, but no private property work would be required.
Sewers would be completely separated in 48% of the CSSA with
some private property work necessary. In the remaining 41%
of the CSSA, the sewers would be partially separated with
all CSO tributary to 437 ac-ft of near surface storage.
Costs for this alternative would be a net present worth of
$1,687 million.
In order to eliminate work on private property, the 48% of
the CSSA requiring private property work would instead
undergo partial separation with CSO tributary to 565 ac-ft
of near surface storage. This system is shown in Figure 4-
16. Component costs are detailed in Table 4-15.
4.4.2 MMSD Screening Results
The net present worth of all five alternatives with, and
without, private property work are shown in Table 4-16.
Based on costs alone, the differences between any of the
alternatives were not significant enough to make one alter-
native more or less attractive than another. The differences
in costs between each alternative were less than 10 percent,
well within the level of accuracy of the cost estimates.
Therefore, the MMSD used other factors in its selection of a
preferred CSO/Clear Water abatement alternative.
Because of the storage location of the Remote Storage
Alternative, overflows from only 18% of the CSSA could be
conveyed to the central storage cavern. The remainder of
the area would either be served by near surface-storage or
completely separated sewers. To eliminate private property
work, partial separation and near surface storage facilities
would be built in an additional 49% of the CSSA. This
activity would result in an increase in annual O&M costs and
capital costs. The net present worth of the project would
increase by $100 million. In addition, if adequate sites
4-58
-------
<
$
X
O
cc
o
UJ
UJ
DC
UJ
UJ
IT -I
O Ul
K 5
o *-
t I- Z
I I 5
UJ
Ul = O
* o or
< T O
I
o
z
cc
CD
CO
JC
to
:D
o
to
Id
CC
o
o
S;
UJ
I
cc
Ul
tu
e
bJ
in
-------
o
tr ui
Q
o
cc
o
o
a:
ui
UJ
co
ui ni-
J few
UJ
IULJ
i-o
UjO
o
02
UJ
>
I
OC
UJ
b
2
UJ
5
UJ
CC
ID
O
-------
TABLE 4-1.4
COST ESTIMATE**
INLINE STORAGE ALTERNATIVE WITH NO PRIVATE PROPERTY WORK
Capital
Item Costs
240" Tunnels* $ 238.38
Storage Cavern* 80.22
Force Main From Storage* 21.27
Honey Creek Branch 0.26
S. 6th Street Branch 4.84
MIS Rehabilitation 52.00
MIS Reinforcement 15.79
SSES Program 24.20
CLEARWATER SUBTOTAL $ 239.03
Near Surface Collector 59.96
Dropshafts 42.65
Partial Sewer Separation 372.69
Near Surface Storage 80.81
Complete Sewer Separation 1.75
CSO SUBTOTAL $ 755.79
Jones Island WWTP 292.50
South Shore WWTP 132.13
TREATMENT PLANT SUBTOTAL $ 424.63
TOTAL
$1419.45
Annual
O&M
Costs
$ 0.160
0.043
0.080
0.001
0.009
$ 0.128
0.032
0.016
1.832
0.303
0.008
$ 2.356
13.582
8.437
$22.019
$24.503
Net Present
Worth
$ 246.11
76.53
21.32
0.23
4.42
47.44
14.46
24.20
$ 234.39
57.21
38.64
359.59
77.18
1.68
$ 734.62
442.04
229.34
$ 671.38
$1630.39
* Costs are apportional as 42% to Clearwater Subtotal and 58% to
CSO Subtotal.
**A11 costs are in millions of dollars. (ENR CCI = 3300)
Source: MWPAP/WSP 1980.
4-59
-------
TABLE 4-15
COST ESTIMATE**
FLOW THROUGH TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE
WITH NO PRIVATE PROPERTY WORK
Capital
Item Cost
Crosstown Diversion $ 94.03
Milwaukee River Branch 116.44
South 6th Street Branch 4.11
MIS Rehabilitation 31.20
MIS Reinforcement 15.79
SSES Program 24.20
CLEAR WATER SUBTOTAL* $ 393.27
Annual
OSM
Costs
$ 0.003
0.004
0.009
$ 2.434
Net Present
Worth
$ 99.26
124.89
3.75
27.39
14.46
24.20
$ 421.91
Partial Sewer Separation $ 372.69 $ 1.832 $ 359.59
Near Surface Storage 337.00 2.651 316.42
Complete Sewer Separation 1.75 0.008 1.68
CSO SUBTOTAL $ 711.44 $ 4.490 $ 677.69
Jones Island WWTP*
South Shore WWTP
400.00
132.13
16.000
8.437
570.00
229.34
TREATMENT PLANT SUBTOTAL*
$ 424.63
$22.019
$ 671.38
TOTAL
$1,529.34
$29.943
$1,770.98
* Because the Jones Island plant is expanded from 300 MGD to
450 MGD for the purpose of treating peak flow, treatment plant
subtotals reflect a peak capacity of 300 MGD. The additional
capital cost of $107.5 million and O&M of $2.418 million
required for the Jones Island expansion are reflected in the
Clearwater Subtotal.
** All costs in millions of dollars. (ENR CCI = 3300)
Source: MWPAP/WSP 1980.
4-60
-------
^o
r-H
I
ryi
1 ~]
ffl
EH
co
EH
CO
0
U
PT.
O
N
pfj
^
S
§
D
co
^*.
03
SH
rfl
rH
rH
0
d^
MH
0
to
G
0
•H
rH
r-l
•H
S
,x
rl
O
S
^1
4-)
SH
a)
0
rd
•H
rl
O<
4->
3
O
•p
•H
S
C
0)
w
' Ci)
SH
04
4-1
0>
H
rB
3
G
G
rH
ffl
4J
•H
04
ITJ
O
4J
G
r^
SH
0
3
k>1
4-1
SH
a
o
SH
O4
0)
4-1
03
•H
04
4-1
•rl
S
0)
C/l
0)
rl
P4
•P
0)
2
j— H
OS
3
G
G
rH
03
4J
•H
04
oj
U
rj
jj
^
O
2
CN
ro
•
CO
o
i^
rH
S
03
O
C*
ro
0^
»
I^Q
CM
01
4J
tn
o
0
•-H
r**
•
«3
CN
^i
rH
rC
-P
^
0
3
^*
p^
•
CO
o
*&
rH
S
o
O
m
o
•
in
CN
en
4-1
W
0
CJ
r-
r-
•
r-H
CO
OO
rH
[^
CN
•
O
in
r^
rH
in
r^
0
t
[V.
fN
00
CO
•
^J*
CN
LO
rH
H
CN
•
^0
^0
^0
rH
CO
o
CM
,
in
CM
rH
•sf
•
{Q
00
"^r
rH
O
O
•
en
CO
\£
rH
O
f^.
0
•
vO
CN
rH
in
•
m
ro
^ji
rH
CN
ro
•
ro
CN
vjO
rH
r--
o
CN
•
^D
CN
rH
ID
*
[^
rH
T^
rH
(Ti
OO
•
O
ro
^D
H
ro
O
in
•
"vt1
CN
in
^
•
en
rH
^J1
rH
CM
CO
•
co
^
rH
O
O
m
,
^j1
CN
rH
0
«
rH
0
^
rH
CO
,
O
r»>
F»»
H
ro
"^3*
•H
4-1
G
rl
0)
-p
rH
CD
-------
for near surface storage facilities are not readily available,
the cost of this alternative could increase further.
With the Jones Island Storage Alternative, the storage
available at the Jones Island WWTP would not be accessible
to CSO flows. If private property work is not performed,
the O&M and capital costs for this alternative would be
significantly higher than the Remote Storage alternative
because all storage capacities would be in near surface
facilities. The net present worth would increase by
approximately $100 million. If near surface storage sites
are not readily available, it could compound problems
foreseen with this alternative.
Private property work is considered a critical factor
because it is estimated that it would cost approximately
$2000 to $4000 per building to disconnect all roof drains,
pumps and other storm water connections. It is the MMSD
Legal Staff's opinion that this cost would be borne by the
MMSD. If this opinion is invalidated by a court, the cost
would have to borne by the property owner. Further problems
could arise as monitoring and inspection programs would be
needed to ensure that all buildings would be separated and
that the new installations would be properly completed.
Legal problems could also arise if owner financing of the
related separation work were required.
The Remote Storage, Jones Island Storage, and the Flow-
Through Alternatives would require large amounts of soft
ground tunnels in heavily urban areas. The Crosstown
Diversion and the Milwaukee River branches would be required
for the Jones Island and Flow-Through Alternatives and the
Milwaukee River branch would be required for the Remote
Storage Alternative. Lack of proper precautions could lead
to foundation settling and, in extreme cases, to a tunnel
collapse. Both possibilities would have severe impacts on
the Milwaukee community as the shallow tunnels would pass
through heavily commercial and industrial districts of the
City.
These risks would be avoided with the CST and Inline Storage
Alternatives because the sewers along the Crosstown and
Milwaukee River Branches would be built in the bedrock
approximately 300 feet deep. The bedrock is mainly dolomite,
which, depending on the location of faults or major fissures,
provides a sound construction medium.
The Flow-Through Alternative was further evaluated by the
EIS study team as a means of eliminating deep tunnel and
cavern storage. It was, however, the highest cost alternative
both with, and without, private property work. This higher
4-62
-------
cost, in addition to the previously cited peaking factor
treatment problems, were sufficient reason to also eliminate
the Flow-Through Alternative from further EIS analysis.
Solids handling equipment would be required to remove settled
material from caverns of the Jones Island Storage, Remote
Storage, and the CST Extension Alternatives. This equipment
would increase the cost of.O&M for these facilities. The
reliability of this type equipment in the proposed situations
has not been proven. Solids equipment might not be required
for the Inline Storage Alternative because as flows drain
from the cavern, the deposited solids should be re-suspended
and carried down the tunnel system.
All alternatives were also examined by the MMSD for their
flexibility in the event that the U.S. District Court were
overturned. The Remote and Jones Island Storage Alternatives
would not be as flexible as the other alternatives. The
size of the storage facilities could be reduced, but these
facilities would still be required. With the CST Extension
Alternative, the tunnels would drain to the storage cavern.
As a result, the cavern would have to be constructed before
the tunnels. If the order should be overturned early enough
in the construction process, the cavern size could be scaled
down, however, no major savings would be realized. With the
Inline Storage Alternative, the storage cavern would be
constructed last. The tunnel system could be placed on line
prior to construction of the storage cavern. If the Court
Order were overturned, the cavern could be eliminated or
reduced in size. All reductions in cavern size depend upon
the final alternative selected for the Dane County Court
Stipulation. The DNR has not accepted the 2-year LOP pro-
posed by the MMSD,
4.5 FINAL ALTERNATIVES
The MMSD selected the Inline Storage Alternative as its pre-
ferred CSO/Clear Water storage alternative. This alternative
could still significantly affect both the natural and man-
made environments. The construction of new storm sewers in
most of the streets of the CSSA would cause extensive dis-
ruption. This partial separation would also result in the
continued discharge of urban runoff containing organic
pollutants as well as metals from the CSSA into the lower
portions of the Milwaukee, Menomonee, and Kinnickinnic
Rivers. Instream water quality standards might not be met.
In addition, without proper precautions, the construction of
cavern storage and near surface storage facilities could
have both short-term and long-term impacts on groundwater.
4-63
-------
In an effort to minimize these and other impacts of the
Inline Storage Alternative, the EPA, DNR, and the EIS study
team developed a set of system-level alternatives to correct
both CSO and bypassing from sewers in the separated sewer
area. These alternatives reflect the full range of CSO
abatement concepts from complete sewer separation to total
storage and treatment. These alternatives and the Inline
Storage Alternative are described in detail below. The
environmental consequences of each alternative are discussed
in Chapter V.
4.5.1 Inline Storage
The Inline Storage Alternative is the same as was previously
described. The system would consist of 240-inch diameter
deep tunnels, a storage cavern, partial sewer separation,
complete sewer separation, and near surface storage. The
Inline Storage Alternative is shown in Figure 4-17. Listed
below is a detailed description of the components of this
system.
4.5.1.1 Complete Separation of Sanitary Sewers
In 11% of the CSSA, existing separated sewer systems would
be utiliaed. Approximately 10,850 feet of new sanitary
sewer ranging from 8- to 18-inches in diameter would be
required in Capitol Drive to eliminate CSO from 485 acres of
this 11% area (3% of the CSSA). Connection of storm sewers
from existing separated areas to new storm sewers required
for partial separation would eliminate CSO contributions
from the freeway corridors and other minor areas (approxi-
mately 2% of the CSSA in total). The remaining 6% of the
CSSA would continue to discharge storm water to combined
sewer outfalls downstream of the flow regulators.
4.5.1.2 Partial Separation of Storm Sewers
In 89% of the CSSA, approximately 458 miles of 12- to 144-
inch diameter storm sewers would be constructed along with
new laterals to 24,000 catch basins and inlets. Urban
runoff from streets and other public areas would be dis-
charged through existing combined sewer outfalls to the area
rivers as well as to the Outer Harbor.
4.5.1.3 Near Surface Collectors
CSO would be diverted to the dropshafts leading to the deep
tunnel system through 82,520 feet of gravity sewers ranging
from 12 to 120 inches in diameter. Approximatly 40% of the
collectors would be constructed by shallow tunnelling with
the remainder by open cut construction methods. The collectors
4-64
-------
>
<
5
X
CD
X
cc
o
I-
UJ
UJ
cc
CO
UJ
cc
o
cc
UJ
I
o
a:
m
UJ
C5
<
I
CO
UJ
o
<
o
(M
I
<
5
tu
o
o:
O
£ K
ID ^
I
t-
O
CO
a:
<
UJ
O
CO
cc
UJ
a.
UJ
UJ
a
UJ
or
UJ
UJ
S
K
O
fe
UJ
<
o
-------
would connect several closely located overflow structures to
a single location.
In the Milwaukee and Menomonee River Basins, the collectors
would converge at dropshafts which would then convey excess
flows to the deep tunnel storage system. In the Kinnickinnic
River, Lincoln Creek, and Lake Michigan Basins, the collectors
would converge at near surface storage structures, where
excess flows would be stored. Figure 4-18 shows the tentative
near surface collector routes with sites for the proposed
dropshafts and near surface storage sites.
4.5.1.4 Near Surface Storage
Near surface storage facilities would be constructed to
store excess flows in those basins not connected to the deep
tunnel system (approx. 21% of the CSSA). Sewers in areas
tributary to these facilities would be partially separated.
For the Inline Storage Alternatives, four such facilities
would be required, as listed in Table 4-17.
Each facility was designed as a group of silo structures.
Each silo would be 50 feet in diameter and extend up to 100
feet deep. At 100 feet in depth, the capacity of each silo
would be 3 ac-ft. Each silo would be concrete-lined and
equipped with aeration and solids removal equipment (See
Figure 4-19). Flows would be retained in these facilities
until such time as capacity was available in the MIS system.
Flow would then be bled back into the system via force main.
The entire facility would be constructed below grade with
only an access facility above. Figures 4-20 through 4-23
show the location of the four storage sites and the area
that would be affected during construction.
4.5.1.5 Deep Tunnels and Cavern Storage
The deep tunnel system would require 14 dropshafts for CSO
flows, and 4 dropshafts for clear water from the separated
sewer area. Two of the 14 CSO dropshafts would also provide
relief to the separated system. Locations for the 14 CSO
dropshafts are shown in Figure 4-18. Each shaft would
require one above ground structure for venting and deaeration
purposes. Using a simple divider, air and water are transported
in the same pipe for all but the larger sized dropshafts.
For the larger dropshafts, two shafts would be required.
Exact shaft sizes and types have not been determined for
each location.
The 240-inch diameter deep tunnel system would convey both
clear water from the separated sewer areas and combined
sewer overflows. The tunnels would be constructed at a
depth of 300 feet in the Niagaran dolomite layer, and would
4-65
-------
•H
3
cu .—.
Pi cn
0)
G O
03 <
00
cn
EH
S
w
s
w
«
H
B
w
rx «
i-t
t W
^r O
w 2
K? O
ffl EH
«C~ cn
6^
W
CJ
CU
g
3
H
O
>
-P
CU
0)
fa
CU
J^
0
<
o
•
vo
m
rH
X
jq
nj
CU
G
itJ
$_i
(0
CQ
G
0
-H
_p
cd
o
o
1-3
M-l
O
-P
CQ
rd
W
^r
•
CTi
CN
-P
CU
3
G
(1)
>
G
r-l
0
O
c
•r-l
t-3
0)
>
•H
5-1
Q
£"i
j_i
M
Q)
4-1
M
cd
CJ
in
.
^
ro
^
(C
CM
CU
'-j
O
tG
cn
x;
4J
3
O
cn
r-H
>
00
^
r|
-P
0
2
-P
0)
QJ
M
cn
4J
CO
i— i
ro
0)
•H
^4
Q
H
O
4-1
a
rd
U
M-l
O
in
CN
4-1
O
E-i
D
cn
w
s
CU
•H
K
U
•H
G
G
•H
_v
O
C
•H
CO
fd
(H
•H
C
G
•H
Ni
4-1
S-l
0
G
cd
in
•H
,G
U
•H
S
CU
^
rd
j
0
cn
G
cd
cn
•M
r;
o
•H
a
CU
ry
cd
j
^
Q)
CU
^
U
c
H
0
O
G
•H
|J|
OJ
-P
(U
to
O
•H
3
CJ
-P m
U •
0) m
ffi
-------
o
UJ
UJ
UJ
^
s
^
u
2
o:
^
o:
<
UJ
z
•
CO
^
<
(O
0.
o
ec.
o
•
c
o
o
UJ
il
u
2
u.
or
• o:
<
LU
Z
I
2
O W
H H
EH H
U EH
J H
O 0
U <
w
O K)
-------
PROVIDED
ON LARGER FACILITIES "
GRADE
.ACCESS
SHAFT
SEE NOTES
MAX WS ELEV
SUPPORT BEAM
FOR PIPING --
AND WALKWAY
ACCESS WALKWAY
INFLUENT
CHANNEL
s
w_
^JET AERATOR
AIR LINE
IR LINE
EQUIPMENT AREA
Notes
Number of storage silos varies depending
on storage volume required
Typical storage silo 56 foot diameter
(storage volumes - one acre-foot or greater!
Typical structures
Storage
Volume (acre-ft)
1
2
3
6
No Storage
Silos
1
1
1
2
3
57
Total
Depth (ft)
50
75
100
100
100
100
• AERATOR SUBMERSIBLE
PUMP
SECTION THROUGH STORAGE SILO
STORAGE SILOS
ACCESS SHAFT
INFLUENT CHANNEL
AERATOR AND PUMP
PLAN VIEW
FORCE MAIN TO MIS
FIGURE
4-I9
DATE
NOV I960
NEAR-SURFACE STORAGE STRUCTURE
SOURCE M.M.S.D.
PREPARED BY
EcolSciences
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
-------
0
co
co
CO
KK FLUSHING
TUNNEL PUMPINQ
STATION
LEGEND
£^
-------
,*»-'•
LEGEND
APPROXIMATE STORAGE SITE LOCATION
RESIDENTIAL
INDUSTRIAL
0 200
SCALE IN FEET
FIGURE
4-21
DATE
NOV 1980
LAKE MICHIGAN NORTH
NEAR SURFACE STORAGE SITE
SOURCE M.M.S.D.
PREPARED BY
[lEcolSciences
lU ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
-------
E. TfipWBRIDGE DR
C ..-^ • ;
«v^ *'*•'"
pv* *\.*a^*^
LEGEND
/\
APPROXIMATE STORAGE SITE LOCATION
RESIDENTIAL
SOUTH SHORE PARK
MICHIGAN
o 200
SCALE IN FEET
FI'GURE
4-22
DATE
^^-^ SOURCE M.M.S.D.
LAKE MICHIGAN SOUTH /T^/<\ PRFP4
NEAR SURFACE STORAGE SITE 1 %Vjy *
RED BY
aflEcolSciences
H J ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
-------
• it
h-
co
co
z
•fc
LEGEND
Y////1 APPROXIMATE STORAGE SITE LOCATION
J|t RESIDENTIAL
•%• INDUSTRIAL
X COMMERCIAL
A VACANT
0 200
SCALE IN FEET
•IGURE
4-23
IATE
JOV 1980
LINCOLN CREEK BASIN
NEAR SURFACE STORAGE SITE
SOURCE M.M.S.D.
PREPARED BY
HflEcolSciences
^lU ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
-------
be lined with 12 inches of concrete. The capacity of the
tunnels would be approximately 650 ac-ft of which 550 ac-ft
could be used for storage and 100 ac-ft would be used for
conveyance. A typical dropshaft and connection to the 240-
inch tunnel is shown in Figure 4-24.
Plows to the tunnels would also be contributed from the 68% of
the CSSA which would be partially separated. An estimated
767 ac-ft of storage would be required for this area. This
additional storage would be provided in a cavern which would
be constructed beneath the site of Milwaukee County Stadium.
The cavern would be constructed as a set of interconnected
tunnels. Each tunnel would be constructed 36-feet wide and
approximately 70 feet from floor to ceiling. The ceilings
would be arched on a 21.6-foot radius. A typical cavern
section is shown in Figure 4-25. A layout of the cavern
storage site is shown in Figure 4-26.
The cavern would be constructed such that the elevation of
the cavern floor would be even with the crown of the 240-
inch diameter tunnels. Flows would only enter the cavern
after the 240-inch tunnels were filled. Water entering the
cavern would have to "back up" into this facility, allowing
only the upper layers of water to enter the cavern. It was
assumed by the MMSD that sedimentation would occur only in
the tunnels, with clearer water being stored in the cavern.
As the cavern and tunnel drain during pump-out, the settled
solids in the tunnels would be resuspended due to the flow
velocities in the tunnel and would be pumped to a treatment
facility. Remaining solids would be flushed away during
subsequent wet weather events. For this reason, no aeration
or solids removal equipment has been proposed by the MMSD
for either the cavern or the tunnels.
The cavern would drain by gravity back into the tunnels. A
pump station would be constructed near Jones Island to
remove flows from the tunnels. Flows could be pumped directly
to the Jones Island WWTP or to the South Shore WWTP through
a force main to the S. 6th Street Branch of the MIS. The
proposed conveyance and storage locations can be seen in
Figure 4-17.
The deep storage system would require access facilities for
both the tunnels and cavern. Periodic inspection of these
facilities would be required as well as some maintenance.
Occasional flushing might also be required.
A cost estimate for this alternative can be found in Table
4-18.
4-71
-------
APPROACH CHANNEL
AIR SHAFT
CSO SHAFT -
amr
TOP OF NIAGARAN
DOLOMITE FORMATION
-CONCRETE
DEAERATION
CHAMBER
CONNECTING
TUNNEL
240" DIAMETER SEWER:
CLEAR WATER CONVEYANCE
AND STORAGE
FIGURE
4-24
DATE
NOV I960
PROPOSED DROPSHAFT
SOURCE M.M.S.D.
PREPARED BY
EC
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
HflEcolSciences
^Tl ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
-------
FINISHED SECTION
-12" CONCRETE SLAB
9" OVERBREAK
3" SHOTCRETE-
(S
DESIGN SECTION (35'-0")
FINISHED SECTION
SECTION A-A
Note
Storage volume in finished section = 2303.5 cuft/ft =853 cu yd/ft
This volume was determined assuming 5' of freeboard at top of
arch (no storage under pressure) With no freeboard, this volume
increases to 8817 cu yd/ft
Excavated Volume Factor = 91 3 cu yd'ft
FIGURE
4-25
DATE
CSO STORAGE CAVERN -TYPICAL SECTION (
x^T-x SOURCE M.M.S.D.
iF/^ 1 PREPARED BY
v^fS^fMl EcolSciences
N<_JSCEASl.[ ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
-------
(_; %i f -JM
w ' : i«- ,
'' > C 3
I T
Tf O
^r
w :
-*- -.
•: = 1 4
*f
• «t |
•
•
•
v-' ^^fc-'-'
.rues*
4-26
M.M.S.D.
-------
TABLE 4-18
COST ESTIMATE**
INLINE STORAGE ALTERNATIVE
Capital
Item Cost
240" Diameter Sewers* $ 238.38
Cavern Storage* 80.22
Force Main From Storage* 21.27
Honey Creek Branch 0.26
S. 6th Street Branch 4.84
MIS Rehabilitation 52.00
MIS Reinforcement 15.79
SSES Program 24.20
CLEARWATER SUBTOTAL $ 239.03
Near Surface Collection 56.96
Dropshafts 41.65
Partial Sewer Separation 372.69
Near Surface Storage 80.81
Complete Sewer Separation 1.75
CSO SUBTOTAL $ 751.79
Jones Island WWTP 337.87
South Shore WWTP 127.55
TREATMENT PLANT SUBTOTAL 465.42
TOTAL $1456.24
Annual
O&M
Costs
$ 0.160
0.043
0.081
0.001
0.009
$ 0.129
0.032
0.016
1.832
0.303
0.008
$ 2.356
13.817
9.870
23.687
$26.172
Net Present
Worth
$ 246.11
76.53
21.32
0.23
4.42
47.44
14.46
24.20
$ 234.39
57.21
38.64
359.59
77.18
1.68
$ 734.62
504.59
237.45
742.04
$1711.05
* Costs are apportioned at 58% to CSO Subtotal and 42% to Clearwater
Subtotal.
**A11 costs in millions of dollars. (JBNR CCI = 3300)
Source: MWPAP/WSP 1980.
4-75
-------
4.5.2 Complete Sewer Separation
Under this alternative, sewers in the entire CSSA would be
separated. Peak wastewater flows from the separated sewer
area would be stored and conveyed in the 240-inch tunnels.
The alternative is shown in Figure 4-27. Listed below is a
detailed description of the components of the alternative.
4.5.2.1 Complete Separation Sanitary Sewers
The separation of 11% of the CSSA would be the same as for
the Inline Storage alternative. For the remaining 89% of
the CSSA, approximately 440 miles of new gravity flow sanitary
sewers would be required. These sewers would be constructed
by open-cut methods along public right-of-ways. The sizes
of the sewers would range from 8 to 54 inches in diameter.
Sixteen below-grade pump stations would be needed to lift
flow from some of the new sewers into the MIS system. Only
an access shaft structure would be located above ground.
The existing combined sewers would be used to convey storm
water to the Milwaukee, Menomonee, and Kinnickinnic Rivers
and to the Outer Harbor through the existing CSO outfalls.
New sanitary laterals from the mainline system to most
structures in the CSSA would be necessary to separate storm
and sanitary flows. Approximately 60,600 single-family type
structures (including duplex and small commercial structures)
in the City of Milwaukee and the Village of Shorewood, and
approximately 2,750 larger multi-family, commercial, industrial,
and public buildings would be involved.
Plumbing changes would be necessary in most buildings to
separate storm and sanitary flows at their sources. For the
smaller single-family type structures, two methods were
developed by the MMSD. The first, which would be used in the
majority of the single-family structures, would involve the
construction of a storm drain system suspended from the
basement ceilings or walls. Roof downspouts would be dis-
connected outside the buildings, brought through the basement
walls, and reconnected to the new storm drain system. The
system would be connected to the existing combined lateral.
The remaining subfloor system would carry only sanitary
waste and would be connected to the new sanitary lateral.
The second method (utilized in structures with finished
basements) would involve construction of a shallow storm
drain system on the outside of the building to pick up all
downspouts. The storm drain system then would be connected
to the combined lateral at the front of the building. The
remaining subfloor system carrying sanitary waste would be
connected to the new sanitary lateral. Sump pumps might be
4-76
-------
-------
required in some buildings. Depending on the type of structure
and the existing plumbing system, the larger multi-family,
commercial, public, and industrial buildings could be separated
using either of the two methods. Many of the larger structures
are already separated inside the buildings and only a new
lateral would be required.
4.5.2.2 Deep Tunnels
The 240-inch diameter tunnels would be the same as the
tunnels described for the Inline Storage Alternative. For
the Complete Sewer Separation Alternative, the tunnels would
store and convey only flow from the separated sewer area.
The tunnels would be constructed 300 feet deep in the Niagaran
dolomite and were assumed to be lined with 12 inches of
concrete.
The tunnels would require six dropshafts. In addition, an
access shaft and pump station would be required near Jones
Island. Flows from the deep tunnels could be pumped directly
to the Jones Island WTP or to the South Shore WWTP by means
of a force main to the S. 6th Street Branch. No solids
removal or aeration facilities would be provided in the
tunnels. The MMSD has proposed that the tunnels could be
pumped out before the stored water became septic. The flow
through the tunnels is expected to resuspend any settled
solids.
A cost estimate of this alternative can be found in Table
4-19.
4.5.3 Modified GST/Inline Storage
The Modified CST/Inline Storage Alternative is a hybrid of
the Inline Storage and the U.S. District Court CST Extensions
Alternative. The components of this alternative are described
below.
4.5.3.1 Complete Separation Sanitary Sewers
The separation of 11% of the CSSA would be the same as for
the Inline Storage Alternative.
4.5.3.2 Partial Separation Storm Sewers
In 21% of the CSSA (the Kinnickinnic River, Lincoln Creek
and Lake Michigan basins), rivers would be partially separated.
Approximately 110 miles of new storm sewers with catchbasin
connections would be constructed. Urban runoff from streets
and other public areas would be discharged through existing
combined sewer outfalls to the Kinnickinnic River, Lincoln
Creek and the Outer Harbor.
4-77
-------
TABLE 4-19
COST ESTIMATE*
COMPLETE SEPARATION ALTERNATIVE
Capital
Item Costs
240" Diameter Tunnels $ 238.38
Force Main From Storage 21.27
Honey Creek Branch 0.26
S. 6th Street Branch 4.84
MIS Rehabilitation 52.00
MIS Reinforcement 15.79
SSES Program 24.20
CLEARWATER SUBTOTAL $ 356.74
Complete Sewer Separation 652.79
Pump Station 15.21
CSO SUBTOTAL $ 668.00
Jones Island WWTP 337.87
South Shore WWTP 127.55
TREATMENT PLANT SUBTOTAL $ 465.42
TOTAL
$1490.16
Annual
O&M
Costs
$ 0.160
0.081
0.009
$ 0.250
1.940
0.115
$ 2.055
13.817
9.870
$23.687
$25.992
Net Present
Worth
$ 246.11
21.32
0.23
4.42
47.44
14.46
24.20
$ 358.10
662.70
16.49
$ 679.19
504.59
237.45
$ 742.04
$1779.41
*A11 costs in millions of dollars. (ENR CCI = 3300)
Source: MWPAP/WSP 1980.
MWPAP/CSO 1980.
4-78
-------
In the remaining 68% of the CSSA, there would be no sewer
separation.
4.5.3.3 Near Surface Collectors and Storage
Locations for near surface collectors, dropshafts, and near
surface storage facilities would be the same as for the
Inline Storage Alternative (see Figure 4-18). Near surface
storage facilities and their tributary collectors would be
the same size as was described for the Inline Storage
Alternative. The total storage capacity would be 235 ac-ft.
Aeration and solids removal equipment would be supplied.
Because no sewer separation would be done in 68% of the
CSSA, screening facilities would be constructed ahead of the
drop-shaft structures. These structures would be required
because flows from street runoff would be captured. These
flows tend to carry rags, sticks, and debris which could
damage pumping equipment. The screening structures would be
equipped with 1-inch mechanically cleaned bar screens capable
of removing a major portion of the larger debris carried by
the storm water. A building would be required to house
screening equipment, as well as provide access for vehicles
to haul screenings to disposal facilities. The dropshafts
and near surface collectors would have to be slightly enlarged
in order to convey the increased flows from the nonseparated
area.
4.5.3.4 Deep Tunnels and Cavern Storage
The deep tunnels would be constructed along the routes shown
in Figure 4-28. These tunnels would be 360-inches in diameter,
would be constructed in the dolomite layer at a depth of 300
feet, and would be lined with 12 inches of concrete. The
total storage capacity of the tunnels would be 1272 ac-ft.
The total storage capacity required for CSO flow from 68% of
the CSSA would be 2187 ac-ft. In addition, 550 ac-ft of
storage would be necessary, for clear water storage from the
separated sewer area. Total storage requirements would be
2737 ac-ft. In addition to the capacity provided in the
tunnels, a storage cavern would be constructed beneath
Milwaukee County Stadium which would provide 1291 ac-ft of
storage. This cavern would be constructed similarly to the
cavern provided in the Inline Storage Alternative. No
aeration or solids removal equipment would be provided in
this cavern.
An additional cavern would be provided near Jones Island.
This cavern would provide the remaining 174 ac-ft of required
storage. This cavern would be equipped with solids removal
equipment to remove grit, mainly attributable to conveyance
4-79
-------
and storage of street runoff. This equipment would be
necessary to protect the pumps in the Jones Island pump
station.
The tunnel and cavern system would be pumped out either
directly to the Jones Island WWTP or to the South Shore WWTP
via a force main to the S. 6th Street Branch for treatment.
In accordance with the U.S. District Court Order, any overflows
from this system would require screening and chlorination
before discharge to a surface water. For the Inline Storage
system, the MMSD concluded that storm water flows entering
the storage facilities would be limited by the capacity of
roof gutters. Flows greater than the capacity of the gutters
would overflow and eventually enter street catch basins
connected to the new storm sewer system.
There would be no limiting structure to control the quantity
of rainwater entering the storage system in 68% of the CSSA
for the Modified CST/Inline system. Any storm or series of
storms with runoff exceeding the runoff of the storm of
record could cause the system to overflow. Preliminary
design for chlorination and drum screening facilities were
developed for the original U.S. District Court Order out-of-
basin CST system. These facilities would be located at each
of the 14 dropshafts in the Milwaukee and Menomonee River
basins. The existing CSO outfalls would be bulkheaded in
these basins of the CSSA. The cost of these 14 screening
and chlorinating facilities in 1980 dollars including
engineering, legal and administrative fees would be $409
million. Annual O&M would be $0.17 million.
A cost estimate for the alternative can be found in Table
4-20. This estimate does not include costs of facilities for
screening and chlorination of system overflows. They were
not included because there was the possibility that the U.S.
District Court could drop that requirement.
4.5.4 Modified Total Storage
The Modified Total Storage Alternative is identical to the
Modified CST/Inline Storage Alternative except that instead
of partially separating sewers in 21% of the CSSA, the
sewers would remain combined. Flows in excess of the MIS
capacity would be stored in near surface storage facilities.
The system is shown in Figure 4-29 and its components are
described below.
4.5.4.1 Complete Separation Sanitary Sewers
The separation of 11% of the CSSA would be the same as for
the Inline Storage Alternative.
4-80
-------
>-
<
UJ
a:
o
4
K
CD
CO
UJ
IT
e
CO
Ul
Id
tc
t-
CO
sc
<
O
10
I
o
cr
o
* £
<0 3
E :
3 <
O Ul
CO Z
UJ
CO
-------
TABLE 4-20
COST ESTIMATE**
MODIFIED CST/INLINE STORAGE
Item
30' Diameter Tunnels*
County Stadium Cavern*
Jones Island Caverns*
Force Main from Storage*
Dropshafts
Honey Creek Branch
S. 6th Street Branch
MIS Rehabilitation
MIS Reinforcement
SSES Program
CLEARWATER SUBTOTAL
Near Surface Collection
Screening Structures
Dropshafts
Partial Sewer Separation
Near Surface Storage
Complete Sewer Separation
CSO Solids Treatment
CSO SUBTOTAL
Jones Island WWTP
South Shore WWTP
TREATMENT PLANT SUBTOTAL
TOTAL
* Costs are apportioned as
Subtotal.
Capital
Cost
$ 301.96
126.49
49.17
21.27
21.34
0.26
4.84
52.00
15.79
24.20
$ 218.77
89.00
61.97
57.60
83.55
80.81
11.01
$ 782.58
337.87
127.55
$ 465.42
$1466.77
Annual
O&M
Costs
$ 0.114
0.061
0.237
0.081
0.008
0.001
0.009
$ 0.117
0.053
0.245
0.016
1.832
0.303
0.013
0.474
$ 3.330
13.817
9.870
$23.687
$27.134
Net Present
Worth
$ 304.44
120.59
53.70
21.32
20.32
0.23
4.42
47.44
14.46
24.20
$ 211.56
84.97
61.40
52.81
95.92
77.18
10.18
5.07
$ 787.09
504.59
237.45
$ 742.04
$1740.69
to CSO Subtotal and 20% to Clearwater
**A11 costs in millions of dollars. (ENR CCI = 3300)
Source: WMPAP/WSP 1980.
4-81
-------
4.5.4.2 Near Surface Collectors and Storage
All of the near surface collectors in 89% of the CSSA would
be increased in size in order to convey the larger flows
from the nonseparated sewers. Screening structures would be
required in advance of storage facilities in order to remove
the large debris found in street runoff. The total volume
required at each of the four near surface storage sites is
listed in Table 4-21. Larger storage sites would probably
require more land for construction.
Table 4-21
Estimated Near Surface Storage Requirements
Site Basins Volume Required (ac-ft)
I Kinnickinnic River 475.8
II Lake Michigan North 89.1
III Lake Michigan South 95.4
IV Lincoln Creek 54.8
TOTAL 715.1
Because the near surface storage facilities would now be
capturing all of the CSO from 21% of the CSSA, the pro-
bability of overflow could increase. Accordingly, overflow
screening and chlorination facilities could also be required
at the four storage sites. The cost of these four facilities
in 1980 dollars including engineering, legal, and administrative
fees plus interest during construction would be $117 million.
Annual O&M would be $0.05 million.
4.5.4.3 Deep Tunnels and Cavern Storage
The deep tunnel and cavern facilities serving the remaining
68% of the CSSA would be identical to those described for
the Modified CST/Inline Storage Alternative. The deep
tunnels would be 360 inches in diameter. Cavern storage
would be located at Milwaukee County Stadium and at Jones
Island. The Jones Island pump station and force main and
the S. 6th Street Branch would also be constructed. The
overflow screening and chlorination facilities could also be
required at a contruction cost of $409 million. Annual O&M
would be $0.17 million.
A cost estimate for the Modified Total Storage Alternative
can be found in Table 4-22. This estimate does not include
screening and chlorination facilities for overflow.
4-82
-------
I
CC
o
I-
U)
UJ
CC
H-
Ul
UJ
CC
o
CC
o
CC
UJ
ro
I
u
CC
o
x
o
CC
m
(0
i
o
CO
u
-------
TABLE 4-22
COST ESTIMATE**
MODIFIED TOTAL STORAGE ALTERNATIVE
Capital
Item Costs
30' Diameter Tunnels* $ 301.96
County Stadium Cavern* 126.49
Jones Island Cavern* 49.17
Force Main from Storage* 21.27
Dropshafts 21.34
Honey Creek Branch 0.26
S. 6th Street Branch 4.84
MIS Rehabilitation 52.00
MIS Reinforcement 15.79
SSES Program 24.20
CLEARWATER SUBTOTAL $ 218.77
Dropshafts 57.60
Near Surface Collectors 89.00
Screening Structures 61.97
Near Surface Storage 163.68
CSO Solids Treatment
Complete Sewer Separation 11.01
Existing Sewer System
CSO SUBTOTAL $ 796.13
Jones Island WWTP 337.87
South Shore WWTP 127.55
TREATMENT PLANT SUBTOTAL $ 465.42
TOTAL $1480.32
Annual
O&M
Cost
$ 0.114
0.061
0.237
0.081
0.008
0.001
0.009
$ 0.117
0.016
0.053
0.245
0.614
0.603
0.012
1.832
$ 3.825
13.817
9.870
$23.687
$27.629
Net Present
Worth
$ 304.44
120.59
53.70
21.32
20.32
0.23
4.42
47.44
14.46
24.20
$ 211.56
52.81
84.97
61.40
156.33
11.15
10.18
19.61
$ 810.11
504.59
237.45
$ 742.04
$1763.71
to CSO Subtotal and 20% to Clearwater
* Costs are apportioned at
Subtotal.
**A11 costs in millions of dollars. (ENR CCI = 3300]
Source: ESEI
4-83
-------
4.6 JOINT CSO/CLEARWATER ALTERNATIVES TO MEET DANE COUNTY
COURT STIPULATION
During the MMSD's original CSO abatement analysis, the MMSD
recommended the 2-Year LOP Out-of-Basin CST 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 control
alternatives, the CST Extension (2-year LOP) Alternative was
developed.
When it became necessary for the MMSD to select its preferred
CSO/Clear Water abatement alternative to meet the more
strict U.S. District Court Order requirements, planning for
an alternative to meet the Dane County Court Stipulation was
temporarily halted.
Recently, the MMSD has resumed this analysis. Based on
additional hydraulic modeling of the entire MMSD service
area, the MMSD recommended the Inline/Near-Surface Storage
1/2-Year LOP Alternative as their preferred alternative for
meeting the requirements of the Stipulation. This alternative
would be very similar to the Inline Storage Alternative. A
major difference would be the fact that no partial separation
of sewers would be required in 89% of the CSSA. All CSO
from this area would be tributary to deep tunnel and deep
cavern storage or near surface storage. The storage facilities
would be sized such that overflows would occur an average of
two times each year. No overflows would occur in the separated
sewer area. This alternative is shown in Figure 4-30.
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 ranging between
5 and 15 years and determine their costs and overall impact
on water quality. These additional data would 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 which compares different CSO and clear water storage
volumes with the frequency, amount, and duration of overflows
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 eliminated
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.
4-84
-------
UJ
Z
o
UJUJ
t-cn
UJ
gs
il
(TOT
ccz
UJ3
O.UJ
OUJ
OOT
I
UJ n
«£
OUJ
zo
i£
UJ
UJ
ac
X
cs
UJ
Z
I-
UJ
CD
I <
O ^
K »
CD m
3) <
S ^
UJ K~ ° aj x "'
UJ UJ = O >- K
(K ^ O (t 5 <
i- < * o o uj
W _1 CM U. W Z
5
S
£
c
UJ
>
UJ
o
1
UJ
o:
ui
ui
§
a:
CO
UJ
CL
O
_J
a:
<
UJ
>
u.
J
<
T.
o
to
-------
Based on 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
4-23. The values presented in this table represent the
volume of overflow from the CSSA that would be expected for
different levels of protection. The analysis assumed that
all peak wastewater flows from the separated area would be
captured. The remaining storage was used to capture CSOs.
After the total storage capacity of the system was reached,
the system was closed and all remaining CSOs were discharged
to the surface waters.
This MMSD analysis was very preliminary in nature. 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. This additional
information will be necessary prior to the selection of a
CSO abatement alternative to meet the Dane County Court
Stipulation.
4 .7 SUMMARY
Early MMSD analysis of alternatives to meet the two court
requirements identified complete sewer separation as the
preferred alternative for meeting the U.S. District Court
Order and a combination 2-year LOP CST/sewer separation
alternative as the preferred alternative for meeting the
Dane County Court Stipulation. Later, after alternatives
were developed for the conveyance, storage and treatment of
excessive I/I from the separated sewer area, the MMSD integrated
the preliminary CSO abatement findings with the preferred
alternatives for abating bypassing from the separated sewer
area. The MMSD selected the Inline Storage Alternative as
its preferred system for abating CSO and eliminating bypassing
in the separated sewer area. The Inline Storage Alternative
would meet the requirements of both courts with two exceptions.
Instream water quality standards might not be met; and
• Possible CSO would not be screened and chlorinated.
The issue concerning the screening and chlorinating facilities
would have to be resolved through the U.S. District Court.
The issue of not meeting water quality standards is addressed
in Chapter V, Environmental Consequences, of this appendix.
There would be many other impacts of the Inline Storage
Alternative besides those related to water quality. Con-
struction impacts, groundwater impacts, fiscal impacts and
others are also addressed in Chapter V of this appendix.
Four other joint CSO/clear water bypassing abatement alternatives
4-85
-------
cn
rd
4J
rH O
-H
Qi cn G CU
fC,
(D
l-H
4J
0)
(1)
0) 1
e CD
3 5-j
rH O
O ""
CN CN OO
o on co
o> in CN
G
O
•H
-P '•^
U CO
CD SH
•P rrj
O
. . .
rH CN on
r** ^o c^
r>* ^ on
CN rH rH
VD O O
00 H
• » •
PO i C" G fd
-P G -H G (D
•H -H T3 -H >H
rH rH CD
•H rd CD
rQ fa fa 5-J 'H
o o CD
tl Ml ^J Ll
P-I o o cn id
^t* co r*^ ^«o I~H
Is- ** CN
>h «•
CN CN
rd
CD
>i-P
rd cn M
TJ (D CD -P
CD -P T3 G
G rrj CD
•H
-H >i
rd rd O O O 0) -P
g cn
m
0§
Cn rH rH rH
• H 4-1 4-1 (W 4-(
cn 3
>1rH O iH rH 4-1 H
5-1 cn
acn
CD U
5H
cn o
rrj
rrj rrj
rH o¥>
CTJ4J g4J4JrH-HO
G O 3 O O rH - -
cn
5H
CD
4J
U
•H
3
U
in
ro
on
CN
4J
O
O
fa
I
CD
5H
O
O
00
cn
4->
tfl
3
G
G
1
ffl
O
-P
CD
O
cn
3
O
§
5H
5-1
CD
4-1
CD
CD
O
5H
3
O
CO
4-86
-------
are discussed in Chapter V: Complete Sewer Separation,
Modified CST/Inline Storage, and Modified Total Storage.
These alternatives will be compared to the Inline Storage
Alternative as a means of assessing impacts and identifying
potential mitigating measures.
The MMSD has recently begun assessing the impacts of various
levels of protection in the CSSA. The preliminary findings
of this study were presented in this appendix and in the
main body of the EIS. Neither the EPA nor the DNR have
accepted any MMSD findings with respect to levels of pro-
tection.
4-87
-------
CHAPTER 5
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
-------
5.0 FINAL ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
The final four alternatives were evaluated to determine
their impacts on both the natural and man-made environments.
In addition, a No Action alternative, assuming no abatement
of combined sewer overflows, is evaluated. The criteria
used for screening are listed below.
Natural Environment:
Water quality
Air quality
Groundwater
Floodplains
Man-made Environment:
Land use
Cost
Fiscal
Economic
Noise
Odors
Aesthetics
Public Health
Traffic
Historical and Archaeological Sites
Recreation
Energy/Resources
Engineering Feasibility
This list represents an abbreviated list of criteria used for
other aspects of the Environmental Impact Statement. Certain
criteria that are not pertinent to combined sewer overflows
or the combined sewer service area were eliminated.
5.1 WATER QUALITY AND SEDIMENT QUALITY IMPACTS
5.1.1 Introduction
During rainfall events, combined sewer overflows, which
include storm water runoff and sanitary wastes, are discharged
into the rivers. Because of high concentrations of pollutants
in these combined sewer overflows, these discharges result
in severe "shock load" effects on aquatic organisms; in high
levels of fecal coliform and pathogens; in the scouring and
resuspension of organic sediments; in the accumulation of
particulate organic and inorganic matter within the river
channels, Inner Harbor, and Outer Harbor; and in the accel-
eration of eutrophic conditions in Lake Michigan near-shore
areas.
5-1
-------
The streams and portions of Lake Michigan affected by combined
sewer overflows are set forth on Figure 5-1. Two combined
sewer outfalls discharge directly to the Outer Harbor.
The overflows affect about 10. S miles of streams, or
7.3 percent of the total perennial stream miles within
the planning area. The combined sewer overflows which
discharge to the rivers and directly to the Lake also
affect the water quality of the Inner Harbor, Outer Harbor,
and to a lesser extent, Lake Michigan.
This section of the appendix addresses the amount of water
discharged from combined sewer outfalls; the concentrations
of pollutants within the overflows; existing annual pollutant
loads and bottom sediment loads to the Inner Harbor and the
Outer Harbor; and existing water and sediment quality
conditions within the Inner Harbor and Outer Harbor. The
effects of bottom sediments on water quality and the im-
plications of sediment scouring are discussed. Annual
pollutant loadings and expected water quality and sediment
quality conditions under each of the final CSO abatement
alternatives are also addressed. The expected water quality
conditions are compared to both existing DNR and recommended
"208" water quality standards, and sediment quality conditions
are compared to U.S. EPA sediment quality guidelines.
Sensitivity analyses are presented to evaluate assumptions
in methodology and to address specific issues.
Figure 5-2 graphically illustrates the analyses conducted to
evaluate CSO abatement alternatives. The figure indicates
that six sensitivity analyses were conducted and that sediment
loadings, sediment quality, and water quality estimates were
verified against measured data. Sediment quality and water
quality estimates were also compared to existing and recom-
mended water quality standards and sediment quality guidelines.
5.1.2 Combined Sewer and Storm Sewer Flows
Sanitary wastes along with pollutants from the land surface
are discharged to the rivers and the Inner and Outer Harbors
through combined sewers. The volume of water discharged to
surface waters from combined sewer overflows is approximately
5.8 billion gallons during a year of average rainfall. This
value is derived using data from Meinholz et al. (1979a)
and monitoring reports from the MMSD (1976-1980) . The Meinholz
et al. (1979a)study used the STORM model to estimate the total
combined sewer overflow volume. The volume of overflow re-
ported by Meinholz et al. was adjusted to account for revisions
in the estimated area of the CSSA. Mainholz et al. evaluated
a CSSA tributary to the Inner Harbor of 14,607 acres, while
more recent information from the MMSD (1980) indicates that
about 15,400 acres of the CSSA is tributary to the Inner Harbor.
5-2
-------
UJ
o
UJ
-I
I
(9
X
I-
Ul
UJ
tr
in
UJ
g
X
o
of
Ul
£
uJ
oc
5
u
o
w
u
CQ
O
UJ
t-
o
Ul
[
'HO 3MV1
• 3AV VINVA1ASNN3d
3AIUC 3XV1
OH XV8 N33H8
at! 3NI1 39NVH
QAIB NVMU3HS
18 H
PQ
Q
u
w
K
w
I
w
o
-------
c
•o re
C 4-1
X
->
Outer Harbor
>
| Pollutant Loads
r
H -P
O -rt
.O •-!
Vl 10
IV P
X 01
•o o 4->
a a c
4J -a
c n o>
10 0> 10
4-1 4->
O O 4->
p, 4J O
10 OI
a
4-1
u c
01 01
4J E
3 -H
6 Tl
01
U)
7
0
4-1
10 1
"ffl J
Q
V
10
4->
4 C
3 §
0 TJ
4-1 CO
<0 11 E
4J C O
3 C 4->
rH M 4->
O
P<
«
N
T
4J
VI -H
A 'io
« 0(
vi c
CO
Vi -O C
0) C -H
Ifl 3
» to O
•H
4J 4J M-l
§8°
581!
TJ 4-* 4>
CO H *M
U
O -H
4J VI
a TI
O, C
& "
D -P
U en
4-1
-H
>
-H
4-1
-H
CO
C
(N
in
K
O
o
00
o
-------
An additional 880 acres of the CSSA is directly tributary to
the Outer Harbor. Therefore, the total area of the CSSA
used for this analysis is approximately 16,300 acres. In
addition/ the estimated volume of overflows from the Metropolitan
Intercepting Sewer System was added because the STORM model
did not take this source into account.
The volume of storm water runoff from the CSSA land surface
(prior to entering the CSO system) is approximately 6.4
billion gallons per year. This value is also calculated
using STORM model data presented in Meinholz et al. The
average annual precipitation based on 37 years of record is
29.6 inches, and the percent of precipitation which runs off
the land surface, which is influenced by land use, impervious-
ness, infiltration, and surface storage, is estimated at
49%.
The No Action alternative assumes that all aspects of the
208 plan and the MMSD recommended plan, except for combined
sewer overflow abatement, are implemented.
The Complete Sewer Separation alternative assumes that all
flows to the rivers from the CSSA will be storm water and
that the total annual runoff volume from the CSSA will be
6.4 billion gallons.
The Inline Storage alternative assumes that only the storm
runoff from streets from 89% of the CSSA and all storm water
from 11% of the CSSA will be discharged to the rivers. The
annual volume of discharge is approximately 4.3 billion
gallons.
The Modified CST/Inline Storage alternative assumes that no
storm water will be contributed from 68% of the area, only
street runoff from 21% of the area, and the total amount of
storm water discharged from 11% of the area. The annual
volume of discharge under this alternative is approximately
1.5 billion gallons.
The Modified Total Storage alternative assumes that no storm
water will be contributed from 89% of the area, while from
11% of the CSSA, all the storm water will be discharged.
The volume of discharge under this alternative is approxi-
mately 709 million gallons.
5.1.3 Pollutant Concentrations
Although combined sewer overflows occur only a small portion
of the time (about three percent on an annual basis) the
high concentration of pollutants within these overflows
substantially affect the water quality of the receiving
5-4
-------
streams and portions of Lake Michigan. The high concentrations
of pollutants within the overflows produce extreme short-
term water quality impacts during the storm events, and
long-term impacts such as large amounts of particulate
matter being deposited within the streams and Lake,
Combined sewer overflows often exhibit what is referred to
as the first flush phenomenon. The first flush is the rapid
increase in the concentration of a pollutant resulting from
the initial flushing of pollutants accumulated on streets
and gutters and within sewers and catch basins. The pol-
lutant concentrations in the extended overflow following the
first flush usually continue to decrease as fewer pollutants
are available for transport in storm runoff.
A demonstration study of the Humboldt Avenue detention tank
in the City of Milwaukee indicated that most pollutants
exhibited the first flush effect during combined sewer
overflows (City of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Department of Public
Works, and Consoer, Townsend and Associates, 1975). An
analysis of 97 combined sewer overflow events indicated that
the peak concentrations of biochemical oxygen demand, chemical
oxygen demand, suspended solids, chloride, nitrate nitrogen,
and organic nitrogen were higher than the average concen-
trations in dry weather sewage. Thus, the concentrations of
these pollutants initially flushed from streets, catch
basins, and sewers were higher than in sewage. The effect
of the first flush on biochemical oxygen demand concentrations
is shown on Figure 5-3. Figure 5-3 also indicates that,
following the first flush, the concentration of biochemical
oxygen demand continued to decrease throughout the duration
of the overflow event.
Although the first flush effect with a gradual decrease in
concentration over time also occurred for ammonia-nitrogen,
phosphorus, and fecal coliform, concentrations of these
pollutants during the first flush did not exceed the con-
centrations in dry weather sewage. Therefore, even the
first flush serves to dilute the concentrations of these
pollutants in sewage, although it does increase the total
loadings.
Further evidence of the existence of the first flush phenomenon
was provided by data collected under the Milwaukee Water
Pollution Abatement Program's CSO Pilot Plant Study conducted
in 1979 (MWPAP, 1979). This study indicated that concentra-
tions of biochemical oxygen demand, suspended solids, and
volatile suspended solids during the initial stages of a
rainfall event were about twice as high as concentrations
of these parameters during the remainder of the overflow
event.
5-5
-------
200
O
-P
<1>
O
§
u
150
100
Dry
Weather
(Sewage)
Minutes
Wet Weather (CSO)
Note: Based on Data from 97 storm events.
City of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Department of Public Works, and
Consoer, Townsend and Associates, Detention Tank for Combined Sewer
Overflow, EPA-60012-75-071. 1975 and ESEI.
FIGURE
5-3
DATE
November
1980
AVERAGE CONCENTRATION OF BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN
DEMAND DURING A COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW EVENT
SOURCE See Above
PREPARED BY
EC
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
sflEcolSciences
*~ll ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
-------
The first flush increase in pollutant concentrations does
not always occur. Complex storms of varying rainfall in-
tensities and storms which occur relatively soon after a
preceding overflow event may not produce the first flush
phenomenon,
Concentrations of suspended solids, total phosphorus,
biochemical oxygen demand, ammonia-nitrogen, lead, cadmium,
copper, zinc, and fecal coliform are set forth in Table 5-1
for storm runoff, untreated sewage, and combined sewer
overflows. Concentrations of all pollutants except lead are
substantially higher in untreated sewage than in storm
runoff. The lead concentration in storm runoff, contributed
largely from transportation activities, is twice as high as
the lead concentration in sewage. The estimated biochemical
oxygen demand concentration of 630 mg/1 in untreated sewage
from the CSSA as estimated from the User Charge/Industrial
Cost Recovery program data is substantially higher than the
concentration of 112 mg/1 shown on Figure 5-3 for untreated
(dry weather) sewage for the Humboldt Avenue demonstration
project. The Humboldt Avenue project drainage area is com-
prised almost entirely of residential and commercial land
uses. The concentration of 630 mg/1, based on sewage data
measured within the CSSA, includes industrial discharges
which have higher biochemical oxygen demand concentrations.
Hydraulic analyses and the relative concentrations of
pollutants in storm runoff, untreated sewage, and combined
sewer overflows indicate that about 90 percent of the flow
in combined sewer overflows is storm runoff, and about 10
percent is sewage. The combined sewer overflow pollutant
concentrations, together with the previously discussed
flows, are used to estimate annual pollutant loads to the
Inner and Outer Harbors under alternative combined sewer
overflow abatement conditions.
5.1.4 Evaluation of Alternative CSO Abatement Plans
5.1.4.1 Introduction
The water quality and sediment quality under existing
conditions and the final CSO abatement alternatives are discussed
below. Under existing conditions and as a result of each
future alternative, pollutant loadings, sediment loadings,
sediment quality, and water quality characteristics of the
Inner and Outer Harbor are estimated.
The estimated sediment quality and water quality conditions
are compared to water quality standards and sediment quality
guidelines. The following CSO conditions are evaluated in
this section: Existing, No Action, Complete Sewer Separation,
Inline Storage, Modified CST-Inline Storage, and Modified
Total Storage.
5-7
-------
TABLE 5-1
EXISTING POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN STORM RUNOFF,
UNTREATED SEWAGE, AND COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS
Pollutant
Street
Storm Runoff Combined
Untreated Sewer
Roof Total Sewage Overflows
Suspended Solids
(mg/1)
Total Phosphorus
(mg/1)
Biochemical Oxygen
Demand-Ult.(mg/1)
Ammonia Nitrogen
(mg/1)
Lead
(mg/1)
Cadmium
(mg/1)
Copper
(mg/1)
Zinc
(mg/1)
Fecal Coliform
(MFFCC/100 ml)
370
1.6
52.6
0.9
1.0
0.02
0.2
0.6
50
0.2
7.5
250
1.1
35.4
0.1 0.6
0.02 0.6
0.004 0.01
0.005 0.1
0.18 0.4
370
8.4
630
14.6
0.3
0.04
0.2
1.0
4.0x10 10
3.0xl03 6.2xl06
309
2.0
140
2.0
0.6
0.02
0.1
0.9
7.2 x 10'
Sources:
1. MilwauX.ee Water Pollution Abatement Program, Combined Sewer
Overflow, Volume 1, Characterization, Storage and Pilot Plant
Treatment, May 1979.
2. Milwaukee Water Pollution Abatement Program Milwaukee
Metropolitan Sewerage District Wastewater Systems Plan. 1980.
3. Meinholz, et al. 1979. Water Quality Analysis of the Milwaukee
River to Meet PRM 75-74 (PG-61) Requirements. Rexnord.
4. Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District. Purification -
Analytical Data - Jones Island. March 1979 - July 1980.
5. City of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Department of Public Works,
and Consoer, Townsend and Associates, Detention Tank for
Combined Sewer Overflow, EPA-600/2-75-071, 1975.
6.- Robert Pitt, Consultant to the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program,
Personal Communication. September, 1980.
7. ESEI.
5-8
-------
5.1.4.2 Pollutant Loadings
5.1.4.2.1 Inner Harbor
Pollutant loadings to the Inner Harbor affect the -water
quality of the Inner Harbor itself; the physical, chemical,
and biological characteristics of the Inner Harbor bottom
sediments; and the water quality and sediment characteristics
of the Outer Harbor and Lake Michigan. The pollutant loads
to the Inner Harbor are quantified based on flows and pol-
lutant concentrations from the CSSA and from the drainage
areas located upstream of the CSSA. Flow from the Outer
Harbor to the Inner Harbor was not included in this analysis.
Where available, concentration measurements from the planning
area, as previously discussed, are used for the loading
calculations.
Loading estimates are presented for water, suspended solids,
total phosphorus, ultimate biochemical oxygen demand,
ammonia-nitrogen, lead, cadmium, copper, zinc, and fecal
coliform. Table 5-2 presents estimated loadings to the Inner
Harbor under Existing, No Action, Complete Sewer Separation,
Inline Storage, Modified CST/Inline Storage, and Modified
Total Storage conditions. Loads from the CSSA and total
loads to the Inner Harbor are set forth in Table 5-2.
Figure 5-4 presents a comparison of total pollutant loads
under the No Action Alternative to loads under each abate-
ment alternative.
Under Existing Conditions, the CSSA contributes less than 5%
of the water to the Inner Harbor. However, the CSSA flows
have higher concentrations of pollutants than the upstream
flows. The CSSA contributes from about 15 to 60% of the
total load of most pollutants, and over 98% of the fecal
coliform load. From one-third to more than one-half of the
total Inner Harbor loads of the metals lead, zinc, and
cadmium are contributed by the CSSA. These metals are largely
contributed from storm runoff from streets and from in-
dustrial wastewater discharges contained in the sewage
component of combined sewer overflows. The sewage component
of the CSO is also a primary source of CSSA loads of fecal
coliform, ammonia-nitrogen, and biochemical oxygen demand.
The No Action alternative includes implementation of the
areawide water quality management (208) plan upstream of the
CSSA, and elimination of MIS overflows within the CSSA.
The No Action alternative thus shows expected pollutant
loads to the Inner Harbor if CSOs are not abated. Under
this alternative, the CSSA loads are only slightly lower
than under Existing Conditions. However, implementation of
the 208 plan would reduce total loads to the Inner Harbor to
5-9
-------
§
W
cn
W
W
o
u
W
o
o
EH
OT
W
a
H
W
8
Q
W
H
tn
H
D
i
w
o
<
&
o
EH
OT
Q
W
H
tn
H
D
§
<
W ft
H ;s
EC W
E-' H
v> 55
Q O
Sfe
P^
EH£
2 O
D W
J W
O 10
cm
D
t^ W
o
o
££
U H
^
0^7
^i
!3 «
W
fc EH
W
EH O
a
a;
in
-------
COMPLETE SEWER SEPARATION
Parameter
Ci CSSA
Total
% 0% Of % Of No % Of % Of No
Load ExJExisting Action Load Existing Action
Water
gallons)
Suspended Solids
(10 pounds)
Total Phosphorus
(10 pounds)
Biochemical Oxygen
Demand-Ultimate
(10 pounds)
Ammonia-N
(10J pounds)
Lead ..
(10 J pounds)
Cadmium
(10 pounds)
Copper
(10J pounds)
Zinc
(10J pounds)
Fecal Coliforms
(MFFCC/100 ml
xlO15)
5500
14.0 -- 91
91.5
__ 61
113
91
62
127,000 101
69.6 78
264
72
101
98
89
6.34 -- 28
98.8 — 31
27.2 —112
0.92 — 55
4.62 -HO
40.9 — 50
172 — 0.4
29
34
113
57
113
50
0.5
13.9
171
47.9
1.84
5.09
53.2
1.60
62
60
95
68
77
63
1
76
74
108
82
101
72
1
-------
id)
lUKEE INNER HARBOR
i ALTERNATIVE
'EMENT PLANS
•-IED C5T/IN-LINE
MODIFIED TOTAL STORAGE
No
3n Load
122,000
60.3
222
12.6
148
26.2
1.50
' 47.4
38.3
1 1.08
Total
% Of
Existing
97
67
60
56
52
52
56
72
45
0.6
% Of NO
Action
97
85
74
68
64
59
67
94
52
0.7
Load
709
1.48
6.50
0.209
3.55
3.55
0.059
0.590
2.36
0.080
CSSA
% Of
Existing
13
11
7
3
4
13
6
13
6
0.05
% Of No
Action
13
11
7
3
4
13
7
13
6
0.05
Load
121,000
58.4
214
12.3
144
21.0
1.40
46.4
35.2
0.991
Total
% Of
Existing
96
65
58
55
50
42
52
71
42
0.6
% Of No
Action
96
82
72
67
63
47
62
92
48
0.7
-------
77 to 88% of the Existing loads.
Under Complete Sewer Separation, water flows from the CSSA
would increase by 11%, since storm runoff would no longer be
captured by the sanitary sewer system. However, total water
flows to the Inner Harbor would increase by only one percent.
Loads from the CSSA of suspended solids, lead, and copper
would remain about the same as Existing, or slightly increase.
These pollutants are largely contributed by street runoff.
Loads of total phosphorus, biochemical oxygen demand,
ammonia-nitrogen, cadmium, and zinc from the CSSA would be
reduced to about one-third to two-thirds of the Existing
loads. The fecal coliform load from the CSSA would be
reduced to 0.4% of the Existing load. The effect of Complete
Sewer Separation on total Inner Harbor loads is somewhat
overshadowed by the large upstream contribution. About 95% of
the total water flows to the Inner Harbor would be contributed
by upstream sources. Total loads of all pollutants except
fecal coliform would represent from 72 to 108% of the
Existing loads; total fecal coliform loads would be reduced
to about 1% of the Existing load.
The Inline Storage alternative would reduce water flows from
the CSSA to 74% of the Existing flow. Pollutant loadings
under the Inline Storage alternative are only slightly lower
than under the Complete Sewer Separation alternative for
CSSA and total pollutant loads to the Inner Harbor. This is
largely a result of the assumption that rooftop storm runoff
is relatively unpolluted. Hence, partial sewer separation
as envisioned in this alternative, offers few benefits
with regard to treating storm runoff pollutant loads. Although
CSSA water flows would be reduced to 66% of the Complete
Sewer Separation flows, the pollutant concentrations in CSSA
runoff .would be higher under the Inline Storage alternative
due to the absence of the "dilution" effect of rooftop storm
runoff. CSSA loads of suspended solids, lead, and copper
are again about the same as existing. Total phosphorus,
biochemical oxygen demand, ammonia-nitrogen, cadmium and
zinc loads from the CSSA would be reduced to 29 to 56% of
the Existing loads. The fecal coliform load from the CSSA
would be reduced to 0.3% of the Existing load. Total Inner
Harbor loads of all pollutants except fecal coliform would
represent from 68 to 107% of the Existing loads; total fecal
coliform loads would be reduced to about 1% of the Existing
load.
Under the Modified/CST Inline Storage alternative, CSSA
water flows would be reduced to 24% of the Existing flow,
due to the storage and conveyance of most street, as well as
rooftop storm runoff. Total water flows to the Inner Harbor
would be reduced by only 3%. CSSA loadings of all pollutants
5-13
-------
would range from 0.1 to 36% of the Existing loads. The CSSA
pollutant loads under this alternative are about one-third
as high as the Complete Sewer Separation or Inline Storage
alternative CSSA loads. CSSA loads of suspended solids,
lead, and copper, which were not substantially reduced by
the Complete Sewer Separation or Inline Storage alternatives,
would be reduced to about one-third of the Existing loads
because most street runoff would be stored and treated. The
CSSA load of fecal coliform would be reduced to about 0.1%
of the Existing load. While the reduction in total pollutant
loads to the Inner Harbor would again be overshadowed by the
large upstream contribution, total loads to the Inner Harbor
would be reduced to less than 75% of all Existing loads. As
shown in Figure 5-4 the largest reductions in total Inner
Harbor loads would occur for lead, zinc, and fecal coliform.
Modified Total Storage of CSO discharges would reduce water
flows from the CSSA to about 13% of the Existing flow.
(Note: Even under the Modified Total Storage alternative,
11% of the CSSA would still receive sewer separation). The
Modified Total Storage alternative would achieve the highest
reduction in pollutant loads to the Inner Harbor. CSSA
pollutant loads would range from 0.05 to 13%. Total loadings
of ammonia-nitrogen, lead, zinc, and fecal coliform to the
Inner Harbor would be one-half or less of the Existing
loads. The fecal coliform total load would be reduced to
only 0.6% of the Existing load of 1.75 x lO1? fecal coliform
counts per year.
5.1.4.2.2 Outer Harbor
Pollutant loads to the Outer Harbor are primarily contributed
from the Inner Harbor, from the Jones Island wastewater
treatment plant, from two combined sewer overflow outfalls
which discharge directly to the Outer Harbor, and from Lake
Michigan inflow. Direct loadings to the Outer Harbor from
atmospheric sources and from storm water drainage from land
immediately adjacent to the Harbor are assumed to be negligible
For those CSO abatement alternatives which include partial
or total storage and treatment of CSOs, it is assumed that
the CSO discharges would be treated at the Jones Island
WWTP. Loadings deposited into the Inner Harbor bottom
sediments, as discussed below, are not included as loads to
the Outer Harbor.
Loading estimates to the Outer Harbor are presented for the
10 parameters previously considered for the Inner Harbor.
Table 5-3 sets forth estimated pollutant loads to the Outer
Harbor under Existing, No Action, Complete Sewer Separation,
Inline Storage, Modified CST/Inline Storage and Modified
Total Storage conditions. Figure 5-5 presents a comparison
5-14
-------
COMPLETE SEWER SEPARATION
Parameter
Water,
(10b gallons)
Suspended Solids
(10b pounds)
Total ..Phosphorus
(10 pounds)
Load
5800
2.18
62.9
Biochemical
Oxygen Demand Ultimate 2. 82
(10° pounds)
Ammonia-N
(10 pounds)
Lead 3
(10 pounds)
Cadmium
(10 pounds)
Copper
(10J pounds)
Zinc ..
(10J pounds)
Fecal Coliform
95.25
10.1
0.726
2.46
23.3
148
CS, CSSA
% Of Of
Exisxisting
— LO
— 92
-- 74
— 56
— 34
-- 29
~ 55
~ 11
— 50
— 0.5
% Of No
Action
112
92
75
56
34
129
56
113
50
0.5
Load
701,000
47.3
451
33.0
7980
66.3
6.89
110
144
2.14
Total
% Of
Existing
100
87
82
82
280
96
85
88
84
1.3
% Of NO
Action
100
102
97
97
95
107
96
98
92
1.4
(MFFCC/100 ml
x 1015)
-------
KEE OUTER HARBOR
ALTERNATIVE
MENT PLANS
:FIED CST/IN-LINE
MODIFIED TOTAL STORAGE
3f No
:ion
!6
6
!3
.7
.0
9
20
4
.6
0.1
\
Load
701,000
47.2
423
32.1
8660
63.2
6.70
110
140
1.64
Total
% Of
Existing
100
87
77
80
304
91
83
88
81
1
% Of No
Action
100
102
91
95
103
102
93
98
90
1
Load
709
0.148
5.04
0.169
3.55
1.31
0.043
0.282
1.21
•0.080
CSSA
% Of
Existing
12
7
80
6
4
13
6
11
5
0.05
% Of No
Action
12
7
81
6
4
13
6
12
5
0.05
Load
701,000
46.4
414
31.8
9000
60.5
6.62
109
138
1.53
Total
% Of
Existing
100
86
75
79
316
87
82
87
88
1
% Of NO
Action
100
100
89
94
107
98
92
97
88
1
-------
Q
J3
W
O
w
o
H
I
w
V)
w
g
w
in
w
O
o
8
o
EH
C/l
W
w
8
Q
W
Q
g
O
EH
8
Q
i
o
o
O
00
o
VD
O
in
o
O
« UJ5
Q
K
W
D
OJ
O
EH <
ID 1-1
O A
W E-i
B 2
o w
O
«
03
ui O Oi
HP rH
O
-------
of total pollutant loads under the No Action alternative to
loads under each CSO abatement alternative.
Under Existing conditions, the CSSA contributes less than
one percent of the water and from 3 to S3% of the total
pollutant loads to the Outer Harbor. More than 10% of the
total Outer Harbor loads of phosphorus, lead, zinc, and
fecal coliform are contributed from the CSSA. Because most
CSSA particulate substances are deposited within the Inner
Harbor and because of the impact of the Jones Island WWTP
discharges and Lake Michigan inflow, the CSSA has a less
direct impact on the Outer Harbor than it does on the Inner
Harbor.
Pollutant loads from the CSSA and from the Jones Island WWTP
would be slightly reduced under the No Action alternative
except for ammonia-nitrogen, which would greatly increase as
a result of implementation of anaerobic digestion at the
Jones Island WWTP even under the No Action alternative.
Implementation of the 208 plan upstream of the CSSA would
result in total loads to the Outer Harbor which range from
84 to 316% of the Existing loads.
Complete Sewer Separation would increase flows from the CSSA
by about 10%. Total loads of all pollutants except fecal
coliform and ammonia-nitrogen to the Outer Harbor would be
reduced to 82 to 96% of the Existing loads. Fecal coliform
loads would be reduced to 1.3% of the Existing load. Under
all alternatives, the total load of ammonia-nitrogen would
be more than double the Existing load as a result of the
abandonment of the Milorganite process at the Jones Island
WWTP and implementation of anaerobic digestion. As shown in
Figure 5-5, as the discharge from the Jones Island WWTP
increases due to increased treatment of storm water, the
load of ammonia-nitrogen to the Outer Harbor also increases.
Inline Storage pollutant loads are only slightly lower than
Complete Sewer Separation loads because of the relatively
low concentrations of pollutants in rooftop storm runoff,
much of which is stored and treated under the Inline Storage
alternative. The captured rooftop runoff flows are dis-
charged to the Outer Harbor following treatment at the Jones
Island WWTP. Hence, reductions in CSSA loads are partially
offset by increased loads from the Jones Island WWTP.
Under the Modified CST/Inline Storage alternative, all CSSA
loads would be reduced to less than one-half of the Existing
loads. Again, this reduction in CSSA loads is somewhat
offset by increased loads from the Jones Island WWTP resulting
from treatment and discharge of storm water runoff. Greatest
reductions in total Outer Harbor loads are achieved for
fecal coliform, biochemical oxygen demand, and phosphorus.
5-18
-------
Modified Total Storage of CSOs would provide the largest
reduction in CSSA loads, with all loads representing less
than 15% of the Existing loads. However, due to increased
discharges from the Jones Island WWTP, and to loads from
other sources, the total Outer Harbor loads would be reduced
to 75 to 87% of the Existing loads, except for fecal coli-
form, which would be reduced to 1% of the Existing load,
and ammonia-nitrogen which would increase to 316% of the
Existing load.
5.1.4.3 Water Quality
5.1.4.3.1 Inner Harbor
The pollutant concentrations within the Inner Harbor are in-
fluenced by the pollutant loadings to the Inner Harbor and by
the portion of the loads which are deposited in the Inner
Harbor sediments or otherwise removed by biological or che-
mical processes. Those annual pollutant loads which are not
removed or deposited in the sediments are divided by the total
annual water flow into the Inner Harbor to determine the
average concentraction of the pollutant within the Harbor.
The predicted Existing water quality conditions of the Inner
Harbor are compared to measured water quality data in
Table 5-4. The predicted values compare reasonably well with
the measured mean concentrations and in all cases the pre-
dicted values are within the measured ranges. Predicted
existing and alternative future average pollutant concen-
trations for the Inner Harbor are shown in Table 5-5.
Because CSSA pollutant loads are more likely to settle out
in the Inner Harbor than are upstream loads, the alternatives
considered generally have less of an effect on pollutant
concentrations than they do on pollutant loads, as shown
in Table 5-2. For example, while Modified Total Storage
would reduce the existing biochemical oxygen demand load
by about 45%, the average biochemical oxygen demand concen-
tration would be reduced by about 30%. Hence, differences
between the alternatives are less obvious when considering
pollutant concentrations than when considering pollutant
loads.
The suspended solids concentrations would be reduced from
27 mg/1 under Existing conditions to 20 mg/1 under all future
alternatives. For all other pollutants, the greatest water
quality improvement occurs under the Modified CST/Inline
Storage and Modified Total Storage alternatives, which provide
the largest amount of storm water storage and treatment. In
general, CSO abatement can be expected to reduce Existing
pollutant concentrations in the Inner Harbor by about 25 to
5-19
-------
*3*
1
m
w
CQ
EH
3 SH
O£H
H
ff5 r-3 OH
W (< O
EH D CQ
is <;
05 ffi
o w
2 EH 05
H r< W
EH S 2
cn 2
H Q H
X W
W 05 W
D ffi
D CO EH
W <
EH W Cn
CJ 2 0
M
p o cn
W EH 2
05 O
ft CO H
'^4 C~^
fa O H
O M P
EH 2
2 M O
O P U
cn 2
M O
OJ CJ
2
O
CJ
cu
tn
rrj
2J
O
m'
CN
1
rH
O
1
m
o
o
V
fd
CN
**
1
in
,_i
V
,
CN
1
rH
O
V
CTi
CN
O
1
00
o
0
o
V
m
o
o
o
I
CN
o
o
o
o
V
t^-
o
1
CO
0
o
c
CN
rH
o
1
CN
0
o
V
o
o
o
o
o
o
«.
^p
1
rH
V
ON
rH
•
O
ft
CN
O
CN
Cn
g
00
r-
o
o
•
o
O CN ro
O CN ^
O O O
o
O
o
CN
O
rH CN 00
CN o ro
o o o
O
•
o
O
o
r-
ro
\
Cn
s
cn
e
Cn
e
Cn
e
U
CJ
fe
fa
2
rH
g
tn
rQ
•H
H
0
cn
^1
cu
4->
cu
g
03
M
rO
ft
13
Q)
C
CU
CU
cn
3
cn
in
3
S_|
0
x:
cu
cn
o
x;
ft
rH
ret
4J
0
£-<
n Demand
0)
Cn
JH
X
O
rH
CO
O
•H
£
0)
X3
U
o
•H
CQ
CU
4J
rrj
g
•H
4-)
rH
3
|
. — .
P
O
CQ
• —
d
cu
Cn
O
(_!
4J
•H
2
rrj
•H
C
O
£2
g
f33
rrj
CU
§
•H
£
T5
CO
CJ
IH
CU
CU
CU
0
CJ
U
c
•H
N
O
CJ
(0
U
CU
fa
0)
I
n
in
P
O
CQ
13
CU
M
3
tn
rO
CU
2
•
a
rd
EH
C
•H
T!
D
4-1
C
CU
C/3
CU
04
^
rH
tn
3
0
'•>
CU
CU
CU
%
tn
c
O
•H
res
4->
C
CU
0
c
0
o
-P
rrj
4-i
3
rH
rH
O
p.
ti
CU
3
cn
rd
cu
2
•
X!
H
W
cn
w
1.
cu
o
SH
3
O
cn
5-20
-------
CD 0)
•H ijl
*H H (0
•H rO M
ti -P O
O O -P
2 EH CO
o
CN
in
rH
O
rH
O
O
O
rH
O
O
CN
O
CM
CN
O
vo
rH
CN
in
i
m
w
ffl
O co
03 2
« rtj
K en
P£ EH
W 2
2 W
H W
EH
W <
33 ffl
EH ff,
2 O
H CO
U
CO
2 Pt,
O >
H H
EH EH
2 W
W EH
U r3
2 <
O
U Q
2
EH rtj
< CO
EH 2
D O
i-3 H
J EH
O H
p_! Q
w o
a u
S o
W 2
> H
<3 EH
CO
Q H
H X
EH W
U
H K
Q W
W Q
0)
T3-H
(1) r-1
•H C
MH H
co
U
CD
C -P
H CO
(U
-P
(U
0 <1) OJ
u en en
en
c
-H
-p
en
•H
x
w
o
CN
00
n
o
o
o
CN
o
o
o
CN
O
CN
O
o
VO
CN
o
o
o
CO
o
o
CN
CN
CN
O
O
ro
O
CN
CO
rH
O
o
•
CN
CN
o
o
o
CN
O
O
CO
o
o
CN
rH
•
O
O
ro
CN
CN
O
•
O
CN
O
o
CN
o
O
o
o
ro
o
o
O
CN
O
O
CN
O
CN
o
csi
O
O
CO
O
•
O
o
o
o
o
r-
CN
W
13
•H
rH
O
CO
>-l
CD
-P
(D
s
tO
SH
(0
&
T3
CD — .
C-J ^^s.
QJ tn
a s
UJ ^
3
CO
U3
!q
O
J^
a.
01
o
f^ *•"**
Ol rH
"^^
rH tj^
rQ g
-p —
O
EH
C
0) — .
CnH
X Cn
° 3-
H -P
(0 cH
U D
•i~i T^
g c
^ i
cj a)
0 Q
•rH
cn
a)
Cn
o
-p
•rH
2
^^ ^
rO H
• r-4 \^
C Cn
O ^
S
-------
50%, except that fecal coliforms would be reduced by at
least 99% for all alternatives.
5.1.4.3.2 Outer Harbor
Pollutant loads from the Inner Harbor, two combined sewer
outfalls discharging directly to the Outer Harbor, the
Jones Island WWTP, and Lake Michigan affect pollutant
concentrations within the Outer Harbor. It was assumed
that about 25% of the water in the Outer Harbor comes from
the Inner Harbor and the Jones Island WWTP, and about 75%
comes from Lake Michigan inflow (data from Bothwell, 1975).
Just as for the Inner Harbor, those pollutant loads which
are not deposited in the sediments are divided by the total
annual water flow into the Outer Harbor to determine the
average pollutant concentrations.
The predicted existing water quality conditions of the Outer
Harbor are compared to measured water quality data in Table
5-6. The predicted values are similar to the measured
values although most predicted concentrations appear too
high. This may be due to a high variation in measured data,
or it may indicate that more pollutants are being deposited
in the bottom sediments than was assumed. Predicted existing
and alternative future average pollutant concentrations for
the Outer Harbor are shown in Table 5-7.
Because a very small proportion (less than one percent) of
the total flow to the Outer Harbor is contributed from the
CSSA, and because a large portion of the CSSA pollutants are
deposited in the Inner Harbor or Outer Harbor bottom sediments,
there is little variation in average Outer Harbor water
quality conditions under the different CSO abatement al-
ternatives. On an average annual basis CSO abatement would
result in varying improvements in water quality conditions
which range between 0 and 98%. Fecal coliform concentrations
would be reduced the most. Ammonia-nitrogen levels would
more than double as a result of the implementation of anaerobic
digestion at the Jones Island WWTP and the subsequent increased
discharges of ammonia-nitrogen from the plant. However,
average annual water quality conditions are not the only
measure of the effectiveness of CSO abatement alternatives.
More details of other measures are presented in section
5.1.6, which presents the results of various sensitivity
analyses.
5.1.4.4 Loadings to Sediment and Sediment Quality
The pollutant loads which are deposited into the bottom
sediments of the Inner and Outer Harbor for each of the CSO
abatement alternatives are given in Tables 5-8 and 5-9, and
5-22
-------
CO
1
in
H
r-3
CQ
EH
EH
H
hJ
fifl
D
Ot
&
H
EH
S
O
Z
H
EH
W
H
X
w
Q
H
EH
U
H
Q
(V,
a.
fa
o
2
O
CO
I-H
Pd
^
s!
8
o
H
EH
H
Q
S
8
£M
EH
H
ft
CX
D^
to
H
S
Q
S
D
%
CO
S
cn
O
H
EH
H
D
S
CJ
0
^3
K
Pi
Cd
EH
O
H
S3
EH
fa
0
JQ
-a
0)
3
cn
fd
CD
2
0)
cn
S
CM
c
S
S
•a
0)
u
•iH
•o
0)
t,
H
U)
4J
•H
£
D
in
^•O
•
0
1
0 rH
P- O
rH 0
V V
IsO
0
CO O
CO
CO O
CM O
rH rH
X -X
Cn Cn
g e
in
o
0
CM •
• rH 0
CM • 1
rH CM m
1 1 O
CM i-H O
CM O O
V V
m
0
H cn O
in o o
V
o
^ rH
01 in o
in o o
H H H
Cn Cn Cn
see
CM
0
o
o
1
CM
0
O
O
O
V
CM
0
0
o
o
V
m
i-H
0
o
o
i-H
*s^
Cn
g
*3*
^J»
o
•
o
1
\Q
o
o
o
o
i-H
o
o
Cn
r—l
a
o
rH
\
Cn
g
CO
O
O
1
CM
0
o
V
CM
0
o
V
r-
CM
0
o
rH
Cn
g
O
o
o
o
o
rH
1
rH
V
0
O
O
r-H
O
0
0
O
i-H
e
0
o
rH
O
O
fa
2
tn
•o
•H
rH
o
CO
-d
0)
73
c
01
tn
3
cn
0)
ft u
ft C
0 -H
U N
g
V)
0
iw
•H
i-H
8
nj
o
0)
fa
01
(d
Q
O
m
0)
-U
to
•iH
-P
CO
0)
o
in
rH
A
•a
•H
rH
ft
•H
4J
rH
3
S
01
ni
cn
0)
i-H
(0
^
in
Q
O
PQ
•a
0)
3
w
rd
0)
S
ro
0)
_Q
m
EH
C
•H
T!
4-1
G
0)
W
OJ
ft
0)
m
CQ
C
0
•H
4J
(d
M
J-l
C
01
0
c
o
o
4-1
c
(d
p
I — t
r-H
o
ft
i:
01
D
cn
10
01
S
A
M
w
cn
CO
OJ
u
^-j
D
0
CO
5-23
-------
r-
'
LO
W
t-3
H
W
2
0
H
1
EH
2
W
O
2
O
0
EH
EH
D
A
O
ft
H
O
K
w
>
Q
W
B
H
Q
g
in
2
O
H
EH
H W
c a
S ^
O r3
O ft
O EH
2 2
H H
EH *£
W H
H EH
X <
W CO
BS
H O
Q in
2 U
H
OJ >
O H
9 £
K ft
3
fo
•8
•H
MH rH
•H Id
•a 4-1
0 0
S EH
•a
0)
•rl
MH
•rl
•a
s
0)
c
•H
rH
C
H
0)
•P
0)
H SH
Q< 0)
E 3
80)
in
BI
C
•rl
•P
w
•rl
X
U
0)
CT^
fO
SH
0
4J
w
c
•H
rH
C
H
EH
M
U
f-^
^D O
oo o r- vc o
• • i • •
CN O •* rH O
cn
V£ O
CO O CO VO O
t t • • •
CN O ^ rH O
0)
Cn
id
0
4-1
10
r» o
oo o CTI mo
• • • • •
CN O f rH O
c
o
•rl
4-1
id
id'
0)
in
cn
r- o
co o cn <* o
CN O ^ rH O
O
•rl
4-1
o
o
2
cn
r- o
co o o in o
• • • • •
CN O LO rH O
CP|
C
tn
•rl
X
H
O
CO ^O rH
oo o cn in o
CN o in o o
c -^
0) r-f
tn tn cn \ fi
T3 3 >i Cn 0)
•H JH X E Cn
rH O O — 0
OX! rl
03 Ol rH 4-1 4-1
tn Id rH -rl
SH
0)
4-1
0)
e
id
ft
T3 0 Q D Z
rgHftHgC IdH H
C\ "vOlld -rlX \
(UCnHCnXIS CCn Cn
OnS Idg OOJ OgT36
tn-- 4-1-^ OQ i ^- id—-
3 0 -ri e ai
tn EH m g J
r_)
rH
O
0
•
O
H
rH
o
O
•
O
rH
rH
O
0
•
0
rH
i-H
0
o
d
rH
rH
O
O
•
O
n
rH
0
o
d
^^
i x.
•rl CP
S E
•a *-*
id
u
!•»• CN
H CN
o o
• •
O 0
r^ CN
rH CN
O O
• •
O O
r~ CN
rH CN
0 0
* •
0 0
r- CN
rH CN
0 0
o o
r~ •*
rH CM
O 0
• •
o o
cr> r^«
rH CM
0 0
d d
^•^ *~*
rH rH
SH X X
CU {71 Cn
cu e. o _s
O -rl
U N
O
•H
0
rH
O
rH
0
rH
O
CTl
in
o
o
s~^
i-H
g g
0 0
MH o
•H rH
"o u"
U U
fa
id 2
o *-
0)
fcj
0)
3
•O
^3
CD
4-1
id
o
•rl
C
•H
0)
A
4^
O
C
^i
E
w
CH
O
4J
id
SH
C
D
U
C
0
o
4-1
c
id
4-1
3
i-H •
rH tn
atu
3
d id
•H >
tn (U
0) ,C
0 4J
c
ID MH
SH 0
0)
HH C
-H -rl
Hj 'U
4J 3
,C 0
Cn SH
•rl
rH O
CO 4-1
Id
H
w
in
{j^
0)
U
3
0
in
5-24
-------
COMPLETE SEWER SEPARATION
Parameter
Settleable Solids
(10 pounds)
Total -Phosphorus
(10 pounds)
Biochemical Oxygen
(10 pounds)
Lead ,
(10 pounds)
Cadmium
(10 pounds)
Copper
(10 pounds)
Zinc -
(10 pounds)
Load
12.5
33.8
3.88
18.6
0.250
2.41
19.9
CSCSSA
% Of Of
Exiscisting
— 91
— 37
— 9
— 03
— 55
— 01
— 50
% Of No
Action
91
38
9
104
57
113
50
Load
48.3
72.0
1.12
27.0
0.387
20.0
21.4
Total
% Of
Existing
78
64
23
93
64
79
61
% Of NO
Action
98
78
24
76
79
102
69
-------
MENTS
ED CST/INLINE
MODIFIED TOTAL STORAGE
Total
No
n Load
40.0
627
0.871
13.2
0.294
18.2
14.2
% Of
Existing
65
55
18
46
49
72
40
% Of No
Action
81
68
19
50
60
92
46
Load
1.33
1.46
0.040
2.24
0.016
0.308
1.15
CSSA
% Of
Existing
11
4
1
12
6
13
6
% Of No
Action
11
4
1
12
7
13
6
Load
38.2
60.9
0.82
9.97
0.27
17.6
12.6
Total
% Of
Existing
62
54
17
34
45
69
36
% Of No
Action
77
66
18
38
55
89
40
-------
COMPLETE SEWER SEPARATION
Parameter
Settleable Solids
(10 pounds)
Total Phosphorus
(10 pounds)
Biochemical
Oxygen Demand-Ult.
(10° pounds)
Lead
(10 pounds)
Cadmium
(10 pounds)
Copper
(10 pounds)
Zinc ,
Load
2.07
5.57
0.64
3.08
0.041
0.40
3.29
C! CSSA
% 0. Of
Exiixisting
— 92
— 38
— 9
— 04
— 58
— 11
— 50
% Of No
Action
92
38
9
104
58
114
50
Load
31.1
62.4
4.23
9.46
0.422
11.4
12.7
Total
% Of
Existing
82
77
77
85
79
77
74
% Of NO
Action
103
95
90
101
96
89
89
(10J pounds)
-------
s
4ENTS
:D CST/IN-LINE
Total
o % Of % Of No
i Load Existing Action
31.0 81 102
61.9 77 94
4.23 77 90
8.61 78 92
0.418 79 95
11.3 76 88
12.1 70 85
MODIFIED TOTAL STORAGE
CSSA Total
% Of % Of NO % Of
Load Existing Action Load Existing
0.141 7 7 30.2 79
0.155 3 3 61.2 76
0.004 1 1 4.21 77
0.237 8 8 7.21 65
0.002 5 5 0.41 77
0.032 8 8 11.1 75
0.121 4 4 11.6 67
% Of No
Action
100
93
89
77
93
87
81
-------
Figures 5-6 and 5-7, respectively. The sediment loadings
presented in these tables are based on average annual flows
and concentrations and on measured particulate portions of
total pollutant loads and settleable solids (sedimentation
rate], as shown in Table 5-10. Predicted sediment concen-
trations are given in Tables 5-11 and 5-12. Loads to the
Inner Harbor were separated into three main sources: (1)
CSO, used for the Existing and No Action alternatives; (2)
storm water runoff, used for Complete Sewer Separation,
Inline Storage, Modified CST/Inline Storage and Modified
Total Storage alternatives; and (3) upstream loadings
derived from USGS data for the Milwaukee River at Estabrook
Park and from International Joint Commission (IJC) data for
the Menomonee River at Wauwatosa.
The references for allocating the portion of each of these
sources which are particulate or settleable are given in
Table 5-10. The higher percent settleable rate assumed for
the Outer Harbor particulates was based on an estimated
hydraulic retention time of 5-6 days versus 2-4 days for the
Inner Harbor (Bannerman et al., 1979} .
The sediment loads to the Outer Harbor consist of the
particulates not captured in the Inner Harbor, the loads
from the two CSOs discharging directly to the Outer Harbor,
and the Jones Island WWTP effluent. If an abatement alternative
required stormwater to be conveyed to a WWTP, it was assumed
100% was sent to Jones Island WWTP. Pollutants in the storm
water were assumed to be removed by the Jones Island plant
at the following removal rates: suspended solids = 91%; BOD
= 91%; total phosphorus = 90%; lead = 74%; cadmium = 80%;
copper = 68%; and zinc = 74%. These removal rates for sus-
pended solids, BOD, and phosphorus were based on Jones Island
WWTP influent operating reports from January 1975 to June
1978. The removal efficiencies for these pollutants were
determined by reducing the mean influent concentration to
meet the Jones Island WWTP WPDES effluent requirements. The
removal rates for the metals were calculated from influent
and effluent records from Jones Island WWTP for 1978.
The validity of the loading assumptions (i.e. % settleable
and % particulate assumptions in Table 5-10) was tested both
quantitatively and qualitatively against two independent
sources. The total annual settleable solids load to the
Inner and Outer Harbors was compared to the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers - Great Lakes Region dredge records and the IJC
Menomonee River Pilot Watershed Study (Bannerman et al.
1979) results. The quantitative comparisons are given in
Table 5-13.
5-29
-------
o
H
EH
ft
W
w
en
w
EH
w
O
u
O
EH
to
w
z
H
iJ
z
H
W
s
H
Kl
53
8
Q
W
Q
i
O
3
o
CO
D
w
H
k.
H
Q
s
W
to
W
UJ
O
a.
3
O
1/5
Q
ill
IX
ft
4-J
C
0)
CO
ft
O
ffi tJ
W E->
ft
o
0
§
•H
"9
nJ
U
0)
4-)
CD
e
rd
H S
W
W EH
ffi <
EH CQ
a
O
^ b
CO h-i
Q ftj
EH H
O EH
C
IS W
EH
tl 1-5
O <
EH »S
Z W
W Q
U g
O
o
o
en
o
c»
O
in
o
o
CM
UJ
cr
3
O
-------
w
o
PJ
w
PJ
W
EH
W
.4
O
O
W
O
EH
W
EH
W
0
Q
§
S
W
O
EH
to
EH
O
EH
O
W
H
fc
H
Q
8
o
o
o
CTi
o
CD
o
o
VD
o
in
o
ro
NOIiDV ON dO ,LN3DH3d
W
W
W
Q
111
O
S 2
W
w
EH
<
g
tn
s
Q O)
W
W Q
W
tJ S
g g
g O
W
O <
EH
2
8
PS
w
W
r^
in M
(U
o) ,g
p d) o
•H HO C^
-------
to
2
0
H
EH
f£
rH
o
H-l
<
u
o
2
H
Q
<
S3
i
ID EH
2
W H
ro H
< Q
EH W
eo
OS
o
t4
co
z
0
H
EH
PH
S
D
co
CO
<:
eu
OS
O
03
S
D3
OS
W
EH
D
0
EH
H
£3
1-3
Cn
h
W
Q
2
J
CO
H
m
pa
2
O
1-3
4-) 0)
(C rH
i-H 01 ,Q
3 rH
o
rH
M-4
CO
Q
o ^moooo M
O HCNHHiHrH 0?
1 *» .
r-t k> •
0) 4-1
CO rl
OS
o
9
OS
r^
£C
os
H
2
2
H
eu
2
3
OH
EH
CO
OH
D
4J CU
Id H
rH 01 A
3 H Id
O CO
•H XI rH
IH 4-1 U -P
O M -rl 4-1
id x: co
<*> CM 3 CO
0 4-1
'O ft CU
cu co eu
C OS S
•rl
X! 'O 0
e co 4-1
o x: •
o tn o SH
ID IDIDIDIDIDID SnCOCU
^ \^ vo ^D ^ VD v^ 4H cu en E>
0 -P rH -rj
Id OS
tn 3
Q)
4-1
rH
3
U
•r)
4J
SH
nj
<*° PH
4-1 -CO Ai
U -P C CO i-i
aO id >J ro
rH rH 3 PH
g -H PH id
rH. CM 15 ^4
S --I o
•P SH -P 2 °
d ^OCOOCOT -rinjoi i ja
O ^rHVOrOiDiD rH S>iCU C rrj
H id S co x: o • 4-i
3 3 -P -rl O [Q
CX co SH -P co H
OS
H
EH
^
3
3
8
CO
CU
4-1 CU
Id rH
rH 01 JQ
3 H Id
U CU
•rl XI rH
4H 4J U -P
O SH -rl 4-1
td x: eu
df PH 3 CO
cu n-i rd en
rl >1 H-l 0 U rH 4-1
cu T3 id *H id
4-> 3 13 tn UH >i
Id 4-1 CU -rl . -rl rH ^
3 C04J01USH30
cn >t c 3 ri >
CU 4J Id rH M 3n 1 -H
XI 0 3 id cn PS
O OOOOOO 4-1 rH C - - (^
en cncncncncncn •ri4-it O -rl ±1
CO
•P
id
H
3
0
•rl
-U
rl
id
c(f OH
^ SH 4-1 c SH x: 3
C CU 4-> -H X -P U id"
0 >tnrHcutnsHS
•rl -H *H 1^ OS 'rl ffl rH
4-> OS Q 3 Q S -H
id Of - S
u cu cu tn cu ~
•ri •a>CPSH4->cn'O -
MHOCtdCUCidCaJ
•HCOSH4-leUSHId4-l
O IDHOOCO^T SHHgCUldgCUrHra
c cNCNf-roiDiD eu OHSeuSena
I-H > ~ c cu ~ s-i cu H
T3 CU CO -H CO M
o
in
O
SH S -3 tn cu
CO
4-1 CU
Id rH
rH Ul XI
3 H id
U CO
•H X! rH
IH 4-) O -P
O SH -rl 4J
id x; co
* PH 3 CO
• o c en cr* c eu o
enc idr~cox •4-ienoS4-io3
en cu co -H H -H ^3 o
rH OS P* rH ,-» rH tn
en o rH o i cu
rH ft • ^ ft OS
rH • O H 1 0 (d
(did 'SHtdUiH4-iM
O OOOOOO 4JrH4-l OH4JldOI
en cncncncncncn 4-iididcU4-i ^* cu Q -P
CU Q S CU S, re
•P •f H 3
»cucucu ^r^cuas
0)
4-1
,__!
3
u
•H
_l_i
tfj
<# PH
N g d) N I CU U •
rH-rl *^|rHID^-HCO
OEHT!30ro3-P •
x« id id xi id ^ o
CrHMSC SrH . H
•rl td GrH-rlSrH fdCOKI
COCUO-rlCOK-HC -CO
soSi^s:soHS
0
3
SH
0
ft
tn
0
OH
Q
O
ffl
rQ
rd
CO
rH
ft
0
5-32
o
c
•H
CJ N
w
co
O
rl
3
0
co
-------
0)
Q)
O
0 0 4J
S EH en
O O O
CT\ O i£>
m in r\i
'CN
no
ro
0)
•0.5
-------
0)
•H
<4H
0)
(0
M
t! -P 0
O O -P
S EH cn
O
CM
O
CN
O 00
O CO
O CN
oo
vo
oo
ro
oo
oo
CN
0
O
O
».
r~
oo
H
T
0
oo
00
U3
00
oo
o
CN
rH
I
in
w
r3
CQ
CO
O PS
H O
E-i ffl
W PS
O W
3 EH
O D
U O
EH W
2 ffi
W EH
S
H 2
Q H
W
SH
0)
1)
CO C
O
0) -H
•P -P
OJ ftj
g
O
u cn
o
o
o
CN
O
CTi
rH
O
CN
CN
O
O
o
ro
o
o
o
00
o
o
o
•<*
o
OO
VD r*"
VD O
OO "3"
oo
oo
CN
oo
rH
CN *tf
C1 00
oo rr
•H
0)
o
01
CN
o
ON
00
o
LD
S
fl
M
Q)
-P
tu
P
03
in
03
Cw
r-H
(0
-P
0
EH
0
x:
tn
0
DH
Q)
•P
n3
•H
-P
rH
D
Q
o
m
T3
03
0)
J
g
3
•H
6
•a
03
CJ
r^
a)
a
a.
o
u
o
c
•H
N
Q)
W
rH
(0
H
W
CO
w
1)
o
r4
3
O
CO
5-34
-------
I
tn
3
2
O
H
EH
PJ
D
M
W
EH
H
cx
EH
Z
W
S
H
Q
H
01
fa
O
g
H
EH
<
O
H
fc
a
SH
0
XI
SH
id
35
SH
CU
4J
3
O
cn
T3
•H
rH
0
W SH
CD XI
H IH
X! Id
id 33
CD
H .-» SH
•P SH CD
4-1 >i C
CD X C
COD H
O
1 rH
G X
0
•rl tfl
4-1 T3
id G
0 3
•H 0
MH Hi
•H -^
SH
CD
>
>i
4-1
•H
4-1
C
Id
3
a
CD
o
SH
3
0
W
tl
rl CD
0 SH
X) 3
SH cn
id id
K CD
S
SH
CD
4-1
CO O T3
C CD
0 4-1
H n -H rd
• .14-1 i-H
co CN 1 id 3
n in SH O
4J r-l
G id
CD O
u
c
0
0
•p
c
id "-»
4-> CO
3 -rl
I-H cn
co m CN H "V 4-1
•p x:
c cn
CU -rl
g 0)
•H 5 73
t3 SH CD
cu >i o SH
W SH XI 3
•O SH 01
i ID id
Cn K CD
CM S
-P 0 \ SH
O -H cn 0)
rH 4-1 g G
(Tj -H Id —* C
01 Oi O H
•O XI -H T3
SH ri > MH 0)
0 0! t) -rl 4-1
o > 3 SH id
CD 'H 4-1 CD rH
a! as w > 3
o
CD CD t) >i i-H
Cn CD CD -P id
01 73 C X! -H U
•H CU 0 CO H
co SH g SH (d
>i Q O Q) 3
H C 4-1 CX
id SH o) ITJ
G id S 3
< CD
>H 1
cn
•H C O
x; CD 1-3
EH EH H
0 O
CD CN r- ^o in i-i
Cn 1 1 ^ CN 00 in
C 0 1 1 1 1 1
(rt CO in CN ro O
a| CN CN rH CN [—
o
o o ^r cn in m
•3- o v£> H in m
n r? H ro
C » -
Id H "sT
CD cn
s
O O O 1" O O
CN o cn H cn in
rH O CN ro -y
CN ^l1
•fl1
H
u
O
O
O
rH
o cn o o
co i— i CD m
CN 1 O ro
«. o - O ••
CD CN O CN T rH
Cn 1 O 1 r- CM 1
C ro - O ro 1 O
nl r- r- o I co n
K cn VD I-H in co CN
CJ
O O ro vD ^ O
H O i-H rH ro CO
^ o in I-H in
C » "
Id rH O
CD O
S i-H
O O CO O rH rH
ro O kD i— f H c*>
co o ^ ^ in
rH cn
r»
^^
Q
cn o
3 O
SH — '
0 X.
x:u
ft CD
CO 4-1
o id
X! g
O< -H g
•P 3 SH
rH rH -H CD
(d DO g ft U
4-1 Q id 'O ft G
0 O 0) (d 0 -H
EH ffl J CJ U N
orps of Engineers dredge data in the Milwaukee harbor and
o
>i
g
SH
P£
.
w
D
MH
O
CO
SH
id
01
Sx
G
CD
4-1
g
0
SH
MH
C
0>
A
£
id
onverted to weight by assuming an in-site solids concentration
u
cn
id
S
0)
3
H
O
CD
X!
EH
•
CO
SH
CD
>
•rl
SH
Cn
G
•rl
c
•rl
O
•n
T3
(d
.
U3
•
H
MH
0
>i
4-1
•rl
cn
£5
CD
•O
,*
i-H
3
XI
id
'd
C
id
dP
0
n
MH
0
>
T3
p
4-1
W
T3
•0)
x;
CO
jj
CL
-P
id
3
4-1
0
i-H
•rl
Pu
iH
0)
•rl
OS
0
g
0
i
CD
x:
4->
SH
0
MH
T3
(D
4-)
C
CD
CO
CD
SH
ft
id
4->
id
"O
e
0
SH
M-l
3^
r>
cn
rH
^-^
•
rH
id
4-1
CD
^
c
id
g
SH
CD
C
C
id
ffl
XI
alculated from the particulate BOD x 1.5 after Meinholz et al . (1979).
measured COD value. A regression analysis of BOD and COD in CSO, up-
u
.
.
0)
(-H
(UP
P
idO
gP
H
PD
H
X
0
H
id
o
•H
g
CD
x:
CJ
0
•H
ffl
CJ
3W
ft
g
0
o
CO
id
£
i
i CD
4-1
id
•H
4-1
r-l
D
Q
O
ffl
CD
EH
1
C
0
o
<*°
cn
cn
CD
x:
4J
4-1
Id
•P
c
id
o
•rl
MH
• rl
cn
•rl
Ul
^r
cn
o
MH
O
4-1
C
CD
•rl
CD
•rl
MH
MH
CD
0
U
0
•H
4-1
id
rH
CD
SH
SH
0
U
id
T3
CD
•O
i-H
01
•rl
>i
cn
CD
rH
ft
1
CO
(-1
01
4J
id
g
i-l
o
4-1
CO
•a
c
id
SH
0)
>
•H
SH
id
CD
i-l
4-1
cn
.
r-J
id
e
Vl
a
4J
•H
CD
U
C
CD
•a
•H
MH
H
K
cn
H
t*
CD
CJ
SH
3
0
OI
5-35
-------
A qualitative verification was used to determine if the
proper percent particulate value had been used for each
pollutant. Calculated sediment pollutant concentrations
were compared against measured sediment concentrations given
in Table 5-13. The existing calculated values were within
the measured concentration ranges for all the pollutants
except copper. The measured copper values were based on
USGS data. Estimated sediment loads and concentrations
are presented under each alternative. The loads are divided
into CSSA load and total load. Each of these loads is given
in pounds per year mean annual loading. The estimated
concentrations are calculated for the total load only.
5.1.4.4.1 Inner Harbor
Particulate pollutant loads to the Inner Harbor originate
from both upstream and CSSA discharges. The Inner Harbor is
characterized by low velocity river flows where much of the
particulate load is deposited into the bottom sediments.
This is reflected in the highly polluted nature of the Inner
Harbor bottom sediment. Although the pollutants are deposited
in the sediments, they may still be available to the aquatic
system. The sediments continue to exert an oxygen demand on
the water column and bioactivity within the sediments allows
bound pollutants to enter the aquatic food chain.
The pollutant loads for each alternative were calculated on
the assumptions previously stated. The concentration
calculations were used to determine qualitative as well as
quantitative effects. Loading and concentration estimates
are given for total solids, total phosphorus, BOD ultimate,
lead, cadmium, copper, and zinc.
As shown in Table 5-8, the CSSA contributes 20% of the
Existing solids load to the Inner Harbor sediment. The
highly polluted nature of the CSSA solids accounts for the
higher contribution of the other pollutants. For example,
79% of the BODU (biochemical oxygen demand-ultimate), 64%
of the lead, 56% of the zinc, and 30% of the phosphorus are
attributed to the CSSA. Copper is the exception; only 9%
originates within the CSSA.
The No Action alternative assumes implementation of the
areawide water quality management (208) plan with no CSO
abatement. The "% of Existing" column under the "Total"
heading indicates the impact that the 208 plan has on the
CSSA sediments (Table 5-8) . For example, 20% of the settle-
able solids and 18% of the total phosphorus is removed by
the implementation of the 208 plan. Under the No Action
alternative, BODU would be reduced by about 5%, the metals
lead, cadmium, and zinc would be reduced by approximately 10%
5-36
-------
while copper would be reduced by about 22%. Sediment pollutant
concentrations increase for BODU, lead, and zinc (Table 5-11)
when compared to Existing concentrations. This occurs be-
cause under the No Action alternative the highly polluted
CSSA solids have a proportionately greater impact on the
bottom sediments when upstream loadings are reduced. Im-
plementing the No Action alternative would cause the BODU,
lead and zinc concentrations to increase in the Inner Harbor
sediment while their total loadings would decrease.
The Complete Sewer Separation alternative directs all storm
water to receiving waters untreated. This results in a
slight increase in CSSA lead and copper loads (Figure 5-6).
The reason for this increase is that under the Existing or No
Action alternatives approximately 700 million gallons of
storm water is conveyed annually to the Jones Island WWTP
through the combined sewer system. These storm water
associated pollutants are discharged to the Outer Harbor and
never reach Inner Harbor sediments. The total loadings of
all the pollutants are reduced by this alternative. BODu is
reduced to 23% of the Existing load and 98% of the No Action
load (Figure 5-6). The BODU sediment concentration is
reduced from 79,000 mg/kg under No Action to 23,200 mg/kg
under Complete Sewer Separation. The other sediment pol-
lutant concentrations remain similar under either the
Existing or No Action alternatives except for the total
phosphorus and zinc which are reduced to 82 and 78%,
respectively of the Existing concentrations.
The Inline Storage alternative would convey all rooftop
runoff (approximately 2.16 billion gallon per year) to the
Jones Island WWTP. This alternative produces loadings and
sediment concentrations which are similar to the Complete
Sewer Separation alternative. The Modified CST/Inline
Storage alternative would reduce the total Inner Harbor
sediment loadings to approximately 65% of the Existing value;
CSSA loadings would be reduced to 24% of Existing loads.
BOD loads would be reduced to 2% of Existing CSSA loads and
18% of the total BOD load. Copper loads and concentrations
are least affected by CSO abatement alternatives. Sediment
pollutant concentrations are approximately the same as
the Complete Sewer Separation or Inline Storage alternatives.
The Modified Total Storage alternative shows the largest
mean decrease in pollutant loads. The loads range from 1 to
13% of the existing CSSA loads. The estimated sediment
pollutant concentrations are similar to those under the
other alternatives.
5-37
-------
5.1.4.4.2 Outer Harbor
Solids loads to the Outer Harbor are contributed from the
Inner Harbor, from the Jones Island WWTP, and from the two
CSO outfalls which discharge directly to the Outer Harbor.
Estimated loadings under the various alternatives are
presented in Table 5-9 and Figure 5-7. Estimated sediment
concentrations are summarized in Table 5-12.
The hydraulic residence time is the time it would take for
the total volume of a body of water to be replaced by
inflowing waters. The hydraulic residence time for the
Outer Harbor has been calculated at six days, including
Lake Michigan inflow (Bannerman, 1379). Based on this
hydraulic residence time, it is assumed that 95% of all
particulate loads entering the Outer Harbor (except Lake
Michigan inflow) are deposited into the bottom sediments.
The CSSA accounts for 5% of the total solids deposited in
the Outer Harbor under Existing conditions. Lead and zinc
are the highest CSSA-contributed pollutants in the existing
sediment loads, accounting for 29% and 19% of the total
loads, respectively. Phosphorus and cadmium from the CSSA
account for about 8% of the total loads. Copper loads
attributable to the CSSA are 3% of the total load. The
Existing pollutant concentrations are relatively high and
comparable to the pollutant concentrations in the Inner
Harbor sediments (Table 5-11).
The Complete Sewer Separation alternative would contribute
total pollutant loadings to the sediment which represent 80%
of the Existing loads. The CSSA-related loads vary widely
under this alternative, ranging from 9% to 111% of the Existing
CSSA loads. The Inline Storage alternative would provide
total loadings and CSSA loadings which are similar to the
Complete Sewer Separation loads.
The Modified GST/Inline Storage alternative results in reductions
in total loadings which are similar to the Complete Sewer Separa-
tion and Inline Storage alternatives but it will result in
larger reductions in the sediment loads of pollutants from
the CSSA, between 38% and 96%.
The Modified Total Storage alternative would again show
similar reductions in the total loadings although it should
be noted that this alternative provides for the lowest sedi-
ment loadings for all pollutants for both total and CSSA
related loads. CSSA-related pollutant loads are 8% or less
of their Existing loads. Sediment pollutant concentrations
remain similar under all alternatives (see Table 5-12).
5-38
-------
5.1.5 Discussion
5.1.5.1 Water Quality and Pollutant Loadings
The analysis of pollutant loadings, water quality, sediment
loadings, and sediment quality indicate slight to moderate
differences between the CSO abatement alternatives considered.
The results of these analyses are compared to applicable
water quality standards and sediment quality guidelines to
determine the magnitude of the differences and to inter-
pret how these differences would affect recreational use
opportunities and aquatic life communities within the
surface waters affected by combined sewer overflows.
The Inner Harbor pollutant loading analysis indicated that,
when considering loads from the CSSA alone, storage and
treatment of CSOs provided greater reductions than did total
or partial sewer separation. The Modified Total Storage and
Modified GST/Inline Storage alternatives had estimated loads
which were less than one-third of the loads generated under
the Complete Sewer Separation and Inline Storage alternatives.
The Complete Sewer Separation and Inline Storage alternatives
resulted in a slight increase in some CSSA loads. While the
Complete Sewer Separation and Inline Storage alternatives
reduced most Existing loads by about one-third, the Modified
CST/Inline Storage and Modified Total Storage alternatives
reduced most Existing loads by at least 80%. All alternatives
substantially reduced fecal coliform loads.
Although the analysis of CSSA loads alone indicates a large
difference between the CSO abatement alternatives, changes
in the water quality of affected surface waters are not
directly proportional to changes in CSSA loads. None of the
CSO-affected streams are located entirely within the CSSA,
and concentrations represented by pollutant loads from upstream.
sources mix with, and serve to dillute concentrations represented
by CSSA loadings. The relative impact of upstream loadings
is greater for some streams, such as the Milwaukee River,
than for others, such as the Kinnickinnic River.
Pollutant loadings to the Outer Harbor show less variation
under the alternatives than do Inner Harbor loadings.
Less variation occurs because of the magnitude of pollutant
loads from other sources. In addition, as loads from the Inner
Harbor are reduced by increased storage and treatment of storm
water, loads from the Jones Island WWTP are increased as flows
to the plant increase. In general, there is little difference
between the CSO abatement alternatives with regard to annual
average loadings to the Outer Harbor. Under all alternatives,
most pollutants except for fecal coliform and ammonia-nitrogen,
would exhibit a slight reduction compared to Existing loadings.
5-39
-------
Pecal coliform would be reduced by at least 98% and ammonia-
nitrogen would increase due to the implementation of
anaerobic digestion processes at the Jones Island WWTP.
The effect of pollutant loadings on the surface water uses
which could be supported under each alternative can be
estimated by comparing predicted water quality conditions to
established and recommended water quality standards. Water
quality conditions for the Inner Harbor are compared to
existing DNR water quality standards and recommended 208
water quality standards and EPA water quality criteria. In
general, the water quality conditions of the Inner Harbor
vary less than do pollutant loadings under the different
alternatives because pollutant loads from the CSSA are more
likely to be deposited in the Inner Harbor bottom sediments
than are upstream pollutant loads. Differences in water
quality betw'een the alternatives are greatest for lead and
zinc.
The Inner Harbor is currently granted a variance by the DNR
which designates less restrictive standards than for recreational
use and warmwater fish and aquatic life. Specific water
quality standards to support the variance classification
have been established for dissolved oxygen, pH, and fecal
coliform. In addition, minimum standards concerning
temperature, objectionable deposits, floating or submerged
debris, and toxic substances are also applicable. Temper-
ature and pH were not specifically analyzed, but are not
expected to change significantly under any alternative and
are not expected to violate the applicable standards.
Dissolved oxygen is affected not only by loads of biochemical
oxygen demand, but also by in-place pollutants and in-harbor
biological productivity. The importance of in-place pol-
lutants is discussed below. The mean dissolved oxygen
concentration measured in the Inner Harbor under Existing
conditions is over three times the minimum standard established,
although the standard is often violated during the summer
months. The applicable fecal coliform standard for the Inner
Harbor would be violated under the No Action alternative,
but met under all other alternatives. The un-ionized ammonia-
nitrogen standard of 0.04 mg/1 is expected to be met under
all alternatives.
The degree of compliance by the CSO abatement alternatives
with the variance standards, other than fecal coliform,
is a function of many factors. In general, it is likely
that alternatives that reduce the frequency of sediment
scour will decrease violations of the dissolved oxygen
standard more than other alternatives. In addition, based
upon information available to EPA and DNR, the remaining
variance standards would be expected to be achieved under
any CSO abatement alternative.
5-40
-------
The predicted water quality conditions are also compared to
the recommended water use objectives and supporting water
quality standards which were presented in the 208 plan.
These standards, which are different from existing DNR
standards, cannot be legally enforced by the DNR. Standards
for temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform,
residual chlorine, un-ionized ammonia-nitrogen, and total
phosphorus were recommended to support limited recreational
use and limited fish and aquatic life, limited recreational
use and warmwater fish and aquatic life, and recreational
use, and warmwater fish and aquatic life classifications.
Again, temperature and pH levels under any alternative are
expected to remain about the same as Existing and would
probably not violate the standards under any classification.
Although the mean dissolved oxygen level measured in the
Inner Harbor is greater than 5 mg/1, this does not satisfy
the warmwater fishery and aquatic life standard of 5 mg/1
and the limited fishery and aquatic life standard of 3 mg/1,
since both these standards are based upon minimum rather than
average dissolved oxygen levels. The most important factor
affecting dissolved oxygen levels in the Inner Harbor is the
in-place pollutants in the bottom sediments, as discussed
below. The fecal coliform standard of 200 MFFCC/1CO ml
which applies to both the recreational use and limited
recreational use classifications would technically be violated
under all alternatives, although the Modified Total Storage
alternative comes very close to satisfying the standard.
The most stringent un-ionized ammonia-nitrogen standard of
0.02 mg/1, which supports a warmwater fish and aquatic life
classification, would be satisfied under all alternatives.
Currently, the un-ionized ammonia-nitrogen standard of 0.02mg/l
is only a recommendation in the 208 plan is not a legally
enforceable standard. The total phosphorus standard of 0.1
mg/1, which is designated for the recreational use objective,
would be violated under all alternatives, indicating that
algae levels would be expected to remain relatively high in
the Inner Harbor. Thus, it is predicted that all CSO abate-
ment alternatives would not meet the water quality standards
recommended in the 208 plan. As previously stated, these
standards are not legally enforceable.
In addition to the DNR water quality standards and the 203
plan recommended water quality standards, Quality Criteria
for Water (EPA, 1976) sets forth criteria for metal con-
centrations. Maximum metal concentration criteria identified
from Quality Criteria for Water to support warmwater fish
and aquatic life(based primarily on fathead minnow toxicity
studies) are:
5-41
-------
Lead 4.8 mg/1
Cadmium 0.012 mg/1
Copper 0.05 mg/1
Zinc 0.16 mg/1.
Therefore based on existing information, the estimated
average concentrations of metals in the Inner Harbor under
Existing and all future alternative conditions are within
the maximum criteria limits shown above. Final veri-
fication of this conclusion will be documented in the
Inner Harbor sediment study which is currently being developed
by the EPA, DNR, and SEWRPC.
In addition to existing DNR standards, water quality criteria
for Lake Michigan have been established by the International
Joint Commission (IJC). The criteria are desired limits to
protect the beneficial uses of the lake, and are not currently
legally enforceable standards. These criteria, as set forth
in Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978 (IJC, 1978) ,
were established as part of an agreement between the United
States and Canada. Criteria were set for metals, pesticides,
and numerous other substances. For analysis purposes, the
criteria established for lead, copper, cadmium, and zinc are
compared to predicted water quality conditions in the Outer
Harbor to determine the degree of protection of beneficial
water uses. The criteria of 0.025 mg/1 for lead is achieved
under Existing and all future alternative conditions.
Likewise, the zinc criteria of 0.03 mg/1 is met under all
conditions. However, all Existing and future alternative
CSO abatement conditions result in copper levels which would
exceed the criteria of 0.005 mg/1 by over three-fold, and
cadmium levels under all conditions would exceed the criteria
of 0.0002 mg/1 by five-to six-fold.
5.1.5.2 Sediment Quality and Sediment-Water Interactions
The impact of the CSO abatement alternatives on sediment
quality and the resultant effects on water quality are dis-
cussed below. The EPA sediment quality guidelines previously
cited 'are the basis for evaluating predicted sediment quality
conditions. Sediment-water interactions, including sediment
oxygen demand (SOD) and pollutant transport, are discussed
on a long-term and short-term basis. The impact of in-
stream measures are also discussed.
5.1.5.2.1 Sediment Quality
The effects of CSO abatement on sediment quality are described
in terms of total solids, organic pollutants, and inorganic
pollutants.
5-42
-------
1. Total Solids — Solids deposition in the Inner and
Outer Harbors results in the need to perform maintenance
dredging to keep the commercial shipping channels open.
Dredging causes short-term adverse environmental impacts by
resuspending pollutants, such as ammonia, manganese, iron,
other metals, and PCBs into the water column, increasing
turbidity and depleting water column oxygen (Brannon et al.
1978; Neal et al, 1977). The long-term environmental impacts
of dredging are related to managing dredge material disposal.
CSO abatement alternatives which reduce solids loadings or
do not require dredging as an instream measure will reduce
dredging impacts on water quality.
Inner Harbor solids loadings to the sediments are similar
for the No Action, Complete Sewer Separation, and Inline
Storage alternatives. Upstream measures (implementation of
the 208 plan) result in a 20% decrease in solids loadings to
the Inner Harbor. Under the Complete Sewer Separation alterna-
tive, solids associated with street runoff would continue to
be transported to the Inner Harbor sediments. The Modified
CST/Inline Storage and Modified Total Storage alternatives
lower solids accumulation to approximately 63% of existing
conditions. This is an improvement of 19-23% over No Action.
The effects of implementing either abatement alternative are
similar.
Any of the CSO abatement alternatives would reduce total
solids loadings to the Outer Harbor sediments by approximately
20%, most of which can be attributed to implementation of
the 208 plan upstream of the CSSA. The primary reasons for
this are the deposition of settleable solids within the Inner
Harbor and the impact of the Jones Island WWTP effluent on
the Outer Harbor sediments.
2. Organic Pollutants — Organic pollutants in the sediments
serve as a complexing agent for potentially toxic chemicals
(organo-clay absorption) and act as a food source for
biological activity. Sediments which are high in organic
content are typically not well consolidated and may exhibit
aerobic as well as anaerobic biological activity. Highly
organic sediments may also contain high concentrations of
bound (i.e. insoluble) metals which may be gradually released
to the water column above the sediments over a long period
of time. These bound metals may be released from sediments
when the organic material is biologically assimilated or
through biological activity which converts them to more
soluble and/or toxic forms (e.g. methylation of lead and
mercury). Reducing the organic material loading rate to
sediments may allow them to physically and chemically stabilize,
One characteristic of a stabilized sediment is the formation
of an oxidized surface layer which regulates the release
of pollutants to the water.
5-43
-------
Organic loadings to the sediments is estimated from the
particulate fraction of the ultimate biochemical oxygen
demand (BODU). The BODU and COD concentrations in CSO,
upstream river, and storm water discharges have been evaluated
by a regression analysis. The correlation coefficient (R2)
value was 0.94, indicating a close relationship between
EODU and COD in these discharge sources. Both BODU and
COD will be used as estimates of organic pollutants in the
sediments.
The predicted Inner Harbor sediment BODU concentrations
under any CSO abatement alternative would be classified as
non-polluted based on U.S. EPA sediment quality guidelines
for COD. Sediment quality guidelines for BODU have not been
established. The differences among the alternatives are
small (approximately 7%) (Figure 5-6). This analysis indicates
that 76% to 82% of the organic pollution in the Inner Harbor
sediments is contributed by CSO discharges.
Under all of the CSO abatement alternatives the Outer Harbor
sediments would be classified as heavily organically polluted.
This is due to the influence of the Jones Island WWTP effluent
loadings and upstream loadings not deposited in the Inner Harbor
3. Inorganic Pollutants — The inorganic pollutants
analysed are phosphorus, lead, cadmium, copper, and zinc.
Although these substances can occur in organic forms, they
are considered inorganic for the purpose of this discussion.
Phosphorus can be released from the sediments to the water
and contribute to excessive algal growth. The metals may
limit the benthic population because of toxicity. This, in
turn, reduces the rate of decomposition of organic materials,
resulting in their accumulation. The metals may also be
released to the water in concentrations and forms which are
toxic to aquatic organisms, as previously discussed.
The Inner Harbor sediment concentrations for lead and zinc
are reduced by all four action alternatives. The Modified
CST/Inline Storage and Modified Total Storage alternatives are
more effective in reducing lead, cadmium, and zinc loadings
than the other alternatives. Although these metal loads to
the sediment are reduced to between 38% to 60% of the No Action
alternative, they are still approximately 4 to 10 times
higher than EPA recommended concentrations for non-polluted
sediments.
Copper loads and concentrations are similar under all CSO
abatement alternatives. Copper loadings from upstream
sources account for over 90% of the total Inner Harbor load.
The benefits of these abatement alternatives in terms of the
quality and diversity of the benthic community are expected
5-44
-------
to be limited. Although the Inner Harbor would realize
large reductions in organic pollutants, phosphorus, lead, and
zinc loadings, the concentrations of those pollutants, except
organic material, remain in the highly polluted range.
Outer Harbor sediment metal loadings and concentrations are
77% to 93% of the predicted No Action values for all abate-
ment alternatives. The loadings of metal storm
water after conveyance to and treatment at the Jones Island
WWTP under the Inline Storage, Modified GST/Inline Storage,
and Modified Total Storage alternatives are contributed to
the Outer Harbor bottom sediments through the Jones Island
WWTP effluent.
Phosphorus loadings to the Inner Harbor sediments are most
effectively reduced by the Modified CST/Inline Storage and
Modified Total Storage alternatives. They are reduced to
phosphorus concentrations are reduced about 16% from No
Action values but are still within the range of heavily
polluted sediments.
The Outer Harbor phosphorus sediment loadings and concen-
trations are approximately the same for the abatement
alternatives as for the No Action alternative.
The benefits of these abatement alternatives in terms of
the quality and diversity of the benthic community are ex-
pected to be limited. Although the Inner Harbor would
realize large reductions in organic pollutants, phosphorus,
lead, and zinc loadings, the concentrations of these para-
meters, except organic pollutants, remain in the highly
polluted range. Therefore pollution tolerant organisms
would be expected to continue to dominate the benthic community.
After abatement of CSOs, the upstream pollutant loadings are
the primary contributors to the high concentrations of pollu-
tants in the sediments. Further improvement in the sediment
quality would be expected to occur with further reduction
in the upstream loadings.
5.1.5.2.2 Sediment-Water Interactions
The existing Inner and Outer Harbors sediments have been
characterized as heavily polluted by EPA criteria and as
such manifest certain physical and chemical traits. Burdick
(1976) has classified sediments into three broad categories
based on physical and chemical characteristics (Table 5-14) .
These categories are arranged in a progression toward
stabilization from an unstable, unconsolidated, anaerobic
sediment to a relatively stable, well consolidated, and
aerobic sediment. The existing lower reach CSSA sediments
are characteristic of the phase I classification. The
5-45
-------
TABLE 5-14
SEDIMENT CLASSIFICATIONS
I. Period of intensive fermentation. Fermentation may be so
vigorous as to occasion the escape of large portions of the
sediment into the supernatent water.
A. Physical manifestations.
1. Effervescent fermentation and rapid evolution of gases
(CO, and CH.).
2. Unstable equilibrium, internal agitation, and flotation
of solids.
3. Release of hydrogen sulfide and similar putrefactive
odors.
B. Biochemical manifestations.
1. Lowered pH values, production of organic acids, and
reduction of nitrates, sulfates, and the like.
2. Presence of a large active bacterial population.
Uniformly high gelatin (20 C) counts and rapid decrease
in coliform organisms.
3. Rapid reduction in BOD of organic solids.
4. Uniformly high benthal oxygen demand with frequent
surcharges due to the release of readily oxidized
interior fluids and the ebullition of gases.
II. Period of gradual consolidation. Consolidation may control
the rate of transport of oxidizable materials to the sludge
water interface.
A. Physical manifestations.
1. Marked retardation of gas production.
2. Slow but persistent subsidence of the sediment with
accompanying increase in sludge density.
3. Creation of a definite surface zone, gray in color,
into which materials originating in the anaerobic
interior of the deposit escape and in which they
are subjected to aerobic stabilization.
B. Biochemical manifestations. •
1. Recovery of pH values to magnitudes obtaining in the
supernatent water. Release of ammonia and soluble
nitrogenous compounds to this water.
2. Development of an active, varied protozoan population
and gradual evolution of a specialized bacterial
population that is capable of oxidizing a widely
diversified number of compounds including ammonia
and nitrites.
3. Slow, but measurable decrease in BOD of organic solids.
4. Continuance of a relatively high rate of benthal
oxygen demand.
III. Period of quiescent stabilization.
A. Physical manifestations.
1. Cessation of consolidation.
2. Gradual expansion of the light-colored surface zone.
Deposition of ferric iron as a brownish red surface
film that is sometimes slick and glistening. This
film may be relatively impervious and retard or
prolong subsequent benthal oxidation.
3. Blackening of lower layers and acquisition of a
distinctive tarry odor.
B. Biochemical manifestations.
1. Gradual decrease in bacterial population and activity.
Establishment of higher forms of life, including worms
and insect larvae, upon and within the deposit. The
burrowing operation of these larger organisms may
honeycomb the sediment and increase diffusion processes
from and to the interior.
2. Nearly sustained values for the BOD of the organic
solids indicative of the exhaustion of anaerobic
decomposition.
3. Reduced but still measurable oxygen demand.
Source: Burdick, 1976.
5-46
-------
impact of each of the abatement alternatives on sediment
water interactions will be based upon how the alternative
effects sediment stabilization as outlined in Table'5-14.
The three sediment quality categories (solids, organic
pollutants, and inorganic pollutants) will form the basis of
alternative comparisons. The sediment-water interaction
discussion will be limited to the Inner Harbor because that
is where the sediments are most likely to affect water
quality conditions.
1. Solids Loading — Reducing the settleable solids load
to the sediment could reduce the frequency of maintenance
dredging in the Inner Harbor. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
has removed 614,600 yd3 of sediment from the Inner Harbor
over the last ten years (period 1968 to 1978 U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers records). This dredging has been necessary
to maintain commercial shipping channels. The short-term
and long-term negative impacts of dredging will be discussed
under Instream Measures. The Complete Sewer Separation and
Inline Storage alternatives would result in a 2% greater
improvement in settleable solids reduction compared to
the No Action alternative. An approximate 20% reduction
in settleable solids (primarily street runoff) beyond No
Action is predicted with Modified CST/Inline Storage and
Modified Total Storage. The Modified CST/Inline Storage and
Modified Total Storage alternatives would reduce settleable
solids approximately 37% below existing loads. This is 227,400 yd3
of dredged material based on the ten year dredge maintenance
record. The U.S. Army corps of Engineers charges a dredging
and disposal fee of $3.73/yd3 for dredged material deposited
in the Fisherman's park disposal site in Milwaukee (MMSD,
CSO Appendix 6F, 1980) .
2. Organic Pollutant Loadings — The Inner Harbor sediments
have been characterized as organically polluted. Organically
"overloading" a sediment can result in high SOD values,
anaerobic activity (which produces many chemically-reduced
substances such as hydrogen sulfide), and an unstable equilibrium
between the sediment and water column. (Table 5-14). Anaerobic
activity within the sediments can also produce methane gas
which causes internal agitation and solids resuspension.
All four CSO abatement alternatives reduce the sediment's
organic load to within the range of oxidative assimulation
which is estimated at 25 to 33% of the existing organic
load (based on annual SOD rates, assuming temperature is the
controlling factor). This may allow the sediments to change
from intense anaerobic activity to gradual consolidation, or
phase I to phase II in Table 5-14. What effect this x\rill
have on SOD cannot be accurately predicted. A sediment in
gradual consolidation can continue to exert a relatively
5-47
-------
high sedinient oxygen demand. This SOD has a direct, long-
term effect on water column dissolved oxygen which is most
pronounced during low flow conditions. Table 5-15 illustrates
the effect of SOD on DO for the Milwaukee River. These data
show that a decrease in SOD or an increase in river velocity
reduces the impact of SOD on water column DO. The estimated
St. Paul Avenue DO for the existing SOD value quite closely
fits measured low flow, dry weather DO data (Meinholz et. al
1979b). Under the previously defined low flow river conditions,
the existing SOD can account for 72% of the reduction in DO.
at St. Paul Avenue. The existing sediment SOD, when expressed
in the overlying water column, can play a dominant role in
the Inner Harbor aquatic system oxygen budget.
Milwaukee River sediments upstream of the CSSA express a SOD
approximately 56% lower than sediments within the CSSA.
Upstream sediment COD concentrations are about 10% of CSSA
sediment COD concentration. Existing upstream COD con-
centrations are within the range predicted for the Inner
Harbor sediments after CSO abatement measures are in effect.
Based on this comparison, decreasing the organic pollutant
loadings to the Inner Harbor sediment through the implementation
of any of the four abatement alternatives could result in
summer SOD rates on the order of 2 to 3 mg C>2/m2d (if the
existing sediment organic loadings are assimilated). As
illustrated in Table 5-15, this lower SOD should result in
fewer DO violations in the Milwaukee River during low flow
periods.
3. Sediment Scour and Water Quality — River sediments can
also exert increased oxygen demands on the water column when
scoured. This phenomenon is related to the release of
reduced chemical substances which quickly react with oxygen,
which is available from the water column. Meinholz et al.
(1979b) have identified sediment scour at CSO discharges as
the primary cause of extended DO depletions following storm
events. The CSO abatement alternatives directly affect the
incidence of scour of the bottom sediment. All CSO abatement
alternatives would continue to discharge storm water from
11% of the CSSA. These outfalls would discharge to the free
flowing section of the Milwaukee River at Capitol Drive, to
Lincoln Creek, and to the Kinnickinnic River. The effect of
these scour events on the Inner Harbor DO is negligible.
Lincoln Creek discharges into the free-flowing section of
the Milwaukee River and is assumed to be readily assimilated.
The Kinnickinnic River contributes only about 3% of the
total load to the Inner Harbor (Bannerman, 1979).
The Complete Sewer Separation alternative would continue to
use the existing CSO conveyance system for storm water. Not
only would scouring within the Inner Harbor continue, but it
5-48
-------
mABLE 5-15
SEDIMENT OXYGEN DEMAND AND DISSOLVED OXYGEN
RELATIONSHIPS FOR THE MILWAUKEE RIVER
UNDER LOW FLOW CONDITIONS
SOD
(g 0
5.2 (existing)
5.2 (existing)
4.0 (projected)
4.0 (projected)
2.3 (projected)
2.3 (projected)
River Flow
DO Loss, %
North Avenue Dam
Estimated DO
@ St. Paul
(m /s)
2.8
11.3
2.8
11.3
2.8
11.3
to St. Paul Street
72
18
55
14
32
8
(mg/1)
1.9
5.7
3.2
6.0
4.8
6.5
Assumptions: Distance, North Avenue Dam to St. Paul Street.
Incoming DO = 7 mg/1. Mean cross sectional
area 325 m , mean depth 4.8 m, mean sediment
area 2.35 x 10 m . No lake inflow.
Source: ESEI, 1980.
5-49
-------
would occur more frequently than under existing CSC conditions.
The existing CSO system conveys approximately 700 million
gallons of storm water annually to the existing wastewater
treatment facilities. However, under the Complete Sewer
Separation alternative, storm sewers would convey all runoff
to the receiving water. This increased frequency of dis-
charge would not necessarily result in a proportional increase
in DO violations because the impact of DO depletions from
back-to-back rain events is generally less severe for the
second event (Meinholz et al. 1979b).
The Inline Storage alternative assumes that street runoff
from 89% of the CSSA and all storm water in 11% of the CSSA
will be discharged to the rivers. The deleterious effects
of these discharges related to scour would result in DO
violations at essentially the same frequency as with the
Complete Sewer Separation alternative.
The Modified CST/Inline Storage alternative eliminates storm
water runoff from 68% of the CSSA. Storm water discharges
from the remaining 32% of the CSSA would be to Lincoln Creek,
to the free flowing section of the Milwaukee River, and to
the Kinnickinnic River. The Modified Total Storage alternative
has storm discharges from the 11% CSSA only. Scour related
DO violations would be substantially reduced by the Modified
CST/Inline Storage and Modified Total Storage alternatives.
4. Inorganic Pollutants — One consequence of sediment
stabilization is the reduced release of soluble nitrogenous
and phosphorus compounds and metals. The release of these
inorganic constituents is controlled by diffusion and advection
at the sediment-water interface. As consolidation proceeds,
a thin, oxidized layer is formed at the sediment surface. This
layer ultimately controls all transport rates between the
undisturbed sediment and the water column. Although the
extent and rate of stabilization cannot be predicted for the
various alternatives, any alternative which allows the
sediment to form an undisturbed oxidized layer would release
fewer soluble constituents than an alternative which would
not. Complete Sewer Separation and Inline Storage would
cause greater adverse water quality impacts because they
would cause sediment scour to continue near CSO outfalls and
disrupt the sediment surface. The extent and impact of this
scour from existing outfalls upon the Inner Harbor would
be substantial, both in terms of DO depletions and sediment
stabilization.
5. Instream Measures — The adverse water quality impacts
of the Complete Sewer Separation and Inline Storage alternatives
have been related to sediment scour which results in river DO
depletions. Three instream measures will be evaluated in
this analysis as additional abatement measures in conjunction
5-50
-------
with the Complete Sewer Separation and Inline Storage abatement
alternatives. The three instream measures addressed are
flow augmentation, aeration, and dredging. The MMSD has
evaluated these instream alternatives as a means to mitigate
the impacts of CSOs on the river (CSO Facility Plan Appendix
6F). Their conclusions have been briefly discussed in
Chapter 4 of this appendix. Instream measures without CSO
abatement are not acceptable in terms of the Dane County
Court Stipulation. However, the data developed by the MMSD
in the CSO Facility Plan Appendix 6F will be used in this
analysis of instream measures with CSO abatement.
Flow Augmentation and Diffusion - Flow augmentation is
accomplished by adding a volume of water to the existing
rivers to increase flow. The Milwaukee River and Kinnickinnic
River flushing tunnels are used for this purpose. The
primary benefits of this process are the elimination of
objectionable odors and the removal of floating debris.
River flushing can reduce the duration of DO depletions
following storm events by increasing river velocity in the
Milwaukee and Kinnickinnc Rivers, but it will not prevent DO
violations or eliminate sediment scour. The existing river
flushing system does not affect the Menomonee River which,
on a mean annual basis, accounts for 17% of the flow of the
combined rivers (Bannerman 1979). Given these limitations,
flow augmentation by river flushing can provide only partial
improvement of scour related DO depletions.
Flow diffusion is the modification of the existing submerged
combined sewer overflow outfalls to diffuse the force of
these flows to below the critical scour velocity. Meinholz
et al. (1979b) have defined the sediment scour velocity range
as between 0.01 and 0.1 feet/second. In the same study, the
outfall velocity at the St. Paul Avenue CSO discharge was
measured at 12 feet per second 30 feet downstream of the
outfall. Existing outfall velocities would have to be reduced
by two to three orders of magnitude to fall below the calculated
sediment scour velocity. The diffusion apparatus necessary to
accomplish this reduction could require a large space in the
river bed and pose a hazard to commercial shipping. Further
study of diffusion technology would be necessary to determine
if diffusion methods could be applied to the Inner Harbor CSO
discharges to abate the effects of CSO discharges.
Aeration - Aeration is the transfer of the air or oxygen to
water by mechanical means. The MMSD determined that 22
low speed mechanical aerators at twenty-five horsepower each
would be required to compensate for the mean summer undisturbed -
SOD expressed in the Inner Harbor. Disturbed sediment
oxygen demands are 100 to 1000 times as high as undisturbed
SODs (Meinholz et al. 1979b). The area affected by sediment
5-51
-------
scour in the vicinity of a CSO outfall has not been defined.
The previously cited CSO velocity measurement of 12 feet per
second at St. Paul Avenue was taken 30 feet downstream of
the outfall and 1 foot above the sediment. Given these date,
a conservative estimate of sediment subject to scour is 10% of
the total sediment area. The resultant oxygen demand within
the entire Inner Harbor would be approximately 10 times the
undisturbed SOD and would require 220 mechanical aerators
at twenty-five horsepower each to compensate for the oxygen
loss. This large number of aerators would pose navigational
problems in the Inner Harbor. It is unlikely that mechanical
aeration could compensate for DO depletions caused by the
high immediate oxygen demand of scoured sediment without
disrupting the commercial use of the Inner Harbor.
Dredging - Sediment removal through dredging would effectively
eliminate the problems associated with sediment scour on a
temporary basis. However, as previously discussed, dredging
can cause short-term water quality deterioration (Brannon
et al. 1978; Neal et al. 1977).
The severity of the short term impacts are dependent upon
the particle size distribution of the sediments and the type
of dredging equipment used. Most of the polluted Inner
Harbor sediments are fine-grained silt and clays which are
easily resuspended (CSO Facility Plan, Appendix 6F). Dredging
operations to remove these sediments can cause short-term
increases in turbidity, ammonia-nitrogen, iron, and manganese
release and DO depletions. Sediment removal methods which
employ mechanical clamshell equipment are more likely to resuspend
fine-grained sediments than hydraulic cutterhead or suction
auger equipment,
The MKSD has estimated that 784,000 yd3 of highly polluted
sediment material must be removed before the hard packed
clay river bottoms are reached (CSO Facility Plan, App 6F).
This is 128% of the dredged material removed from the Milwaukee,
Menomonee and Kinnickinnic Rivers between 1968 and 1978
(U.S. Army Corps of Engineers records). The dredged material
has been placed in a containment area located at Jones
Island called Fisherman's Park. This facility is bounded by
three impervious rubble mound retaining walls. A sand
filter, located in the north wall, removes suspended material
from displaced interpore water. Water quality studies of
the area indicate that water discharging from the facility
does not adversely affect Outer Harbor water quality (CSO
Facility Plan, App. (6F) . This facility has a capacity of
1.6 million yd3. it is estimated it will be filled in 5-10
years with sediment dredged from the Inner Harbor. Other
disposal sites must be chosen if dredging as an instream measure
is to be possible. Because of the highly polluted nature of the
5-52
-------
Inner Harbor sediments, open lake disposal, island formation,
and landfill methods are likely to have a negative impact on
the environment. The dredge containment area has been shown
to be an effective method for dredge material disposal but
it requires reclaiming lake area. A resolution of these
problems is necessary before dredging can be implemented as
an instream measure.
Resedimentation, the rate of sediment buildup, is another
important factor in determining the effectiveness of dredging
as an instream measure. The average sediment depth for the
three reaches of the Inner Harbor range from 1.17 to 2.18
ft. The average sediment loading rate was estimated at
0.12 ft/yr. for the Complete Sewer Separation and Inline
Storage alternatives based on annual settleable solids
loads given in Table 5-8. These settleable solids will
be much lower in organic pollutants but they will still
be classified as highly polluted by EPA guidelines in terms
of metals concentrations. The effect of scour on these
less-organically polluted sediments is unknown.
The result of this analysis is that dredging would be the
most effective instream measure to control sediment scour-
induced oxygen depletions which would occur during storm
water discharges under the Complete Sewer Separation and
Inline Storage CSO abatement alternatives.
Removal of the present Inner Harbor sediments under the
Modified CST/Inline Storage and Modified Total Storage
alternatives would lower the present dry weather SOD impact.
However, this SOD may also be reduced by sediment stabi-
lization once the organic overload is removed.
5.1.6 Sensitivity Analyses
To evaluate the sensitivity of the results to assumptions in
methodology and to address specific issues, six sensitivity
analyses were conducted. The analyses were conducted for
each CSO abatement alternative and consist of:
1. Jones Island WWTP Outfall Relocation Analysis; Pollutant
loadings, water quality,sediment loadings, and sediment
quality in the Outer Harbor if the Jones Island WWTP
outfall is relocated outside of the Outer Harbor.
2. Kinnickinnic River Analysis; Pollutant loadings, water
quality, sediment loadings, and sediment quality in the
Kinnickinnic River portion of the Inner Harbor, as the
extreme case where CSSA loadings are less diluted by
upstream flows.
5-53
-------
3. Seasonal Loading Analysis; Pollutant loadings to the
Inner Harbor only during the period of April through
October, when most CSO discharges are likely to occur.
4. Storm Event Water Quality Analysis; Water quality
concentrations in the Inner Harbor during a storm
event, when CSSA discharges are actively occurring.
5. Sedimentation Rate Analysis; Loadings to the bottom
sediments and sediment quality of the Inner Harbor
under different assumed sedimentation rates.
6. Particulate Pollutant Loading Analysis; Sediment load-
ing and sediment quality conditions in the Inner Harbor
under different assumed particulate loads.
The Jones Island WWTP outfall relocation analysis is presented
for all pollutants considered in this chapter. For the re-
maining sensitivity analyses, suspended solids, biochemical
oxygen demand, and lead are evaluated.
5.1.6.1 Jones Island WWTP Discharge Relocation Analysis
The purpose of this analysis is to evaluate the impact of
relocating the Jones Island WWTP discharge on water quality
and sediment quality conditions under CSO abatement alternatives,
The Jones Island WWTP presently discharges treated effluent
south of the Inner Harbor mouth into the central channel of
the Outer Harbor. The discharge is approximately 30% of the
total upstream river flow entering the Harbor. Inflow from
Lake Michigan was estimated to contribute to 75% of the
Outer Harbor hydraulic load. The discharge relocation point
was assumed to be 1 mile east of the Jones Island WWTP outside
of the Outer Harbor. All runoff, storm water assumptions, and
particulate and settleable portions used in the CSO abatement
alternative evaluations were used for the analysis. It was
also assumed that the loss of Jones Island WWTP discharge
flow to the Outer Harbor would result in a longer hydraulic
residence time.
The water quality conditions in the Outer Harbor if the Jones
Island WWTP discharge is relocated are presented in Table
5-16. The data are given for the nine pollutants evaluated
for each abatement alternative. The data listed under the
"Existing Location" column include the Jones Island WWTP
loads. The values given in the "Relocation" column have had
the Jones Island WWTP discharge load removed.
Suspended solids concentrations are similar for the Existing
Location and the Relocation options throughout the analysis
(Table 5-16). The Lake Michigan inflow concentrations (3
mg/1) and upstream settleable solids value (95%) are the
5-54
-------
0)
3
OS Q JJ
O W 3
0* *C
< ui U
0! 5 U
64 fl< S 05
EH O
3 EH 01 m
Z H 3
"" £] >J
EH EH < 0!
O 21 CQ EH EH
I O O
m 01 O
2 01 01 a
WO U EH I
rJ M 2 EH
a EH a 3
ft.
EnQ H Q O
2 fn 2
CJ Z J Q
2 Ol H
>H U M 01
EH EH EH
M hJ 0] 0
J < W O
< Z
D ca o
a u >-)
a
* z w
c~* E^
3 S.
hH
CT
C
•H
M
•H
X
ca
11
en
'O rl
tu q
UH 01
•rt
frO
JJ
O
f
"2-S
•H rH
•r) W
"H EH"
S 01
o
11
cr
CO
0
CO
S
'£
•"*
c
o
•rl
4J
fl
8
H
a:
C
C O
•rl -rl
01 CO
H 1.9
C
o
•H
JJ
rO
O
O
05
en S
•rl -H
M fl
•H O
X Q
U J
^i
01
3 C
01 0
01 -rl
4J
0) (0
JJ SH
rH a
Q, cy
S u]
o
c
o
JJ
CN O ^*
^
CO O CN
CN O ro
CO O O
CN O U1
^
en o co
CN o m
CO
co o en
CN o m
en o
rH O
0 0
0
U3 O
r-4 O
in
tr> o
rH O .
O 0
en
o
^0 O
rH 0
rH 0
0 0
en
0
in o
!-! O
ID
en o
rH O
o o
en
0
*r o
rH O
^
0 0
CN O
0 0
a»
o
in o
rH 0
rH O
CN O
O O
0
^O rH
in o
0 0
S
o
o
o
rH
O
0
d
^
o
o
o
o
rH
rH
O
O
o
o
o
0
o
rH
rH
O
o
o
O
O
O
O
rH
rH
O
O
d
CO
o
o
o
d
rH
O
O
d
CO
o
o
o
o
m
rH
0
o
o
rH
O
O
rH
O
d
rH
O
O
H
O
O
r-H
O
O
rH
0
o
^*
rH
0
d
rH
O
d
in
rH
O
O
p-
rH
0
d
r-l
O
O
en
rH
O
o
r-l
O
O
CN
CN
O
o
rH
0
O
CN
CN
O
O
rH
O
0
CN
CN
O
O
in
rH
O
O
CN
CN
O
O
[^
rH
O
O
•a*
o
d
CO
H
0
O
r-
CN
o
d
o
r-l
o
rH
O
rH
O
rH
O
rH
O
rH
O
rH
O
rH
0
n
o
en
in
o
^o
0
o
ed Solids
)
01 —
3
01
hosphorus
)
S- rH
X.
r-l -fl
S £
0
EH
CTI
rO
0
Biochem
"X
JJ
rH
D
TJ
Deman
c
0)
JJ
z
Ammonia
(rag/1
T3 S
fl —
.3
H D1
-------
controlling factors. Relocating the WWTP discharge does not
influence the impact of the CSO abatement alternatives on Outer
Harbor suspended solids concentration because Lake Michigan
inflow dilutes the suspended solids loading to the point
that there-is no discernable difference in predicted average
annual suspended solids concentrations in the Outer Harbor.
The total phosphorus concentrations would be approximately
50% lower after relocating the WWTP discharge. The resultant
0.03 mg/1 to 0.04 mg/1 concentration would still be 4 to
6 fold higher than ambient Lake Michigan total phosphorus
concentrations.
WWTP discharge relocation would lower the BODU concentrations
approximately 40% for all abatement alternatives. The
Complete Sewer Separation and Inline Storage alternatives
reduce BODU concentrations 17% below the Existing level with
the WWTP discharge inside the Outer Harbor. Relocating the
discharge results in a 21% reduction of BODU. The Modified
GST/Inline Storage and Modified Total Storage alternatives
give a 20% BODU reduction if Jones Island WWTP discharges to
the Outer Harbor and a 26% reduction after relocation. In
both evaluations, the storage alternatives (Modified
CST/Inline Storage and Modified Total Storage) are 3-5% more
effective in removing BODu than the Complete Sewer Separation
or Inline Storage alternatives (Figure 5-8).
Ammonia-nitrogen concentrations in the Outer Harbor are
increased approximately three fold above existing conditions
for all future alternatives when WWTP effluent is sent to
the Outer Harbor. Relocating the discharge results in a 10%
decrease in Outer Harbor ammonia-nitrogen concentrations
from existing conditions under any of the future abatement
alternatives.
The effect of the Modified Total Storage alternative on
Outer Harbor lead, cadmium, and zinc concentrations is a
reduction of 19 to 30% below existing concentrations when
the WWTP discharges to the Outer Harbor. These reductions
are increased to 25% to 33% when the discharge is relocated.
The other abatement alternatives have comparable lead,
cadmium, and zinc reductions whether or not the WWTP dis-
charges to the Outer Harbor. Modified Total Storage reduces
the lead, cadmium, and zinc'concentrations to approximately
the same level under either discharge location alternative.
Fecal coliform are reduced from approximately 600 counts/
100 ml under Existing conditions to 10 counts/100 ml for all
abatement alternatives. Assuming the continued reliable
operation of the Jones Island WWTP effluent chlorination
5-56
-------
Complotc
Sewer
Separation
Modified
CST/
Modified
Total
Storage
In 1 me
Storage
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
(MG/1)
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
(MG/1)
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(MG/1)
AMMONIA
NITROGEN
(MG/1)
LEAD
(MG/1)
CADMIUM
(MG/1)
0.001
0.0005
COPPER
(MG/1)
ZINC
(MG/1)
WWTP OUTFALL
EXISTING LOCATION
RELOCATION
^ECAL
:OLIFORM
(MFFCC/100 ML)
CURE
igure 5-8
HE
tetober
9BO
WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS IN THE OUTER HAREOR IF
THE JONES ISLAND WWTP OUTFALL IS RELOCATED
OUTSIDE OF THE OUTER HARBOR
SOURCE ESEI
PREPARED BY
EcolSciences
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
-------
process, the location of the WWTP discharge will not impact
Outer Harbor fecal coliforiu concentrations nor would it
impact CSO abatement alternative selection.
The effect of relocating the Jones Island WWTP discharge
upon the analysis of CSO abatement alternatives was eva-
luated for sediment loadings and quality (pollutant concen-
trations) . These data are summarized in Table 5-17.
The WWTP presently discharges approximately 12 x 10^ pounds
of settleable solids annually to the Outer Harbor. This
is approximately 31% of the estimated total settleable
solids load in the Outer Harbor. The No Action alternative
would reduce the Outer Harbor load by 20% if Jones Island
WWTP continued discharging to the Outer Harbor and 25% if
the discharge was relocated. The Complete Sewer Separation
and Inline Storage alternatives reduce sediment settleable
solid loads less than 2% beyond No Action whether or not the
discharge is relocated (Figure 5-9). The Modified CST/Inline
Storage and Modified Total Storage show no additional re-
duction beyond No Action when the WWTP discharges to the Outer
Harbor. Relocating the discharge would produce a 5-10%
decrease in settleable solids loads beyond No Action (Figure
5-9) .
Existing total phosphorus loads are reduced 19% by the No Action
alternative if the WWTP discharge would remain at its exist-
ing location and 29% if the discharge were relocated. Total
phosphorus load reductions attributable to the CSO abatement
alternatives beyond No Action are 5-7% with the discharge in
the Outer Harbor and 9-15% when the discharge is removed.
Modified CST/Inline Storage and Modified Total Storage remove
more total phosphorus for either WWTP discharge location. Total
phosphorus concentrations remain at approximately 2000 mg/kg
when the WWTP discharge is in the Outer Harbor and 1590
mg/kg after the WWTP load is removed. The concentrations are
approximately the same for all abatement alternatives and
lie within the range of heavily polluted sediments based
on U.S. EPA sediment quality guidelines.
The V7WTP contributes an estimated 4.28 x 106 pounds of BODU
to the Outer Harbor sediments annually. This results in
essentially no BODU load reduction beyond the No Action
alternative. Removing the Jones Island WWTP load and re-
moving CSO loads from the Outer Harbor sediments produces a
reduction of 56 to 61% beyond the No Action alternative for
the abatement programs. CSO abatement would result in BODu
concentrations of about 138,000 mg/kg with the WWTP discharge
load and approximately 22,000 mg/kg if the WWTP discharge
is relocated. This corresponds to an U.S. EPA sediment
quality classification change from highly polluted to non-
polluted. The maximum range in BODU concentration among the
CSO abatement alternatives is from 22,000 mg/kg for Complete
Sewer Separation to 21,100 mg/kg for Modified Total Storage.
5-58
-------
18
S
O
•H
IH
C
<1) 01
0 C
C -rl
o -u
U 01
• rH
X
u
01
TJ
I 0,
c
•H
.U
01
•rl
X
u
c
o
4J
18
o
o
rH
0)
OS
1
1
c
o
•H
4J
18
O
5
C
o
4J
IB
O
o
0)
s
o
•H
4J
18
O
*4
t
1
CO
0
CN
rH
rH
m
O
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
O! C
c o
•H -H
01 C
c o
•rl -H
4J -U
01 (0
•H O
o
Ov
o
o
m
o
o
o
o
o
o
01
iB
C
0
-H
JJ
18
JJ
C
4) O!
O C
C -H
o -u
CJ 01
rH
X
a
01
18
S 01
c
•H
01
H
X
U
c
o
•-H
4J
0
O
0)
K
I
I
C
O
jj
«
O
J
C
O
•u
u
o
OJ
a:
I
1
OT
P^*
CN
c
o
H
•3
0
3
r-
CO
o
a\
o
8
o
leable
.u
1>
in
01
3
, a
rH O
0 -H
Ul —
rH
.g
0
phorus
JT
0
Cu
pounds
n
O
^
hemical
o
o
a
en Demai
timdte
:r rH,
>i ID
O 1
pounds
J3
O
H
T
•o
1)
pounds
i
rH
§
3-
T3
O
pounds
n
O
—1
r0
•H r-i
N ^
-------
z
0
E" U
O Q
-J <
bl J
ll
U
2£
Q M
3 Cd CX
13 EH
Z fa Z
£ Cd 1
Z M
O Cu Q
U EH Cd
""""' =
OS
C/) K
tfl CO M
£•* Z 3
T
Cd Cd
5 D
Cu 3
° M
EH Z
Cd Cd
Cu X
<*. EH
Cd
Z
Cd O
g
G
0
"c *
o o
4J rH
IB 01
V«J Pt
0
0
t VO
1
r^
M fi
d 01 en c
8 u c o
CC G 'H -rl
SO 4-* *•>
U 01 18
Ul -HO
X Q
J Cd .3
O C
EH 0
a j->
Cd >B
E 0
a 01
O CO
in CN
rH
CN
O CO ^*
o r- r-4
O CN
r-
H
r- m
CN \£) ^T
o' in o*
CO
S 0
rl X ^
03 O 1 —
^3 Q
•3 -1
0 -~
•n
•o
an
A 0
0 r-t
u —
5-GO
-------
Q
O
W
2
O
w
g;
W
W
O
u
o
EH
C/)
W
2
H
iJ
2
H
W
z
H
I-H
2
M
EH
CO
O
Q
W
H
P4
H
Q
8
w
o
EH
in
Q
W
H
fc
H
Q
i
w
w
w
ul
O
tc
O
tn
u
C
•H
N
8
m
u
•o
H)
0)
Q
O
CD
cn
M I 3
(d tn M
-POO
O J2 f.
4J 0) -H
4J rH r-\
OJ X) O
W (0 U)
w
EH
w
2
EH
2
Q
W
2
o
H
EH
U
O
2
t.
O
EH
2
W
PL,
o
o
o
c\
o
00
O
in
o
CN
O
I
in
SOVO1 NOIJ.OV ON
K
3
O
-------
The abatement alternatives would not substantially reduce lead
loadings to the Outer Harbor sediment beyond No Action loads
except for the Modified CST/Inline Storage and Modified
Total Storage alternatives (reductions of 23%) when the
Jones Island WWTP effluent loads were included in the Outer
Harbor. Relocating the WWTP discharge resulted in a de-
crease of approximately 40% beyond the No Action alternative
for all abatement alternatives. Outer Harbor cadmium loads
were within 5% of the No Action for all alternatives with
the Jones Island discharge loads (Figure 5-9). Cadmium
loads were reduced by the abatement alternatives by 12% to
26% beyond No Action after the WWTP effluent was removed. The
largest load reductions were attributed to the Modified
CST/Inline Storage and Modified Total Storage alternative
(18% and 26%, respectively). Sediment copper loadings were
similar for all future alternatives with the WWTP discharge
in the Outer Harbor. Relocating the discharge lowered the
existing copper load by 2.6 x 103 pounds per year and lowered
the No Action load by 2.3 x 10^ pounds per year. The CSO
abatement alternatives reduction over No Action was approxi-
mately 1.32 x 103 pounds per year to 1.73 x 1Q3 pounds per
year, or 12% to 16% reduction. As shown in Figure 5-9, zinc
loadings were reduced to 81 to 89% of the No Action load if
the WWTP discharge is at its existing location and to 66 to
83% of the No Action loads if the WWTP discharge is relocated.
The Outer Harbor sediment lead, copper, and zinc concentrations
were approximately the same for either WWTP discharge location.
Cadmium concentrations were approximately 50% lower for all
abatement alternatives. All metal concentrations remain in
the region of highly polluted sediment, based on U.S. EPA
sediment quality guidelines.
Relocating the Jones Island WWTP discharge outside the Outer
Harbor does not affect the predicted sediment quality of
the Outer Harbor with regard to the settleable solids,
phosphorus, BODU, lead,and zinc. Removing the WWTP discharge
loads to the sediment did reveal the impact of the abatement
alternative on sediment metal loadings. The metals cadmium
and copper, which showed 7% to 13% load reductions beyond No
Action in the presence of the WWTP effluent loads, showed
nearly double the reductions when the WWTP discharge was
removed. This is due to the magnitude of the Inner Harbor
loads to the Outer Harbor in comparison to the Jones Island
WWTP loads.
5.1.6.3 Kinnickinnic River Analysis
The previous analyses have considered the Inner Harbor in
its entirety. However, some stream reaches within the Inner
Harbor are affected by CSSA loadings by a relatively greater,
5-62
-------
or lesser, degree. For example, while 16% of the existing
total Inner Harbor load of suspended solids is from the
CSSA, the CSSA portion of suspended solids loads to the
Milwaukee, Menomonee, and Kinnickinnic Rivers are 12, 20,
and 32% respectively. Pollutant loadings, sediment
loadings, water quality, and sediment quality for suspended
solids, biochemical oxygen demand, and lead for the
Kinnickinnic River are presented below for each CSO abate-
ment alternative. Of the three major Inner Harbor rivers,
the Kinnickinnic River is influenced to the greatest degree
by CSSA pollutant loadings. This analysis does not include
the operation of the flushing tunnel in the Kinnickinnic
River.
Annual pollutant loading estimates to the Kinnickinnic
River, as shown in Table 5-18,indicate that under Existing
conditions, the CSSA contributes about 32, 78, and 49% of
the total loads of suspended solids, biochemical oxygen
demand, and lead, respectively. These relative contributions
represent a two to three times higher proportion of the
total load than the total Inner Harbor CSSA contributions
for suspended solids and biochemical oxygen demand, as shown
in Table 5-2 and about the same as the total Inner Harbor
CSSA proportion of lead.
Under the No Action alternative, Kinnickinnic River loads
would be reduced to 83, 94, and 87% of the Existing loads of
suspended solids, biochemical oxygen demand, and lead,
respectively. For the total Inner Harbor, these loads would
be reduced to 79, 82, and 88% of the Existing loads, res-
pectively. Under the remaining alternatives, the relative
reduction in suspended solids and lead are about the same as
for the entire Inner Harbor. However, for biochemical
oxygen demand, at least a 50% greater reduction is achieved
for the Kinnickinnic River than for the total Inner Harbor,
with the Kinnickinnic River reduction under Modified Total
Storage being 80% greater than for the Inner Harbor.
Average water quality conditions in the Kinnickinnic River
are presented in Table 5-19. These predicted concentrations
do not include pollutants resuspended into the water column
by scouring or turbulence. Pollutant concentrations in the
Kinnickinnic River are substantially higher than in the
total Inner Harbor, as shown in Figure 5-10. The Kinnickinnic
River suspended solids concentrations show more variation
than the total Inner Harbor concentrations and actually
increase as storm water storage increases. This occurs
because, although loads of suspended solids would decrease,
water flows would decrease to an even greater extent,
resulting in higher concentrations. The CSSA suspended
solids loads are more likely to be deposited into the bottom
5-63
-------
Modified
CST/
Inline
Modified
Total
Storaae
Complete
Sewer
Seraration
Inline
Storaae
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
(MG/D
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND-ULT.
(MG/1)
LEAD
(MG/1)
LEGEND
KINNICKINNIC RIVER
PORTION OF INNER HARBOR
TOTAL INNER HARBOR
FIGURE
'igure 5-10
DATE
November
1980
COMPARISON OF PREDICTED WATER QUALITY
CONDITIONS IN THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER TO THE
TOTAL IMNER HARBOR
SOURCE
p..qp.T
PREPARED BY
HflEcolSciences
±iaU ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
-------
COMPLETE SEWER SEPARATION
C CSSA
Parameter
Water,
(1CT gallons)
Suspended Solids
(10b pounds)
Biochemical
Oxygen Demand-uit.
(10b pounds)
Lead ..
(10 pounds)
% Q Of % Of No
Load ExJOxisting Action
Total
% Of % Of No
Load Existing Action
L412 -n
3.60 ~91
1.63 -28
6.98 --12
113
91
28
113
4295
8.94
0.81
13.18
104
80
39
93
104
97
41
107
-------
INN1C RIVER
I CST/IN-LINE
Total
Load
3450
% Of % Of No
Existing Action
83
84
Load
172
MODIFIED TOTAL STORAGE
CSSA
% Of % Of No
Existing Action
12
12
Total
Load
2901
% Of % Of No
Existing Action
70
70
7.73
69
84
0.36 10
10
6.04 54
65
0.64 31
32
0.05
0.40 19
20
10.64 75
87
0.86 12
12
6.21 44
51
-------
sediments than are loads from upstream sources. In the
Kinnickinnic River, following the abatement of CSOs and
the deposition of CSSA solids, the remaining suspended
solids concentration is actually lower than the solids
concentration from upstream sources. Hence, based on
this analysis, the upstream suspended solids concentration
in the Kinnickinnic River can be "diluted" by storm runoff.
The Kinnickinnic River has suspended solids concentrations
which are 3 to 4 times higher than total Inner Harbor
concentrations; biochemical oxygen demand concentrations
which are 1.3 to 2 times higher; and lead concentrations
which are about 8 to 13 times higher. Greatest water quality
improvement occurs under the Modified Total Storage alter-
native, except for suspended solids. The Kinnickinnic River does
not show substantial differences in water quality conditions
between Modified CST/Inline Storage alternative and the
Inline Storage alternative because the Kinnickinnic River
subareas would remain partially separated under the Modified
CST/Inline Storage alternative.
Applicable water quality standards have not been established
for suspended solids or biochemical oxygen demand. The
estimated lead concentrations under all alternatives are
well within EPA's water quality criteria for lead.
Pollutant loadings to the Kinnickinnic River bottom sediment
are shown in Table 5-20. The relative reductions in lead
and suspended solids under the CSO abatement alternatives
are similar to the total Inner Harbor reductions shown in
Table 5-8, except that under the Modified CST/Inline Storage
alternative, the reductions are less in the Kinnickinnic
River because most of the Kinnickinnic River watershed
would remain partially separated. As a result of CSO abatement,
loads of biochemical oxygen demand to the Kinnickinnic River
bottom sediments are reduced to substantially greater degree
than are loads to the total Inner Harbor bottom sediments.
Concentrations of biochemical oxygen demand and lead within
the Kinnickinnic River bottom sediments are set forth in
Table 5-21. Under Existing conditions and the No Action
alternative, the concentrations of biochemical oxygen demand
are more than 50% higher in the Kinnickinnic River sediments
compared to the total Inner Harbor sediments shown in Table
5-11 because the Kinnickinnic River sediments are affected
by CSO organic loads to a greater degree. However, under
the remaining alternatives, the concentration of biochemical
oxygen demand is lower in the Kinnickinnic River because,
compared to upstream loadings, urban storm runoff pollutants
contain a relatively small concentration of organic sub-
5-67
-------
•a
i
m
CQ
EH
CO
O
H
EH
S O
EH pq
w <
o &
u w
S H
<
EH ft
D W
^ >
J H
O «
CM
U
W H
O 2
W «
> O
< M
2
Q 2
W H
EH W
U
H
Q
W
OS
CM
•H en
<4H rH (t!
•H <0 M
13 -P 0
O O -P'
S EH CO
0)
C
13 -rl
QJ rH
•H C
UH H
•H \
^ EH
O CO
a u
0) tn
C cO
•H iH
rH 0
fi -P
H CO
CU
CO C!
O
0) -H
-U -P
(1) (0
*™H r"4
d> fC
E Cij
0 0)
CJ CO
G
O
•H
-P
O
<
O
2
Cn
G
•H
4J
w
X
w
in CN
• »
ro in
00 rH
rH in
• •
VO CTi
t — ' 1 — 1
CT^ ro
• •
CN rH
r^ CN
in in
• •
"31 CTi
i-^
•H X rH
rH O \
o en
CO rH g
(C -'
^1
Q)
-p
0)
e
<^
tO
CM
T3 O
-------
COMPLETE SEWER SEPARATION
CSJCSSA Total
% Of Of % Of No % Of % Of NO
Parameter Load Exisfristing Action Load Existing Action
Settleable Solids 3.21 — a 91 6.62 81 96
(10 pounds)
Biochemical
Oxygen Demand -Ult, 0.998 — 9 9 0.110 11 10
(10 pounds)
Lead 3 4.77 -- 13 103 7.30 93 102
(10 pounds)
-------
1IMENTS
CST/IN-LINE MODIFIED TOTAL STORAGE
Total CSSA Total
% Of % Of No % Of % Of No % Of % Of No
Load Existing Action Load Existing Action Load Existing Action
5.54 68 80 0.324 1Q 10 4,01 49 58
0.078 8 7 0.009 1 1 0,032 3 2
5.70 73 80 0.50 11 11 2.91 37 41
-------
-------
CU
•H
m
•rH
13 -P
O O 4J
a EH cn
O
00
O
ro
•H G
M-l H
•H \
13 EH
0 cn
S U
o
o
o
O
n
o
0)
CN
in
w
J
m
«
cn w
2 >
O H
H «
EH
rf U
K H
EH 2
2 2
W H
U «
2 U
0 H
U 2
"7
<-*
EH H
2 «
W
S W
H K
Q EH
W
cn 2
H
^^
-P
£
Oi
•H
CU
J2
>
S-l
C
)Tk
Ui
,X
\
Cn
e
CU
-p
CU
rH
Qj
g
O
CJ
•H M
rH 0
C -P
H cn
G
o
•rH
4-1
03
M ^H
CU 03
S a
CU CU
cn cn
c
o
•rH
4J
O
<
O
2
O
O
O
o
o
o
o
O
O
o
00
o
ro
o
o
o
o
tN
H
03
M
CU
4J
CU
g
n3
SH
03
PJ
O
•H
g
CU
X!
O
0
•H
ffl
13
C
03
g
CU
Q
G
CU
Cn
>)
X
0
,*_»
Cn
,X
\
Cn
g
cn
03
CU
W
cn
cu
o
M
3
O
5-71
-------
stances. Because the Existing and No Action biochemical
oxygen demand concentrations in the Kinnickinnic River are
higher than in the Inner Harbor, and the remaining alternative
estimates are lower, the reduction in biochemical oxygen
demand concentrations resulting from CSO abatement is higher
for the Kinnickinnic River; the estimated reduction is from
87 to 94% in the Kinnickinnic River compared to 71 to 74% in
the total Inner Harbor.
The concentrations of lead in the Kinnickinnic River bottom
sediments under all alternative conditions are 2 to 3 times
higher than the concentrations in the total Inner Harbor
shown in Table 5-11. The lead concentrations in the
Kinnickinnic River are expected to be higher than Existing
under all alternatives except Modified Total Storage because
upstream loads of solids (which "dilute" the lead concentrations)
would be reduced and because street runoff contains higher
concentrations of lead than does combined sewer overflows.
Similar to the Inner Harbor, the sediment concentration of
biochemical oxygen demand in the Kinnickinnic River would
be reduced from a heavily polluted classification to a non-
polluted classification, based on EPA sediment quality guide-
lines . Based on lead concentrations, the bottom sediments
of the Kinnickinnic River, as well as the total Inner Harbor,
would be classified as heavily polluted under all alternatives.
5.1.6.4 Seasonal Loading Analysis
Most combined sewer overflow discharges occur from April
through October. Seasonal Inner Harbor pollutant loadings
are estimated to quantify the impacts of CSSA discharges
during the period when they are most likely to occur, and
therefore provide a comparison to annual loadings. Although
the STORM model analyses indicate that some CSSA discharges
do occur from November through March as a result of snow-
melt and intense storm events on frozen ground, the total
annual CSSA loadings are used in this analysis to represent
a "worst case" situation. It is further assumed that all
precipitation occurs as rain and is thus more likely to
cause a combined sewer overflow than would snow which could
evaporate and melt slowly. Annual upstream loads were
reduced proportionate to the portion of the annual flows
which would occur from April through October, based on USGS
flow data for the Milwaukee River at Estabrook Park and the
Menomonee River at Wauwatosa. The Inner Harbor loadings of
water, suspended solids, biochemical oxygen demand, and lead
for April through October are set forth in Table 5-22.
5-72
-------
COMPLETE SEWER SEPARATION
Parameter
Water,
Load
5500
CSSrc;qa
% Of of
Exististing
— 1
% Of No
Action
113
Total
% Of
Load Existing
76,000 101
% Of No
Action
101
(10 gallons)
Suspended Solids
(10 pounds)
14.0
Biochemical
Oxygen Demand Ultimate6.3
(10b pounds)
Lead
27.2
~ 1
— 9
— 2
91
29
113
45.7
8.8
40.6
79
56
99
97
66
109
(10 pounds)
-------
d)
R HARBOR
BER
ED CST/IN-LINE
Total
to % Of % Of NO
n Load Existing Action
71,000 95
95
Load
709
MODIFIED TOTAL STORAGE
CSSA
% Of % Of No
Existing Action
13
13
Total
% Of % Of No
Load Existing Action
70,000 93
93
36.4
63
78
1.48 11
11
34.5
59
74
7.5
48
56
0.209
7.2
46
54
18.9
46
51
3.55 13
13
13.7
34
37
-------
For suspended solids and biochemical oxygen demand loadings,
CSSA loads during April through October represent about a
50% larger portion of the total Inner Harbor loads compared
to annual loadings, as shown in Figure 5-11. For lead, the
seasonal CSSA loadings comprise about a 20% larger portion
of the total Inner Harbor loads, except under the Modified
GST/Inline Storage and Modified Total Storage alternatives,
where the increase is from 40 to 50%.
The percent reductions in existing total Inner Harbor loads
under the Complete Sewer Separation and Inline Storage
alternatives are about the same for the seasonal loading
analysis as for the annual loading analysis. Under the
Modified CST/Inline Storage and Modified Total Storage
alternatives, the percent reductions in total Inner Harbor
loads would be about 5 to 20% greater for the seasonal
analysis compared to the annual analysis.
This seasonal analysis thus indicates that CSSA loads comprise
up to a 50% greater portion of the total Inner Harbor loads
compared to the annual loading analysis. The percent reduc-
tions in existing loads resulting from the CSO abatement
alternatives would be up to 20% greater than when annual
loads are considered.
5.1.6.5 Storm Event Water Quality Analysis
CSSA combined sewer and storm sewer discharges have the
greatest water quality impacts during storm events. The
following assumptions were made to evaluate water quality
conditions in the Inner Harbor during a storm event:
1. Assume a localized intense storm which affects the
CSSA, but not upstream flows.
2. The storm events have an average duration of 4 hours,
and there are 45 events per year (Meinholz et al.
1979a). Therefore, divide the annual CSSA flows and
loads by 45 to determine an average CSSA flow and load
per event. Multiply this flow and load by two to
represent a "worst case" situation.
3. Use mean annual upstream flows to determine the volume
of water discharged to the Inner Harbor from upstream
sources during a 4 hour period.
4. Use mean annual pollutant concentrations in upstream
flows.
5. Assume deposition of particulate pollutants during
the event is offset by resuspension of bottom sediments
caused by scouring and turbulence.
5-75
-------
Parameter
CSSA Load Percent of Total Inner Harbor Load
Existing
No Action
Com. Sewer
Separation
line
orage
orage
Seasonal
Seasonal
Seasonal
Seasonal
Seasonal
Seasonal
Suspended
Solids
Seasonal
Seasonal
Seasonal
Seasonal
Seasonal
Seasonal
Biochemical
Oxygen
Demand - ult.
Seasonal
Seasonal
Seasonal
Seasonal
Seasonal
Seasonal
Lead
LEGEND
Total Inner
Harbor Load
FIGURE
5-11
DATE
November
1980
^- SOURCE
Comparison of CSSA Portion of the Total Inner /MfifcAX
Harbor Pollutant Loads Under the Seasonal and (^C^£~M "^^RE
Annual Loading Analysis. V f/W*ffaM*J
. ESEI
0 BY
EcolSciences
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
-------
Estimated suspended solids, biochemical oxygen demand, and
lead concentrations in the Inner Harbor during a storm event
are shown in Table 5-23. Under Existing conditions, the
storm event concentrations are 2 to 5 times higher than the
average annual concentrations, as shown in Figure 5-12.
The water quality benefits of treating urban storm water are
emphasized during storm events. While the Modified Total
Storage alternative results in only a 26 to 48% reduction in
the Existing annual pollutant concentrations, it results in
a 62 to 78% reduction in the Existing storm event pollutant
concentrations. The storm event concentrations of suspended
solids, biochemical oxygen demand, and lead under the
Modified Total Storage alternative are only slightly higher
than the average annual concentrations. Hence, storm water
treatment results in substantially less variation in pol-
lutant concentrations due to storm events. This could
reduce the "shock load" effect of high pollutant concen-
trations on aquatic organisms. Concentrations of lead
exhibit the greatest reductions due to storm water treatment;
the lead concentration under the Modified Total Storage
Alternative is only 20% of the lead concentration under
Complete Sewer Separation.
As previously mentioned, water quality standards have not
been established for suspended solids or biochemical oxygen
demand. The estimated lead concentrations during a storm
event under all conditions are well within EPA's water
quality criteria for lead.
5.1.6.6 Sedimentation Rate Analysis
It was assumed that 65% of the upstream particulate polluted
loads and 90% of the CSSA particulate loads would be deposited
into the Inner Harbor bottom sediments. This sensitivity
analysis evaluates the impact of assuming that 65% of both
the upstream and CSSA particulate loads of suspended solids,
biochemical oxygen demand, and lead are deposited into the
bottom sediments. The effects of different sedimentation rate
assumptions are shown in Table 5-24 for sediment loading and
in Table 5-25 for sediment quality. The section -in the
Tables titled "I. Sedimentation Rate" shows the effects
under each CSO abatement alternative of assuming a 65%
sedimentation rate for both upstream and CSSA particulate
loads.
The sedimentation rate primarily affects pollutant loads to
the bottom sediments, as shown in Table 5-24. Biochemical
oxygen demand loads are reduced by nearly 50% compared to
the original assumed sedimentation rates. Lead loads to the
sediments are reduced by up to about 30% from the CSSA, and
about 10% for the total Inner Harbor. Settled solids loads
5-77
-------
CU <]J
•H cn
4-1 rH flj
•H It) SH
•O -P O
0 O -P
S EH Cn
H
CN
O
ID
CN
cu
c
•a -H
CU rH
•H c
T3 EH
o cn
S u
o
ro
in
*
CN
CO
CO
o
m
CN
I
in
W
m
2 EH
H 2
W
cn >
2 W
O
rtj O
EH cn
w <
u
O 2
U H
2 Q
<:
EH Pi
D O
J 03
J Oi
o <;
a «
w w
EH 2
CJ 2
H H
Q
CU
CU CT
G (C
•H M
rH O
C -P
H cn
cu
cu
cn c
o
CU -H
-P 4J
CU (0
g a-
o cu
cj cn
c
o
•H
-P
U
OQ
m
m
00
•
in
o
rH
O
CN
in
m
m
o
H
o
CO
cn
o
cn
m
in
cn
CN
oo
CN
cn
o
tn
t!
•H
H
0
cn
•a
cu —
CH N\
a) cn
a. g
tn •—
rj
cn
cu
Cn cu
>i -P
x a
o s
•H
H -P
IT! rH
0 D
•H T3
g G
CU (C
-C E
O CU
O Q
•iH
m
Cn
TS J2
(U
H
W
cn
w
QJ
O
O
cn
5-78
-------
COMPLETE SEWER SEPARATION
CCSSA
% OOf % Of NO
Parameter Load Exiasting Action
I. Sedimentation Rate
Settleable Solids
(10 pounds) 9.04 — ^ gl
BODUltimate
(10b pounds) 2.80 — g g
Lead ,
do" pounds) 13.4 — H 1Q5
II. Decreased Particulate Portion
Total
% Of
Load Existing
45.2 78
1.03 27
21.6 91
% Of No
Action
98
29
102
BOD
Ultimate
(10° pounds)
Lead
(10J pounds)
1.94
9.30
113
0.570 23
14.3 99
25
109
III. Increased Particulate Portioi
BOD
Ultimate
(10 pounds)
Lead
(10J pounds)
4.79
21.5
21
21
109
5.28 50
32.9 96
58
106
-------
Cont.)
INNER HARBOR BOTTOM SEDIMENTS
DN RATE ASSUMPTIONS AND
IONS ON SEDIMENT LOADS
ED CST/IN-LINE
Total
No % Of % Of No
m Load Existing Action
MODIFIED TOTAL STORAGE
CSSA
% Of % Of No
Load Existing Action
Total
% Of % Of No
Load Existing Action
39.1 67
85
0.962 11
11
37.9 65
83
0.846 22
11.7 49
24
55
0.029
1.62 12
12
0.809 21
9.35 39
23
44
0.440
6.61
18
46
19
50
0.021
1.12
1
12
1
12
0.411
4.98
17
35
18
38
4.56 43
16.2 47
50
52
0.115 2
2.72 13
13
4.41 42
12.3 36
49
40
-------
Modified
CST/
Inline
Modified
Total
Storage
Complete
Sewer
Separation
Inline
Storage
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
(MG/1)
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND-ULT.
(MG/1)
LEAD
(MG/1)
STORM EVENT
AVERAGE ANNUAL
PREPARED BY
EcolSciences
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
3URE
.gure 5-12
TE
Dvember
980
COMPARISON OF PREDICTED INNER HARBOR WATER
QUALITY CONDITIONS DURING A STORM EVENT TO
AVERAGE ANNUAL WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS
-------
are reduced only slightly by the revised assumption. Reducing
the sedimentation rate reduces the impact of CSSA loads on
sediment loadings, but does not affect the comparison of
alternative CSO abatement plans.
Reducing the sedimentation rate of CSSA loads would reduce
the concentration of biochemical oxygen demand in the bottom
sediments under Existing and No Action conditions by about
20% but would not reduce the biochemical oxygen demand
concentration under the remaining alternatives (Table 5-25).
Lead concentrations would be slightly lower than the con-
centrations predicted with the higher CSSA sedimentation
rate. The impacts of CSSA loads on water quality are
slightly reduced by the revised sedimentation rate.
5.1.6.7 Particulate Pollutant Loading Analysis
The assumed particulate portions of pollutant loads also in-
fluence sediment loadings and sediment quality. The effects
of reducing and increasing the assumed particulate portions
of both upstream and CSSA loads are shown in Table 5-24 for
sediment loading and in Table 5-25 for sediment quality.
The section in the tables titled "II. Decreased Particulate
Portion" evaluates the impact of reducing the particulate
portions by one-half. The section titled "III. Increased
Particulate Portion" evaluates the impact of increasing the
particulate portions to the extent of reducing the non-
particulate portions by one-half.
Table 5-24 indicates that varying the particulate portions
of pollutants can substantially affect loadings to the
sediment. Compared to the decreased particulate portion
estimates, the increased particulate portion analysis
indicates that biochemical oxygen demand loads can be in-
creased by up to 10 times and the lead loads can more than
double. Since the particulate portions remain similar under
all CSO abatement alternatives, the analysis does not sub-
stantially change the comparison of alternatives previously
presented.
Table 5-25 indicates that changing the particulate portions
will have an approximately proportional effect on sediment
quality conditions. However, the comparison of CSO abatement
alternatives is not substantially changed by varying the
particulate portions of pollutants.
A comparison of the BOD and lead sediment concentrations to
measured sediment quality data presented in Chapter 3 of
this appendix indicates that increasing the assumed particulate
portions would provide existing BOD and lead concentrations
which are still similar to measured data. However, reducing
5-82
-------
in
CM
1
in
3
pa
EH
Pi
O
§
X
H
2
H
1
CO
2
O
H
EH
g
EH
2
W
U
2
O
U
EH
2
EH
D
O
ft
EH
2
H
S
hH
Q
P
CO
£3
O-'
EH
2
W
S
D
H
CO
2
O
co
5^
O
H
EH
ft
s
D
in
CO
<
H
EH
o
03
C
0
•H
4J
0
0
2
01
C
•rH
4J
tn
•H
X
fa
SH
03
r- rH
O P
1* O
•r-l
4-1
SH
rC
ft
T3
0)
tn
03
(1)
SH
'— U
0i OJ
M Q
TU ^x
tr3 O"1 •
CU g M
hJ "-" h- 1
*.
vO
^T
0
o
00
*.
en
ro
^~,
0>
y
P ^-v
Q 0i
o e
pa — •
in O r~-
^D O CN
CN C
o
•H
4J
SH
0
ft
0)
4-J
03
rH
ro p
ro rj
CM -H
4J
SH
03
ft
T3
(1)
cn
03
0)
SH
U
— • C
01 H
y
•a \
03 01 H
aj e H
1-3 -~ H
O VD
».
ro
CO
rH
O ro
O in
O in
«.
0
r-
rH
, — « f^
01 01
y y
P\ TD \
Q 0i 03 01
o e
-------
the assumed particulate portions would result in concen-
trations of both BOD and lead which are significantly lower
than measured values.
5.1.7 Level of Protection Alternatives
Level of protection (LOP) alternatives have been previously
discussed in Chapter 4 of this appendix. The water quality
impacts of LOP alternatives were addressed in the Water
Quality Analysis of the Milwaukee River to Meet PRM 75-34
(PG-61) Requirements (Meinholz et al. 1979a)and in Combined
Sewer Overflow, Volume 2, Appendix 6B and Volume 3, Appendix
6M (MWPAP, 1980).
In the PRM 75-34 report, numerous alternatives v/ere evaluated
to determine the effectiveness of removal of pollutants on
instream water quality as measured against existing water
quality standards established by the State of Wisconsin.
Table 5-26 sets forth estimated pollutant loadings and
percent removals for the Milwaukee River under each LOP
alternative. Table 5-27 shows the water quality improvement
expected under each alternative as indicated by violations
of the dissolved oxygen and fecal coliforiri standards. The
magnitude of violations of the dissolved oxygen standard
is expressed in milligrams-day/liter (mg-day/1) which
represents the difference in dissolved oxygen concentrations
between the applicable standard and the predicted value
within the simulated time-period. Reduced violations,
as expressed in mg-day/1, indicate improved water quality
conditions. The PRM 75-34 study concluded that, based on a
cost versus water quality improvement analysis for both
fecal coliform and dissolved oxygen, the out-of-basin concept
should be sized at less than the one-half year level of
protection if selected as the CSO abatement alternative.
The MWPAP report also compared marginal costs to marginal
water quality benefits. The report determined that a minimum
expenditure equivalent to the cost of a 0.4 year LOP system
would be required to implement any LOP alternative. Using
revised cost estimates and based on a comparison of marginal
costs to marginal water quality benefits, the MWPAP report
concluded that a 2-year LOP system would be the preferred
level of protection for anoout-of-basin alternative. Table
5-28 shows a comparison of incremental water quality benefits
to incremental costs for various LOP systems. The MWPAP
report determined that the 1/2,1,2, and 5 year LOP systems
would capture and treat 79.3, 90.2, and 95.8% of the existing
annual combined sewer overflow volumes, respectively."
5-84
-------
TABLE 5-26
AVERAGE POLLUTANT LOADINGS TO THE MILWAUKEE RIVER
AND PERCENT REMOVAL UNDER EXISTING
CONDITIONS AND LOP ALTERNATIVES
Percent
3 BOD5 „
CSO Alternative* Ibs x 104
Existing
1/2-Year
1-Year
2-Year
5-Year
Condition
LOP
LOP
LOP
LOP
214
21
7
5
1
BOD5 Fecal Coliforms
Removal # x 1014
90.
96.
97.
99.
2
7
7
5
3,000
220
72
57
16
Percent
Fecal
Coliform
Removal
92.
97.
98.
99.
7
6
I
5
Source: Meinholz et al., 1979a
a. These loading estimates are based on a slightly smaller estimated
CSSA than the Milwaukee River Watershed CSSA estimated in the
report.
5-85
-------
TABLE 5-27
AVERAGE WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
UNDER EXISTING CONDITIONS AND LOP ALTERNATIVES FOR THE
MILWAUKEE RIVER AT ST. PAUL AVENUE
Alternative
Dissolved Oxygen Fecal Coliform
Magnitude, Percent Violations Percent
mg-days/1 Improvement Days Improvement
Existing
113.7
32
1/2
1
2
5
year
vear
year
year
15
8
8
7
.4
.4
.1
.1
86.
92.
92.
93.
4
6
9
7
2
1
1
1
94
98
98
99
.4
.4
.4
.2
Source: Meinholz et ai., 1979a
5-86
-------
o
M-4 W
-P -H G
C rH O
0) O -H
6 U P
a) id
o id -P
rH U C
a, -H o
m
o
oo
O EH
EH H
fa
00 H
EH 2 CO
CO Cd H
O 03 >
U H
H
9
S
H
w
*«§
s oi
pq pj
fa EH O
2
O
00 .
H 2
OS H D
sC O
S ^
O S*
o
c c
•rH (U
C
0)
H-i
a) -a id
o > -P
rH H C
a, o a)
6 oo u
H 00 C
•H 0
cX> Q U
o
MH
o >
o o
id tu
u
(D T!
fa (d
irrcJ
Q 0)
o >
m o
•P O
G OS
(U
U T3
rH Id
0) Q
ft J
CO
O
CT>
rd o
•P rH
c x
0)
M -P
D 10
C 0
H O
CO
cn
O
CD
O
00
u
in
o
o
m
0)
o
n
3
O
co
5-87
-------
Complete water quality analyses of the LOP alternatives are
not presented in this Environmental Impact Statement because
the LOP alternatives do not meet the U.S. District Court
order; the Court order requires that the CSO abatement
system be designed to eliminate overflows for the largest
storm event on record. If the U.S. District Court order is
successfully appealed, additional analysis of the water
quality impacts of LOP alternatives may be necessary. The
MMSD is currently evaluating LOP alternatives, and is in the
process of preparing an amendment to the Master Facilities
Plan which will set forth an alternative to meet the Dane
County stipulation. This information will be included in
the Environmental Impact Statement wften it becomes available.
Additional analyse could include an evaluation of the
environmental impacts of occassional combined sewer overflows
and the impacts of pollutants which are deposited in the
bottom sediments, thereby producing long-term effects.
5.1.8 Nonpoint Source Pollution Abatement
Nonpoint sources of water pollution include storm water
runoff from urban and rural land, atmospheric deposition,
construction activities, and malfunctioning septic systems.
The areawide water quality management (208) plan for south-
eastern Wisconsin included recommendations for various
levels of nonpoint source pollution abatement as needed to
meet water use objectives. For the CSSA, however, the 208
plan made no nonpoint source control recommendations, since
the method of CSO abatement had not been determined. For
those areas not receiving complete storage and treatment of
CSOs, it is probable that some level of nonpoint source
pollution abatement would be needed to satisfy the recom-
mended water use objectives set forth in the 208 plan. For
urban areas, the 208 plan considered two categories of
nonpoint source abatement practices: those which would
achieve a 25% and those that would achieve a 50% reduction
in pollutant loads.
The level of pollutant reduction achieved by nonpoint source
control varies by the practice applied and by the pollutant.
A high level of reduction in suspended sediment can be
achieved by the application of erosion control measures
to construction activities, street sweeping, and other
techniques. Loads of organic matter can be effectively
reduced by controlling leaf litter and other vegetative
debris. Recent studies have indicated that weekly street
sweeping can reduce storm runoff loads of lead, zinc, and
total solids by 40% (Alameda County Flood Control and
Water Conservation District, 1979). For general analysis
purposes, it is assumed that the categories of practices set
forth in the 208 plan could achieve either a 25 or 50%
5-88
-------
reduction in all pollutant loads. To determine the specific
nonpoint source control practices to be implemented, and the
level of reduction achieved for each pollutant by those
practices, the 208 plan recommended that a detailed nonpoint
source control plan be prepared by local governmental agencies.
Table 5-29 sets forth the categories of the nonpoint source
control measures, the estimated pollutant loads under each
of the alternative CSO abatement plans if nonpoint source
control practices are implemented in all areas which do not
receive complete storage and treatment of CSOs, and the
estimated cost of nonpoint source control measures under
each alternative. Because the 208 plan did not recommend
a specific level of nonpoint source control for the
CSSA, the pollutant loading and cost analyses are pre-
sented for both a 25% and 50% reduction in pollutant loads.
The analysis indicates that the nonpoint source control
present worth costs for a 25% and a 50% reduction in pol-
lutant loads would vary between $0.3 and $3.4 million, and
between $1.5 and $14 million, respectively. However, the
unit costs used for this analysis are average costs for
nonpoint source control of urban land in southeastern
Wisconsin. It is possible that actual costs for nonpoint
source control in the CSSA could be somewhat higher than
average because the CSSA is primarily comprised of high
density residential, commercial, and industrial land uses.
which generate higher nonpoint source pollutant loads than
lower density urban development. If storm water storage
and treatment were required, for example, total capital
costs of an urban nonpoint source management program could
be increased by 10 times or more. Generally more than 90%
of the total nonpoint source control costs shown in Table 5-29
are for operation and maintenance of control practices. Costs
to reduce nonpoint source pollutant loads by 25% are less
than one-half of the costs to reduce pollutant loads by
50% because the initial 25% reduction can largely be achieved
by general low-cost "housekeeping practices" and by improving
the pollution-control efficiency of public works operations.
Achieving a 50% reduction usually requires an actual expansion
in public works operations. The nonpoint source control present
worth cost under Modified Total Storage of CSOs is about 10%
of the nonpoint source control cost under Complete Sewer
Separation.
The pollutant loading estimates indicate that nonpoint
source controls, in combination with the CSO abatement
alternatives, would substantially reduce CSSA loadings.
However, even under the maximum level of nonpoint source
control, pollutant loads under the Complete Sewer Separation
and Inline Storage alternatives would exceed the loads under
the Modified CST/Inline Storage and Modified Total Storage
alternatives with no nonpoint source control. This indicates
that total or partial sewer separation, even with a high
level of nonpoint source control, cannon provide the same
reduction in pollutant loads as can complete storage and
treatment of CSOs.
5-89
-------
The nonpoint source pollutant loadings and control cost
estimates presented above do not include the loads or
associated control costs for construction site erosion. Soil
erosion from construction sites can result in extremely high
loads of pollutants such as sediment and phosphorous, and
control of construction site erosion can require a sub-
stantial capital cost. However, the CSSA is fully developed
in urban land uses and it is assumed that major construction
activities will be limited. Even the CSO abatement alternative
which would require the maximum land disturbance, the Inline
Storage alternative, would result in a maximum of 26 acres
of active construction activity at any time, with an average
construction activity area of only 8 acres. Under this
alternative, the sediment and total phosphorous loads would
comprise 16 and one percent, respectively, of the total
loads generated under a maximum level of nonpoint source
abatement. The cost of construction erosion control under
the Inline Storage alternative would represent less than one
percent of the total cost of nonpoint source control.
5.2 AIR QUALITY
5.2.1 Short-Term Impacts
Construction of any of the four CSO abatement and peak flow
storage alternatives would create dust (particulate emissions)
and equipment emission fumes. The amount of fugitive dust
emissions would depend on the percentage of silt in the
soil, the weather (wind and rain), the moisture content of
the disturbed soil, and the final alternative selected for
construction. The alternatives involving open-cut sewer
construction (Complete Sewer Separation and Inline Storage)
would produce the most dust. Long-term construction activities
at dropshafts, access shafts, and near surface storage
facilities could cause major localized dust problems at the
sites located in or near sensitive residential and recreational
areas. Construction would take approximately one year at
each dropshaft, three years at each near surface storage
facility, and three and one-half at each cavern access
shaft. Precautions should be taken to minimize dust at the
sensitive sites.
Construction equipment emissions contain quantities of
particulates, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons
and carbon monoxide. Amounts of these pollutants were
evaluated for each alternative using emission factors from
USEPA's AP42 "Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors."
These factors were applied to usage period and fuel consumption
for each type of equipment as predicted by the MMSD.
5-90
-------
Nonpoint Source Control-50% Reduction
No
Action
Cost
Total Capital
Average Annual Operation
& Maintenance
Total Present Worth
Equivalent Annual
Annual CSSA Pollutant Loads
Suspended Solids (106pounds) 16.1
Total Phosphorus (103pounds) 105.2
Biochemical Oxygen Demand,
Ultimate (10 pounds) 7.2
Ammonia "itroaen (103pounds) 101.9
Lead (io3pounds) 69.2
Codmium U03pounds) 0.9
Copper (103pounds) 5.8
Zinc (103pounds) 48.2
Pecal Coliform (counts) 1.7x10
a Nonpoint source control practices necessar
programs, litter and pet waste control, re
improved efficiency of public works activi
b Nonpoint source control practices necessar
(a) plus increased street sweeping, catch
and street maintenance. Storm water stora
c Cost estimates based on unit costs present
the Southeastern Wisconsin Region: 2000.
Inl me
Storage
1,
1,
14,
1,
7.
34.
1.
17.
20.
>°-
V2.
12.
3.
200,000
200,000
000,000
300,000
7
0
1
9
5
5
9
1
9xl014
Modified
CST/Inline
400,000
400,000
4,700,000
440,000
2.5
11.0
0.3
5.8
6.6
0.15
1.1
3.2
14
1.3x10
Modified Total
Storage
1
0
3
0
125
125
,500
140
.9
.9
.1
,000
,000
,000
,000
2.1
2
0
0
1
4
.3
.05
.3
.5
.9xl013
Source: ESEI
-------
I
in
in
CO
-------
Total dust and vehicle emissions were determined by the MMSD
for the Complete Sewer Separation and Inline Storage
alternatives. Based on these data, the EIS study team com -
puted total emissions for the Modified CST/Inline Storage
and Modified Total Storage alternatives. Table 5-30 presents
the average annual emissions for a nine year construction
period and compares these values with the total anticipated
Milwaukee County emissions for 1985 (midway through the
1981-1989 construction schedule).
Table 5-30 shows that the greatest percent increase in
county-wide emissions would occur for particulate matter if
the Complete Sewer Separation or the Inline Storage alternative
was implemented. Both of these alternatives would increase
county-wide particulate emissions by approximately 3%. This
increase would be important because portions of the CSSA are
already considered non-attainment areas for particulate
matter. Both the Modified CST/Inline Storage and the Modified
Total Storage alternatives would have fewer particulate
emissions because they would require less open-cut sewer
construction. Nevertheless they would cause about a 2% increase
in particulate matter due to the long-term construction
activity that would occur at dropshafts, access shafts, and
near surface storage facilities.
No other pollutant concentrations would increase by more
than 2% for any of the alternatives. A 1% increase would
be expected for carbon monoxide. Portions of the CSSA are
also non-attainment areas for carbon monoxide.
Although there are no regulations governing offsets to
construction-related pollution in the Clean Air Act or the
Wisconsin air quality regulations, several mitigative
measures could be used to minimize air quality impacts.
These measures include:
• Watering to settle road dusts
Chemical stabilization to reduce erosion from completed
cuts and fill
• Covered storage piles and covered boxes on trucks to
minimize dust emissions
• Reduced vehicle speeds to prevent re-entrainment of dust
• Wind breaks to reduce wind erosion.
5-94
-------
5.2.2. Long-term Impacts
There would not be a noticeable difference in air quality
due to the implementation of any of the final alternatives. There
would be some vehicle emissions resulting from maintenance
activities and the removal of screened solids at dropshafts
and near surface storage sites for the Modified GST/Inline
Storage and the Modified Total Storage alternatives.
5.3 GROUNDWATER
5.3.1 Short-Term Impacts
The major short-term effect of the construction of CSO
collection, conveyance, and storage facilities would be the
localized drawdown of groundwater levels. Dewatering of
trenches, tunnels,and storage facility excavations would be
necessary to facilitate construction activities. Ground-
water pumped from excavation sites would generally be dis-
charged to the rivers via existing outfalls. Cones of
depression caused by dewatering activities could reduce or
terminate local well yields. This phenomenon could also
draw impure waters from upper aquifers downward, degrading the
purer waters of the Niagaran and sandstone aquifers. In
some cases, temporary ponding of pumped water would be ne-
cessary to minimize sediment loads to the rivers. Where
large quantities of groundwater withdrawal are anticipated,
predominantly in conjunction with near surface storage
construction, recycling of water to the aquifer could be
provided.
The sand and gravel aquifer would be affected by construction
of gravity sewers, near surface conveyance and storage
facilities, and dropshafts which would cause localized
drawdown of the water table. The Niagaran aquifer would be
similarly affected by construction of deep tunnels, mined
caverns,and dropshafts. In addition to localized drawdown
effects, the potential for introduction of pollutants into
the groundwater would be present during construction. The
sources of pollutants would include spills of gasoline and
oil from construction equipment and sewage from laterals
disconnected from the combined system and reconnected to
sanitary sewers. No construction activities would be
conducted in the sandstone aquifer.
The drawdown effects are expected for all construction
activities, but recovery to near normal water table levels
should occur soon after construction is completed. Each of
the four final alternatives would have different potentials
for causing short-term groundwater impacts depending on the
total extent and duration of construction activities associated
5-95
-------
with each alternative. The following discussions describe
the facilities required, and therefore indicate the various
potentials for short-term impacts to groundwater.
5.3.1.1 Complete Sewer Separation
This alternative would include the construction of 440 miles
of sanitary sewers and fifteen lift stations to pump waste-
water from the sanitary sewers to the MIS.
Sanitary sewer construction is expected to proceed at
approximately 60 feet per day and trenches would be back-
filled daily. At most, 5 miles of sewer construction would
be occuring at any given time and it would be accomplished
in scattered sections throughout the CSSA (MWPAP/CSO, 1980).
Thus, extensive groundwater pumping in any one location
would be of relatively short duration.
Slightly more pronounced aquifer dewatering effects would be
associated with lift station construction than with sewer
construction. However, the duration of pumping in any one
location would still be relatively temporary (6 to 10 months)
and would not produce any long-term adverse impacts.
No facilities for CSO abatement would be constructed in the
Niagaran aquifer with the Complete Sewer Separation alternative,
Deep tunnels (240 inches in diameter) would be constructed
through the Niagaran formation for the purpose of conveying
flows from outside of the CSSA. The impacts due to con-
struction and operation of these tunnels are discussed under
the Inline Storage alternative.
5.3.1.2 Inline Storage
This alternative includes the construction of approximately
460 miles of storm sewers, 9 miles near surface collector
sewers, 6.5 miles of shallow tunnel collector pipelines, 79
near surface storage silos, 14 dropshafts, a 767 acre ft. mined
storage cavern under County Stadium and 400 feet of 15 feet
diameter deep connecting tunnel. The dropshafts and con-
necting tunnel would connect to the 240-inch diameter deep
tunnel provided for conveyance of flows from outside the
CSSA.
Short-term effects on groundwater associated with storm
sewer construction would be slightly greater than those for
sanitary sewers in the complete sewer separation alternative.
This is a result of greater average widths of trenches,
larger diameter pipes, and longer linear footage require-
ments. Near surface collector sewers, shallow tunnels, and
storage silos would have similar potential for impacts to
5-96
-------
the sand and gravel aquifer. Four near surface storage
facilities would be required and construction time could be
as long as three years for the largest facility, which
includes 52 silos. Storage silos may be as much as 100 feet
deep. Dewatering of excavations for these silos could result
in a substantial lowering of groundwater table. Recycling
of the pumped water (after sedimentation) to the aquifer may
be necessary to mitigate adverse effects on any nearby
wells.
Deep tunnels, caverns, and dropshafts constructed in the
Niagaran aquifer are not expected to require large amounts
of dewatering because of the generally low porosity of the
rock. Where fissures and cracks in the rock are encountered,
substantial quantities of groundwater could be expected to
enter the excavation. These openings, which are the pre-
dominant means of groundwater transmission through the
aquifer, would be sealed when encountered to reduce ground-
water infiltration. A limit of 50 gallons per minute (gpm)
per mile of tunnel could be tolerated during construction
(MWPAP/CSO 1980) .
5.3.1.3 Modified GST/Inline Storage
This alternative would include the construction of 115 miles
of storm sewers, 9 miles of near surface collector sewers,
6.5 miles of shallow tunnels, 79 near surface storage silos,
14 dropshafts, a 1,291 acre ft mined storage cavern under
County Stadium, a 174 acre ft mined storage cavern near the
Jones Island WWTP, 400 feet of connecting tunnel and 91,000
feet of 360-inch diameter deep tunnels.
The short-term impacts on groundwater of this alternative
would be similar to those described for the Inline Storage
alternative. However, storm sewer construction would be
reduced to approximately 25% of the total required for
Inline Storage, and approximately three times as much
storage volume which would be provided by enlarged deep
tunnels and two caverns. Short-term adverse impacts on
groundwater resulting from increased size of deep tunnels
and storage caverns would not increase greatly. However,
construction of the access shaft for the Jones Island cavern
would involve excavation through 200 feet of surficial
deposits (i.e. the sand and gravel aquifer) which would
probably increase the potential for aquifer dewatering. The
access shaft for the County Stadium would require excavation
through 100 feet of surficial deposits which is the same as
for the Inline Storage alternative.
5.3.1.4 Modified Total Storage
The components of this alternative would be the same as the
5-97
-------
Modified GST/Inline Storage Alternative except that no sewer
separation would be accomplished in 21% of the CSSA. This
change would eliminate the need to construct 108 miles of
storm sewers and would require an increase in the size of
near surface collectors and storage silos for the 21% area.
The increased size of near surface collector sewers and
storage silos would not be expected to produce a large in-
crease in adverse groundwater impacts. Thus, the overall
effect of this alternative would be a slight reduction in
short-term adverse groundwater impacts from the Modified
CST/Inline Storage Alternative due to the reduction in storm
sewer construction.
5.3.2 Long-Term Impacts
The long-term groundwater impacts of the operation of any of
the final four alternatives are directly related to the
likelihood of groundwater infiltration into the conveyance
and storage facilities and wastewater exfiltration from
these facilities into the groundwater. Infiltration and
exfiltrationare controlled by the relationship between the
wastewater pressures inside the facilities and the ground-
water pressures outside the facilities.
5.3.2.1 Near Surface Facilities
Sewers and near surface collectors would generally be located
above the water table of the sand and gravel aquifer.
Accordingly, these facilities would present the potential
for groundwater pollution via exfiltration. These components
would be constructed with properly sealed pipe joints designed
to minimize the amount of wastewater exfiltration.
Near surface storage facilities could also pollute the sand
and gravel aquifer by exfiltration. When these facilities
would be storing CSO, the wastewater level inside the storage
silos would occasionally be greater than the piezometric
level of the water in the sand and gravel aquifer. The near
surface storage facilities would be constructed of poured,
reinforced concrete. If any cracks were to develop in this
concrete, the aquifer could be polluted. A proper main-
tenance program would minimize the chances for exfiltration.
5.3.2.2 Deep Facilities
The 240- and 360-inch tunnels and the cavern storage
facilities would be drilled into Niagaran dolomite at depths
ranging from 150 to 400 feet. The entire deep tunnel system
would be lined with one foot of concrete. The tunnel and
cavern would be located in the Niagaran aquifer and thus
5-98
-------
could result in potential adverse impacts on the ground-
water resources of the area including the infiltration of
groundwater into the tunnel and reservoir and the exfiltration
of wastewater into the groundwater. Infiltration into the
tunnel would result in a localized drawdown of water levels
which could affect the water supplies to industries, businesses,
and residences using the well water in the affected area.
The infiltration of groundwater into the tunnel would also
mean that additional water must be transported and treated
at the treatment plants.
The general piezometric level in the CSSA is 500 to 600 feet
mean sea level (msl) for the Niagaran and surficial aquifers
and 500 to 650 feet msl for the sandstone aquifer. The
tunnels and caverns located in the Niagaran formation thus
would be at least 200 feet below the piezometric level. If
the water level in the tunnel system is below the piezometric
level of the groundwater, the tunnels would most probably
experience infiltration rather than exfiltration.
The rate of infiltration would depend on geologic conditions.
Some portions of the tunnels would probably intercept large
openings in the aquifer which could result in significant
local infiltration rates. This infiltration would be con-
trolled by consolidation grouting of the larger openings
prior to tunnel lining. The parts of the tunnels which
intercept only small openings in the aquifer would have very
low infiltration rates. The groundwater remaining in the
tunnels would be removed and treated with the captured CSO.
Exfiltration of wastewater would occur if the tunnels and
the cavern were pressurized by flows in excess of design
capacity and the static head were higher than the surrounding
groundwater table (MWPAP/CSO 1980). To avoid the pressuri-
zation of the tunnels and cavern, the operation of the
tunnel systems would include monitors and controls to direct
the overflows away from the tunnels and into the surface
waters if the elevation of wastewater in the system began
to surcharge into the dropshafts and collectors (MWPAP/CSO 1980)
The potential for groundwater contamination by exfiltration
would also be enhanced by the declining groundwater levels
in the region. Increased groundwater usage and groundwater
infiltration into the tunnels and caverns could reduce the
groundwater levels in the vicinity of the tunnels. The
potential for such a situation was demonstrated by an analog
computer model of the Chicago Tunnel and Reservoir Plan
(TARP) (Walter n.d.). TARP included facilities to recharge
the aquifers, thus mitigating the problem of declining water
levels. To accurately identify and quantify the impacts of
the construction and operation of the proposed tunnels and
5-99
-------
storage caverns on the Milwaukee groundwater system, a pre-
design exploration program has been proposed (MWPAP/CSO
1980) .
5.3.2.3 Seismic Activity
Seismic activity has occurred in the Milwaukee area in the
recent past and can be expected to continue. Vibrations
generated by earthquakes could cause minor damage to surface
and near surface structures increasing the infiltration or
exfiltration potential of any component. Deep structures
should not be affected too greatly by seismic events unless
a fault occurs at their location. Inspection of facilities,
as part of the routine maintenance schedule, would identify
any damage resulting from earthquakes.
5.4 FLOODPLAINS
Except for small areas of the Menomonee River Valley, reaches
of the 100-year floodplain are limited to the river channels
and less than 100 feet on each bank. Rivers in the CSSA are
either channelized or bordered by parkland. The only con-
struction that could take place in floodplain designated
areas would be dropshafts, screening structures, and near
surface collectors.
Once completed, the dropshafts would not affect the flood-
plain. Precautions should be taken to protect dropshafts
from flooding. Inundation of dropshafts sites could lead to
their improper operation (if air intakes become submerged)
and increased flows to the storage facilities reducing their
possible storage volumes.
Screening structures would be required at dropshafts for all
configurations which allow street runoff to enter the
storage system. These structures would be located near
dropshafts and could be constructed in floodplains. These
facilities should be designed such that mechanical and elec-
trical equipment would not be damaged by flooding. Water-
tight electrical conduit and appurtenances, motor casings,
and control equipment would be required.
5.4.1 Complete Sewer Separation
The Complete Sewer Separation alternative would require no
dropshafts, screening structures, or near surface collectors.
The repair or replacement of existing outfalls might require
construction in floodplains; floodplains elevations would
not be affected.
5-100
-------
5.4.2 Inline Storage
The Inline Storage alternative would require dropshafts and
near surface collectors. Of special concern are dropshafts
Menomonee (MEN) 6, 7, and 8 and Milwaukee (MKE) 8 and their
tributary collectors. These dropshafts would be constructed
either in or very near to areas designated in the 100 year
floodplain.
5.4.3 Modified GST/Inline Storage
The Modified GST/Inline Storage would use the same drop-
shafts as described for the Inline Storage alternative. In
addition dropshafts for these alternatives would be equipped
with screening structures.
5.4.4 Modified Total Storage
The Modified Total Storage would use the same dropshafts as
described for the Inline Storage alternative. Dropshaft
screening structures would be required.
5.5 LAND USE
The CSSA is a heavily urbanized, fully developed area,
covering the central portion of the City of Milwaukee.
Sewer constructon would not appreciably alter the existing
land use patterns in these areas. The only changes in land
use are expected in areas needed for the construction and
operation of required facilities. The only facilities
expected to have affect on land use are dropshafts, screen-
ing structures, and near surface storage facilities.
5.5.1 Complete Sewer Separation
CSO abatement facilities for the Complete Sewer Separation
alternative would include 15 pump stations and 440 miles of
new sanitary sewer. These facilities would be constructed
below ground with manholes being the only above surface
structures. These facilities would not alter existing land
use. These alternative would also require 240-inch deep
tunnels. Six dropshafts would be required outside the CSSA
to convey flows from the MIS system to the tunnels. Dropshafts
require 0.7 acres per shaft.
5.5.2 Inline Storage
This alternative would require 460 miles of new storm sewer,
18 dropshafts, four near surface storage facilities,and deep
storage tunnels and caverns. No long term impacts to land
use are anticipated from the deep storage facilities or
sewer construction. •
5-101
-------
The locations of dropshafts required for conveyance of CSO
flows to the deep storage facilities are shown on Figure 4-18.
Four dropshafts result in land use alterations. 11KE 1 would
be located in Kern Park along the Milwaukee River. Construction
of this dropshaft would permanently remove between 5% and
10% of the parkland. MKE 6 would be located on vacant land
near the intersection of W. State and N. 3rd Streets. This
land is adjacent to commercial, light industrial, and
recreational lands and is located within the CED areas which
are considered sensitive to the construction and operation
of such facilities.
MKE 2 would be located in a predominantly residential area.
A public school and playground are located near the proposed
site. Construction and operation of this facility would be
in conflict with local land use. MNE 3 would be constructed
on residential land. Construction of this dropshaft would
require relocation of one family. The majority of the
surrounding lands are zoned for light or heavy industrial
use. The severity of this impact could be reduced by further
study of the displaced family's needs. There would be four
additional dropshafts required to convey clear water from
the separated system.
One near surface storage facility (Lake Michigan South)
could conflict with local land use. This facility would be
located in South Shore park. Two acres of land would be
'required for permanent use (MWPAP/CSO 1980) . Construction of
this facility would significantly alter the appearance and
recreational value of this park which contains many large
trees. These trees might have to be removed during con-
struction.
All other facilities would be built on vacant or industrial
land. The construction and operation of facilities at these
proposed locations would be compatible with the surrounding
land uses.
5.5.3 Modified CST/Inline Storage
The land use impacts due to this alternative would be similar
to those for the Inline Storage alternative. Screening
structures to capture stormwater debris would be required at
all dropshafts. These structures would increase the land
requirement at each dropshaft site. The increased areal
requirement would intensify impacts at the dropshaft sites
identified above.
5.5.4 Modified Total Storage
Impacts to land use from this alternative would be similar
to those for the Modified CST/Inline Storage alternative.
5-102
-------
In addition, near surface storage facilities would have to
be expanded and equipped with screening structures. This
additional land requirement would increase the severity of
the impacts for the facility proposed for South Shore park.
Another storage facility located near E. Lincoln Avenue and
Carferry Drive (Lake Michigan North) might not have area
available for the required expansion.
5.6 COST
The costs for the Inline Storage and the Modified CST/
Inline Storage alternatives were developed by the MMSD based
on data obtained from previous sewer contracts in the
Milwaukee area, the Chicago TAKP, and from national sewerage
construction costs in recent years. The costs for the
Complete Sewer Separation and the Modified Total Storage
alternative were developed by the EIS study team based on
MMSD data.
In this EIS, costs are compared in terms of the capital cost,
costs for operation and maintenance, and the net present
worth of the alternative. All costs were standardized to
Engineering News Record's Construction Cost Index. This
index was projected at 3300 for 1980.
Capital costs are the actual costs required to construct the
facility. These costs included construction materials,
labor, contractor costs (administrative, and legal costs
plus contingency allowances), and the cost to purchase and
install required equipment.
Operation and maintenance costs included all material and
labor (evaluated in man-hours) required to keep the facility
in operation. Materials included the chemicals, gasoline,
electricity, and other resources consumed by WWTP operations,
and administrative expenses for laboratory equipment, for
monitoring requirements and other supplies.
Net Present Worth is the estimated present value of all
present and expected future expenses throughout the planning
period. Future costs were evaluated assuming an interest
rate of 6 7/8%. This rate is established on a nation-wide
basis by the Water Resources Council and is updated period-
ically. Its use is mandated in the EPA Cost-Effectiveness
Analysis Guidelines. The net present worth included capital
costs, costs for operation and maintenance, interest on
monies required during the construction period, future
replacement costs for machinery and equipment, and the
estimated salvage value of all facilities at the end of the
planning period. Salvage values were based on the remaining
useful life of the facility. Where the useful life of a
5-103
-------
facility is longer than the planning period, a straight line
depreciation was assumed. (i.e. the value decreases at a
constant rate with the value at the end of the service life
equal to zero.)
Costs were detailed with the individual alternative descriptions,
A comparative summary of capital, O&M, and net present
worths is available in Table 5-31.
5.7 FISCAL IMPACTS
The fiscal analyses for CSO abatement and peak wastewater
attenuation were carried out as part of the analysis for the
entire MWPAP. A complete discussion of assumptions and
results can be found within Chapter 5 of the EIS text.
Further discussion is available in the Fiscal/Economic
Appendix. Below is a summary of findings related to the CSO
abatement and peak wastewater attenuation program.
The analysis of the fiscal impacts of the MWPAP assumed the
MMSD recommended alternative (Inline Storage) would be
implemented, the MMSD would finance the construction, and
all costs would be distributed to all connected municipalities.
Milwaukee County residents would directly finance the debt
service on bonds through property taxes, while contract
communities would pay according to the existing contract
formula. CSO costs would be reflected in a higher tax rate
for Milwaukee County property and slightly higher contract
community payments. All Inline Storage operation and main-
tenance costs would be distributed through the User Charge
Program.
The costs of constructing the MWPAP facilities, including
Inline Storage costs, would exceed the expected $60 million
level of state and federal funding for most years. Accord-
ingly, the percentage increase in the total MWPAP costs
caused by a different CSO solutions could be applied to the
Milwaukee County property tax rate for the Recommended Plan.
For example, if a $1.656 billion alternative results in a
$4.37 per $1,000 tax rate, then a $1.823 billion alternative,
which is a 10% increase, would result in a $4.81/$1000 tax
rate (see Table 5-32). Assuming the continuation of the
current contract formula, costs to communities outside of
Milwaukee County would 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. Thus, costs are spread through the contract
formula based on a 50-year payback period (as opposed to 20-
year bonds in Milwaukee County).
5-104
-------
iH
ro
1
LT)
U
t-4
ffl
*£
EH
frt
vJJ
W
^
H
EH
f*£
jz
s
H
S
is5j
H
O
3
cn
#
w
iH
rtj
s
w
EH W
CO 0)
is -H
P
^ (d
f-C £
W M
PH
Q -H
S <
EH
W
5£
EH
^
CQ
0
O
w
H
1
p-t
2
O
o
Q) (1)
•H en
l*H rH (13
•H (0 M
13 P 0
0 0 4-1
S EH W
0)
-0 -H
0) H CD
•H c en
IM H n3
•H X M
-0 EH 0
0 CO P
— SOW
O
CO
co
H
O
U
A
Z
lyi m
cu en
P c us
itS -iH M
H O
W C 4-1
M H CO
(13
rH
1
0
Q
UH
0
W
C
0
•H fi
rH O
rH 0) -H
•rH 4-> 4->
S 0) (ti
rH M M
C ft 0) (13
•H e ? a
O 0) Q)
co u co w
03
0
o
rH
~~*
rH
(C
3
fi S
~0
O (N
OO rH
O f>
^ ^r
rH O
O O
CO CM
ro < S
co 3
•rH
/H n
C 4JH
^J ^)
EH >i 0)
Oi C n3
Q} 3 O
0) 0
G O
r- rH co
n co o
fN O O
o' o' o'
r*- r** ^
r-l (N ro
(7l rH H
^ fN CN
f~ rH CO
m oo o
(MOO
o' o o'
r — r^ ^r
rH CN CO
01 H rH
C CM " —
Zg
i-H
QJ
en M
(13 P
0) M MH
tn 0 id
US 4J rC
o
4-1 £ ft
CO 00
Tf fci Q
G
^C « S
Ht r«-) 2^ ^3
1J S
OJ 03 O n3
C U J*j QJ
0 0 rH
^
O 1
O 1
o'
rsi in rr co
in rH CM rH
rsj
o> r-
i a i r~-
1 O 1 rH
o o
O (Ti O LO
o r- CM r~
CM m n- co
in rH CM rH
CM
0*> 0"^
1 O 1 CM
1 O 1 rH
O O
O CTi O CO
o r~- CM o
CM m <* en
in rH CM CO
CM
(7l O
i o m
1 O 1 CM
• 1 •
o o
O U^ O KJ*
o r^ CM r~-
csj in ^j* ^
in rH CM in
ro
i4
r^ RjJ
0 4J EH
•H fi O
P 1) EH
us E m
•H O E W
rH M (IS
'"§ C 0 1
r; «H !M rtj
QJ QJ ni 5
^ K CO r^
CO CO ft] W
H H CO J
S S CO O
ro *»o u^ r^ v^ PO CNJ C3
|_f^ ,«_( «^< \Q QQ ,_^ (V) p^
OOCMincO OCOro
OOOOOSOrHPO
O O f"^ r— j r — | CO
^3 I^Q CT^ CT^ O LO
co in vo r- < rH co
rH z r-
coomm^cMn O
inrH'syor~-niH n
oocMon^rcoo m
OOOOOrHOOOcO
—
O O C"* i — i in rH rH
o o o""i co in o in
OMf-rHO ! pOrHCOCM
cotnijsco co rH ~— co
r-
CM ^D CO CM CO vO
co rH o co o in
O O CO CO O ro
OOZOZrHOCOCM
— '
\o in i — t c7> m en
en ^^ co ^0 p^ r**
C5^ CM O CM rH CO in
m ^r icfl co rfj r^ ' — in
Z Z co r-
in in
m in
0 0
rfj ril F^C ri] rfj ril • *— •» •
"^^^yiplp^^rrsirorsi
•*_^
0 0
o o
CO ro CO
f£ H 3 M E a QJ ^
rH 4-1 O 4-1
-------
C
0
CJ
00
I
in
a
cn
w
w
Hi
H
O
O
EH
en
a!
H
EH
cn
2
X
H
ft
Q
2
EH
Z
H
S
w
EH
CQ
O
cn
o
H
EH
erf
ft
en
CD
•H
4-1
id
C
$_j
CD
4-J
rH
p£
^**
O
O
ro
ro
H
CJ
u
erf
z
Cd
4-1
rO
en
^
id
rH
l~~t
O
Q
MH
O
cn
q
o
•rl
rH
i-H
•rl
S
C
-rl
en
4-1
CO
O
CJ
•o
CD
•H
UH
•H
•O
0
S
rrj
CU
•rl
U-l
•H
0
2
CD
4->
CD
rH
ft
o
CJ
rH
id
4->
0
CD
C
•rl
rH
C
H
\^
EH
CO
O
ID
C
•H
rH
C
H
Jq
1
CD
CO
rH
id
3
c
CD
cn
ro
rl
0
CO
c
^
rH
3
CD
O^
fO
rl
0
4->
en
C
C
rH
rO
3
C
C
0)
en
(0
M
0
4-1
CO
rt2
rH
rfl
3
C
0
•H
.p
id
U
2,
cu
cn
c
c
2
iJS
o
rH
id
-P
ft
CJ
S
o
rH
rrj
4J
•H
ft
id
O
S
o
rH
id
4J
co
•
r-
ro
ro
P^
rH
CO
•
ro
rH
p^
co
[-J
ro
ro
p*.
rH
CO
•
ro
rH
I —
CO
•
r^
ro
ro
0
r —
CO
•
r-*
un
in
p-
CM
rH
0
P*.
CO
•
cn
m
in
•
p^
CN
rH
0
p^
CO
•
cn
un
m
r^!
CN
rH
O
r~
co
•
rH
•
O
cn
^r
4J
(U
I
O
o
o
r-»
o'
in
o
rH
r*-
T
cn
r-
EH
K
O
C.U
tl
a,
EH
H
arwater flows, costs were divided between CSO and clearwater
CD
rH
0
T!
C
id
o
CO
CJ
.c
4-1
p
^i
^_l
rl
id
O
cn
CD
•r-l
^J
•rl
r-l
•rl
U
(0
CD
4J
0)
en
13
id
0
0)
CQ
-1
ewer Separation - Clearwater, 100%; Inline - Clearwater, 42%
en
CD
4-1
CD
rH
a
e
0
CJ
••
en
id
T3
4H
•rl
13
O
S
.*,
dP
CO
LO
«.
o
en
CJ
m
6
cn
CJ
df
*3*
*3
j_j
cu
u
3
O
CO
5-106
-------
TABLE 5-32
FISCAL IMPACTS OF CSO ALTERNATIVES
Alternative
I. Inline Storage
2. Modified CST/
Inline Storage
3. Modified
Total Storage
4. Complete Sewer
Separation
Total Initial Milwaukee County Annual
Percent Project Capital Tax Rate Per Burden To A
Increase (Billions) $1000 Equalized $50,000 Home
0
0.4%
1.2%
1.8%
$1
$1
$1
$1
.656
.658
.676
.686
$4
$4
$4
$4
.37
.38
.42
.45
$218
$219
$221
$222
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 Inline Storage alternative would be implemented.
Inline Storage fiscal data was developed from MWPAP Fiscal Model Number
FM 60-A.
Source: ESEI, 1980.
5-107
-------
All costs and expenditures in Table 5-32 are based on costs
for the entire MWPAP. In addition to costs detailed in
previous sections, costs for interceptor construction and
connection or upgrading of local plants were also included.
In developing cost variations, these costs were held constant.
The data for this fiscal analysis was developed from the
MWPAP Fiscal Model number FM 60-A.
District-wide financing of CSO abatement segments of the
MWPAP has developed into a controversial issue. CSO
abatement represents one of the more costly segments of the
MWPAP. Because this effort would involve improvements to
sewerage facilities owned by the City of Milwaukee and
Village of Shorewood,opposition to district-wide financing
of this element has been severe. An analysis has been
performed to determine the effects of distributing the costs
of CSO work only to residents of Milwaukee and Shorewood
residing in the CSSA. These costs are illustrated in Table
5-33. Table 5-33 shows the burden to residents in the CSSA
for financing of CSO costs only. If these residents were
also taxed for financing the debt service of other aspects
of the MWPAP, their taxes would be higher.
5.8 ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Each of four final alternatives would have varying economic
impacts on the CSSA and the Milwaukee Metropolitan area,
both adverse and beneficial in nature.
Implementation of an alternative which would utilize more
local labor and materials would have a greater positive
impact on the area economy than an alternative which relied
to a greater extent on non-local labor and materials. The
Milwaukee area has several local firms with expertise in the
construction of open cut sewers, tunnelled sewer construction,
excavation, and inplace concrete construction. The MMSD has,
in the past, successfully completed tunnel sewer construction
contract using local labor only in both soft and hard
rock medium. The size and time requirements for implement-
ing any of the proposed alternatives, however, is beyond
the capabilities of the local construction firms. Outside
firms would generally supply technical expertise and some
of the larger equipment required for deep rock tunnels.
A large portion of the tunnel laborers and support labor
(mechanics, drivers, etc.) could be supplied by the Milwaukee
area labor force. Open-cut sewers and other near-surface
conveyance, storage,and screening structures could be con-
structed by local labor. Table 5-34 gives a breakdown of the
labor requirements by facility type.
5-108
-------
o
o cu
o g
MH •> O
O ro o
rH C
o\& i
-P 4-1
>1 0)
4J £1,
>-l O
en cu M
EH Q, O.
2 >• 0
H H? M T3
Q E Cu CD
n M O N
^ en o d)
, W W 0 e
1 K OS IH o O
in O O ^ O
< \S. r^ c
w en c\o -w- H
^ en 0
S U en
o\° O -H
en rH
•^r <^ m en o3
U 3
CM ro in tr
C 0)
O
EH _ ^ 0) O
O 4J
EH OS 03 O
O MO
en h o
£-» X -
en to rH
O -p
U
rH M
C
C o
X
fc
EH
in in in to o
^o r~~ co
rH cs ro cu rH
tO- (JlrH
rO to-
CU CU
> -Q
to
in rH
o 3
o o
CN S
1 CO
T3
^1
4J
M
d) Q>
CX P
O rH
M (0
P-i t>
in c
oo o
o o o c?> XI
000 rH
O O O M
- - •• CU 03
in in in £ CD
rH CN ro EH >i
H
EL!
en
K
..
cu
o
M
O
en
5-109
-------
TABLE 5-34
WORK FORCE ESTIMATES.BY FACILITY TYPE
Facility Type
Near-Surface Collectors
Soft-Ground Tunnels
Dropshaft
Screening Structure
Access Shaft
Deep Tunnels
Caverns
Sewer Construction
(open cut)
Building Separation
Paving and grading
Source MWPAP/CSO, 1980
Estimate
1 crew = 5-7 persons
8 crews or approximately
60 persons per contract
50 Persons per contract
50 persons per structure
25 pesrsons per structure
25 persons (would be
added to the tunnels)
150 persons per contract
100 persons per contract
8 pez'sons per crew
Two crews (one outside,
one inside)
Outside crew, 3 persons
Inside crew, 1 person -
small structure
2 persons - large structure
10 persons per crew
5-110
-------
The differences in man-years required for construction of
each alternative would be minimal, depending on the construction
staging schedule used. Increased storage facility sizes
would require more tunnel labor and less labor for sewer
construction and vice versa. In addition to construction
labor, the Milwaukee area has several firms which manu-
facture 'concrete, concrete products (blocks, beams, precast
pipe,and other precast materials), and heavy construction
equipment. Numerous other local firms supply materials
(e.g., subassemblies, forged steel parts, and raw materials
like sand and gravel, etc.) to the construction industry. A
portion of construction dollars paid to these firms would be
injected into the local economy.
Negative impacts associated with any of the final alternatives
would be the result of the disruption to traffic, parking,
and access to business. (There are negative impacts on the
local economy from tax dollars paid to non-local construction
firms. This money or a percentage thereof, could have been
spent locally. The severity of this impact could be
decreased by relocation, etc.). Areal extent of traffic and
access disruption are quantified in the transportation section
of this appendix. Disruption to traffic or access, whether
real or perceived, would have its most severe impacts on
retail commercial operations. These impacts could not be
quantified because of the large number of sales outlets effected.
The severity of impacts would depend on the duration of
disturbances, the type of business, and the individual
company's ability to withstand periods of reduced sales.
Businesses which rely on impulse buying (e.g., book and
record shops) would generally be more severely affected than
those businesses which supply basic necessities such as food
and clothing.
5.8.1 Complete Sewer Separation
The Complete Sewer Separation alternative would require 440
miles of construction of sanitary sewers. These sewers
would be constructed using open cut techniques which could
heavily involve local contract firms. Because Complete Sewer
Separation would involve private property work to alter
internal plumbing systems, several local plumbing firms
could become heavily involved in the construction phase.
Excess clear water facilities would be constructed as deep
tunnels. As previously stated, outside expertise would be
required for construction of these facilities. Deep tunnel
construction could also draw most required workers from the
local labor force.
5-111
-------
Sewer separation would affect the entire CSSA. All business
in this area would feel the effects of these disruptions.
Private property work could require temporary disruption to
some operations while plumbing systems are being altered.
In some areas, interruption of other utilities could tem-
porarily disrupt business activities if utilities need to be
rerouted for sewer construction activities. Construction
activities would directly affect two to three blocks at any
one construction site. Total construction duration on any
one block would be two to four weeks. Some businesses might
not recover to preconstructing levels for several more days.
5.8.2 Inline Storage
Because storm sewer construction and deep tunnels would be
required in the same areas as for Complete Sewer Separation,
impacts would be very similar. No privates property work
would be required, eliminating inconveniences caused by in-
building plumbing modifications. Near surface collectors,
storage facilities, and dropshafts would be required.
Construction of these facilities would cause traffic and
access problems for extended periods of time but impacts
would be very localized. Construction of these facilities
could be performed by local contractors.
5.8.3 Modified GST/Inline Storage
The Modified CST/Inline Storage alternative would require
sewer construction of new storm sewers in 21% of the CSSA
plus minor amounts needed to accomplish separation of an
additional 11% of the CSSA already having separated sanitary
and storm sewers. Businesses in the Bay View area (Lake
Michigan Basin) and Kinnickinnic River Basin would be
affected by traffic disruption associated with sewer con-
struction. Near surface collectors and dropshafts would
cause traffic disruption in isolated areas of the remaining
68% of the CSSA. Because the collectors and dropshafts
would require longer construction periods, impacts to local
businesses could prove more severe. These construction
activities would be isolated. The most critical would be
for construction of dropshafts MKE 6 and MKE 7 and their
associated collector systems. These would be constructed
within the Central Business District.
5.8.4 Modified Total Storage
The Modified Total Storage alternative wo\ild require no
sewer separation except for minor modifications required to
complete sewer separation in 11% of the CSSA (which is
required for each CSO Alternative). While the number of
5-112
-------
businesses affected by traffic disruption would be further
decreased, the duration of disruption to those affected
would increase. These disruptions would be caused by near
surface collector, near surface storage, and dropshaft
construction. These impacts would be similar to those
described for the Modified CST/Inline Storage alternative.
The number of employment opportunities lost by the decreased
amount of sewer construction would be offset partially by
the increased size of the near surface storage facilities
which could utilize local labor.
5.9 NOISE
Noise impacts would be mainly associated with the construction
phase of any of the final alternatives. Noise due to
operations would be minimal for all systems.
Noise levels generated during construction of open cut
sewers would cause short-term disturbances to residents
where construction activities occur within 570 ft (approximately
1-1/2 blocks) of residential properties. The outdoor
day/night noise level (Ldn) resulting from construction at a
distance of 570 feet is approximately equal to 55 decibels
(dBA). This noise level has been identified by EPA as
requisite to protect public health and welfare with an
adequate margin of safety (US EPA, MCD 20). Outdoor noise
levels at distances of 50 feet and 90 feet from sewer con-
struction equipment have been estimated by the MMSD to be
in the range of 75 to 87 dBA depending on the phase of
construction and distance to buildings. Indoor noise levels
could be expected to be approximately 15 dBA lower than the
outdoor levels due to typical noise attenuation qualities of
residential buildings with partially open windows (MCD-20)
Exposure to peak noise levels generated during sewer con-
struction would generally be limited to a period of 1 to 2
weeks per block. Construction could be limited to between
the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. except where exemptions
would be deemed necessary by the resident construction
engineer.
Noise levels associated with dropshaft, cavern access shaft,
near surface collector, and near surface storage facility
construction are generally in the same range as those
expected for sewer construction.
Impacts due to construction of these facilities would be
slightly more severe due to the extended duration of con-
struction activity. In some cases, construction could take
up to 3 years.
5-113
-------
Screening structures would be required for the Modified
CST/Inline Storage and the Modified Total Storage alternatives.
These screening structures would be constructed near drop-
shafts generally close to the river valleys. The low bearing
capacity of soils in these areas would most likely necessitate
the use of piles beneath the screening structure foundations.
Where piles are needed, noise levels associated with screening
facility construction would be substantially higher due to
the pile driving operation.
The distance from residential areas to dropshaft construction
sites would be greater than 600 feet for all but four drop-
shafts. Of those four, one (MKE 2) would be located within
100 feet of residences, two (MKE 1 and MEN 3) would be within
200 feet of residences, and one (MEN 1) would be within 300
feet of residences. Consequently, the disruptive effects of
dropshaft construction noise on residents would be less than
sewer construction noise. However, the duration of construction
would be approximately one year at each dropshaft resulting
in prolonged noise impacts.
The differences among the four final alternatives with
regard to short-term noise impacts are best described in
terms of the extent and duration of construction activities.
The following table indicates the extent and duration of
noise impacts for each alternative. (Table 5-35).
Noise generated during operation and maintenance of any of
the four final alternatives would be minimal. Most facilities
would be underground which would minimize the transmission
of operation and maintenance noise to the human environment.
Some intermittent noise would be generated by maintenance
vehicles and personnel entering and leaving a particular
facility. Ventilation equipment would have to be operated
prior to the entry of deep tunnels and caverns. The noise
produced by ventilating equipment could be minimized by
proper vent location, baffling, and vegetcitive screens.
Pump Stations and screening facilities present the greatest
potential for producing long-term noise impacts. Proper
acoustical treatment of structures housing these facilities
could limit objectionable noise to the confines of the
buildings. Additional protection could be achieved by
providing buffer zones with vegetative screening around the
facilities.
5.10 ODORS
Impacts due to odors would be minimal for each of the final
alternatives. Odor problems during construction would be
minimal for all components of any of the four final alternatives
5-114
-------
I
LD
w
CQ
E-i
co
EH
S
H
W
co
H
O
2
K
O
K
CO
§
H
E-i
I
Q
Q
2
E-t
X
a
in
CU
CU
CN •
0 0
4-1 0
r-4
H £)
- r-l
r-l Cfl
£
in
0)
CN
0
4-1
r-l
*
r-4
03
•P
O
4-1
en
M
(T)
£*1
o
r-l
0
0
fl
rH
(fl
4J
C
cu
'U
•H
Cfl
cu
f^
j_i
0)
ft
idential
in
cu--
SH
^
0)
ft
en
v
0)
0!
5
CN •
^
0 0
-P O
H
r- 1 xi
-P
4-1
(8
tn
en
en
cu
o
o
(fl
SH
(D
ft
in
r|
•P
fi
O
10
1
CN
•
CU
Jj
•H
en
r|
CJ
(fl
d)
4J
rd
j-l
(0
CU
£*i
r- (
«
0)
4-1
•H
en
/-]
o
(d
cu
CO
s_i
(fl
CU
?**
C1
cu
-H
en
en
•H
r]
4J
4-1
(fl
en
^
(d
cu
k>i
Jf
f>
idential block
en
CU
S-4
SH
cu
ft
en
y
CU
cu
5
CN
0
4-1
r-l
ntial block.
0)
•o
•rl
en
cu
SH
^
cu
a
en
^v*
cu
CU
^
CM
1
r-l
4J
l*-l
rt!
J5
in
en
en
cu
o
0
(«
rl
cu
ft
en
r]
4-1
C
o
£
^
1
CN
o
(d
cu
ID
0)
4J
C
0)
4-1
X
H
struction within
c
0
0
r4
CU
s
cu
tn
>i
£1
T!
0)
4J
O
CU
M-l
M-l
(fl
<
CO
co
O
cu
^
•H
4-1
C
W
•
en
01
c
•H
T3
iH
•i-4
3
£1
M-l
0
4-1
0
0)
M-l
O
O>
O
4-1
4-1
<1)
0)
M-l
O
un
«
CO
c
0
• rH
4J
(fl
4J
CO
4-1
14-1
•H
i — (
in
r-i
struction within
c
o
0
M
0)
5
i
£1
T3
0)
4-1
O
cy
M-l
M^
ifl
SC
OT
O
O
M
'H
-P
c
w
•
w
Cn
C
•rl
T3
H
•H
3
Xi
M-l
O
4J
cess shaft
o
(d
\
3
en
r-l
cu
c
fi
3
4J
s
o
1-1
H
(d
X!
W
M-l
O
cn
0)
r-l
•H
S
LO
«
^O
•
4-1
cu
CU
M-l
O
0
0
r-l
^1
^
CU
^
cu
ities) .
r-l
•H
O
(d
<4-l
cn
fi
•rl
C
cu
cu
r4
0
en
o
£
cn
4J
4-1
rd
X!
cn
ft
O
rl
*sf
r-l
(without screening
in
cu
•rl
4-1
•rl
rH
•r(
O
Ifl
M-l
CU
Cn
(d
H
O
•P
en
cu
0
(tf
M-l
^
rj
cn
M
(0
0)
d
•a*
•
4-1
M-l
ifl
X!
cn
cn
cn
cu
o
o
oJ
CJ
cu
rd
o
r-4
nstruction within
o
CJ
rl
CU
3
cu
en
>i
^3
T!
CU
4-1
0
CU
M-4
M-l
(fl
<
co
CO
o
U-4
o
0\°
rH
CN
•
CO
0*
C
•H
t3
rH
•rH
3
^3
MH
0
4-1
0)
CU
MH
O
01
0
4J
4J
CU
CU
MH
O
in
sewers.
SH
0
4-1
o
OJ
r-l
rH
0
0
d)
0
(fl
MH
rl
3
cn
SH
rd
(U
c
MH
O
en
cu
rH
•rl
S
O1
access shafts
X!
4-1
•r4
?
CO
rH
CU
c
c
3
-P
S
O
rH
rH
id
X!
en
MH
O
cn
cu
rH
•H
e
LO
.
^o
•
4-1
cu
0)
MH
o
o
o
rH
K*1
^1
CU
CU
*
^^
tn
C
•H
C
(U
CU
SH
0
en
X!
4-1
•H
JS
en
4J
MH
id
x:
cn
ft
0
!H
T!
^
rH
JH
cu
3 C
CU O
CO -H
4J
CU Ifl
•M SH
cu (d
rH ft
ft CU
e w
o
u
-------
4-J
C
0
U
I
m
H
PQ
Ei
c
0
•H
4J
3
Q
4-1
C
4-1
X
w
r;
U
03
to
^
oj
CO
ro
"&>
C
•r-|
C
0)
0)
n
o
to
x;
4->
•H
JS
to
cy
•i-i
4J
•H
r-l
•H
O
4-4
cu
Cn
jq
O
-P
tn
cu
o
(C
14-1
i-i
3
W
^
ifl
CU
c
"*
o
a
cu
en
^j
ta
cu
JC
ro
to
4J
4-1
03
4^
01
en
en
0)
D
o
f£S
G
CD
^
nj
U
cu
cu
O
o
o
e
m
tr>
•H
c
cu
cu
fc
o
en
4J
•H
en
-P
'4J
(0
to
a
o
M
T3
O
03
CD
cn
•H
fi
0)
0)
i-l
o
en
A
4J
•H
tn
cu
•H
4-1
•H
r-l
•H
O
cu
Cn
o
4-1
CO
O
(0
D
CO
CU
C
U
03
01
Jf
en
4-1
en
en
a)
u
ej
a
(0
U
4J CO
CU r4
S CU
0 4-1
i-l 0)
o
00
E-i 0
cn 4-i
U cn ~
t3 CU 4-1
cu c c
•H -.-I O
M-l H O
•H C —
T3 H
S
ft
I
i-i
o
-P
en
oo
o o
143 ro
H O
CD 4-1
H 0
•H 0
en
cu
o
n
p
0
en
5-116
-------
Excavated soils generally have a mild non-offensive odor.
These materials would be trucked away from construction
sites shortly after removal. Some objectionable odors could
be released during sewer construction as a result of dis-
connection of sanitary laterals. These odors could be
reduced by flushing the lateral prior to disconnection.
Similar odor problems could result where separated sanitary
sewers would be disconnected from combined sewers. This
impact would be a very short duration (one day). These
odors would be eliminated during backfill operations.
Deposition of solids in conveyance systems is usually pre-
cluded by proper hydraulic design. However, blockages
created by large objects lodging in a sewer could cause
solids to be trapped and could create a localized odor
problem. The relatively large diameter of many sewers which
would be required under any of the final alternative would
substantially reduce the possibility of blockages and
resulting odor problems.
Screening facilities required at dropshafts and near surface
storage facilities for the Modified CST/Inline Storage and
the Modified Total Storage alternatives would collect and
store solids which could produce odors. Since these facilities
would be underground, odors generated would reach the
surface only 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. Odors which could be released
during the transfer of screened solids to disposal sites
could be reduced by using trucks equipped with covered
containers in order to minimize exposure to the atmosphere.
In the event that solids would collect in deep tunnels and
storage cavern, odor problems could be experienced in the
vicinity of ventilation exhausts. As with screening structure
vents, deodorizing filters could be used to eliminate
potential problems. Severe solids deposition could require
periodic flushing of the tunnels and the cavern.
5.11 AESTHETICS
Aesthetic impacts to the community would be similar to the
noise impacts in that they would be dependent upon the area
required for construction and the duration of the con-
struction. Residential, commercial, recreational and open
land would generally be more sensitive to aesthetic disruption
than industrial areas.
5-117
-------
Construction activities would reduce available on-street
parking in both residential and commercial areas. The areas
listed below now have inadequate available parking; the
sewer separation alternative would aggravate such defi-
ciencies .
St. Luke's Hospital Area (S. 29th Street and W. Oklahoma
Avenue)
• N. 44th Street and W. North Avenue
Harley-Davidson Corporation Area (N. 37th Street and
W. Juneau Avenue)
Harnischfeger Corporation Area (S. 44th Street and
W. National Avenue)
• A. 0. Smith Corporation Area (W. Hopkins Street and
N. 27th Street)
• Washington High School Area (N. Sherman Boulevard and
W. Wright Street)
• University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Area (N. Maryland
Avenue and E. Kenwood Boulevard).
In addition, although adequate parking and access now exist
in the Central Business District, East and lower East
Sides, and Marquette University areas, parking could become
scarce due to construction nearby. These areas would also
be considered most susceptible to access problems if sewer
separation construction would be implemented. (See Figure
5-13.)
In residential areas, local and collector streets would
be partially closed during the peak construction period.
Each block would be directly affected for a minimum of two
weeks. It was estimated by the MMSD that a total of five
miles of roadway would be under construction at any one .
time. Ordinarily, only part of this construction would take
place in any single residential area. Residents in areas
lacking off-street parking would have to park on nearby
streets. Where on-street parking is already in short supply,
it could be necessary to suspend parking ordinances in
streets surrounding the construction zone. Since alleys
would not be affected by the sewer work, residents with
alley access would not be as severely affected by the sewer
work. Approximately 75% of the CSSA is served by alleys.
Alleys are less prevalent in the area east of the Milwaukee
River and north of 1-794. In this area, blocks with alleys
approximately equal the number without alleys. There are
other small clusters of blocks without alleys scattered
throughout the CSSA.
In commercial areas traffic flow would be maintained on all
streets but construction activity would reduce the volume of
5-118
-------
0 UJj
CO
UJ
8
CO
CO
UJ
o
3
O
z
^
o:
2
-I
<
O
o:
o
UJ
H
a
-------
traffic that could be handled. On-street parking would be
limited causing nearby streets to experience parking loads
and traffic flows above normal levels. Direct access to
stores'would be interrupted. Sewer separation construction
activities would take from two to four weeks on any block in
a commercial area, although this period could be longer in
CBD. For any establishments that do not have access via an
adjoining street or alley, delivery of supplies could prove
difficult during this period.
The CBD presents a unique situation with regard to trans-
portation impacts. As the financial, commercial and cultural
center of metropolitan Milwaukee, the CBD is also the single
most important generator of traffic in the region. To
minimize impacts on traffic, mitigating measures could be
taken. On streets carrying heavy traffic, construction could
be suspended during rush hours. Contracts could be sequenced
to provide alternate traffic routes and prevent loadings on
these routes from reaching intolerable levels.
The MIS passes beneath parts of the CBD enroute to Jones
Island. The MMSD has proposed that some buildings be
directly connected to these sewers by the construction of
new laterals. This practice could be used to minimize new
sewer construction and its related impacts on the CBD.
Complete Sewer Separation would have an impact on public
transportation. Milwaukee County operates 61 bus lines
which provide public transit to all county residents.
Construction activities related to the Complete Sewer
Separation alternative would disrupt the public transportation
system on 44 of 61 bus routes (see Figure 5-14).
The routes most critical to operation of the transit system
lie along the following streets (based upon the number of
bus routes and transfer points): Wisconsin Avenue, Wells
Street, Water Street, Plankinton Avenue, South First Street,
Second Street, Third Street, North Van Buren Street, North
Farwell Avenue, North Prospect Avenue, North Downer Avenue,
and North Oakland Avenue. Routes in the CBD are shown in
detail in the insert to Figure 5-15.
The traffic congestion resulting from construction activities
would increase bus trip times and could possibly disrupt bus
schedules. In addition, it could be necessary to temporarily
relocate bus stops and reroute buses which could cause
increased bus flow on non-arterial streets and poor transfer
between bus lines. If the inconveniences became severe
enough, ridership would be reduced. One measure to alleviate
the inconveniences would be to adequately inform the riding
public of any modifications to bus operation.
5-119
-------
The differences among the four final alternatives in terms
of short-term aesthetic disruptions are be;st described by
the extent and duration of required construction activities.
The following table (Table 5-36) indicates the extent and
duration of construction impacts for each alternative.
After construction would be completed, all affected areas
would be restored to their original condition. Some facilities
would be situated above ground and should be designed to be
consistent with the surrounding land use. Pump stations,
access shafts and ventilation structures could pose this
aesthetic problem. Proper architectural treatment of these
facilities would minimize their aesthetic disruption potential.
In residential areas, structures which blend in with the
surrounding housing types could be used to house the neces-
sary above ground equipment. In parks and open spaces, an
appealing structure in combination with good landscaping
could be used to blend the facility into the surrounding
environment. Commercial and industrial areas generally
require less attention to detail in matching architectural
style, but the resulting facility should be designed to
maintain or improve the general character of the area.
5.12 TRANSPORTATION
5.12.1 Short-Term Impacts
The CSSA contains major highway, arterial, and collector
street systems totaling over 500 miles. During the construction
phase, each of the final alternative would cause some degree
of disruption to the movement of both private vehicles and
the mass transit system. Available parking areas could be
reduced.
All the CSO alternatives would include complete sewer
separation in 11% of the CSSA. In this area, disruption of
transportation in both residential and commercial areas
would be miniminal. The only major construction proposed
for this area would be along Capitol Drive between N. 20th
Street and N. Humboldt Avenue. Each alternative would
disrupt the remaining 89% of the CSSA to varying degrees.
These impacts are descussed below.
5.12.1.1 Complete Sewer Separation
Complete Sewer Separation would cause transportation impacts
throughout 89% of the CSSA. This alternative would involve
the construction of approximately 440 miles of new sanitary
sewer in the street rights-of-way. IVost of the construction
would occur on local streets that provide access to residential
properties. Private property work would be required on
nearly every property in the CSSA.
5-120
-------
CO
CO
O
CO
Id
I-
3
O
o:
CO
CD
-------
cn
EH
O
tn
QJ
QJ
CM
0
4-1
i — (
•k
rH
id
4-1
0
4-1
C
o
•iH
4-1
id
SH
3
Q
cn
SH
<3
V
J^l
o
y
O
0
rH
ft
rH
id
•H
4-1
C
01
T3
•H
in
0)
SH
SH
QJ
a
«
C
0
•H
4-1
18
4-1
tn
SH
QJ
a
tn
x;
4-1
G
o
s
vO
cn
QJ
CM
O
4-1
rH
*
i— 1
18
4-1
0
4-1
cn
SH
i
n
01
S-l
id
0)
4-1
0)
T!
•H
SH
0)
a
QJ
0)
CN •
O O
•P 0
o
0
OJ
a
0)
i
J3
•0
(1)
4J
U
OJ
MH
MH
id
rt
w
w
u
0)
SH
•rH
4-)
G
W
cn
Cn
•H
T3
rH
•H
3
X!
MH
0
4->
OJ
MH
O
0)
0)
MH
O
m
tn
M
SH
id
ft
T3
id
tn
id
OJ
SH
id
rH
i
X!
T3
0)
4-J
U
0)
MH
MH
id
rtj
W
w
u
0)
•rH
4J
c
w
tn
Cn
G
•H
T3
rH
•rH
3
X!
MH
0
4-1
QJ
OJ
MH
O
CT^
O
4J
4-1
QJ
OJ
MH
o
in
ector sewers in
rH
H
o
O
Q)
0
id
MH
^_i
3
in
^_i
id
OJ
G
MH
0
cn
0)
rH
•rH
g
C^
,
in
*/*
^j
id
ft
rrj
C
(8
cn
id
QJ
id
o
rH
ial, affected by
4-)
C
OJ
•n
•H
CO
0>
SH
£N
rH
4J
CO
O
e
x.
rtj
t/2
CO
u
MH
O
<»
rH
CM
MH
o
(U
0)
MH
O
0
4J
OJ
0)
MH
O
in
G
•H
X!
4J
•H
3
G
0
•H
4-1
O
3
4-1
CO
G
O
0
SH
0)
3
0)
tn
.
cn
Cn
c
•rH
T)
rH
•rH
3
ectors in commercial
rH
rH
0
U
OJ
o
id
MH
SH
3
cn
iH
id
0)
c
MH
O
CO
Q)
rH
•H
e
cn
•
cn
y
SH
id
ft
^
G
id
cn
id
0)
SH
id
with access shafts
cn
rH
0)
c
c
3
4-)
3
0
rH
H
id
X!
CO
MH
O
01
OJ
rH
•H
g
in
•
kO
cn
id
QJ
SH
id
^
SH
id
ft
T!
QJ
G
O
•H
-P SH
U W
T3 I)
0) C
•rH -H
MH rH
•H G
T3 H
O
5-121
-------
O
O
KJ
en
tn
w
0)
o
o
c
0
Q
x;
o
(8
CD
SH
(8
Q)
X!
O
(0
0)
(8
CD
x;
o
flj
CD
(8
CD
in
!H
0)
ft
tn
a
CD
0)
3
CM
I
in
us
CD
A
O
(0
CD
U
tn
X!
4J
•H
|5
-— *
01
4-1
4H
(8
en
ft
0
13
•3*
en
f8
CD
(8
( — 1
(8
•rH
U
SH
CD
P
g
O
O
T3
C
(8
rage facilities in or near park
o
4-1
tn
CD
u
(8
4H
SH
•3
en
j^i
t8
CD
C
-------
5.12.1.2 Inline Storage
The Inline Storage alternative involves the construction of
approximately 460 miles of storm sewers in 39% of the CSSA.
In addition, 14 drop shafts, 4 near surface storage facilities,
and a storage cavern at County Stadium would be constructed.
As a consequence, the Inline Storage alternative would be
slightly more disruptive to transportation networks than
Complete Sewer Separation.
Disruption in most residential areas would be caused by
storm sewer construction activities roughly comparable to
that outlined under the Complete Sewer Separation alternative.
Because storm sewers must be designed to convey large
variations in flow, larger diameter pipes would require more
construction area. It would not be possible to maintain
through traffic on all arterials undergoing construction of
the large diameter pipes. Congestion on available alternative
routes would create increased traffic and access problems.
Approximately 12 miles of near surface collectors would be
constructed to divert overflows to drop shafts. About three
miles of this collector system lie within the CDB tributary
to MKE 6 and 7. Due to the large number of underground
utilities in the area, work would proceed at a slow rate to
ensure that no major service interruption to utilities would
occur. Any block closed either for separation or collector
construction could remain closed for up to three months.
In addition to transportation impacts from sewer line
construction, this alternative would have impacts resulting
from dropshaft construction. During construction, truck
traffic would be required for spoil removal and the delivery
of construction materials. There is a possibility that
barges would be used at some of the sites. The rivers would
be able to accommodate this barge traffic, but increased
bridge openings could be disruptive to surface transportation,
especially in the CBD.
The actual construction at most of the dropshaft sites would
not directly create traffic problems. The exceptions are
MKE sites 1, 5> and 7, and MEN site 3. However, truck
traffic from all of the sites could create traffic problems
on nearby arterials and expressways. Interstate 43 is at or
over capacity in the entire stretch between Capitol Drive
and Interstate 94. Interstate 94 is at or over capacity from
its junction with Interstate 894 at Layton Avenue west to
County Stadium. Six sites would require construction
vehicles to utilize residential streets. These locations
are: MKE 1, 2 and 3, and MEN 1, 3 and 7. Generally, the
distance from these sites to the nearest arterial street
would range from 500 to 900 feet. MKE 3 would be an exception;
5-123
-------
1,500 feet of travel would be required to reach an arterial
street from this site. Details of on-site and access problems
for each dropshaft are given in Table 5-37.
No on-site transportation problems are foreseen for the four
storage sites and few problems are foreseen at the stadium.
At the Lake Michigan North and South near surface storage
sites construction traffic could be expected to use Lincoln
Avenue, East Bay Street, South 1st Street and Kinnkinnic
Avenue. Each of these streets is currently at capacity in
the vicinity of these near surface storage sites. As was
discussed above, Interstate 94 is also congested in this
area. The Lincoln Creek near surface storage site would be
located just north of Capital Drive in an area where Capitol
Drive is over capacity. Access to the Stadium cavern site
would presumably be via Interstate 94 which, as mentioned
earlier, is at or over capacity throughout the city.
The Inline Storage alternative, like Complete Sewer Separation,
would also affect public transportation. Impacts would be
similar to those discussed for Complete Sewer Separation.
Long-term impacts would be the same as for Complete Sewer
Separation in that ridership could decrease if the rider
inconveniences created were severe enough. To alleviate
these inconveniences, the riding public could be informed of
any modifications to bus operations.
5.12.1.3 Modified CST/Inline Storage
This alternative would entail the construction of 115 miles
of new storm sewer. All storm sewer construction would be
confined to the Lake Michigan, Kinnickinnic River, and
Lincoln Creek basins. Impacts would be similar to those for
Complete Sewer Separation in these areas. Dropshafts, near
surface collectors, screening structures and the County
Stadium and Jones Island storage facilities, would be con-
structed.
The transportation impacts of the Modified CST/Inline Storage
alternative differ significantly from the Inline Storage
alternative in the 68% of the CSSA. In this central area,
the disruption would be confined to the construction of
approximately 12 miles of collectors and the 14 dropshaft
sites. Transportation impacts for these facilities, would
be the same as described for the Inline Storage alternative.
Disruption of bus schedules and routes would be confined
mainly to the Lake Michigan, Kinnickinnic River, and Lincoln
Creek basins where they would be the same as in the Complete
Sewer Separation alternative. A total of 17 bus routes
would be disrupted. These routes include no streets critical
to the bus system system. Additional routes could be disrupted
5-124
-------
TABLE 5-37
TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS RELATED TO DROPSHAFT CONSTRUCTION
Milwaukee 1
Site:
Access Situation:
Inadequate parking facilities in this area.
Capitol Drive is rated as over capacity west of
Humboldt and at capacity east of Humboldt.
Milwaukee 2
Access Situation:
Locust Street is over capacity west of Humboldt and
at capacity east of Humboldt. Humboldt itself is at
capacity just north of Locust.
Milwaukee 3
Access Situation:
Locust Street is as described for Milwaukee 2.
North Avenue is at capacity both east and west of
Holton Street.
Milwaukee 4
Access Situation:
North Avenue is at capacity both east and west of
Holton. East Brady Street is at capacity.
Milwaukee 5
Site:
Inadequate parking, interference with industrial
traffic already in area, problems with employee
traffic during shift changes.
Access Situation: East Brady Street is at capacity.
Milwaukee 6
Access Situation:
Problems only when major events are scheduled at the
Milwaukee Arena or Performing Arts Center during
working hours.
Milwaukee 7
Site:
Access Situation:
Possible interference with large nearby parking
facilities. Interference with vehicles using the
area for bridge reconstruction work.
Both North Water Street and North Broadway are at
or near capacity.
5-125
-------
TABLE 5-37 (Cont.)
Milwaukee 8
Access Situation:
South 1st Street and South 6th Street are both at
capacity south of Interstate 94.
Menomonee 1
Access Situation: State Street is at capacity between 60th and 68th
Streets:
Menomonee 2
Access Situation:
35th Street is at or over capacity both north and
south of Wisconsin Avenue. Wisconsin Avenue is at or
over capacity east of 43rd Street.
Menomonee 3
Site:
Access Situation:
Inadequate parking, narrow bridges and roads leading
to the site may create traffic problems.
Same as Menomonee 2.
Menomonee 6
Site:
Trucks will either have to cross main line rail
tracks or a new bridge will have to be built. The
latter would cause traffic and parking problems in the
industrial area west of the river.
Access Situation:
Layton Boulevard is over capacity immediately north
and south of Route 94 and at or over capacity beyond
these stretches. Wisconsin Avenue is at or over
capacity east of 43rd Street.
Menomonee 7
Access Situation:
See Menomonee 6.
Menomonee 8
There are no problems foreseen.
Source: ESEI, 1980.
5-126
-------
during construction of the 12 miles of collectors and 14
dropshaft sites. Most critical would be the disruption
caused by construction of a near surface collector in
N. Water Street through the intersection of Wisconsin Avenue.
Fifteen bus routes pass through this intersection, although
only 3 routes follow N. Water Street.
5.12.1.4 Modified Total Storage
Under this alternative only 12 miles of near surface collectors
would be constructed to convey flow to the four near surface
storage sites and the 14 dropshaft sites. Disruption of
transportation would be confined to these areas. Problems
at dropshaft sites and at County Stadium would be similar to
those described under the Inline Storage alternative. Along
the 12 miles of near surface collectors, transportation
disruption for residential areas would be similar to those
described for the Complete Sewer Separation alternative; for
commercial areas as was described for the Inline Storage
alternative.
Disruption of bus routes and schedules would be limited .
Some routes could be disrupted during construction of the
near surface collectors and the dropshaft. For these routes
the impacts would be the same as those described under the
Modified CST/Inline Storage alternative.
5.12.2 Long-Term Impacts
The separation of sewers would result in no long-term
impacts on the transportation system. The separated sewer
system would require approximately the same maintenance
as the existing combined system. Some traffic would be
disrupted as a result of routine sewer inspection and main-
tenance. The operation and maintenance of near surface
collectors, near surface storage facilities, dropshafts,
and the caverns would involve small increases in truck traffic.
The Complete Sewer Separation and Inline Storage Alternatives
would disrupt the bus transportation system. As previously
discussed, this disruption could be severe enough to cause a
long-term decrease in ridership.
Many streets in the CSSA are old and in need of repairs.
Proper site restoration clauses in construction contracts
could include street resurfacing, which could benefit traffic
flow in some neighborhoods. The additional cost of resur-
facing streets within the CSSA has not been included in the
cost estimates for the four CSO abatement alternatives. In
general, the greater the area affected by complete or partial
separation, the greater will be the additional cost if com-
plete resurfacing is desired.
5-127
-------
5.13 HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
There are numerous structures of historical or architectural
importance in the Milwaukee area. These structures represent
irreplaceable landmarks, many of which are deeply rooted in
the long history and cultural traditions of the city.
Therefore, it is important to identify any physical or
aesthetic impacts that a proposed alternative may have on
these sites.
Presently there are no active archaeological investigations
being carried out within the CSSA. The EPA and the Milwaukee
Department of City Development are considering the funding
of a cultural resource inventory in the CSSA. It would be
premature to conduct archaeological surveys prior to the
selection of the final CSO abatement alternative as pro-
ceeding without first defining the primary impact zones would
be inefficient from the perspectives of both cost effectiveness
and survey methodology. After a decision has been made to
implement a particular alternative, field surveys could be
undertaken.
The most frequently occurring sites within the CSSA are
historically or architecturally significant structures.
Prehistoric sites are the next most frequent site. The least
frequently found sites in the CSSA are archaeological sites.
Because of the preliminary nature of the present project
plans, it is difficult to evaluate the nature and extent of
major impacts on these resources. According to the MMSD,
some generalization may be made regarding the impacts of the
alternatives.
Historic Structures: It is anticipated that no standing
structures would be destroyed or relocated as a result of
the sewer on storage facility construction.
Dropshaft facilities would be visible from some landmarks
listed on the National Register of Historic Places. However,
this could be considered a tangential impact which would not
directly affect these structures from any architectural or
historical perspective.
Archaeological Resources: The new gravity sewers would
generally be placed under pavement above or at the same
level as existing combined sewers. Thus, they would be
located in previously disturbed material.
The archaeological resources inventory indicates that for
three of the storage sites there are no recorded archaeo-
logical resources. For the locations where there are recorded
5-128
-------
archaeological resources, preliminary field investigations
have shown that additional survey and testing would be
necessary.
All of the proposed dropshaft sites are along the Milwaukee
and Menomonee Rivers, areas of relatively dense concentrations
of archaeological sites. Many of these dropshafts would be
located in open parklike areas which may not have been dis-
turbed by previous construction activities. Additional
field inventories would be necessary in these areas prior
to final design of dropshaft and storage facilities.
The following is a summary of the historical and archaeolog-
ical sites which could be affected by the construction of
each of the four final alternatives.
5.13.1 Complete Sewer Separation
Two pump stations to be located in the CSSA would be constructed
near historical residences. The sites are shown in Figure 5-16.
These residences are located at 3233 N. Hackett (Site 601, built
1890-1910) and 2805 E. Kenwood (Site 101, built 1920's).
Construction of a new sanitary sewer for Complete Sewer
Separation would be confined to the street right of way.
Private property work required for complete separation would
require some work in most of the historic buildings in the
CSSA. Proper construction methods and materials would minimize
impacts to the structure's integrity and aesthetic character.
Where necessary to avoid major structural or architectural
alterations, construction on these properties could be
foregone.
5.13.2 Inline Storage
While 89% of the CSSA would require new storm sewers for
partial sewer separation, all construction activities would
take place within the public right of way. No private
property work would be required and thus no impact to any
historical sites would be expected.
Of the required four near surface storage sites, only the
Lincoln Creek Site has no historical or archaeological
structures within its general area. The Kinnickinnic River
near surface storage site is near a historical structure
Site 661, "Joseph Williams Residence," built 1865, 606 E.
Homer). The Lake Michigan North site also has one historical
structure nearby site 665, Globe Tavern, built 1895, 2414 S.
St. Clair, National Registrar of Historic Places). The Lake
Michigan South site has one historical structure site 668,
Welsh Congregational Church, built 1873, 2739 S. St. Clair,
National Registrar of Historic Places), one historic
5-129
-------
archaeological site site 24, Potawatomi Village, Record Date
1916, at mouth of Deer Creek), and two prehistoric archaeo-
logical sites, site 101, Unknown Village, Record Date 1906
and site 119, Unknown Campsite, Record Date 1977) in its
general area.
Construction of dropshafts along the Milwaukee and Menomonee
Rivers could have impacts upon multiple historical and
archaeological sites. Tables 5-38, 5-39, 5-40 list each
dropshaft and the historical/archaeological sites that
construction could affect. Figure 5-16 shows these sites.
The County Stadium area has been used in the past as a
quarry and the City of Milwaukee's municipal refuge disposal
site. It is unlikely that any archaeological deposits or
historical sites in this area have remained undisturbed.
5.13.3 Modified CST/Inline Storage
Partial sewer separation would be required in 21% of the
CSSA. Because construction activities would be limited to
the public right of way, no impacts are expected.
The possible sites affected by near surface storage facilities
and dropshafts would be the same as those discussed for the
Inline Storage alternative. The possible sites affected would
be the same as those discussed in Tables 5-38 through 5-40.
Impacts to the County Stadium area would be the same as those
discussed for the Inline Storage alternative.
In the Jones Island area there are two historic archaeological
sites site 17, Potawatomi Village and site 28, Jones Island,
1854-1953). Also, Indian Trails have been recorded in this
vicinity.
5.13.4 Modified Total Storage
Impacts for this alternative would be similar to those for
the Modified CST/Inline Storage alternative.
There are numerous archaeological and historical sites
within the CSSA and any major construction project would
present the potential for damage. However, after a preliminary
analysis none of the proposed alternatives appearred to
disrupt any identified sites or would have any long-term
impacts on archaeological or historical sites. If arch-
aeological remnants are discovered during excavation, the
construction process would have to be halted until appropriate
investigations could be made by an archaeological specialist.
5-130
-------
CO
05
Q
cn
rH
I
o
in
co
GO
oo
CO
I
!--
O
LCI
co
CO
co
CO
CO
in
r(
id
in
0)
S
("]
c
o
•H
4J
id
o
3
p
^f
^
1
rj
p
CO
n
0)
3
0)
i-l
CQ
0)
i— {
,-H
•H
S
[5
o
G
Q)
4-1
rd
4-1
CO
•
S
O
0
5
oi in
o
CJ
0)
Q
4-1
iH
rfj
TJ
•H
^
.0
4J
0
0
CO
CO
O
CN
Q)
y
^
0
3
O
o
n
,G
p
• r-j
3
0)
SH
CQ
^
0)
1-1
i-H
•H
S
*5
0
G
O
o
o
c
•H
in
c
0
o
in
•H
[2
S
rH
CO
m
P
in
0)
S
C]
4J
^
1
rd
-M
CO
PO
O)
P
rd
p
CO
S
O
0
"xf
^
O
u
0)
Q
0)
4J
03
4J
CO
o
o
O
co
ro
J-i
0)
rH
rH
•H
s
s
n
H
r-
CJ
w
EH
H
I
Q)
3
C
01
^
3
4-1
O
3
i-i
4J
CO
0)
< 4-1
O
•O 3
C T3
M -H
CJ >
in
-
c
id
e
01
, — 1
4-)
G
0)
CJ
0)
0)
G k>i
0 14
e 01
0 3
G 0)
CD S-i
S CQ
M
0)
rH
rH
•H ^i
S SH
0)
0) Q)
fa 03
s
O
in cn
EH T3
H
jj
O •
JH O
Q CJ
0)
C
0)
^
< 4-1
CJ
13 3
C T3
n3 id
^-1 -H
CJ >
in
-
G
CD
E
01
rH
P
C
Q)
CJ
0)
0)
0 M
S o)
0 3
G 0)
0) ^
S CQ
in
Ol
rH
rH
S rl
0)
T3 3
01 O>
^1 ^-1
fa CQ
rH
o
r|
o
CO
^x,
M
O
p
1/3
Ol
rH :
rH 0)
•H CJ
s c
0)
^ T3
CD -H
S-l OT
fa Ol
01
ft e
id 3
a 2
CO
o
m
o
co
o
cn
a
o
2
H
2
H
S
5-131
-------
0)
4J
(fl
Q
CN
01
m
oo
tn
co
in
m
oo
in
co
co
co
in
co
co
rH
r-
co
co
in
CO
rH
I
in
in
co
tn
0)
a
i
o
co
c
co
n
tn
W
CQ
EH
O
§
EH
EH
2
O
H
fa
M
2
O
H
CO
3
M
O!
OS
o
EH
O
W
EH
H
1
Comments
c
0
•H
4-J
0!
o
a
Cambridge
•
2
CO
n
rH
n
<4H
rH
0
4-1
tn
3
o
•
0)
^_l
3
4-1
O
3
^
4J
W
0,1
03 3
a 2
CQ
•O
C
Q
£
TJ
H
iO
CN
CN
s
(U
tn
3
0
33
4-1
03
O
OQ
Locust English Renaissance
•
w
in
rH
VO
rH
X!
tn
•H
33
0)
T3
•H
U) rH
^ o
OJ 0
> -c
•H O
A CO
r-
CN
(N
Locust
•
H
CO
o
(N
rH
rH
rH
03
C
4->
•rH
X!
5 =
01
tn o
OJ C
rH 01
rH TJ
ITS -H
X! m
U
•H
OS
^
CN
(N
rH
O
0
X!
O
W
a
o
IH
Q
hitnall 1208 E. Locust
s
tn
0)
rH
^
o3
X!
U
O
n
CN
-
0)
o
c
0)
T)
•H
tn
0)
A
-------
q
o
u
CO
n
I
in
CO
cn
§
D
g
cn
H
2
cj
H
cn
•S3
ai
o
H
as
cn
cn
rH
I
CU
4-1
03
Q
cn
q
CU
S
0
CJ
CN
cn
co
rH
CD
3
O1
cn
0)
3
CJ
•H
CU
0)
4-1
(fl
t
H
q
o
•H
4-1
03
CJ
a
rrj
^ q
rH Ifl
CN rH
i si
CN cn
rH -H
CN as
^1
10
CQ
cu
SH
3
4-)
O
3
^
4-1
cn
01
ft g
fT3 2
S 2
4-)
0)
£
cn
0
Q
cn
~
cu
q
•H
rH
cu
rrj
<
VD
ro
>£
S
S
ly Modern 1909
demic Reaction 1900
SH (fl
03 O
W <
SH
CU
4-J
03
s
•
2
SH
cu in
-P CN
03 I
S in
rH
rH
2 rH
s
•
ft tj<
^ fTj ""O
q EH rH
(0 CQ
cn
£>i - O
cu q cj
M CU H
•a rH cu
3 rH 2
r~ co
m n
.
e Picturesque
4-1
rt!
SH
CU
4-1
03
s
*
2
[ —
O
1
rH
O
rH
rH
•
cn
4J
ft
f£
(^
0)
Cn
T3
o!
CQ
cn
vo
ro
O
CO
rH
c
03
•H
0
4-1
O
•H
Cn
•rH
as
SH
0)
4-1
(fl
S
•
2
r-
CN
rH
rH
^
•
Cn
T3
rH
CQ SH
10
rH CQ
01
cn cu
0) S
IS O
= &.
o
r*.
CO
^o
g
S
CO
CO
rH
cu
3
P1
cn
cu
3
4-1
u
•H
CU
01
4-1
(fl
3
03
CU
C
3
1-3
•
H
CO
rH
\^
rH
03
•H
O
SH
CO
g
0
CJ
rH
f^
n
rH
03
•rH
4-)
q
CD
•H
cn
CD
CO
cn
rH
S
0
•H
rH
(fl
q
0
•H
4-1
(fl
q
JH
0)
4-1
c
H
q
SH
3
5
H
•H
r*4
•
pa
o
o
CN
4J
q
0)
g
4J
cn
0)
j>
q
H
u
H
d
S
rH
CN
<*
titute of Architecture
ard of Honor)
cn s
C
SH q
01 0)
cu u
CN
CM
•3-
cn
CN
H
C
O
4J
CO
CU
K
O
•H
CD
(fl
o
cn
01
o
EH
SH
0)
^
•H
0)
01
jV
D
T3
3
rH
•H
S
cu
3
n
CD
PIJ
q
3 0)
0 cn
^5 T3
rH -H
•H SH
£4 CQ
m
CN
•*
demic Reaction and others 1890
03
O
q
SH
3
Jj
rH
•H
r*J
»
[^
S
cn
rH
03
•H
o
M
CD
g
0
CJ
cn
rH
in
q
0
4J
q
•H
q
(fl
rH
Cu
•
<2
T3
C
03
m
rH
cn
rH
I
rH
rH
cn
ro cn
q 0)
O o
•H 03
4J rH
(d Cu
2
u
« -H
y M
SH 0 q
(fl -M 0
g W -H
C
(fl
cu
MH
0
O
(fl
CJ
•H
S-H!
H Cn 03
•H
(fl cn
T3
2
O
1—I
cn
TJ ^
SH q
03 (fl
S CQ
T3 cn
C Cn
0
0
CU
q
-H
= cn
o
CN
5-133
-------
s
CO
o
cn
03
CO
o
03
H
r-
oo
CO
o
p~
oo
CNI
00
oo
03
CO
co
CN
O
O
CO
CO
4J
c
0
U
CO
ro
I
in
H
rH
a
<
EH
a
I
w
H
<
U
H
&4
H
2
O
H
W
u
H
Pi
i-
I
U
w
H
H
S
a
id
S
cn
4J
G
0)
S
G
0
•H
4-1
Id
O
a
0)
3
tf
CO
0)
!H
4-1
O
•H
eu
cu
4->
rd
j
T3
!H
ro
2
CN
rH
O
rH
*
Q
O
rH
CQ
C
id
4J
0)
}vl
3
4-)
U
3
S-l
4->
cn
S-J
rS
S
3
2
4J
IW
iTt
5
CO
a
0
M
Q
•H
rH
a
0
to
4J
0)
S
H
CN
in
<*o
w
>^H
S
to
0)
T3
g
cu
4->
fd
4-1
w
S
ro
ro
ro
>i
C
id
a
s
0
CJ
rH
rd
C
lM
3
O
in
0)
X!
EH
CN
(N
in
0)
3
D1
co
4->
id
4J
co
S
CN
CN
ro
rH
(d
•H
U
to
0)
p
£~
o
CJ
ro
CN
in
C
id
•H
to
0
4J
0
• H
>
X!
Cn
•H
B
•a
r^
ro
2
rH
O
O
rH
•
Cn
T3
rH
CQ
rH
0)
,*
c
•H
E
C
rC
O
r^
^
CN
in
T3
to
ro
2
r>-
O
O
rH
rH
id
•rH
O
to
cu
r£
0
u
in
CN
in
D
4-1
(d
C
td
•rH
rH
id
4J
H
m
•H
to
0
4-1
O
•H
>
T3
to
ro
2
rH
rH
1
cn
o
0
rH
4-1
c
id
S-l
3
id
4-1
CO
cu
Pi
cn
M
id
to
c
cu
r-3
^0
CN
m
T3
M
ro
2
ro
rH
O
rH
rH
id
•H
O
to
0)
g
o
CJ
[^
CN
in
cu
3
cr1
CO
cu
to
3
4-1
0
•H
CU
CU
4->
$
T3
!H
ro
2
cn
rH
1
m
rH
O
rH
IH
CU
X!
CU
rH
C
cu
o
13
cn
•
<:
co
CN
in
cn
• H
t)
H
•H
3
CQ
0)
3
rj1
CO
0)
rH
D
JJ
O
•H
&i
0)
-P
us
-H
OJ
3
O1
CO
0)
4-1
(d
c
id
•H
H
(d
4J
H
sance
en
•H
id
G
0)
os
c
ro
e
M
o
o
i
o
0)
2
0)
3
cr
CO
CD
to
3
-P
O
• H
eu
0)
4J
id
>H
•o
M
ro
2
rH
CN
O
rH
T3
(l
rH
ro
•
2
rH
ro
1
CTi
CN
0
rH
•a
!-l
ro
2
ro
ro
O
rH
T3
M
ro
2
r-
ro
O
rH
Cn
T3
rH
m
•a
rH
•rH
2
ffi
ta
ro
cn
CN
m
rH
id
•H
o
to
cu
P
g
0
CJ
o
ro
in
rH
id
•H
o
to
0)
S
§
0
o
rH
ro
in
1
to
0)
O
cn
_
to
CD
T3
(d
S
CN
ro
in
4-1
C
-------
-p
C
0
O
CO
oo
I
in
H
CO
H
CO
I
E-t
U
D
PS
EH
co
CJ
H
fc<
H
2
U
H
CO
3
r-3
H
Pi
co
H
r*
o
>l
d
en
i
oo 03
en en
co co
T3
M
ro
O
m
o
r-
r-
co
r-
co
n
o
2-
o
co
2
o
CM
cn
CO
manesque
0
Pi
C
0
tn
4J
c
CO
s
g
o
CJ
01
T3
SH
id
r|
CJ
•rH
Pi
r{
Cn
•H
B
0)
3
01
CO
n
3
•P
O
• rf
04
co
id
hJ
0)
O1
01
1)
^
3
4-1
U
.rH
CU
CO
4-1
id
0)
4J
rd
rd
•r-l
3
H
(d
3
T3
O
£_j
CQ
*
Z
i— I
00
1
i— i
in
CN
en
CO
rH
0)
3
CQ
0)
c
(d
e
o
c
o
01
'C
n3
jT4,
o
•H
tX
M
OJ
4J
fT3
^
,
3
0
o
m
01
o
co
rH
c
id
•rH
0
4-1
O
•rH
£>
f~|
Cn
•rH
B
^4
CO
4J
rd
S
*
z
CN
CN
1
O
rH
in
^
CO
4J
id
S
•
2
<3*
oo
1
CN
oo
in
O
CO
CO
i-H
1
CO
rH
rH
id
c
0
•H
4J
Id
Z
CD
3
cr
01
CO
3
4-1
U
•rH
CM
CD
4-1
id
c
rd
Cn
•rH
£,
u
•H
S,
t
H
in
CN
CM
oric Places,
4-1
01
•rH
X
O
rH
CO
4J
01
•H
Cn
0)
oi
n Building Survey,
id
u
•rH
^_)
CO
r3
U
•H
^4
0
4-1
01
•H
E
id
e
T)
c
id
CO
CO
^
3
id
3
rH
•rH
s
CJ
w
E-i
H
as
01
X)
04 E
id 3
S 2
m
OJ
c
•H
CO
4-1
co
oo
m
Building
01
O4
04
•H
^
UO
oo
in
nton
id
CJ
Tl
i— i
O
^
oo
m
4-)
c
id
SH
3
id
4-1
01
CO
Pi
H
id
•rH
O
SH
CO
g
g
O
CJ
^
00
in
Hochmuth
" Beck
•h
* (
ffi D^
• -n
fa rH
: CQ
03
oo
in
O
•H
01
3
S
c co
co c
CO T3
M CO
•d
rH S
0 >
O Cn
•H T?
2 H
= CQ
cn
00
in
rH
id
•H
u
SH
CO
g
g
O
o
o
co
^T
n Block"
o
4-)
4-1
3
CQ
=
CN
03
*NP
n Block"
o
4-1
H
0
as
oo
CO
^J*
rH
id
•H
o
CO
g
o
o
^
co
^
I+H
0 =
iH CO
CO O
Q rH
6 co
id g
CJ O
= CJ
m
co
^
Building
CO
•H
y
O
id
2
4-1
I4H
rd
01
Qi
0
!H
Q
5-135
-------
4-1
O
CJ
co
CO
I
in
H
CQ
C/!
O
§
E-i
CO
2
<
O
H
CO
0
H
cn
H
as
05
O
EH
U
W
EH
H
a
4-1
id
G
•H
rH
id
^_i
H
G
0
4-1
C
•H
C
id
rH
CU
z
in
O
n
0)
S-l
id
[5
T)
SH
id
33
4_l
id
r— H
N
4-1
•H
!H 0
CH O
m
cn
ion, others
4-1
O
id
01
OH
O
•H
e
0)
rrj
id
o
c
0
4J
c
•iH
C
id
rH
CM
Z
rH
CN
in
01
SH
id
[5
r^J
JH
id
33
£
SH
3
S
C
id •
SH O
fa U
cn
g on Milwaukee
c
•H
rQ
rH
•tH
3
Q
4-1
cn
cu
rrjj
rH
O
0)
4-1
id
s
z
CN
O
^
rH
0)
4-1
O
33
tn
0)
X
tn
cn
0
o
rH
cn
4-1
01
0)
SH
4J
en
4J
en
0)
T3
rH
0
CO
5-136
-------
o
o
OJ
4J
(0
Q
co
I
en
en
co
rH
in
r-
co
CO
in
co
U
CO
ro
I
in
s
pp
I
EH
0
§
EH
2
H
2
O
H
W
O
H
g
Cfl
H
S
EH
O
w
EH
H
S
CJ
in
4-1
C
CD
O
O
a e
« 3
S 2
ater
O
ro
ro
!H
.
1C
3
n
it!
0
rl
oa
.
2
(N
O
ro
-
«
in
TJ
rH
m
_£
u
it)
&
f^
ca
cu
4-1
its
c
m
•H
rH
IB
4-1
H
C
0
4J
C
•H
X
C
f«
rH
&,
,
2
in
o
ro
0)
(C
3
T3
SH
OJ
a
14H
MH
O
rH
N
4J
•H
SH O
&< U
n Italianate
(0
•H
JH
O
4-1
O
-H
>
m
T3
•H
in
O
rH
h
•
S
H
ro
1
en
(N
ro
CD
m
3
0
C
o
EH
0)
rH
ft
3
o
Q
Italiante
\
rH
-------
I
LT>
w
CQ
EH
Kl
<
U
o
w
o
OS
CJ
H
OS
CO
H
as
Record
rH
03
^4
3
4J
rH
3
CJ
<1)
a
EH
\
0)
4J
•H
cn
ft
03
s
cn
rH
rH
Z
w
s
man Brewery west on banks
uffs of river
tU rH
rH £1
4-1
•P t)
CU C
O 03
0)
cu
c
O
e
0
c
0)
s
T3
rH
CU
•rH
MH
G
rH
O
CJ
^
tn
'O
0)
CQ
' 1
1
O
MH
CU
03
rH
rH
•rH
CU
rH
rH
03
CU
G
0
E
O
c
CO
s
13
C
03
•rH
E
O
4-1
03
3
03
4-1
0
ft
G
CU
TJ
rH
03
O
M
cu
cn
o3
rH
rH
•rH
>
cn
rH
CN
J2
H
2
man Brewery west on banks
uffs of river
CD rH
rH A
4J
4-1 T3
0) C
a 03
0)
CU
C
O
E
O
c
0)
s
rH
CU
•H
MH
C
^
O
CJ
^
cn
rrj
CU
CQ
O
CTi
rH
CO
CD
H
0
4-1
ft
3
03
ft
rH
rH
Q)
rC
U
4J
•H
S
•H
E
O
4-1
03
03
4J
0
ft
CO
Cn
03
H
rH
•H
>
^r
rH
VD
z
w
s
s Vieau's Post, Mitchell 1902
1795-1800
CU
3 -
U rH
03 03
C
03
O
•rH
rH
cu
S
\
0
3
ca
4-1
cn
0
ft
cn
C
•rH
rQ
(B
6-1
^
CN
ygeegun's village, on Lime 1906
East and West of 26th
03 »
3 0)
Cr1 cn
(~] r^j
0 -H
ft os
•H
E
0
4-1
03
03
4-1
0
ft
CJ
Cn
rH
rH
•rH
>
CN
H
r^.
Z
H
S
0
rH
C*1
co
rH
0
4->
a
3
ft
rH
rH
CO
rG
U
•U
•rt
S
•H
g
0
4-1
03
(B
4-1
O
ft
CU
Cn
03
rH
H
•rH
>
^P
H
Skeleton, copper pot, bone- 1916
knife, silver earrings
one tools found
O 4-1
• rH M
r- 13
r~ c T3
CO 03 C
rH X! 03
c
03
O
• iH
^_j
cu
E
l
O
iH
3
H
4-1
tn
o
ft
CT1
G
•H
ro
03
!H
EH
in
CN
CO
£2
w
inzie's Post, h mile east 1916
e Ridge Village
x: E
•rH
G 1 1
j~j
0 MH
1-3 0
C
03
CJ
-H
CU
53
i
o
Sq
3
W
4-1
tn
o
ft
Cn
•H
"O
M
EH
m
CN
e of Notre Dame Convent, 1929
4J tn
•H -
tn o
*^i*
G CO
O rH
O
C
c
D
0)
•H
cn
ft
E
03
CJ
in
U1
W
I^H
S
5-133
-------
' •
4-1
C
0
CJ
cn
ro
1
m
H
i — 1
CQ
f***
E"1
cn
w
E-i
H
cn
i-3
CJ
H
S
o
w
f3j
M
(J
Di
H
0
o
0)
a;
rH
18
^J
3
4-1
rH
3
CJ
0!
4-1
(8
a
cn
CN
cn
rH
SH
0)
>
•rH
OS
0)
0)
,y
3
(8
3
rH
•rH
S
4H
O
y
a
(Tj
^Q
U)
-P
a
CJ
£•
S
0
CJ
4J
to
(8
0)
c
O
c
o
•rH
4J
18
•H
rH
•rH
4H
4-1
<
• rH
e
o
J
18
5
d
rP
0
CM
3
<8
0)
C
3
ID
•a
c
(8
.p
0)
01
iH
4-1
cn
tn
rH
rH
0)
3
G
0)
0)
3
4J
0)
rQ
^
in
co
rH
*
to
0)
CJ1
TJ
•H
SH
p
0)
3
G
Ol
^
0)
A!
3
(8
3
rH
•H
s
c
0
a
g
(S
u
CO
-
0)
4-1
4J
0)
3
W
in
(8
S
SH
0)
^G
4-1
18
fa
G
(8
O
•H
H
01
p
<£
1
o
iH
3
W
0)
4-1
18
4J
cn
rrj
G
(8
G
^
3
Q
Q
r-f
•H
h^
C
0)
0)
3
4-1
0)
rQ
SH
G)
^
-H
05
^*
r*>.
vO
i-H
«.
r^*
CN
I
m
CN
•
^
0
^
to
+J
01
0)
S-j
4-1
cn
**D
O
cn
rH
^
*
0)
Cn
(8
rH
rH
• rH
£>
4-1
0)
01
S_i
4-1
cn
c
fC
^1
•rH
(~)
O
•rH
2]
:
.,_!
6
0
4->
(8
18
4-1
O
CM
O
«rJ1
co
H
1
0
o
CO
i-H
v
4H
4H
3
rH
Q
Cn
C
0
H
18
ID
O
cn
r-H
SH
0)
>
•H
A
01
O)
M
3
03
3
rH
•H
S
MH
0
4-1
CO
fl3
01
ik
4H
4H
3
i-H
r^
C
O
•rH
6
O
4-1
u
(S
4-1
O
CM
C
<8
e
SH
0)
O
4J
rH
0)
4J
0
33
»
in
•
D
e
0
4H
O
M
co
rH
».
r^
U
SH
3
A
CJ
O
•H
i-H
O
4J
(0
CJ
ID
O
cn
r-H
SH
0)
>
•rH
05
0)
0)
,*
3
18
3
rH
•rH
2
4H
0
4-1
to
18
cu
».
4H
4H
3
i-H
Q
C
o
•H
g
O
4-1
[5
(8
4-1
O
CM
C
(8
g
SH
d)
O
0
4-1
rH
0)
4-1
0
33
.
cn
D
g
o
4H
O
M
CO
H
».
rj
O
j^
3
f]
CJ
0
•H
r-H
O
4-1
(8
CJ
kO
O
cn
rH
tJ
C
•H
r-|
0)
X)
Ik,
0)
Cn
f^
rH
iH
•H
£>
t/1
-
QJ
_y
o
4->
O
a
•H
g
rH
(8
•H
g
0
4-1
fd
|5
cQ
4->
0
CM
ro
CN
CO
rH
«
^|
O)
>
•rH
Ctf
r^
c
nj
4-1
C
•rH
0
CM
to
-
^
0)
*>
rH
18
S
^O
o
cn
rH
G
O
01
0^
ffl
rH
i-H
•rH
£>
to
-
(8
C
18
C
01
r|
O
to
3
18
CM
•H
g
0
4.J
18
3
4-1
O
CM
ro
CN
CO
rH
Ih
4-1
G
•H
0
CM
to
-
J_j
0)
y
rH
H3
S
cu
a c
>! O
EH -H
\ 4->
0) O
•P C
•H 3
tn fa
a
(fl
SH
O)
ft
0)
4-1
•H
tn
ft
(8
CJ
•i-l
tn
a
as
CJ
•rH
>
0)
cr>
CO
0)
Cn
fl
•H
>
CO
O!
Cn
03
0)
Cn
(8
O
CO
O
tn
u
CM
4-1
4H
(8
to
a
2
Q
co
o>
o
(H
3
O
cn
5-139
-------
T)
S-l
0 01
O 4-1
co
H
CO
CJ
H
01
T3
rB
0)
T3
i
0
S-l
4->
01
0)
T)
T3
G
3
rd
U
•H
G
0
U
M-l
O
3^
O
S-l ^
en T3
0)
> >i
>i 0
Cn S-i
•H 4-1
M-4 Ul
M-l 0)
0) TD
U)
» rH
rH rd
rd O
> -H
0 C
0
rH U
c
i
rd
0)
C
•H
rd
O
•H
0
U
t3
Q)
4-1
Ul
0)
T3
M-l
M-l
01
•O
S-l
•H
P3
rH
rd
U
•H
0
O
TJ
(U
•P
01
a)
rd
•H
4J
en
•H
M-l
M-l
(!)
•H
ra
•a
0)
4-1
01
0)
TD
4-1
Ul
T3 >
-^ O
en
•r-l
M-l
M-l
LO
H
M
CQ
o
as
<
U
H
OS
o
EH
CO
H
K
rH
(fl
S-l
3
4J
rH
3
O
C
o
•rH
4J
rd
•H
rH
•H
M-l
M-l
<
U
•H
rd
Si
O
i-l
<
U
•H
rd
£
O
S-l
ft
T3
C
rd
rH
T3
O
O
S
CJ
§
0
c
^
c
D
Archaic
Woodland
Woodland
Woodland
Woodland
0
0
rd
O
0
2
T3
rd
rH
T3
0
0
S
-o
rd
tH
T3
O
i
eu
0)
ft C
>i O
EH -H
X -U
0) U
•P G
•H 3
CO fn
rd
•H
SH
3
03
rd
•H
3
CQ
B
0
0)
en
ra
rH
rd
•r-l
SH
3
CO
01
T3
c
3
0
Ul
T3
G
3
0
&
5
«.
Ul
T3
q
3
o
2
Ul
TJ
c
o
s
a;
4-1
•H
01
ft
rd
U
orkshop
S
„,
ft
rd
O
T3
C
3
0
S
Ul
TJ
q
3
O
s
U]
T)
q
3
o
a
!H
-------
T3
H
0 (!)
U 4J
0) id
Pi Q
m
CN
CTi
978
922
978
1922
o
CTi
rH
o
r-|
rH 4J
(d id
3 rH
4-1 -H
H HH
P HH
U 1
id cn
> -rH
O MH
MH
IN a
Tj ^
C C
rH H
O O
O 0
2 2
(destroyed)
t>i
cn
•rH
MH
<4H
H
T3
C
id
r-H
13
0
0
2
, conical, corn hills
£*i
Cr>
•H
l*H
14H
H
rQ
C
rH
0
0
S
c
•rH
ITS
03
•H
Q
G
0
^
C
0
fi4
c
t!
0)
>t
o
!H
-P
tn
0)
0)
01
•o
q
o
0
ro
ro
CO
G
•rH
•H
01
•H
0
c
G
D
0
C
G
D
0
C
0
c
c
0
G
D
(1)
a ci
>» 0
EH -H
\ 4-)
01 O
4-> G
•H 3
03 fa
(D
jj
•rH
03
a
s
fd
0
or k shop
2
N.
a
g
id
o
T3
G
J3
O
S
03
T3
G
3
O
S
Garden
«.
03
•O
C
3
0
S
03
T3
C
3
0
S
garden
^
01
T3
C
3
0
S
01
-------
co
=c o
H EH
cn
H
a
1-1
M
3
4-1
i-H
3
0
ation
• H
i-H
•H
(4_l
M-l
ri!
C
T3
O
O
S
C
(0
T)
0
0
2
2t
0
C
C
D
§
0
y
C
D
[j
O
fX
C
D
[j
0
r^
C
S
0)
a c
>i 0
EH -H
X. 4-1
(1) U
-P C
•H 3
cn PH
OJ
a g
U)
•o
c
3
0
S
co
^
05
^
C
3
0
[^
r~
01
tU
s
rtJ
M
O
<*
CO
0)
4J
•H
05
a
6
(S
o
LO
0
0)
3
05
O
H
U
G
W
r^
o
H
(0
•H
^1
3
CQ
in
in
4-1
U-4
0)
a
o
o
co
cn
O
cn
U
CM
<
04
0)
o
H
3
0
cn
5-142
-------
5.14 RECREATION
Both indoor and outdoor recreational facilities are avail-
able in the CSSA. There are approximately 35 county park
sites within the CSSA. Table 5-41 presents a breakdown by
ownership of the total recreational acreage within the CSSA.
TABLE 5-41
TOTAL RECREATIONAL ACREAGE WITHIN THE CSSA
Ownership Acres
Milwaukee County Parks 850.8
Schools 317.0
City Parks 143.2
Commercial 13.3
Total 1,324.3
Source: MWPAP/CSO 1980
Temporary impacts to recreational land would be caused by
construction activities. At those recreational areas
affected, the construction sites would be fenced off and
thus they would limit the use of these areas. Construction
would involve heavy equipment and would affect a greater
area than that which would experience the long-term impacts.
In addition to direct impacts of reduced available recreation
areas, other secondary impacts would occur. Construction
activities could reduce the desirability of a recreational
site by decreasing accessibility to the site or damaging the
environmental aesthetics of the site. Reduced accessibility
would be caused by increased traffic in the area of the
site, decreased parking near the site or construction at the
site. Construction noise and dust, destruction of trees and
shrubs,and reduced quality of aesthetics at a site could
reduce the desirability of the site.
Long-term impacts include permanent aesthetic disruptions or
land use change at a recreational facility. Permanent
structures required for dropshafts, pump stations, cavern
storage, near surface storage or tunnels would disrupt
recreational land to varying degrees. These permanent
structures could be in the form of access shafts, or vents,
screening structures, or manholes.
Additional disruption could occur during inspection and
maintenance of the permanent facilities. Periodic inspection
by maintenance crews would require vehicle access. Screening
facilities at dropshaft sites could disrupt recreational
5-143
-------
facilities during the periodic removal of screenings.
The following is a summary of the recreational facilities
which may be affected by the construction and operation of
each of the final alternatives.
5.14.1 Complete Sewer Separation
Construction of new sanitary sewers in 89% of the CSSA would
impact all recreational facilities in the area. Traffic
congestion and decreased parking availability could reduce
recreational facility usage.
Pump stations would be constructed in or near Eubbard Park,
Highland Park, and Ceasar's Pool. Since the pump station
would be located below grade, only an access manhole would
be present. Construction would require heavy equipment for
four to six months. These pump station sites would infringe
on recreational land during the construction phase only.
5.14.2 Inline Storage
Impacts of storm sewer construction for partial sewer separation
would be similar to sanitary sewer construction impacts for
the Complete Sewer Separation alternative Storm sewer
construction would affect 89% of the CSSA.
Of the four near surface storage sites only the Lake Michigan
South site would have an impact on recreational land. This
site would be located in South Shore Park and would require
a permanent structure for the operation of the facility.
The periodic inspection and maintenance of this facility
would disrupt the recreational usage of the park.
All dropshaft facilities would require permanent structures
and vehicle access to these structures. Construction
activities would require one half acre per dropshafts. Upon
completion, an access building would require less than one-
half acre. The road access for inspection and maintenance
vehicles must be provided and would require additional land.
Recreational usage of land could be periodically disturbed
during inspection and maintenance at these facilities.
Only three of the dropshaft facilities would be located on
or near recreational land. The recreational areas affected
are Kern Park (MKE 1), Pleasant Valley Park (MKE 2), and
Pierre Marquette Park (MKE 6 would be located north of the
park across W. State -Street) .
5-144
-------
Recreational and parking facilities located near County
Stadium would be affected by permanent structures associated
with cavern storage. Inspection and maintenance vehicles
would periodically require access to the site. Area re-
quired during construction would reduce parking at the
stadium but would require only a small portion of the
available parking area. The parking area is presently used
for event parking as well as a picnic area before and after
stadium events.
5.14.3 Modified GST/Inline Storage
Partial sewer separation involving storm sewer construction
would affect 21% of the CSSA. Within this area are approxi-
mately 15 recreation sites which could be affected by new
sewer construction. Impacts on these facilities would be
similar to those described for new sanitary sewer construction
for the Complete Sewer Separation alternative
Construction of near surface and cavern storage facilities
would have similar impacts as described for the Inline
Storage alternative. Construction of dropshafts would have
similar affects as previously described except that screening
structures would be required prior to the shafts. The
screening structures would require an access route to allow
the trucking of screened materials from the site. Odors
from the screenings could lessen the desirability of a
nearby recreation area.
5.14.4 Modified Total Storage
No recreational areas would be disrupted during sewer con-
struction because no sewer separation would be required.
Impacts from screening structures, dropshafts and cavern
construction have been discussed and would be similar to
those for the Inline Storage alternative. Screening structures
would be required ahead of all drop shafts and near surface
storage facilities.
5.15 ENERGY AND RESOURCES
Energy and resource impacts resulting from the four final
alternatives were evaluated for both construction of and
operation of each alternate system. Energy and resource
consumption was not evaluated for treatment requirements at
the Jones Island or South Shore WWTP. As storage volumes
increase, flows to the treatment plant would probably in-
crease proportionately also increasing energy and resource
consumption at the treatment plants.
5-145
-------
5 .15.1 Energy
Energy requirements for construction were based on MMSD
estimates of unit time and fuel consumption required for
constructing each type of required facility. These fuels
include diesel, gasoline, and electricity used to power all
construction equipment. It was assumed that all operating
equipment was electric powered except where trucks were
required to haul screenings. Energy for operations was
mainly consumed by pump equipment. Pumping energy is a
function of the volume of wastewater pumped and the vertical
distance between the intake water surface and the pump dis-
charge point. For pumping from deep storage, this vertical
distance was assumed to be 300 feet.
In order to compare alternatives a common energy unit was
needed. The British Thermal Unit (BTU) (estimate of thermal
energy capacity of a material) was chosen. For this conversion,
the following equivalent values were used:
Gasoline: 125,000 BTU/gal
Diesel Fuel: 135,000 BTU/gal
Electricity: 10,500 BTU/kwh
Energy requirements for both construction and operations are
summarized in Table 5-42.
5.15.2 Resources
No resources would be consumed for the operation of the
conveyance and storage facilities because all treatment
would take place at the treatment plants. Large amounts of
materials would, however, be required for construction of
these facilities.
The major material requirement for construction would be
concrete. Because the available equipment capacity, nation-
wide, for production of concrete is less than the annual
demand in the U.S. (ENR June, 1980), availability of concrete
could be limited. Local supplies could be severely taxed
under all alternatives for cast in place construction such
as dropshaft linings, deep tunnel linings, near surface
storage facilities and irregular portions of system. Supplies
in other areas of the country could also be taxed for precast
materials fabricated outside the Milwaukee area. These
materials include standard concrete sewer pipes, precast
manholes, catch basins and other standardized sewer ap-
purtences.
5-146
-------
CN
•tf
I
in
W
t-q
PQ
<
EH
H
U
z
w
EH
co
2 EH
O 2
H [L]
<; w
tt «
W H
(X D
o a
w
IS
< w
2
Q W
O
H
EH
U
EH
CO
2
O
CJ
C
O
•H
-P
o
D
M
-P
CO
c
o
o
-P
C
QJ
CM
O
rH
(d >i X
!> Cn
•H H D
3 QJ EH
O1 C ffl
W W —
•H O
O H
•H
iH X
-P
OJ3
QJ S
rH X
w ~
ro
o
X
Q)
C G
•H O
rH rH
O rH
cn rd
ro IT
O —
o rr co oo
r-^ ro r~- CN
CN ro ro **
ro iH o U3
• § • •
r~ i>o co co
cv\ ro ro ro
rH CN CN
VD
0
' — i1 i — 1
Q)
3 X
r_
r*4
C
rH O
Q) H
Cn rH
Q) rd
•H cn
Q ~
in
ro
•
rH
rH
rr in r-
•^ in rH
• • •
ro co CN
H H
in o oo co
T CN i«D rH
rH r~ CTi O
QJ
SH
QJ
5
QJ
>
•H
-P
rd
G
rH
QJ
-P
rH
<
QJ
CO
Q)
4J
QJ
rH
a
e
o
u
c
o
•H
-P
rd
!H
rd
a
QJ
CO
QJ
Cn
rd
!H
0
4J
CO
QJ
C
•H
H
G
H
Q)
G
•H
rH
G
H
\
EH
CO
U
T!
Q)
•H
4H
•H
T3
0
g
Stora
rH
rd
-P
0
EH
T3
QJ
•H
4H
•H
T3
O
g
w
-P
c
QJ
6
QJ
iH
•H
§1
QJ
u
c
rd
c
QJ
-P
a
-H
i X
> cn
•HMD
3 QJ EH
tr G m
w w --
m o
o o>
• •
in «3
x* r}«
•H O
O rH
•H
^ X
-P
O XI
Q) 3
H ^
w —
0)
QJ
m
a)
•H
Q
0)
-P
H
tn
I I
o o
O O
QJ
QJ
QJ
CD M
C O
•H -P
H CO
c
H rH
o
•H
-P -P
rd CO
EH -P
CO O
0 U EH
a. aj
e w
o
u
QJ d)
QJ -H -H
C MH 4H
•H -H -H
CO
CO
U
C
•H
cn
(H
OJ
3
Q)
tn
O
-P
cn
G
rd
O
g
rd
-P
•H
C
rd
cn
<4H
o
Q)
O
G
rd
G
QJ
i I
+J
G
•H
rd
SH
O
<4H
>i
cn
rH
QJ
G
QJ
Q)
T3
3
H
U
G
•H
-P
0
c
cn
QJ
O
Q
H
cn
iH
Q)
-P
OJ
2 in
QJ
O rH
•H 3 cn
X) O Q)
3 173 rH
U 3
vo o
in o r^
CO rH
r» CN
ro X •
o ^r
o UD in
. . o
o ro rH
II II II
G
O
rH
H X! D
rd 3: EH
U ^ CQ
rH rH rH
O
CO
-------
A rough estimation of concrete requirements for each a
alternative was made by the EIS study team. This estimate
included material for deep tunnel, storage caverns, new
sewers, dropshafts, and near surface storage facilities.
Control structures, screening facilities, dropshaft energy
desipation chambers, connections to storage, and outfall
work were not included because of lack of predesign data.
Table 5-43 summarizes concrete requirements for each
alternative and the percentage that each requirement represents
in terms of total U.S. concrete production capacity (estimated
at 80,000,000 tons annually (ENR June, 1980).
5.16 ENGINEERING FEASIBILITY
Basic concepts used in the development of each alternative
are technically feasible and use many proven conveyance and
storage techniques. Deep rock storage construction would
use similar construction methods in a similar dolomite rock
media as was experienced in the Chicago Tunnel and Reservoir
Project (TARP). While major problems arose during the early
tunneling phase of TARP, tunneling is now proceeding at a
faster than expected rate. Further, TARP tunnels originally
designed to be concrete lined, did not require lining because
of the high quality of the rock after completion of the
mining operation. Grouting of some fissures was required.
5.16.1 Spoil Disposal
A major problem experienced in TARP was the disposal of
spoil. Table 5-44 is an estimate of the amount of spoils
which would be generated by each of the final alternative.
At present, no plans are available from the MMSD for disposal
of this material. Several ideas have been suggested. These
ideas include:
Lakefill material for expansion of Jones Island WWTP
Lakefill material for expansion of South Shore WWTP.
Lakefill material for expansion of the Summerfest
grounds.
Lakefill material for construction of a park along the
south lakefront of Milwaukee.
• Landfill
Commercial use
5-148
-------
TABLE 5-43
CONCRETE REQUIREMENTS - STORAGE ALTERNATIVES2
Concrete Required
Alternative Cubic Yards Ton
Complete Sewer
Separation 261,538 529,615 (0.66%)
Inline Storage 402,589 815,242 (1.02%)
Modified CST/Inline
Storage 390,288 790,333 (0.99%)
Modified Total Storage 396,840 803,602 (1.00%)
Figure in parenthesis reflects 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 Dissipation Chambers, Connections to
Caverns and Outfall Work is not included.
1 Ton = 0.91 Metric Ton
1 Cubic Yard = 0.7646 Cubic Meters
Source: ESEI, 1980.
5-149
-------
TABLE 5-44
SPOIL MATERIAL GENERATED
Volume (1Q6 Cubic Yards)1
Alternative Rock Spoil Total
Complete Sewer
Separation 1.52 6.85 8.37
Inline Storage 2.87 7.29 10.16
Modified CST/Inline
Storage 5.54 3.25 8.79
Modified Total
Storage 5.54 4.86 10.40
Volumes represent the volume of undisturbed rock
and spoil.
Note: The above values do not reflect the material
which can be retained for backfill.
1 Cubic Yard = 0.7046 Cubic Meters
Source: ESEI, 1980.
5-150
-------
The Jones Island and South Shore fill sites would require
800,000 and 110,000 cubic yards of spoil, respectively.
Planning for the two other lakefill alternatives is
preliminary in nature. No lake fill recommendations have
been made by any planning agencies at this time. Lake sites
are easily accessible from the CSSA by barge or highway.
This type of disposal would reduce construction costs for
these projects but would also result in the permanent loss
of portions of the Lake Michigan near-shore area. These
disposal options would reduce but not eliminate the disposal
problem because the Jones Island and South Shore expansions
would require only 10% of the amount of spoil expected.
Landfill of this amount of spoil would require careful site
selection. The typical amount of spoil expected from each
of the alternatives would, if piled 90 feet high, cover 2.8
million feet^ (approximately the area of 15 city blocks).
Thus one rather large, or numerous smaller disposal sites,
would be required. The disposal costs would increase
proportional to the distance the spoil would have to be
transported.
Spoil could be sold as fill or road bed material to local
contractors. Dolomite, a major component of the rock spoil,
has various uses in the concrete and steel industries. The
value of the dolomite for these purposes depends on the
grade and purity of the dolomite. Tunnel experience in
Chicago found that the rock mined by tunnel boring machine
was removed from the tunnels in a form that had very little
commercial value. Further analysis in this area is needed.
5.16.2 Solids Management
MMSD preliminary analysis assumed that all flows from the
deep tunnel and near surface storage facilities would be
treated at the Jones Island WWTP. This assumption was used
by the MMSD in their analysis of the solids which would be
generated at Jones Island as a result of the MMSD Recommended
Plan. This analysis presented in the Solids Management
Facility Plan Element of the MWPAP assumed the implementation
of the Inline Storage alternative.
The implementation of any of the other final CSO abatement/
peak wastewater attenuation alternatives would change the
amount of wastewater which would ultimately be treated at
Jones Island. For Complete Sewer Separation, the flows
generated from rooftop runoff would no longer be treated.
Instead this runoff would be discharged to the area surface
waters. The parameters in this runoff would be subtracted
from the parameters in the Jones Island sludge assuming the
implementation of the Inline Storage alternative.
5-151
-------
The analysis of the Modified CST/Inline Storage and Modified
Total Storage alternatives would follow the same pattern.
For the Modified CST/Inline Storage alternative, street
runoff from 68% of the CSSA would be treated at Jones Island.
For the Modified Total Storage alternative, street runoff
from 89% of the CSSA would be treated at Jones Island. The
parameters in the sludge produced from the treatment of this
additional runoff would be added to the Inline Storage
alternative sludge.
The following assumptions were made during the EIS analysis
of the impact of the final alternatives on the solids generated
at Jones Island.
Rooftop and street runoff parameter concentrations
would be the same values developed for the EIS water
quality analysis (See Table 5-1) .
• Rooftop and street runoff quantities would be the same
volumes developed for the EIS water quality analysis.
• Heavy metal removal efficiencies would be based on
Jones Island WWTP historical records.
• Ten pounds of solids would be generated for each pound
of total phosphorous removed.
One-half pound of solids would be generated for each
pound of BOD5 removed.
• Ten percent of solids would be removed by the screening-
structures at the dropshafts and the near surface
storage facilities for the Modified CST/Inline Storage
and the Modified Total Storage alternatives.
• Solids quantity for the three new alternatives would be
compared to the Jones Island solids management alternatives
J31, landfill, and J16, agricultural application.
Solids quality for the three new alternatives would be
compared only to alternative J16.
The results of the analysis are shown in Table 5-45. The
major changes in the quality of the agricultural application
sludge would be the increase in lead concentrations for the
Modified CST/Inline Storage and the Modified Total Storage
alternatives. This increase in lead concentrations would
occur because of the increased treatment of stormwater by
both these alternatives. There are high concentrations of
lead in urban runoff because the emissions of many vehicles
contain lead. This lead settles on the streets and is
carried in urban runoff. Cadmium, copper and zinc are not
as common in urban runoff.
5-152
-------
in
^
m
TABLE
£H
2
H
H
O
•H
4J
rt!
C
CD
4J
rH
sC
^
o
4-1
cn
CD ^D rH
C rH ro
•rH
rH 1-3 1-3
c
H
SH
CD
3
CD
cn
CD
4-1
CD
i-H
a
g
0
o
c
o
•rH
4->
(d VO rH
rH rH CO
(d
a *n *~D
CD
en
Inline
\
EH
cn
ej
T3
CD
•H
IH
•rH
0
CD
Cn
(d
^
0
4-1
tn
O
o
vO I
CN
in i
co l
cn
cn i
CM CN
CO CO
in rj"
rH W
O
CO
en
H
cn
H
CD
D
^
P
0
cn
5-153
-------
These increases in heavy metal concentrations would not
affect the annual application rates or the site life
of the Jones Island agricultural application alternative
J31. Both the application rate and the site life for Jones
Island sludge would still be dictated by cadmium concen-
trations. These concentrations do not change for any of
the new alternatives. Heavy metal concentrations are not
as critical to landfill and thus were not determined for
alternative J16.
5.16.3 System Flexibility
The four final alternatives were developed based on the U.S.
District Court Order requirement that all separate system
bypasses and CSO be eliminated for the largest storm of
record. In the event that the Court Order were overturned
by the U.S. Supreme Court, the CSO abatement program would
then be dictated by the requirements of the Dane County
Court Stipulation. In addition to the elimination of all
bypassing from the separated sewer system, the Stipulation's
principal requirement was the correction of the CSO problem
in order to achieve applicable water quality standards.
Modifications of the final alternatives may be necessary in
order to meet the requirements of the Stipulation. These
modifications are unknown at this time.
5-154
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, 1979.
Demonstration of Non-Point Pollution Management of Castro
Valley Creek. First Annual Report (November, 1979). Hayward,
CA.
Alden, W. C., 1918. The Quatenary Geology of Southeastern Wisconsin.
U.S. Geological Survey. Professional Paper No. 106.
Bannerman, R., Konrad, J. G. , and Becker, D., 1979. Effects of
Tributary Inputs on Lake Michigan During High Flows. Volume 10,
Menomonee River Pilot Watershed Study; Final Report. Interna-
tional Joint Commission.
Becker, G. C., 1976. Inland Fishes on the Lake Michigan Drainage
Basin. Volume 17, Environmental Status of the Lake Michigan
Region, (ANL/ES-40). Argonne National Laboratory. Argonne, IL.
Bielefeld, John, 1977. Field Notes, The Winter Season 1976-1977.
The Passenger Pigeon-, Volume 39, No. 4.
Bothwell, M. L., 1975. Studies on the Distribution of Phytoplanktin
Pigments and Nutrients in the Milwaukee Harbor Area, and Factors
Controlling Assimilation Number. Ph.D. Thesis, University of
Wisconsin, Madison, WI.
Brannon, J. M., Plumb, R. H., Smith, I., 1978. Long Term Release of
Contaminants From Dredged Material. Technical Report D-78-49.
Dredged Material Research Program.
Briggs, J., 1977. University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Department of
Zoology. Personal Communication.
Burdick, J. C., 1976. Analysis of Oxygen Demand of Sediments,
Proceedings of the Speciality Conference on Dredging and Its
Environmental Impact. ASCE Hydraulics Division. Mobil, AL.
Code of Federal Regulations, 1973. Title 40, Part 50.
Engineering News Record, 1980. Cement Faces Chronic Shortage.
June 19, 1980, Volume 204, No. 25. McGraw-Hill, Inc. New York,
NY.
District of Columbia, Department of Finance and Revenue, 1978. Tax
Burdens in Washington D.C. Compared with Major State and Local
Tax Burdens in the Nation's 30 Largest Cities, 1976. Washington,
DC.
Froming, G. T., 1971. Maquoketa Shale. Conodonts and Biostrati-
graphy of The Wisconsin Paleozoic. WGNHS Information Circular
No. 19. Edited by D. L. Clark. Madison, WI.
-1-
-------
Foley, F. C., Walton, W. C., and Drescher, W. J., 1953. Ground-
water Conditions in the Milwaukee-Waukesha Area, Wisconsin.
USGS Water Supply Paper No. 1229.
Green, J. G. and Hutchinson, R. D., 1965. Groundwater Pumpage and
Water Level Changes in the Milwaukee-Waukesha Area, Wisconsin
1950-1961. USGS Water Supply Paper 1809-1.
Hasselkus, E. R. , 1977. A Guide to Selecting Landscape Plants for
Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Extension, Madison, WI.
Holt. C. L. R. and Skinner, E. L., 1972. Groundwater Quality in
Wisconsin Through 1972. VGNT.TS Information Circular No. 22.
Madison, WI.
International Joint Commission, 1918. Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement of 1978.
Kay, G. M. , 1935. "".iovincian System in the Upper Mississippi
Valley, 9th Annual rleeting Guidebook. Kansas Geological
Society.
Long, C. A., 1974. Mammals of the Lake Michigan Basin. Volume 15,
Environmental Status of the Lake Michigan Region. National
Technical Information Service. Springfield, VA.
Mathews, A. A., 1977. Milwaukee CSO Pollution Abatement Study
Geotechnical Report of Tunnels and Chambers. Prepared for
Stevens, Thompson and Runyon. February, 1977.
Meinholz, T. L., Kreutzberger, W. A., Kobriger, N. P., and Harper,
M. E., 1979a. Water Quality Analysis of the Milwaukee River
to Meet PRM 75-34 (P6-61) Requirements. Rexnord, Inc.
Meinholz, T. L., Kreutzberger, W. A., Harper, M. E., and Fay, K. J.,
1979b. Verification of the Water Quality Impacts of Combined
Sewer Overflow": EPA-600/2~-79-r5T:
Milwaukee, City of, Wisconsin, Department of Public Works, and
Consoer, Townsend and Associates, 1975. Detention Tank for
Combined Sewer Overflow. EPA-600/2-75-071.
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District, 1976-1980. WPDES Permit
Monitoring Data. Unpublished.
, 1978. User Charge and Industrial Cost Recovery Program.
Milwaukee, v:i.
, 1979-1980. Purification-Analytical Data - Jones Island
Wastewater Treatment Plant. Unpublished.
Milwaukee Water Pollution Abatement Program, 1979a. Energy Impact
and Resource Recovery Analysis. Technical Memorandum 2/1-10.
Unpublished.
-2-
-------
, 1979b. Infiltration/Inflow Analysis. Volume 1. KMSD.
Milwaukee, WI.
, 1979c. Combined Sewer Overflow Characterization, Storage
and_Pilot Plant Treatment. Volumes 1 and 2. FMSD. Milwaukee,
WI.
, 198Oa. Combined Sewer Overflow. Parts 1 and 2. 11MSD.
Milwaukee, WI.
, 1980b. Wastewater Systems Plan. Volunes 1 through 4.
MMSD. Milwaukee, WI.
Neal, R. W., Pojosek, R. B., Johnson, J. C., 1977. Oxygenation of
Dredged Material by Direct Injection of Oxygen and Air.
Dredged Material Research Program. Technical Report D-77-15.
Ostrom, M. E., 1967. Paleozoic Stratigraphic Nomenclature for
Wisconsin. PvGNHS Information Circular No. 8. Madison, WI.
Palmer, C. M., 1969. A Composite Rating of Algae Tolerating Organic
Pollution. Journal of Phycclogy. 5: "8 -.2.
Pitt, Robert, 1980. Consultant to the Nationwide Urban Runoff
Program. Personal Communication.
Raasch, G. D., 1935. Devonian of Wisconsin. 9th Annual Meeting
Guidebook. Kansas Geological Society.
Reichert, v. E. and Hulbert, R. H., 1976. A Waterquality Assessment
of the Milwaukee Beaches, 1971-1975. llilwaukee Health Dept.
Schultz, Theodore J., n.d. Noise Assessment Guidelines: Technical
Background. Report No. TE/NA 172. Department of Housing and
Urban Development. Washington, D.C.
Schumaker, D., 1971. Conodonts from the Middle Devonian, Lake
Church and Milwaukee roiu.ations„ ronodonts and Biostrati-
graphy of the Wisconsin Paleozoic. WGNHS Information Circular
No. 19. Edited by D. L. Clark, Madison, WI.
, 1971. Conodonts From the Kenwood Shale (Upper Devonian).
Conodonts and Biostratigraph of the Wisconsin Paleozic. WGNHS
Information Circular No. 19. Edited by D. L. Clark, Madison,
KI.
Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commision, 1971. A Com-
prehensive Pla.n for the Milwaukee River Watershed. Planning
Report No. 13, Volume 1 and 2. Waukesha, WI.
, 1972. Economy of Southeastern Wisconsin. Technical
-3-
-------
Report No. 10. Waukesha, WI.
, 1975 and 1978. A Regional Land Use Plan and a Regional
Transportation Plan for Southeastern Wisconsin. Planning
Report No. 25, Volumes 1 and 2. Waukesha, VII.
, 1978. A Regional Air Quality Maintenance Plan for South-
eastern Wisconsin. Planning Report No. 28. Waukesha, WI.
, 1979. A Regional Water Quality Management Plan for South-
eastern Wisconsin: 2000. Planning Report No. 30. Waukesha, WI.
Stemberger, R. S., 1974. Temporal and Spatical Distribution of
Planktonic Rotifers in the Milwaukee Harbor and Adjacent Lake
Michigan. Proceedings of the 17th Conference on. Great_ Lakes
Research.
Stevens, Thompson and Runyon, 1978. Combined Sewer Overfow Pollution
Abatement - A. Step in the Rehabilitation of Milwaukee's Three
Rivers. Technical Report, Phase 1, Volumes 1-3. PMSD.
Milwaukee, WI.
Strehlow, E. W., 1973. Whitnall Park Birds. Milwaukee County
Park Commission, Milwaukee, WI.
Tyler, Milwaukee Audubon Society, 1964. Wisconsin Wild Flowers.
Publication No. 601-55. Wisconsin Conservation Department.
Madison, WI.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1968-1978. Milwaukee Harbor Dredge
Records. Unpublished.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1971. Soil Survey of Milwaukee and
Waukesha Counties, Wisconsin.
U.S. Depaetment of Commerce, 1970. State of Wisconsin. Pureau of
Census. Washington, DC.
U.S. Department of Labor, n.d., Geographic Profile of Employment
and Unemployment, Statistic Data. HILHR Bureau of Research
and Statistics.
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division,
1977. Case No. 72-C-1253. People of the State of Illinois
and the People of the State of Michigan Versus the City of
Milwaukee, et. al. Judgment Order. Chicago, IL.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976a. Direct Environmental
Factors at Municipal Wastewater Treatment Works - Evaluation
and Control of Site Aesthetics, Air Pollutants, Noise and
Other Operation and Construction Factors. (MCD-20). Office
of Water Program Operations. Washington, DC.
-4-
-------
1976b. Quality Criteria for Water. Washington, DC.
1977a. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors.
(AP-42), Part A, Third Edition. Office of Air and Waste Man-
agement, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
Research Triangle Park, NC.
, 1977b. Guidelines for the Pollutional Classification
of Great Lakes Harbor Sediments. Region V. Chicago, IL.
U.S. Geological Survey, 1974. foster Resources Data for Wisconsin
Water Year 1974. Data Report WI-74-1. Madison, WI.
, 1975. Water Resources Data for Wisconsin Water Year 1975.
Data Report WI-75-I. Madison, WI.
, 1976. Water Resources Data for Wisconsin Water Year 1976.
Data Report WI-76-1. Madison, WI.
, 1977. Water Resources Data for Wisconsin Water Year 1977.
Data Report WI-77-1. Madison, WI.
, 1978. Water Resources Data for Wisconsin Water Year 1978.
Data Report WI-78-I. Madison, WI.
, 1979. Water Resources Data for Wisconsin Water Year 1979.
Data Report WI-89-I. Madison, WI.
Walton, William C. , 1964. Groundwater Resource Evaluation. Ground-
water. Volume II, No. r.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 1979. Fish and Wildlife
Habitiat (Study): (Wisconsin) Great Lakes (Shoreline)/1976.
Wisconsin Costal Management Program. Madison, WI.
, 1978. (Revision of 1975 list) Endangered Animals in Wiscon-
sin. (With supplementary lists of threatened animals, animals
with watch status and extirpated anaimals) and Attachment B:
Wisconsin Endanagered Species List and Attachment C: Wisconsin
Threatened Species List (pending legislation.).
Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey, 1970. Pliestocene
Geology of Wisconsin. WGNHS Information Circular No. 15.
Madision, WI.
Wiscons, State of, 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. Stipula-
tion. Madison, WI.
Wood, H.O., and Newman F., 1931. Bulletin of the Siesmological
Society of America. Volume 21, No. 4.
-------
------- |