Draft Environmental Impact Statement Wastewater Treatment Facilities for the Geneva Lake Area, Walworth County, Wisconsin


vvEPA
           United States
           Environmental Protection
           Agency
            Region V
            Water Division
            230 South Dearborn Street
            Chicago Illinois 60604
January, 1984
Environmental
Impact Statement
Draft
           Wastewater Treatment
           Facilities for the
           Geneva Lake Area
           Walworth County, Wisconsin
                  till
         M
                         !

                »*>-»
                               4-
                                        •-UnKfT'
                                        'HWn^R'..;

-------
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION V
230 SOUTH DEARBORN ST
CHICAGO ILLINOIS 60604
REPLY TO ATTENTION OF;

5WFI-12
TO ALL INTERESTED AGENCIES, PUBLIC GROUPS, AND CITIZENS:
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Geneva Lake Area,
Wisconsin, is provided for your information and review. This EIS has been
prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the subsequent regulations prepared by the Council on Environmental
Quality and this Agency.

This Draft EIS has been prepared jointly with the Wisconsin Department
of Natural Resources and is intended to satisfy the requirements of the
Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act, Section 1.11 of the Wisconsin
Statutes.

Upon publication of a notice in the Federal Register, a 45-day comment
period will begin. Please send written comments to the attention of
Harlan D. Hirt, Chief, Environmental Impact Section, 5WFI-12, at the above
address. A formal public hearing will be held during this period for
which you will be sent a separate notice. You may submit comments either
in writing or at the public hearing, within the comment period.

Responses to the comments received on the Draft EIS will be included in the
Final EIS which will be sent to all commentors and others who request it.

I welcome your participation in the EIS process for the Geneva Lake Area.

:erely y
-------
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

on the

WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES

for the

GENEVA LAKE AREA

WALWORTH COUNTY, WISCONSIN

Prepared by the

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Region V

Chicago, Illinois

and the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Madison, Wisconsin

with assistance from
WAPORA, Incorporated
Chicago, Illinois
January 1984
Submitted by
Howard S. Druckenmiller
Director
Bureau of Environmental Impact
Department of Natural Resources
Valdas V. Ac
Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
-------
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
ON THE
GENEVA LAKE AREA FACILITIES PLANS
WALWORTH COUNTY, WISCONSIN

Prepared by the US Environmental Protection Agency Region V and the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.

For further information contact:
Jack Kratzmeyer, Project Officer Steven Ugoretz
USEPA Region V WDNR
230 S. Dearborn St. Bureau of Environmental Impact
Chicago, IL 60604 Box 7921
312/886-0245 Madison, WI. 53707
608/266-6673
ABSTRACT
Wastewater collection and treatment facilities plans have been pre-
pared for the Geneva Lake East Planning area and the Geneva Lake West
Planning area. The communities addressed include the City of Lake Geneva,
the southeast shoreline area of Geneva Lake in the Town of Linn, and the
Lake Como subdivision in the East Planning area and the Villages of
Walworth, Fontana and Williams Bay as well as contiguous unsewered shore-
line areas in the West Planning area. Facilities planning documents have
concluded that the appropriate approach to wastewater management in unsew-
ered portions of the study area would be to abandon existing onsite waste-
water treatment systems, to construct wastewater collection and conveyance
facilities, and to convey wastewater to upgraded and expanded treatment
plants at Lake Geneva, Williams Bay, and a combined Walworth/Fontana plant
at the Village of Walworth.

Based on a review of facilities planning documents, USEPA and WDNR
determined that the Facilities Plan Recommended Action (FPRA) could result
in induced growth and secondary impacts, socioeconomic impacts, and pot-
ential wetland impacts. The potential significance of these issues
-------
necessitated the preparation of an Environmental Import Statement (EIS).
The EIS has evaluated the FPRA, and developed an EIS Alternative which
includes an analysis of continued use o£ onsite wastewater treatment systems
in currently unsewered areas. The EIS also evaluates impacts on the natural
and man-inade environment associated with both alternatives.
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION

The Geneva Lake-Lake Como study area is located in the southeast
corner of Wisconsin, approximately 50 miles southwest of Milwaukee and 75
miles northwest of Chicago. The study area encompasses approximately 44
square miles in the southern portion of Waiworth County, and includes the
City of Lake Geneva, the Villages of Walworth, Fontana, and Williams Bay,
and the Towns of Geneva, Linn and Walworth. The locale is very popular as
a summer resort area because of the recreational resources afforded by the
5,000-acre Geneva Lake and the 1,000-acre Lake Como, and the area's proxim-
ity to both Chicago and Milwaukee.

In May 1974, the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission
(SEWRPC) adopted A Regional Sanitary Sewerage System Plan for Southeastern
Wisconsin, This document was prepared in accordance with Section 66.945
(10) of the Wisconsin Statutes and Section 208 of the Clean Water Act, and
provides guidance for wastewater management planning to the local units of
government located in SEWRPC's seven-county region. Based on a cost-
effectiveness analysis, Donohue & Assoc., Inc., the facilities planner,
defined five revised sewer service areas (RSSAs) as the areas for which the
wastewater collection and treatment facilities are being planned.

Four municipal and three private wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs)
currently serve the existing sewered areas within the study area. Muni-
cipal WWTPs are located at Fontana, Lake Geneva, Walworth, and Williams
Bay. Private WWTPs serve the Americana Hotel (formerly the Playboy Club),
Interlaken Resort, and Kikkoman Foods.

Several factors led to the consideration of a regional wastewater
management plan for the Geneva Lake-Lake Como study area. In Fontana,
before a third treatment lagoon was constructed, effluent from the original
two seepage lagoons had overflowed into Buena Vista Creek and thus into
Geneva Lake. The City of Lake Geneva's WWTP is currently meeting its
interim effluent standards for discharge to the White River. However, the
-------
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) has Issued more strict
effluent discharge standards which the existing plant cannot meet. The
Walworth WWTP, which is exceeding its hydraulic design capacity, is meeting
interim standards but is incapable of meeting final standards. The
Wiliiams Bay plant has components that are in poor condition and is exper-
iencing hydraulic problems in both its primary and secondary clarifiers.
All of these plants have experienced hydraulic Increases in recent years
due to population increases, a trend that will continue into the next 20
years.

The facilities plans prepared by Donohue & Assoc., Inc. propose to
serve portions of the study area with centralized wastewater collection and
treatment facilities that are currently served by onsite wastewater treat-
ment systems. Geologic conditions on some parcels in the study area pre-
sent limitations to the use of onsite wastewater treatment systems. Con-
cern that onsite systems may be contaminating surface and groundwater
resources has led some homeowner and beach associations to develop cen-
tralized domestic water supplies.

Because of the perceived pi obleras associated with existing wastewater
management, the USEPA awarded Step 1 planning grants to the Village of
Walworth, the City of Lake Geneva, the Village of Fontana, and the Village
of Williams Bay between February and July of 1977. Although separate
planning grants were awarded, special conditions of the grants stipulated
that facilities planning efforts be coordinated, and that areawide solu-
tions to wastewater management be jointly investigated.

In February 1978, the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
issued a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS on the proposed project. This
action was taken based upon USEPA's review of the Facilities Plan, which
indicated the possibility of significant environmental impacts resulting
from the proposed project. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
(WDNR) concurred with the USEPA decision to prepare an EIS, and the two
agencies agreed to prepare a joint EIS to satisfy both Federal and State
requirements. The EIS was to be prepared concurrently with the completion
of the facilities planning documents.
-------
Pursuant to subsequent grant amendments, the facilities planners
submitted the following documents to WDNR for review:

• Preliminary Geneva Lake Facilities Plans, Volume 2 -
Treatment Alternatives, East Planning Area (Donohue &
Assoc., Inc. 1981a)

• Preliminary Geneva Lake Facilities Plans, Volume 2 -
Treatment Alternatives, West Planning Area (Donohue &
Assoc., Inc. 1981b)

• Addendum to the West Geneva Lake Facilities Plans,
Volume 2 (Donohue & Assoc., Inc. 1982a)

• Geneva Lake Facilities Plans, Volume 2 - Process Spe-
cific Addendum, East Planning Area (Donohue & Assoc.,
Inc. 1982b)

• Final Draft Geneva Lake Facilities Plans, Volume 2 -
Treatment Alternatives, West Planning Area (Donohue &
Assoc., Inc. 1983)

• Addendum 1 to Volume 2 - Facilities Plans for the Lake
Geneva West Planning Area - Walworth/Fontana (Donohue &
Assoc., Inc. 1983b)

ISSUES
On the basis of USSP^'s Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS, the Direc-

tive of Work to WAPORA, Inc. (the eiS Consultant) and the facilities plan,
the following issues have been determined to be significant and are

addressed in this Draft EIS:

• The likelihood that new interceptors and expansions in
wastewater treatment capacity would artificially induce
more residential development In the study area than
would otherwise be anticipated to occur

• Secondary impacts of such development on agricultural
lands and existing open space areas

• Impacts of the project on wetland resources in the
study area

• Economic impacts that could result In the displacement
of homeowners

• Controversy surrounding the regional approach to waste-
water management planning
-------
• Extent of present problems resulting from use of onsite
wastewater treatment systems
• Future impacts resulting from continued use of onsite
systems
• Cost-effectiveness of upgrading existing onsite systems
versus expanding centralized wastewater collection and
treatment facilities.

WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES

Existing Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems

Currently unsewered portions of the RSSAs were surveyed for perform-
ance data on onsite wastewater treatment systems. Within these surveyed
areas, there are approximately 1,700 onsite wastewater treatment systems
comprised mostly of septic tank and soil absorption systems. Information
concerning onsite systems has been derived from collection of original data
and use of existing published and unpublished sources. Information on
existing systems was obtained from Walworth County Planning, Zoning, and
Sanitation Office records Interviews with County sanitation personnel
also were useful in assessing environmental conditions and assessing the
suitability of septic tank and soil absorption systems for treating waste-
water. Two septic leachate detector surveys, color Infrared aerial photog-
raphy, a mailed questionnaire, and a sanitary survey also were used to
assess the effectiveness of existing onsite wastewater treatment systems.

Fontana RSSA (Southwest Shore Area)

The Fontana RSSA includes the northeast quarter of Section 11 between
Fontana and Williams Bay, and most of Section 18 lying outside the Village
of Fontana. Included in Section 18 are the Oak Shores, Lake Geneva Club,
Shore Haven, Camp Sybil, Academy Estates, and Maple Hills subdivisions and
the Northwestern Military and Naval Academy, in addition to individual
parcels. The aerial photographic survey identified no failing or mar-
ginally failing onsite systems within the area. In the Oak Shores Sub-
division, the sanitary questionnaire responses indicated that 2 out of the
10 respondents reported conditions that qualify as obvious problems with
iv
-------
onsite wastewater treatment. In the Lake Geneva Club Subdivision, two
residents have identified frequent pumping and backups as typical experi-
ences. One holding tank was installed because the parcel had insufficent
size for a soil absorption system. There were three systems in Shore Haven
and Camp Sybil for which failures were indicated on questionnaires, sani-
tary surveys or permit records. Three owners reported that they have
cesspools, all of which were described as satisfactory. One holding tank
was installed because Insufficient lot area was available. In the Academy
Estates Subdivision one holding tank was installed. The Maple Hills Sub-
division contains 30 residences, with information from questionnaires
available for five systems. Unplatted lands in the vicinity of these
subdivisions are large parcels with minimal problems. The Northwestern
Military and Naval Academy replaced the seepage bed for their main building
in 1974. During the 1982 septic leachate survey, a plume and a surface
breakout were identified as coming from the system that serves auxiliary
housing units on Shadow Lane.

Williams Bay RSSA (North Shore Area)

The unsewered area within the Williams Bay RSSA consists primarily of
the Cisco Beach and Rowena Park subdivisions. Also included are the Sylvan
Trail and Ara Glen subdivisions and contiguous parcels. One holding tank
and one cesspool are reportedly located in Cisco Beach. One resident in an
area with a. somewhat high water table reportedly had backups and wet
ground, and indicated that the County sanitarian refused permission to
extend the seepage bed because local soils had inadequate percolation
rates. Consequently, the resident pumped the septic tank frequently during
wet weather. Upgraded soil absorption systems have been installed for 10
systems since 1970.

Lake Geneva RSSA (Southeast Shore Area)

The major unsewered areas within the Lake Geneva RSSA are the south-
east shore area (from the Lake Geneva Country Club golf course to Big Foot
Beach State Park), Hillmoor Heights, and the Forest Rest and Geneva Bay
Estates subdivisions. Subdivisions along the southeast shore (Trinke, Lake
Geneva Beach, Robinson, and Robinson Hillside), are of primary concern.
-------
Within the Trinke Subdi.vlsi.on, a large area has aolls with a high water
table. Of 33 houses in the area, three utilize holding tanks and one has a
mound system. From the questionnaires and sanitary surveys, four residents
indicated that they have problems with their systems (one pumps the septic
tank as a holding tank) The shallow water table extends into the Lake
Geneva Beach Subdivision near the lakeshore, and along Hillside Drive. A
small area within the Robinson Hillside Subdivision, also has a high water
table that would preclude installation of soil absorption systems. In
addition, some areas in the Trinke and Robinson Hillside subdivisions have
soils with a somewhat high water table such that mounds would be required.
Generally, soils in this area are moderately coarse textured, especially In
the lower protions of the soil profile. Most residences are on deep, well
drained soils. The GLWEA. sampling and subsequent WAPORA sampling of the
two creeks in the area Identified elevated fecal collfona concentrations in
Hillside Creek, but the source of the fecal material could not be posi-
tively identified.

Lake Como RSSA

The Lake Como RSSA encompasses all of the Lake Corao Beach Subdivision
and some adjacent parcels along County Road H. Approximately eight drain-
vi
-------
dgeways have a high water cable. At least two of these drainageways con-
tain continuously flowing springs and have been utilized for drinking water
supply by area residents. Soils along the lake front also have a high water
table. A small percentage of residences are located on parcels with a high
water table.

The number of currently failing systems was identified by evaluating
data from the aerial photographic survey, the questionnaire results, the
sanitary survey results, and the County sanitarian's records. According to
these data, approximately 21 systems currently are failing. Most failing
systems were near the western end of the subdivision within two blocks of
the Lake. Proximity to drainageways and limited depth to the water table
appeared to be the primary factors in these failures. Inadequate systems
also were a common factor in the failures. An analysis of past failures
that have been corrected revealed that a high water table was the most
important factor, followed by inadequate system design. Approximately one-
half of the past failures were rectified by installation of holding tanks.
The remainder extended the seepage bed or dry well, or had mounds con-
structed.

Description of Final Alternatives

The three final alternatives for providing wastewater treatment for
the RSSA include. No Action; the Facilities Plan Recommended Alternative
(FPRA), which consists of providing centralized collection and treatment
for all portions of the RSSAs, and the EIS Alternative, which consists of
providing management of onsite systems for currently unsewered portions of
the RSSAs and centralized collection and treatment for portions of the
RSSAs currently sewered. Table 1 shows a summary of the estimated total
present worth and annual user costs for the FPRA and the EIS Alternative
for service areas in the Geneva Lake RSSAs
vii
-------
Table 1. Summary of estimated total present worth and annual user cost
for the FPRA and EIS Alternative for major service areas in the
Lake Geneva RSSAs.
Total Present Worth Annual User Cost
Area
Lake Geneva
Lake Como
Southeast Shore
RSSA Subtotal
Wai worth
Font ana
Southwest Shore
RSSA Subtotal
Williams Bay
Northwest Shore
RSSA Subtotal
FPRA
$ 5,733,370
12,279,070
3,455,399
21,4677839"
1,157,228
4,703,983
1,759,355
7,620,566
2,705,402
1,595,310
4,300,Tl"2
EIS
$8,058,345
2,994,813
7l9,968a
12,1H,~016
1,096,423
4,018,754
585,400
5,7~59,564
2,836,318
516.8743
FPRA
103
732
640
117
203
366
160
545
EIS
150
213
169
119
170
136
170
172
TOTAL 33,389,117 21,225,772
Includes additional minor service areas evaluated in the EIS Alternative.
No Action Alternative

The No Action Alternative implies that neither USEPA nor WDNR (except
on an individual basis through the Wisconsin Fund where eligible individ-
ual onsite systems can be funded foe upgrades through NR 128.30) would
provide funds to build, upgrade, or expand existing wastewater treatment
systems. Wastewater would continue to be treated by existing WWTPs and
existing onsite systems. Each individual WWTP would be responsible for
improving operations and for making any necessary non-structural process
adjustments to maintain permitted treatment levels throughout the 20-year
design period. County sanitarians would continue to be responsible for
viii
-------
permitting and regulating existing onsite systems, and would continue to
require replacement or repair of obviously failing systems in unsewered
areas.

The existing Lake Geneva WWTP now fails to meet effluent limitations
for total phosphorus under its current limits. With no action, the
existing facilities would not be able to provide treatment to meet final
(1986) WPDES permit requirements. The hydraulic problems at the existing
Williams Bay WTP reportedly cause the plant to overflow and discharge
partially treated effluent to Southwick Creek (which flows to Geneva Lake)
in violation of the WPDES permit. Because of these hydraulic limitations,
it is likely that overflows would continue to occur without some form of
upgrading. The existing Fontana WWTP is currently operating with no viola-
tions of surface water, groundwater, or public health standards, however,
portions of the WWTP are 25 years old. Under the No Action Alternative,
the older portions of the WWTP would require major structural and
mechanical renovation and additional seepage lagoon area would be required
to serve 20-year wastewater treatment needs. Flow at the Waiworth WWTP
currently exceeds design capacity and some portions of the WWTP are in poor
structural condition. Without major structural improvements, the WWTP and
polishing lagoon will not be able to meet future effluent requirements. If
USEPA or WDNR did not provide funding, each of the municipalities may be
required to finance WWTP improvements on their own.

Under the No Action Alternative, local health authorities would con-
tinue to have inadequate information with which to identify failing systems
and to design onsite system repairs appropriate to the problems and their
causes. They are unlikely to have the time, personnnel, or monitoring cap-
abilities necessary to be able to specify innovative attempts to solve all
problems. The result will be an increasing number of holding tanks on
small lots and on lots with high groundwater. If no action is taken,
existing onsite systems in the study area potentially would continue to be
used in their present condition. Although some replacement systems would
be funded by WDNR, new and some replacement systems would be financed
solely by their individual owners.
ix
-------
Facilities Plan Recommended Alternative

The Facilities Plan Recommended Alternative (FPRA) includes con-
struction of collection sewers and interceptors in all currently unsewered
areas of the RSSAs, upgrading of the Lake Geneva WWTP to serve the east end
of tne planning area, upgrading of the Williams Bay WWTP, and construction
of a new WWTP at Walworth to serve the west end planning area communities
of Walworth and Fontana. The existing Fontana WWTP and Walworth WWTP would
be abandoned. The facilities proposed for construction as the FPRA are
described in the following paragraphs.

Collectors and Interceptors

For the FPRA, conventional gravity collection sewerb are proposed, but
not costed, for collection of wastewater in all unsewered areas of the
RSSAs. Conventional gravity sewers* were selected based on cost-effective-
ness analyses presented in the facilities planning documents. Gravity col-
lection sewers and interceptors consisting of gravity sewers, pumping sta-
tions and force mains are proposed. The interceptors were sized by the
facilities planner for a 50-year design period.

Lake Geneva WWTP

The FPRA proposes to serve the City of Lake Geneva, the Lake Como
Beach Subdivision, and the southeast shore of Geneva Lake. The WWTP would
be designed to handle an average dally (summer) flow of 2.13 mgd, and a
peak daily flow of 5.2 ragd. Following primary treatment, effluent would
flow by gravity to a renovated trickling filter. The increased hydraulic
capacity trickling filter will utilize 6-foot deep plastic media instead of
the existing rock media. Trickling filter effluent will flow by gravity to
a new secondary clarifier. One 70-foot diameter secondary clarifier will
replace two existing clarifiers, because the existing units are too small
and shallow and have mechanical and structural problems. Clarified sec-
ondary effluent will flow by gravity to the existing chlorine contact
chamber, which will be converted into an effluent pump station.
-------
A rapid infiltr.itJ.ori treatment system will be located near the STH 50
and US 12 Interchange. The infiltration system will consist of eight see-
page cells which allow for resting thus permitting nitrification and
denitrification to occur. This practice will minimize the impact of
nitrates on groundwater. The design average dosing rate will be approxi-
mately 23 inches pec week.

Walworth/Fontana WWTP

The WalwortU/Fontana WWTP proposed under the FPRA would replace the
existing Walworth and Fontana WWTP, both of which would be decoimissloned
and abandoned. The proposed WWTP would serve the Village of Walworth, the
Village of Fontana, and subdivisions along the southwest shore of Geneva
Lake. The design capacity of the proposed WWTP would be 1.16 tngd.

A new oxidation ditch treatment systau for Walworth and Fontana will
comprise a new subregional treatment facility on the existing Walworth pol-
ishing lagoon site adjacent to Piscasaw Creek. Conveyance facilities will
include upgrading the Fontana pump station; construction of a new force
main conveying Fontana wastewater out of the Geneva Lake drainage basin;
construction of an interceptor to convey Fontana wastewater from the drain-
age basin divide to the existing Walworth treatment plant site; replace-
ment of Walworih's existing treatment facility with a metering station; and
construction of an additional gravity interceptor paralleling Walworth's
existing gravity outfall to convey combined Walworth and Fontana flows from
the existing Walworth WWTP site to the new oxidation ditch WWTP site.

Following preliminary treatment, a dual oxidation ditch channel with
intrachannel clarification and subsurface aeration will provide secondary
treatment. Wastewater then will receive tertiary filtration using low head
filters. Filtered effluent will receive ultraviolet (UV) disinfection and
be discharged to Piscasaw Creek.
xi
-------
Williams Bay WWTP

A cost-effectiveness analysis performed by the facilities planner
determined that Williams Bay would be better served with their own fac-
ilities. The Village of Williams Bay then withdrew from the Geneva Lake
facilities planning effort, with the intent of submitting independent
facilities planning documents at a later time. However, since Williams Bay
is in the study area for this project, prellninary information developed by
the Village's consultants (Robers and Boyd) and supplemented by the fac-
ilities planner (By letter, Alan L. Berg, Donohue and Assoc., Inc., to Mark
B. Williams, WDNR, 3 November 1983) concerning construction of a new
aerated lagoon WWTP for Williams Bay has been included In this EIS.

For this alternative, Williams Bay would construct a new 0.9 mgd aer-
ated lagoon WWTP, with effluent treatment and disposal by rapid infil-
tration of the Village's existing seepage lagoons, which will be upgraded
and expanded. Items to be constructed or expanded include: a new aeration
lagoon with a liner, aeration equipment and structures, and miscellaneous
electrical, mechanical, plumbing, and ventilation services.

The EIS Alternative

Evidence demonstrating an excessive number of failures of onsite sys-
tems and the resulting adverse effects of such failures within the planning
area have not been presented. Contrary to this, the needs documentation
information indicated that the number of failing onsite systems within the
RSSAs is low, and documented evidence of surface water and groundwater
pollution resulting from failing onsite systems is minimal. As a result, a
third alternative (herein referred to as the EIS Alternative) has been
developed for evaluation.

The EIS Alternative includes upgrading existing onsite systems with
obvious and potential problems identified in the needs documentation pro-
cess, and improved management of existing and future onsite systems in the
area of the RSSAs not currently served by sewers, upgrading the Lake Geneva
WWTP; construction of a new WWTP to serve Williams Bay; and construction of
xii
-------
a new WWTP to serve Che Villages of Waiworth and Fontaia. The service
areas of the proposed WWTPs would include the year 2005 population expected
for currently sewered portions of these communities only, and would not
include expansion of sewers into currently unsewered areas.

Onsita Systems

Under the EIS Alternative, existing unsewered areas within the RSSAs
would remain on onsite systems. Management districts would be formed to
administer funds; inspect, design, and construct upgraded systems; ensure
proper operation and maintenance of the systems; and monitor performance of
systems. The management districts would likely use State funding for
completing the necessary facilities planning and design work for con-
struction grant application under NR 128.08. The EIS Alternative feasi-
bility analysis and costs presented in this EIS are based on using a
variety of sub-code systems. The sub-code systems appear justified within
a management district because the district would have the resources to
monitor performance of the systems and would have the authority to
establish special rules concerning operation Also, numerous sub-code
systems hava been operating satisfactorily, especially for seasonal
residences, within the planning area without any demonstrably harmful
effect on the environment. The district would arrange for the inspection,
design, and construction of upgraded systems. Individual upgrades would be
made in consultation with the property owner and the system design wuld be
selected fro,a A range of technical options.

Lake Geneva WWTP

The proposed WWTP facilities to serve the Lake Geneva RSSA would have
a design capacity of 1.7 mgd. The WWTP facilities would be similar to
those proposed for the FPRA, and would consists of upgrading the existing
trickling filter facilities plus construction of new seepage cell facili-
ties and a sludge storage lagoon at a new site located southeast of the STH
50 and US 12 interchange. Some treatment units would be smaller than those
proposed for the FPRA since only 1.7 mgd of waslewater would be treated
(daily average) instead of 2.1 mgd.
xni
-------
Walworth/Fontana WWT?

During conduct of the facilities planning efforts, the facilities
planner investigated a second alternative for Walworth/Fontana, consisting
of a new aerated lagoon WWTP followed by a rapid inflltrntton treatment
system. The new WWTP would be located at the Donald Rambow farm on the
southwest border of the Village of Walworth. The aerated lagoon system
would consist of three cells designed to remove 80% of the influent BOD.
Oxygen transfer within the aerated lagoon would be provided by positive
displacement blowers and static tube aerators. A third, quiescent cell
would be provided for effluent polishing. The quiescent cell also would
serve as the dosing cell for the land application system. The aerated
lagoons would be designed to produce an effluent containing less than
50 mg/1 BOD.

All flow through the WWTP., from the force main discharge to the
seepage cells, would be by gravity. Eight rapid infiltration seepage cells
would be provided, to allow for alternate dosing and resting. This would
enhance treatment and prolong the life of the system. Dosing and resting
seepage cells would alternately saturate and drain the soil, creating
anaerobic and aerobic conditions, respectively. This would allow both
nitrification and denitrificatlon to occur, which would minimize the effect
of nitrates on ground water. A system of observation wells also would be
installed around the perimeter of the seepage cell system, to monitor
groundwater quality.

The Rambow site was retained as a suggested site only for costing pur-
poses; i.e., if facilities at the Rainbow site are cost-effective, then
facilities located in another area near the Village potentially would be
cost-effective. If an aerated lagoon land application system does prove to
be cobt-effective, then further site evaluations could be undertaken to
find an acceptable site near to or within the Village.
xiv
-------
WilJiaras Bay WWTP

For the EIS Alternative, a aew Williams Bay aerated lagoon - rapid
infiltration WWTP would be constructed, as proposed In the FPRA. The only
difference is that a 0.7 ragd WWTP (average daily summer flow) would be
built instead of a 0.9 ragd WWTP, due to the reduced flow from a smaller
service area.

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Natural Environment

The EI'5 present information on the natural environment In the area
including air quality, geology, soils, prime farmland, groundwater, surface
water, as well as terrestrial and aquatic biota including wetlands. The
uajor elements of the natural environment that will affect decisions con-
carning wastewater management alternatives are soils, groundwater, and
suf f ace water .

The soils in the study area exhibit considerable variaiblity In com-
position and characteristics. The depth to water table and low soil
permeability are the principal factors limiting the use of onsxte systems.
However, interpretation of soil properties in lakeshore subdivisions cur-
rently served by onsite systems indicates that relatively small portions of
these areas present severe limitations to conventional or alternative soil
absorption systems. These severe limitation areas are located primarily in
undeveloped areas along water courses, in low areas or in nearby lakeshore
areas.

Gronndwater in the Geneva Lake - Lake Como study area is an important
resource since It supplies 100% of the area drinking water. The ground-
water aquifers are located in sandstone at depth and in unconsolidated sand
and gravel glacial deposits. Groundwater within the study area Is general-
ly suitable for drinking water purposes and meets drinking water standards
and criteria In almost all cases. Laboratory analysis of well water
samples t^ken during a 1983 sa.iitary survey of unsewered areas showed no
xv
-------
significant concentrations of nitrate-nitrogen in any well water samples
taken and limited fecal coliform concentrations in only two instances.
Groundwater monitoring data from existing land application facilities in
the study area indicate that while the facilities are causing minor local-
ized increases in constituents such as nitrates, these facilities should
not limit any future uses of groundwater in the study area.

The surface waters of concern in this EIS are Geneva Lake, Lake Como,
the White River, Piscasaw Creek, and many intermittent and perennial
streams. The White River flows northeast out of Geneva Lake and joins the
Fox River 12 miles from the study area. Below the Lake Geneva WWTP, the
7 day, 10 year low-flow is estimated to be 0.89 cfs. The existing design
flow of the treatment plant is 1.7 cfs, so that under low-flow conditions
approximately 52% of the streamflow is effluent, thus strongly influencing
water quality.

Piscasaw Creek is an intermittent headwater stream that flows south
along the western boundary of the Village of Walworth. Channelization has
reduced the quality of the creek due to reduced residence time and loss of
flow to dilute wastewater effluent. WDNR has reported that the 7 day, 10
year low-flow is approximately 0.07 cfs. Existing effluent discharges from
the Walworth WWTP lagoons total approximately 0.72 cfs. Under the present
wastewater management configuration, approximately 30% of the volume of
Piscasaw Creek is WWTP effluent in the mixing zone below the plant.

Geneva Lake is a deep glacial lake with no major stream inflows.
Recharge is through wetland drainage, groundwater inflow, direct precipi-
tation and numerous small perennial and intermittent streams. Lake Geneva
has been classified as a mesotrophic or moderately "enriched" lake. How-
ever, symptomatic evidence of water quality degradation has recently been
present, leading to a concern that the lake may become eutrophic in the
long term.

Lake Como is a shallow impounded wetland lake which has been clas-
sified as a highly eutrophic lake. Nutrient sources derive from the muck
and peat sediments as well as surface runoff from agricultural lands in the
watershed.
xvi
-------
Mamaade Environment

The EIS presents Information on the manmade environment of the study
area including land use, population, economic conditions, recreation and
tourism, personal and government finances, and cultural resources. One of
the most significant elements of the manmade enviornment that will affect
decisions concerning wastewater management is the existing and projected
populations of the various communities.

The Geneva Lake - Lake Como study area is an established recreational
area with a population composed of permanent, seasonal, and transient
residents. The US Bureau of the Census collects data only on the permanent
residents although data is provided on both seasonal and permanent dwelling
units. During the period from 1940 to 1970, population in the area grew at
a much faster rate (84.9%) than the State (40.8%) and nation (53.8%).
During the decade 1970 to 1980, the area only grew by 11.4%. Data on past
trends in seasonal population are not available, however, 80,000 to 100,000
people are estimated to visit the area during the summer months. Base-year
1980 permanent and seasonal population estimates prepared for each of the
RSSAs as part of this EIS are shown in Table 2.

Projections for both seasonal and permanent population have been pre-
pared for the Geneva Lake-Lake Como Revised Sewer Service Areas for the
year 2005. These projections are based on data assembled by the South
eastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC) for areas slightly
larger than those currently being planned for. Design year 2005 peak
(seasonal and permanent) population estimates prepared for the EIS for the
RSSAs are shown in Table 3. Design year 2005 peak population estimates
prepared by the facilities planners are shown in Table 4. Differences
between the two estimates are attributable to a larger 1980 base year
seasonal population in the EIS estimates and different assumptions on the
use of SEWRPC projections by the facilities planners. The EIS concludes
that SEWRPC projections for population growth for the period 1980 to 2005
"captures" both seasonal and permanent population. The facilities planning
documents have added a 53% increase on top of the projections to accom-
modate what is believed to be needed for the seasonal population.
xvii
-------
Table 2. Base-year population for the RSSAs in the Geneva Lake-Lake Coiao
study area.

Base-Year 1980
Area
063 Fontana
RSSA
Sewered
Unsewered
Permanent
Population
1,920
1,688
232
Seasonal
Population
3,342
2,856
486
Peak
Population
5,262
4,544
718
066 Waiworth
RSSA
Sewered
Un sewered
1,693
1,555
138
90
84
6
1,783
1,639
144
067 Williams Bay
RSSA
Sewered
Unsewered
1,951
1,759
192
2,262
1,911
351
4,213
3,670
543
908 Lake Como
RSSA
Sewered
Unsewered

059 Lake Geneva
RSSA
Sewered
Unsewered
1,379
0
1,379
6,395
6,049
346
1,344
0
1,344
1,983
1,431
552
2,723
0
2,723
8,378
7,480
898
Combined Total
RSSA
Sewered
Unsewered
13,338
11,051
2,287
9,021
6,282
2,739
22,359
17,333
5,026
xviii
-------
Table 3. Design-year population for the RSSAs in the Geneva Lake-
Lake Como study area.
Area

063 Fontana
RSSA
Sewered
Unsewered

066 Walworth
RSSA
Sewered
Unsewered

067 Williams Bay
RSSA
Sewered
Unsewered

908 Lake Como
RSSA
Sewered
Unsewered

059 Lake Geneva
RSSA
Sewered
Unsewered

Totals
RSSA
Sewered
Unsewered
Year 2005
Population Change
1980-2005
Population
6,346
5,309
1,037
2,618
2,320
298
5,862
4,909
953
3,374
0
3,374
13,029
11,880
1,149
31,046
24,418
6,628
Net
1,084
765
319
835
681
154
1,649
1,239
410
651
0
651
4,651
4,400
251
8,687
7,085
1,602
Percentage
20.6
16.8
44.4
46.8
41.5
106.9
39.1
33.8
75.5
23.9
0
23.9
55.5
58.8
27.9
38.8
40.9
31.9
xix
-------
Table 4. Donohuc ft Associates, Inc population projections for 2005
(Donohue & Assoc., Inc. 1983b).
2005 Population
Area
063 Fontana
RSSA
066 Waiworth
RSSA
067 Williams Bay
RSSA
908 Lake Como
RSSA
059 Lake Geneva
RSSA
Permanent
Seasonal
2,300
2,207
3,420
1,970
11,530
3,944
2,207
5,927
3,365
17,750
Although Donohue lists this figure as seasonal, this is actually peak
population.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

The EIS discusses the construction, operational, and secondary en-
vironmental impacts associated with implementation of the wastewater
management alternatives. It also presents mitigative measures that can be
applied to reduce or eliminate the impacts identified.

Construction and Operational Impacts

Construction of either the FPRA or the EIS Alternative will have
construction related impacts on elements of the environment. In general,
excavation and construction of wastewater collection and conveyance lines
in unsewered areas under the FPRA would have a greater short-term impact
than would the EIS Alternative which calls for upgrading a limited number
of onsite systems. Air quality impacts would derive from fugitive dust
xx
-------
from site clearing, grading, excavating and related activities. Soils
exposed during construction would be subject to accelerated erosion.
Increased sedimentation resulting from construction could result in sedi-
mentation including nutrient and other pollutant inputs to surface waters.
Construction activities associated with components of either of the pro-
posed alternatives would result in some impacts to wildlife and vegetation.

The construction of WWTPs and rapid infiltration treatment systems
have the potential to irreversibly convert prime farmland to a developed
land use. On the west end, the facilities planners, and subsequently the
SIS Alternative, evaluated rapid infiltration on an 80 acre site on the
southwest border of the Village of Walworth. This site is actively farmed,
prime agricultural land on Class 1-1 soils. These soils represent less
than 1% of the most valuable soils in the State of Wisconsin. The farm is
located in an A-l exclusive agricultural use zoning district and the owners
are participating in the state preferential tax assessment program. The
adverse impacts that would occur from using this site for land application
of wastewater would be significant and long terra.

The operational impacts of greatest concern are the effects of WWTP
effluent on surface and groundwaters. Under the FPRA, oxidation ditch WWTP
effluent from the Waiworth/Fontana plant would be discharged to Piscasaw
Creek. Based on wasteload allocation studies prepared by WDNR effluent
quality discharged from this facility would be sufficient to sustain full
fish and aquatic life standards. Both the FPRA and the EIS Alternative
proposed land application by rapid infiltration at the Lake Geneva WWTP and
the EIS Alternative evaluates land application for the west end Walworth/
Fontana WWTP. These would result in the removal of WWTP effluent from
Piscasaw Creek and the White River. Removal of the effluent would upgrade
the quality of these receiving waters in the short term but would reduce
their productivity and low flow stabilization in the long term.
*

The principal impact of concern in land application of wastewater by
rapid infiltration is nitrate-nitrogen concentrations in groundwater. The
national primary drinking water standard for nitrate-nitrogen is 10 mg/1.
Sampling data from three existing rapid infiltration facilities in the
xxi
-------
Geneva Lake study area indicate that these facilities may cause minor
changes in localized concentration of nitrates, however, they are minor in
degree and well below drinking water standards. None of the alternatives
are expected to result in any restrictions in current uses of groundwater
in the study area.

Fiscal Impacts

The costs of implementing a wastewater management alternative in the
study area could be apportioned between USEPA,, the State of Wisconsin and
local residents. Apportionment of the costs are made on the basis of what
costs are eligible to be funded by the State of Wisconsin or USEPA.
Because of their position on the State priority list, it is likely that the
City of Lake Geneva will receive Federal Construction Grants funding for
upgrading their wastewater treatment facilities, including 85% funding for
portions of their plan that are "alternative or innovative." In the other
communities, application would need to be made under the Wisconsin Fund
which provides grants for up to 60% of the eligible costs.

Even with State or Federal grants, the wastewater management alter-
natives could have an adverse financial impact on community residents, as
measured by their ability to afford the estimated average annual user
costs. The capital costs of the alternatives also could have a significant
negative impact on the financial conditions of the individual communities.
The financial burden incurred could limit the ability of each community to
engage in other capital improvement projects and potentially could impact
their ability to provide other public services.

Secondary Impacts

Secondary impacts are likely to occur when improvements in wastewater
treatment capacity and capability lead to changes in the study area that,
in turn, induce or stimulate other developments which would not have taken
place in the absence of a project. One of the more significant factors
influencing the development potential of an area is the presence or absence
of centralized wastewater collection and treatment systems. In some sit-

xxii
-------
nations, improvements in wastewater treatment capacity and capability can
induce, or stimulate, growth that would not have occurred without the
improvements. It is not clear at this time whether the development
potential of the study area is directly related to the presence or absence
of centralized wastewater collection and treatment systems. However, the
population of the East Planning area under the FPRA, is projected to
increase by 90.2% between 1980 and 2005, from 11,101 to 21,115. The pop-
ulation analysis developed for the EIS, however, differs substantially from
the FPRA, for the East Planning area. The EIS projects a population
increase of 47.8%, from 11,101 to 16,405. The EIS estimates are based on a
larger 1980 base population than the FPRA. However, they accommodate only
the amount of growth planned for by the respective communities between the
^ears 1980 and 2005. There is some question whether the projections made
under the FPRA would be realized. However, the potential would exist to
"induce" population growth to these levels by providing wastewater
treatment capacity as proposed by the FPRA.

Both the FPRA and the EIS Alternative will result in increased
residential development with attendant additions in impervious surface area,
storm sewers, and drainage ditches. The degree of impact on water quality
in the study area will vary based on the amount and density of residential
development that occurs. The EIS shows that a large concentration of
residential growth will occur in the Lake Geneva RSSA under the FPRA,
including the southeast shore of Geneva Lake. The water quality impact of
this growth is anticipated to be substantial. The new growth would be
concentrated closer to the lake at higher residential densities permitted
on sewered lots and would introduce biologically available nutrients to the
lake.

CONCLUSION

The EIS reviews in detail the existing information about the natural
and manmade environment in the Geneva Lake-Lake Como study area that is
useful in evaluating wastewater management alternatives. Shallow depth to
water table and limited permeability may restrict some future use of soils
for onsite treatment of wastewater, however, there are currently only a
xxiii
-------
limited number of systems that are malfunctioning. A review of surface and
groundwater data from wells in the area shows almost no indication of
contamination from onsite systems.

The EIS has reviewed two principal options for wastewater manangement
in the study area including the Facilities Plan Recommended Alternative and
the EIS Alternative. For the unsewered areas, upgrading onsite systems and
maintaining them with a management district appears to be the least costly
alternative over 20 years. Data are provided on centralized treatment
systems for the Villages of Waiworth, Fontana, and Williams Bay, as well as
for the City of Lake Geneva. No conclusions are drawn on the approach that
each of these communities should take. It is hoped that this document will
provide guidance for selecting a comprehensive, cost-effective, environ-
mentally sound wastewater treatment alternative. Opportunities to comment
on this report will be provided at a public hearing on the EIS shortly
after publication. This process and a preferred wastewater management
approach will be discussed in the Final EIS to be prepared after the public
hearing, and at the close of the comment period on this Draft EIS.
xxiv
-------
GENEVA LAKE-LAKE COMO ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i

TABLE OF CONTENTS xxv

LIST OF TABLES xxlv

LIST OF FIGURES xxxv

LIST OF APPENDICES xxxvtl

1.0. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 1-1
1.1. Project Background 1-1
1.2. Legal Basis for Action and Project Need 1-8
1.3. Study Process and Public Participation 1-12
1.4. Issues 1-13
2.0. DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 2-1
2.1. Existing Centralized Wastewater Treatment System 2-1
2.1.1. City of Lake Geneva 2-3
2.1.2. Village of Williams Bay 2-8
2.1.3. Village of Fontana 2-13
2.1.4. Village of Walworth 2-19
2.1.5. Other Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Within the SEWKPC Service Area 2-24
2.2. Existing Onsite Waste Treatment Systems 2-26
2.2.1. Existing Onsite Systems, ... . . 2-26
2.2.2. Performance of Onsite Systems 2-29
2.2.2.1. Soils Characteristics for On-
site Treatment 2-31
2.2.2.2. County Permit File Data 2-31
2.2.2.3. Septic Leachate Survey 2-37
2.2.2.4. Property Owner Questionnaire 2-42
2.2.2.5. Sanitary and Well Water Surveys .... 2-45
2.2.2.6. Water Quality Sampling Results ..... 2-55
2.2.2.7. Parcel Size Characteristics 2-58
2.2.2.8. Aerial Photographic Survey 2-60
2.2.3. Problems Caused by Existing Systems 2-62
2.2.3 1. Recurrent Backups 2-62
2.2.3.2. Surface Ponding 2-63
2.2.3.3. Groundwater Contamination 2-63
2.2.3.4. Surface Water Quality Problems ... . 2-64
2 2.3.5. Indirect Evidence 2-65
2.2.4 Identification of the Extent of Problems ..... 2-66
2.2.4.1. Fontana RSSA 2-67
2.2 4.2. Williams Bay RSSA 2-68
2.2.4.3. Lake Geneva RSSA 2-69
2.2.4.4. Lake Como RSSA 2-72
2.2.5. Septage and Holding Tank Waste Disposal
Practices 2-73
xxv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
3.0.
2.3.

2.4.

2.5.

Identification of Wastewater Treatment System Options . . .
2.3.1. Design Factors
2.3.1.1. Planning Period .
2.3.1.2. Flow and Waste Reduction . ......

2.3.1.4. Effluent Requirements
2.3.1.5. Economic Factors
2.3.2. System Components .

2.3.2.2. Wastewater Treatment Technologies ....

2.3.2.5. Ons 1 te Systems
2.3.2.6. Septage and Holding Tank Wastes

2.3.3. Development and Screening of Preliminary

Description of Final Alternatives . .

2.4.3. EIS Alternative
Cost- Effectiveness Analysis of the Final Alternatives
2.5.1. Cost-Effectiveness
2.5.2. Flexibility
2.5.3. Reliability

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3.1.

Natural Environment ... . . . . ...

3.1.1.1. Climate
3.1.1.2. Air Quality
3.1.1.3. Noise
3.1.2. Land
3.1.2.1. Physiography and Topography .......
3.1.2.2. Bedrock Geology
3.1.2.3. Surficial Geology
3.1.2.4. Soils
3.1.2.5. Prime Farmland

3.1.3.2. Streams
3.1.3.3. Lakes
3.1.3.4. Floodplains
3.1.4. Terrestrial and Aquatic Biota
3.1.4.1. Terrestrial Communities

3.1.4.3. Wetlands
3.1.4.4. Threatened and Endangered Species ....
3.1.4.5. Significant Natural Areas
2-75
2-75
2-75
2-75
2-87
2-92
2-94
2-96
2-96
2-98
2-99
2-109
2-111

2-117

2-123
2-133
2-133
2-136
2-154
2-174
2-174
2-180
2-184
2-187
3-1
3-1
3-1
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-3
3-3
3-4
3-4
3-6
3-9
3-11
3-11
3-13
3-16
3-27
3-27
3-27
3-32
3-36
3-37
3-40
XXVI
-------
TABLE OP CONTENTS (continued)
3.2. Man-Made Environment. 3-41
3.2,1. Land Use 3-41
3.2.1.1. Existing Land Use 3-41
3.2.1.2. Development Controls 3-43
3.2.1.3. Future Land Use Trends 3-44
3.2.2. Population 3-44
3.2.2.1. Population Trends 3-45
3.2.2.2. Base Year Population 3-47
3.2.2.3. Population Projections 3-51
3.2.3. Socioeconomic Characteristics 3-55
3.2.3.1. Demographic Characteristics 3-55
3.2.3.2. Housing 3-58
3.2.4. Economics 3-60
3.2.4.1. Employment Trends in Walworth County . . 3-62
3.2.4.2. Local Employment Trends 3-67
3.2.4 3. Income 3-68
3.2.5. Municipal Finances 3-69
3.2.5.1. Revenues and Expenditures ... 3-70
3.2.5.2. User Costs 3-73
3.2.5.3. Tax Assessments 3-73
3.2.5.4. Municipal Indebtedness 3-74
3.2.6. Transportation Facilities 3-77
3.2.6. Recreation ... . . ............ 3-80
3.2.7. Cultural Resources 3-81
3.2.8. Energy Consumption 3-84
4.0. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4-1
4.1. Pritaary Impacts 4-3
4.1.1. Construction Impacts 4-3
4.1.1.1. Atmosphere 4-3
4.1.1.2 Soil Erosion and Sedimentation 4-4
4.1.1.3. Surface Water .... 4-4
4 1.1.4. Groundwater 4-5
4.1.1.5. Terrestrial Biota 4-5
4.1.1.6. Wetlands . 4-6
4.1.1.7. Land Use 4-7
4.1.1.8. Demography .... 4-8
4.1.1.9. Prime and Unique Farmland 4-8
4.1.1.10. Economics 4-10
4.1.1.11. Recreation and Tourism 4-10
4.1.1.12. Transportation 4-11
4.1.1.13. Energy Resources ...... ..... 4-11
4.1.1.14. Cultural Resources 4-11
4.1.2. Operation Impacts 4-12
4.1.2.1. Atmosphere 4-12
4.1.2.2. Soils 4-12
4.1.2.3. Surface Waters 4-14
4.1.2.4. Groundwater 4-16
xxvii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (concluded)
4.1.2.5. Terrestrial Biota . . 4-26
4.1.2.6. Wetlands 4-26
4.1.2.7. Land Use 4-26
4.1.2.8. Demographics 4-26
4.1.2.9. Economics 4-27
4 1.2.10. Recreation and Tourism 4-27
4.1.2.11. Transportation 4-27
4.1.3. Fiscal Impact 4-28
4.2. Secondary Impacts . 4-33
4.2.1. Demographics 4-33
4.2.2. Land Use 4-37
4.2.3. Surface Water 4-39
4.2.4. Recreation and Tourism 4-42
4.2.5. Economics 4-42
4.2.6. Sensitive Environmental Resources 4-43
4.3. Mitigation of Adverse Impacts . . 4-45
4.3.1. Mitigation of Construction Impacts 4-45
4.3.2. Mitigation of Operation Impacts 4-52
4.3.3. Mitigation of Secondary Impacts 4-53
4.4. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts . 4-53
4.5. Irretrievable and Irreversible Resource Commitments 4-54

5.0. LIST OF PREPARERS 5-1

6.0. GLOSSARY OF TECHNICAL TERMS 6-1

7.0, LITERATURE CIT«D 7-1
xxviii
-------
LIST OF TABLES

Page

2-1 Summary of Lake Geneva WWTP effluent characteristics for 1981
and 1982 2-6

2-2 Lake Geneva WWTP Interim WPDES permit effluent limitations for
discharges to the White River. . .. 2-7

2-3 Summary of Williams Bay WWTP effluent characteristics for 1981
and I982a 2-12

2-4 Summary of Fontana WWTP effluent characteristics for 1981 and
1982 2-17

2-5 Summary of Walworth WWTP effluent characteristics for 1981 and
1982 2-21

2-6 Walworth interim WPDES permit effluent limitations for discharge
to Piscasaw Creek 2-22

2-7 Soil characteristics for onsite waste treatment systems in the
RSSAs, by subdivision 2-32

2-8 New and upgraded wastewater systems since 1970 for single family
residences for selected subdivisions within the RSSAs 2-33

2-9 Systems upgrades since 1970 for large commercial structures for
the Lake Como Beach Subdivision 2-34

2-10 Results of the laboratory analysis of the shallow groundwater and
di tch sample s 2-40

2-11 Comparison of the two septic leachate surveys. Only the shore-
line lengths surveyed in August 1982 are compared to the
shoreline lengths surveyed in November 1978 2-42

2-12 Questionnaire responses tabulated by subdivision within the
RSSAs 2-47

2-13 Summary data concerning types of onsite treatment systems
from the August and September 1982 sanitary surveys of Geneva
Lake and Lake Como, Wisconsin... 2-47

2-14 Summary data on operation of onsite treatment systems, from the
August and September 1982 sanitary surveys for Geneva Lake and
Lake Corao, Wisconsin 2-49

2-15 Results of the laboratory analysis of well water samples from
the sanitary survey of August and September 1982 for Geneva
Lake and Lake Como, Wisconsin 2-51
xxix
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)

2-16 Selected land use data for comparison of watershed water
quality determinants 2-55

2-17 Selected water quality data for comparison of land use water
quality relationships.. . 2-56

2-18 Summary of parcel sizes of contiguous lots In common ownership
for subd ivlsions In square feet 2-57

2-19 Estimated I/I flows within centralized sewer collection systems as
determined by I/I and SSES analyses for the RSSAs 2-76

2-20 Estimated existing flow and WWTP capacities for Lake Geneva,
Walworth, Fontana, and Williams Ray. . . 2-88

2-21 Summary of wastewater flow and organic loading design factors
used in this EIS for the Geneva Lake RSSAs 2-89

2-22 Summary of wastewater flows and organic loadings (using EIS
design factors) projected for the sewered portions of the RSSA
for the year 2005 2-90

2-23 Summary of wastewater flows and organic loadings projected by the
facilities planners for the RSSAs for the year 2005 2-91

2-24 Comparislon of existing WWTP capacities (year 1980) and projected
flows (year 2005) for sewered portions of the RSSAs 2-92

2-25 WDNR proposed effluent limits for discharge to the White River
(effective 1 January 1986) 2-93

2-26 WDNR proposed permit effluent limits for discharge to Piscasaw
Creek 2-93

2-27 Economic cost criteria I 2-95

2-28 Service factors, excluding interest during construction, applied
to the construction cost to compute the capital cost 2-97

2-29 Sources of regional WWTP alternatives presented in SEWRPC 2-124

2-30 Summary of regional WWTP alternatives presented in Facilities
Plan Volume 1 2-125

2-31 Breakdown of subregional service areas and general area by sub-
division 2-127

2-33 Facilities Plan ranking of total present worth costs for waste-
water management alternatives serving currently unsewered
areas 2-130
xxx
-------
LIST OF TABLES (cntlnued)

2-34 Alternative treatment processes disposal methods and ranking of
total present worth costs for Facilities Plan Volume 2, WWTP
alternatives 2-132

2-35 Subdivisions for which costs were provided of those to be served
by centralized wastewater collection and treatment facilities
in the FPRA 2-137

2-36 Estimated cost of collection sewers and interceptors for certain
subdivisions within the RSSAs as proposed in the FPRA......... 2-139

2-37 Estimated cost of the upgraded Lake Geneva WWTP and new rapid
infiltration system as proposed in the FPRA 2-144

2-38 Disaggregation of costs of the Lake Geneva collection system
and WWTP among the major service areas of the Geneva Lake and
Lake Como RSSA, based upon poplation served 2-147

2-39 Estimated cost of the Walworth/Fontana WWTP (1.16 ragd) proposed
for the FPRA 2-151

2-40 Disaggregation of costs for the FPRA among major service areas
of the Walworth/Fontana RSSAs, based on annual daily average
wastewater flows 2-153

2-41 Estimated cost of the Williams Bay WWTP proposed for the FPRA. 2-155

2-42 Disaggregation of costs among major service areas of the
Williams Bay RSSA, based upon population served 2-156

2-43 Summary of estimated costs for the FPRA for major service areas
within the Geneva Lake-Lake Como RSSAs 2-159

2-44 Estimated costs for onsite systems in major service areas within
the Geneva Lake-Lake Como RSSAs 2-162

2-45 Estimated cost of the upgraded Lake Geneva WWTP (1.74 mgd) and
new rapid infiltration system, as proposed in the EIS
Alternative 2-164

2-46 Estimated costs for the Walworth/Fontana WWTP (1.09 ragd) as
proposed in the EIS Alternative.... 2-170

2-47 Disaggregation of costs between sewered portions of Waiworth/
Fontana RSSAs, based on annual daily average wastewater
flows 2-172

2-48 Estimated cost of the Williams Bay WWTP (0.7 mgd) proposed for
EIS Alternative 2-173
xxxi
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)

2-49 Summary of estimated costs for the EIS Alternative for uajor
service areas within the Geneva Lake-Lake Como RSSAs 2-175

2-50 Estimated annual user cost per existing connection Eor the
FPRA for the various service areas within the Geneva Lake-Lake
Como RSSAs 2-181

2-5L Estimated annual user costs per connection for the EIS Alterna-
tive for various service areas within the Geneva Lake-Lake Como
RSSAs 2-182

2-52 Management models for community management of private onsite
wastewater facilities .. . 2-191

2-53 Potential program services for wastewater management systems.. 2-195

3-1 Amount of water used daily in 1971 for residential, commercial,
industrial, and municipal purposes in Waiworth County,
Wisconsin . .. . 3-11

3-2 Total pumpage from aquifers in Walworth County in 1971 3-12

3-3 Summary of flow data for the White River. Flow measurements
were taken at a gaging station 3 meters downstream from the
bridge on State Highway 36, about 0.5 miles ME of the City of
Lake Geneva . , 3-14

3-4 Summary of water quality data for the White River at Lake
Geneva 3-15

3-5 Summary of water quality data for Como Creek 3-16

3-6 Morphologic and hydrographic characteristics of Geneva Lake and
Lake Como 3-17

3-7 Summary of National Eutrophication Survey water quality data for
Geneva Lake 3-19

3-8 Summary of WDNR water quality data for Geneva Lake 3-20

3-9 Estimated nutrient balance for Geneva Lake for various sources
and for losses via the White River 3-22

3-10 Water quality data for various seasons at Fontana Bay, Geneva
Lake 3-23

3-11 Monthly average fecal coliform counts at various swimming beaches
on Geneva Lake and in the mixing zones of perennial streams... 3-24

3-12 Bacterial content of shoreline water samples of Geneva Lake and
Lake Como, Wlsconsin 3-25
xxxli
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)

3-13 Species listed as threatened or endangered by the State of
Wisconsin, and that are known to occur or potentially could
3-14

3-15
3-16

3-17

3-18

3-19
3-20
3-21

3-22

3-23

3-24

3-25
3-26
3-27
3-28

3-29

3-30
Significant natural areas in the Geneva Lake-Lake Corao study
area ...
Land use/ land cover in the Geneva Lake-Lake Como study area..
Base-year population estimates for the RSSAs in the Geneva Lake-
Lake Corao s tudy area
Estimated seasonal transient population in the Revised Sewer
Service Areas for 1980
Design-year population estimates for the RSSAs in the Geneva
Lake-Lake Como s tudy areas
Population projections for 2005 and 2030
Selected demographic characteristics, 1970 and 1980
Characteristics of the housing stock in the socioeconomic area,
1980
Single family housing construction permits issued in revised
sewer service area
Wai worth County employment trends, by sector, in 1971 and
1976
Employment by industry in Geneva, Linn, Lyons, Walworth, and
Bloornfield Townships, 1975
Unemployment rates in Walworth County, Wisconsin, and the US..
Employment of civilian labor force in the socioeconomic area..

Sources of revenue for general operations produced by the
jurisdiction in the Geneva Lake-Lake Como socioeconomic area
1980
Resources expended for general operations by the jurisdictions
in the Geneva Lake-Lake Corao socioeconomic area, 1980
Current user costs for wastewater treatment in the socioeconomic
•j -J\J
3-41
3-42

3-48/49

3-50

3-54
3-55
3-56

3-59

3-61

3-63

3-65
3-67
3-67
3-68

3-71

3-72

XXXlll
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)

3-31 Tax rates In 1981 for the jurisdictions In the Geneva Lake-
Lake Como socloeconomlc area 3-75

3-32 Statutory debt limits, credit industry benchmarks, and compara-
tive statistics for the jurisdictions in the Geneva Lake-Lake
Corao study area 3-76

3-33 Ratios of roadway volume to roadway capacity on selected road
segments in the Geneva Lake-Lake Como study area 3-78

3-34 Study area structures included in the National Register of
Historic Places 3-84

3-35 Energy consumption in Walworth County and the Geneva Lake-
Lake Corao area, 1977 3-84
4-1 Index of Important impacts for the construction and operation
of the wastewater management alternatives in the Geneva Lake-
Lake Como study area 4-2

4-2 Waste load allocation effluent limits for combined Fontana and
Walworth WWTP facilities 4-18

4-3 Estimated debt as a percentage of full equalized value 4-29

4-4 Estimated debt as a percentage of the statutory debt limit.... 4-30

4-5 Estimated average annual user costs as a percentage of median
household income 4-31

4-6 Projected increases in developed residential acrerage from 1980
to the year 2005 for Williams Bay and Lake Geneva RSSAs 4-41

4-7 Estimated costs for a separate Walworth areated lagoom WWTP
proposed as a mitlgatlve measure 4-49

4-8 Estimated costs for a separated upgraded and expanded Fontana
WWTP proposed as a mitlgative measure.. , 4-50
xxxiv
-------
LIST OF FIGURES

Page

1-1 Geneva Lake-Lake Como regional location map 1-2

1-2 SSA Geneva Lake -Lake Couio sewer service area 1-3

1-3 RSSA Geneva Lake-Lake Como revised sewer service area....... 1-4

2-1 Location of municipal and private WWTPs in the vicinity of Geneva
Lake 2-2

2-2 Schematic diagram of the City of Lake Geneva WWTP 2-5

2-3 Schematic diagram of the Village of Williams Bay WWTP 2-10

2-4 Schematic diagram of the Village of Fontana WWTP 2-15

2-5 Schematic diagram of the Village of Walworth WWTP 2-21

2~6 Location of currently unsewered portions of the RSSAs 2-27

2-7 Suspected onsite treatment system effluent plumes 2-39

2-8a Location of groundwater well sampling stations 2-52

2-8b Location of groundwater well sampling stations 2-53

2-8c Location of groundwater well sampling stations . 2-54

2-9 Location of confirmed and marginally failing onsite treatment
systems.... 2-61

2-10 Example strategies for management of segregated human wastes and
residential graywater . . . . ., 2-87

2-11 Septic tank-soil absorption systems... ... . . 2-112

2-12 Septic tank-pumping chamber-mound . 2-114

2-13 Location of wastewater collection and treatment facilities for the
Facilities Plan Recommended Alternative 2-138

2-14 Expanded facilities for the Lake Geneva WWTP as proposed in the
FPRA 2-140

2-15 Layout of the rapid infiltration system proposed in the Facilities
Plan Recommended Alternative ..... 2-142

2-16 Innovative oxidation ditch system proposed for use at the new
Walworth/Fontana WWTP in the FPRA 2-150
XXXV
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
2-17 Location of wastewater collection and treatment facilities for the
EIS Alternative 2-159

3-1 Surficial geology . 3-5

3-2 Soils association 3-8

3-3 Prime farmland ... . . .. 3-10

3-4 Land use/land cover 3-28

3-5 Wildlife habitat value . 3-33

3-6 Wetlands 3-37
xx xvi
-------
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A PROPERTY OWNER QUESTIONNAIRE

APPENDIX B SANITARY SURVEY FORM

APPENDIX C LABORATORY ANALYSIS OF GROUNDWATER NEAR RAPID INFILTRATION
SITES

APPENDIX D QUANTITIES AND COST ESTIMATES FOR INITIAL AND FUTURE ONSITE
SYSTEMS

APPENDIX E PROJECTED WASTEWATER FLOWS AND LOADINGS

APPENDIX F COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS AND COMPUTATION OF LOCAL USER
CHARGES

APPENDIX G POPULATION/SOCIOECONOMIC

APPENDIX H HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

APPENDIX I FARMLAND PROTECTION POLICY REGULATIONS
XXXVll
-------
-------
1.0. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION

l.l. Project History
The study area addressed in this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
is located in the southeast corner of Wisconsin, approximately 50 miles
southwest of Milwaukee and 75 miles northwest of Chicago (Figure 1-1). The
study area encompasses approximately 44 square miles in the southern por-
tion of Waiworth County, and includes the City of Lake Geneva, the Villages
of Walworth, Fontana, and Williams Bay, the Towns of Geneva, Linn and
Walworth, as well as minor portions of the Towns of Bloomfield, Oelavan,
and Lyons. This part of Walworth County is located just south of the
Kettle Moraine area and is characterized by steep, humraocky, moraine ridges
that trend in a northeast-southwest direction reflecting glacial deposition
over a preglacial bedrock valley. The locale is very popular as a summer
resort area because of the recreational resources afforded by the 5,000-
acre Geneva Lake and the 1,000-acre Lake Como, and their proximity to both
Chicago and Milwaukee.

In May 1974, the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission
(SEWRPC) adopted A Regional Sanitary Sewerage System Plan for Southeastern
Wisconsin (Planning Report 30) This document was prepared in accordance
with Section 66.945(10) of the Wisconsin Statutes and Section 208 of the
Clean Water Act, and provides guidance on wastewater management planning to
the local units of government located in SEWRPC's seven-county region.
Recommended sewer service areas (SSA) were delineated in the plan and are
subject to revision at the local level. Five SSAs were located in the
Geneva Lake-Lake Como study area (Figure 1-2). Based on a cost-effective-
ness analysis, Donohue & Assoc., Inc. (I981a) revised the boundaries of the
five SSAs during the course of facilities planning and the preparation of
this EIS. These five revised sewer service areas (RSSAs) are the areas for
which the wa&tewater collection and treatment facilities are presently
being planned (Figure 1-3).

Currently, four municipal and three private wastewater treatment
plants (WWTPs) serve the existing sewered areas within the study area.
Municipal WWTPs are located at Fontana, Lake Geneva, Walworth, and Williams
Bay.
1-1
-------
Figure 1-1. Geneva Lake-Lake Como regional location map.
-------
LEGEND

— — — Study area boundary
........ Proposed sewer service area boundary
Geneva Lake facilities planning area
Figure 1-2 Geneva Lake-Lake Como sewer service area
-------
LEGEND

___ Study area boundary

•••• RSSA boundary
Figure 1-3 Geneva Lake-Lake Como revised sewer service area
-------
The Fontana plant consists of two treatment trains with a combined daily
capacity of 0 9 million gallons per day (mgd), a 25-year old trickling
filter with primary and secondary clarification units, and a 10-year old
activated sludge plant The effluent from these two trains is combined,
chlorinated and discharged to three seepage lagoons. The City of Lake
Geneva operates a 1.1-mgd facility with primary clarifiers and two parallel
trickling filter/final clarifiers. This WWTP discharges effluent of secon-
dary treatment quality to the White River. The Village of Waiworth con-
structed a 0.15-mgd trickling filter in 1952 and added two polishing
lagoons in 1965. Effluent flows from the trickling filter a distance of
2.8 miles to the lagoons and is then discharged to a drainage ditch leading
to Piscasaw Creek, a tributary of the Rock River. The Village of Williams
Bay operates a 0.8-mgd activated sludge treatment plant built in 1931 and
rebuilt in 1968. Final effluent is directed to one of two seepage lagoons
for disposal.

Private WWTPs serve the Americana Hotel (formerly the Playboy Club),
Interlaken Resort, and Kikkoman Foods. The Americana Hotel is located east
of Route 12 and the City of Lake Geneva. Its 0.4-mgd WWTP is a contact
stabilization-type activated sludge compact plant with chlorination and
polishing lagoons and discharges to the White River The Interlaken Resort
is located on the southwestern tip of Lake Como and although listed as a
municipal plant, it serves only the resort. This 0.125-mgd WWTP is a con-
tact stabilization-type activated sludge compact plant with tertiary sand
filters and discharges to two onsite seepage cells. The Kikkoraan Foods soy
sauce manufacturing facility and treatment plant are located approximately
three miles northwest of the Village of Walworth. The 0.25-mgd WWTP has an
aerated equalization basin preceding the contact stabilization package
units. This WWTP discharges to two onsite seepage beds These three pri-
vate plants are located outside the RSSAs and the flows are not included in
alternatives considered herein

Several factors have led to consideration of a regional wastewater
management plan for the Geneva Lake-Lake Corao study area In Fontana,
before the third lagoon was constructed, effluent from the original two
seepage lagoons had overflowed into Buena Vista Creek due to increases in
wastewater flows and reduction of infiltration capacity in the seepage
1-5
-------
lagoons over time. The City of Lake Geneva WWTP is currently meeting its
interim effluent standards, however, the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources (WDNR) has issued more strict effluent discharge standards which
the existing plant cannot meet. The Waiworth WWTP, which is exceeding its
hydraulic design capacity, is meeting interim standards but is incapable of
meeting final standards. The Williams Bay plant has components that are in
poor condition and is experiencing hydraulic problems in both its primary
and secondary clarifiers. All of these plants have experienced hydraulic
increases in recent years due to population increases, a trend that will
continue into the next 20 years. For more detail on the existing waste-
water treatment facilities and water quality problems see Section 2.1.

The facilities planning documents propose to serve portions of the
study area with centralized wastewater collection and treatment facilities
that are currently served by onsite wastewater treatment systems. These
existing onsite systems include single tank cesspools, holding tanks,
septic tanks with dry wells, arid septic tanks with various forms of soil
absorption systems. Geologic conditions on some parcels in the study area
present limitations to the use of onsite wastewater treatment systems. The
shallow depth to the seasonal high water table on some parcels limits the
effectiveness of some onsite systems and on many lots poses constraints to
development. Concern that onsite systems may be contaminating surface and
groundwater resources has led some homeowner and beach associations to
construct centralized domestic water supplies. For more details concerning
onsite system problems see Section 2.2.

Until the 1960s, public control over the installation of onsite waste-
water treatment systems was nonexistent or only advisory. During the 1960s
and 1970s, the State government and local health departments formulated and
implemented procedures for preconstruction approval of onsite systems. The
design and construction of onsite wastewater treatment systems is now
regulated in Wisconsin by Chapter ILHR 63 of the Wisconsin Administrative
Code. These procedures and design standards are administered by the
Department of Industry, Labor, and Human Relations at the State level and
by the Walworth County Planning, Zoning and Sanitation Office at the county
level.
1-6
-------
Because of the perceived problems associated with existing wastewater
management, the USEPA awarded Step 1 planning grants to the Village of
Walworth, the City of Lake Geneva, the Village of Fontana, and the Village
of Williams Bay between February and July of 1977. Although separate
planning grants were awarded, special conditions of the grants stipulated
that facilities planning efforts be coordinated, and that areawide solu-
tions to wastewater management be jointly investigated. Facilities plan-
ning for the four communities was initiated during the summer of 1977.
Tasks completed under the initial grants included preparation of the fol-
lowing :

• Infiltration/Inflow (I/I) analyses for Fontana (Donohue &
Assoc., Inc 1978d), Lake Geneva (Donohue & Assoc , Inc.
1978b), Walworth (Donohue & Assoc., Inc. 1978), and Williams
Bay (Donohue & Assoc., Inc. 1978c)
• Sewer System Evaluation Survey (SSES) for Fontana (Donohue &
Assoc., Inc. 1980a)
• Combined facilities plan for Fontana, Lake Geneva, Walworth,
and Williams Bay (Donohue & Assoc., Inc. I978a).

The facilities plan prepared by the Jensen and Johnson Division of
Donohue & Assoc., Inc. (I978a) outlined immediate needs for existing waste-
water collection and treatment facilities, provided data on problems asso-
ciated with onsite wastewater treatment systems, and identified environ-
mental resources that could be affected by various wastewater management
actions for the entire SSAs The combined facilities plan concluded that
two regional plants, one at Walworth and one at Lake Geneva, was the most
cost-effective, environmentally sound wastewater management plan for the
study area.

In February of 1978, USEPA issued a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS
on the proposed project. This action was taken based upon USEPA's review
of the facilities plan, which indicated the possibility of significant
environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project. The Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) concurred with the USEPA decision to
prepare an^ElS, and the two agencies agreed to prepare a joint EIS to sat-
isfy both Federal and State requirements. The EIS was to be prepared
concurrently with the completion of the facilities planning documents.
1-7
-------
WAPORA, Inc. (EIS consultant to USEPA) prepared a preliminary plan of study
for preparation of the EIS in September 1978.

Tasks necessary to complete the facilities plan were identified at
several meetings between Donohue & Assoc , Inc., WDNR, QSEPA, the grant
applicants and WAPORA, Inc. in 1978 and 1979. These tasks were incorpo-
rated into engineering agreements calling for expanded facilities planning.
Following approval of the engineering agreements by all six participating
local governments, the lead communities, Lake Geneva and Waiworth, executed
Step 1 facilities planning grant amendments for the remaining facilities
planning effort. The grant amendments were approved by USEPA in June 1980.

Pursuant to the grant amendments, the facilities planners subsequently
submitted the following documents to WDNR for review:

• Preliminary Geneva Lake Facilities Plans, Volume 2 - Treat-
ment Alternatives, East Planning Area (Donohue & Assoc.,
Inc. 1981a)
• Preliminary Geneva Lake Facilities Plans, Volume 2 - Treat-
ment Alternatives, West Planning Area (Donohue & Assoc.,
Inc. 198Ib)
• Addeadum to the West Geneva Lake Facilities Plans, Volume 2
(Donohue & Assoc., Inc. 1982a)
• Geneva Lake Facilities Plans, Volume 2 - Process Specific
Addendum, East Planning Area (Donohue & Assoc., Inc. 1982b)
• Final Draft Geneva Lake Facilities Plans, Volume 2 - Treat-
ment Alternatives, West Planning Area (Donohue & Assoc.,
Inc. 1983a).
• Addendum 1 to Volume 2 - Facilities Plans for the Lake
Geneva West Planning Area - Walworth/Fontana (Donohue &
Assoc., Inc. 1983b).
1.2. Legal Basis for Action and Project Need

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires a Fede-
ral agency to prepare an EIS on "...major Federal actions significantly af-
fecting the quality of the human environment..." In addition, the Council
1-8
-------
on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has established regulations (40 CFR Part
1500-1508) to guide Federal agencies in determinations of whether Federal
funds or Federal approvals would result in a project that would signifi-
cantly affect the environment. USEPA has developed its own regulations (40
CFR Part 6) for the implementation of the NEPA review. As noted above,
USEPA Region V has determined that pursuant to these regulations, an EIS
was required for the Geneva Lake-Lake Como study area.

The State of Wisconsin has a similar statute, the Wisconsin Environ-
mental Policy Act (WEPA, Section 1.11), which is patterned after NEPA.
Under WEPA, State agencies must consider the environmental implications of
all their proposals. Before proceeding with any major action that would
significantly affect the quality of the human environment, State agencies
must prepare a detailed statement concerning the environmental effects of
the proposed action. The regulations governing the preparation of a State
EIS are set forth in Chapter NR 150 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code.
If a proposed project includes both Federal and State involvement and has
potential significant environmental impacts, a joint EIS can be prepared by
the State and lead Federal agency to satisfy the requirements of both NEPA
and WEPA. A memorandum of agreement was signed between USEPA and WDNR in
1980 as joint lead agencies in preparing a joint USEPA/WDNR Environmental
Impact Statement.

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (FWPCA, Public Law
92-500), as amended in 1977 by the Clean Water Act (CWA, Public Law 95-217)
established a uniform, nationwide water pollution control program according
to which all state water quality programs operate. WDNR has been delegated
the responsibility and authority to administer this program in Wisconsin,
subject to the approval of USEPA. However, the authority for determining
whether proposed actions are subject to NEPA is retained by USEPA.

Federal funding for wastewater treatment projects is provided under
Section 201 of the FWPCA. The USEPA will fund 751 of the grant eligible
costs for conventional collection and treatment facilities for grant awards
made prior to 1 October 1984. For grants awarded after 1 October 1984,
Federal participation will be for 55% of all grant eligible costs. For
1-9
-------
alternative collection systems and treatment systems, (e.g. pressure sewers,
septic tank effluent sewers, septic tanks, and soil absorption systems),
the funding level increases to 85% of the eligible costs for grant awards
made prior to 1 October 1984 and increases to 75% of all eligible costs for
grants made after 1 October 1984. The conventional sewer costs for which
USEPA will not provide funding assistance are land and easement costs,
sewers for which less than two-thirds of the planned flow originated before
28 October 1972, sewer laterals located in the street or in easements
required to connect house laterals with the sewer main, and house laterals
for connection to the system. Alternative system components for which
USEPA will not assist in funding are easement costs and house laterals for
connection to an onsite pumping or treatment system. Grant eligibility of
the onsite portions of alternative systems varies depending on their owner-
ship and management. Publicly and privately owned systens constructed
after 27 December 1977 are not eligible for Federal grants. Grants of up
to 60% of the eligible costs of a pollution abatement program are poten-
tially available from the Wisconsin Fund, a state program designed to
assist in financing pollution ab.itement projects, when the pollution abate-
ment programs meet Federal and state grant requirements but do not rank
high enough on the Federal priority list to receive Federal funding.

The dispersal of Federal iunds to local applicants is made via the
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Works Construction Grants Program adminis-
tered by USEPA. The Municipal Wastewater Treatment Construction Grants
Amendments of 1981 became law (Public Law 97-217) on 29 December 1981, and
significantly changed the procedural and administrative aspects of the
municipal construction grants program. The changes reflected in these
amendments have been incorporated into EPA's manual Construction Grants -
1982 (CG-82) Municipal Wastewater Treatment (USEPA 1982a). Under the 1981
Amendments, separate Federal grants are no longer provided for facilities
planning and design of projects. However, the previous designation of
these activities as Step 1, facilities planning, and Step 2, design, are
retained in CG-82. The term Step 3 grant refers to the project for which
grant assistance will be awarded. The Step 3 grant assistance will include
an allowance for planning (Step 1) and design (Step 2) activities. Prior
1-10
-------
to the amendments of 1981, the program consisted of a three-step process.
Step 1 included wastewater facilities planning, Step 2, the preparation of
detailed engineering plans and specifications; and Step 3, construction of
the pollution control system.

The CG-82 states that projects which received Step 1 or Step 2 grants
prior to the enactment of the 1981 amendments should be completed in
accordance with terms and conditions of their grant agreement. Step 3
grant assistance includes a design allowance for those projects which
received a Step 1 grant prior to 29 December 1981. A municipality may be
eligible, however, to receive an advance of the allowance for planning or
design if the population of the community is under 25,000 and the State
reviewing agency (WDNR) determines that the municipality would be unable to
complete the facilities planning and design to qualify for grant assistance
(Step 3). Communities in the Geneva Lake-Lake Como study area are still in
the Step 1 phase of the grant application process, although the City of
Lake Geneva is proceeding with Step 2 work.

Communities also may choose to construct wastewater treatment facil-
ities without financial support from the State or Federal governments. In
such cases, the only State and Federal requirements that apply are that the
design be technically sound and that the WDNR be satisfied that the facil-
ity will meet discharge standards. In addition, WDNR requires that the
facilities planning requirements be satisfied; specifically, cost-
effectiveness analysis and environmental assessment. These would be re-
viewed on a case-by-case basis by WDNR (By telephone, Mark Williams, WDNR,
1 August 1983). Any applicable local ordinances would still have to be
met.

If a coraraunity chooses to construct a wastewater collection and treat-
ment system with USEPA grant assistance, the project must meet all require-
ments of the Grants Program. The CWA stresses that the most cost-effective
alternative be identified and selected. USEPA defines the cost-effective
alternative as the one that will result in minimum total resource costs
over the life of the project, as well as meet Federal, state, and local
requirements. Non-monetary costs also must be considered, including social
1-11
-------
and environmental factors. The most cost-effectxve alternative is not
necessarily the lowest cost alternative. The analysis for choosing the
most cost-effective alternative is based on both capital costs and opera-
tion and maintenance costs for a 20-year period, although only capital
costs are funded. Selection of the most cost-effective alternative must
also consider social and environmental implications of the alternative. An
alternative that has low monetary costs but significant environmental
impacts may not be preferred ovei an alternative with higher monetary costs
but lesser social and environmental impacts.

Wisconsin was required by the Federal Clean Water Act (PL 92-500) to
establish water quality standards for lakes and streams, and to establish
effluent standards for the discharge of pollutants to those lakes and
streams. Federal law stipulates that, at a minimum, discharges must meet
secondary treatment requirements In some cases, even more strict effluent
standards are recommended by WDNR and are subject to USEPA approval and
confonuance to Federal guidelines.

A new wastewater treatment facility also is subject to requirements of
Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, which established the National Pollu-
tant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. Under NPDES
regulations, all wastewater discharges to surface waters require an NPDES
permit and must meet the effluent standards identified in the permit. The
USEPA has delegated the authority to establish effluent standards and to
issue discharge permits to the WDNR The USEPA, however, maintains review
authority. The WDNR issues permits under the Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (WPDES) program which encompasses the requirements of
the Federal program. Any permit proposed for issuance may be subjected to
a state hearing, if requested by another agency, the applicant, or other
groups and individuals. A hearing on a WPDES permit provides the public
with the opportunity to comment on a proposed discharge, including the
location of the discharge and the level of treatment.
1-12
-------
1.3 Study Process and Public Participation

In the Geneva Lake/Lake Como study area, participants in the waste-
water planning process during the past six years have included, the City of
Lake Geneva, the Villages of Fontana, Waiworth, and Williams Bay, the Towns
of Geneva and Linn (grantees), the State of Wisconsin, USEPA, Donohue &
Assoc., Inc. (facilities planners), Robers and Boyd (consultants to
Williams Bay), WAPORA, Inc. (EIS consultant), and other Federal, State,
local, and private agencies and organizations. A policy advisory committee
composed of local officials, and a citizens advisory committee composed of
local residents were developed for this project These committees and the
local news media have been active throughout the project. A public hearing
was held on 26 August 1981 to present the Geneva Lake East Planning Area
recommended plan. A public on the Geneva Lake West Planning Area was held
on 27 October 1981. After this EIS is printed, an additional public hear-
ing will be held to discuss its contents.

Major work efforts in the preparation of this Draft EIS took place
during 1979 and 1980 and resulted in the preparation of an Affected Envi-
ronment Report in November 1980, additional field work in late summer of
1982, and preparation of this Draft EIS in 1983. A modified version of the
Affected Environment Report appears as Chapter 3 of this document.

1.4. Issues

On the basis of USEPA's Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS, the Direc-
tive of Work to WAPORA, Inc (including modifications), and the Facilities
Plan, the following issues have been determined to be significant and are
addressed in this Draft EIS

• The likelihood that effects of constructing new interceptors
and wastewater treatment capacity would artificially induce
more residential development in the study area than would
otherwise be anticipated to occur,
• Secondary impacts of such development on agricultural lands
and existing open space areas,
1-13
-------
Impacts of the project on wetland resources in the study
area,

Economic impacts that could result in the displacement of
homeowners,

Potential impacts resulting in a shift from seasonal to
permanent occupancy,

Controversy surrounding the regional approach to wastewater
management planning,

Extent of present problems resulting from use of onsite
wastewater treatment systems;

Future impacts resulting from continued use of onsite
systems;

Cost-effectiveness ol upgrading existing onsite systems
versus expanding centralized wastewater collection and
treatment facilities.
1-14
-------
2.0. DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES

This chapter describes and evaluates alternative methods for collect-
ing, treating, and disposing of wastewaters generated within the Geneva
Lake Revised Sewer Service Areas (RSSAs). This chapter begins with a de-
scription of centralized wastewater collection and treatment systems cur-
rently operating within the RSSAs (Section 21) A description of existing
onsite wastewater treatment systems currently used in the RSSAs and infor-
mation documenting the extent of public health and pollution problems
caused by use of these onsite systems also is provided (Section 2.2). Sec-
tions 2.3 through 2.6 contain project planning and design information for
the RSSAs, and describe alternatives available (both centralized and on-
site) for continued wastewater management through the planning period. The
chapter concludes with an evaluation of the costs, reliability, flexibil-
ity, implementability, and acceptability of the various alternatives devel-
oped for the RSSAs (Section 2.7).

2.1. Existing Centralized Wastewater Conveyance and Treatment Systems

Four municipal wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) are located within
the Revised Sewer Service Areas. These WWTPs serve the City of Lake
Geneva, the Village of Williams Bay, the Village of Fontana, and the Vil-
lage of Walworth Associated with each of these WWTPs is a centralized
sewage conveyance system which collects wastewater and conveys it to the
WWTP. Three private WWTPs (Interlaken Resort, Americana Hotel, and Kikko-
man Foods) are located either within or just outside of the RSSAs, but all
are projected to remain in operation as private systems and thus are not
considered further in this EIS. The location of each WWTP is shown in Fig-
ure 2-1. Detailed descriptions of major treatment units at each WWTP are
contained in the Facilities Plan Volume 1, prepared by Donohue & Assoc.,
Inc (1978a), and in the various Infiltration/Inflow analysis reports pre-
pared for each city. A brief description of each wastewater conveyance and
treatment system (based upon information presented in various facilities
planning documents, observations made during a site inspection of each WWTP
in August 1979, and recent telephone interviews with WWTP operators and/or
the WDNR) is presented below.
2-1
-------
LEGEND

- Study area boundary
I Existing sewer service area
Existing wastewater treatment plant
Existing seepage eel! site
Existing polishing lagoon site
Figure 2-1 Location of municipal and private WWTPs in the vicinity of Geneva Lake
-------
2.1.1. City of Lake Geneva

Conv e yance Sys t ems

The City of Lake Geneva is served by separate storm and sanitary sewer
systems. The sanitary sewer system consists of approximately 153,120 feet
of gravity sewer ranging in size from six inches to 21 inches in diameter,
and contains approximately 12,400 feet of four-inch, six-inch, and eight-
inch diameter force mains. The sanitary sewer system contains eight lift
stations owned by the City and one privately owned lift station Sanitary
sewers were first installed in 1890 in the downtown area of the City. San-
itary sewers currently serving Lake Geneva are constructed of vitrified
clay, concrete, and asbestos cement pipe (Donohue & Assoc., Inc 1978b).

A separate storm sewer system conveys surface runoff to Geneva Lake
and to the White River. In some areas, the lack of adequate storm drainage
facilities causes periodic street flooding The City of Lake Geneva is
planning to alleviate the flooding problem in the near future as part of
their continued storm sewer development program (Donohue & Assoc., Inc.
1978a). There are no known cross connections between the sanitary and
storm sewer systems.

The City of Lake Geneva currently has a sewer use ordinance which pro-
hibits discharge of clearwater (eg, storm water) into the sanitary sewer
system. An infiltration/inflow (I/I) analysis was conducted by the City's
engineers, Donohue & Assoc., Inc., to determine if excessive amounts of
extraneous clearwater (e.g., rainwater seeping through the ground, or
stormwater leaking out of storm sewers) were entering the sanitary sewers
through broken pipes, loose joints, or illegal sewer connections. Exces-
sive I/I is defined as that amount of extraneous water that can be removed
from the sewer system (e.g , by repairing the leaks or plugging the Illegal
connections) for less cost than that required to treat the I/I at the WWTP
The I/I analysis, which concluded that the Lake Geneva sanitary sewer sys-
tem is not subject to excessive I/I as defined by current USEPA guidelines,
was approved by the WDNR on 25 August 1976
2-3
-------
The City of Lake Geneva owns and operates the Lake Geneva WWTP located
along the White River at a site in the northeastern portion of the City.
The WWTP was initially constructed in 1930 as a trickling filter treatment
facility and was extensively modified in 1966. Disinfection and phosphorus
removal facilities were added in 1977. Present average design capacity of
the plant is 1.1 million gallons per day (mgd).

All wastewater from the City flows to the WWTP through a 21-inch di-
ameter gravity sewer (Figure 2-2) Wastewater entering the WWTP is first
comminuted and then pumped to aerated grit removal facilities. Following
grit removal, the wastewater flows through two primary clarifiers Efflu-
ent from the primary clarifiers is next directed to two parallel treatment
trains, each containing one trickling filter and one final (secondary)
clarlfier. Final clarified effluent is either recirculated through the
treatment process or lifted to the chlorine contact chamber. Effluent then
is disinfected by chlorination in the chlorine contact chamber and dis-
charged through a short outfall sewer to the White River. Alum and poly-
mers are added at various locations in the treatment system to achieve
phosphorus removal. Primary and secondary sludge is stabilized by a
single-stage anaerobic digester. WDNR permits call for digested liquid
sludge to be hauled to agricultural lands in the area for land application.

WWTP Operating Data

The Lake Geneva WWTP was inspected by WAPORA, Inc. on 29 August 1979.
All treatment units generally were operating satisfactorily on the day of
inspection. The WWTP effluent characteristics for 1981 and 1982 are listed
in Table 2-1. Current (interim) WPDES permit limitations for the WWTP
(until 1985) are listed in Table 2-2. Effluent BOD, suspended solids, and
pH concentrations generally met requirements of the current WPDES permit
during this period, however, the BOD monthly average limit was exceeded
once in 1982. Current effluent limits were often exceeded for maximum
residual chlorine and total phosphorus. The existing treatment plant
Lake Geneva/665 2-4
11/83
-------
CHLORINE
CONTACT
CHAMBER
DIGESTER
OUSTER CONTROL
BLDG
not to scale
Figure 2-2. Schematic diagram of the City of Geneva Lake WWTP
(Donohue & Assoc., Inc. 1978b).
-------
Table 2-1. Summary of Lake Geneva WTP effluent characteristics for 1981 and 1982 (By telephone, Charles Pape,
WDNR, 23 March 1983).

Month
1981
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December

Flow
Qagd)

0.682
0.659
0.666
0.746
0.763
0.815
0.808
0.838
0.785
0.661
0.624
0.573

BOD
(mg/1)

31
44
22
22
18
15
11
15
16
16
14
13

Suspended
Solids
(mg/1)

34
31
26
23
21
21
19
23
23
24
24
27

PH
(Std. Units)

7.5
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.4
7.4
7.5
7.4
7.4
7 4
7.5
7.4
Maximum
Residual
Chlorine
(me/1)

-
-
-
0.808
0.885
1.328
0.808
0.620
0.571
0.479
0.644
0.545

Fecal
Coliform
(#/ 100ml)

620
67
161
35
44
75
95
36
569
661
129
80

Total
Phosphorus
(•8/1)

1 076
1.033
0.852
1.076
0.738
1.092
1 017
1.091
1.054
0.962
0.949
_
Average
0 718
20
25
7.5
0.744
214
0.995
1982
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December

0.746
0.765
0.839
1.024
0.766
0 755
0.902
0.775
0.622
0.592
0.622
0.927

57
38
23
29
22
19
17
16
18
14
16
15

38
36
29
29
22
23
23
21
20
22
26
25

7.6
7.6
7.5
7.6
7.4
7.3
7.5
7.4
7.7
7.5
7.7
7.5

0.582
0.700
0.556
0.966
0.518
0.954
0.990
0.818
0.767
0.640
1.113
0.759

4900
1004
1808
686
392
159
112
348
430
253
670
1052

1.530
1.419
1.088
1.005
0 924
1.043
1.110
1.480
2.020
1.053
1.431
1.230
Average
0.778
24
26
7.5
0.780
949
1.278
-------
Table 2-2. Lake Geneva WWTP interim WPDES permit effluent limitations for
a
discharges to the White River (By telephone, Charles Pape, WDNR,
23 March 1983).
Ef fluen t Par ame te r
BOD (monthly)
BOD (weekly)
Suspended solids
(monthly)
Suspended solids
(weekly)
pH (pH units)
Total residual chlorine
(daily)
Fecal coliforra (#/100 ml)
(monthly)
Average .
Quantity
Concentration (mg/1)
kg/day (Ib/day)
187(413)
249(550)
187(413)
249(550)
Minimum Average
45
60
45
60
Maximum
-
-
-
_•
6.0
9.0
0.5
NL
Total phosphorus
(monthly)
4 2(9)
1.0
Permit applies until 31 December 1985
Based on design flow of 1.1 mgd.
«
No limits -set. Reporting only
2-7
-------
experiences hydraulic problems in the primary and final ciarifiers and in
the chlorine contact chamber. These units do not have adequate capacity at
average design flow conditions (Personal interview, Robert Shepstone,
Treatment Plant Operator, City of Lake Geneva, 29 August 1979). WDNR
permits call for liquid digested sludge to be hauled to agricultural lands
in the area for land application.

2.1 2. Village of Williams Bay

Conveyance Systems

The Village of Williams Bay has separate sanitary and storm sewer sys-
tems. The sanitary sewer system collects domestic, public, and commercial
wastewater and conveys it to the WWTP located near the northern Village
limits. The sanitary sewer system consists of approximately 81,400 feet of
gravity sewer ranging in size from 6 to 15 inches in diameter, seven lift
stations, and approximately 9,300 feet of forcemain ranging in size from 4
to 8 inches in diameter. Pipe materials used in construction of the sani-
tary sewer system are vitrified clay, cast iron, concrete, and polyvinyl
chloride. There were occasional bypasses or overflows of sewage from the
Williams Bay collection system (Donohue & Assoc., Inc I982a).

The Village also is served by a separate storm drainage system con-
taining approximately 19,200 feet of storm sewer consisting of reinforced
concrete pipe. Areas within the Village that do not have storm sewers
(i.e , areas east of Elkhorn Road) are served by drainage ditches, private
catch basins, and curbs and gutters which all flow toward Geneva Lake.
There are no known direct cross-connections between the storm and sanitary
sewer systems.

The Village of Williams Bay has a sewer ordinance which controls
installation and use of sanitary sewers in the Village, and prohibits dis-
charge of clearwater into the sanitary sewer system A detailed discussion
of the Village's sanitary and storm sewer systems and a copy of the sewer
use ordinance are presented in the I/I analysis prepared by Donohue &
Assoc.> Inc. (1978c). The I/I analysis, which concludes that the Williams
2-8
-------
Bay sanitary sewer system is not subject to excessive infiltration/inflow
as defined by current USEPA guidelines, was approved by the WDNR on 15
January 1979 Subsequent analysis by WDNR has pointed towards a conclusion
that the I/I is excessive and that a SSES should be performed to reduce
I/I.

Treatment System

The Village of Williams Bay WWTP was initially constructed and placed
in operation in 1931, and was extensively modified in 1969. The WWTP pro-
vides secondary treatment utilizing the conventional activated sludge pro-
cess (Figure 2-3). Final wastewater effluent is pumped to two seepage
lagoons for final treatment and disposal by rapid infiltration. The WWTP
has an average hydraulic design capacity of 786,000 gpd. The WWTP consists
of a comminutor, a primary clarifier, a parshall flume, a pumping station,
two aeration tanks, a final clarifier, a chlorine contact tank, an effluent
pumping station, a sludge thickener, three anaerobic digesters, and four
sludge drying beds.

Primary sludge can either be pumped to a gravity thickener or to a
single anaerobic digester. Waste activated sludge is always thickened in
the gravity thickener and stabilized in a two-stage anaerobic digestion
system. A portion of the digested sludge is wet-hauled for disposal on
farmland or to a sludge lagoon The remainder of the sludge is dewatered
on drying beds and hauled to farmland for application.

Operating Data

The Williams Bay WWTP was inspected by WAPORA, Inc. on 29 August 1979.
All treatment units were hydraulically overloaded at the time of the visit.
The treatment plant operator reported that the Williams Bay area received
heavy rains during the night of 28-29 August 1979 and the plant was receiv-
ing wastewater flow beyond its capacity (Personal interview, Danny
Mullins, Treatment Plant Operator, Village of Williams Bay, 29 August
1979). Effluent characteristics for the Williams Bay WWTP for the years of
1981 and 1982 are summarized in Table 2-3. The WDNR WPDES permit policy
2-9
-------
PRIMARY CLARIFIER BYPASS
— RETURN ACTIVATED
SLUDGE
RAW

WASTCWATER
LEGEND

WASTEWATER FLOW

SLUDGE FLOW
not to scale
Figure 2-3. Schematic diagram of the Village of Williams Bay WWTP
(Donohue & Associates, Inc. 1978c).
-------
Table 2-3,
Month
1981
Summary of Williams Bay WWTP effluent characteristics for 1981
and 1982 (By telephone, Charles Pape, WDNR, 23 March 1983).

b
BOD
(mg/1)
Suspended
Solids
(mg/1)
PH
(Std. Units)
Fecal
Coliforras
(///100ml)
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
Dec ember
0.436
0.492
0.467
0.571
0.521
0.499
0.530
0.574
0.507
0 478
0.438
0 446
57.3
41.6
47 0
29.7
27.3
33.4
71 2
39,
33.
38.6
42.0
25.6
.6
.5
2.7
4.1
5.6
3 1
5.8
3.5
5.1
13 0
8.0
6 0
5.8
5.5
7.4
7.3
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.6
7.8
7.6
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.3
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
0.497
0.420
0.440
0.670
0.753
0.590
0.568
0.432
0.471
0 620
40.6
47 0
55.7
59.8
58 6
30 0
73 0
37.6
32.7
30.8
5.7
9 2
54.8
14 5
6 7
15.6
4.2
3.4
39 8
8 8
7 5
7.3
7.3
7.5
7.1
7 1
7.1
7.1
7.6
7.7
4
10
29
106
40
40
5432
Average
0 551
47 2
17 4
7.3
809
An audit of the laboratory indicates that the accuracy of the data is
questionable.

Flow meter is capable of measuring approximately 90% of plant capacity
(0.65 mgd). Therefore, accuracy of flow data is not known.
2-11
-------
requires the average monthly BOD concentration in wastewater prior to land
application to be a maximum of 50 mg/1 in 80% of samples taken This limit
was exceeded two times in 1981 and four times (out of nine months for which
data are available) in 1982. Effluent quality produced by the Williams Bay
WWTP is generally satisfactory. Final chlorinated effluent from the plant
is pumped to two seepage lagoons for disposal. At the time of the site
visit, one lagoon was almost empty and the other lagoon contained little
effluent.

Some portions of the WWTP are in poor structural condition. Concrete
tankage of the older portion is spalling. Hydraulic problems have been
experienced at the plant. Effluent pumps reportedly do not have adequate
capacity to pump final effluent to the seepage lagoons (Personal interview,
Danny Mullins, Treatment Plant Operator, Village of Williams Bay, 29 August
1979).

According to the Addendum to West Geneva Lake Facilities Plan (Donohue
& Assoc., Inc. 1982a) the collection system has "occasionally" experienced
problems resulting in the overflow or bypass of wastewater to Southwick
Creek (which flows to Geneva Lake) in violation of the WPDES permit. The
Village has addressed this problem by renovating a lift station and initi-
ating limited sewer rehabilitation. Robers and Boyd, the Village's engi-
neers, in a report which summarized their review of the Facilities Plan
documents, pointed out the following deficiencies in the existing WWTP
(Robers and Boyd, "Williams Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant Proposed Expan-
sion" 31 March 1981, included as Appendix CC of Donohue & Assoc., Inc.
1983a):

• The final clarifier size limits the effective WWTP capacity to
approximately 0.5 mgd. When this flow is exceeded, solids can
be washed out of the clarifier and the unit will sometimes
overflow;
• Aeration tank freeboard is inadequate;
• The existing pipe network has hydraulic problems;
* Digesters, sludge drying beds, and chlorine contact tank do
not have adequate capacity for future flows;
2-12
-------
• Laboratory and maintenance facilities are inadequate; and
• Automatic samplers, a standby generator, a sludge hauling/
disposal vehicle, and observation wells at the seepage cells
are now lacking and should be provided.
In 1982 the Village installed monitoring wells at seepage cell No. 2
to evaluate operation of the cell and potential of adjacent land for expan-
sion. The initial sampling report of the well driller (Warzyn Engineering,
Inc. 1982) found that, although Cell No. 2 was typically loaded heavily (up
to 4 feet/day), the impact on groundwater quality was not "significant". A
review of data presented in the report indicates that BOD, chlorides, total
Kjeldahl nitrogen, and sodium appear to be elevated above background
levels. No values for the parameters measured were above limits set by the
National Primary Drinking Water Standards (NPDWS), except for one well
located 1,700 feet down gradient (with respect to groundwater flow) which
had a nitrate-nitrogen level of 11.0 rag/1 (the NPDWS limit is 10 mg/1).
Wells adjacent to the lagoon had nitrate nitrogen levels of 4.5 and 5.4
mg/1 (Warzyn Engineering, Inc. 1982).

2.1.3. Village of Fontana

Conveyance System

The Village of Fontana sanitary sewer system consists of approximately
121,100 feet of gravity sewer ranging in size from 6 to 12 inches in dia-
meter, approximately 21,000 feet of force main, and nine lift stations.
The sanitary sewer system was Initially constructed in 1956 using vitrified
clay pipe. Since then, numerous extensions have been added to the sanitary
sewer system using various pipe materials including polyvinyl chloride
(PVC), concrete, asbestos cement, plastic reinforced asbestos cement, and
cast iron. There are five wastewater overflows located at the five lift
stations which prevent the backup of raw sewage into basements in the event
of lift station failure due to prolonged power outage or mechanical
breakdown.
2-13
-------
The Village has a sewer use ordinance which limits connections to the
sanitary sewer system and prohibits discharge of clearwater into the sani-
tary sewer system An I/I analysis of the Fontana sewer system concluded
that the system is subject to excessive infiltration/inflow as defined by
USEPA. The I/I analysis recommended that the Village eliminate identifi-
able sources of I/I through Sewer System Evaluation Survey (SSES) and
rehabilitation efforts. A subsequent SSES report (Donohue & Assoc., Inc.
1980a) estimated average and peak I/I flows to be 0.432 mgd and 1.843 ragd,
respectively. The SSES concluded that average and peak I/I could be re-
duced through rehabilitation efforts to an estimated 0.170 mgd and 0.698
mgd, respectively The SSES report was approved by the WDNR on 19 January
1980. Rehabilitation of sewers in Fontana has been undertaken which
should alleviate infiltration problems.

Treatment System

The Village of Fontana WWTP is located on the northwest side of the
Village at an elevation higher than its service area. The original WWTP
was built In 1958 and major additions were made in 1972. All wastewater is
pumped from the main lift station, located on the west side of South Shore
Drive near Lake Street, through a force main to the WWTP Wastewater flows
enter a flow division box and .ire directed to the trickling filter treat-
ment train (constructed in 1958) or the contact stabilization activated
sludge process train (constructed in 1972) The combined treatment facili-
ties have an average design capacity of 0.9 mgd and a peak daily capacity
of 1.8 mgd.

The treatment facilities constructed in 1958 include a primary clari-
fier, rock media trickling filter, final clarifier, and an anaerobic diges-
ter (Figure 2-4). Plant additions constructed in 1972 included enlargement
of the main lift station, addition of a 14-inch force main parallel to the
original 10-inch force main; a magnetic flow meter and recorder, a waste-
water flow division box; field erected contact stabilization activated
sludge process equipment including contact zone, reaeration zone, final
settling zone, and aerobic digester; heated primary anaerobic digester with
gas mixing equipment; chlorination equipment and chlorine contact tank; a
2-14
-------
5 AECIACULATON
LEGEND

?C«4TER LINE —
DGt LINE

O0INE LWE ^ —
TWO CELL
SEEPAGE
LAGOON
(98 ACRES
TOTAL)
SEEPAGE
LAGOON

(277 ACRES)
not to scale
Figure 2-4. Schematic diagram of the Village of Fontana WWTP
(Adapted from Donohue & Assoc , Inc. 1978d).
-------
cover for the "existing trickling filter, and an addition to the original
service building.

Clarified effluent from both treatment trains is combined and enters
the chlorine contact tank. Total disinfected plant effluent flows through
an 18-inch gravity outfall sewei to three seepage lagoons, located approxi-
mately 600 feet west of the .treatment site, for disposal. Two original
<
seepage lagoons (9.8 acres' tdtal) were constructed to operate in series,
c
with complete effluent seepage to groundwater and no overflow to adjacent
lands. However, a third 30-acre seepage lagoon was constructed in 1979 to
alleviate the problem of WWTP effluent overflowing the existing lagoons and
entering Geneva Lake via Buena Vista Creek (Personal interview, Joe
Rogge, Treatment Plant Operator, Village of Fontana, 30 August 1979).

Primary and secondary sludge from the trickling filter treatment train
is stabilized in a two-stage anaerobic digester. Waste activated sludge
from the contact stabilization plant is aerobically digested, and then
stored in the second-stage of the anaerobic digester. Digested sludge is
pumped to onsite sludge drying beds. Dried sludge is used to fertilize
lawns on Village property and parks. Excess dried sludge is made available
to local citizens for pickup for use on lawns and flower gardens. All
sludge made available is utilized on a local basis.

Operating Data

The Fontana WWTP was inspected by WAPORA, Inc. on 30 August 1979. All
treatment units generally were operating satisfactorily on the day of
inspection. Effluent characteristics for the Fontana WWTP for the years
1981 and 1982 are summarized j.n Table 2-4. Effluent quality produced by
the WWTP is generally satisfactory. Final chlorinated effluent from the
WWTP flows by gravity to the one of three seepage lagoons for disposal.
WDNR's WPDES policy limits the BOD concentration of wastewater applied to
the lagoons to a maximum 50 rag/1. The average monthly BOD limitation was
not violated by the Fontana WWTP during 1981 or 1982.
2-16
-------
Table 2-4.
Summary of Fontana WWTP effluent characteristics for 1981 and
1982 (By telephone, C. Pape, WDNR, 23 March 1983).
Month
1981
BOD
(mg/1)
Suspended
Solids
(mg/1)
PH
(Std Units)
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Average
1982
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
0.54
0.63
0.59
0.71
0.66
0.69
0.73
0.77
0.61
0.57
0.49
0.53
0.63

0.49
0.50
0.77
0.90
0.70
0.66
0.88
0.76
0.57
0,66
0.69
0.89
14
15
15
12
13
11
11
16
10
11
10
11
12

13
11
11
12
12
16
17
21
14
11
7
14
Average
0.71
13
11
11
11
12
8
11
13
10
11
10
10
12

11
12
11
12
10
9
17
11
16
10
12
7
8

11
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.3

7.2
7 2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.5
7.6
7.8
8.0

7.4
2-17
-------
A lysimeter was installed eight feet below the surface of the new
seepage lagoon at the time of construction to monitor wastewater effluent
percolating through the soil. Since monitoring began in 1979, NPDWS drink-
ing water limits for the parameters measured have never been exceeded
(Appendix C) However, sodium concentrations, total dissolved solids
concentrations, and conductivity are elevated above background levels (By
telephone, Roger Scovili, WDNR 3 May 1983).

Operational procedures practiced at the plant are currently not in
compliance with WDNR policies governing rapid infiltration facilities.
Site hydraulic limitations and lagoon design prevent a dose/rest cycle as
required by WDNR. The dose/rest cycle is promoted to maintain an
aerobic/anaerobic environment in the soil which facilitates nitrification
and denitrification. The lagoons currently operate with a minimum of two
feet of standing water at any time, however, effluent from the lagoons does
not cause any surface water, groundwater, or public health violations.

As these seepage lagoons were permitted only as a temporary disposal
(treatment) facility, site investigations were not performed in as much
depth as would be performed for a permanent facility. Eight soil borings
were performed at the current seepage site to determine soil texture and
profile and thus suitability for rapid infiltration. Of these eight sam-
ples, laboratory permeability tests were only performed on one sample which
-6
indicated an exceptionally low permeability (K=1.6 x 10 ). This permea-
bility is lower than is being experienced currently at the site. Thus the
laboratory data seem inconclusive in determining the long-term ability of
the site to treat and dispose of wastewater while operational data indicate
the potential does exist for continued use. Detailed soils analysis would
be needed for a final determination of the long-term viability of treatment
at this site.
2-18
-------
2.1.4. Village of Walworth

Conveyance Systems

The Village of Walworlh is served by separate sanitary and storm sewer
systems. The sanitary sewer system collects and conveys domestic, commer-
cial, and industrial wastewater generated within the Village to the exist-
ing WWTP. The sanitary sewer system consists of approximately 53,000 feet
of collector, interceptor, and outfall sewer ranging from six to ten inches
in diameter. There is one lift station connected to approximately 680 feet
of six inch diameter force main. The sanitary sewer system consists pri-
marily of vitrified clay pipe (Donohue & Assoc., Inc. 1976). Approximately
90 percent of the existing sewer system was constructed in the early
1950's. There is one bypass in the sanitary sewer system located immedi-
ately upstream of the WWTP through which untreated wastewater can be by-
passed directly to two existing polishing lagoons located adjacent to
Piscasaw Creek.

The Village of Walworth has approximately 8,300 feet of storm sewers
ranging in size from 12 to 30 inches in diameter. The Village has a sewer
use ordinance which prohibits connection of clearwater sources to the
sanitary sewer system. An I/I analysis was conducted in 1976 which con-
cluded that the Walworth sanitary sewer system is not subject to excessive
I/I as defined by USEPA guidelines. The I/I analysis was approved by the
WDNR on 2 January 1977.

Treatment System

The Village of Walworth owns and operates the Walworth WWTP located at
Beloit Street at the western edge of the Village. The WWTP was initially
constructed in 1952 with polishing lagoons added in 1966 and disinfection
facilities added in 1975. Average hydraulic design capacity of the plant
is 0.15 ragd with an estimated peak hydraulic design capacity of 0.3 mgd.
Treatment capabilities of the plant and polishing lagoons are classified as
secondary.
2-19
-------
Raw wastewater enters the plant through a ten-inch diameter sewer acid
passes through a cotmninutor and/or bar screen (Figure 2-5). After passing
through the comininutor, the wastewater is pumped to an Imhoff tank Xmhoff
tank effluent is sprayed over a rock media in the trickling filter by means
of a rotary distributor. Effluent from the trickling filter is conveyed to
the final clarifier where biological solids are allowed to settle. Efflu-
ent from the final clarifiers is chlorinated prior to discharge to a ten-
inch diameter outfall sewer The WWTP effluent flows by gravity approxi-
mately three miles to a polishing lagoon lift station. Pumps at the lift
station discharge the WWTP effluent through a six-inch diameter force main
and a diversion box to the two polishing lagoons, which cover a combined
area of approximately ten acres. Effluent from the lagoons is discharged
into Piscasaw Creek, a tributary of the Rock River.

Solids contained in the comminuted wastewater are allowed to settle in
the Irahoff tank. Additional solids collected in the final clarifier are
also returned to the Imhoff tank. Solids in the bottom of the Imhoff tank
are stabilized by anaerobic digestion. Currently, digested sludge is re-
moved by a commercial septage hauler (J&J Septage Hauler, Elkhorn, WI) and
wet-hauled to local farms for land application.

Operating Data

The Walworth WWTP was inspected by WAPORA, Inc. on 30 August 1979.
All treatment units generally were operating satisfactorily on the day of
inspection Effluent characteristics for the Walworth WWTP for the years
1981 and 1982 are summarized in Table 2-5. During this period, effluent
BOD , suspended solids, and pH concentrations generally met the require-
ments of the current interim WPDES permit (Table 2-6). However, the maxi-
mum pH limit was exceeded twice in 1981 and three times in 1982. The
Village of Walworth's interim WPDES Permit expires on 31 December 1985.
The existing Walworth WWTP will not be able to meet final permit conditions
established by the WDNR.
2-20
-------
COMMINUTOR AND B»fl SCREEN
not Co scale
Figure 2-5. Schematic diagram of the Village of Walworth WWTP
(Donohue & Assoc., Inc. 1976).
-------
Table 2-5 Summary of Walworth WWTP effluent characteristics for 1981 and 1982
(By telephone, Charles Pape, WDNR, 6 May 1983).
Month
Flow
(mgd)
BOD
(mg/D
Suspended
Solids
(mg/1)
Residual
Chlorine
PH
(Std Units)
Ave.
(mg/D
Max.
(mg/D
Fecal
Coliform
(#/100ml)

Month
1981
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Average
1982
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Average
Flow
(mgd)

0.197
0 197
0 187
0.179
0.202
0.176
0.170
0.188
0.183
0.191
0.185
0.239
0 191

0.240
0.228
0.195
0.183
0.174
0.201
0.207
0.191
0 168
0.168
0.173
0.181
0.192
BOD
(mg/1)

8.4
16 9
18.0
22 1
9.0
7.3
7.2
6 8
4.3
2.6
1.7
3 2
9.0

12.0
47.0
42.1
24.7
21.4
22.3
17.7
7.3
12.0
9.7
8.7
4.9
19.2
21
27
61 0
39.3
10 0
7.6
18.3
15.8
6 7
9 5
3 7
7.5

19 0
9.0
16.6
25 1
37.0
46.5
64.0
23 8
11.9
14,
21.
8 6
5.3
,5
,5
7 8
8.5
9.1
9.2
8.2
7.8
8.4
8.6
8.4
8 6
8.0
7.9

8 4
7.8
7.6
8 2
9.2
9.3
9.4
9 0
8.
8
8.
8.
.7
5
.5
.1
0 44
0.42
0.33
0 14
0.06
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.07
0.08
0.06
0.16
0 08
0.11
23.7
8.1
8.5
0.10
0.12
0.10
0.11
0.11

0.11
0.10
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.15
0.10
0.06
0.07
0.10
0.12
0.10
1.5

0.23
204
74
6
3
8
11
26
112
22
27
13
5

43
307
9139
3348
20
31
8
86
17
17
61
49
13

1091
2-22
-------
a
Table 2-6. Walworth interim WPDES permit effluent limitations for discharge to Piscasaw Creek.
(By telephone, Mr. Charles Pape, WDNR, 6 May 1983)
Average
Quantity Concentration (mg/1)
Effluent Par amete r (Kg/day (jib/day) Minimum Average Maximum
Winter (November through April)
BOD5 (monthly) 78.8 (162.6) - 65
BOD (weekly) 102.2 (225.2) 95
Suspended solids (monthly) - - - -
pH (std. units) - 6.0 - 9.0
c
Fecal coliform (raonthly)(#/100 ml) - NL
Summer (Maythrough October)
BOD5 (monthly) 34 1 (75.1) 30
BOD5 (weekly) 51.1 (112.6) 45
Suspended solids (monthly) 102.2 (225.6) 90
Suspended solids (weekly) 136 2 (300.2) - 120
pH (std. units) - 6.0 - 9.0
Fecal coliform (monthly)(#/100 ml) - - NL°
£
Total residual chlorine (daily) - - - NL
a
Permit applies until 31 December 1985
b
Based on design flow of 0.30 mgd
c
No limits set. Reporting only.
-------
Wastewater entering the Walworth WWTP presently Is exceeding the plant
design capacity. In 1972, the Village proposed abandonment of the existing
plant and construction of a new WWTP. Approval oC this proposal has been
delayed pending completion of facilities planning activities required by
USEPA and the WDNR (Donohue & Assoc., Inc 1978a). Portions of the Wal-
worth WWTP are in poor structural condition (e.g., the concrete walls of
the trickling filter unit are spalling).

2.1.5. Other Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities Within
the Study Area

Three private WWTPs also located within or near the RSSAs are:

• Americana Resort
• Interlaken Resort
• Kikkoman Foods.

These private wastewater treatment facilities were not inspected by WAPORA,
Inc. Descriptions of the private WWTPs and associated facilities given in
the following paragraphs are based upon information contained in various
facilities planning documents.

The Americana Resort operates a year-round resort and condominium
units east of the City of Lake Geneva The WWTP at the Americana Resort
consists of a field-erected contact stabilization activated sludge compact
plant with chlorination. Effluent is directed to two small polishing
lagoons (placed in series) prior to discharge to the White River. Waste
activated sludge is aerobically digested and liquid hauled by a commercial
septage hauler.

The Americana WWTP has a rated design capacity of 0.4 mgd and is be-
lieved to be achieving adequate treatment. There is also a smaller 0.1 mgd
contact stabilization plant on the site which is not presently in use.
According to the plant operator, wastewater flows at the Americana Resort
average approximately 0.2 mgd during the summer and 0.15 mgd during the
winter. The WWTP appears to have adequate capacity for some expansion
(Donohue & Assoc., Inc. 1978a).
2-24
-------
Interlaken Resort Is located on the southwestern shore of Lake Como
just off STH 50. The resort consists of both motel and condominium units
and is operated throughout the year. The Interlaken WWTP consists of a
field-erected contact stabilization activated sludge compact plant followed
by tertiary sand filters. Chlorinated WWTP effluent is pumped to one of
two soil absorption fields for disposal. Waste activated sludge is aer-
obically digested and disposed of in liquid form by a commercial septage
hauler. The plant is designed to handle 0.125 mgd.

Two additional unused units are currently on the site. A small
prefabricated activated sludge unit capable of handling 0.05 mgd, and a
small lagoon formerly used for polishing plant effluent are available for
further expansion. However, one factor potentially limiting capacity of
the plant is the lack of suitable land for expansion of the soil absorption
field (Donohue & Assoc., Inc 1981b).

Kikkoraan Foods operates a 0.24 mgd compact activated sludge plant
approximately three miles west of the Village of Walworth. Industrial and
sanitary wastes are combined and equalized in an underground vault before
treatment. Effluent is discharged to two seepage lagoons operated in par-
allel. Sludge is aerobically digested, dried on sand beds, and disposed by
landspreading onsite (Donohue & Assoc., Inc. 1981b).

The WWTPs are all operating below their capacity and within permit
requirements according to recent operating data. However, during January
1983, the WDNR reported that recent groundwater monitoring at the Kikkoman
seepage lagoons indicated potential problems (Donohue & Assoc , Inc. I983a).
One groundwater sample indicated high chloride levels. In addition, ground-
water levels at the northwest and northeast corners of the seepage lagoons
were determined to be 1.0 and 1 5 feet, respectively, below the bottom of
the lagoons. The WDNR regulations [Section NR214] require at least ten
feet to be maintained between the bottom of seepage cells and high ground-
water. Monitoring well data indicated that, at times, the groundwater level
may be mounding to a level as high as 3 to 18 feet below the lagoon bottom.
WDNR has concluded that serious problems exist with the present system and
that significant upgrading will be necessary to enable
2-25
-------
long-term use of the site by Kikoman Recent facilities planning documents
(Donohue & Assoc., Inc. I981a, 1981b, 1982a, 1983a) recommend that, for the
current 20-year planning period, the three private wastewater treatment
systems remain as separate systems in lieu of being combined with municipal
systems serving adjacent areas (Donohue & Assoc., Inc. 1983a).

2.2. Existing Onsite Waste Treatment Systems

Currently unsewered portions of the RSSAs were surveyed for perfor-
mance data of onsite waste water treatment systems (Figure 2-6). Within
these surveyed areas, there are approximately 1,700 onsite wastewater
treatment systems comprised mostly of septic tank and soil absorption sys-
tems. Information concerning onsite systems has been derived from collec-
tion of original data and use of existing published or unpublished sources.
Information on existing systems was obtained from Walworth County Planning,
Zoning, and Sanitation Office records Interviews with County sanitation
personnel also were useful in assessing environmental conditions and suit-
ability of septic tank and soil absorption systems for treating wastewater.
Two septic leachate detector surveys, color infrared aerial photography, a
mailed questionnaire, and a sanitary survey also were used to assess the
effectiveness of existing onsite wastewater treatment systems.

2.2.1. Existing Onsite Systems

The majority of dwellings within the RSSAs use septic tank and soil
absorption systems for wastewater treatment and disposal. Other dwellings
primarily rely on holding tanks, although a few privies and cesspools re-
main in use. Nearly all septic tanks are constructed of precast concrete,
although some bitumastic-coated steel and fiberglass tanks are also in use.
Nearly all holding tanks are steel tanks. Soil absorption systems current-
ly in use are primarily seepage beds, although mounds, dry wells, and seep-
age trenches are also utilized. Prior to 1966, design and installation of
onsite systems was not regulated

Since 1966, a permit has been required from the Walworth County Plan-
ning, Zoning, and Sanitation Office for design and construction of onsite
2-26
-------
LEGEND
n
D
D
D
Study area boundary
Como Lake RSSA
Geneva Lake RSSA
Williams Bay RSSA
Walworth RSSA
Fonlana RSSA
Unsewered portions of the RSSAs
Existing pumping station to be upgraded
Existing WWTP to be upgraded
Existing WWTP to be abandoned
uf •— ~ |_ /
{ 0 ^
\ ;
1 ««"
— Lj

o
Figure 2-6 Location of currently unsewered portions of the RSSAs
-------
systems. Until 1980, onslte permit records did not consistently indicate
whether a system was inspected and installed according to the permit. In
some cases inspections were made, but they were not routinely performed.
Since 1980, the Wisconsin Administrative Code (Wis Adra Cd ) has required
counties to inspect onsite systems during installation.

Prior to 1980, the Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services
was responsible for regulation of onsite systems. In 1980, this responsi-
bility was shifted to the Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations
(DILHR) The DILHR is specifically responsible for reviewing and approving
designs for large onsite treatment systems, for mounds, and for holding
tanks per provisions of Wis Adm Cd. ILHR63

The "Wisconsin Fund" was authorized under State Statute,
Chapter 144.245, which then implemented Wis Adm. Cd. NR 128 30 to assist
in funding of onsite systems. Each county must become qualified to admin-
ister monies and apply for funding on behalf of individual homeowners.
Waiworth County is qualified to administer funds. Funding is available at
a 60% level, or a maximum of $3,000, for onsite systems The residence, in
order to qualify, must be occupied more than 51% of the year. Participa-
tion in the program in Walworth County has been active, approximately
$100,000 has been disbursed to homeowners thus far for onsite system re-
placements (Personal interview, James Knilans, Walworth County Sanitarian,
10 May 1983).

Overall, only a small percentage of failing onsite systems have been
identified within the study area Those that have experienced failure are
usually old, inadequately sized systems. Most upgrades of existing systems
occur when an inspection of the existing system is necessary for a building
permit for remodeling projects.

Within the RSSA, about 81% of the systems installed under the permit
program since 1970 are conventional seepage beds, 10% are holding tanks, 7%
are dry wells, and 2% are mound systems The State directs that a soil
absorption system be installed wherever feasible. Thus, the use of holding
tanks illustrates the unsuitability of certain parcels for soil absorption
2-28
-------
systems. County sanitarians are not authorized to issue permits for soil
absorption systems that would require a variance from the Wis. Adra. Cd.

The State, however, can authorize variances for certain conditions
that do not meet the requirements of the Wis. Adm. Cd. Historically, the
DILHR has not allowed variances for smaller size absorption systems based
on water conservation or seasonal use. The DILHR does allow variances for
distances to lot lines and depth to apparent groundwater (indicated by soil
mottling) where monitoring demonstrates a lower water table. State ap-
proval must be obtained for alternative onsite wastewater treatment sys-
tems, such as, mounds, in-ground pressure systems, and holding tanks (By
telephone, Dave Fredrickson, DILHR, 18 January 1983) Walworth County, by
ordinance, no longer permits holding tanks to be installed for new resi-
dences (Personal interview, James Knilans, Walworth County Sanitarian,
10 May 1983).

2.2.2 Performance of Onsite Systems

The purposes of surveys and other data collection techniques described
herein were to. (1) assess the performance of existing onsite wastewater
systems in unsewered portions of the RSSAs and (2) to provide a locally-
derived information base for describing and costing a non-sewered alterna-
tive for those portions of the RSSAs.

The performance of onsite systems was assessed according to whether
they threatened public health, or impaired surface water quality or ground-
water quality Specific types of failures included

• surface malfunctions (septic tank effluent that is not
absorbed by the soil so that it flows to the ground surface)
• direct discharge of septic tank or other untreated waste-
water to the ground surface, to ditches, or to streams
• contamination of groundwater in drinking water wells
» contamination of lakeshore areas by septic tank effluent
that is insufficiently treated by the soil
2-29
-------
Recognizing that some poorly performing systems do not show signs of

failure all the time, an assessment of potential problems was made in addi-

tion to quantifying actual documented problems. Criteria for estimating

potential problems were based on USEPA, Region V Guidance: Site Specific

Needs Determination and Alternative Planning for Unsewered Areas (USEPA

Region V 1981). These estimates were expected to be higher than the actual

number of system upgrades that might be justified by more detailed, site-

specific investigations. However, data for both documented and potential

problems were used in the subsequent development of alternatives for unsew-

ered areas within the RSSAs being studied .

Types of information collected and evaluated in the site-specific

needs documentation included •

• Soil characteristics — US Department of Agriculture Soil
Conservation Service soil survey data for the study area
were interpreted to identify areas of soils with limitations
that interfere with successful operation of soil absorption
systems

• County sanitarians' records — existing information from the
County Planning, Zoning, and Sanitation Office, including
the sanitarians' records for onsite system problems and new
or upgraded systems, was reviewed

» Septic leachate surveys — surveys providing continuous sam-
pling of near-shore areas to determine where groundwater
flow entering a lake may be contaminated by septic tank
effluent were conducted by K-V Associates, Inc. in 1979 and
by WAPORA, Inc. in 1982

• Sanitary opinion questionnaire — a questionnaire sent to
property owners in the unincorporated areas by Opinion
Research Associates, Inc in 1980 was analyzed for usable
information

• Sanitary and water well survey — residences who noted prob-
lems with their onsite systems on the questionnaire were
surveyed and well water samples were collected for testing
by WAPORA, Inc. in 1982

• GLWEA records — sampling programs conducted by GLWEA con-
cerning surface water and groundwater quality were reviewed
and interpreted

• Parcel size analysis — real estate assessment records of
1978, including the subdivision plat and certified survey
2-30
-------
maps from Walworth County were analyzed for contiguous lots
under common ownership and for improvements (updated from
building and sanitary permits)
• Aerial infrared photography — records of possible surface
malfunctions identified by photographic interpretation and
field checked by the USEPA Environmental Photographic In-
terpretation Center (EPIC) were reviewed.

2.2.2 1. Soils Characteristics for Onsite Treatment
A soil survey for Walworth County was published by the USDA Soil Con-
servation Service in 1971. The survey describes soil profile characteris-
tics, slopes, and engineering properties for various soil series found in
the county. From the soil maps, soil series in some subdivisions of con-
cern were measured by planimetry and listed to show the percentage of vari-
ous soil mapping units within the subdivision. Soils mapped in selected
subdivisions within the RSSAs were rated by SCS with respect to limitations
for conventional drainfields. These soils were also rated for use with
alternative soil absorption systems (Table 2-7). Based on these ratings,
the percentage of soils unsuitable for any soil absorption system can be
summed. For example, the Camp Sybil-Shore Haven-Lake Geneva Club area only
has approximately 2% of its soils ranked unsuitable for onsite systems.
Approximately 67% of the soils are suitable for drainfields, and an addi-
tional 31% are suitable for contour drainfields. By contrast, the Trinke-
Lake Geneva Beach-Robinson area contains 31% soils ranked unsuitable for
onsite systems, although the majority of those soils are mapped in a common
park area and several large lots in Trinke. Similarly, in the Lake Como
Beach Subdivision, 18% of the area consists of soils ranked unsuitable for
any soil absorption system. These soils are predominantly located in
marshy lake shore areas. Other subdivisions in the RSSAs that are currently
unsewered are located on soils suitable for absorption systems.

2.2.2.2 County Permit File Data

Files of the Walworth County Planning, Zoning, and Sanitation Office
were reviewed for information concerning onsite system problems, the number
and types of system upgrades recently completed, and the number of new
systems installed. The information was used to estimate the percentage of
2-31
-------
Table 2-7. Soil Characteristics for Onaite Waste Treatment Systems in the RSSAS, by Subdivision (SCS 1971)
SCS SO EL
Name
Alluvial land
Casco-Rodman
Elburn
Fox
Hough ton
Kendall
Marsh
Matherton
McHenry
McHenry
McHenry
Miami
Miami
Mia-i
Miami
Miami
Miami
Miami
Palms
Pella
Piano
Piano
St Charles
Sebewa
Mapping
Symbol
Am
CrE2
EbA
FsB
Ht
K1A
Mf
MmA
MpB
MpC
MpC2
MyB
MyC
MyC7
MwC2
MwD2
MxC2
MxE2
Pa
Ph
PsA
PsB
ScB
Sm
Surface
Texture8
sil-L-grl
sil

sil
muck
sil

muck.
sil
sil
sil
sil
sil
sil
sil
1
1
1
1
muck
sil

sil
sil
sil
sil
Slope
Range
JL

0-2
20-30
1-3

2-6
0-2
1-3

0-2
1-3
2-6
6-12
6-12
2-6
6-12
6-12
6-12
12-20
6-12
20-35
0-2
0-3

0-2
2-6
2-6
0-3
Depth to
Water Table
(feet)
Permeability
(inches per hour)
SCS Rating
For
Drainfield
3-5 variable V sev fl
5 0 63-20(18") 6.3 Sev si
1-3 0 63-2 0(16")0 20 V sev fwt
0 63(52") 63-2 0
5 0 63-2 0(38")6 3-20 SI
0-1 0 63-2 0 Sev hwt
1-3 0 63-2 0(12")0.20 Sev fwt
0 63(36")0.63-2.0
0-1 variable V sev hwt
1-3 0 63-2 0(36")6 3-20 V sev fwt
5 0.63-2.0(35")2.0-6 3 SI
5 0 63-2.0(35")2 0-6 3 Mod si
5 0 63-2.0(35")2.0-6 3 Mod si
5 0.63-2.0 SI
5 0 63-2 0 Mod si
5 0 63-2 0 MOH si
5 0 63-2 0 Mod si
5 0 63-2 0 Sev si
5 0 63-2 0(36")2 0-6 3 Mod si
5 0 63-2 0(36")2 0-6.3 Sev si
0-1 0 63-2 0 V sev hwt
0-1 0 63-2 0(12")0 20 V sev hwt
0 63(42")0 63-2 0
5 0 63-2 0 SI
5 0 63-2 0 SI
5 0 63-2.0 Mod shwt
0-1 0 63-2.0(29") 20 V sev hwt
Suitability
for Soil Ab-
sorp Syst c

Un
Un
M

D
Un
M

Un
M
D
Cd
Cd
D
Cd
Cd
Cd
Cd
Cd
Un
tin
Un

D
D
M
Un
Occurrence (%) of Soil Series in
Lake Geneva lake
Beach, Geneva Club,
Lake Como Cisco Trinke, Shore Haven.
Beach Beach Robinson Camp Sybil
11
29

3
19
1
14
2
1
13
19
26
19
2
5
13
6
4
17
2
7
12
6
2
6
12
67
31
13
Soil texture abbreviations are 1 - loam, sil - silt loan, grl - gravelly loam.

Rating abbreviations for seepage beds are V sev - very severe, SI - slight, Mod - moderate, hwt - high water table,
fl - temporarily flooded, si - slope, fwt - fluctuating water table, shwt - seasonally high water table

Soil absorption system abbreviations are Un - unsuitable, M - mound; D - drainfield, Cd - contour drainfield
2-32
-------
onsite upgrades made per year, and to determine the types of replacements
that currently are being installed. Information such as this is useful
when selecting and evaluating onsite wastewater treatment alternatives.

The Waiworth County Planning, Zoning, and Sanitation Office and the
State DILHR require permits to be obtained by individual property owners
prior to installation of a new or replacement onsite wastewater treatment
system. In addition, County sanitarians make field inspections when com-
plaints concerning failing systems or improperly constructed new onsite
systems are received. These inspections are recorded at the County offices
and indicate previous or potential problems. Most onsite system upgrades
have been constructed as a result of additions and alterations to the resi-
dence, or as a consequence of an inspection for a loan approval.

Permit records for selected subdivisions within the RSSAs are sum-
marized in Table 2-8 (for single family residences) and Table 2-9 (for
large commercial structures). The records show that a large proportion
(82%) of the systems installed since 1970 have been seepage beds. Since
1980, installation of systems in compliance with the Wis. Adm. Cd. has
been more strictly enforced, and thus a higher proportion of mounds and
holding tanks has been installed. Holding tanks have been installed pri-
marily because of a high water table coupled with a small parcel size which
eliminates consideration of a mound. Details for each shore area are
discussed in the following paragraphs.

Southwest Shore Area
Permit records (Table 2-8) for Lake Geneva Club, Shore Haven, and Camp
Sybil indicate that the majority of new systems and upgrades installed in
selected subdivisions are seepage beds Generally, the water table is deep
and the percolation rate is high, so that dry wells or small seepage beds
can be installed even though parcel sizes are small. Two holding tanks
have been installed on parcels that were too small for seepage beds.
2-33
-------
Table 2-8. Hew and upgraded waskewater systems since 1970 for single family residences foe
selected subdivisions within the RSSAs (from U-tlworth County sanitary permit records)
Purap Tank
Seepage Bed
Subdivision
bik- Gonpvi Club
Shore Haven-Camp Sybil
Trinke
Lake Gt'msvi Beach
Robinson's 1st, 2nd, 3rd
Cisco Be«-h
Roweu i P^rk
Lake Corao Beach
Totnl
N5
1
New
0
3
1
3
0
4
6
60
77

Upgrade
0
3
0
2
3
3
4
96
111

* Seepage Bed
Hew
0
0
la
0
0
1
0
1
3

Upgrade
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
2
4

Dry Well
New
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
i

Upgrade
0
I
0
0
0
6a
2
7
Ib

Pump Tank
+ Mound
Hew
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Upgrade
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
4

ST Only
Upgrade
2
2
0
1
5
4
0
20
34

Holding Tank
New
0
0
4
1
0
0
0
f>
11

Upgrade
• f a
1
I
0
0
0
0
0
11
13

Total
Hew
0
3
6
4
0
5
6
M
,,2

Upgrade
3
7
0
4
8
14
7
139
181

8This system has a pump tank for lifting raw wastewater to the septic tank
-------
Table 2-9. System upgrades since 1970 for large commercial structures for
the Lake Corao Beach Subdivision (from the Walworth County
sanitary permit records).

Structure Business System Permit ted
(existing components in
parentheses)

Sugar Shack Bar Holding tank, two 2000 gal

Lake Como Club House Club House Septic tanks, two 2000 gal +
(soil absorption system)

Marty & Kay's Tavern Tavern (Septic tank + dry well) +
seepage bed

Tavern (near Club House) Tavern (Septic tank + soil ab,sorp-
tion system) + 400 ft
seepage bed

Rocky & Pat's Tavern Tavern Holding tank 7,630 gal

Como Vista Motel Motel - 8 units Holding tank 5,000 gal

Blue Spruce Tavern Tavern Septic tank 1,000 gal +
(seepage bed)

Como Cabins Cottages (Septic tank + dry well) +
seepage bed
2-35
-------
Southeast Shore Area

Permit records (Table 2-8) for Trinke, Lake Geneva Beach, and
Robinson's first, second, and third subdivisions Indicate that the number
of new and upgraded systems is approximately equal. Most new systems have
been installed in Trinke and have utilized holding tanks. These were
installed because the water table depth was so shallow that mounds could
not be permitted In Lake Geneva Beach, four new and four upgraded systems
have been installed. Of the eight systems, six have used seepage beds and
one was a holding tank A considerable number of solely septic tank re-
placements (five) have occurred in Robinson's first, second, and third
subdivisions The other three upgrades have utilized seepage beds.

Northwest Shore Area

The Cisco Beach and Rowena Park area has had 11 new systems and 21
upgrades installed (Table 2-8). All of these systems have used soil ab-
sorption systems, with the exception of four septic tank only upgrades
Dry wells (eight) are common upgrades of systems in both subdivisions.

Lake Como Beach
Permit records (Table 2-8) for Lake Como Beach indicate that 61 of the
68 new systems used seepage beds, one was a dry well, and six used holding
tanks. The holding tanks were installed because a high water table pre-
vented installation of seepage beds, and mounds were not yet permitted
except on an experimental basis. Of the 181 upgrades, 115 used seepage
beds, 26 used dry wells, four used mounds, 13 used holding tanks, and 34
were septic tank only The majority of the holding tanks were installed
because of a high water table and restricted parcel size. Most seepage
beds were constructed as additions to existing soil absorption systems
(either existing dry wells or seepage beds). The permit records include
occasional comments that the upgrade is a repair, although the reasons for
the repairs are rarely recorded. If an addition to a soil absorption
s»ystem was permitted, and it was noted as a repair, then it was assumed
that recurrent backups or surfacing effluent were the reasons for insti-
tuting upgrades.
2-36
-------
Upgrades used for large commercial structures are listed in Table 2-9.
Two taverns and the Como Vista Motel are located near the shore. The motel
and one tavern have had replacements of soil absorption systems with hold-
ing tanks. The other tavern had its septic tank replaced. Two taverns are
located near the Lake Como Beach Club House near the center of the sub-
division. Taverns have had additional seepage bed area added to existing
soil absorption systems. In addition, the Club House has had its septic
tank replaced, the Sugar Shack on Hwy H has had a replacement holding tank
installed, and a cottage motel on Hwy H has had a seepage bed added to its
existing dry well.

2.2.2.3. Septic Leachate Survey

A septic leachate survey involves a scan of a shoreline area of a lake
from a slow moving boat using an instrument called a septic leachate de-
tector (ENDECO 2100, Environmental Devices Corp., Marion MA) The purpose
of a septic leachate survey is to detect groundwater entering a lake that
may be contaminated by septic tank effluent. Typically, soils remove a
very high percentage of nutrients and bacteria from septic tank effluent
(Jones and Lee 1977) However, due to soil limitations or improper system
maintenance, partially treated septic tank effluent may enter a lake (Ellis
and Childs 1973) and represent a potental health hazard and water quality
problem.

The septic leachate detector is a combination of two instruments: a
conductivity meter and a fluorometer. The detector operates by drawing a
continuous water sample from the lake, and detects elevated dissolved salts
(by the conductivity meter) and dissolved organic compounds (by the fluoro-
meter), two parameters typically associated with septic tank effluent.
However, sources other than septic tank effluent may also produce strong
detector responses which may falsely indicate or mask groundwater con-
taminated by septic tank effluent. For example, positive fluorometer
responses can be attributed to wetlands or decaying aquatic plants, and
positive conductivity responses can be caused by discharges of water soft-
ener or fertilizers. An operator's observations regarding possible sources
of detector responses are critical to interpretation of the machine data.
2-37
-------
The presence of septic leachate in lake waters does not prove that
lake water quality is being degraded. In fact, field sampling of surface
waters and groundwaters within effluent plumes on other mid-western, gla-
cial lakes has demonstrated that septic leachate is often very low in
biological nutrients, and devoid of fecal coliform bacteria due to adequate
treatment by lakeshore soils. Yet fluorescence and conductivity often
remain high and can be detected.

To assess the level of treatment provided by lakeshore soils locally,
the strongest effluent plumes detected were sampled. To do this, small
diameter probes were driven to groundwater at intervals along a shoreline
transect laid out in proximity to where the plume was detected in the lake.
The probes were pumped until the water drawn became clear, and then samples
were collected Groundwater samples collected along the shoreline transect
were injected into the septic leachate detector. The sample with the
highest conductivity and fluorescence was assumed to be the strongest part
of the groundwater plume. A groundwater sample was collected from the
probe at this time and sent to a laboratory for a thorough chemical and
bacteriological analysis For comparison, background groundwater samples
were also taken from areas where septic tank contamination was believed to
be absent or minimal. Background samples were both field checked with the
detector and sent to the laboratory.

A septic leachate detector scan was performed along shoreline sections
of Geneva Lake and Lake Como from 31 August to 3 September 1982. This
study was accomplished to corroborate information from a septic leachate
survey conducted in November 1979 by K-V Associates, Inc. (Donohue &
Assoc., Inc. 1983a). Specific areas scanned and suspected effluent plumes
are shown in Figure 2-7. Only two plumes of suspected wastewater origin
were detected along the Geneva Lake shoreline. No plumes of wastewater
origin were detected along the north shoreline of Lake Como. Onshore
reconnaissance of all other positive leachate detector signals were deter-
mined to be stream source plumes. Results of laboratory analyses of water
samples supported the field determination of the location of emerging
wastewater plumes in Geneva Lake (Table 2-10, samples 3 and 4).
2-38
-------
LEGEND

Septic leacftate detector
survey area (1962)

"""" Subdivision* surveyed

• Water samples

• Erupting plume

- —- Study area boundary
FV£n
r*r£
L i ,r™ s>—a.—' t
^ vr^r^ir^r

* ^4<' i W
j-.-.y^a-.^-brh-.
Figure 2-7 Suspected on-stte treatment system effluent plumes detected in Geneva Lake
-------
Table 2-10 Results of the laboratory analysis of the shallow grounduater and ditch sampleu,

Samp le
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Type
of
Saroplta
grdwtr.
stream
grdwtr.
grdwtr
grdwtr
grdwtr
jjrdwtr
scream
stream
StTlMm
stream
stream
strea-
lake
lake
grdwtr.
grdwtr
stream
stream
stream
stream
stream
spring
stream

Samp le
Location
Geneva Lake
Ccnev-i Lake
Gencvi Lake
Geneva Lake*
Geneva Lake
Geneva Lake
Geneva Lake
Geneva Lake
Geneva Lake
Geneva Lake
Geneva Lake
Geneva L-ike
CC-.O/T Lake
Geneva Lake
Geneva Lake
Geneva Lake
Geneva Lake
Lake Como
Lake Como
Lflke fomo
Lake Como
l
(nut/ 1)
58 5
92 2
23 0
20 4
76 2
18 6
15.1
13 3
41 7
42 6
67 4
67 4
66 5
12 4
12 4
58 5
83 4
62 9
35 5
33 7
38.1
43 4
15.1
122
Total
DUs Solids
356
676
476
434
672
384
244
378
594
478
568
542
536
254
260
396
602
570
504
440
496
478
434
652
Total
A Ik.
jrag/l)
366
417
445
369
482
346
216
330
361
300
351
346
345
180
185
377
382
375
404
365
379
372
354
400

pB
r-
7 5
1 3
7 2
7 2
6 9
6 8
6 9
6 8
6 9
6 8
7 1
7 5
7.3
7.8
7 8
7 1
7 I
6 8
7 5
7 5
7 9
7,'J
6 9
7.8
'Laboratory analysis was sensitive to a maximum ot 100 colonies per 100 ral
-------
Shallow groundwater transects were conducted at locations 3, 4, and 7
based upon strong signals recorded during the shoreline scan with the sep-
tic leachate detector For Geneva Lake, sample 3 (a shallow groundwater
sample collected in six Inches of water just off shore) had a very high
phosphorus concentration which indicated a highly probable breakthrough of
septic tank effluent Elevated fecal colifora bacteria levels at site 7 on
Lake Geneva also gave a strong indication of potential septic tank effluent
contamination of the groundwater. However, samples 6 and 7 were taken from
the Lake Geneva Beach Association Park, which is a considerable distance
(several hundred feet) from any wastewater source.

In addition to shallow groundwater sampling, samples were also col-
lected from ephemeral streams and springs in the Geneva Lake-Lake Como
area. Water in ephemeral streams may originate from springs, but may also
come from tile drains emanating from households in adjacent subdivisions.
Individual water samples from several streams were analyzed both by the
leachate detector and also by laboratory analysis. Results of the stream
sampling, however, were not easily interpreted (Table 2-10). For example,
samples 10-13 in the Lake Geneva Beach Subdivision and samples 21-24 in the
Lake Como Subdivision had elevated fecal coliform levels. However, exami-
nation of the watershed indicated these elevated levels may have been de-
rived from animal sources, roads and parking lots, or other non-point
sources. Samples 10-13, taken in sequence from the headwaters to the mouth
of Hillside Creek, showed no distinct pattern of increase in any parameter
examined. Nor was there any pattern in the stream examined at Lake Como.
Thus, no conclusions were reached concerning water quality or public health
impacts of onsite treatment systems on these surface waters.

As previously discussed, a septic leachate scan was performed in 1979
(K-V Associates, Inc 1979) and results were reported in the Facilities
Plan (Donohue & Assoc., Inc 1981a). The previous survey encompassed the
majority of the shorelines of Geneva Lake and Lake Como, including the sew-
ered shoreline of Geneva Lake. Results of the most recent survey are gen-
erally comparable to the results of the previous survey for the unsewered
2-41
-------
portions of the RSSAs (Table 2-11). Some generalized conclusions drawn
from the results from both septic leachate surveys include:

• Few emerging effluent plumes assumed to originate from on-
site systems were found entering Geneva Lake or Lake Como
• The majority of positive detector responses were attributed
to feeder stream watershed sources
• Water softener discharges were probably responsible for
positive inorganic (e.g , dissolved salts) responses
Table 2-11. Comparison of the two septic leachate surveys. Only the
shoreline lengths surveyed in August 1982 are compared to
the shoreline lengths surveyed in November 1979.
Geneva Lake 1979 1982
Miles of shoreline compared'
Number of effluent plumes detected.
Number of stream source plumes detected:
Lake Como
Miles of shoreline compared
Number of effluent plumes detected.
Number of stream source plumes detected.
6
0
5

1
3
5
6
2
11

1
0
8
2.2.2.4. Property Owner Questionnaire

An opinion questionnaire (Appendix A) was prepared by Opinion Research
Associates, Inc., and was mailed to the approximately 5,000 property owners
in the areas served by onsite systems. Although more than 1,100 responses
were received, only 318 respondents were aware of problems with onsite
wastewater treatment facilities within their subdivision or immediate area.
A summary of responses to the questionnaire, tabulated by subdivisions
within the RSSAs, is listed in Table 2-12.

Although the response was good, the results of the opinion question-
naire must be used with care. Information regarding the occupancy, family
size, age of house and onsite system, and type of system should be reli-
able. However, the nature of the survey (being an opinion survey rather
than a factual survey) limits its usefulness for needs documentation pur-

2-42
-------
Qu«fttluni»ire re>pon«e» tabulated by suhrttvfalona ulthfn th« XSSAc

Oak Shorca
Lake Geneva Club
Shar* Keyea
Caip Sybil
Aea*y K*tat«a
Napl* KllU
S«c 11
Sub-fatal
Trlnke Eatatea
Lak« Geneva B^ach
(toblnsoti a Sub
RobtaBoa HilUlii*
Sac 11 12 4 14
Sub-total
l-,k. On*.* Coif
lllla
roreiit Reat
Sylvan Trails
Rovcna Park
Claco (each
Ar* Gten Eatacaa
Sub- total
LaV« fi«*> Bead,
Sec 21 4 22
TOTAL

Year-
5
1
5
0
2
3
"24
3
10
3
5
4

11
2
2
17
0

131
217
OecurtA'*<-y SyBten type
S...OM1 Weekend ST-SAS' HT* Of'
2
5
t
7
1
_J_
4
13
5
1
__3

0
2
1
5
25
-w

40
IJ7
5
2
2
1
0
3
TT
4
4
4
O
Ts

0
i
2
5
23
0
31

St
119
10
7
13
J
1
7
14
TT
g
23
8
t

9
4
4
12
56
^

204
403
0
1
0
1
I
0
0
i
0
0
0
0

1
'
D
0
1
3

13
20
0
0
0
1
0
0
T
0
2
0
0
3

O
0
o
0
1
0

*
Don't
Kno.
0
0
0
1
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
—

1
0
1
4
0
7

6
"IT
U>t
: i'"
i
i
j
i
i
-T7
4
12
}
2
»

7
1
1
3
27
0
T?

• 2
164
PUBptl
"ft hlatery
1-asc Mora Don t
5 yeara than i Know Back-uos
2
2
9
0
0
i

2
10
5
2
2
21

3
2
0
4
12

62
Tit
2
2
2
0
1
~ii
1
0
2

0
0
2
2

-8
a
0
0
4
3
4
1

1
2
5
14
1

S3
94
2
2
0
~rr
2

2
0
0
6
0

11
39
U*t
«ro«nd
1
0
L
4

2
0
0

2
1
2
tj
t
1
t
*
1
"Io

2
0
0

0
9

-S!

Other
1
0
0
0
0
0
—
t t.nk
"One ftytccft was • privy
23
43
I
0
I
0
12
21
10
t
0
i
10
19
23
a
4
_7
49
0 22
1 2 11
4 2 Si
1 0 0
T — 65
System age (yeari)

0-5 5-ltt 10
r
42
77
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
—4
1
3
0
I
1
—
t
)
7
5
0
6
g
-J7
4
11
i
3
4
J5
To H
41 115
61 240
-------
poses. Certain questions were framed in an indeterminate manner, such as
the question on experiences with the sewage treatment system. The question
is not framed as a current or on-going problem so that, if an individual
ever experienced a problem, these items would be marked. Indeed, many who
marked one of these questions in the questionnaire noted further that they
did not consider their system a problem or even an inconvenience. Also,
"wet ground" and "odors" are not considered obvious problems for needs
documentation purposes. Numerous respondents marked "other" for experi-
ence, but noted that their system worked well. Nevertheless, these systems
were tabulated in the summary as "other problems."

The questions on whether the system discharges to a "ground surface
ditch (sic), a creek, or lake" appeared to be misconstrued frequently. In
marking a response, many underlined "ground surface," thus, these responses
are ambiguous. Many respondents indicated that their system was a problem
or an inconvenience even though they did not experience back-ups or surface
breakouts of effluent. Others noted that they had to restrict water use in
order to have the system operate satisfactorily

Results of the questionnaire indicated that more than 90% of the
onsite systems currently being used in each of the RSSAs are conventional
septic tank and soil absorption systems. No breakdown of seepage beds, dry
wells, or mounds was requested on the questionnaire. Of those respondents
who knew how recently their septic tank had been pumped, nearly half to
more than half indicated that their septic tank was pumped within the last
year. Over 65% of the respondents had had their septic systems pumped out
within the last five years. This indicated that most residents are sensi-
tive to the local recommendation to have their septic tank pumped annually.
The majority apparently do not experience problems as long as their septic
tanks are pumped at regular and frequent intervals.

In summary, the experiences that a majority of residents have had with
onsite wastewater treatment systems indicate that a large proportion of
owners have never had problems. The percentage of residents who have
experienced no backups or wet ground ranged from 70% to 85% for the various
RSSAs. Because the majority of residents have not experienced problems,
onsite wastewater treatment systems were presumed to be viable, long-term
2-44
-------
methods for wastewater management in currently unsewered portions of the
RSSAs.

2.2.2.5. Sanitary and Well Water Surveys

A sanitary survey was conducted which involved 124 onsite sanitary
inspections at residences in selected subdivisions within the RSSAs. Each
onsite sanitary inspection consisted of a patterned interview with the
resident, an inspection of the property with emphasis on the location of
the onsite treatment system, and an inspection of the visible parts of the
resident's water well The resident interviews sought to gather infor-
mation on:

• Type and age of the onsite wastewater treatment system
• Type of water supply and water use patterns
• Number of users of the onsite treatment system
• Types and frequency of noticeable problems with the onsite
system
• Past repairs and frequency of maintenance of the onsite
treatment system
» Locations of buildings, onsite system, and well.

Information gathered during each onsite sanitary inspection was recorded on
standard forms (Appendix B).

The sanitary survey was designed to target dwellings thought most
likely to be experiencing or to have experienced problems with onsite sys-
tems. In contrast with a random survey, such a targeted survey is expected
to locate a higher proportion of problem systems and, thus, provide a bet-
ter analysis of factors that contribute to problems locally. The source of
information used to select dwellings for the survey was the 1980 property
owner questionnaires. Dwellings were selected for the sanitary survey if
the response indicated a possible problem.

Sixty homes from the Lake Como Beach Subdivision and 60 homes from
Geneva Lake were targeted to be surveyed Residences around Geneva Lake
were located in the following subdivisions: Rowena Park, Cisco Beach,
2-45
-------
Sylvan Trail Estates, Robinson's subdivisions, Lake Geneva Beach, Trinke
Estates, Camp Sybil, Shore Haven, and Lake Geneva Club. Follow-up contacts
were made at the target residence If no one was home the first time. If no
one was home a second time, another household in the same immediate area
was selected. A total of 124 sanitary surveys were conducted by WAPORA,
Inc. and USEPA personnel in August and September 1982 Of that total, 71
surveys were conducted at the targeted residence, and the remaining 53
surveys were conducted at nearby residences.

In conjunction with the sanitary survey, well water samples were col-
lected from 33 residences and were tested for chlorides, nitrates, phos-
phorus, total dissolved solids, total alkalinity, pH, and fecal coliform.
Wells were selected for testing if the homeowner was available when field
collections were conducted, if no water softener or iron removal equipment
was on the system, and if the well was adequately protected from surface
contamination.

Data from the sanitary surveys (Table 2-13) noted occupancy, lot size,
and the type of system. A great deal of information was unavailable or was
obscured by differences in terminology. In numerous cases, the survey
forms were not completely filled out because the resident was not know-
ledgeable about the facilities

Occupancy of the surveyed residences was made up of 71 permanent
(occupied more than six months of the year) and 53 seasonal households.
Certain subdivisions, namely, Camp Sybil, Shore Haven, and Trinke Estates,
contained nearly all seasonal residences.

Twenty of the residences were located on parcels of less than 7,500
square feet. The highest proportions of small lots were in Lake Geneva
Beach, Robinson, Lake Geneva Club, and Cisco Beach subdivisions. Most
surveyed parcels were in the 10,000 to 20,000 square-foot range (i.e., one
quarter to one half acre).

Types of sewage disposal systems encountered included septic tanks,
grease traps, privies, cesspools, dry wells, seepage beds, and mounds.
These also occurred in many combinations. The most common system, consist-
2-46
-------
Table 2-13. Summary data concerning types of onsite treatment systems from the August and September 1982
sanitary surveys of Geneva Lake and Lake Como, Wisconsin
Occupancy
Subdivision
Lake Geneva Club
Shore Raven
Camp Sybil
Subtotal, SW shore
Trinke Estates
Lake Geneva Beach
Robinson 's
Subtotal, SE shore
Sylvan Trail Estates
Cisco Beach
Rowena Park
Subtotal, N shore
Permanent
2
1
0
3
0
5
3
~8
0
13
2
15
Seasonal
3
3
6
~12
5
4
7
16
1
4
3
8
Lake Como Beach
45
17
^,500
3
I
0
4
0
5
5
10
0
3
0
3
Lot
7,500-
9.999
2
2
2
~
0
I
0
1
0
5
0
5
size (sf)
10,000-
20,000
0
1
0
1
0
2
4
6
I
8
0
9
20,000
0
0
0
0
5
1
1
7
0
1
6
7
Septic tank
+ dry well
1
1
1
3
1
3
2
6
0
3
1
4
Septic tank
Septic tank + dry well
+ seepage bed + seepage bed
3
3

~TT
3
5
8
16
1
13
4
18
Septic tank
+ pump tank
+ mound

10
37
Cesspool Other
11
14
35
2 unknown
1 privy
1 holding
tank
Total
71
53
20
22
53
25
27
80
-------
ing of a septic tank and seepage bed, was encountered in 80 situations.
Separate systems for laundry or kitchen wastewater were encountered occa-
sionally. In these cases, only the primary system was tabulated.

The age of each treatment system (Table 2-14) was tabulated by the age
of its oldest reported part. Of the total of 116 for which age was re-
ported, 9 were less than 5 years old, 18 were 5 to 10 years old, 27 were 11
to 20 years old, and 62 were more than 20 years old. A number of the
residents surveyed have remodeled and expanded their residence recently for
permanent occupancy, at which time the onsite system was replaced or
upgraded.

A total of 26 systems have had repairs or replacements of components
out of the 124 systems surveyed (Table 2-14). The most common repair has
been the addition of a seepage bed (12) The septic tank has been replaced
or repaired on six systems and pipes cleaned or repaired on four systems.
Many of these upgrades or repairs appear to coincide with a change of
owners and/or a change in occupancy from seasonal to permanent. The County
sanitarian's records indicate that 273 systems have been upgraded or re-
paired since 1970.

Each resident surveyed was asked how recently the septic tank had been
pumped and the reason for pumping. These responses are summarized in Table
2-14, with the exception that, when the frequency of pumping was given,
this number was utilized. Thus, these numbers are somewhat ambiguous. The
number who pump annually or have pumped within the last year totaled 20.
The number who pump annually to triennially totaled 66. A total of 27
systems have not been pumped within the past five years. Many reported
that they pump annually or biennially because they have heard that it is
good practice, not because it is necessary. The overall average appears to
be about two years, which is more frequent than is typically thought
necessary.

The number of respondents who indicated that they have ongoing prob-
lems with their system totaled 23 (Table 2-14). No one area had a greater
concentration than any other area. Excessive maintenance, that is, fre-
quent pumping was the most frequently mentioned problem with (eight re-
2-48
-------
Table 2-14. Summary data on operation of onsite treatment systems, from the August and September
1982 sanitary surveys for Geneva Lake and Lake Como, Wisconsin.
Repairs or Upgrades

Subdivision
Lake Geneva Club
Shore Haven
Camp Sybil
Total SW shore
Ttinke Estates
Lake Geneva Beach
Robinson's
Total SE shore
Sylvan Trail Estates
Cisco Beach

Rowena Park
Total N shore
Lake Como Beach
TOTAL

Age ot System (years)
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2

0
2
7
9
5-10
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
3
0
3

2
5
_»
18
11-20
0
1
0
1
0
0
3
3
1
4

1
6
17
27
20
3
2
5
10
4
8
3
IS
0
7

2
9
28
62

Pumping

Frequency (years)
1
1
0
2
3
2
3
0
5
0
2

0
2
10
20
1-3
1
3
2
6
2
3
10
15
0
9

5
14
31
66
4-5
1
0
1
2
0
1
0
1
0
0

0
0
2
S
5
2
1
1
4
0
?
0
2
1
6

0
7
14
27
New
Septic
Tank
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
3

0
3
1
6

Repair
pipes
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1

0
1
2
4
Add
seepage
bed
1
1
0
2
1
0
0
1
0
4

0
4
5
12

Add
dry well Other
0
0
0
0
0 new pump
0
1
1
0
0 enlarged and
cleaned ST * DU
0
0
1 added mound
2 3
Seasonal
Backup
0
0
1
1
0
o
1
1
0

1
0
1
2
8
Problems
Seasonal
wet ground
0
0
0
0
1
o
o
I
o

0
o
0
3
It

Frequent
pumping
1
0
o
I
2
1
0
3
o

I
o
1
3
8
*ST + DU Indicates septic tank and dry well
-------
sponses). Seasonal backups and seasonally wet ground were each noted as
problems at eight and four systems, respectively.

The well water sampling results are presented in Table 2-15, and the
sampling locations are plotted in Figures 2-8a through 2-8c. The nitrate-
nitrogen (NO -N) data indicated that no groundwater wells had levels sig-
nificantly elevated above background. The highest nitrate concentration
measured was 2.85 mg/1 while the Federal drinking water standard is 10 mg/1
(USEPA 1976). Only two of the 33 wells tested had nitrate concentrations
above 1 mg/1. Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), the sum of ammonia and organ-
ically bound nitrogen, was greater than 1 mg/1 in seven well water samples.
TKN is important not so much as a harmful pollutant, but as a source of
nitrate nitrogen after oxidation. Elevated TKN also suggests relatively
recent contamination by organic wastes. Currently, there are no Federal
water quality criteria for TKN. Three wells in Lake Como Beach had a
positive fecal coliform response (Table 2-15), while no wells in Geneva
Lake subdivisions had a positive fecal coliform response. Federal drinking
water criteria documents recommend a maximum limit of 100 colonies per 100
ml for bathing waters, and suggest that a level of virtually no organisms
(i.e., disinfection) is desirable for drinking water. Chloride concentra-
tions ranged from less than 1 mg/1 to 121 mg/1. Three wells had chloride
concentrations over 100 mg/1 which may be an indication that either septic
effluent is strongly influencing this well, or a water softener or some
other source may be influencing these concentrations. Federal water qual-
ity criteria documents recommend a maximum limit of 250 mg/1 of chlorides
and sulfates for drinking water. A correlation between positive fecal
coliform samples, chloride concentrations, and/or nitrogen concentrations
for the wells sampled was not well established.

Five wells were known to be less than 30 feet in depth, and one of
these was a dug well of 10 feet in depth. Two of the three positive
coliform responses came from these wells. Two of the four chloride concen-
trations above 50 mg/1 were also from these shallow wells. However, none
of the elevated TKN concentrations was from these shallow wells, contrary
to what one might expect.
2-50
-------
Table 2-15. Results of the laboratory analysis of well water samples from the sanitary survey of August
and September 1982 for Geneva Lake and Lake Como, Wisconsin.

Sample Ho
Geneva Lake
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Lake Como
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33

Subdivision

Cisco Beach
Cisco Beach
Lake Geneva Beach
Lake Geneva Beach
Lake Geneva Club
Robinson's Sub
Robinson's Sub
Rovena Park
Trlnke Estates
Trinke Estates
Trinke Estates
Trinke Escateg
Sylvan Trail Estates

Lake Cono Beach
Lake Cono Beach
Lake Coao Beach
Lake Cono Beach
Lake Coao Beach
Lake Como Beach
Lake Coao Beach
Lake Como Beach
Lake Como Beach
Lake Cono Beach
Lake Cono Beach
Lake Cono Beach
Lake Cono Beach
Lake Coma Beach
Lake Como Beach
Lake Cono Beach
Lake Cono Beach
Lake Cono Beach
Lake Como Beach
Lake Cono Beach
Well
Depth
(ft)

106
127
NAa
45
187
100
44
125
167
70
NA
NA
190

132
100
100
18
10
100
135
120
205
90
NA
30
20
185
23
100
NA
125
199
150
Fecal Total
Colifom Phos
Colonies/100 al. (UK/!)

<1 0 07
<1 0 01
<1 0.01
<1 0 01
-------
Figure 2-8a Location of groundwater well sampling stations
-------
Figure 2-8b. Location of groundwater well sampling stations.
-------
o
Figure 2-8c. Location of groundwater well samplmg stations
-------
2 2.2.6. Water Quality Sampling Results

Two Lake Geneva drainage area watersheds were analyzed to determine
water quality impacts of existing land use on the basis of data in Table
2-10 and additional data provided by GLWEA (1982). Selected land use data
from these sources for the Hillside Creek watershed on the southwest shore-
line, and the Pottawatomie Creek watershed on the west shoreline of Lake
Geneva are listed in Table 2-16
Table 2-16. Selected land use data for comparison of watershed water
quality determinants (all figures rounded to the nearest
acre) (GLWEA 1982).
Drainage
Area
Hillside
Creek
Pottawatomie
Creek
Total Acres
Drained
166
514
Rural Land
Urban Land
Acres of
Wetlands,
Ponds, &
Streams
NR
26
Acres in Acreage,
Agricultural Total Sewered
Use to Unsewered Acres
71

63
0/68

77/19
Not reported; assumed to be insignificant.
While Pottawatomie Creek drains more than three times as much land
area as Hillside Creek and is a more significant source of water and nutri-
ents to Lake Geneva (S0JRPC In pub.), land use characteristics of these
watersheds are dissimilar Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the
higher nutrient load of Pottawatomie Creek is due only to its larger size.
As presented by GLWEA (1982), Pottawatomie Creek watershed has a total of
over 288 acres of combined dry-land natural areas and recreational land.
These land uses are not manageable in terms of reducing nutrient or bacter-
ial pollution loads. The same is true for the approximately 26 acres of
combined wetlands, ponds, and stream acreage for the Pottawatomie Creek
watershed. On the other hand, agricultural and residential land uses are
significant nutrient sources that can be managed to achieve reduced nutri-
2-55
-------
ent loads by implementing erosion controls or by abating animal and human
waste pollution.

As listed in Table 2-16, agricultural land use acreage figures for the
two watersheds are similar The use category of "developed land" is the
only manageable land use type which varies significantly in areal extent
between the two watersheds. This category includes residential, commer-
cial, and industrial land uses, exclusive of green or forested surround-
ings. Nearly three quarters of the developed acreage in the Pottawatomie
watershed is sewered (only 19 acres are not sewered). None of the 68 acres
of developed land in the Hillside Creek watershed is sewered. Because
assertions were made in the Facilities Plan (Donohue & Assoc., Inc. I983a)
that unsewered, developed lands are a significant source of nutrient and
bacterial contamination, it was anticipated that water quality surveys of
Pottawatomie and Hillside creeks would reflect qualitatively the extent of
unsewered, developed land. Selected water quality data from surveys of
these two watersheds conducted in 1975 and 1976 (GLWEA 1977) and subse-
quently in 1982 (refer to Table 2-10) are listed in Table 2-17.
Table 2-17
Selected water quality data for comparison of land use-water quality
relationships.
Watershed
Hillside
Creek
Hillside
Creek
Pottawatomie
Creek
No. of Samples
(data source)
n = 16
(GLWEA 1977)
n = 4
(Table 2-10)
n = 16
(GLWEA 1977)
Average Coliform
(Colonies/100 ml.)
526
37
141
Average Nitrate-
Average Coliform Nitrogen
to Streptococcus Concentration
Ratio
(mg/1)
1.25
NA
0. 90
0.24

0.97

0.49
NA - data not available
No significant relationships were identified between the extent of
unsewered, developed land (Table 2-16) and water quality data (Table 2-17).
2-56
-------
Factors which may have obscured the anticipated water quality impact of
unsewered acreages in the Hillside Creek watershed include:

• Occurrence of historic drought during the sampling period
covered by the GLWEA study (the summer and autumn of 1976)
• Existence of a barnyard or feedlot operation in the Hillside
Creek watershed as identified in GLWEA (1982) land use
tabulations

An extended period of drought would decrease the likelihood of onsite
treatment system failure and thereby increase the (apparent) significance
in surface waters of non-human sources of bacterial indicator organisms.
Stream access by dairy animals or even the presence of waterfowl or pets
could account for the levels of fecal colifonn reported for Hillside Creek
waters by the GLWEA in 1975-1976 (Table 2-17). The probable presence of
non-human sources of fecal coliforms is indicated by the relatively low
ratios of coliform counts to streptococcus counts found by GLWEA in 1975-
1976 for both of these streams. Both ratios are close to unity. A ratio
approaching 4.4 is considered indicative of human waste sources (Geldreich
1965).

Speculations about the impact of the GLWEA sampling being conducted
under drought conditions are somewhat corroborated by the relatively lower
average nitrate concentrations found for Hillside Creek in the 1975-1976
survey as compared to the average from the 1982 watershed survey (Table
2-17). Nonetheless, the data (Tables 2-16 and 2-17) are insufficient for
conclusive examination of land use and water quality relationship, particu-
larly in light of the presence of a feedlot in the Hillside Creek area
(GLWEA 1982) and the low ratios of fecal coliform to fecal streptococcus
organisms found for both watersheds

Although the Hillside Creek watershed has 3.5 times the amount of un-
sewered development as does the Pottawatomie Creek watershed, existing in-
formation on water quality is insufficient to indicate the need for provid-
ing sewer service.
2-57
-------
2.2.2.7. Parcel Size Characteristics

One of the criteria that the County uses in evaluating new or replace-
ment onsite systems is parcel size. Contiguous lots under one ownership
were tabulated and the area calculated for developed and undeveloped
parcels. A summary of parcel sizes for each subdivision within the RSSAs
is listed in Table 2-18 A parcel size of 10,000 sf (minimum) within an
existing subdivision currently is required for a new residence in Waiworth
County

Small parcel sizes are indicative of potential difficulties in con-
structing and maintaining soil absorption systems. Either dry wells or
reduced size seepage beds must be installed on small parcels. If indi-
vidual wells are utilized, isolation distances (i.e., recommended distances
between sanitary facilities and groundwater wells) are difficult to achieve
and well pollution is possible. Small parcels are not necessarily a prob-
lem if the soils have relatively high permeabilities, if there is a deep
water table, and if the residents produce small quantities of wastewater.
For example, while developed parcels in the Camp Sybil Subdivision are
small, few of the residents (all seasonal occupants) reported significant
problems with their onsite systems.

A majority (approximately 55%) of the developed parcels in subdivi-
sions along the southwest shore contain less than 10,000 sf each These
small lots are located primarily in the Lake Geneva Club, Shore Haven, and
Camp Sybil subdivisions. Many other small parcels are available in the
Maple Hills subdivision, but currently are undeveloped. Developed parcels
in other subdivisions in the southwest shore area primarily are in the
10,000-20,000 sf size range

Approximately 38% of the developed parcels along the southeast shore
also contain less than 10,000 sf each. Lake Geneva Beach and Robinson's
subdivisions contain a large portion of these small developed parcels. All
developed parcels in Trinke Estates are larger than 15,000 sf.
2-58
-------
Table 2-18. Summary of parcel sizes of contiguous lots in common ownership
for subdivisions in square feet.
Oak Shores

Lake Geneva Club

Shore Haven -
Camp Sybil
Academy Estates

Maple Hills

Subtotal, SW shore

Trinke Estates

Lake Geneva Beach

Robinson's Sub

Robinson Hillside

Subtotal, SE shore

Lake Geneva
Golf Hills
Forest Rest

Geneva Bay Estates

Subtotal, NE shore

Ara Glen Est.

Sylvan Tr Est

Cisco Beach

Rowena Park

Subtotal, NW shore

Lake Como Beach

TOTAL
residence
vacant
residence
vacant
residence
vacant
residence
vacant
residence
vacant
residence
vacant

residence
vacant
residence
vacant
residence
vacant
residence
vacant
residence
vacant

residence
vacant
residence
vacant
residence
vacant
residence
vacant

residence
vacant
residence
vacant
residence
vacant
residence
vacant
residence
vacant

residence
vacant

residence
vacant
2,000-
1
0
15
0
33
1
0
0
0
22
49
23

0
0
0
12
3
1
0
1
3
14

6
6
0
0
0
0
6
6

0
0
0
0
17
7
0
0
17
7

32
191

107
241
5,000-
7,500
0
0
0
0
28
2
0
0
0
56
28
58
0
0
24
I
29
4
2
1
55
6
23
90
0
0
0
0
23
90
0
0
0
0
37
9
0
0
37
9
45
104
188
267
7,501-
9,999
0
0
12
1
4
0
1
0
1
10
18
11
0
0
11
2
7
1
0
0
18
3
8
1
0
0
0
0
8
1
0
0
0
0
27
1
0
0
27
1
84
94
155
110
10,000-
12,500
17
0
2
0
6
1
0
0
3
11
28
12
0
0
9
1
15
1
3
5
27
7
30
0
0
1
0
0
30
I
0
0
0
0
33
3
0
0
33
3
260
306
378
329
12,501-
15,000
1
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
5
8
13
8
0
0
4
0
7
3
t
1
12
4
10
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
14
2
0
0
14
2
87
34
136
48
15,001'
20.000
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
4
7
7
7
1
1
11
0
6
1
5
I
23
3
6
0
2
0
7
0
15
0
0
0
1
0
14
1
3
0
18
I
201
65
264
76
>20jOOO Total

2
0
0
0
0
0
12
3
15
10
29
13
1,640
1,175
2-59
-------
Adjacent to the City of Lake Geneva (the northeast shore area),
approximately 43% of the developed parcels in the Lake Geneva Golf Hills
Subdivision and its addition (Hillraoor Heights) contain less than 10,000 sf
each. The Forest Rest and Geneva Bay subdivisions consist entirely of par-
cels larger than 15,000 sf.

Of the northwest shore area subdivisions, only Cisco Beach has parcel
sizes smaller than 10,000 sf. Approximately 55% of these developed parcels
are less than 10,000 sf.

The Lake Como Beach Subdivision has 161 developed parcels of less than
10,000 sf (17%). These are distributed throughout the subdivision but most
are located within 500 feet of the shoreline. Of the undeveloped parcels,
45% are less than 10,000 sf. Approximately 426 (46%) of the developed
parcels in the Lake Como Beach Subdivision contain more than 15,000 sf
each, which is an approximate minimum size for construction and operation
of a full-size mound effluent disposal system

2.2.2.8. Aerial Photographic Survey

An aerial photographic survey was conducted by the USEPA Environmental
Photographic Interpretation Center (EPIC) in 1978-1979 to locate septic
tank systems exhibiting apparent surface breakout failures in the study
area. A field survey was conducted to confirm the apparent septic tank
failures. The field survey identified 10 confirmed onsite system failures
for Lake Como Beach and 9 marginally failing systems (Figure 2-9). A con-
firmed failure was a system at which strong evidence of effluent surfacing
was observed at the time of the field inspection. A marginally failing
system contained evidence of having failed in the past, or having the po-
tential for malfunctioning during periods of excessive use or moderate to
heavy rainfall. In the Lake Geneva area, the Lake Geneva Beach subdivision
had one confirmed failure and three marginally failing systems, and the
Lake Geneva Golf Hills Subdivision had one confirmed failure and two mar-
ginally failing systems.
2-60
-------
LEGEND

~" EIS study area boundary
Confirmed septic tank system failure
Marginal septic tank system failure
Figure 2-9 Location of confirmed and marginally failing onsite treatment systems
-------
2.2.3. Problems Caused by Existing Systems

Use of onsite systems that fail to function properly can result in
backups in household plambing, ponding of effluent on the ground surface,
groundwater contamination that may affect water supplies, and excessive
nutrients and coliform levels in surface water. The USEPA Guidance and
Program Requirements Memorandums. (PRMs) 78-9 and 79-8 (in effect when this
project was initiated) required that documented pollution problems be iden-
tified and traced back to the causal factors The USEPA Region V guidance
document entitled "Site Specific Needs Determination and Alternative Plan-
ning for Unsewered Areas" provides guidance on how to satisfy these PRMs.
Projects may be funded only where a significant proportion of residences
can be documented as having or causing problems. The USEPA Region V in-
terpretation of these regulations is that eligibility for USEPA grants is
limited to those systems for which there is direct evidence that indicates
they are causing pollution or those systems that are virtually identical in
environmental constraints and in usage patterns to documented failing sys-
tems. The following four sections discuss the types of direct evidence of
onsite system failure that are eligible for funding under the above refer-
enced guidance.

2.2.3.1. Recurrent Backups

Backups of sewage in household plumbing constitute direct evidence if
they can be related directly to design or site problems. Plugged or broken
pipes or full septic tanks would not constitute an evidence of need. The
opinion questionnaire and the sanitary survey utilized in this study pro-
vided information on backups within the study area. On the questionnaires,
many respondents indicated that they had experienced backups but that they
presently did not consider their system a problem or inconvenience. These
systems are not obvious problems On the surveys, several residents noted
that they had sluggish drains after a period of wet weather. These qualify
as obvious problems because repeated use of the facilities would cause a
backup.
2-62
-------
2.2.3.2. Surface Ponding

Ponding of effluent above or around a soil absorption system consti-
tutes direct evidence of failure. Aerial photography was utilized to iden-
tify such failing systems within the RSSAs The photographic analysis and
subsequent field survey identified few confirmed failures with effluent
ponding on the ground surface. Disposal areas of marginally failing sys-
tems were identified by the presence of lush vegetation over the beds or
trenches, probably due to effluent rising near the soil surface. Ground-
water ponding on the soil surface and effluent pipe discharges were pre-
sumed to be minor evidences of failures within the study area. Wastewater
disposal permits also identified a small percentage of systems, as failing.
The property owner questionnaire responses also indicated potential prob-
lems resulting in surface ponding. No distinction was made, though, be-
tween ponding (an obvious problem), and wet ground (not an obvious prob-
lem). Within the subdivisions in the RSSAs, 44 respondents out of a total
number of 483 (9%) indicated that they experienced wet ground or ponding.
Of 124 residences surveyed as part of the Sanitary Survey, only 5 indicated
that they had problems with surface ponding or wet ground. The permit
files contain correspondence concerning past experiences with surface fail-
ures but these have been repaired. This information was useful for assess-
ing what types of environmental conditions and water use patterns caused
surface failures.

2.2.3.3. Groundwater Contamination

Contamination of water supply wells constitutes direct evidence of
soil absorption system failure when concentrations of nutrients indicative
of soil adsorption system effluents greatly exceed background levels of
groundwaters in the area and/or exceed primary drinking water quality
standards. In order for well sampling data to qualify as direct evidence
of failures, specific well information must be collected. This information
includes depth of the well, its orientation with respect to soil absorption
systems, and the degree of protection from surface contaminants.
2-63
-------
Bacteriologically unsafe well water can result from improper well con-
struction, improper pump installation, or groundwater contamination. Of
the three, groundwater contamination seems to be the most minor cause.
Well samples from the study area were tested for certain constituents (pri-
marily conductivity, chlorides, ammonia, and nitrates), that would aid in
identifying whether septic tank effluent is adversely affecting well water
quality Some wells in the study area are dug or driven, penetrating less
than 30 feet. These shallow we]Is would have a high potential for contami-
nation. While the well sampling conducted in conjunction with the sanitary
survey showed these wells to have poorer quality water than deeper wells,
drinking water quality standards were not exceeded, except for one fecal
coliform sample from a 30 feet deep well in Lake Como Beach.

Other well water sampling programs conducted by GLWEA, K-V Associates,
Inc., and Aqua-Tech Inc. also identified certain constituents that were
elevated above background levels, but which did not exceed safe drinking
water standards.

2.2.3.4. Surface Water Quality Problems

Surface water quality problems directly attributable to onsite systems
must be serious enough to warrant taking action. Problems with public
health implications from high fecal coliform counts, are serious enough to
warrant attention. However, nutrient inputs, primarily nitrogen and phos-
phorus must be analyzed in terms of their contribution to water quality
degradation and whether water quality would be significantly altered by an
improvement action. A variety of means for evaluating the contribution of
septic tank effluent to water quality problems are available and have been
applied within the RSSAs

Septic leachate detector surveys (Section 2.2.2.3.) were conducted to
locate and quantify nutrient inputs from septic tank-soil absorption sys-
tems. When septic leachate plumes were located, groundwater samples were
collected. The results indicate that most plumes of septic leachate origin
2-64
-------
had low levels of phosphorus and nitrate as compared to typical levels in
unattenuated septic tank effluent. Coliform counts were rarely elevated;
elevated counts were obtained only where surface flows from streams entered
lakes.

Water quality concerns in surface water focus primarily on bacterio-
logical contamination rather than nutrient enrichment Bacteriological
contribution to surface waters from onsite systems in the study area was
determined to be minimal, according to septic leachate detector sampling
and other analyses.

Lush growth of macrophytes, algae, and zooplankton typically serve as
indicators of nutrient enrichment. The septic leachate detector surveyors
noted few places where evidence of nutrient enrichment was occurring. Map-
ping of aquatic biota often provides a general indication of the level of
nutrient availability, although numerous sources may contribute to produc-
tivity. Specific connections between productive areas and septic tank ef-
luents typically must be identified in order to determine the need for a
project. None of the aquatic sampling programs conducted for this project
made those specific connections.

2.2.3.5. Indirect Evidence

Indirect evidence that correlates with known failures can be used as
an initial screening device for locating areas where failures are probable.
Site limitations that imply failures are

• Seasonal or permanent high water table
• Lack of isolation distances for water wells (depending on
well depth and presence or absence of hydraulically limiting
layers)
• Documented groundwater flow from a soil absorption system to
a water well
• Slowly permeable soils with percolation rates greater than
60 minutes per inch
?-65
-------
• Permeable bedrock within 3 feet of a soil absorption system
• Rapidly permeable soil with percolation rates less than 0.1
minutes per inch
• Holding tanks, which indicate that site limitations poten-
tially prevent installation of soil absorption systems
• Onsite treatment systems that do not conform to accepted
practices or current sanitary codes including, but not
limited to, cesspools, the "55 gallon drum" septic tank, and
other inadequately sized components
• Onsite systems in an area where local data indicate exces-
sive failure rates or excessive maintenance costs.

These indirect evidences can be used to assess the probability that
failures will occur in the near future, based on known failures of similar
sized systems located in areas with similar water use patterns. In the
RSSAs, inadequately sized systems have been the primary reason for addi-
tions to and replacements of existing systems. Most onsite systems recent-
ly upgraded in the study area were upgraded when a building permit for a
structure alteration or addition was obtained, but some (especially in the
early 1970s), were upgraded because they had failed. The primary environ-
mental condition responsible for failures in the study area was a high
water table. Only a few parcels within the RSSAs were determined to be un-
acceptable for soil absorption systems because the percolation rate is
severely limiting. Also, rapidly permeable soils within the RSSAs were
rarely encountered. Thus, it was concluded that most unsewered parcels
within the RSSAs are suitable for onsite soil adsorption systems, as long
as the water table depth is evaluated and designed for (e.g., by using
mound systems) when necessary.

2.2.4. Identification of the Extent of Problems

Several currently unsewered subdivisions within the RSSAs were identi-
fied by Donohue & Assoc., Inc. as having combinations of problems and par-
cel size limitations such that off-site treatment (e.g., centralized col-
lection and treatment) is necessary. These subdivisions were reevaluated
where additional information was available, in order to clarify whether
off-site treatment is necessary and whether off-site treatment is less
2-66
-------
costly than onsite treatment using an appropriate mix of technologies. To
evaluate the existing sewage treatment systems and associated site condi-
tions, each subarea was evaluated separately, as discussed in the following
paragraphs.

2.2.4.1. Fontana RSSA (Southwest Shore Area)

The aerial photographic survey identified no failing or marginally
failing onsite systems within the area. In the Oak Shores Subdivision, the
sanitary questionnaire responses indicated that 2 out of the 10 respondents
reported conditions that qualify as obvious problems. In the Lake Geneva
Club Subdivision, two residents have identified frequent pumping and back-
ups as typical experiences. One holding tank was installed because the
parcel had insufficient size for a soil absorption system after the resi-
dence and a craft shop were altered. Sanitary surveys, questionnaires, and
permit records were available for 14 of the 31 residences. The Shore Haven
and Camp Sybil subdivisions have four parcels that lie in both subdivi-
sions; thus, they are discussed together. Information was available on 32
out of 77 onsite treatment systems from questionnaires, sanitary surveys,
and permit records. There were three systems for which failures were indi-
cated. Three owners reported that they have cesspools, all of which were
2-67
-------
described as satisfactory. One holding tank was installed because Insuf-
ficient lot area was available after a new house was constructed, and one
other holding tank, was reported. The Academy Estates Subdivision was sub-
divided and platted in 1975, consequently residences and associated onsite
systems are of recent origin. One holding tank was installed. Information
was available from questionnanes for two systems. The Maple Hills Subdi-
vision contains 30 residences, with information from questionnaires avail-
able for five systems. One respondent indicated problems with backups.
Unplatted lands in the vicinity of these subdivisions are large parcels
with minimal problems. The questionnaires contained information from 11
residences and none noted serious problems. The marina, however, was noted
as having problems with backups. Also, the Northwestern Military and Naval
Academy replaced the seepage bed for their main building in 1974. During
the 1982 septic leachate survey, a plume and a surface breakout were iden-
tified as coming from the system that serves auxiliary housing units on
Shadow Lane.

The northeast quarter of Section 11 between Williams Bay and Fontana
consists of Mogg's, Uihlein's and Robert's subdivisions, plus a few unplat-
ted parcels. Approximately 18 residences and one business are located on
these parcels. All are on large parcels, the smallest is about 20,000
square feet. The soils are deep and well drained, and the depth to the
water table typically is greater than five feet.

Information from the questionnaires indicated that five septic tank
and soil absorption systems and one cesspool were located within the area.
The respondents indicated no problems of a serious nature.

2.2.4.2. Williams Bay RSSA (Noi th Shore Area)

The unsewered area within the Williams Bay RSSA consists primarily of
the Cisco Beach and Rowena Park subdivisions. Also included are the Syl-
van Trail and Ara Glen subdivisions and contiguous parcels The parcels
within the Cisco Beach Subdivision are the smallest (81 of the 149 are less
than 10,000 square feet), while the other subdivisions have none under
15,000 square feet. Soils are generally well drained, except for a portion
2-68
-------
of Cisco Beach and Sylvan Trail Estates that has a seasonally high water
table of from one to three feet. The permeability of the soil is generally
high, except in a few small areas.

One holding tank and one cesspool are reportedly located in Cisco
Beach. One resident in an area with a somewhat high water table reported
frequent pumping as a problem. Another resident reported that his system
had backups and wet ground, and that the county sanitarian refused permis-
sion to extend the seepage bed because local soils had inadequate percola-
tion rates. Consequently, the resident pumped the septic tank frequently
during wet weather. Upgraded soil absorption systems have been installed
for 10 systems since 1970.

Other subdivisions in the Williams Bay area had no systems that could
be identified as obvious problems. Few systems required replacement (most-
ly for house additions) and soils and parcel size are not apparent
problems.

2.2,4 3. Lake Geneva RSSA

The major unsewered areas within the Lake Geneva RSSA are the south-
east shore area (from the Lake Geneva Country Club golf course to the Big
Foot Beach State Park), Hillmoor Heights, and the Forest Rest and Geneva
Bay Estates subdivisions. The highest density of residences is found in
the Lake Geneva Beach and Robinson subdivisions along the southeast shore.

Subdivisions along the southeast shore, Trinke, Lake Geneva Beach,
Robinson, and Robinson Hillside, are of primary concern. Within the Trinke
Subdivision, a large area has soils with a high water table. Of 33 houses
in the area, three utilize holding tanks and one has a mound system. From
the questionnaires and sanitary surveys, four residents indicated that they
have problems with their systems (one pumps the septic tank as a holding
tank). The shallow water table extends into the Lake Geneva Beach Sub-
division near the lakeshore, and along Hillside Drive. A small area with-
in the Robinson Hillside Subdivision also has a high water table that would
preclude installation of soil absorption systems In addition, some areas
2-69
-------
in the Tnnke and Robinson Hill&ide subdivisions have soils with a somewhat
high water table such that mounds would be required. Generally, soils in
this area are moderately coarse textured, especially in the lower portion
of the soil profile Most residences are on deep, well drained soils.
Two intermittent streams, Tnnke and Hillside creeks, enter the lake in
this area. The GLWEA sampling and subsequent WAPORA sampling identified
elevated fecal coliform concentiations in Hillside Creek, but the source of
the fecal material could not be positively identified.

The highest concentration of residences is in the Lake Geneva Beach
(69 units) and Robinson (73 units) subdivisions, with smaller numbers in
the Trinke (33 units) and Robinson Hillside (23 units) subdivisions. In
the Trinke, Lake Geneva Beach, and Robinson subdivisions about 25% of the
residents are permanent, while in Robinson Hillside nearly all of the resi-
dences are occupied year-round. Robinson Hillside is a relatively new sub-
division with seven building permits issued since 1970, and has the great-
est proportion of buildable parcels. Three residences in Robinson Sub-
division are on parcels of less than 5,000 square feet; 55 residences in
Lake Geneva Beach and Robinson are on parcels of 5,000 to 7,500 square feet
and 18 residences in Lake Geneva Beach, Robinson, and Robinson Hillside are
on lots of 7,500 to 10,000 square feet The remaining 122 residences (62%)
are on lots larger than 10,000 square feet.

The aerial photographic survey identified one confirmed and three
marginally failing onsite systems in Lake Geneva Beach. Of the six ques-
tionnaire respondents in Robinson Hillside, one indicated conditions that
qualify as an obvious problem. In Robinson, five residents indicated
obvious problems, either by way of the questionnaire or sanitary survey,
four of these were reportedly cesspools and one reported frequent pumping.
In Lake Geneva Beach, five residents reported conditions that qualified as
obvious problems, mostly excessive maintenance and cesspools. In addi-
tion, two holding tanks are known to exist in Lake Geneva Beach. In
Trinke, three residents reported excessive maintenance of their system, and
one indicated wet and soggy ground over the seepage field. Holding tanks
are utilized for three new residences. All except one of these problem
systems are on soils with an elevated water table such that the depth re-
quirement for conventional seepage beds cannot be attained.
2-70
-------
Areas of Sections 11, 12, and 14 between the subdivisions, Bigfoot
Beach State Park, and along County Road BB are of lesser concern. There is
some question whether the Lake Geneva East Facilities Plan entails provid-
ing service to these structures, since only a force main is shown through
the area. Approximately 26 permanent residences and 37 seasonal residences
are located within this area. An additional five commercial structures,
including at least one restaurant and the Queen of Peace monastery are
within the area. Soils in this area primarily are deep and well drained,
and are moderately coarse textured Some areas along County Road BB have a
seasonally high water table of 1 to 3 feet depth. Of the 10 questionnaire
responses, two respondents indicated problems with backups (one of these
indicated that their system was no longer a problem or inconvenience). The
structure with continuing problems is a restaurant on County Road BB.
Nearly all of the parcels are larger than 1/2 acre (21,780 sf) and have few
limitations to utilization of onsite systems

Another area of concern is Hillmoor Heights (the Lake Geneva Golf
Hills Subdivision and Addition). It is assumed that the 83 residences are
occupied year-round Parcel sizes were determined to be as follows: six
less than 5,000 square feet, 23 between 5,000 and 7,500 square feet, and
eight between 7,500 and 10,000 square feet. A narrow band of soils in the
Addition have a high water table, although only about three houses are lo-
cated in this area. The aerial photographic survey identified one con-
firmed and two marginally failing systems. Questionnaire respondents in-
dicated that two systems (of a total of 11 responses) were obvious prob-
lems. One of these was located in high water table soils, and the other
system potentially utilized a holding tank (not verified).

West of Lake Geneva along the north shore of the lake are two subdi-
visions adjacent to the city limits, Geneva Bay Estates and Forest Rest.
There are 30 residences in or adjacent to the subdivisions, and 20 of these
are occupied year-round Soils in the Geneva Bay Estates Subdivision have
a seasonally high water table because the subdivision is located on the
bottom and sides of a drainageway. The Forest Rest Subdivision is located
on deep, well drained soils The aerial photographic survey identified no
falling systems in these subdivisions. In the Forest Rest Subdivision and
2-71
-------
in the contiguous parcels, all five sanitary questionnaire respondents
indicated their systems were satisfactory, although one system uses a hold-
ing tank All of the parcels in these subdivisions are larger than 15,000
square feet.

2.2.4.4. Lake Como RSSA

The Lake Como RSSA encompas&es all of the Lake Como Beach Subdivision
and some adjacent parcels along County Road H. There are approximately 950
residences in the RSSA, of which approximately one-half are seasonal.
Permanent residences tend to predominate at greater distances from the
lake, primarily because the parcels are larger and the residences were
constructed more recently.

Approximately eight drainageways are located within the subdivision,
and the soils along these drainageways have a high water table. At least
two of these drainageways contain continuously flowing springs and have
been utilized for drinking water supply by area residents, primarily be-
cause the water from local wells has high iron and sulfur content. Soils
along the lakefront also have a high water table A small percentage of
residences are located on parcels with a high water table Percolation
rates measured for installation of onsite systems ranged from five to 60
minutes per inch, though most rates were near 30 minutes per inch. An
occasional property was encountered that had percolation rates too slow for
conventional soil absorption systems (60 minutes per inch).

The number of current failing systems was identified by evaluating
data from the aerial photographic survey, the questionnaire results, the
sanitary survey results, and the County sanitarian's records. According to
these data, approximately 21 systems currently are failing. Failures pri-
marily are surface seepage of effluent, although excessive maintenance to
prevent surface failures and backups also are common. A few residents (ap-
proximately 8 out of 400) had no idea what kind of system was present (a
number of these had no running water). Most failing systems were near the
western end of the subdivision within two blocks of the lake. Proximity to
drainageways and limited depth to the water table appeared to be the pri-
2-72
-------
mary factors in these failures. Inadequate systems also was a common fac-
tor in the failures. An analysis of past failures that have been corrected
revealed that a high water table was the most important factor, followed by
inadequate system design. Approximately one-half of the past failures were
rectified by installation of holding tanks. The remainder extended the
seepage bed or dry well, or had mounds constructed. For many of the par-
cels on which holding tanks were installed, an area suitable for the exten-
sion of the soil absorption system or construction of a mound was not
available.

A total of 32 residences are constructed on parcels less than 5,000
square feet, 45 are on parcels of 5,000 to 7,500 square feet, and 84 are on
parcels of 7,500 to 10,000 square feet. A number of residences on two-lot
parcels (4,000 square feet) have had upgraded soil absorption systems con-
structed on them with approval from the County sanitarian's office. These
are allowed where soils are coarse-textured and the water table is low.
Holding tanks have been installed on parcels that have restrictive soils or
a high water table Three of the 400 systems for which information is
available are reported to be cesspools Holding tanks are reported for 26
residences and three businesses Only 11 of the 139 upgrades constructed
since 1970 have been holding tanks. A few of the conventional upgrades
installed in the early part of the decade have subsequently failed because
they were not constructed in accordance with requirements of the
Wis. Adra. Code.

2.2 5. Septage and Holding Tank Waste Disposal Practices

Septic tanks and holding tanks are pumped by contract septage haulers
who provide their service on a by-call basis. Several commercial septage
haulers operate in the area The haulers are licensed and inspected by
the WDNR Bureau of Solid Waste Management under the provisions of Chapter
NR 113 of the Wis Adra. Code

Approximately 43 holding tanks currently serve residences within the
RSSAs (approximately 22 permits were granted since 1970). In addition,
approximately three businesses use holding tanks. The volume of holding
2-73
-------
tank waste currently pumped within the study area is approximately 2,000
gallons per residence per month, or approximately 600,000 gallons from
residences and approximately 500,000 gallons from businesses per year.
Owners of holding tanks installed subsequent to November 1980 must submit
quarterly pumping reports to the County sanitarian detailing the date and
the volume pumped. Records from five owners within the RSSAs have been
submitted to the County sanitarian's office, one of which is a tavern in
Lake Como Beach Subdivision. The records are not sufficiently extensive to
establish a clear pattern of water usage The volume utilized above (2,000
gallons per month) was based on existing records and estimated residence
occupancy.

Septage (septic tank solids) volumes are difficult to determine be-
cause each residence and each type of onsite system produces septage at
considerably different rates. The rule of thumb for a permanent residence
is 65 to 70 gallons per capita per year (USEPA 1977b). Septage production
from seasonal residences is assumed to be 15 gallons per capita per year.
Approximately 71,000 gallons per year of septage currently is discharged
from residences in the RSSAs The volume of septage pumped from businesses
is negligible in comparison.

Haulers dispose of holding tank wastes and septage on land. The haul-
ers each have state inspected and approved sites where they may apply
wastes to the land. The WDNR Bureau of Solid Waste Management has statu-
tory authority over these licensed disposal sites. The Bureau inspects
sites for initial licensing, and has responsibility for inspecting subse-
quent operations. Septage and holding tank wastes are surface-applied to
the land throughout the year. Bureau regulations specify that no surface
spreading of these liquid wastes may occur within 1,000 feet of a residence
(500 feet if the homeowner grants permission); wastes must be spread on
lands with at least 36 inches of soil; sites must satisfy requirements for
separation distance from drainageways and wells; and wastes must be applied
at a rate of less than 30 gallons per 100 square feet (13,000 gallons per
acre) per day. This means that, currently, approximately 0.25 acres of
land are required for septage disposal within the RSSAs.
2-74
-------
2.3. Identification of Wastewater Management Options

2.3.1. Design Factors

Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of this EIS provided a description of existing
centralized collection and treatment systems, and existing onsite treatment
systems currently operating in the RSSAs. To plan for proper wastewater
management in the future, one must first determine the future conditions.
One must also determine what kind of economic evaluation criteria will be
used for evaluating various alternatives, in order to compare all alterna-
tives on an equal basis. These conditions (population, wastewater flows,
effluent limitations, and economic criteria) remain the same and are ap-
plicable to all alternatives, regardless of what size or type of alterna-
tive collection and treatment system is evaluated.

2.3.1.1. Planning Period

Current USEPA guidelines specify that a planning period of 20 years be
used in facilities planning (USEPA 1982a). Although some structures like
sewer pipelines can last 40 or 50 years, most major sewage treatment pro-
cess equipment has a design life of 15-20 years. A 20-year design period
is reasonable since it is long enough to satisfy a community's needs for a
reasonable period, yet allows for additional facility expansion or upgrade
at a time when most equipment will be wearing out. Although it may be
difficult to complete construction by 1985 (depending on what kind of
facilities are evaluated and proposed), the Wisconsin Department of Nat-
ural Resources (WDNR) has approved the period 1985-2005 as the facilities
planning period for this project Population projections estimated for
this period are presented in Section 3.2.2.

2.3.1.2. Flow and Wasteload Reduction

A design year peak population (Section 3.2.2.) typically is utilized
to determine sewage flow that would be generated by residents and by com-
mercial and industrial facilities However, before a design flow can be
determined, other flows and/or wasteloads must be evaluated to document

2-75
-------
that proposed treatment facilities would not be treating extraneous flows
or pollutants that are not cost-effective to treat in a collection and
treatment facility. Elimination or reduction of extraneous wastewater
flows and wasteloads can substantially reduce the size of new or expanded
treatment facilities. Methods of flow and waste reduction considered for
use in the study area include reduction of infiltration and inflow to
existing sewers, reduction of commercial/industrial wasteloads, water
conservation measures, waste segregation, and a detergent phosphorus ban.

Infiltration/Inflow Reduction

Extraneous flow from infiltration/inflow (I/I) into sewer systems can
be a significant part of the wastewater flow to a WWTP. Rehabilitation of
existing sewer lines to eliminate I/I (when cost-effective) can often sub-
stantially reduce the required capacity of a new or upgraded WWTP.

As described in Section 2 L., an I/I analysis often is conducted when
water other than wastewater is suspected to be entering a sewer system.
I/I analyses were prepared for Lake Geneva (Donohue & Assoc., Inc. 1978b),
Waiworth (Donohue & Assoc., Inc. 1976), Fontana (Donohue & Assoc., Inc.
1978d), and Williams Bay (Donohue & Assoc , Inc. 1978c) Estimated I/I
flows for these communities are presented in Table 2-19. No I/I flow was
found in the Walworth system. Excessive I/I was found that the Fontana
wastewater collection system, the only system where rehabilitation of the
collection system might be cost-effective, according to USEPA guidelines.
Table 2-19. Estimated I/I flows within centralized sewage collection sys-
tems as determined by I/I and SSES analyses for the RSSAs
(Donohue & Assoc., Inc. 1976, 1978b, 1978c, 1978d, 1980).
Average Maximum
RSSA Annual I/I (mgd) (Peak) I/I (mgd)
Lake Geneva 0.120 1.650
Williams Bay 0.217 1.200
Fontana 0.432 1.843
Walworth 0.0 0.0
2-76
-------
A Sewer System Evaluation Survey (SSES) was prepared for Fontana (Don-
ohue & Assoc., Inc. I980a). An SSES is a detailed survey of limited por-
tions of a collection system which were identified by the I/I analysis to
have large amounts of extraneous flow. The SSES typically involves inspec-
ting and evaluating each foot of pipe in the portion of the sewer system
being studied, using smoke injectors, dye studies, and internal television
inspection. The SSES determines where each fault is, what kind of fault it
is, how much extraneous flow the fault allows to enter the system, and how
much it will cost to repair each fault. The Fontana SSES report concluded
that it was cost-effective to remove 1.145 mgd (61%) of the peak and 0.262
(61%) of the annual average I/I. Rehabilitation costs were estimated to be
$242,000 (Dec. 1979). After rehabilitation, the I/I flow was expected to
be 0.699 mgd peak, and 0.170 mgd, annual average. Rehabilitation efforts
on the Fontana collection system completed in 1982 helped reduce flows to
the WWTP initially, but currently flows are as high (greater than 1 mgd) as
they were prior to conduct of the rehabilitation program (By telephone,
Ralph Wiedenhoft, Fontana WWTP Superintendent, 28 October 1983). Thus, I/I
values shown in Table 2-19 for Fontana represent I/I values determined by
the SSES prior to rehabilitation.

A review of the I/I analysis for Williams Bay indicated that the
cost-effectiveness analysis was prepared using a large estimated population
(5,500), as compared to the estimated peak population of 3,670 (sewered).
Current USSPA guidelines (USEPA i982a) suggest the I/I may be excessive if
average daily flows are greater than 120 gpcd, or if peak flows received at
the WWTP are more than 2.5 times the average design capacity. Approxi-
mately 3,670 persons generating average summer flows of 0.425 mgd equals
116 gpcd. The peak flows of 1.408 ragd received at the Williams Bay WWTP,
divided by the average daily design flow of 0.786 mgd, equals a peak factor
of 1.79. Since the value 116 gpcd is less than the 120 gpcd guideline and
the 1.79 peak factor is less than the guideline of 2.5, I/I at the Williams
Bay WWTP is not excessive, as was determined by the original I/I analysis.
However, WDNR has reviewed these documents, questioned population and flow
figures, and indicated their belief that I/I is excessive. Therefore,
population and flow figures used in the Williams Bay I/I analysis seem
questionable and a reevaluation of I/I in the Williams Bay collection
system appears to be warranted

2-77
-------
Since the I/I analyses conducted for this project concluded that I/I
is not excessive in Waiworth or Lake Geneva, further actions regarding
removal of I/I are not required in these areas. Fontana conducted a SSES
and a sewer rehabilitation program, thus further I/I removal efforts also
are not required. However, wastewater collection systems in these munici-
palities will continue to deteriorate throughout the 20-year planning
period. Therefore, routine efforts to maintain the structural integrity of
the collection system and to keep I/I at a minimum should continue through-
out the planning period.

Commercial/Industrial Wasteload Reduction

In addition to flow, the "strength" of sewage also greatly affects the
size and cost of sewage treatment processes. Average residential sewage
flows typically have organic loadings, or sewage strengths, in the range of
150 mg/1 to 300 mg/1 of 5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). Some indus-
tries typically discharge sewage with much more strength than residential
sewage, with BODs often in the 1,000 mg/1 to 3,000 mg/1 range To be aware
of and potentially control such industrial discharges, cities often pass
sewer use ordinances and industrial pretreatment ordinances. These ordin-
ances typically require all facilities that discharge wastewater from com-
mercial and industrial processes to have a permit. The ordinances also
allow the city to monitor industrial discharges and, if excessive or abnor-
mally high or low strength wastewaters are being discharged, the city can
assess additional financial charges or require pretreatment of the waste-
water. In addition, the ordinances often prohibit discharge of certain
stormwaters, high temperature wastes, greases and waxes, flammable mater-
ials, solids, unshredded garbage, oils, acids, heavy metals, toxic com-
pounds, radioactive materials, or other materials in excess of limits es-
tablished in the ordinance that could damage collection lines or could be
detrimental to sewage treatment processes.
2-78
-------
USEPA construction grants regulations regarding transport and treat-
ment of compatible industrial wastewaters state.

"(a) Grant assistance shall be provided for treatment works
capacity to transport or treat compatible industrial wastewater,
only if the treatment works (including each collector, intercep-
tor, pumping station, plant component, and other system compo-
nent) would be eligible for grant assistance in the absence of
the industrial capacity (USEPA I982b)."

In other words, USEPA generally would fund collection and treatment facil-
ities needed for treating residential sewage, but would not fund additional
treatment units or larger units required to treat high strength industrial
flows that could be eliminated by industrial pretreatment.

Although the Geneva Lake area primarily is recreational in nature,
several commercial and industrial facilities generate and discharge waste-
water to existing collection facilities. The City of Lake Geneva and the
Villages of Williams Bay, Fontana, and Waiworth all have sewer use ordin-
ances that allow control of what is discharged to the sewers. Industries
currently do not discharge significant amounts of wastewatec to the sys-
tems, thus implementation of additional industrial pretreatment monitoring
and control programs probably is not necessary. It also does not appear
that future treatment facilities will be designed for or subjected to un-
reasonable amounts of industrial wastewater flows. The cities in the study
area, however, should be encouraged to continue the monitoring and enforce-
ment of current sewer use ordinances in order to keep unreasonable indus-
trial flows and loadings from being discharged to the municipal WWTPs.

Water Conservation Measures

Concerns over the high costs of water supply and wastewater disposal
and an increasing recognition of the benefits that may accrue through water
conservation are serving to stimulate the development and application of
water conservation practices. The diverse array of water conservation
practices may, in general, be divided into three major categories: (1)
elimination of non-functional water use, (2) water-saving devices, fix-
tures, and appliances, and (3) wastewater recycle/reuse systems.
2-79
-------
Elimination of Non-functtonal Water Use
Non-functional water use typically is the tesult of the following
• Wasteful water-use habits such as using a toilet flush to
dispose of a cigarette butt, allowing water to run while
brushing teeth or shaving, or operating a clotheswasher or
dishwasher with only a partial load,

• Excessive water supply pressure - for most dwellings a water
supply pressure of 40 pounds per square inch (psi) is ade-
quate, and a pressure in excess of this can result in un-
necessary water use and wastewater generation, especially
with wasteful water-u£>e habits,

• Inadequate plumbing and appliance maintenance - unseen or
apparently insignificant leaks from household fixtures and
appliances can waste large volumes of water and generate
similar quantities of wastewater. Most notable in this
regard are leaking toilets and dripping faucets. For ex-
ample, even a pinhole leak which may appear as a dripping
faucet can waste up to 170 gallons of water per day at a
pressure of 40 psi. More severe leaks can waste more water
and generate even more massive quantities of wastewater.

Water-SavingDevices, Fixtures, and Appliances
The quantity of water traditionally used by household fixtures or
appliances often is considerably higher than actually needed. Typically,
toilet flushing, bathing, and clotheswashing collectively account for more
than 70% of the interior water use and wastewater flow volume of a house-
hold (Siegrist, Woltanski, and Waldorf 1978). Thus, efforts to accomplish
major reductions in wastewater flow volume, as well as its pollutant load,

have been directed toward these uses. Some selected water conservation/
wasteload reduction devices and systems developed for these household

activities include:

• Toilet devices and sys.terns
Toilet tank inserts - such as water filled and weighted
plastic bottles, flexible panels, or dams
Dual-flush toilet devices
Shallow-trap toilets
Very low volume llush toilets
Non-water carriage toilets
2-80
-------
• Bathing devices and systems
Shower flow control devices
Reduced-flow shower fixtures
* Clotheswashing devices and systems
Wasteflow reduction may be accomplished through use of
a front loading machine which requires less water.
Also, a clotheswasher with a suds-saver feature pro-
vides for storage of washwater from the wash cycle, for
subsequent use as wash water for the next wash cycle.
The rinse cycle which uses fresh, clean water remains
unchanged.

Wastewater Recycle/Reuse Systerns

These systems provide for the collection and processing of all house-
hold wastewater or of fractions produced by certain activities, for subse-
quent reuse. A system which has received a majority of development efforts
includes recycling bathing and laundry wastewater for flushing water-carri-
age toilets or for outside irrigation.

Other Water Conservation Measures
Another possible method for reduction of sewage flow is the adjustment
of the price of water to control consumption. This method normally is used
to reduce water demand in areas with water shortages. It probably would
not be effective in reducing sanitary sewer flows because much of its im-
pact is usually on luxury water usage, such as lawn sprinkling or car wash-
ing. None of these luxury uses imposes a load on a sanitary sewerage sys-
tem or on onsite systems. Therefore, use of price controls in this study
area probably would not be effective in significantly reducing wastewater
flows. In addition, because many residents in the study area obtain water
from individual wells, the only cost savings associated with reduced water
use would be as a result of lower power costs for pumping and less chemical
use for conditioning or treatment of the water by the individual homeowner.

Other measures include educational campaigns on water conservation in
everyday living, and installation of pressure-reduction valves in areas
where water pressure is excessive (.greater than 60 pounds per square inch).
Educational campaigns usually take the form of spot television and radio
2-81
-------
commercials, and distribution of leaflets with water and sewer bills.
Water saving devices must continue to be used and maintained for flow re-
duction to be effective.

Results of Water Conservation Measures

Wastewater flows on the order of 15 to 30 gpcd can be achieved by
installation of combinations of the following devices and systems.
• Replace standard toilets with dual cycle or low volume
toilets

• Reduce shower water use by installing thermostatic mixing
valves and flow control shower heads. Use of showers rather
than baths should be encouraged whenever possible

• Replace older clotheswashing machines with those equipped
with water-level controls or with front-loading machines

• Eliminate water-carried toilet wastes by use of in-house
composting toilets

• Use recycled bath and laundry wastewaters for lawn irriga-
tion during the summer

• Recycle bath and laundry wastewaters for toilet flushing.
Filtration and disinfection of bath and laundry wastes for
this purpose has been shown to be feasible and aesthetically
acceptable in pilot studies (Cohen and Wallman 1974;
McLaughlin 1968). This is an alternative to in-house com-
posting toilets that could achieve the same level of waste-
water flow reduction

• Use of commercially available air-assisted toilets and
shower heads, using a common air compressor of small horse-
power could reduce sewage volume from these two largest
household sources up to 90%.

Impacts of WaterConservation Measures on Wastewater Treatment^jystems

Methods that reduce wastewater flow or pollutant loads may provide the

following benefits to a wastewater program:

• Reduce the sizes and capital costs of new sewage collection
and treatment facilities
2-82
-------
• Delay the time when future expansion or replacement facili-
ties will be needed
• Reduce operation costs of pumping and treatment
• Mitigate sludge and effluent disposal impacts
• Extend the life of existing soils absorption system(s) that
currently are functioning satisfactorily
• May reduce wastewater loads sufficiently to remedy failing
soil absorption systems in which effluent is surfacing or
causing backups
• Reduce the size of the soil disposal field required for new
onsite systems.

The I/I reports conducted for this project analyzed the residential
contribution to the total wastewater flow for each RSSA based on water sup-
ply records. These records indicated that, for the permanent population,
the per capita residential flow contribution (average daily base flow -
ADBF) is approximately 48 gpcd for Lake Geneva, 40 gpcd for Walworth, 85
gpcd for Fontana, and 55 gpcd for Williams Bay. USEPA guidelines indicate
that water conservation and flow reduction measures must be considered
where the ADBF is greater than 70 gpcd, unless the current population is
less than 10,000 (USEPA 1981b). Based on this criteria, implementation of
water conservation measures will not be required for Lake Geneva, Walworth
or Williams Bay, because the ADBF is less than 70 gpcd for these communi-
ties. The ADBF for Fontana is greater than 70 gpcd, but its population
(permanent plus seasonal) is less than 10,000. Based on these analyses,
implementation of water conservation measures will not be mandatory in the
sewered areas of the RSSAs.

The water conservation measures described herein should be considered
for implementation on an individual, voluntary basis, particularly for the
unsewered areas. Application of these measures will enhance the operation
of existing, upgraded, and future onsite systems. Where appropriate, some
of these measures are included in the preliminary design and costing of
onsite portions of the wastewater management alternatives evaluated later
in this document. Additional potential benefits of flow reduction to the
community, as well as the usefulness of methods, analysis procedures, and
examples are provided in a document entitled Flow Reduction (USEPA 1981a).

2-83
-------
Waste Segregation

Various other methods for wastewater flow and wasteload reduction in-
volve separation of toilet wastes from other liquid waste. Several toilet
systems can be used to provide for segregation and separate handling of
human excreta (often referred to as blackwater), and, in some cases, gar-
bage wastes. Removal of human excreta from wastewater serves to eliminate
significant quantities of pollutants, particularly suspended solids, nitro-
gen, and pathogenic organisms (USEPA 1980).

Wastewater generated by fixtures other than toilets often is referred
to as graywater. Characterization studies have demonstrated that typical
graywater contains appreciable quantities of organic matter, suspended
solids, phosphorus, and grease. Organic materials in graywater appear to
degrade at a rate not significantly different from those in combined resi-
dential wastewater. Microbiological studies have demonstrated that signif-
icant concentrations of pathogenic organisms, such as total and fecal coli-
forms typically are found in graywater (USEPA 1980).

Although residential graywater does contain pollutants and must be
properly managed, graywater may be more simple to manage than total resi-
dential wastewater due to a reduced flow volume. A number of potential
strategies for management of segregated human excreta (blackwater) and
graywater are presented in Figure 2-10. Since implementation of wasteload
reduction measures is not mandatory for the RSSAs (as explained previ-
ously), use of waste segregation measures will not be considered further in
the development of alternatives for the RSSAs. However, the municipalities
and individual onsite system owners in the RSSAs are encouraged to consider
and utilize waste segregation facilities on an Individual, voluntary basis.

Wisconsin Ban on Phosphorus

Phosphorus frequently is the nutrient that controls algal growth in
surface waters, and therefore has an important influence on lake or stream
eutrophication. Enrichment of lake waters with nutrients encourages the
growth of algae and other microscopic plant life. Decay of plants in-
2-84
-------
SEGREGATED HUMAN WASTE MANAGEMENT
Human Wastes
Very Low Volume
Flush Toilet
I
Closed Loop
Recycle Toilet
Incinerator
Toilet
GRAYWATER MANAGEMENT
Soil Absorption
Alternatives
Surface Water
Discharge
Figure 2-10. Example strategies for management of segregated
human wastes and residential graywater.
-------
creases biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and lowers the amount of dissolved
oxygen (DO) in water. Substantial drops in DO levels subsequently can re-
sult in loss of aquatic life (e.g., fish kills). The addition of nutrients
into lake waters also encourages higher forms of plant life, thereby has-
tening the aging process by which a lake evolves into a bog or marsh. Nor-
mally, eutrophication is a natural process that proceeds slowly over time.
However, human activity can greatly accelerate the eutrophication process.
Phosphorus, nitrogen, and other nutrients contributed to surface waters by
human wastes, laundry detergents, and agricultural runoff often result in
over-fertilization, over-productivity of plant matter, and "choking" of a
body of water within a few years.

To reduce phosphorus concentrations in wastewater, the Wisconsin
legislature previously banned the use and sale of domestic laundry deter-
gents containing more than 0.5% phosphorus by weight. The original ban,
which expired in July 1982, was reintroduced and passed in the 1983 Legis-
lative Session and is now scheduled to become effective in January 1984.
The original ban appears to have had a positive impact on surface water
quality in the Great Lakes Basin, primarily by reducing phosphorus levels
and algae in tributary and near-shore waters (Hartig and Horvath 1982).
The preliminary assessment of the effect of the original ban concluded
that:

• Based on a survey of 58 major wastewater treatment plants in
Michigan, influent and effluent total phosphorus concentra-
tions decreased by 23% and 25%, respectively
• The phosphorus detergent ban resulted in a 20% reduction in
total phosphorus loadings to the Great Lakes.

A phosphorus ban does not increase or decrease the cost of onsite
wastewater treatment systems. It is possible (although not confirmed or
quantified by previous research), that a reduction in phosphorus discharged
to soil absorption systems results in a considerable reduction in the
amount of phosphorus transported to the groundwater from soil disposal sys-
tems. Since a phosphorus ban has been imposed by the State, further con-
sideration of phosphorus bans by the municipalities in the RSSAs is not
required.
2-86
-------
2.3.1 3. Flow and Wasteload Characteristics

Once population projections, and flow and wasteload control strategies
had been developed and/or evaluated, a summary of existing conditions
(existing WWTP flows, per capita flows, and WWTP capacities) was made
(Table 2-20) so that this information could be analyzed and reasonable flow
and wasteload characteristics selected for application to projected
conditions.

Design criteria were selected based upon information presented in
various facilities planning documents and standard engineering design
references (Table 2-21). The design factors for flows and loadings basi-
cally are the same as used by the facilities planner, with the exception of
the per capita flows for Walworth/Fontana and Williams Bay Whereas the
facilities planners used values of 63 gpcd and 55 gpcd for the theoretical
average daily base flow (not including I/I) for permanent residents for
Fontana and Williams Bay, respectively, the EIS design criteria used
approximately 64.8 and 54.7 gpcd, respectively (Table 2-21 and Appendix E).

The design criteria were applied to projected conditions to arrive at
design flows and loadings for the year 2005. The design flows developed
for use in the EIS evaluations are listed in Table 2-22. Design informa-
tion used by the facilities planners are listed in Table 2-23 for
comparison.

Existing WWTP capacities were compared to projected wastewater flows
from currently sewered portions of the RSSAs to determine if the existing
WWTPs were adequate to serve future needs (Table 2-24) The Lake Geneva
and Walworth WWTPs will not have the capacity to properly treat projected
average daily design flows in year 2005, and the Lake Geneva, Williams Bay,
and Walworth WWTPs will not have the hydraulic capacity to handle projected
peak design flows in year 2005. Therefore, new or expanded WWTPs will be
required to provide proper wastewater management within currently sewered
portions of the RSSAs. To provide centralized collection and treatment
services to currently unsewered areas, larger treatment facilities would be
2-87
-------
Table 2-20. Estimated existing flow and WWTP capacities for Lake Geneva,
Walworth, Fontana, and Williams Bay (Adapted from Donohue and
Assoc., Inc. 1976, 1978b, I978c, I978d, and 1980a).

Item
Theoretical
a
Wastewater Flow
Permanent residents
Population
Flow rate
Flow
Other
Seasonal residents
Commercial
Industrial
Public0
Subtotal
Total summer average
I/I total
Average annual
Maximum
Total
Summer seasonal
average
Maximum

Units

gpcd
mgd

mgd
mgd
mgd
mgd
mgd
mgd

mgd
mgd

mgd
mgd
Lake Geneva
I/I

5469
48
0.261

0.140
0.362
0.023
0 060
0.585
0.846

0.120
1.650

0.966
2.495
Walworth
I/t

b
1662
40
0.067

-
0.029
0.010
0.011
0.050
0.117

0.0
0.0

0.117
0.117
Fontana Williams Bay
I/I SSES

1885
85
0.155

0.233
0.227
_
-
0.460
0.615 0.615

0.291 0.432
1.444 1.843

0.906 1.047
2.059 2.458
I/I

1700
55
0.093

0.021
0.071
—
0.012
0.104
0.208

0.217
1.200

0.425
1.408
Existing WWTP capacity
Maximum
Average annual
design
Maximum hydraulic
mgd

mgd
mgd
2.495

1 . 1,
3.0d
0.117

0.150
0.300
2.059 2.458

0.9 0.9
1.8 1.8
1.408

0.786

Estimated from water pumping records from 1976 (except for Walworth
1974-1975).

"Average" annual population.
•*
"Summer flow. Winter flow less for some communities.

Raw water pumping capacity.
2-88
-------
Table 2-21.
Summary of wastewater flow and organic loading design factors used
In this EIS for the Geneva Lake-Lake Como RSSAs.
Residential
Item Unit
a
Wastewater Flows
Lake Geneva gpcd
Fontana gpcd
Walworth gpcd
Williams Bay gpcd

Organic Loading

Lake Geneva and Walworth
BOD
-SS
TKN
NH -N
p J
Ib/c/d
Ib/c/d
Ib/c/d
Ib/c/d
Ib/c/d
Perm.
50
81.3
44.0
54.7
0.17
0.20
0.034
0.020
0.0074
Seasonal
40
40
40
40
Transient
0.14
0.16
0.026
0.016
0.0059
35
35
0.12
0.14
0.022
0.014
0.0052
Conmi •
45
18.0
26.4
31.1
Indust. Public
10

7.2
5
3.9
4.1
7.2
Fontana
BOD
SS

Williams Bay
TKN
P
Ib/c/d
Ib/c/d
Ib/c/d
Ib/c/d
0.24
0.23
0.064
0.024
0.19
0.18
0.051
0.019
0.17
0.16
0.045
0.017
Average Daily Base Flow based on analyses of water records presented in facilities
planning documents. Peak factors (from analyses of water records) Lake Geneva - 1.95,
Fontana - 2.25, Walworth - 3.5, and Williams Bay - 1.3 (Donohue 1982b, 1983).

Organic loadings for seasonal and transient residents are estimated to be 80% and 70%
respectively of permanent resident loadings. Wastewater flow for seasonal and transi-
ent residents are estimated to be 80% and 70% of the Lake Geneva permanent residential
flow. From Donohue & Assoc., Inc. (I982b, 1983), USEPA (1977), and Section NR
110.09(2) of the Wisconsin Administrative Code which suggests that seasonal "visitors
are equivalent to 50 to 80% of full-time residents.

"The design factors are the same for the Facilities Plan recommended alternative except
for the unit Wastewater flows for Fontana (permanent residential - 99, commercial - 76,
public - 11 gpcd) and Williams Bay (no design factors presented in the Facilities
Plan.)
Abbey Resort 146.5 gpcd.
A
"Based on factors/guidelines contained in Section NR 110.15(6) of the Wis. Adm.
USEPA (1977), and Donohue & Assoc., Inc. (I982b, 1983a). See Appendix E.
Cd.,
2-89
-------
Table 2-22 Summary of wastewater flows and organic loadings (uslngaEIS design factors) projected
for the sewered portions of the RSSAs for the year 2005
ITEM

Lake Geneva WWTP
Winter
Summer

Wai worth/Font ana WWTP
Winter
Walworth
Fontana
Total

Summer
Walworth
Fontana
Total

Williams Bay WWTP
Winter
Summer

Average Dally Base
1 U8
1 277
0 206
0 316
0 522
0 212
0 490
0 702
0 279
0 413
Flow
I/I
0 460
0 460
0 066
0.325
0 391
0 066
0 325
0 391
0 279
0 279
(mgd)
Total Average
1 608
1 737
0 272
0 641
0 913
0 278
0 815
1 093
0 558
0 692

Maximum Day
4.385
4.636
0 853
1.483
2 336
0.874
1 876
2.750
2 163
2 337
Organic Loadings (Ib/day)
BOD
1,776
2,221
430
662
449
1,321
1,770
510
977
SS
2,090
2,605
506
633
527
1,255
1,752
600
1139
TKN
355
447
86
93
89
181
270
192
364
^ _^
209
261
51
55
53
111
164
60
119
P
77
96
19
20
20
41
61
72
136
See Appendix E fur design population and design flow computations.
-------
Table 2-23. Summary of wastewater flows and organic loadings projected by the facilities planners
for the RSSAs for the year 2005a
Flov (and) Loading (Ib/day)
It era Average Dally Base I/I
Lake Geneva UVTPb
Annual average
Sinner
Walworth/Fontana Wtfc'A
Average
Walvorth
Fontana
Total
Summer
Valworth
Fontana
Total
Williams Baj WUTP
Average
Suoner

1 378
1 669

0 172
0 428
0 600

NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
^Includes projected sever service area
bDonohue (1982b)
cBy telephone, P Wlnthelaer,
dDonohue (1983a)

Donohue

0 460
0 460

0.066
0 334
0 400

NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
for entire RSSA

& Assoc , Inc to

Total Average Maximum Day

1 838
2 129

0 238
0 762
1 000

0 238
0 920
1 158

0 726
0 874

WAPORA, inc

5 200
5 200

0 475*
1 362e
1 837

0.475*
1 631e
1 836°

2 829*
2 829*

, 11 May 1983

BOD SS TKN NH-^N

2,300 2,700 500 300
3,200 3,750 640 380

t
357 NV NA NA
628 NA NA NA
985 NA NA NA

357 N\ NA NA
858 NA NA NA
1,714

1,145 NA NA NA
1,573 NA NA NA

110
140

NA
NA
NA

NA
NA

ePe«k hour flows

NA - Rot available in facilities planning documents
-------
required. The following section concerning WWTP effluent limitations de-
scribes additional reasons why new or expanded treatment facilities poten-
tially will be needed.
Lake Geneva
Williams Bay
Fontana
Wai worth
1.10
0.79
0.90
0.15
3.00
1.41
2.46
0.30
Table 2-24. Comparison of existing WWTP capacities (year 1980) and
projected flows (year 2005) for sewered portions of the
RSSAs.
Existing WWTP Capacity (mgd) Projected Flows (mgd)
Wettest Maximum
RSSA Average Peak 30-Day Day
1.74 4.64
0.69 2.34
0.82 1.88
0.28 0.87

a
Projected flow were determined using EIS design factors (Table 2-23
and Appendix E).
2.3.1.4. Effluent Requirements

The WWTPs currently operating in the RSSAs must achieve a certain
level or degree of treatment as specified by the WDNR. The WDNR estab-
lishes effluent limitations and issues permits for WWTPs which discharge
effluent to surface streams (the State of Wisconsin does not allow dis-
charge of WWTP effluent directly to lakes). Effluent limitations currently
applicable to the Lake Geneva WWTP discharge to the the White River, as de-
scribed in Table 2-25, are considered limitations for secondary treatment,
although the effluent currently required (BOD/TSS of 45/45) is not as
stringent as the USEPA secondary treatment requirements (BOD/TSS of 30/30).
However, beginning in 1985, WWTPs that discharge to the White River must
achieve advanced treatment. Advanced treatment also will be required for
any WWTPs on the west side of Geneva Lake that discharge to Plscasaw Creek.
Effluent limits proposed by WDNR for discharge of municipal wastewater from
a new or expanded Lake Geneva WWTP to the White River and from a new Wal-
2-92
-------
worth/Fontana WWTP to Piscasaw Creek are presented in Table 2-25 and
Table 2-26, respectively.
Table 2-25. WDNR proposed effluent limits for discharge to the White River
(effective 1 January 1986).
Effluent Parameter

Winter (November through April)
BOD (weekly)
Suspended solids (weekly)
PH
Residual chlorine (daily maximum)
Fecal coliform (#/100 ml)
Ammonia nitrogen (NH -N) (weekly)
Dissolved oxygen (dally)
Phosphorus - total, (as P)
(monthly)

Summer (May through October)
BOD (weekly)
Suspended solids (weekly)
PH
Residual chlorine (daily maximum)
Fecal coliform (#/100 ml)
Ammonia nitrogen (NH -N) (weekly)
Dissolved oxygen (daily)
Phosphorus - total (as P)
(monthly)
Concentration
Minimum
6.0
6.0 mg/1
6.0
6.0 mg/1
Average
10 mg/1
10 rag/1
NLa
4.0 mg/1

1.0 mg/1
10 mg/1
10 mg/1
#/100 ml
2.0 mg/1
1.0 mg/1
Maximum
9.0
0.15 mg/1
7.5
0.15 mg/1
No limits set. Reporting only.
Table 2-26. WDNR proposed permit effluent limits for discharge to
Piscasaw Creek (Donohue & Assoc., Inc. I983a).
Effluent Parameters
c (weekly)
Suspended solids (weekly)
Ammonia nitrogen (NH -N) (weekly)
pH range
Dissolved oxygen (minimum daily)
Summer (mg/1)

10 10
10 10
2 5
6-7.6 6-7.2
6 6
Winter (mg/1)
14
14
9
6-8.1
6
10
10
9
6-7.6
6
2-93
-------
Effluent limits also have been established by WDNR for discharge of
municipal wastewater to land application sites. WWTP effluent must not
exceed BOD limits of 50 mg/1 in 80% of samples taken.

Existing WWTPs in the RSSA& currently do not discharge effluents of
advanced treatment quality Therefore, new or expanded facilities will be
required in order to produce effluents of the quality required by WDNR.

2.3.1.5. Economic Factors

One item which is always of interest to the public and for which in-
formation must be given is the cost associated with various treatment
facilities. Comparisons of costs for various treatment alternatives are
usually made. However, comparisons always must be made on a common basis.
Therefore, standard economic cost criteria to be applied to all alterna-
tives were developed for use in this EIS. The economic cost criteria used
in this document are presented in Table 2-27. All costs are indexed to
third quarter 1982 (September 1982). Costs derived from the facilities
planning documents have been updated to this point using appropriate cost
indices.

Costs of project alternatives are compared on a total present worth
cost basis with an amortization or planning period of 20 years (1985 to
2005) and an interest rate of 7.625%. Service lives and salvage values for
equipment, structures, and sewerage facilities also are presented in Table
2-27. Salvage values were estimated using straight-line depreciation for
it ens that could be used at the end of the 20-year planning period. Appre-
ciation of land values was assumed to be zero over the project period
(Donohue & Assoc., Inc. 1982b, 1983a). Operation and maintenance (O&M)
costs include labor, materials, and utilities (power). Costs associated
with the treatment works, pumping stations, solids handling and disposal
processes, conveyance facilities, and onsite systems are based on current
prevailing rates.
2-94
-------
Table 2-27. Economic cost criteria (September 1982).

Item Units Value

Amortization period years 20
Interest (discount) rate % 7-5/8 (7.625)
Cost indices - 3rd Quarter 1982
USEPA indices
WWTP constructon (Green Bay WI) - 194
WWTP O&M - 4.58
Sewer construction (Milwaukee WI) - 187
Sewer O&M - 1.606
Pump station O&M - 239.0
ENR constructon cost index (September 1982) - 3,902

Service Life
WWTPs and Pumping Stations:
Structures years 40
Mechanical equipment
heavy duty - large pumps, clarifiers,
HVAC, etc. years 20
Medium duty - small pumps, raech.
bars screens, etc. years 15
Light duty - blowers, etc. years 10
Process piping years 30
Interceptors and sewers years 40
Land years Permanent
Onsite systems and cluster drainfields:
Structures years 50
Equipment years 20

Salvage Value
Q
WWTPs and Pumping Stations.
Structures % 50
Mechanical equipment
Heavy duty % 0 .
Medium duty % 67
Light duty % 0
Process piping % 33
Interceptors and sewersc % 50
Land0 % 100
Onsite systems and cluster drainfields:
Structures % 60
Equipment % 0
replacement required within planning period,
Salvage value of 15th year replacement.
From Donohue & Assoc., Inc. (1982b, I983a).
2-95
-------
Total capital cost Includes the initial construction cost plus a
service factor. The service factor includes costs for engineering, contin-
gencies, legal and administrative, and financing fees. Service factors
used in both the facilities planning documents and in this EIS for each
project alternative and alternative components are summarized in Table
2-28.

2.3.2. Identification of Alternative Components

Once standard planning and design information applicable to all alter-
natives was developed (as described in Section 2.3.1.), various components
of complete treatment systems were identified and evaluated. Once adequate
system components are identified, they then can be put together in various
combinations to form alternatives for wastewater management in the facili-
ties planning area. Components identified as being potentially applicable
to the Geneva Lake facilities planning area included wastewater collection,
wastewater treatment, effluent discharge, sludge treatment and disposal,
and onsite treatment and disposal.

2.3.2.1. Wastewater Collection Systems

Wastewater management systems that utilize centralized WWTPs collect
wastewater from individual homes and transport it to the WWTPs through
interceptor systems. The Facilities Plan for the East End evaluated the
following alternative collection systems•

• Conventional gravity sewers - designed to collect raw sewage
and transport it by gravity flow to a WWTP, interceptor
sewer, or pumping station
• Small diameter gravity sewers - designed to collect septic
tank effluent (which contains less solids than raw sewage)
and to transport it by gravity flow to a WWTP, interceptor
sewer, or pumping station
• Low pressure sewers - consisting of a pump at each connec-
tion pumping wastewater through a small diameter pressure
main to a WWTP, interceptor sewer, or pumping station. Low
pressure sewers can be designed to pump raw sewage (grinder
pump system) or septic tank effluent.
2-96
-------
Table 2-28. Service factors, excluding interest during construction, applied

to construction cost to compute capital costs.
Percent Of Initial Construction Cost
NJ
o
Facillties planning
La£e Geneva WWTP
Walworth/Fontana WWTP
Walworth/Fontana Inteceptors
Williams Bay WWTP
Interceptors (Others)
Collection sewers

EIS planning

Conventional sewers, interceptors and WWTPs
Non-conventional sewers, cluster drainfields,
and onsite systems
Contingencies
15.0
10.0
10.0
15.0
0.0
10.0
13 0
Legal and
Engineering
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
0.0
10.0
15.0
Administrative Financing Total
30.0
25.0
25.0
30.0
0.0
3.0 4.0 27. 0C
3.0 4.0 35.0
Included in legal and engineering costs.
t>
From Donohue & Assoc., Inc. (I982b, 1983a).

EIS assumed figure of midpoint between Walworth/Fontana and Lake Geneva totals under FPRA
-------
Another collection system type, vacuum sewers, are available but were
not selected for evaluation because they are still a new technology, are
subject to frequent malfunctions, and typically are not cost-effective when
compared with similar-sized pressure sewer systems.

Interceptor sewers collect and transport wastewatet from a number of
discrete areas to a WWTP through trunk gravity sewers, pumping stations,
and force mains. Principal conditions and factors necessitating the use of
pumping stations in the sewage collection or interceptor system are as
follows:

• The elevation of the area to be served is too low to be
drained by gravity flows to existing or proposed trunk
sewers
• Service is required Jor areas that are outside the natural
drainage area, but within the sewage or drainage district
• Omission of pumping, although possible, would require exces-
sive construction costs because of deep cuts required for
installation of a trunk sewer to drain the area.

The pumping station pumps wastewater under pressure through a pipeline
referred to as a force main. For the sake of economy, force main profiles
generally conform to existing ground elevations.

2.3.2.2. Wastewater Treatment Technologies

A variety of wastewater ti eatment technologies were considered in the
various facilities planning documents. In general, wastewater treatment
options include conventional physical, biological, and chemical processes
and land treatment. Conventional options utilize preliminary treatment,
primary sedimentation, secondary treatment, filtration, phosphorus removal,
pH adjustment, and effluent aeration. These unit processes are followed by
disinfection prior to effluent disposal. Land treatment processes include
slow-rate infiltration or irrigation, overland flow, and rapid
infiltration.

The degree of treatment required and the treatment processes best
suited for utilization often ate dependent on the effluent disposal option
2-98
-------
selected. Wastewater treatment processes evaluated in the facilities plan-
ning documents are outlined in the following sections. Where disposal of
treated wastewater is by effluent discharged to surface waters, effluent
quality limitations determined by WDNR establish the required level of
treatment.

2.3.2.3. Effluent Disposal Methods

Effluent disposal options available for use in the Geneva Lake area
are: discharge to surface waters, disposal on land, and reuse.

jforface Water Discharge

WDNR will permit effluent discharge to the White River and to Piscasaw
Creek from WWTPs meeting the State's designated effluent limitations (refer
to Section 2.3.1.4.). Treatment processes considered in the facilities
planning documents for WWTPs discharging to surface waters included
physical/chemical treatment and a number of physical/biological treatment
systems.

Physical/chemical treatment (typically involving preliminary treat-
ment, flocculation - sedimentation with lime, recarbonation, filtration,
carbon absorption, and disinfection) is best suited to larger facilities
than those under consideration because of the high capital and operating
costs involved. Therefore, physical/chemical treatment was considered not
feasible for the Geneva Lake area and was not evaluated further.

Physical/biological treatment processes considered included prelimi-
nary treatment, primary sedimentation, secondary treatment with nitrifica-
tion, secondary sedimentation, phosphorus removal, filtration, pH adjust-
ment, disinfection and effluent aeration. Processes evaluated to provide
secondary treatment and nitrification were* extended aeration activated
sludge, trickling filter followed by activated sludge, rotating biological
contactors (RBC), and a two-stage activated sludge process
2-99
-------
Land Application

Land application or land treatment of wastewater utilizes natural
physical, chemical, and biological processes in vegetation, soils, and
underlying formations to renovate and dispose of domestic wastewater. Land
application methods have been practiced in the United States for more than
100 years, and presently are being used by hundreds of communities through-
out the nation (Pound and Crites 1973).

In addition to wastewater treatment, benefits of land application may
include nutrient recycling, timely water applications (e.g , crop irriga-
tion), groundwater recharge, and soil improvement. These benefits accrue
to a greater extent in arid and semi-arid areas, but also are applicable to
humid areas. Secondary benefits include preservation of open space and
summer augmentation of strearnflow for land application systems which in-
clude winter storage.

Components of a land application system typically include a central-
ized collection and conveyance system, some level of primary treatment,
secondary treatment to achieve BOD concentrations of 50 mg/1 or less, pos-
sible storage, and the land application site and equipment. In addition,
collection of treated wastewater may be included in the system design,
along with discharge or resue of the treated wastewater. Additional com-
ponents may be necessary to meet state requirements or to make the system
operate properly.

Land application of municipal wastewater encompases a wide variety of
possible treatment processes or methods of application. The three prin-
cipal processes utilized in land treatment of wastewater are:

• Overland flow
• Slow-rate or crop irrigation
• Rapid infiltration.

In the overland flow process, wastewater is allowed to flow over a
sloping surface and is collected at the bottom. The wastewater is treated
2-100
-------
as it flows across the laad, and the collected effluent typically is dis-
charged to a stream. Overland flow generally results in an effluent with
an average phosphorus concentration of 4 mg/1. Phosphorus removals usually
range from 40% to 60% on a concentration basis (USEPA 1981b).

In slow-rate irrigation systems, partially treated wastewater is ap-
plied to the land, usually with spray irrigation equipment, to enhance the
growth of vegetation (e.g., crops and grasses). The crops perform a major
role in removing nutrients through vegetative metabolic growth. Wastewater
is applied at rates that may range from 0.8 to 3.1 inches per week. The
upper 2 to 4 feet of soil is where major removals of organic matter, nutri-
ents, and pathogens occur. Some treatment processes which occur are fil-
tration, chemical precipitation, and adsorption by soil particles Applied
wastewater is either lost to the atmosphere by evapotranspiration, taken up
by the growing vegetation, or percolates to the water table. The water
table must be naturally low, or must be maintained at a reasonable depth by
wells or tile drainage. Surface soil must be kept aerobic (by alternating
irrigation and drying cycles) for optimum removal conditions to occur.

Rapid infiltration involves high rates (4 to 120 inches per week) of
wastewater application to highly permeable soils, such as sands and loamy
sands. Although vegetative cover may be present, it is not an integral
part of the treatment system. Wastewater treatment occurs within the first
few feet of soil by filtration, adsorption, precipitation, and other geo-
chemlcal reactions. In most cases, SS, BOD, and fecal coliforms are re-
moved almost completely. Phosphorus removal can range from 70% to 99%, de-
pending on the physical and chemical properties of the soils. Nitrogen re-
moval, however, generally is less efficient. Ammonia-nitrogen (NH -N)
present in wastewater is almost completely converted to nitrates (NO.) by a
rapid infiltration system. Nitrates percolating into groundwater used for
drinking, however, can cause health problems Both ammonia-nitrogen and
nitrates can be removed from wastewater by conventional nitrification/de-
nitrification treatment processes prior to application to a rapid infiltra-
tion system. Denitrification, removal of nitrates by microbial reduction
can be partially accomplished (approximately 50% removal) by adjusting ap-
plication cycles, supplying an additional carbon source, using vegetated
2-101
-------
basins, collecting and recycling the rapid infiltration effluent with
underdrains or collection wells, and/or reducing application rates (USEPA
1981c). If denitrification is not achieved prior to rapid infiltration or
by other special measures, then effluent reaching groundwater potentially
will contain nitrates ranging frota 10 to 15 rag/1.

In rapid infiltration systems, little or no consumptive use of waste-
water by plants and only minor evaporation occurs. Because most of the
wastewater infiltrates into the soil, groundwater quality may be affected.
To minimize the potential for groundwater contamination, the minimum depth
to the water table should be four feet. Due to the rapid rates of appli-
cation, the permeability of the underlying aquifer must be high to insure
that the water table will not mound significantly and limit the long-term
usefulness of the site.

Treatment Prior to Land Application

Limitations on discharges to land disposal systems are given in WDNR's
WPDES permit policy documents The applicable discharge limitations are
summarized as follows:

• There shall be no discharge to a land disposal system except
after treatment in a sewage treatment system that includes a
secondary treatment process
* The BOD concentration in the discharge to the land disposal
system shall not exceed 50 mg/1 in more than 20% of the
monitoring samples that are required during a calendar
quarter
• The discharge shall be alternately distributed to individual
sections of the disposal system in a manner to allow suffi-
cient resting periods to maintain infiltrative capacity of
the soil.

Wastewater treatment processes evaluated in the Facilities Plan for
use prior to land application systems consisted of preliminary treatment
(bar screen, grit removal, and, for some alternatives, primary sedimenta-
tion), a number of secondary treatment alternatives, and disinfection.
Secondary treatment processes evaluated were oxidation ditch, trickling
filter, aerated lagoon, and RBCs.
2-102
-------
Land Suitability

The suitability of a soil for land application is largely dependent on
the depth of the soil, its permeability, the depth to the water table, and
the type of land application system to be utilized. Overland flow treat-
ment is generally suited to soils of limited infiltration rate (i.e., very
low permeability), but requires moderately large amounts of land. Few
soils in the vicinity have the requisite limited permeability for overland
flow. Slow-rate irrigation utilizes soils that have moderate infiltration
rates and sufficient horizontal permeability so that an efficient under-
draxnage system can be installed, if necessary Extensive areas, particu-
larly southwest of Walworth, appear well suited for slow-rate irrigation.
However, due to low application rates, large amounts of land are required
for slow-rate irrigation systems. Rapid infiltration utilizes moderately
coarse to coarse textured soils that are unsaturated to a considerable
depth. A number of locations in the planning area potentially are well
suited for rapid infiltration.

A site screening analysis was conducted by Donohue & Assoc., Inc.
(1981a, 1983a). Criteria used for evaluating slow-rate irrigation sites
for both the east and west planning areas included'

* Provision of secondary treatment and disinfection
• Application rate of approximately two inches per week
* Minimum storage capacity of six months
• Seventy-five percent of the total acreage which is usable
• Provision of a buffer zone of 500 feet for storage lagoon
and 1,000 feet for irrigation area.

Land within a four-mile radius of potential treatment plant locations
was evaluated for suitability of irrigation of cropland. For the east
planning area, no large tracts of suitable soils were identified, and thus
slow-rate irrigation was eliminated from further consideration (Donohue &
Assoc., Inc. 1981a).
2-103
-------
For the west planning area, considerable acreage has soils suitable
for slow-rate irrigation. However, negative public comment during prepara-
tion of the Volume 1 Facilities Plan and the previous areawide Regional
Water Quality Management Plan (prepared by the SEWRPC) ruled out any fur-
ther consideration of effluent irrigation for the west planning area. Pri-
mary objections to use of slow-rate irrigation were potential groundwater
pollution and municipal control of nearly 900 acres of agricultural land
(Donohue & Assoc., Inc. L983a).

Rapid infiltration was considered for both the east and the west plan-
ning areas. Planning criteria used for preliminary site identification is
as follows.

• Provision of secondary treatment
• Application rate of approximately 26 inches per week

• Minimum storage capacity of two days
• Provision of a buffer zone of 500 feet for the storage
lagoon and seepage cells

• Provision of multiple cells for adequate dosing and resting
cycles.

Land within a four-mile radius of existing treatment plant locations (Lake
Geneva on the east and Wai worth on the west) was evaluated for suitability
for rapid infiltration. Preference was given to sites near these existing
treatment plants.

For the east planning area, a site at the southeast corner of U.S.
Routes 12 and 50 was initially selected for further investigation. No
other potential sites were identified in Volume 2. Treatment Alterna-
tives, East Planning Area (Donohue & Assoc., Inc. I981a). For the west
planning area, the E 1/2, NW 1/4 of Section 28 (Rainbow Site) was selected
for further analysts. Other sites were not identified in Volume 2: Treat-
ment Alternatives, West Planning Area (Donohue & Assoc., Inc. 1983a). The
existing Fontana seepage basin site was screened out because the WDNR be-
lieved the Fontana system was not working well, and thus had stated the
Fontana seepage system would only be allowed to continue on an interim
basis.

2-104
-------
Extensive testing of soils and groundwater conditions at these sites
was conducted to determine if these sites were suitable for rapid infiltra-
tion. Groundwater contamination concerns were important issues for both
sites and had to be adequately addressed by hydrogeological reports.

The east planning area site had soil borings and observation wells
installed (By letter, Patrick D. Reuteraan, Giles Engineering Assoc., Inc.,
to Tom Gapinske, Donohue & Assoc., Inc., 11 May 1982). Field testing of
soil permeability and laboratory testing of grain-size distribution and
permeability was then conducted. The report on soil testing (Giles Engi-
neering Assoc., Inc. 1983) also included estimates of soil permeability
obtained from grain-size distribution curves and logs from soil borings.
The general hydrogeologic conditions, surrounding land use, geologic
cross-sections, observation well water levels, and a preliminary site
layout are contained in a seepage cell investigation report (By letter,
Paul Wintheiser, Donohue & Assoc., Inc., to Mark B. Williams, WDNR, 14 July
1982). The proposed land application system layout, preliminary design,
and environmental assessment are provided in Volume 2 - Process Specific
Addendum East Planning Area (Donohue & Assoc., Inc. I982b). The site bor-
ings Indicated that the depth to a limiting soil layer varies from approxi-
mately 10 feet on the south property line to 45 feet in the middle of the
site. The aquitard appears to slope from the west to the east. At one
point near the northwest corner of the property the aquitard depth is at 23
feet depth (11 feet after proposed construction). The easterly line of
soil borings encountered silty and clayey soil material at approximately
860 feet rasl (the proposed bottom elevation of the lagoons Is 885 feet).

-4
Permeability of soils at the site range from 2 0 x 10 cm/sec to 9.76
-3
x 10 cm/sec as determined by the falling-head field percolation test, the
estimated rate based on the amount passing the No. 200 sieve, and the
falling-head method on recompacted laboratory samples. Values appeared to
-*
cluster around 1.0 x 10 cm/sec.

Groundwater flow in the area appears to be toward the northeast
(Borman, 1976). Groundwater elevations appear to slope from the level of
Geneva Lake (864 feet) toward groundwater discharge locations, the White
2-105
-------
River and its tributaries. A drainage channel near the east boundary of
the east site appears to be the major groundwater discharge location.
Elevation of the drainageway is approximately 830 feet at the Route 50
culvert. Groundwater elevations measured in observation wells the piezo-
meters at the east site were at about 845 feet, and sloped to the
northeast.

Private wells to the north of Route 50 were identified as likely to be
affected by effluent application at the proposed east end rapid infiltra-
tion site. Three wells are located directly north of the site (one is lo-
cated at an abandoned service station and the other two are located further
to the northeast). Information on what elevation and geologic strata
groundwater is obtained at was not available. The drainageway to the east
will likely prevent groundwater movement farther east. Movement of infil-
trated effluent to the west would depend on the extent of groundwater
mounding under the site. The Golf Hills Subdivision is located about 3,000
feet west, and the groundwater elevation within the subdivision is at
approximately 847 feet. Thus, in order for groundwater to flow from the
rapid infiltration site to the subdivision, groundwater under the rapid
infiltration site would have to mound above an elevation of 847 feet msl.

Application of effluent at the east rapid infiltration site poten-
tially would cause mounding of the groundwater. The magnitude of the po-
tential mounding and the path of groundwater flow has not been estimated.
Most infiltrated effluent likely would flow to the northeast, the current
flow direction. As previously Indicated, soil borings indicate sllty and
clayey soil layers exist at an elevation of approximately 860 feet msl
along the eastern side of the site. The clayey soil material potentially
could retard flow sufficiently so that groundwater is forced to flow north,
east, and west. Concern has been expressed by local citizens that the site
is not suitable for land application and that use of the site may adversely
affect groundwater in the area. While some limited rise in nitrates may
occur locally, the project should not result in any restriction of ground-
water uses.
2-106
-------
The west planning area land application site had soil borings conduct-
ed on It in May 1983 (By letter, Michael G. Nielsen, Giles Engineering
Assoc., Inc., to Marie Robinson, Donohue & Assoc., Inc., 18 May 1983). In
July, test pits were excavated and inflltroraeter tests were conducted (By
letter, Douglas L. Weinkauf, Giles Engineering Assoc., Inc., to
Robert Zook, Donohue & Assoc., Inc., 18 July 1983) Grain-size distribu-
tion curves were constructed on soil samples from both field investiga-
tions. Estimates of permeability calculated from the grain-sise distribu-
tion curves and an initial evaluation of the site weie provided in an
initial subsurface report (By letter, Vlan L. Berg, Donohup & Assoc., Inc.,
to Mark B Williams, WDNR, 6 June 1983) These analyses were subscquontly
published in the Addendum No. 1 to Volume 2, West Planning Area - Waiworth/
Fontana (Donohue & Assoc , Inc., I983b). A final site investigations
report was not prepared because local opposition to land application re-
sulted in a more in-depth evaluation of an oxidation ditch alternative.

The soil borings and the test pits indicated that the surface, 8 feet
of soil material (approximately), is clayey silt to si.id silt. Below this
surface material is sand and gravel outwish with occasional cobbles. This
material was encountered at approximately the si.ne di^pth in three soil
borings and two test pits; thus, it appears to be consistent laterally over
the site. The deepest boriig was extended to 30 feet and, at that depth,
had not encountered any layers of restricted permeability.
The hydraulic conductivity of the surface soils material was deter-
-9
mined empirically and wns estimated to be approximately 5 x 10 cm per
second. The inflltrorneter tests indicated that the surface soils had an
infiltration rate of less than 1 inch p^r hour Below 8 feet the empirical
— 7 ~6
hydraulic conductivity ranged from 5 x 10 to 5 xll cm per second. The
infiltration rates below 8 feet ranged from 10 to 26 inches per hour.
Donohue & Assoc., Inc. (L983b) estimated that the soil material below 8
feet could be designed wth an application rate of 20 inches per week.
Groundwater was encountered in one boring at 26 5 feet below the
ground surface (972 *nsl) The water table In the area is relatively level
(Borman 1976) and may slope to the north or to the wej>t under the selected
2-107
-------
site. The groundwater flow direction is either toward Pottawatomie Creek
to the northeast or to Piscasaw Creek to the west. The complex geology of
the area makes it difficult to conclude what direction the groundwater
actually flows. Piscasaw Creek is at elevation 920 near the State line and
xs approximately 2.5 miles west of the selected site. The land surface
slopes 20 feet per mile and the groundwater table slopes 8 feet per mile
toward Piscasaw Creek.

The nearest private wells are \ mile west of the site and other pri-
vate wells are located at \ mile on the north, east, and south. No infor-
mation was reported on these wells.

Movement of infiltrated effluent from seepage cells on this site would
likely be to the north, to Pottawatomie Creek, and to the west, to Piscasaw
Creek. No analysis of potential mounding of groundwatec and its flow paths
has been provided. If the surface soils to a depth of 8 feet were to be
removed, the existing groundwater table would be 18-5 feet below the seep-
age cells. It is unlikely that the mounding would be sufficiently great so
as to result tn violations of the regulations with respect to the minimum
depth to groundwater (4 feet at an operating site).
Reuse
Wastewater management techniques included under the category of
treated effluent reuse may be identified as *

• Public water supply
• Groundwater recharge
• Industrial process uses or cooling tower makeup
• Energy production
• Recreational turf irrigation
• Pish and wildlife enhancement.
Reuse of treatment plant effluent as a public water supply or for
groundwater recharge could present potential public health concerns. No
2-108
-------
major industries in the area require cooling water. The availability of
good quality surface water and groundwater and abundant rainfall limit the
demand for the use of treated wastewater for recreational turf irrigation.
Direct reuse would require very costly advanced treatment (AT), and A suf-
ficient economic incentive is not available to justify the expense. Thus,
reuse of treated effluent currently is not a feasible management technique
for the study area.

2.3.2.4. Sludge Treatment and Disposal

All of the wastewater treatment processes considered will generate
sludge, although the amount of sludge generated will vary considerably de-
pending on the process. Wastewater sludge is largely organic, but signifi-
cant amounts of inert chemicals are present if phosphorus removal is per-
formed. A typical sludge management program would involve interrelated
processes for reducing the volume of the sludge (which is mostly water) and
final disposal.

Volume reduction involves both the water and organic content of
sludge. Organic material can be reduced through digestion, incineration,
or wet-oxidation processes. Moisture reduction is attainable through
concentration, conditioning, dewatering, and/or drying processes. The mode
of final disposal selected determines the processes that are required.

Sludge disposal methods considered in the facilities planning docu-
ments were land disposal of liquid or dewatered sludge. Current disposal
methods include landfilling of liquid sludge, landspreading of liquid
sludge on farms, distribution of dried sludge to residents for private use,
and use of dried sludge as, a fertilizer on public land.

Proposed sludge treatment processes considered in the facilities plan-
ning documents (Donohue & Assoc., Inc. 1978a, I980b, I981a, I981b) include
thickening, digestion, and dewatering. Gravity thickening will result in a
sludge with a solids concentration of about 3%. Aerobic digestion will
produce a stabilized sludge with a 4% solids concentration, and anaerobic
digestion will produce stabilized sludge with a 6% solids concentration.
2-109
-------
For disposal options involving land disposal of dried sludge, sludge
dewatering may be required. Sludge dewatering can be accomplished with
drying beds or mechanical equipment including belt filters, vacuum filters,
and filter presses. The facilities planning documents considered the use
of belt filters, which will produce sludge cake (dried sludge) with a
20-40% solids concentration.

For disposal options involving land disposal of liquid sludge, sludge
storage facilities are required. For the Lake Geneva WWTP, the Facilities
Plan for the East End considered an earthen lagoon with a 180 day storage
capacity (Donohue & Assoc., Inc. I981a).

The cost-effectiveness analysis of liquid and dried sludge disposal by
land application presented for the Lake Geneva WWTP in the Facilities Plan
(Donohue & Assoc., Inc. I981a) concluded that land application of liquid
sludge was most cost-effective. The facilities planner's recommended
sludge treatment processes for the Lake Geneva WWTP are gravity thickening,
anaerobic digestion, lagoon storage, and land application of liquid
sludge. Lake Geneva has applied for WDNR permits to dispose of liquid
sludge on six sites with a total suitable disposal area of 622 acres
(Donohue & Assoc., Inc. 1982b). Based on laboratory analysis of the sludge
and general soil conditions in the area, the average annual application
rate allowed under WDNR and USEPA guidelines is 2.4 tons per acre based on
nitrogen loadings, 110 tons per acre based on cadmium loadings, and 60 tons
per acre based on zinc loadings (Donohue & Assoc., Inc. 1982b). Using an
average annual application rate of 2.4 tons per acre, the east planning
area served by the Lake Geneva V7WTP would require approximately 288 acres
for annual sludge disposal if the entire Lake Geneva RSSA and the Lake Como
RSSA were sewered (Donohue & Assoc., Inc. 1982b). Thus, there appears to
be sufficient suitable land to dispose of sludge by land spreading for
sludge generated in the east end of the planning area.

Sludge disposal options considered for the west end WWTPs varied ac-
cording to the alternative treatment processes considered. For the aerated
lagoon treatment option, small amounts of decomposed sludge would accumu-
late in the lagoons and disposal would not be required during the 20-year
2-110
-------
design period. For treatment alternatives including RBC trickling filters,
and anaerobic digestion, sludge disposal would involve liquid sludge stor-
age and disposal. For the extended aeration and oxidation ditch treatment
alternatives, solids handling facilities would include liquid sludge stor-
age, belt presses for sludge dewatering, and truck hauling dried sludge to
the final disposal site.

The Facilities Plan initially recommended an aerated lagoon treatment
system for the west end to serve Waiworth/Fontana. Sludge disposal was not
a consideration since sludge would not be withdrawn from this plant during
the design period. However, the facilities planner has recently evaluated
utilization of a new oxidation ditch treatment system to serve Walworth/
Fontana. Sludge from this system would be collected in a storage facility,
pumped in liquid form into a haul truck, and transported to agricultural
areas for disposal by land spreading.

2.3.2.5. Onsite Treatment Systems

Onsite systems which are feasible for use in the study area are
largely those that are being utilized at the present time. Some modifi-
cations of existing designs are suggested to improve operation of the
onsite systems.

Septic tanks presently being installed in the area are considered ade-
quate both in terms of construction and capacity. The continued use of
750-gallon tanks for small residences and 1,000- and 1,500-gallon tanks for
larger residences are recommended. Septic tanks should have an exposed
manhole or inspection port to monitor the contents of the tank. If, during
pumpouts and inspections, certain septic tanks are found to be faulty or
seriously undersized, these tanks would then be repaired or replaced.

Seepage beds and seepage trenches (Figure 2-11) currently being in-
stalled in the County have a 20-year design life, although they would
likely function satisfactorily for a considerably longer period. The seep-
age beds commonly installed range in size from 630 square feet (sf) to
1,245 sf for a new single family residence. The size is dictated by the
2-111
-------
r
i
B
L

ft
m
%

— i
a
j
Plat.
So 1 i d wa 1 1 p 1 pe

- . .- -I -
p>- Perforated Plpo
•(

, T-V
J

m. ^

^> limits of excavation

BolIding
sewer
Plan
DftA INFIELD
To soil absorption system
/Sol Id wall pipe
Profile

PRECAST SEPTIC TANK
Solid wall pipe
^"•Perforated Pipe
-Limits of excavation
flan
DftAINBED
Natural backfill
Limits of excavation

Gravel envelop
Perspective

DRY WCIL
Figure 2-11. Septic tank/soil absorption system.
-------
Wisccmsxn Administrative Code based on the number of bedrooms and water
using appliances in the residence, and on soil permeability. No changes in
design procedures are anticipated as necessary to provide adequate sewage
treatment. At the present time no reduction in the area of the seepage bed
is allowed by the Wis. Adm. Cd. even though water conservation appliances
may be installed. Existing residences that have failing soil absorption
systems may receive a permit for an addition to an existing soil absorption
system if the system is then sized according to the Wis. Adm. Cd.

Mound soil absorption systems (Figure 2-12) are constructed according
to detailed design standards given in the Wis. Adm. Cd. to overcome limita-
tions of primarily shallow water table but also limited permeability.
Mound systems have pressure distribution systems pressurized by effluent
pumps. The number of mound systems allowed at new residences is limited to
3% of the total number of onsite systems permitted, but is not limited for
existing residences.

A variation of the conventional seepage bed and mound is the in-ground
pressure distribution system (ILHR 63.14). This system is applicable to
coarse-textured soils on small parcels because a reduction in bed area is
allowed compared to the conventional seepage bed. The in-ground system is
similar in design to a mound system which includes the septic tank, the
pump tank and pump, and the pressurized distribution piping which is
located in a gravel bed built in natural soil. In soils of 0 to 10 minutes
per inch percolation rate, a conventional seepage bed is sized based on 205
square feet per bedroom, while the bed of an in-ground pressure distribu-
tion system is based on 125 square feet per bedroom. This results in a
considerable savings in the disposal area required.

Dry well soil absorption systems currently in use for some structures
would have limited application for some parcels. A total of 17 dry wells
have been installed in selected subdivisions within the RSSAs over the past
12 years. Depth of unsaturated permeable material must be sufficiently
2-113
-------
Perforated PVC pipe /
TopsolI
Vent
BuiIdlng
Sewer
'High water alarm switch
Pump
• Settle solids
SEPTIC TANK
^level controls
PUMPING CHAMBER
f—...
Pipe from pump
-Seepage bed
li^-jr" *>
u f
' II * L
Plan
MOUND
-Perforated pipe
Figure 2-12. Septic tank/pumping chamber mound.
-------
great so as to provide separation from the water table. Dry wells may be
installed only where insufficient area is available for a seepage bed. Di-
ameters of dry wells range from 3 to 13 feet, and the sidewall length is
controlled by the required area.

Blackwatec holding tanks may be appropriate for existing residences
whose soil absorption systems fail because the absorption beds lack suffi-
cient area. Components of the system include a low-flow toilet (0.8 gal-
lons per flush), a holding tank for toilet wastes only, and the existing or
upgraded septic tank-soil absorption system for the remainder of the
wastes. When the toilet wastes are diverted from the septic tank-soil
absorption system, that system has an opportunity to function properly.
Significant reductions of organic loads (a 20 to 40% reduction in phos-
phorus loadings and an 80% reduction in nitrogen loadings) to the septic
tank-soil absorption system occur when toilet wastes are excluded. Black-
water holding tanks are recommended if a lot has insufficient area for any
other so LI absorption system, and would be utilized in place of holding
tanks. The Wise. Ad. Code has no regular provision for blackwater tanks,
thus approval must be obtained from the (ILHR 63.09[2] [b]). With a 1,000
gallon tank, pumping may be necessary following every fourth month of
occupancy.

Curtain drains area not strictly a wastewater treatment device, but
can improve the operation of an existing system. The Wis. Ad. Cd.
(IHLR 63.09) has a paragraph on monitoring groundwater levels where arti-
ficial drainage is existing, but does not address artificial drainage for
improving operation of exist Lag systems. In soils with limited vertical
permeability or where upslope drainage is a problem, curtain drains have
been very effective (Personal interview, Steve Martin, Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency, 16 September 1983). The Code specifies that there be
documentation on the drainage system design and on the maintenance respon-
sibility of existing drainage tile. Curtain drains are installed a short
distance away from and slightly below the bottom of the soil absorption
system.
2-115
-------
The cluster system designates a common soli absorption system and the
treatment and collection facilities for a group of residences. The common
soil absorption system is used because the individual lots are unsuitable
for onsite soil absorption systems. An area of soils unsuitable for a
common soil absorption system must be available in order to consider this
option. Where offsite treatment is required, cluster soil absorption
systems may be feasible.

The existing septic tanks, with some replacements, are assumed to be
adequate for pretreatment. Septic tank effluent could be conveyed by
small-diameter gravity sewers or pressure sewers to the soil absorption
system sites. A cost-effectiveness analysis could establish which collec-
tion system to use for a particular area. A dosing system is typically
required on large drainfields in order to achieve good distribution in the
field. Where the collection system uses pressure sewers, a separate accu-
mulator tank and lift station is required. The wet well and lift station
on the septic tank effluent gravity sewers can perform that function.

Cluster soil absorption systems are usually designed as three or more
seepage beds, trenches, or mounds. One would be rested for a one-year
period while the others would be dosed alternately. The soil absorption
systems must be designed based on the requirements of the Wis. Ad. Code.
The trench bottom or bed area requirements are sized in a manner comparable
to single family residences.

Although the present soils information and topography indicate that
cluster soil absorption systems may be feasible in a large number of areas,
further field investigations would be needed before final designs could
proceed. The depth of permeable material must be determined in order to
show that groundwater mounding into the soil absorption system would not
occur.

The operation and maintenance requirements of the system are minimal
Periodic inspections of the lift stations and the soil absorption systems
are essentially all that is necessary. The septic tanks and the lift
station wet wells would require occasional pumping of solids. Maintenance
2-116
-------
of the collectioQ piping is expected to be minimal (Otis 1979). Once a
year, the rested soil absorption system would be rotated back into use and
another one rested Bloackages of the collection systems should occur only
rarely because of the use of clear effuent. Lift stations are entirely
dependent on a reliable power supply. Thus, only community power outages
will affect operation of the system. Since wastewater generation is also
dependent on power for pumping well water, the potential for serious envi-
ronmental effects are somewhat mitigated.

Holding tanks do not strictly constitute onsite treatment because the
treatment of the wastes still must occur away from the site. Holding tanks
are utilized where soil absorption systems cannot be installed because of
site limitations. Since holding tanks for seasonal residences often are
pumped three or fewer times per year, they can be the most cost-effective
onsite system. Holding tanks must have capacity to store the design volume
of sewage produced at a residence in five days. For typical residences,
the required volume is about 2,000 gallons. Holding tanks are equipped
with pumping connections and high water alarms.

2.3.2.6. Septage and Holding Tank Waste Disposal

Use of a septic system requires periodic maintenance (every 1 to 5
years) that includes pumping out accumulated scum and sludge, called sep-
tage. Septage is a highly variable anaerobic slurry that contains large
quantities of grit and grease; a highly offensive odor; the ability to
foam, poor settling and dewatering characteristics; high solids and organic
content, and a minor accumulation of heavy metals. Typical concentration
values for constituents of septage are as follows (USEPA I980b):

Total solids 38,800 mg/1
BOD 5,000 mg/1
COD 42,900 mg/1
TKN 680 mg/1
NH 160 mg/1
Total P 250 mg/1

Holding tank wastes are relatively dilute as compared to septage, but
are about twice as concentrated as raw sewage. Extended detention times
2-117
-------
cause holding tank wastes to become anaerobic and odorous. Assuming that
holding tank wastes have double the concentration of raw sewage, typical
concentration values would be as follows-

Total solids 625 mg/1
BOD. 540 mg/1
COD 1,500 mg/1
TKN 160 mg/1
NO. 90 mg/1
Total P 35 mg/1

Septage and holding tank wastes disposal regulations have been estab-
lished mainly in states with large concentrations of septic tanks. Wiscon-
sin has established rules regarding disposal of liquid septage and holding
tank wastes particularly concerning waste disposal on land. General meth-
ods of septage and holding tank wastes disposal include.

• Land disposal
• Biological and physical treatment
• Chemical treatment
* Treatment in a wastewater treatment plant.

Land Disposal

Two basic types of land disposal utilized for septage and holding
tank wastes are:

• Methods which optimize nutrient recovery, such as applica-
tion of liquid wastes to cropland and pastures
• Methods of land application in which there is no concern for
recovery of nutrients in the liquid wastes, such as land-
filling.

Septage can be considered a fertilizer because of its nutrient value
when applied to soil. Nitrogen, phosphorus, and micronutrients are con-
tained in septage. The septage application rate usually is dependent upon
the amount of nitrogen available to the crop. The die-off of pathogens
(harmful bacteria and viruses) in septage which is surface spread is
quicker than that of pathogens in septage injected into the soil. Where
septage is incorporated into the top three inches of soil, generally 99% of
all pathogens will die off within one month (Brown and White 1977).
2-118
-------
Advantages of direct cropland application of septage and holding tank
wastes are: the recycling of nitrogen and phosphorus; the low technology,
maintenance, and cost of the system; and the rapid destruction of patho-
genic organisms. Disadvantages include possible odor and water quality
problems if the wastes are not spread properly, and the difficulty (and
possible inability) to apply wastes when the ground is very wet.

Spreading septage and holding tank wastes on the land surface should
be accomplished according to the requirements of the State of Wisconsin.
The amount applied should be dependent on the type of waste (septage or
holding tank) disposed because the concentrations of constituents in sep-
tage are about five times those of holding tank wastes. Nuisance condi-
tions attributed to surface spreading can be minimized by subsurface injec-
tion. The WDNR regulations concerning surface spreading of liquid wastes
on so ils include :

• Depth to bedrock or high groundwater must be at least 36
Inches
• Disposal is not permitted on land used during the current
growing season for pasturing livestock or for vegetables
intended for human consumption, or on land used for growing
forage crops during the eight weeks preceding harvest
• Disposal is not permitted on land with greater than 12%
slopes
• Disposal on land with 6 to 12% slopes is limited to areas
greater than 500 feet upgrade from a drainageway
• Disposal on land with 0 to 6% slopes is limited to areas
greater than 200 feet upgrade from a drainageway
• Disposal is limited to areas greater than 50 feet from any
property line
• Disposal is limited to areas greater than 200 feet from a
potable water well or reservoir
• Disposal is limited to areas greater than 1,000 feet from a
residence or area frequented by the public (500 feet if
written permission is obtained from the owner)
• The rate of disposal shall not exceed 30 gallons per 100
square feet per day.
2-119
-------
The regulations are slightly different if liquid wastes are immediate-
ly plowed or knifed in. Distances from a residence then may be 500 feet,
and distances from a drainageway may be 100 feet (on land with 0 to 6%
slopes).

Extensive acreages in Walworth County are suitable for application of
septage and holding tank wastes. During certain periods of the year,
though, field access may be limited by heavy rainfall, deep snow cover, or
frozen ground. Graveled access road can be and are used during these
periods, though runoff of wastes to streams during these times is likely.

Biological and Physical Treatment of Septage

Septage may be treated biologically in anaerobic lagoons, aerobic la-
goons, or digesters. Some advantages of aerobic treatment are the reduc-
tion of the offensive odor of septage; production of a sludge with good
dewatering characteristics, and production of a supernatant with a lower
BOD than anaerobic supernatants. The major disadvantage of aerobic treat-
ment compared to anaerobic treatment is the higher operation and
maintenance cost. Advantages of anaerobic treatment systems are stabili-
zation of organic solids from waste material; relatively low operating and
maintenance costs. A disadvantage of anaerobic treatment is the high BOD
of the effluent and the potential for creating nuisance odors.

Chemical Treatment of Septage

Treatment of septage by adding chemicals is used to improve dewater-
ability, reduce odors, or kill pathogens. Chemical treatment processes in-
clude addition of coagulants, rapid chemical oxidation, and lime stabili-
zation.

Some advantages associated with chemical treatment of septage are:

• A good reduction in the concentration of pollutants can be
achieved
• Dewaterability of septage is improved so the waste can be
dewatered on sand beds
2-120
-------
The regulations are slightly different if liquid wastes are immediate-
ly plowed or knifed in. Distances from a residence then may be 500 feet,
and distances from a drainageway may be 100 feet (on land with 0 to 6%
slopes).

Extensive acreage in Walworth County is suitable for application of
septage and holding tank wastes. During certain periods of the year,
though, field access may be limited by heavy rainfall, deep snow cover, or
frozen ground. Graveled access road can be and are used during these
periods, though runoff of wastes to streams during these times is likely

Biological and Physical Treatment of Septage

Septage may be treated biologically in anaerobic lagoons, aerobic la-
goons, or digesters. Some advantages of aerobic treatment are the reduc-
tion of the offensive odor of septage; production of a sludge with good
dewatering characteristics; and production of a supernatant with a lower
BOD than anaerobic supernatants. The major disadvantage of aerobic treat-
ment compared to anaerobic treatment is the higher operation and
maintenance cost. Advantages of anaerobic treatment systems are stabili-
zation of organic solids from waste material; relatively low operating and
maintenance costs. A disadvantage of anaerobic treatment is the high BOD
of the effluent and the potential for creating nuisance odors.

Chemical Treatment of Septage

Some advantages associated with chemical treatment of septage are:

• A good reduction in the concentration of pollutants can be
achieved
• Dewaterability of septage is improved so the waste can be
dewatered on sand beds
2-121
-------
• Effective control of pathogenic organisms is possible.

Disadvantages of chemical treatment of septage are-
• High costs are usually associated with chemical treatment,
and in many instances these alternatives are only feasible
where relatively large quantities of septage are produced
• Large quantities of chemicals are needed
• A relatively high level of technology is needed.

Wastewater Treatment Plant

Holding tank wastes can be disposed of in any kind of sewage treatment
plant since the characteristics of the wastewaters are similar. Special
care must be exercised during discharge of holding tank wastes into the
treatment plant, because holding tank wastes are anaerobic and odorous.

Septage can be adequately treated at a properly operated WWTP. Both
activated sludge or fixed media-type plants (trickling filters or RBCs) are
used to treat septage. Septage can be discharged into the liquid stream or
sludge stream. Since septage is handled as a slurry, possible addition
points at a WWTP are the upstream sewer, the bar screen, the grit chamber,
the primary settling tank, or the aeration tank. Discharge into the up-
stream sewer allows solids to settle out of the sewer, particularly at per-
iods of low flow.

Septage can be treated easily at WWTPs that feature long detention
times, such as facultative lagoons, aerated lagoons, or oxidation ditches.
These plants are less susceptible to upsets from shock loadings, and can
easily accommodate septage as long as the additional organic load was
included in the plant design.

Points where septage can be added to sludge handling processes include
the aerobic and anaerobic digester, the sludge conditioning process, or
sand drying beds. Septage added to a WWTP at 2% or less of the total flow
will have little impact on the treatment processes.
2-122
-------
The advantages of treating septage in a WWTP are:

• Septage is diluted with wastewater and treated
• Few aesthetic problems are assocated with this type of
septage handling
• Skilled personnel are present at the plant site.

The disadvantages of septage disposal at a WWTP are:
• A shock effect can occur in the unit processes of the WWTP
if septage is not properly introduced into the wastewater
flow
• Additional equipment and facilities prior to treatment are
required for separation, degritting, and equalization of the
wastes.

Septage disposal alternatives adequate for this study area probably
are limited to land application, because the potential of upsetting sewage
or sludge treatment processes within a treatment plant is considerable.
Holding tank wastes, on the other hand, can safely be treated within a sew-
age treatment plant. Thus, the option of treating holding tank wastes at
various sewage treatment plants should be investigated further.

2.3.3. Development and Screening of Preliminary Alternatives.

A number of wastewater management alternatives were explored in the
Facilities Planning documents. These in turn were based on alternatives
developed by SEWRPC in the 1978 Regional Sanitary Sewerage Plan for South-
eastern Wisconsin. The alternatives presented in SEWRPC (1978) consisted
of combinations of sub-regional centralized collection and treatment
systems designed to serve the entire 1990 population within the SEWRPC
service area. No consideration was given to continued use of existing
onsite systems. A summary of the SEWRPC regional alternatives is presented
in Table 2-29

Volume 1 of the Facilities Plan (Donohue 1978a) includes an evaluation
of regional wastewater management alternatives for the SEWRPC service area.
Alternatives, were developed based on the assumption that all present and
2-123
-------
Table 2-29. Sources of regional WWTP alternatives presented in SEWRPC
(1978).
Total
Present Worth
^™*~ 3
Cost Ranking

SSWRPC
Alternative
West End
1
2
East End
1
2
3

No.

2
1

3
2
1
WWTPs
Location

Lake Gem
Lake Gene

Fontana,
Wai worth,
Wai worth
Notes:
a
2

ib
2
3
Including construction and O&M costs for WWTPs and interceptors (includ-
ing pumping stations) only. Does not include collector costs which
would be the same for each alternative.
b
Recommended SEWRPC alternative.
future wastewater flows, except for the Playboy Resort (Now Americana) and
Kikkoman Foods, both of which have their own WWTPs, would be treated at the
proposed regional WWTPs. Continued use at onsite systems was not
considered.

The alternatives consisted of combinations of upgrading and expansion
of existing WWTPs or construction of new WWTPs located at Lake Geneva,
Fontana, Walworth, and Williams Bay. A summary of the alternatives in-
cluding the sub-regional service area of each WWTP and a ranking of the
total present worth costs are presented in Table 2-30. A breakdown of the
subdivisions included in each sub-regional service area is presented in
Table 2-31.

These alternatives were evaluated based on cost-effectiveness, envi-
ronmental impacts, flexibility, and impleraentability. Alternative III-A
was the recommended alternative and includes upgrading and expansion of the
existing Lake Geneva WWTP to serve the east end of the service area, and a
new WWTP at Walworth to serve the wesL end of the service area.
2-124
-------
Table 2-30. Summary of regional WWTP alternatives presented in Facilities Plan Volume 1 (Donohue & Assoc., Inc. 1978a)
Alternative
(No Action)
II
II-A
II-B
II-C
III
WWTP
Location
Lake Geneva
Font ana
Wai worth
Williams Bay
Interlaken
Lake Geneva
Corao
Fontana
Wai worth
Williams Bay
Lake Geneva
Fontana
Wai worth
Williams Bay
Lake Geneva
Fontana
Walworth
Williams Bay
Lake Geneva
Fontana
Williams Bay
Wai worth
Lake Geneva
Wai worth/ Fontana
Williams Bay
Construction
None
None
None
Hone
None
Upgrade/expand
New
Upgrade/ expand
New
Upgrade/ expand
Upgrade/expand
Upgrade/expand
New
Upgrade/expand
Upg r ade/ expand
Upgrade/expand
New
Upgr ad e / expand
Upgrade/expand
Upgrade/expand
Upgr ade/ expand
New
Upgrade/ expand
New
Upg r ad e/ expand
Discharge
White River
Seepage lagoon
Piscasaw Creek
Seepage lagoon
Soil absorption
White River
Corao Creek
Land application
Piscasaw Creek
Seepage lagoon
White River
Land Application
Piscasaw Creek
Seepage lagoon
White River
Land Application
Piscasaw Creek
Seepage lagoon
White River
Shore Seepage
lagoon
Piscasaw Creek
White River
Piscasaw Creek
Seepage lagoon
Service Area
City of Lake Geneva
Vil of Fontana
Vil. of Walworth
Vil of Williams Bay
Interlaken

C Lake Geneva, SE Shore Geneva Lake
N&S Shores, Lake Couo, Interlaken
V Fontana, Fontana S Shore
V Walworth
V Williams Bay, E Williams Bay

C Lake Geneva, SE Shore Geneva Lake,
N&S Shore Lake Corao, Interlaken
V Fontana, Fontana S Shore
V Walworth
V Williams Bay, E Williams Bay

C Lake Geneva, SE Shore Geneva Lake
V Fontana, Fontana S Shore
V Walworth
V Williams Bay, E Williams Bay,
N&S Shores, Lake Como, Interlaken

C Lake Geneva, SE Shore Geneva Lake,
N&S Shores Lake Como, Interlaken
V Fontana, Fontana 5 Shore
V Williams Bay, E Williams Bay
V Walworth

C Lake Geneva, SE Shore Geneva Lake,
N&S Shores Lake Como, Interlaken
V Walworth, V Fontana, Fontana S Shore
V Williams Bay, E Williams Bay
Total
Present Worth^.
Cost Ranking

N/A
-------
fable 2-30 (Continued)

III-A Lake Geneva Upgrade/expand White River C Lake Geneva, SE Shore Geneva Lake,
NYS Shores Corao Lake, Interlaken
Waiworth New Piscasaw Creek V Waiworth, V Fontana, V Williams Bay,
E Williams Bay, Fontana S Shore

III-B Lake Geneva Upgrade/expand White River Entire service area
Notes

a
See Table 2-31 for subdivisions included In subregional service areas

Total present worth cost (initial and future capital costs, O&M costs, minus salvage value) ranking Includes
costs for WHIP and Interceptors only Collector sewers are not included because they are the same for each
Alternative
-------
Table 2-31. Breakdown of sub-regional service areas and general areas
By subdivision (Donohue & Assoc., Inc. I978a)
City of Lake Geneva
Village of Fontana
Village of Williams Bay
Village of Waiworth
SE Shore Geneva Lake
(Sub-regional Service Area)
Southeast Shore Area
Lake Geneva Beach
Trinke Estates
Robinsons
Robinsons Hillside
Birches-Genevista Area
Genevista
Lake Geneva Terrace
Lawrence's Addition
Lakeview Park
The Birches
Edgewater Terrace Area
Edgewater Terrace
Lake Geneva Highlands
East Williams Bay
(Sub-regional Service Area)
Cisco Beach Area
Cisco Beach
Ara Glen
Rowena Park
Sylvan Trail Estates
Sunset Hills Area
Sunset Hills
Sunset Hills Shores
Elgin Club
Odden Park
S. B. Chapin
Lake Geneva Knoll
Fontana South Shore
(Sub-regional Service Area)
Shore Haven - Camp Sybill Area
Camp Sybil
Shore Haven
Oak Shores
Chicago Club
Lake Geneva Club
Academy Estates Area
Northwestern Academy
Academy Estates
Maple Hills Area
Maple Hills
N Shore Lake Como
(Sub-regional Service Area)
Lake Como Beach Area
Lake Como Beach

S Shore Lake Como
(Sub-regional Service Area)
Consumers Company Area
Consumers Company
2-127
-------
In Volume 2 of Che Facilities Plan, WWTP design and effluent disposal
alternatives were evaluated for the regional WWTPs proposed in Volume 1.
The discussion is presented in two documents. one for the east end
(Donohue 1981a), and another for the west end (Donohue I981b, 1983a). The
Volume 2 documents also included a discussion of the existing onsite sys-
tems in the planning area, and presented an evaluation of the costs to
upgrade the onsite systems or construct cluster systems for these areas as
alternatives to centralized collection and treatment at WWTPs. The
analyses also includes a comparison of small diameter gravity, and pressure
sewers as alternatives to conventional gravity collector sewers in the
unsewered area. Alternatives developed for the Lake Como Beach Area were
used as a "case study" to screen out high cost onsite and collection alter-
natives. The ranking of the total present worth costs for the alternatives
evaluated for the unsewered areas are presented in Table 2-32.

The results of the evaluation indicate that upgrading of onsite sys-
tems 10 years old or older with new septic tanks and soil absorption
systems or mounds for 60% of existing residence (a very conservative design
assumption) is the most cost-effective alternative for wastewater manage-
ment for all the unsewered areas except the south shore of Lake Como.
However, upgrading of onsite systems was rejected for a number of unsewered
areas because general site conditions in the area were deemed not suitable
for onsite systems due to: "steep" slopes, "poor" soils, "numerous" pro-
blems with existing onsite systems, "high" groundwater, and "small" lots.
For these areas the wastewater management alternative was selected based on
a comparison of the total present worth costs of cluster systems and cen-
tralized collection with treatment at a WWTP.

Only conventional gravity sewers were considered in the analysis based
on the results of the Lake Como Beach Area "case study" which indicated
that this was the most cost-effective collection alternative.

The Facilities Plan recommended wastewater management alternatives for
the unsewered areas within the SEWRPC Service Area are presented in
Table 2-33. Upgraded individual onsite systans or cluster mounds were
recommended for a number of areas previously identified for service with
2-128
-------
Table 2-32.
General Area
Lake Como Beach Area
Facilities Plan ranking of total present worth costs for
wastewater management alternatives serving currently unsewered
areas. (Donohue & Assoc., Inc. 1983)
Ranking of
Present Worth
D
Costs
Alternatives
Individual ST-SAS
Individual mound
Individual holding tanks
Conventional gravity sewers
Small diameter gravity sewers
Grinder pump low pressure sewers
Septic tank efflunt pump low
pressure sewers
Cluster mound
Cluster holding tanks
1
2
3
4
5
6

7
8
9
Southeast Shore Area
Individual ST-SAS
Conventional gravity sewers
Individual mounds
Cluster mound
Individual holding tanks
1
2
3
4
5
Birches - Genevista Area
Individual mounds
Individual holding tanks
Conventional gravity sewers
Cluster mound
1
2
3
4
Edgewater Terrace Area
Individual mounds
Conventional gravity sewers
Individual holding tanks
Cluster mound
1
2
3
4
Shore Haven -
Camp Sybil Area
Individual mounds
Conventional gravity sewers
Cluster mound
Individual holding tanks
1
2
3
4
South Shore Lake Como
Conventional gravity sewers
Individual mounds
Cluster mound
Individual holding tanks
1
2
3
4
Cisco Beach Area
Individual mounds
Conventional gravity sewers
Individual holding tanks
Cluster mound
1
2
3
4
Sunset Hills Area
Individual mounds
Individual holding tanks
Conventional gravity sewers
Cluster mound
1
2
3
4
See Table 2-31 for subdivisions in each general area.

Ranking of total present worth costs over 20 years. Including initial

capital, future construction, and O&M costs minus salvage value.
%
"ST-SAS. Septic tank soil absorption system.
2-129
-------
Table 2-33. Facilities Plan Volume 2 recommended wastewater management
alternative for unsewered areas. (Donohue & Assoc., Inc. I983a)
Sub-regional Area/
General Area
SE Shore Geneva Lake
Southeast Shore Area
Birches - Genevista Area
Edgewater Terrace Area
Facilities Plan
Recommended Alternative
Conventional gravity sewers
Cluster mounds
Cluster mounds
SW Shore Geneva Lake (Fontana South Shore)
Shore Haven - Camp Sybil Area Conventional gravity sewers
Academy Estates Area Conventional gravity sewers
Maple Hill Area Individual mounds
NW Shore Geneva Lake (East Williams Bay)
Cisco Beach Area
Sunset Hills Area
Conventional gravity sewers
Individual mounds or
small cluster mounds
N Shore Lake Como
Lake Como Beach Area
Conventional gravity sewers
S Shore Lake Como
Consumers Company Area
Individual mounds or
small cluster mounds
See Table 2-31 for breakdown of subdivision included in each area.
Includes treatment at regional WWTP.
2-130
-------
centralized collection and treatment in the SEWRPC and Facilities Plan
Volume 1 documents. Based on this evaluation, a revised sewer service area
(RSSA) was delineated which includes the areas presently sewered and the
areas recommended for sewering in the Facilities Plan Volume 2 documents
(Figure 1-3),

After publication of the preliminary Draft of Volume 2 for the west
end of the planning area (Donohue & Assoc., Inc. I981b), the Village of
Williams Bay rejected the regional WWTP concept recommended in the Volume 1
document because it would significantly increase their annual cost over
operation of their existing WWTP. Addendum 1 to Volume 2 - for the Lake
Geneva West Planning Area (Donohue & Assoc., Inc. I983b) reevaluated the
cost of upgrading the existing Williams Bay WWTP and a new Walworth/
Fontana WWTP compared to the Volume 1 regional WWTP. Based on this analy-
sis, the sub-regional concept providing two WWTPs for the west end (up-
grading the existing Williams Bay WWTP and construction of a new sub-
regional WWTP to serve Walworth/Fontana) was recommended in the final Draft
of West End Volume 2 (Donohue 1983a).

This document also included a reevaluatlon of the cost-effectiveness
of maintaining separate wastewater treatment facilities for the Interlaken
Resort, Kikkoman Foods, and the Christian League for the Handicapped. In
all three cases, it was recommended that these facilities maintain their
own individual wastewater treatment facilities for at least the 20 year
planning period. It was recommended that after the end of the 20 year
planning period, consideration be given to inclusion of Williams Bay,
Kikkoman Foods, the Christian League for the Handicapped and Interlaken
Resort in the Walworth/Fontana WWTP.

The wastewater treatment processes and disposal alternatives evaluated
for the new east end WWTP, located at Lake Geneva, and the new west end
WWTP, located at Walworth/Fontana, included a number of secondary processes
with surface water and land disposal. The WWTP alternatives were evaluated
2-131
-------
and the ranking of the total present worth costs are presented in
Table 2-34. The recommended WWTP alternatives were-

• Lake Geneva Regional WWTP - upgrade and expand existing
trickling filter WWTP with land disposal at new seepage cell
site.
Table 2-34. Alternative treatment processes, disposal methods and ranking
of total present worth costs for Facilities Plan Volume 2
WWTP alternatives.
Alter-
nativeb
Treatment
Process
Lake Geneva Regional WWTP

I Extended aeration
II Rotating biological contractors
III Two-stage activated sludge
IV Trickling filter/activated sludge
V Trickling filter
VI New aerated lagoon

Walworth-Fontana WWTP

I Extended aeration
II Trickling filter/activated sludge
III Oxidation ditch
IV Trickling filter
V Aerated lagoon
VI Rotating biological contractor

Williams Bay WWTPC

- Activated sludge
Effluent
Disposal
White River
White River
White River
White River
Land application
Land application
Ranking
of Total
Present
Worth Costs
4
6
5
3
2
1
Piscasaw Creek 5
Plscasaw Creek 6
Land application 3
Land application 2
Land application 1
Land application 4
Land application
Upgrade/expand existing Lake Geneva WWTP Alternatives I-V (Donohue 1981a),

Now WWTP for Alternative VI (Donohue I982b).

°New WWTP (Donohue I983b).
>
"Upgrade/expand existing WWTP (Donahue 1983b).
2-132
-------
* Waiworth/Fontana WWTP - construct new aerated lagoon WWTP
with land disposal at new seepage cell site.
* Williams Bay WWTP - upgrade and expand existing activated
sludge WWTP with land disposal at existing seepage cell
sites.
The upgrade and expansion of the existing trickling filter WWTP was
recommended over the lower cost new aerated lagoon WWTP for the Lake Geneva
plant because the costs were very close (within 1%); the upgrade alterna-
tive has a lower annual operation and maintenance cost, making it less
susceptible to inflation, and future expansion of the aerated lagoon would
require purchase of additional land.

2.4. Description of Final Alternatives

Three system alternatives for providing wastewater treatment for the
RSSAs are described in this section. The alternatives include: No Action;
the Facilities Plan Recommended Alternative (FPRA), which consists of pro-
viding centralized collection and treatment for all portions of the RSSAs;
and the EIS Alternative, which consists of providing management of onsite
systems for currently unsewered portions of the RSSAs and centralized
collection and treatment for portions of the RSSAs currently sewered.
These alternatives and their associated costs are described in the follow-
ing sections. All costs are based on third-quarter (September) 1982 costs.

2.4.1. No Action Alternative

The no action alternative implies that neither USEPA or WDNR (except
on an individual basis through the Wisconsin fund where eligible individual
onsite systems can be funded through MR 128.30) would provide funds to
build, upgrade, or expand existing wastewater treatment systems.

Wastewater would continue to be treated by existing WWTPs and existing
onsite systems. Each individual WWTP would be responsible for improving
operations and for making any necessary non-structural process adjustments
to maintain permitted treatment levels throughout the 20-year design
2-133
-------
period. County sanitarians would continue to be responsible for permitting
and regulating existing onsite systems, and would continue to require
replacement or repair of obviously failing systems in unsewered areas. A
description of the no action alternative for each WWTP and for the un-
sewered areas is presented below.

Lake Geneva WWTP

As described previously, the existing Lake Geneva WWTP has an average
design capacity of 1.1 mgd and generally is in satisfactory operating con-
dition. However, it regularly fails to meet effluent limltions for total
phosphorus under current (interim) permit requirements. The projected year
2005 average daily (summer) design wastewater flow for the existing Lake
Geneva WWTP service area is 1.737 mgd. With no action, the existing facil-
ities would not be able to provide treatment to meet final (L986) WPDES
permit requirements. Without Federal or State funding, construction of new
and/or upgraded facilities potentially would place a financial burden on
the local community. Therefore, the community probably would continue to
operate the existing WWTP for several years without major improvements. At
some point prior to year 2005, iacreased flows would overload the plant,
potentially causing backups and overflows of sewage both in the collection
system and at the WWTP site. The WWTP would continue to discharge, with
increasing frequency, an effluent of lower quality that would not meet per-
mit requirements into the White River. Ultimately, WDNR would take en-
forcement action forcing the Village to upgrade their existing facilities
or construct new facilities as necessary to meet WPDES permit requirements.

Williams Bay WWTP

The existing Williams Bay WWTP has an average hydraulic design capac-
ity of 0.786 mgd. Some portions of the plant are in poor structural condi-
tion and the plant has experienced hydraulic problems. The existing plant
generally meets the BOD effluent requirements for land application, but has
exceeded the limit on occasion. Hydraulic problems reportedly cause the
plant to overflow and discharge partially treated sewage to Southwick Creek
(which flows to Geneva Lake) in violation of the WPDES permit.
2-134
-------
The projected year 2005 average dally (summer) design wastewater flow
for the existing service area is 0.692 ragd, which Is less than the existing
WWTP design capacity. However, because of hydraulic limitations at the
plant, It is likely that overflows would continue occasionally in violation
of the WPDES permit. In addition, the aging condition of the WWTP struc-
tures and equipment make it likely that the plant would require a major
renovation and, perhaps, that additional seepage lagoon area would be re-
quired to adequately serve the wastewater treatment needs of the existing
service area over the 20-year design period. If USEPA or WDNR do not pro-
vide funding, the Village eventually may be required to undertake the reha-
bilitation and expansion on its own.

Fontana WWTP

The existing Fontana WWTP has an average daily design capacity of 0.9
mgd and a peak dally capacity of 1.8 mgd. The WWTP currently is operating
satisfactorily, but portions of the WWTP are 25 years old. A new seepage
lagoon at the WWTP appears to be operational, but the old lagoon has exper-
ienced problems. The projected year 2005 average daily (summer) design
wastewater flow for the existing service area is 0.815 mgd, which is less
than the existing WWTP design capacity. If the facilities were new, they
probably would operate satisfactorily over the design period. However,
with no action taken it is likely that the older portions of the WWTP would
require major structural and mechanical renovation and that additional
seepage lagoon area would be required to adequately serve the wastewater
treatment needs of the service area over the 20-year design period. If
USEPA or WDNR does not provide funding, the Village may be required to
finance WWTP improvements on its own.

Waiworth WWTP

The existing Walworth WWTP has an average daily design capacity of
0.15 mgd. Flow to the WWTP currently exceeds its design capacity, and some
portions of the WWTP are in poor structural condition. The projected year
2005 average daily (summer) design wastewater flow for the existing service
area is 0.278 mgd. The WWTP and polishing lagoon system currently is dis-
2-135
-------
charging an effluent of a quality consistent with its design, but it will
not be able to meet future effluent requirements without major structural
improvements. If the no action alternatives were Implemented by USEPA and/
or the WDNR, these needed improvements would have to be financed solely by
the Village of Walworth.

Onsite Systems

Wastewater would be treated by existing onsite systems, and no new on-
site facilities would be built except to replace obviously failed systems.
This EIS assumes, however, that County sanitarians would continue responsi-
bility for ensuring that failing existing systems are upgraded according to
DILHR standards. The need for improved wastewater management around Geneva
Lake and Corao Lake is not well documented The number of onsite systems
experiencing serious or recurrent malfunctions is small.

Under the no action alternative, local health authorities will con-
tinue to have inadequate information with which to identify failing systems
and to design onsite system repairs appropriate to the problems and their
causes. They are unlikely to have the time, personnel, or monitoring ca-
pabilities necessary to be able to specify innovative attempts to solve all
problems. The result will be an increasing number of holding tanks on
small lots and on lots with high groundwater. If no action is taken, exis-
ting onsite systems in the study area potentially would continue to be used
in their present condition. Although some replacement systems would be
funded by WDNR, new and some replacement systems would be financed solely
by their individual owners.

2.4.2. Facilities Plan Recommended Alternative

The Facilities Plan recommended alternative (FPRA) includes construc-
tion of collection sewers and interceptors in all currently unsewered areas
of the RSSAs, upgrading of the Lake Geneva WWTP to serve the east end of
the planning area, upgrading of the Williams Bay WWTP, and construction of
a new WWTP at Walworth to serve the west end planning area communities of
Walworth and Fontana. The existing Fontana WWTP and Walworth WWTP would be
2-136
-------
abandoned. Location of the proposed collecttoci and treatment facilities
for the FPRA are presented in Figure 2-13. The facilities proposed for
construction as the FPRA are described in the following paragraphs

Collectors and Interceptors

For the FPRA, conventional gravity collection sewers are proposed, but
not costed, for collection of wastewater in all unsewered areas of the
RSSAs. Conventional gravity sewers were selected based on cost-effective-
ness analyses presented in the facilities planning documents. Gravity col-
lection sewers and interceptors consisting of gravity sewers, pumping sta-
tions and force mains are proposed. The interceptors were sized by the

facilities planner for a 50-year design period. The estimated cost of con-
structing and operating collection sewers for certain subdivisions within
the RSSAs as proposed in the FPRA (Table 2-35) is listed in Table 2-36.
Table 2-35. Subdivisions to be served by centralized wastewater collection
and treatment facilities in the FPRA.

Lake Geneva Walworth/Fontana Williams Bay
WWTP WWTP WWTP
City of Lake Geneva Village of Walworth Village of Williams Bay

Lake Como Beach Sub. Village of Fontana Northwest shore
Cisco Beach Sub.
Southeast shore Southwest shore Ara Glen Sub.
Lake Geneva Beach Sub. Camp Sybil Sub. Rowena Park Sub.
Trinke Estates Sub. Shore Haven Sub. Sylvan Trail
Robinson's Sub. Oak Shores Sub. Estates Sub.
Robinson Hillside Sub. Chicago Club Sub.
Lake Geneva Club Sub.
Northwestern Academy
Academy Estates Sub.
Maple Hills Sub.
The cost to the individual homeowner to construct the connection to the

system (approximately $1,000) is not included in the costs. The use of

onsite wastewater treatment systems would be discontinued in the subdivi-
sions served by sewers. All future residences in the RSSAs would be served

by the central gravity collection systems.
2-137
-------
LEGEND
LJ
LJ
O
C3
I I
|_J
9
•
X
jf,
S
— •-
Study area boundary
Como Lake RSSA
Geneva Lake RSSA
Williams Bay RSSA
Walworth RSSA
Fontana RSSA
Area proposed for new Interceptors
Existing pumping station to be upgraded
Existing WWTP to be upgraded
Existing WWTP to be abandoned
Seepage cell to be abandoned
Existing seepage cell site

Proposed WWTP
Proposed seepage cell sit
Proposed Interceptor
Proposed force main
Proposed pumping station
RSSA boundary Q

, v- r"
Figure 2-13 Location of wastewater collection and treatment facilities for the Facilities Plan Recommended Alternative
-------
Lake Geneva WWTP

The FPRA proposes to serve the City of Lake Geneva, the Lake Como

Beach Subdivision, and the southeast shore of Geneva Lake. The WWTP would

be designed to handle an average daily (summer) flow of 2.13 ragd, and a

peak daily flow of 5.2 ragd.
Table 2-36. Estimated cost of collection sewers and interceptors for
certain subdivisions within the RSSAs, as proposed in the
FPRA (See Appendix F for costs).

Initial Annual Construction Salvage
Item Capital O&M 10th Yr. Value

Collection Sewers
Lake Como (Geneva Town)C $9,272,500 $13,000 $151,300 $4,749,750
Southeast Shore (Linn Town), 1,313,300 6,300 812,500 1,266,000
Southwest Shore (Linn Town)e 679,750 3,600 - 339,900
Northwest Shore (Linn Town) 723,300 4,200 67,500 412,300

Interceptor
Lake Como Beach^ 2,031,250 440 - 1,216,690
Southeast Shored 1,463,710 3,290 - 876,220
Southwest Shore 640,850 290 - 385,530
Northwest Shore 552,370 860 - 330,460

Total $16,677,030 $31,980 $1,031,300 $9,576,850
Updated to the third quarter 1982 (see Table F-5).
b
See Table 2-35 for a list of subdivisions proposed for collector sewers.

°To Lake Geneva WWTP.
d
To Walworth/Fontana WWTP.

STo Williams Bay WWTP.
For the upgraded WWTP, approximately 50 feet of existing Interceptor

sewer will be relaid to accommodate a new raw wastewater pump station (Fig-

ure 2-14). Wastewater will flow by gravity through a new mechanical bar

screen, and a manual bar screen also will be provided for backup. A new

grit chamber will separate heavier grit from lighter organic matter. Grit

accumulating in the bottom of the grit chamber will be pumped out period-

ically and transported by truck to a sanitary landfill.
2-139
-------
NE» PRIMARY
CLARIFIER
, ABANDON
v PRIMARY
» CLARIFIER—.„.
UPGRADE TRICKLING
FILTER WITH COVER
AND NEW MEDIA
100 YEAR FLOOD
ELEVATION 839.6-
A6ANDON
TRICKLING
FILTER
\
ABANDON
SECOnDftRY
CLARIFIER >,
ABANDON
SECONDARY
CLARIFIER
.— CONVERT CHLORINE
/ CHAMBER TO EFFLUEN1
STATION
/
UPGRADE
DIGESTER
EOUIFt€NT—
Figure 2-14. Expanded facilities for the Geneva Lake WWTP as proposed in the FPRA
(Donohue & Assoc., Inc. 1982b).
-------
Following grit removal, wastewater will flow by gravity to a new raw
wastewater pumping station. Six constant speed, submersible pumps will
handle the anticipated flow. The wastewater will be metered using a mag-
netic flow meter and then transported to a new 55-foot diameter primary
clarifier.

Primary effluent will then flow by gravity to a renovated 88-foot dia-
meter trickling filter. A fiberglass domed cover will be used to enhance
treatment efficiencies during cold weather. A new distribution arm and
larger piping will increase hydraulic capacity of the filter. The trick-
ling filter will utilize 6-foot deep plastic media instead of the existing
rock media.

Trickling filter effluent will flow by gravity to a new secondary
clarifier. The existing raw wastewater pump station will be used to recy-
cle trickling filter effluent back to the filter influent, which will main-
tain optimum hydraulic loadings to the filter, enhance treatment, and meet
NR 110 code requirements.

One 70-foot diameter secondary clarifier will replace two existing
clarifiers, because the existing units are too small and shallow and have
mechanical and structural problems. Clarified secondary effluent will flow
by gravity to the existing chlorine contact chamber, which will be convert-
ed into an effluent pump station. Four vertical turbine pumps will trans-
port effluent to a 2.8 million gallon dosing lagoon at the rapid infiltra-
tion site through a 21-inch diameter, 7,250-foot force main.

The rapid infiltration system will be located near the STH 50 and
US 12 interchange. The infiltration system will consist of eight seepage
cells (Figure 2-15). Multiple cells will allow for resting other cells to
extend their life, and to provide better treatment. Resting will allow
nitrification and denitrification to occur, which will minimize the impact
of nitrates on groundwater. The average design dosing rate will be approx-
imately 23 inches per week.
2-141
-------

Figure 2-15. Layout of the rapid infiltration system proposed
in the FPRA(Donohue & Assoc., Inc. 1982b).
-------
Discharge from a dosing cell to the seepage cells will be by gravity
through a 36-inch diameter pipe. The discharge will be controlled by sev-
eral valves which can be automatically or manually operated. The bottom of
the dosing lagoon will be located a minimum of eight feet above that of the
seepage cells to facilitate gravity flow. The dosing lagoon will have a
synthetic liner to prevent leakage, since no onsite soils are suitable for
that purpose. One seepage cell will contain a centrally located under-
drain. The underdrain will terminate in a standpipe to ensure a direct
means of collecting leachate from the system for analysis. Several new
groundwater monitoring wells will be required around the rapid infiltration
site due to the proposed layout, and to conform to the construction re-
quirements of NR 110.25(5).

Sludge treatment and disposal will consist of upgrading the City's
existing system. Primary and secondary sludge will be pumped to the exist-
ing 45-foot diameter anaerobic digester. Digester equipment and sludge
pumps will be upgraded or replaced as necessary. Digested sludge will be
transported by truck to a new sludge storage lagoon.

A 2.1 million gallon sludge storage lagoon is proposed at the rapid
infiltration site. Approximately 180 days storage will be provided. Li-
quid haul of digested sludge will be accomplished using an existing 2,800
gallon sludge truck, plus one new sludge application vehicle consisting of
a farm tractor and a 3,000 gallon trailer. Soil incorporation of the
sludge will be used to take advantage of the sludge's nutrient value. The
City currently is obtaining licensed sludge application sites in the vicin-
ity of the sludge lagoon in order to minimize travel expense.

Besides the above mentioned process additions, the existing Lake
Geneva WWTP will be upgraded in the areas of office and laboratory facili-
ties; an existing service building will be remodeled, standby power will be
provided, and floodproofing the site will be accomplished by earth filling
around some existing structures. Estimated costs for the expanded Lake
Geneva WWTP and new rapid infiltration system, as proposed by the FPRA, are
listed in Table 2-37. A disaggregation of costs among the major service
areas in the Lake Como - Lake Geneva RSSAs also is included in Table 2-38.
2-143
-------
Table 2-37. Estimated cost of the upgraded Lake Geneva WWTP (2.13 mgd) and
new rapid infiltration system, as proposed in the FPRA
(Adapted from Donohue and Assoc., Inc., I982b).
Initial Cost
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT SITE
General Construction
Raw Wastewater Pump Station $ 110,000
Grit Removal 65,000
Primary Clanfier 40,000
Trickling Filter Modifications 8,000
Trickling Filter Cover 67,000
Secondary Clarifier 165,000
Digester Modifications 5,000
Sitework 14,000
Demolition 20,000
Generator Building 20,000
Effluent Pump Station 15,000
Remodel Service Building 30,000
Mechanical Equipment
Mechanical Bar Screen
Grit Handling
Raw Wastewater Pumps
Primary Clarifier
T.F. Media
T.F. Distributor Arm
T.F. Underdrain Rehabilitation
Effluent Pumps
T.F. Recirculating Pump
Modifications
Anaerobic Digester
Sludge Putnps
Standby Generator
Metering and Sampling
Secondary Clarifier
Process Piping
Laboratory and Office Equipment
Sludge Vehicle
Plumbing
HVAC
Electrical
Subtotal - WWTP Site $2,142,000
Service
Life
(Years)
40
40
40
20
40
40
20
20

40
20
20
70,000
49,000
105,000
64,000
218,000
54,000
15,000
46,000
6,000
146,000
10,000
96,000
58,000
67,000
204,000
10,000
105,000
30,000
40,000
190,000
15
15
15
20
20
20
20
15
15
20
15
20
20
20
30
20
15
20
20
20
Future
15th Year
Cost
$ 70,000
49,00
105,000
105,000
Salvage
Value
20th Year
$ 55,000
32,200
20,000

33,500
82,500
10,000
52,500
36,800
78,800
46,000
6,000
10,000
34,500
4,500
7,500
$391.000
67,900

78,800

$594.500
2-144
-------
Table 2-37. (Continued)
LAND APPLICATION SITE

SItework
Process Piping
Roadways
Fencing
Percolate Monitoring System
Observation Wells
Control Structures
Sludge Lagoon
Land Purchase
AT&T Cable Relay

Subtotal - Land Application Site

CONVEYANCE PIPING

Effluent Force Main
Sludge Transport

Subtotal - Conveyance Piping

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST

Engineering, Legal, Adm. (15%)

Contingencies (15%)

ESTIMATED INITIAL CAPITAL COST
Initial Cost
$ 286,000
257,000
38,000
13,000
7,000
4,000
30,000
50,000
445,000
150.000

$1.280.000
$ 290,000
65,000

$ 355,000
$ 560,000

$ 573,000
Service
Life
(Years)
20
30
20
20
20
20
20
20
30
30
Future
15th Year
Cost
Salvage
Value
20th Year
$ 85,600

$ 85.600

$ 96,600
21,600

$118,200

$118-300
2-145
-------
Table 2-37. (Continued).
ANKUAL O&M

Item
Sewage Disposal Salary
Social Security
Retirement
Health and Life Insurance
Car Allowance
Electricity
Water
Telephone
Fuel - Digester
Fuel - Office
Repairs - Equipment
Repairs - Sewer
Repairs - Lift Stations
Maintenance - Equipment
Maintenance - Sewers
Maintenance - Lift Stations
Survey of Sewers
Engineering
Chemicals
Sludge Removal
Building - Maintenance
Testing
Vehicle - Maintenance
Alarm Circuits
Emergency Power
Insurance
Travel and School
Miscellaneous
Billing Expense
Debt Service
Outlay

TOTAL
Collection
Sewer O&M
$ 4,000.00
300.00
500.00
700.00
600.00
2,000.00
2,600.00
220.00

8,000.00
3,000.00

2,000.00
2,500.00
15,000.00
5,000.00

400.00

2,000.00
450.00
500.00
600.00
500.00
2,000.00
5,000.00
10,000.00
5,000.00

WWTP
$78,006.37
5,108.00
8,586.00
6,512.47
600.00
37,500.00*
2,600.00
500.00
5,800.00
1,925.00
4,800.00

1,500.00

5,000.00
2,000.00
7,000.00
400.00
2,800.00
1,000.00
.

5,770.00
800.00

10,000.00
43,448.45
20,000.00

Total O&M
$ 82,006.37
5,408.00
9,086.00
7,212.47
1,209.00
39,500.00
5,200.00
720.00
5,800 00
1,925.00
4,800.00
8,000.00
3,000.00
1,500.00
2,000.00
2,500.00
15,000.00
10,000.00
2,000.00
7,000.00
800.00
2,800.00
3,000.00
450.00
500.00
6,370.00
1,300.00
2,000.00
15,000.00
53,448.45
25,000.00
$72,870.00 $251,656.29
$366,526.29
2-146
-------
Table 2-38. Disaggregation of costs of the Lake Geneva collection sytem
and WWTP among major service areas of the Geneva Lake-
Lake Como RSSA, based upon population served-a
Area
Lake Como
Lake Geneva
Southeast Shore
Total
Base-year
Population
Cost Share
25%
67%
__8%
100%

Area
Lake Como
Lake Geneva
Southeast Shore
Total

Ca pi tal
Cost
$1,227,500
3,289,700
392,800
$4,910,000
Future
15th Yr.
Cost
$ 97,750
261,970
31,280
$391,000

Annual
O&M
$ 91,625
245,555
29,320
$366,500

Salvage
Value
$199,575
534,861
63,864
$798,300
Cost disaggregation computed by WAPORA, Inc.
2-147
-------
The proposed WWTP facilities as described above involve upgrading and
expanding the existing City of Lake Geneva trickling filter WWTP and land
disposal of effluent at a new seepage cell site. Proposed upgrading of the
existing WWTP was selected by the facilities planners based on a cost-
effectiveness analysis comparing that option with the option of construc-
ting a new aerated lagoon WWTP. The cost-effectiveness analysis concluded
tnat the total present worth costs of both options were within one percent
of each other. The upgrade and expand option was selected because the
aerated lagoon would require utilization of an additional 14 acres of land
suitable for future seepage cells, and because the lagoon had a higher
energy consumption and therefore was more vulnerable to escalation of
energy costs (Donohue & Assoc., Inc. I982b).

Wai worth/Fontana JjWTP

The Walworth/Fontana WWTP proposed for the FPRA would replace the
existing Waiworth WWTP and Foatana WWTP, both of which would be decommis-
sioned and abandoned. The proposed WWTP would serve the Village of Wai-
worth, Village of Fontana, and subdivisions along the southwest shore of
Geneva Lake (Table 2-35). The design capacity of the proposed WWTP would
be 1.16 ragd.

A new oxidation ditch treatment system for Walworth and Fontana will
comprise a new subregional treatment facility on the existing Walworth pol-
ishing lagoon site adjacent to Piscasaw Creek. Conveyance facilities will
include upgrading the Fontana pump station, construction of a new force
main conveying Fontana wastewater out of the Geneva Lake drainage basin;
construction of an interceptor to convey Fontana wastewater from the drain-
age basin divide to the existing Walworth treatment plant site; replacement
of Waiworth's existing treatment facility with a metering station; and
construction of an additional gravity interceptor paralleling Walworth's
existing gravity outfall to convey combined Walworth and Fontana flows from
the existing Walworth WWTP site to the new oxidation ditch WWTP site.

Preliminary treatment of wastewater entering the oxidation ditch
treatment facility first will Involve mechanical bar screening and flow
2-148
-------
metering facilities. Preliminary treated wastewater then will flow Into a
wet well where It will be lifted by submersible pumps to grit removal
units. Vortex separation with grit washing will be used for grit removal
due to less odors being generated because of the grit washing operation.

Secondary treatment will be accomplished by dual oxidation ditch chan-
nels with intrachannel clarification and subsurface aeration. A sketch
illustrating this concept is included as Figure 2-16 Wastewater then will
receive tertiary filtration using low head sand filters. Filtered effluent
will receive ultraviolet (UV) disinfection, selected by the facilities
planner as a safer operation than chlorination.

Sludge disposal will be by application of liquid sludge to approxi-
mately 40 acres of agricultural lands. Studies by the facilities planner
indicate that nitrogen will be the limiting parameter for annual appli-
cation. Sludge will be applied at the rate of 4.14 dry tons per acre, or
actually 67,000 gallons per acre since it will be In liquid form. Copper
is the limiting parameter regarding life of the site; however, the site
will be adequate for 22 years, which is longer than the 20-year design life
of the system. An exact site for sludge disposal currently has not been
selected.

Cost estimates for the proposed new Waiworth/Fontana WWTP as described
for the FPRA are presented in Table 2-39. A disaggregatlon of costs among
the major service areas in the Waiworth/Fontana RSSAs is contained in
Table 2-40.

Williams Bay WWTP

Initial facilities planning documents proposed a Walworth/Fontana re-
gional WWTP that also would serve Williams Bay. A re-evaluation of this
concept however, determined that it would be more cost-effective to serve
Williams Bay separately from the proposed Walworth/Fontana system. Once it
was determined that Williams Bay would be served with separate facilities,
the Village of Williams Bay withdrew from the Geneva Lake facilities plan-
ning effort, with the intent of submitting independent facilities planning
2-149
-------
Air
Mixer
Clarified

Plan View - Oxidation Ditch
\tt\t\
MrORkMir'
Elevabon View - Aeration/Mixing
Elevation VTtew • Intrachannel Clarrfier
Isometnc View • Intrachannel Clarifier
Figure 2-16. Innovative oxidation ditch system proposed for use
at the new Walworth/Fontana WWTP by the FPRA
(Donohue & Assoc., Inc. 1983b)
-------
Table 2-39.
Estimated cost of the Walworth/Fontana WWTP (1.16 mgd) proposed for
the FPRA (Adapted from Donohue & Assoc., Inc. 1983d.
CONVEYANCE FACILITIES
Fontana Pump Sta. - Modifications
Mechanical
Waiworth Metering Site
Structural
Mechanical
Piping
Fontana to Walworth
Walworth to WWTP Site
CONSTRUCTION COST - CONVEYANCE FACILITIES
Engineering (15%)
Contingencies (10%)
CAPITAL COST - CONVEYANCE FACILITIES

TREATMENT FACILITY
Influent Lift Sta.
Mechanical
Structural
Screening/Flow Metering
Mechanical
Structural
Grit Removal
Mechanical
Structural
Oxidation Ditch
Mechanical
Structural
Tertiary Sand Filtration
Mechanical
Structural
UV Disinfection/pH Adjustment
Mechanical
Structural
Cascade Post Aeration/Outfall
Structural
Sludge/Decant/Holding Tank
Mechanical
Structural
Other
Sludge Vehicle
Service Building
Lab & Office Equipment
Metering & Sampling
Control Structures
Landscaping/Roads
Fencing
Land
Initial
Cost
($)
245,000
15,000
25,000
553,000
475,000
1,313,000
195,000
130,000
1,638,000
=±===i===
25,000
30,000
48,000
32,000
50,000
25,000
220,000
610,000
220,000
80,000
105,000
30,000
20,000
40,000
48,000
100,000
50,000
30,000
25,000
10,000
25,000
10,000
60,000
Service Future Future
Life 10th Yr, 15th Yr.
(Yrs) ($) ($)
15 — $245,000
40
40
40
40

-0- 245,000
====s=s = -=sss===
15 — 25,000
40
20 —
40
20 —
40
20
40
20
40
20
40
40
20
40
10 100,000
40
20
20
40
20
20
Infinite
Salvage
Value
($)
$163,500
7,500
— —
276,500
237,500

685,000
=s-==£;=n±s
16,500
15,000
--
16,000
—
12,500
—
305,000
—
40,000
—
15,000
10,000
—
24,000
—
25,000

5,000

60,000
2-151
-------
Table 2-39. (Concluded)
CONVEYANCE FACILITIES

Well/Plumbing
HVAC
Process Piping
Electrical
CONSTRUCTION COST - TREATMENT FACILITY
Engineering (15%)
Contingencies (10%)
CAPITAL COST - TREATMENT FACILITY

SU8REGIONAL FACILITIES
Initial
Cost
($)
30,000
60,000
200,000
220,000
2,403,000
360,000
240,000
3iQQ3fcQQQ
4,641,000
Service
Life
(Yrs)
20
20
20
20

Salv.ige
10th Yr. 15th Yr. Value
($) ($) <$)

199*922 ..S*£*QQ9
100,000 270,000 1,229,000
O&M COST ESTIMATE
CONVEYANCE FACILITIES
Fontana Pump Sta.
Wai worth Puaip Sta.
ANNUAL O&M COST - CONVEYANCE FACILITIES

TREATMENT FACILITY
Labor
Electric Power
Natural Gas and Fuel
Parts and Maintenance Supplies
Chemicals
ANNUAL O&M COST - TREATMENT FACILITY

EXIbTING COLLECTION SYSTEM3
Annual Cost
$20,000
500
20,500"
60,000
44,600
7,000
13,000
600
125,000
Sewer System O&M
Adninistrative/Billing
ANNUAL O&M COST - EXISTING COLLECTION SYSTEM
Waiworth
$10,000
11,000
$21,000
Costs were taken from Appendix M of Addendum No. 1 to Volume 2.
Area (Donohue & Asoc., Inc. 1983b).
Fontana
$23,000
6,500
$29,500
West Planning
2-152
-------
Table 2-40.
Disaggregation of costs for the FPRA among major service areas of the
Waiworth/Fontana RSSAs, based on annual daily average wastewater
flows.

Area
Wai worth
Fontana
Currently sewered
Southwest shore
Total

Area
Fontana:
Sewer System O&M
Administrative
Pump Station
Piping
WWTP
Subtotal (Fontana)
Southwest shore
Currently
sewered area
Wai worth:
Sewer System O&M
Administrative
Metering Station
Piping
WWTP
Subtotal (Walworth)
Total
Design
Flow
235,000 gpd
765,000
area 677,000
88,000
1,000,000
Future
Capital 1 Oth Yr.
Cost Cost

-
- -
$ 306,000
1,145,400
2,297,300 76,500
$3,748,700 $76,500
431,000 8,800

3,317,700 67,700

-
-
50,000
139,400
705,700 23,500
$895,100 $23,500
$4,641,000 $100,000
Capital
Cost Share
23.5%
76.5%
88.5%
11.5%
100.0%
Future
15th Yr.
Cost

-
-
$245,000
-
19,100
$264,100
30,400

233,700

-
-
-
-
5,900
$5,900
$270,000
Base Year
Flow
190,000 gpd
718,000
650,000
68,000
908,000

Annual
O&M

$ 23,000
6,500
20,000
—
105,500
$155,000
14,700

147,300

$ 10,000
11,000
500
-
7,500
$29,000
$184,000
O&M
Cost Share
20. 9%
79.1%
90.5%
9.5%
100.0%

Salvage
Value

-
—
$163,500
458,200
416,200
$1,037,900
119,300

918,600

—
—
7,500
55,800
127,800
$191,100
$1,229,000
Cost disaggregation computed by WAPORA, Inc.
2-153
-------
documents at a later time. However, since Williams Bay is in the planning
area for this project, preliminary information developed by the Village's
consultants (Robers and Boyd) and supplemented by the facilities planner
(Donohue and Assoc., Inc., 1983c) concerning construction of a new aerated
lagoon WWTP for Williams Bay has been included in this EIS.

For this alternative, Williams Bay would construct a new 0.9 mgd aer-
ated lagoon WWTP, with effluent disposal by rapid infiltration at the Vil-
lage's existing seepage lagoons, which will be upgraded and expanded.
Items to be constructed and/or expanded include- a new aeration lagoon with
a liner, yard piping, a service building and laboratory, aeration equipment
and structures, and miscellaneous electrical, mechanical, plumbing, and
ventilation services. A preliminary cost estimate of the proposed Williams
Bay facilities is given in Table 2-41. A disaggregation of costs among the
major service areas in the Williams Bay RSSA also is contained in
Table 2-42. A summary of the total estimated costs associated with the
FPRA is listed in Table 2-43.

2.4.3. EIS Alternative

Evidence demonstrating an excessive number of failures of onsite sys-
tems and the resulting adverse effects of such failures within the planning
area has not been presented. Contrary to this, the needs documentation in-
formation (Section 2.2) indicated that the number of failing onsite systems
within the RSSAs is low, and documented evidence of surface water and
groundwater pollution resulting from failing onsite systems is minimal. As
a result, a third alternative (herein referred to as the EIS Alternative)
has been developed for evaluation.

The EIS Alternative includes upgrading existing onsite systems with
obvious and potential problems identified in the needs documentation pro-
cess, and improved management of existing and future onsite systems in the
areas of the RSSAs not currently served by sewers, upgrading the Lake
Geneva WWTP; construction of a new WWTP to serve Williams Bay; and con-
struction of a new WWTP to serve the Villages of Waiworth and Fontana. The
service areas of the proposed WWTPs would include the year 2005 population
2-154
-------
Table 2-41.
Estimated cost of the Williams Bay WWTP (0.9 mgd) proposed for the FPRA (Adapted
from letter, Alan L. Berg, Donohue & Assoc., Inc., to Mark B. Williams, WDNR,
14 October 1983).

TREATMENT FACILITY
New Wastewater Pumping
Mechanical
Force Main
Earthwork
Lagoon Liner
Process Piping
Aeration Blowers
Aeration Piping
Aerators
Blower Building
Roadways
Landscaping
Fencing
Observation Wells
Control Sructures
Metering & Sampling
Electrical
CONSTRUCTION COST - TREATMENT FACILITY
Engineering (15%)
Contingencies (15%)
CAPITAL COST - TREATMENT FACILITY
ANNUAL O&M COST -
TREATMENT FACILITY
Labor
Electric Power
Natural Gas and Fuel
Parts and Maintenance Supplies
Total for Treatment Facility
a
EXISTING COLLECTION SYSTEM
Total for Sewer System
TOTAL ANNUAL O&M
Initial
Cost
($)
87,000
18,000
242,000
101,000
261,000
45,000
28,000
79,000
25,000
12,000
18,000
5,000
5,000
15,000
23,000
16,000
29,000
1,040,000
150,000
150,000
1,304,000
Service
Life
(Yrs)
15
40
20
20
30
20
20
20
40
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20

20
Salvage
10th Yr. 15th Yr. Value
<$) ($) ($)
87,000 58,000
9,000

87,000

— — _-_ ___

-0- 87,000 166,000
Annual Cost
$34,000
39,000
3,000
4,000
80,000

100,000
180,000

Cost was taken from Apendix CC of Volume 2:
(Donohue & Assoc., Inc. 1983a).
Treatment Alternatives, West Planning Area
2-155
-------
Table 2-42. Disaggregation of costs among major service areas of the
Williams Bay RSSA, based upon population served.
Area
Williams Bay

Northwest Shore
Base-Year
Population

3,670

543
Cost
Share

87%

13%
Total
4,213
100%

Area
Williams Bay
Northwest Shore
Total

Ca pi tal
Cost
$3,134,000
170,000
$1,304,000
Future
15th Yr.
Cost
$76,000
11,000
$87,000

Annual
O&M
$156,400
23,600
$180,000

Salvage
Value
$144,400
21,600
$166,000
Cost disaggregation computed by WAPORA, Inc.
2-156
-------

r-f
05
4j
O
^

03
•jj
^
CO 4J
Sc
4-
CQ
O 0)
J£

s
3
i
J!
3
2
£
C?
01
U
c
•*•(
5
•§
m
a
n
CO

T> 3
LI hi
y
n
Ll
O
"T T

U
6 rC
0) 4J
09 Li
Q) O
JM »*

0 0

A (h
ON CO
f*« CO
CM P^
CM in

^"^
V O
00 C
?£
[A -w-
>r>

(M CN
.c €•"
in o
IS 2
rH O
CO CO
T-J CM
^
CO O

I" ON
J! 5
u
o o
s»>
CO
SO
in |
CM
r**

^%
CO
- °°
£ ON
g°.
O
•**
CO OO
r^ oo
ON so
O ON
so r»
o **r
•-« CM

4)
« 5
> *,«
I-* C3
9 >
w

SO in m rH o O sf
C7S P^ TH SO O CM SO
A M AM'

"* *J
b a
3 .e o
Li u JJ O
O SO
IW rC
2
DM
1— t
g g §
«*i i 1 co I mil
m in P-I
T-H .-I OO

(t<
a -g.fi
JC
•4J

O
«-l
GO
4J
§
y

d O
C

O o mlm m o o o
O .a- CM SO m OONCM
o *
co PH in in so co ON
-« ON O -» CN
«> f-4 CM

2S
IJ .pf
•& T« P<
.
Ll
3
a
en
CO
•9
i-l
2
H

s
j.

O o O|o O O 0 0
o in o in o o T-I o
in CM mlcM r*- co r^ oo
CM* r-T rJl p-T ON" e*T co" CM"
CM o CMJm CM CO s* CO
« « - - . . .
ON CM rJ CM rO r-l p-l
0> |r-l
VI
CA BLi
O 3

5 -S
J3 CO HI
« O Ll IH M
M a c o c o c o
« ju o u o*ou
rJia-HO, ra -H en — i a.
] U fij > u U 11}
CTJOCJr^ CJO 4JOO
||r5So-2 |-S S5S.X
J3 II
>-5
ON
ON
CO
in
m
"^
«n
ON co co m so CM
CO CM 00 U"
1 so O
CO CM ON CO m •»
r^ r^ co cr
so mo *f
•& r* t** +*
r-T PH" *t"
CN

OS
(T,
CO
Px
s
O m
T CM O
so r<*
r*« CM

** CO 00 00 ON CM
O in r"* CO r-l r^
SO ON CM CM m CM
* n A ft n m
CO CO f---! -i)
ON CO
** *-T i— ' CTx "-.r r-^
O CM i-H --T
CM
CO
CO

o"
T-I

i—* ^ CM \o r** o
m m ^-i co
oo o\ so O
M « ft
ON r-l p- O
CM r-. rH
r-l

so
ON
CO
CO
co T-I en o
co r^ so csi
CM CM •» CM
CM rH CM -?f
SO rH CO

in
CM
01
CM
ON
CO
T-I rJ O r»
ON in CO CM
in oo ^ rx
CO CM I"** f^-
CO ON 00 00
ON CM •* T-I
CO ,-T

st
CO
o
so
O
CM
CM
O O O O O O
SO O O O CO O
ON rf s£> ON m CO
so *-i eo os in o
O ON T-I <0 00 T-J
ON T-I ON CO CO T-I
00

O
co
3
§OO 0
o o o
o ON r~- 1 I *a*
ft m co o
ON CO CO
CO CM

O
o
m
M
CM
.—I
00
O O 0 O
0 O 0 O
co m h. 1 t co
• .
fo co r- co
SO CM SO
ON

co"
CO
O O O O O O
CO O O O OS O
in o co so CM rv

ON ON l»~ CO •»
CO CM -* r-l
CO T-^

0
r-l
CO
ON
SO
CO
o o o o o o
so o o in m o
r* T-I p^ r^ co o
o m r- ON o T-H
CIS CO CO SO SO "^
oo" co"
r-l

Cvi ex,
< 1 1
CO
a: e d
a a at
cd Li Li
e d d o c o
<9 o o j= o 4-1
U Trf -n CO — ' Q,
o u u u o o
H EK..3Q) a> CAQJU
(2 IsSSsS -SS-Si
H p H d S
:« 5 M O O
H S
so » co
rH ON in CM
T-f I-l

O O O O o O
o o o o p-v o
so •»• O co co O
T-I H

CL,
g

1
< ifl 0)
tfi Lf M
in e o d o
at »> 0 jc! o u
a -t co — i a,
X 03 u u cy
tq o »-T o o
r-l CO CD sV CO OJ Ll
« g "f 0) rH (U ft,
4J CB&H 3HUH
O a-HO & O C ?£
H WHO UOMS
rH -H rH Ll
IS T-I -H 0
" TH S ^
O TH
H S

0
o
m
r,"
so

0
so
SO
«
00
CM

O
SO
m
-9
*

•3
U

O o
o oo
«*> CO
*
•a- co
CO
co-
in in
~-* CO
0 rH
ON P^
o o
CM I**.
CM"
CO -H
ON T-H
00 -*
CO CO
CM
-------
service areas of the proposed WWTPs would include the year 2005 population
expected for currently sewered portions of these communities only, and
would not include expansion of sewers into currently unsewered areas. The
extent of the RSSAs to remain unsewered and the location of proposed inter-
ceptor and treatment facilities for the EIS Alternative are presented in
Figure 2-17. Facilities proposed for construction for the EIS Alternative
are described in the following paragraphs.

Ons it % Sys t ems

Under the EIS Alternative, existing unsewered areas within the RSSAs
would remain on onsite systems. Management districts would be formed to
administer funds, inspect, design, and construct upgraded systems; ensure
proper operation and maintenance of the systems; and monitor performance of
systems (Section 2.7.4.). The management districts would likely use State
funding for completing the necessary facilities planning and design work
for a construction grant application under NR 128.08. During this phase,
the local district and the State agencies would have to agree on the com-
ponents that would be utilized in upgrading existing systems. The EIS
Alternative feasibility analysis and costs presented in this EIS are based
on using a variety of sub-code systems, a number of which are described in
Section 2.4.5. The sub-code systems are justified within a management
district because the district would have the resources to monitor perform-
ance of the systems and would have the authority to establish special rules
concerning operations. Also, numerous sub-code systems have been operating
satisfactorily, especially for seasonal residences within the planning area
without any demonstrably harmful effect on the environment.

The district would arrange for the inspection, design, and construc-
tion of upgraded systems. Individual upgrades would be made in consul-
tation with the property owner and the system design would be selected from
a range of technical options. The first choice of an upgrade would be a
septic tank-seepage bed in compliance with the Wis. Adm.Cd. Other soil
absorption systems, dry wells or mounds, would be considered where parcel
area is limited and the water table is deep, or where the water table is
shallow and the parcel is large. Small parcels with permeable soils would
2-158
-------
LEGEND
n
n
D
»
•
x
s
Study area boundary
Como Lake RSSA
Geneva Lake RSSA
Williams Bay RSSA
Walworth RSSA
Font ana RSSA
Area proposed for onsite upgrade
Existing pumping station to be upgraded
Existing WWTP to be upgraded
Existing WWTP to be abandoned
Proposed seepage ceO site
Existing seepage cell site
Proposed WWTP
RSSA boundary
Figure 2-17 Location of wastewater collection and treatment facilities for the EIS Alternative
-------
receive a septic tank and in-ground pressure distribution system installa-
tion. Curtain drains around the soil absorption system may be appropriate
for certain parcels that have a seasonally high water table due to upslope
drainage or limited permeability soils, and that have a suitable drain
outlet nearby.

Another option that would be implemented is installation of flow
reduction devices (Section 2.3.2.) in household plumbing. The types and
numbers of devices would be limited by the existing plumbing design and
acceptability to the homeowner. One aspect of flow reduction that would be
considered is removal of garbage grinders and laundry facilities from
residences with failing or marginally failing systems. If none of these
options could be implemented for a particular residence, then more drastic
flow and waste reduction measures or off-site treatment would be conslderd.
Principal among these is the low-flow toilet and blackwater holding tank
for toilet wastes and the existing or upgraded system for the remaining
(graywater) wastes. Any of the options enumerated previously would be
satisfactory for graywater treatment.

A holding tank for the entire waste flow is not a preferred option,
but may be required for certain residences or businesses. For seasonal
residences, the costs of disposal are reasonable but, for permanent resi-
dences, the costs are prohibitively expensive. In that situation, or where
a number of adjacent parcels would require holding tanks, constructing a
cluster soil absorption system would have cost and environmental advantages
over holding tanks. No area was identified where a concentration of perm-
anent residences required off-site treatment, therefore, no cluster systems
were currently recommended or costed in the EIS Alternative. Upon further
inspection and investigation, though, cluster soil absorption systems may
be justified.

The onsite portion of the EIS Alternative was costed by estimating the
types and number of upgrades that would likely be necessary in each of the
subdivisions. Past upgrades, currently failed or likely to fail systems,
and site limitations were evaluated to arrive at the estimates. If there
was no evidence to the contrary, the assumption was made that the systems
2-160
-------
were functioning satisfactorily. Estimates of the number of system compo-
nents to be upgraded initially are presented in Tables D-l to D-7 in
Appendix D. The summary of upgrade technologies initially selected for the
1,725 onsite systems within the RSSAs is:

191 septic tank replacements
140 seepage bed replacements
78 pump tanks and mounds
137 blackwater holding tanks
1,179 system need no upgrade.
During the planning period, it is anticipated that a number of systems
will require replacement because of change of occupancy, overloading of the
system, or decline in the infiltration rate of the soil. The management
district would identify these by the annual inspection of the system, by
the septic tank pumping contractor, or by information supplied by home-
owners. For costing purposes, the number of these future upgrades was
estimated based on an approximation of replacements that have been In-
stalled within the past ten years. These estimates are presented in
Tables D-8 to D-14 in Appendix D and are summarized as follows:

87 septic tanks replacements
115 seepage bed replacements
67 pump tank and mounds
100 blackwater holding tanks
28 holding tanks.
Systems for new residences would be constructed according to current
Wis. Adm. Cd. requirements; therefore, the systems would be limited to
conventional septic tanks and soil abosorption systems. Based on popula-
tion projection disaggregations prepared by SEWRPC and modified by Donohue
& Assoc., Inc., and WAPORA, Inc., the estimated numbers of future systems
also is presented in Tables D-8 through D-14 in Appendix D and are summa-
rized as follows:

• 380 septic tank and seepage beds
• 16 septic tank and dry wells
• 119 septic tank, pump tank, and mounds.
Estimated costs of constructing and operating the needed onsite sys-
tems (both Immediate and future) for major service areas within the Geneva
Lake RSSAs are shown in Table 2-44.
2-161
-------
Table 2-44. Estimated costs for onsite system in major service areas within
the Geneva Lake-Lake Como RSSAs.

Capital Annual Salvage
Area Cost O&M Value
Lake Geneva-Lake Como RSSAs
Lake Como Beach
Administration $221,544 $60,273 $ 0
Initial (Permanent) $461,795 $34,650 $38,082
Initial (Seasonal) 526,376 15,468 49,956
Future Annual 63,651 1,175 160,470

Lake Geneva Golf Hills
Administration 19,584 5,328 0
Initial (Permanent) 74,996 5,378 6,666
Initial (Seasonal) 000
Future Annual3 7,667 207 23,043

Geneva Bay Est. and Forest Rest
Administration 6,936 1,887 0
Initial (Permanent) 3,510 600 0
Initial (Seasonal) 1,755 180 0
Future Annual3 1,336 13 3,699

Southeast Shore
Administration 60,345 16,539 0
Initial (Permanent) 95,895 3,860 7,011
Initial (Seasonal) 144,616 4,078 11,877
Future Annual* 15,900 394 55,182

Fontana RSSA
Section 11
Administration 2,856 777 0
Initial (Permanent) 1,404 160 0
Initial (Seasonal) 702 72 0
Future Annual3 4,230 97 9,864

Southwest Shore
Administration 46,104 12,543 0
Initial (Permanent) 54,783 3,402 4,375
Initial (Seasonal) 119,408 4,030 16,146
Future Annual3 15,495 324 50,973

Williams Bay
Northwest Shore
Administration 50,184 13,653 0
Initial (Permanent) 27,682 1,684 1,737
Initial (Seasonal) 79,383 3,140 6,948
Future Annual3 17,073 195 49,707
a
Costs listed for future annual are for future annual construction, annual
gradient O&M, and total salvage value, respectively.

2-162
-------
Lake Geneva WWTP

The proposed WWTP facilities to serve the Lake Geneva RSSA would have
a design capacity of 1.7 mgd. The WWTP facilities would be similar to
those proposed for the FPRA, and would consist of upgrading the existing
trickling filter facilities plus construction of new seepage cell facili-
ties and a sludge storage lagoon at a new site located southeast of the STH
50 and U.S. 12 interchange. Some treatment units would be smaller than
those proposed for the FPRA since 1.7 mgd of wastewater would be treated
(daily average) instead of 2.1 mgd. Cost estimates for the Lake Geneva
WWTP as proposed for the EIS Alternative, based upon revisions to the FPRA
costs (due to reduced design flow) are listed in Table 2-45.

Walworth/Fontana WWTP

During conduct of the facilities planning efforts, the facilities
planner investigated a second alternative for Walworth/Fontana, consisting
of a new aerated lagoon WWTP followed by a rapid infiltration disposal sys-
tem. The new WWTP would be located at the Donald Rainbow farm on the south-
west border of the Village of Walworth. Total present worth of the aerated
lagoon-rapid infiltration system was estimated by the facilities planner to
be $4,750,000 (about 20% less than the oxidation ditch treatment system
recommended in FPRA). The oxidation ditch alternative was selected by the
facilities planner in part because of strong public sentiment against the
concept of devoting 80 acres of prime farmland to wastewater treatment.

In reviewing the progress of facilities planning efforts during con-
duct of this EIS, two items of interest were noted:

• The aerated lagoon - rapid infiltration treatment concept was
found to be a cost-effective treatment concept
• Additional areas with soils similar to those found at the Rambow
site (e.g., permeable sands and sandy loam) are located in and
around the Village o£ Walworth.
2-163
-------
Table 2-45. Estimated cost of the upgraded Lake Geneva WWTP (1.74 mgd) and

new rapid-Infiltration system, as proposed in the EIS
Alternative.
Item
Construction Design 15th Yr. Salvage

Cost Life(yrs) Cost Jtelue
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT SITE
General Construction
Raw WW Pump Station
Grit Removal
Primary Clarifier
Trickling Filter Mod.
Trickling Filter Cover
Secondary Clarifier
Digester Mod.
Sitework
Demolition
Generator Building
Effluent Pump Station
Remodel Service Bldg.

$97,900
57,900
35,600
8,000
67,000
147,000
5,000
14,000
20,000
20,000
13,000
30,000

40
40
40
20
40
40
20
20
—
40
20
20
Mechanical Equipment
Mechanical Bar Screen
Grit Handling
Raw WW Pumps
Primary Clarifier
T.F. Media
T.F. Distribution Arm
T.F. Underdrain Rehab.
Effluent Pumps
T.F. Recirculating Pump Mod.
Anaerobic Digestor
Sludge Pumps
Standby Generator
Metering and Sampling
Secondary Clarifier
Process Piping
Laboratory/Office Equip.
Sludge Vehicle
Plumbing
HVAC
Electrical
62,300
44,000
93,500
57,000
218,000
54,000
15,000
41,000
6,000
129,900
9,000
96,000
58,000
60,000
182,000
10,000
105,00
30,000
40,000
190,000
15
15
15
20
20
20
20
15
15
20
15
20
20
20
30
20
15
20
20
20
$62,300
44,000
93,500
41,000
6,000

9,000
105,00
$49,000
29,000
19,800

33,500
73,500
10,000
41,500
29,300
62,300
27,300
4,000

6,000
60,700

70,000
Subtotal - WWTP Site
$2,016,100
$360,800 $513,900
2-164
-------
Table 2-45. (Concluded)
Annual O&M

Sewer WWTP
Item O&M O&M Total O&M

Sewage Disposal Salary $4,000 $18,006 $82,006
Social Security 300 5,108 5,408
Retirement 500 8,586 9,086
Health and Life Insurance 700 6,512 7,212
Car Allowance 600 600 1,200
Electricity 2,000 37,500 39,500
Water 2,600 2,600 5,200
Telephone 220 500 720
Fuel - Digester — 5,200 5,200
Fuel - Office — 1,700 1,700
Repairs - Equpment — 4,300 4,300
Repairs - Sewer 7,100 — 7,100
Repairs - Lift Stations 2,700 — 2,700
Maintenance - Equipment — 1,300 1,300
Maintenance - Sewers 1,800 — 1,800
Maintenance - Lift Stations 2,200 — 2,200
Survey of Sewers 15,000 — 15,000
Engineering 5,000 5,000 10,000
Chemicals -- 1,800 1,800
Sludge Removal — 6,200 6,200
Building - Maintenance 400 400 800
Testing — 2,800 2,800
Vehicle - Maintenance 2,000 1,000 3,000
Alarm Circuits 450 — 450
Emergency Power 500 — 500
Insurance 600 5,770 6,370
Travel and School 500 800 1,300
Miscellaneous 2,000 — 2,000
Billing Expense 5,000 10,000 15,000
Debt Service 10,000 43,448 53,448
Outlay 5,000 20,000 25,000

Subtotal $71,170 $249,130 $320,300

Replacement Fund ___— _ 41,500 41,500
TOTAL O&M $71,170 $290,630 $361,800
2-165
-------
Table 2-45. (Continued).
Item
Construction Design

Cost Life(yrs)
Future
15th Yr.
Cost
Salvage

Value
LAND APPLICATION SITE
Si tewo rk
Process Piping
Roadways
Fencing
Percolate Monitoring
Observation Wells
Control Structures
Sludge Lagoon
Land Purchase
AT&T Cable Relay

Subtotal -
Land Application Site

CONVEYANCE PIPING

Effluent Force Main
Sludge Transport

Subtotal - Piping

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION

Service Factor (27%)

TOTAL CAPITAL COST
$254,500
228,700
38,000
13,000
7,000
4,000
26,700
50,000
396,000
20
30
20
20
20
20
20
20
Perm
$1,167,900

$258,000
57,900

$315,900

$3,499,900

945,000

$4,444,900
30
30
$ 0

$360,800
$76,200
$76,200

$86,000
19,300

$105,300

$695,400
2-166
-------
For these reasons, the EIS Alternative includes an aerated lagoon-rapid
infiltration treatment system near Waiworth to serve the Villages of
Fontana and Walworth.

For this system, new pumps would be installed in the main pump station
in Fontana. A comminutor would be provided to protect the pumps from large
solids. Pumps would be designed to handle the peak flow rate with the
largest unit out of service and would include flow monitoring equipment. A
stand-by electric generator also would be provided. The Fontana pump
station would discharge to a 10-inch diameter force main, which would, in
turn, discharge to an 18-inch diameter gravity interceptor constructed to
convey wastewater from Fontana to the Walworth WWTP site.

At the existing Walworth WWTP site a new metering station would be
constructed for Walworth. The Fontana and Walworth flows would be combined
at that site and would flow by gravity to the regional land application
site, the Donald Rainbow form.

This intermunicipal conveyance system would discharge to a new raw
wastewater pump station, located at the land application site. A commin-
utor would be provided to protect the pumps from large solids. Pumps would
be able to handle the peak flow rate with the largest unit out of service.
Flow monitoring equipment and a stand-by electric generator also would be
provided. The raw wastewater pump station would discharge to a 12-inch
diameter force main, which would convey raw sewage to the aerated lagoon
system.

The aerated lagoon system would consist of three cells designed to
remove 80% of the influent BOD. Oxygen transfer within the aerated lagoon
would be provided by positive displacement blowerb and static tube aerators
designed to deliver a minimum of 1.5 pounds of oxygen per pound of BOD
removed, as required by Section NR 110.24(6) of the Wis. Adm. Cd. A third,
quiescent cell would be provided for effluent polishing. The quiescent
cell also would serve as the dosing cell for the land application system.
The aerated lagoons would be designed to produce an effluent containing
less than 50 mg/1 BOD.
2-167
-------
All flow through the WWTP from the force main discharge to the seepage
cells would be by gravity. Liquid piping would be designed to allow by-
passing of individual cells foe resting or maintenance. Eight seepage
cells would be provided, to allow for alternate dosing and resting. This
would enhance treatment and prolong the life of the system. Dosing and
resting seepage cells would alternately saturate and drain the soil, creat-
ing anaerobic and aerobic conditions, respectively. This would allow both
nitrification and denitrification to occur, which would minimize the effect
of nitrates on groundwater.

A system of observation wells also would be installed around the
perimeter of the seepage cell system, to monitor groundwater quality. In
addition, a new administration and maintenance building would be provided.
This building would include a laboratory, offices, aeration equipment,
lavatory facilities, the stand-by generator, a workshop, and vehicle stor-
age space.

The aerated lagoon-rapid infiltration wastewater treatment system will
rely, in part, upon the physical, chemical, and biological purification of
wastewater within subsurface soil materials of the site selected. For this
final purification method to be practical, cost—effective, and environ-
mentally acceptable subsurface soil materials at the site selected must
possess the capability of accepting and conducting applied wastewater at
reasonable hydraulic rates. The site also must possess an adequate depth
of subsurface material to ensure adequate treatment of wastewater prior to
reaching groundwater. In addition to its physical suitability, the site
also must be attainable with appropriate zoning to be implementable.

For the EIS Alternative, the site evaluated in detail by the facili-
ties planner consists of 80 acres of the Donald Rainbow farm, legally
described as the E % of the NW \ of Section 28, TIN, RISE, Walworth County,
Wisconsin. The location of the site is shown on Figure 2-17.

The facilities planner conducted limited soil testing to determine the
hydraulic conductivity rate and depth to groundwater. The three borings
indicated laterally uniform underlying soils and a groundwater depth of
2-168
-------
approximately 26 feet. Theoretical hydraulic conductivities calculated by
the facilities planner based upon grain size analyses, however, indicated
potentially low hydraulic loading rates might be required. Onsite double-
ring infiltrometer testing to measure permeability was conducted by the
facilities planner. This latter infiltrometer testing identified increas-
ing infiltration rates with depth below the ground surface. Preliminary
indications were that, upon removal of the top eight feet of low-
permeability surface material, an application rate of 20 inches per week
could be utilized.

According to the facilities planner, another good indication of the
feasibility of the site is the fact that detailed logging of the test pit
walls, like the first three borings, did not find any silt or clay seams
that would impede infiltration from the bottom of the cells, as has
occurred at some other facilities within the State (Donohue and Assoc.,
Inc., I983b).

Estimated costs for the Walworth/Fontana aerated lagoon-rapid infil-
tration system for the EIS Alternative, as derived from detailed costs
prepared by the facilities planner for the Facilities Plan aerated lagoon
alternatives, are listed in Table 2-46. A disaggregation of costs between
sewered portions of the Walworth/Fontana RSSAs is shown in Table 2-47.

The Rambow site was retained as a suggested site only for costing pur-
poses, i.e., if facilities at the Rainbow site are cost-effective, then
facilities located in another site near the Village potentially would be
cost-effective. If an aerated lagoon system does prove to be cost-
effective, then further site evaluations could be undertaken to find an
acceptable site near or within the Village.

Williams Bay HWTP

For the EIS Alternative, a new Williams Bay aerated lagoon - rapid
infiltration WWTP would be constructed, as proposed in the FPRA. The only
difference is that a 0.7 mgd WWTP (average daily summer flow) would be
built instead of a 0.9 mgd WWTP, due to the reduced flow from a smaller
2-169
-------
Table 2-46, Estimated costs for the Walworth/Fontana WWTP (1.09 mgd) as proposed in the

SIS Alternative.
CONVEYANCE FACILITIES
Fontana Pump Station
Structural
Mechanical
Waiworth Metering Site
Structural
Mechanical
Piping
Fontana to Walworth
Walworth to Rambow Site
CONSTRUCTION COST - CONVEYANCE FACILITIES
Service Factor (27%)
CAPITAL COST - CONVEYANCE FACILITIES

TREATMENT FACILITY
Earthwork
Lagoon Liner
Process Piping
Aeration Blowers
Aerators
Service Building
Land
Roadways
Landscaping
Fencing
Water Well
Observation Wells
Control Structures
Metering and Sampling
Tractor and Mower
Lab & Office Equipment
Electrical
Raw Wastewater Pumping
Structural
Mechanical
Force Main
CONSTRUCTION COST - TREATMENT FACILITY
Service Factor (27%)
CAPITAL COST - TREATMENT FACILITY

CAP1TU COST - SUBREGIONAL FACILITIES

2
3
Initial
Cost
<$)
245,000
15,000
25,000
553,000
172,000
,010,000
272,200
,282,700
466,000
218,000
195,000
45,000
80,000
166,000
500,000
20,000
15,000
13,000
7,000
4,000
23,000
16,000
16,000
30,000
37,000
75,000
50,000
5,000
,009,000
542,400
,551,400
,834,100
Service
Life
(Yrs)
15
40
40
40
40

20
20
40
20
20
40
Infinite
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
10
20
20
40
15
40

Future
10th Yr.
($)
Future
15th Yr.
($)
Salvage
Value
($)
245,000 163,500

7,500
276,500
86,000
-0- $245,000 $533,500
65,000
83,000
500,000
16,000
50,000
37,500
16,500
2,500
$16,000 $50,000 $704,500

$16,000 $295,000 $1,238,000
2-170
-------
Table 2-46 (Concluded).
ANNUAL O&M COST - CONVEYANCE FACILITIES
CONVEYANCE FACILITIES
Fontana Pump Sta.
Wai worth Pump Sta.
ANNUAL O&M COST - CONVEYANCE FACILITIES

ANNUAL O&M COST - TREATMENT FACILITY
Labor
Electric Power
Natural Gas and Fuel
Parts and Maintenance Supplies
Chemicals
ANNUAL O&M COST - TREATMENT FACILITY

ANNUAL O&M COST - SUBREGIONAL FACILITIES
ANNUAL O&M COST - EXISTING SEWER
Existing Sewer System O&M
Administrative/Billing Cost
ANNUAL O&M CObT - EXISTING SEWER O&M
Annual Cost
($/Yr)
$20,000
500
20,500
30,000
38,000
2,000
2,500
300
73,000
$93,500
Waiworth
$10,000
11,000

$21,000
Fontana
$23,000
6,500
$29,500
Annual O&M costs for existing sewers and administrative costs is taken from Appendix L
of Addendum No. 1 to Volume 2; West Planning Area (Donohue & Assoc., Inc. 1983b).
2-171
-------
Table 2-47. Disaggregatlon of costs between sewered portions of Walworth/
Fontana RSSAs, based on annual daily average wastewater flows.
Area
Walworth
Fontana
Total:
Area
Fontana:
Administrative
Existing Sewer O&M
Pump Station
Piping
WWTP
Subtotal (Fontana)
Walworth:
Administrative
Existing Sewer OH
Metering Station
Piping
WWTP
Subtotal (Walworth)
Total
Design Capital
Flow Cost Share
278,000 gpd 25.4%
815,000 74.6%
1,093,000 100.0%
Future Future
Capital 10th Yr. 15th Yr.
Cost Cost Cost

_
_
$311,200 - $245,000
869,214
1,903,300 11,900 37,300
$3,083,700 $11,900 $282,300

_
_
50,900
55,474
648,000 4,100 12,700
$754,400 $4,100 $12,700
$3,834,100 $16,000 $295,000
Base Year
Flow
190,000 gpd
650,000
840,000
Annual
O&M

$6,500
23,000
20,000
-
56,700
106,200

10,000
11,000
500
-
16,500
$38,000
$144,200
O&M
Cost Share
22.6%
77.4%
100.0%
Salvage
Value

-
-
$163,500
340,656
525,600
$1,029,756

-
-
7,500
21,844
178,900
$208,244
$1,238,000
Cost disaggregation computed by WAPORA, Inc.
2-172
-------
service area. Estimated costs for the 0.7 mgd Williams Bay WWTP are listed

in Table 2-48. A summary of the costs associated with the complete EIS
Alternative is given in Table 2-49.
Initial
Cost
($)
Service
Life
(Yrs)
Future
15th Yr.
($)
Salvage
Value
($)
75,700
15,700
210,500
87,900
227,00
39,200
29,400
68,700
25,000
12,000
18,000
5,000
20,000
16,000
25,200
885,300
239,000
15
40
20
20
30
20
20
20
40
20
20
20
20
20
20

75,700
Table 2-48. Estimated cose of the Williams Bay WWTP (0.7 mgd) proposed for the EIS Alternative
(Scaled from FPRA by WAPORA, Inc.).
TREATMENT FACILITY

Raw Wastewater Pumping
Mechanical
Force Main
Earthwork
Lagoon Liner
Process Piping
Aeration Blowers
Aerators
Blower Building
Roadways
Landscaping
Fencing
Observation Wells
Control Structures
Metering and Sampling
Electrical

CONSTRUCTION COST - TREATMENT FACILITY
Service Factor (27%)
CAPITAL COST - TREATMENT FACILITY
$75,700
50,500
7,900
75,700
$134,100
1,124,300
ANNUAL O&M COST

ANNUAL O&M COST - TREATMENT FACILITY
Labor
Electric Power
Natural Gas and Fuel
Parts and Maintenance Supplies

ANNUAL O&M COST - TREATMENT FACILITY

EXISTING COLLECTION SYSTEM3
Existing Sewer System O&M

TOTAL ANNUAL O&M COST
Annual Cost
$30,000
34,000
2,600
3,500

70,100
100,000

170,100
Cost was taken from Appendix W of Volume 2: Treatment Atlernatives, West Planning Area
(Donohue & Assoc., Inc. I983a).
2-173
-------
2.5. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis o£ the Final Alternatives

This section evaluates the cost-effectiveness of the FPRA arid the EIS
Alternative. Section 2.7.1. evaluates monetary costs and anticipated user
charges of the alternatives, while Sections 2.7.2. through 2.7.4. evaluate
the flexibility and reliability of the alternatives and discuss how they
could be implemented.

2.5.1. Cost-effectiveness Analysis

The previous section of this EIS presented information concerning the
anticipated costs of constructing the final alternatives (construction
cost); the total project costs including engineering, contingency, and ad-
ministrative fees which would be incurred (capital cost); the estimated
yearly cost of operating and maintaining the facilities (annual O&M); and
the value treatment equipment and/or structures would have at the end of
the 20-year planning period (salvage value)

Capital costs are given in terms of total dollars required to finance
the project in one lump sum payment. Operation and maintenance costs, how-
ever, are given as an annual cost to be spent each year during the 20-year
planning period. If one alternative has a high capital cost but a low O&M
costs, while a second alternative has a low capital cost but high annual
O&M costs, it is difficult to compare the two alternatives to tell which
one really would be least expensive over-all In order to enable a mean-
ingful comparison to be made, a cost-effectiveness analysis must be
conducted.

The cost-effectiveness analysis presents all cost information in terms
of present worth at the beginning of the planning period. Capital cost,
present worth of the annual O&M, and present worth of the salvage value at
the end of the planning period are summed to obtain the total present worth
of each alternative (salvage cost is a negative value). The results of the
cost-effectiveness analysis of the final alternatives for the Geneva Lake
RSSAs are presented by the total present worth cost estimates listed in
Tables 2-43 and 2-49. As listed in these tables, the total present worth
2-174
-------
Table 2-49.
Summary of estimated costs for the EIS Alternative for major service areas within the Geneva Lake-Lake Como RSSAs
Area Capital
Lake Geneva-Lake Como RSSAs
Lake Como (Onsite)
Administration $221,544
Initial (Permanent) $461,795
Initial (Seasonal) 526,376
Future Annual 63,651
Total $1,209,715
Lake Geneva Golf Hills (Onsite)
Administration 19,584
Initial (Permanent) 74,966
Initial (Seasgnal) 0
TotalC 94,550
Future Future
Annual 10th Yr 15th Yr
O&M Cost Cost

$60,273
$34,650
15,468
1.175
$110,391

5,328
5,378
0
207
10,706
Geneva Bay Eat & Forest Rest (Onsite)
Administration 6,936 1,887
Initial (Permanent) 3,510
Initial (Seasonal) 1,755
Future Annual 1,336
Total 12,201
Southeast Shore (Onsite)
Adntnistratlon 60,345
Initial (Permanent) 95,895
Initial (Seasonal) 144,616
Future Annual 15,900
Total 300,856
Lake Geneva
Collection and WWTP 4.444,900
Totals 6,062,222
600
180
13
2,667

16,539
3,860
4,078
394
24,477
361,800 — 360,800
510,041 360,800
a
Present Worth
Salvage
Value

$ 0
$38,082
44,956
160,470
$83,038

0
6,666
0
23,043
6,666
0
0
0
3,699
0

0
7,011
11,877
55,182
18,888
695,400
803,992
Capital

$221,544
$461,795
526,376
642,767
$1,852,482

19,584
74,966
0
71.A24
171,974
6,936
3,510
1,755
13,491
25,692

60,345
95,895
144,616
160,563
461,419
4,444,900
6,956,467
O&M 10th Yr
Qj) 0983) (0 47J>6 )

$608,655 —
$349,905
156,201
84.726
$1,199,488

53,804
54,309
—
14,926
123,039
19,055
6,059
1,818
937
27,869

167,016 —
38,979
41,181
28,410
275,586
3,653,565
5,279,457 0
15th Yr Salvage
(0 3321) (0 2300)

$ 0
$8,759
11,490
36,908
57,157
rt
1,533
— n
5,300
6,833
— 0
*•*• 0
— ft
-"*• y
851
851

1,613
2,732
12L692
719,968
119,822 159,942
119,822 241,820
Total
Present
Worth

$2,994,813

288,180

52,710

8,058,345
12,114,016
-------
Table 2-49 (Continued )
Area
Walworth/Fontana RSSAs
Waiworth
Collection and WWTP

Fontana
Collection and WWTP

Fontana (Onsite)
Section 11
Administration
Initial (Permanent)
Initial (Seasonal)
Future Annual
Total

Southwest Shore (Onsite)
Aminstration
Initial (Permanent)
Initial (Seasonal)
Future Annual
Total
Total for Fontana RSSA
Future Future Present Worth

Capital
754,400
3,083,700
2,856
1,404
702
4,230
4,962
:)
46,104
54,783
119,408
15,495
220,295
3,308,957
Annual
O&M
38,000
106,200
777
160
72
47
1,009
12,543
3,402
4,030
324
19,975
127,184
1 Oth Yr 15th Yr Salvage
Cost Cost Value
4,100 12,700 208,244
11,900 282,300 1,029,756
0
0
0
9,864
0
0
4,375
16,146
50,973
20,521
11,900 282,300 1,050,277

Capital
754,400
3,083,700
2,856
1,404
702
42,716
47,678
46,104
54,783
119,408
156,473
376,768
3,508,146
O&M 10th Yr,
(10 0983) (0 4796)
383,735 1,966
1,072,439 5,707
7,846
1,616
727
3,389
13,578
126,662
34,354
40,696 —
23,363
225,076
1,311,093 5,707
15th Yr. Salvage
(0 3321) (0.2300)
4,218 47,896
93,752 236,844
0
0
0
2.269
2,269
0
1,006
3,714
11,724
16,444
93,752 255,557
Total
Present
Worth
1,096,423
4,018,754

58,987

585,400
4,663,141
Wiltiaras Bay RSSA
Williams Bay
Collection and WWTP
1,124,300 170,100
75,700
134,100
1,124,300 1,717,721
25,140 30,843
2,836,318
-------
Table 2-49 (Concluded )

Area
Northwest Shore (Ons ice)
Administration
Initial (Permanent)
Initial (Seasonal)
Future Annual
Total
Total I

Capital

50,184
27,682
79,383
17,073
157,249
,281,549
Future
Annual 10th Yr
O&M Cost

13,653
1,684
3,140
195
18,477
188,577
Future
15th Yr Salvage
Cost Value

0
1,737
6,948
49,707
8,685
75,700 142,785
Present Worth

Capital

50,184
27,682
79,383
172,408
329,657
1,453,957
O&M 10th Yr
(10 0983) (0 4796)

137,872
17,006
31,709 —
14,061
200,648
1,918,369
15th Yr Salvage
(0 3321) (0 2300)

*•— 0
400
1 , 598
11,433
13,431
25,140 44,274
Total
Present
Worth

516,874
3,353,192
TOTAL FOR
EIS ALTERNATIVE
$11,407,128 $863,802 $16,000 $731,500 $2,205,298 $12,672,970 $8,892,744 $7,673 $242,931 $589,547 $21,226,772
present worth calculated at 7 5/8% for 20 years
Present worth factors for future annual onsite systems are
- Present worth of annual capital = 10 0983
- Present worth of annual incremented O&M » 72 1075
- Present worth of total salvage value • 0 2300
cThe totals for capital and annual O&M Include only initial costs
-------
of the FPRA is $33,389,100, whereas the total present worth of the EIS
Alternative is $21,226,800 (approximately 63% of the FPRA estimated cost.)
The EIS Alternative therefore is the most cost-effective alternative .eval-
uated in this EIS.

A comparison of present worth costs which are associated with provid-
ing wastewater management services to specific RSSAs, or service areas
within certain RSSAs, also can be raade by comparing the total present worth
values listed in Tables 2-43 and 2-49 for the various areas. For example,
for the Lake Como area, the total present worth of the centralized sewage
collection and treatment system proposed by the FPRA is $12,279,070. For
the same Lake Como area, the total present worth of the onsite management
system proposed by the EIS Alternative is $2,994,800 (approximately 25% of
the FPRA estimated cost). In general the EIS Alternative that serves
currently unsewered areas of the RSSAs with onsite management systems is
more cost-effective than the FPRA that proposes construction of sewers in
currently unsewered areas.

For currently sewered areas, the estimated costs for providing cen-
tralized wastewater collection and treatment, as proposed by both the FPRA
and EIS Alternative, are similar. For Lake Geneva, the cost of the EIS
Alternative is greater than for the FPRA, because the WWTP costs are borne
entirely by the City and are not shared with citizens in Lake Como and the
southeast shore area. Exactly what these various costs will mean to the
citizens paying for wastewater services will depend, in part, on what kind
of State and/or Federal grants (if any) are awarded for the project.

It should be noted that the EIS Alternative provides for wastewater
treatment (either centralized or onsite) for nearly all residences in the
RSSAs. The FPRA proposes sewers in all areas, but cost estimates currently
have been provided by the facilities planner for the larger subdivisions
only. If collection sewers are actually constructed to serve all resi-
dences within the RSSAs, the total cost for collection sewers of the FPRA
could actually be substantially higher than those listed in Table 2-36.
2-178
-------
The construction grants program, although administered by the WDNR, is
a Federal Program which makes Federal grants available for construction of
wastewater treatment facilities. For grants awarded prior to 1 October
1984, the Federal grant would equal 75 percent of all grant eligible capi-
tal costs. On or after 1 October 1984, the Federal share would be 55% of
all grant eligible capital costs. USEPA participation in cost for reserve
capacity after 1 October 1984 has been reduced from 20 years to the capac-
ity needed at the time of grant award. Grants are not awarded for annual
operation and maintenance expenditures.

For innovative/alternative components such as land disposal systems
(e.g., rapid infiltration) and resource recovery systems (e.g., sludge
landspreading), grants of up to 85% of the grant eligible capital costs of
the innovative/alternative systems can be awarded prior to 1 October 1984.
On or after 1 October 1984, innovative/alternative systems may receive
grants for up to 75% of the grant eligible capital costs.

The Wisconsin fund grant program makes 60% grants for the construction
cost of eligible systems for which Federal monies are not available.
Engineering fees, legal and administration fees, and annual operation and
maintenance costs are not eligible for state funding A priority list uses
several criteria to determine eligibility under both the Federal and state
grant programs. The project schedule for the Geneva Lake study area indi-
cates that construction grants will be requested, and potentially awarded,
prior to 1 October 1984. Because of the respective rankings of these
projects on the WDNR priority list, the Lake Geneva WWTP likely will
receive Federal funding. The facilities proposed for Williams Bay, Wai-
worth, and Fontana likely will not receive any Federal funding. However,
it does appear that the west end projects (Walworth, Fontana, and Williams
Bay) likely will receive grants from the Wisconsin Fund in the amount of
60% of all grant eligible costs. In addition, it appears that collection
sewers, interceptors and associated lift stations, and initial onsite
system upgrades for permanent residences potentially would receive
Wisconsin fund grants if requested. Initial upgrades of onsite systems for
seasonal residents, and all future upgrades and new systems potentially
would not be grant eligible.
2-179
-------
Approximate user costs were developed for the FPllA and BIS alternatives,
based on the following assumptions:

o The Lake Geneva WWTP will receive a Federal grant for 75% of
the capital cost of the WWTP upgrade, and 85% of the capital
cost of the rapid infiltration basins aad sludge facilities
o Wastewater collection and conveyance lines will receive a
State grant for 60% of their construction costs
o The Waiworth, Fontana, and Williams Bay WWTPs will receive a
WDNR grant for 60% of their construction costs
o Onsite systems for permanent residents will receive a State
grant for 60% of their construction costs
o Onsite systems for seasonal and future residences will
receive no grant assistance.

Estimated user costs for various areas in the RSSAs for the FPRA and
the EIS Alternative are presented in Tables 2-50 and 2-51, respectively.
If collection sewers are built in all subdivisions in the RSSAs and the
homeowner's connecting sewer costs were included, user costs for the FPRA
may be substantially higher than those shown in Table 2-50. The user cost
presented in this EIS are included only to allow a meaningful comparison of
alternatives. Actual user charges assessed by the villages, cities, and/or
sewage management districts will depend on actual funding provided (if any)
at the time of construction, bond rates at the time of bond issuance, and
other factors. If these projects are built in phases, then actual user
charges also will vary periodically due to additional bond sales and bond
retirement during each phase of construction.

2.5.2. Flexibility

Flexibility measures the ability of a system to accommodate future
growth and depends on the ease with which an existing system can be up-
graded or modified. System alternatives considered in this report include
centralized collection sewer systems, wastewater treatment plants, and
various onsite systems. The following evaluation is generally applicable
to most of the alternatives unless otherwise stated in the discussion.
2-180
-------
Table 2-50. Estimated annual user cost per existing for the FPRA for the various service areas within
the Geneva Lake-Lake Como RSSAs.
en

Area
Lake Como Beach
Lake Geneva
Southeast Shore
Fontana
Wai worth
Southwest Shore
Williams Bay
Northwest Shore

Local
a
Share
$6,217,915
682,110
1,546,486
1,750,283
472,218
924,072
598,252
762,676

Annual
Equivalent
(0.0990)
$615,574
67,529
153,102
173,278
46,750
91,483
59,227
75,505

Annual
O&M
$105,065
245,555
38,910
147,300
29,000
14,700
156,400
28,660

Annual
Cost
$720,639
313,084
192,012
320,578
75,750
106,183
215,627
104,165

Number of
Connections
984
3,028
300
1,582
649
290
1,346
191
Estimated
User Cost
Per
Connection
732
103
640
203
117
366
160
545
See Appendix F for calculation of local share.
-------
00
N)
Table 2-51. Estimated annual user cost per connection for the SIS Alternative for various service areas
within the Geneva Lake-Lake Como RSSAs.

Estimated

Area
Lake Como
Lake Geneva
Golf Hills
Geneva Bay Est.
and Forest Rest
Southeast Shore
Lake Geneva
Wai worth
Fontana
Section 11
Fontana
Southwest Shore
Williams Bay
Northwest Shore

Local
Share
$1,004,473

61,232
10,641
263,457
923,931
397,990
1,626,834
4,338
195,947
593,135
144,945
Annual
Equivalent
(0.0990)
$99,443

6,062
1,053
26,082
91,469
39,401
161,057
429
19,399
58,720
14,350
Total
Annual
O&M
$110,391

10,706
2,667
24,477
361,800
38,000
106,200
1,009
19,975
170,100
18,477

Annual
Cost
$209,834

16,768
3,720
50,559
453,269
77,401
267,257
1,438
39,374
228,820
32,826

Number of
Connections
984

83
30
300
3,028
649
1,582
12
290
1,346
191
User Co
Per
Connection
213

202
124
169
150
119
170
120
136
170
172
See Appendix F for calculation of local share.
-------
For gravity sewer systems, flexibility to handle future increases in
flows greater than the original design flow is generally low. Interceptor
sewers are generally designed for capacity beyond the planning period. To
provide an increase in capacity of existing collector sewers is a somewhat
expensive process. Also, the layout of the system depends upon the loca-
tion of the treatment facility. Expansion of a sewer system is generally
easy with the addition of new sewers, but is expensive.

The ability to expand a conventional WWTP depends largely upon the
processes being used, the layout of the facilities, and the availability of
additional land for expansion. The expansion or upgrading of most of the
treatment processes considered in the proposed WWTPs is relatively easy.
With proper design of process components of the treatment plant and proper
planning of the facility layout, the cost and effort required for expansion
may be relatively small. Most conventional treatment processes also have
good operational flexibility because operators can, to some extent, vary
treatment parameters. This is definitely true for the trickling filter,
oxidation ditch, and aerated lagoon WWTPs evaluated in this EIS.

Onsite systems are extremely flexible in that they are generally de-
signed for each user and they only are put where they are needed. As long
as spatial and environmental parameters are met, the type of system can be
chosen according to individual requirements. Existing septic systems can
be easily expanded by adding tank and drainfield capacity, if suitable land
is available. Flow can then be distributed to an added system with little
disturbance of the existing one. In the case of mound systems, future ex-
pansion may be difficult or impossible.

Because of these reasons, WWTPs proposed for the FPRA will be flexi-
ble. However, the flexibility of the proposed expanded collection system
may be somewhat limited, particularly if growth beyond that projected
occurs in an area where existing collection lines are small.

• With the EIS alternative, all growth in unsewered areas will be han-
dled by onsite systems to maintain maximum flexibility. Since new sewer
lines will not be continually connecting onto existing lines, the life and
2-183
-------
flexibility of the existing collection system also will be extended. The
onsite systans and the centralized WWTPs proposed by the EIS alternative
both have excellent flexibility for expansion.

2.5.3. Reliability

Reliability measures the ability of a system or system component to
operate without failure at its designed level of efficiency. It is partic-
ularly important to have dependable operation in situations where adverse
environmental or economic impacts may result from failure of the system.

A gravity sewer is highly reliable when designed properly. Such
systems require little maintenance, consume no energy, and have no mechan-
ical components to malfunction. Gravity sewer problems can include clogged
pipes that result in sewer backups, infiltration/inflow which increases the
volume of flow beyond the design level; and broken or misaligned pipes.
Major contributors to these problems are improperly jointed pipes and dam-
age to manholes, especially where they are not located in paved roads.

Pump stations and force mains Increase operation and maintenance
requirements and decrease system reliability. Backup pumps are Installed
in order to provide service in case one pump fails. A backup power source
is usually provided, consisting of either dual power lines or stationary or
portable emergency generators. Force mains are generally reliable; ex-
cessive solids deposition and ruptured pipes occur rarely. Leaking joints
occur more frequently and can cause environmental damage.

Federal Guidelines for Design, Operation, and Maintenance of Waste-
water Treatment Facilities (Federal Water Quality Administration 1970)
require that:

All water pollution control facilities should be planned and
designed so as to provide for maximum reliability at all times.
The facilities should be capable of operating satisfactorily
during power failures, flooding, peak loads, equipment failure,
and maintenance shutdowns.
2-184
-------
The wastewater control systems being evaluated for the study area
should consider the following types of factors to insure system relia-
bility:

• Duplicate sources of electric power
• Standby power for essential plant elements
• Multiple units and equipment to provide maximum flexibility
in operation
• Replacement parts readily available
• Holding tanks or basins to provide for emergency storage of
overflow and adequate pump-back facilities
• Flexibility of piping and pumping facilities to permit
rerouting of flows under emergency conditions
• Provision for emergency storage or disposal of sludge
• Dual chlorination units
• Automatic controls to regulate and record chlorine residuals
• Automatic alarm systems to warn of high water, power fail-
ure, or equipment malfunction
• No treatment plant bypasses or collection system bypasses
• Design of interceptor sewers to permit emergency storage
without causing backups
• Enforcement of pretreatment regulations to avoid industrial
waste-induced treatment upsets
• Floodproofing of treatment plants
• Plant Operations and Maintenance Manuals with a section on
emergency operation procedures
• Use of qualified plant operators.

Centralized collection and treatment alternatives will be highly
reliable if these measures are incorporated. Collection systems will be
less reliable where pump stations are required. If dual power lines from
separate substations can be extended to every pump station (an expensive
proposition), a reasonable level of reliability can be attained. Supplying
auxiliary power units for each pump station may not be feasible. A failure
2-185
-------
of a pump station would likely result in raw sewage or effluent being
discharged to surface waters.
•
Onsite systems are generally a reliable means of treating and dis-
posing of wastewater. Except with certain systems, they operate with no
power inputs and little attention When failures do occur, the impact to
the environment is small and diffuse. Total failures rarely occur in which
no treatment at all takes place.

Septic tanks provide reliable treatment when they are properly de-
signed and maintained. The principal maintenance requirement is periodic
pumping of the tank, usually every three to five years. The treatment
process can be harmed if large quantities of strong chemicals are flushed
into the tank.

Soil absorption systems generally provide excellent treatment if
design and installation are accomplished properly and soil conditions are
suitable. Other key factors in the successful operation of soil absorption
systems are proper functioning of the septic tank or other treatment unit
and observance of reasonable water conservation practices consistent with
the design flows. Soil absorption systems can malfunction when extended
wet weather results in saturation of the soil, when solids carryover plugs
the seepage bed, and when compaction of the soil surface results in re-
stricted permeability. Mound soil absorption systems are more reliable
than conventional seepage bed systems where water tables are high, beacuse
potential groundwater problems are minimized. They do require an effluent
pump, however, and rely on a dependable power supply. Septic tanks and
pump chambers generally can hold approximately 1.5 days of storage, which
is probably longer than the average power outage. A malfunctioning pump
can be replaced readily if onsLte units are standardized.

For these reasons, WWTPs and sewage lift stations proposed by the FPRA
will have moderate reliability, subject to failures during periods of power
outage. The reliability of simple trickling filter, oxidation ditch, and
aerated lagoon WWTPs is better than for other complex treatment technolo-
gies. The simple WWTPs are also able to handle shock loads well.
2-186
-------
For the EIS alternative, reliability of the WWTPs will be the same as
for the FPRA, as discussed above. Onsite systems will provide maximum re-
liability in unsewered areas.

2.5.4. Implementability

The means by which the selected wastewater management plan is imple-
mnted for each community depends upon whether the selected alternative re-
lies primarily upon centralized or decentralized facilities. Because most
sanitary districts have in the past been organized around centralized col-
lection and treatment of wastewater, there is a great deal of information
about the implementation of such systems. Decentralized collection and
treatment, including onsite systems and cluster systems with subsurface
disposal, is relatively new and there is less management experience on
which to draw.

In this section the term "management district" referes to the author-
ity responsible for managing the systems. A management district need not
be an autonomous organization, devoted solely to the management of these
systems. It may in fact be charged with other duties, and may share sys-
tems management responsibility through agreements with other agencies.

The value of small waste flows systems as a long-term rather than
short-term alternative to centralized collection and treatment only began
to be recognized in the 1970s. As a result, communities preparing facili-
ties plans after 30 September 1978 were required to provide an analysis of
the use of innovative and alternative wastewater processes and techniques
that could solve a community's wastewater needs (PRM 78-9, USEPA 1978a).
Included as alternative processes are individual onsite wastewater treat-
ment systems with subsurface soil disposal systems.

The 1977 Clean Water Act amendments recognized the need for continual
supervision of the operation and maintenance of onsite systems. USEPA Con-
struction Grant Regulations (USEPA 1978a, USEPA I979b) which implement that
2-187
-------
act, require aa applicant to meet a number of preconditions before a con-

struction grant for private wastewater systems may be made. They include:
•
• Certifying that a public body will be responsible for the
proper installation, operation, and maintenance of the
funded systems

• Establishing a comprehensive program for the regulation and
inspection of onsite systems that will include periodic
testing of existing potable water wells and, where a sub-
stantial number of onsite systems exists, more extensive
monitoring of aquifers

• Obtaining assurance of unlimited access to each individual
system at all reasonable times for inspection, monitoring,
construction, maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement.

Program Requirements memorandum 79-8 extended these rewquirements to

grants for publicly owned systems. These policies are continued in recent

regulations and guidelines implementing the Clean Water Act (40 CFR 35.2206

and 40 CFR.2100).

Regardless of whether the selected alternative for a community is pri-

marily centralized or decentralized, four aspects of the implementation

program must be addressed:

• There must be legal authority for the managing agency to
exist and financial authority for it to operate

• The agency must manage construction, ownership, and opera-
tion of the sanitary district

• A choice must be made between the several types of long-term
financing that are generally required in paying for capital
expenditures associated with the project

• A system of user charges to retire capital debts, to cover
expenditures for operation and maintenance, and to provide a
reserve for contingencies must be established.

Centralized System
The City of Lake Geneva and Villages of Walworth, Fontana, and Wil-

liams Bay have the institutional ability to implement and finance waste-
water disposal facilities withLn their respective corporate limits. They
2-188
-------
have the legal ability to apply for the USEPA Construction Grants, Wiscon-
sin Funds, and other sources of funding for design and construction; to
finance the operating costs and local share of the construction costs, and
to generate revenues through user charges. Management of wastewater dis-
posal facilities outside the Village limits, as required for a portion of
each of the Revised Sewer Service Areas under the FPRA can be accomplished
through contractual arrangements to provide service.

Capital expenses associated with a project may be financed by several
techniques (discussed in detail in Chapter 4.0.)- User charges are set at
a level that will provide for repayment of long-term debt and cover opera-
tion and maintenance expenses. The user charges for the different altern-
atives are discussed in Section 2.7. In addition, prudent management agen-
cies frequently add an extra charge to provide a contingency fund for ex-
traordinary expenses and equipment replacement.

Decentralized Systems

Regulation of onsite wastewater treatment systems has evolved to the
point where most new facilities are designed, permitted, and inspected by
county health departments or other agencies. After installation, the local
district has no further responsibility for these systems other than re-
cording septic tank pumpage reports until malfunctions become evident. In
such cases the local district may inspect and issue permits for repair of
the systems. The primary basis for governmental regulation in this field
has been its obligation to protect public health.

Rarely have governmental obligations been interpreted more broadly to
include monitoring and control of other effects of onsite system use or
misuse. The general absence of information concerning septic system im-
pacts on groundwater and surface water quality has been coupled with a lack
of knowledge of the operation of onsite systems.

Wisconsin statutes provide that communities such as the Town of Linn
or Geneva can form sanitary districts to implement an onsite wastewater
management alternative. A sanitary district may be formed by petition from
2-189
-------
residents or by WDNR under State Statutes (Chapter 6330) Commissioners of
the district are either appointed by the Town Board or elected to their
positions. They have the legal power to issue bonds, borrow money, and
plan and construct wastewater facilities. The sanitary district is respon-
sible for levying user charges, operating and maintaining the systems, and
keeping records as required by WDNR The existing sanitary district serv-
ing the Town of Linn would need to expand its authority to include waste-
water management in the unsewered portions of the RSSA designated in this
document. A sanitary district would have to be formed in the Town of
Geneva to include the portions of the RSSA in the north shore of Lake Como.

The purpose of a decentralized wastewater management district would be
to balance the costs of management with the needs of public health and en-
vironmental quality. Management of such a district would imply formation
of a management district and of onsite wastewater management policies. The
concept of a management district is new. The concept of community manage-
ment of private onsite wastewater treatment facilities has been well devel-
oped in the Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Wastewater
Management in Rural Lake Areas (USEPA 1983). That document presents four
community management models which are summarized in Table 2-52.

A status quo model is possible in areas with low density residential
development, few problems with onsite systems, and interest in the regula-
tion of onsite systems is low. An owner, volunter assistance model would
be appropriate where a higher density of onsite systems and number of
identified system failures occurs and potential for more widespread well
contamination exists. A compulsory community management would be appropri-
ate with higher onsite system density, greater population of risk, identi-
fied onsite system failures, documented groundwater problems, and interest
in the regulation of individual onsite systems. All homeowners with indi-
vidual onsite systems would be required to participate in a community
management program. The homeowner would retain ownership and liability for
their onsite systems but the community would assume greater responsibility
for insuring that they are properly maintained and operated. A comprehen-
sive water quality management model would include aspects of the compulsory
model but would also address all sources of pollution affecting a major
2-190
-------
Table 2-52 Management models for community management of private onsite wastewater facilities.
Model Characteristics of
ofPlanningAreas
Ownership/Liability Functions Needed
Responsibility
for Functions
tsj
Status Quo
Onsite systems, low density
and failure rate
Good soils
No sensitive water resources
No Community interests in regulation
Available expertise
Homeowner/homeowner
Owner Volunteer
Onsite systems; high density
and moderate failure rate
Impacted water resources
Limited funding for water/
wastewater improvements
Community interest in regu-
lating systems
Available expertise
Compulsory
Large number of systems; high
density and moderate failure
rate
Impacted groundwater resources
High community interest in
regulating systems
Limited funds
Available expertise

Coraprehens ive
Large population on onsite
systems, great number of
failures around a clean lake
Very sensitive water resources
High community interest in
regulation of systems and
pollution control
Some off-site systems
Limited funds
Available expertise
Homeowner/homeowner
Homeowner/homeowner
Homeowner/county
Permitting
Inspection of systems
Routine O&M
Complaints investigated
Permitting
Inspection of systems
Complaints investigated
Water sampling/analysis

Sanitary surveys
Construction Grants
Administration

Permitting
Inspection of systems
Routine O&M
Complaints investigated
Water sampling/analysis

Sanitary surveys
Construction Grants
Administration

Permitting
Inspection of systems
Routine O&M
Complaints investigated
Water sampling/analysis

Sanitary surveys
Construction Grants
Administration
County Health Department
County Health Department
Homeowners
County Health Department
County Health Department
County Health Department
County Health Department
County or State Health
Departments
County Health Department
County Health Department
County Health Department
County Health Department
Homeowners
County Health Department
County or State Health
Departments
County Health Department
County Health Department
County Health Department
County Health Department
Town
County Health Department
Town/County/State Health
Departments
County Health Department
County Health Department
-------
water resource such as Geneva Lake. The division of which model to adopt
would be up to each community.

Another product of the Generic Rural Lake Areas EIS is a six step
method for developing a management program. Many of the issues associated
with the development of a management district are presented in this EIS,
however, they are presented in much greater detail in the Technical Refer-
ence Document of the Generic Rural Lake Areas EIS. The process leading to
the development of a management district program involves six major steps.

• Inventorying factors affecting the design process
• Making decisions on system ownership and liability
• Identifying services to be provided
• Determining how selected services will be performed
• Determining who will be responsible for providing services
• Implementing the management program.

The measures projected as necessary to upgrade the onsite systems in
the unsewered portions of the RSSAs were outlined in Section 2.4.3. These
upgraded systems as well as those that do not require immediate improve-
ments will require monitoring and maintenance services over the project
planning period. Providing these services is one of the major objectives
of the management program.

Whenever possible, failing onsite systems would be replaced with a
standard septic tank - soil adsorption system designed according to State
standard. However, it must be recognized that conventional seepage beds
will not correct all problems. To avoid the very high cost of installing
and maintaining holding tanks on lots with severe limitations, full consid-
eration of unconventional systems is an internal part of the EIS Alterna-
tive. However, reliance of unconventional solutions to wastewater problems
creates the need for a higher level of expertise to select the appropriate
system for the given site conditions and to install and maintain them
properly.
2-192
-------
Unconventional systems recommended include such technologies as toilet
water/wash water separation, reduced size absorption systems with maximum
water conservation, reduced size mounds, and other "sub-code" systems.
These types of systems are currently not permitted for construction of new
onsite systems serving new dwelling units under State Regulations. These
systems are not proposed for new development under the SIS alternative.
However, for existing systems State regulations do make provisions for a
variance procedure whereby sub-code onsite systems are permitted where lot
limitations prohibit more standard forms of technology (ILHR Chapter H
83.09 Section 2b). This procedure has recently been applied, to the great-
est extent, to the separation distances between lot lines, wells, and on-
site treatment systems The use of this procedure would need to be ex-
panded to encompass the type of systems proposed under the EIS alternative.
This procedure would also depend heavily on a higher level of expertise at
the local and County level to ensure that unconventional systems are prop-
erly selected, based upon site conditions.

As previously mentioned, the Town of Linn Sanitary District has the
appropriate authority to implement the management program within their jur-
isdictlonal boundaries. However, essential expertise is lacking. This
expertise does exist at the County level with the Waiworth County Office of
Planning, Zoning, and Sanitation for a considerable portion of the skills
necessary. A new district would have to be formed for the Town of Geneva.
In addition, the Geneva Lake Watershed Environmental Agency is available to
provide water quality management expertise necessary for proper operation
in the management district. An interagency agreement to coordinate the
appropriate expertise could be formulated to ensure that the appropriate
expertise is brought to bear. All costs could be recovered through the
legal authority of the district at the Town level through a system of user
charges that would provide for repayment of long-term debt as well as
operation and maintenance expenses.

Onsite wastewater treatment facilities may be owned by the individual
owner, by a community management district, or by a private organization.
Liability involves acceptance of the responsibility for consequences of the
failure of an onsite system. Historically, communities have accepted all
2-193
-------
liability for the failure of centralized collection and treatment systems,
with exception of house connections and plumbing blockages. The liability
for individual system failures has traditionally rested with the system
owner. With community management of onsite wastewater systems, there may
be advantages to reassignment of the liability for system failure. The
assignment of liability to either a public or private agency is a matter of
choice for the communities and their residents.

The range of services that a management agency could perform in manag-
ing onsite systems varies greatly. Services chosen should be those needed
to fulfill community obligations without superfluous regulation, manpower,
or capital investment. Administrative, technical, and planning services
that a community might select are listed in Table 2-53.

Site investigations and design review of onsite systems for new build-
ings remains the responsibility of the Waiworth County Office of Planning,
Zoning, and Sanitation. However, any combination of the following three
groups could provide the necessary services.

• The Town Sanitary District (including assistance from County and
State organizations)
* Property owners or occupants
• Private organizations such as contractors, consultants, licensed
plumbers, private utilities, and private homeowner associations.

Communities may control services by providing them directly or they
may provide those services that only the designated regulatory body can
provide (such as permit issuance and enforcement), supervising the services
assigned to owners or private organizations. Assignment of service respon-
sibilities should account for the skills and regulatory authority needed to
successfully provide the service as well as the costs for different parties
to provide them and the risks attendant on poor performance. The determin-
ation of who will be responsible for providing these services will be a de-
cision each community will have to make.

The last step in the des Lgn process would be Implementation of the
management program. The specifics of this step would vary depending on
2-194
-------
Table 2-53 Potential program services for wastewater management systems
Administrative

• Staffing
• Financial
• Permits
• Bonding
• Certification programs
• Service contract supervision
• Accept public management for privately installed facilities
• Interagency coordination
* Training programs
• Public education
* Enforcement
• Property/access acquisition

Technical

• System design
• Plan review
• Soils investigations
• System installation
• Routine inspection and maintenance
• Septage collection and disposal
• Pilot studies
• Flow reduction program
• Water quality monitoring
2-195
-------
decisions made in the design process. Examples of the necessary implemen-
tation procedures are:

• Drafting and adopting appropriate municipal ordinance estab-
lishing the agency or providing it with needed authorities
• Hiring new personnel as needed
• Notifying potential contractors and consultants of perform-
ance criteria and contract requirements for operating within
the management district
• Drafting and adopting interagency agreements
• Creating sanitary review board
• Informing property owners about their responsibilities for
specific services.
Advantages and disadvantages are attendant to each type of management
option. Complete control by a municipal wastewater management agency comes
closest to guaranteeing that the systems would operate at optimal levels
but represents the most costly approach. The least costly approach would
be to keep the homeowner responsible for all maintenance activities and
costs. The homeowner then would be more inclined to utilize water-saving
measures and other methods to minimize maintenance costs. However, as is
currently the case, environmental protection is more likely to suffer when
the homeowner is responsible for maintenance.

Onsite systems can be funded under Section NR 128.08, which requires
that the individual systems be owned by a management agency or that access
be granted at all reasonable times through an easement or by Section NR
128.30 which funds private systems. In a manner similar to centralized
systems, only a certain portion of the total capital costs are eligible for
funding. Grants under section NR 128 30 and pay up to 60% of the eligible
costs have a limit of $3,000 per individual system. It is anticipated that
the onsite systems will likely be funded under Section NR 128.08 and that
the onsite systems will be owned, constructed, operated, and maintained by
the management agency. The local costs for the construction, operation,
and maintenance of the decentralized systems can be assessed to each user
equally by a variety of means (Section 4.1.3.). A Town management district
2-196
-------
would thus have the necessary authority to apply for funds, finance, and
implement a decentralized wastewater management approach.
2-197
-------
-------
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.1. Natural Environment

3.1.1. Atmosphere

3.1.1.1. Climate

The Greater Rockford Airport at Rockford, Illinois, approximately 35
miles southwest of Lake Geneva, is the repository of complete meteorologi-
cal data representative of the Geneva Lake-Lake Como study area. The study
area is characterized by climate of the continental type, moderated some-
what by nearby Lake Michigan. The area experiences large annual tempera-
ture ranges and frequent short-term fluctuations. Monthly temperatures
average 48 1°F (NOAA 1979) The highest temperature recorded at Rockford
was 103° in July 1955, and the record low of -24°F occurred in January
1979.

The average monthly precipitation in the study area is 36.72 inches
(NOAA 1979). Thirty-four percent of the average annual precipitation falls
in June and July, and 64% of the average yearly total occurs from April
through September. However, every month averages at least 4% of the total
average annual rainfall. Most of the snow falls from November through
March. A maximum monthly snowfall of 26.1 inches occurred in January 1979,
and the maximum snowfall in a 24-hour period was 10.9 inches in February
1960.

Winds are predominantly from the west-northwest, except during June
through October, when they blow out of the south-southwest (NOAA 1979).
Wind speeds average 9.9 mph.

Upper air data for the Geneva Lake-Lake Como study area have been used
to derive a statistical picture of the occurrence and characteristics of
elevated inversions (Holzworth 1972). These inversions trap pollutants in
ground-based mixing layers, and may result in air pollution episodes. The
lower the inversion layer, or the shallower the mixing layer, the more
3-1
-------
concentrated the pollutants are likely to be. The mean annual afternoon
mixing height in the study area has been determined to be approximately
1190 meters (m); the mean afternoon mixing height ranges from about^ 630 m
in winter to 1580 m in the summer. Mixing heights in combination with wind
speeds can be employed to evaluate atmospheric dispersion conditions.

3.1.1.2. Air Quality

The study area is located in the USEPA Southeastern Wisconsin Air
Quality Control Region (AQCR). Air quality standards applicable to the
study area are the Wisconsin Ambient Air Quality Standards, which are iden-
tical to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). New or modi-
fied wastewater treatment facilities must not cause violations of the
standards, and must meet the New Source Performance Standards for Sewage
Sludge Incinerators (USEPA 40 CFR, Part 60). Such facilities also are
subject to state air quality regulations.

Based on regional air quality data and information on sources of
atmospheric emissions, the Geneva Lake-Lake Como study area has been clas-
sified as an air attainment area for sulfur dioxide (S02>, carbon monoxide
(CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO ), hydrocarbons (HC), and ozone (0,^). An
attainment area is one in which pollution concentrations do not exceed the
primary or secondary NAAQS. The study area is presently unclassified for
total suspended particulates (TSP) (By telephone, Tom Mateer, USEPA Region
V, 29 October 1980).

The WDNR monitored TSP levels at Lake Geneva from 1971 through 30 June
1977, when it dismantled its station. TSP levels were in compliance with
both annual and maximum 24-hour primary ambient air quality standards
(health-related), although violations of the maximum 24-hour secondary
standard (welfare-related) occurred. The maximum 24-hour TSP value
achieved in the 6-year monitoring period was 196 ug/m , which was well
2
below the primary standard of 260 ug/m .

There are no Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Class I
areas in the Geneva Lake-Lake Como study area (By telephone, Tom Mickelson,
WDNR, 29 October 1980). A PSD Class I designation is given to an area that
3-2
-------
is in attainment with the NAAQS, which allows minimal, if any, industrial
growth. Class II areas allow moderate industrial growth to occur, and all
areas not designated Class I in the US are Class II.

There are no significant odor problems in the Geneva Lake-Lake Como
study area. The WDNR has never received complaints of odors in Walworth
County (By telephone, Robert Redovich, WDNR, Southeast District, Bureau of
Air Management, 2 October 1978). New or modified wastewater treatment
facilities must be carefully located, designed, and maintained to avoid
potential odor problems.

3.1.1.3. Noise

There are no major noise sources in the Geneva Lake-Lake Como study
area with the exception of highway noises and those related to water recre-
ation, such as motorboats. The location, design, and operation of waste-
water facilities must be considered to avoid exposing the surrounding
community to excessive noise.

3.1.2. Land

3.1.2.1. Physiography and Topography

The Geneva Lake-Lake Como study area is located in a topographically
high area just south of the Kettle Moraine area. The topography of the
study area is characterized by steep, hummocky, morainic ridges, which
trend northeast-southwest and reflect glacial deposition over a preglacial
bedrock valley. Elevations range from less than 830 ft msl in a wetland
area in the northeast corner of the study area to over 1,130 ft msl in the
south-central part of the study area.

The majority of the study area is situated in the Fox River Basin
(Section 3.1.3.). Lake Como and Geneva Lake are the two major bodies of
3-3
-------
surface water in the area and are drained to the northeast by Como Creek
and the White River, respectively. These lakes roughly parallel morainic
ridges and are fed by numerous small perennial and intermittent streams.
Wetlands occur south of the Village of Fontana, around Lake Como, and in
the northeastern and southeastern parts of the study area.

3.1.2.2. Bedrock Geology

The study area is located on the eastern flank of the Michigan Basin.
The bedrock geology consists of Precambrian crystalline rocks overlain by
Paleozoic strata. The Precambi ian surface slopes to the east throughout
Walworth County. The elevation of this surface ranges from -100 ft mean
sea level (msl) at Whitewater to less than -1600 ft msl along the eastern
county line (Borman 1976). The overlying Paleozoic strata consist of
easterly dipping Cambrian, Ordovician, and Silurian sedimentary rocks.

The bedrock surface of the Rock-Fox River Basin was shaped by pre-
glacial and glacial erosion of the exposed bedrock. Due to the regional
easterly dip of the bedrock strata, increasingly older rocks are exposed to
the west (Cotter et al 1969). This regional pattern, however, is distorted
by an uneven bedrock topography. The most striking features are bedrock
valleys, which were formed by the removal of the less resistant Maquoketa
Shale.

3 1 2.3. Surficial Geology

The unconsolidated sediments in the study area are predominantly gla-
cial sediments of Quaternary age. These sediments include end moraine,
ground moraine, and outwash material deposited by the Delavan lobe of the
Lake Michigan glacier during the Wisconsinan Stage of glaciation. The
combined thickness of unconsolldated materials (i.e., alluvium, marsh de-
posits, lacustrine sediment, and glacial drift) in the study area ranges
from approximately 100 ft in the northeast corner to over 500 ft in an area
between Geneva Lake and the southern border of the study area (Borman
1976). Thicknesses tend to be greatest where glacial deposits fill bedrock
valleys and in topographically high regions. Figure 3-1 illustrates the
3-4
-------

LEGEND

I _] Ground moraine
|i"^j Ojtwaih
|. ^«] Pitted outwathand other Ice contact deposit*
l'""l End moraine
&3sffF%:P
t^d'^/y«&i-''
' »• V »*»V*» "
* ft / * ft X-^O 9<
.:.••/•/:'y>t.'«!
ource R G Borman Qround-WfUr Humurem f
GBOIQQV of Walwrth coiiniv' Wtseona
Figure 3-1 Surficial geology
-------
uppermost deposits in the study area. Other unconsolidated materials may
underlie these deposits. Buried deposits, particularly those within bed-
rock valleys, constitute important aquifers in the study area.

End moraines mark the position of a glacier during a halt or minor
re-advance, and are composed of glacial till that was deposited along the
edge of a relatively stagnant ice sheet. Moraine topography is generally
characterized by belts of sharply rolling to hummocky land. Because gla-
cial ice was responsible for most of the deposition, materials consist
predominantly of unsorted, unstratified mixtures of clay, silt, sand,
gravel, and boulders. However, localized deposits of stratified sand and
gravel may have been formed from glaciofluvial action of associated melt-
waters.

Ground moraines consist of glacial till that was deposited directly by
glacial ice advancing over bedrock, or older glacial deposits. Sediments
comprise unsorted, unstratified mixtures of clay, silt, sand, gravel, and
boulders. Topography is typically gently rolling. Ground moraines in the
study area, however, are unusually rough, possibly due to the uneven bed-
rock surface.

Outwash plains consists of irregularly stratified drift deposited by
meltwaters emerging from a stagnant or retreating ice front. Sediment
particle size ranges from gravel to clay and tends to decrease with dis-
tance from the source. Topography associated with outwash plains is gen-
erally level to gently sloping.

3.1.2.4. Soils

Sewage disposal in rural areas most often depends on soil-based sys-
tems. Whether they function properly or not depends on proper design,
construction, and maintenance of the system. One approach to selection of
design criteria is to generalize soils into similar groupings based on
pertinent physical characteristics. The US Department of Agriculture Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) in cooperation with the Soil Department of the
Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey, and the Wisconsin Agri-
3-6
-------
cultural Experiment Station of the University of Wisconsin, have selected
design criteria for this project, based on pertinent physical/chemical soil
properties of the area, detailed in the Soil Survey of Walworth County
(SCS 1971).

The soil associations found in the Geneva Lake-Lake Como study area
are described below. The term "soil association" refers to a distinctive
proportional pattern of soils that normally consists of one or more major
soils (which give the association its name) and at least one minor soil
(SCS 1971). The association map presented in Figure 3-2 provides general
information on the soils of the study area For detailed information on
the soils of a specific parcel, the Soil Survey of jjalworth County
(SCS 1971) must be consulted.

The Houghton-Palms Association is characterized as very poorly drained
organic soils that occur near lakes and drainageways in depressions and on
bottom lands. The association is found at the eastern and western ends of
Lake Como, and at the eastern end of the study area The soil material is
composed of muck and peat, with mineral soils material underlying the
organic material. These areas frequently are flooded with the water table
at or near the surface throughout the year. No structures or onsite sewage
disposal systems can be constructed successfully in these areas without
extensive soil modification.

The Miami-McHenry Association is the most extensive in the study area
and is characterized by well-drained soils in gently rolling to steep
uplands surrounding the lakes The soils are formed in loess and underly-
ing sandy loam to loam glacial till associated with the till plains and
terminal moraines Small areas where this association occurs are steeply
sloping or level, have high water tables, or consist of organic soil mate-
rial. Because of the slopes, surface runoff is rapid, and ponding gener-
ally does not occur. Onsite sewage disposal systems that utilize this type
of soil generally operate well if they are designed, constructed, and
maintained properly.
3-7
-------
LEGEND
pjjjj Mougtlton-Palmi
P~l P«lla-K«ndatl
|| Mlaml-McHcnry
Source US Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey ol
WalworlR Counlv. Wisconsin 19n
Figure 3-2 Soils association
-------
The Piano, gravelly substratum-Warsaw Association Is characterized as
well-drained soils with nearly level to gently undulating slopes found on
outwash plains and stream terraces in the southwestern corner of the study
area around Walworth. The soil material is silty clay loam over sand and
gravel outwash in most areas. Surface runoff is slow, but the relatively
high permeability of the soil, and the deep water table in these areas
effectively reduce ponding to very short durations Soil-based onsite
sewage disposal systems operate well on these soils, but inadequate treat-
ment of septic tank effluent may occur if drainfields are located in the
underlying sand and gravel.

3.1.2.5. Prime Farmland

Prime farmland is land that has the best combination of physical and
chemical characteristics for producing row crops. The SCS has defined
prime farmlands as lands having "an adequate and dependable moisture supply
from precipitation or irrigation, a favorable temperature and growing
season, acceptable acidity or alkalinity, acceptable salt or sodium con-
tent, and few or no rocks." Prime farmlands are also characterized as
lands that are not excessively credible or saturated with water for long
periods of time, and which either do not flood or are protected from flood-
ing (SCS 1977).

Prune farmlands, farmlands of statewide importance, and farmlands of
local importance have been identified and mapped in the study area by the
SCS (See Figure 3-3). Prime farmland accounts for 245,790 acres in
Walworth County and includes all farmland on Class I and II soils. Farm-
land of statewide importance is land with good potential for growing hay or
for growing hay and row crops in rotation Conservation practices such as
contour stripping may be required on these Class III lands. Farmlands of
local importance are any lands that are considered important on a local
basis by the SCS.
3-9
-------
LEGEND

I I Prime farmland

HI Farmland of statewide Importance

HI Farmland of local importance

|~J Other land

l||| Approximate limits of urban growth
Source \
USDA-SCS-Llncoln Nebraska 1970
Figure 3-3 Prime farmland
-------
3.1 3. Water Resources and Water Quality

3.1.3.1. Groundwater

Groundwater Resources

Groundwater in the Geneva Lake-Lake Como study area is an important
resource for residential, industrial, commercial, and municipal users
Groundwater currently supplies 100% of the area's drinking water. The total
groundwater withdrawal for Waiworth County in 1971 was 6.6 ragd (Borman
1976) (Table 3-1).
Table 3-1. Amount of water used daily in 1971 for residential, commer-
cial, industrial, and municipal purposes in Walworth County,
Wisconsin (Borman 1976).
Amount Used
Water Use
Residential (public supply)
Residential (private supply)
Commercial (public and private supply)
Industrial (public and private supply)
Institutional (private supply)
Municipal
Total
MGD
1.56
1.1
1.2
1.3
0.2
1.27
6 63
Percent
23
17
18
2u
3
19
100
The groundwater aquifers in the study area are located in sandstone,
in unconsolidated sand and gravel glacier deposits, in the Niagaran Forma-
tion, and in the Galena-Decorah-Platteville Formation

The sand-gravel and sandstone aquifers in the area supplied approxi-
mately 94% of the 1971 pumpage for Walworth County (Table 3-2). The sand-
gravel aquifer, which is the major source of water, occurs both at the
surface and buried below relatively impermeable materials. Wells at the
surface yield between 500 gpm and 5,000 gpm, and wells below relatively
impermeable materials yield between 10 gpm and 500 gpm (Cotter et al
1969). Because water is found in the interconnected pore spaces between
3-11
-------
grains, well yields are also dependent upon the grain size and sorting of
the sediment, and the thickness and lateral extent of the permeable de-
posit. The saturated thickness of the aquifer in the study area ranges
from zero to about 300 feet, it is greatest in Fontana and Walworth, where
glacial deposits fill bedrock valleys and the topography is higher.

In areas where permeable glacial deposits are thin or absent, wells
penetrate the three bedrock aquifers. In many Instances, bedrock wells
rather than glacial drift wells are preferred because bedrock wells do not
have to be screened and therefore are less expensive to construct.
Table 3-2. Total pumpage from aquifers in Walworth County in 1971
(Borman 1976).
Pumpage
Aquifer
Sand-and-gravel
Niagara
Galena-Plat teville
Sandstone
Total
MGD
3.5
0.2
0.2
2.7
6.6
Percent
53
3
3
41
100
The sandstone aquifer underlies the entire study area. It is the
major source of water for municipal and industrial supplies, but is not
generally tapped for private water supply (Borman 1976). The sandstone
aquifer includes all sandstone bedrock below the Maquoketa shale. Yields
-rom most wells tapping this aquifer are directly proportional to the
thickness of the sandstone penetrated. Because of the thickness (up to
3,000 feet) and total head, well yields of up to 2000 gpm are possible
(Cotter et al 1969).

Although the Niagaran dolomite aquifer system supplies water for only
11% of the private uses in Walworth County, it is an important source of
water in parts of the study area where the sand-and-gravel aquifer is
absent. The Niagaran dolomite aquifer can be as thick as 450 feet, and
wells topping it have yielded up to 1,500 gpm (Cotter et al 1969).
3-12
-------
The Galena-Plattevllle aquifer provides water in areas where the
sand-and-gravel aquifer and Niagaran aquifer are absent. This aquifer
system is used for residential and agricultural purposes. The thickness of
the aquifer ranges from 0 feet to 400 feet, and yields from 10 gpra to 100
gpm (Cotter et al 1969).

Groundwater Quality

Groundwater within the study area is generally suitable for drinking
in terms of meeting drinking water standards. However, some residents in
the Lake Como area have mentioned that the taste renders the water unsuit-
able for drinking. A spring used for drinking water purposes was closed
for most of the summer of 1982 in Lake Como Coliform bacteria counts were
found above drinking water standards. The groundwater, in most locations
in the study area, is considered to be very hard (Boman 1976).

3.1.3.2. Streams

The streams and rivers in the study area that are of concern include
the White River, Piscasaw Creek, and Como Creek.

Stream Characteristics

The White River flows northeast out of Geneva Lake and joins the Fox
River near Burlington, Wisconsin, about 12 miles from the study area. Low
flows typically occur in late summer or autumn and high flows occur during
the spring. A summary of flow records is presented in Table 3-3. The
7-day, 10-year low flow is used to determine the amount of wastewater a
stream can assimilate and still be used for recreational or other purposes.
The 7-day, 10-year low flow for the White River at the Lake Geneva Waste-
water Treatment Plant is reported as 0.89 cfs by the USGS (1979), whereas
SEJRPC (1974) reported a value of 0.10 cfs at the same site.

• The White River watershed has a history of minor floods. Major flood-
ing is prevented by the storage of water in Geneva Lake attenuating the
runoff peak following precipitation and snowmelt. The two most significant
3-13
-------
floods in the area occurred la March-April 1960 and July 1938 (Jensen &

Johnson 1978).

<•

Piscasaw Creek originates in southwestern Walworth County, Wisconsin,

and flows south for approximately 30 miles, where it joins the Kishwaukee

River near Belvidere, Illinois. The Kishwaukee River eventually flows into

the Rock River. Hydrologic data on Piscasaw Creek are limited. Available
Table 3-3. Summary of flow data for the White River (water years 1958-64
and 1967-79; USGS 1980). Flow measurements were taken at a
gaging station 3 meters downstream from the bridge on State
Highway 36, about 0.5 miles NE of the City of Lake Geneva.
Discharge (water years 1974-79)

Extremes for the period of record:
Maximum Discharge
Minimum Discharge

Extremes for the water year 1978-79:
Maximum Discharge
Minimum Discharge
Average
Flow (cfs)

90.5
1,960
2.3
671
21
18 July 1969
4 July 1965
19 March
12 November
low-flow data are for the Village of Walworth sewage treatment plant. The

value for the 7-day, 10-year low flow was recorded as 1.30 cfs by the USGS
(1979), and 4.73 cfs by SEWRPC (1978).

Como Creek leaves Lake Como flowing in a northeasterly direction for
about 1.8 miles before entering the White River northeast of Lake Geneva in

Lyons Township. The 7-day, 10-year low flow is estimated to range from 0.3

cfs to 0.53 cfs (By telephone, Steven Skauranck, WDNR, 19 October 1978).

Stream Water Quality

The quality of the surface water in the study area is regulated by the

WDNR through Chapter 144 of the Wisconsin Statutes and Chapters 102 and 104
of the Wisconsin Administrative Code. These standards apply to individual
3-14
-------
surface waters according to their use and location. They are divided into
four categories: general standards, standards for fish and aquatic life,
standards for recreational use, and standards for water supply.

White River

The White River near Lake Geneva has been classified as "effluent
limited" (i.e., the stream is capable of meeting water quality goals with
application of best practicable treatment technology). No routine water
quality monitoring stations are located on the White River that provide
sufficient data to accurately assess the water quality of the river.
Limited data (Table 3-4), however, indicate that concentrations measured
met water quality standards or were within recommended concentrations to
protect water uses (USEPA 1976).
Table 3-4. Summary of
Lake Geneva

Parameter
Ammonia Nitrogen
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
NCL -N and NO -N
Phosphorus - Dissolved
Phosphorus - Total
water quality data
(June - November
No. of
Samples
14
14
14
14
12
(mg/1) for the White
1972, USEPA 1978).

Range
0.315 - 0.009
1.80 - 0.390
0.168 - 0.010
0.039 - 0.005
0.060 - 0.015
River at

Mean
0.069
0.935
0.044
0.010
0.025
There are two point sources that discharge into the White River. The
WWTP for the City of Lake Geneva, which has an average design capacity of
1.1 mgd, currently discharges an average of 0.6 mgd. The other discharge
is the Americana Hotel WWTP.

Piscasaw Creek

Piscasaw Creek also has been classified as "effluent limited." No
water quality data, however, are available to assess the stream's water
quality in the study area. The only point source discharging to Piscasaw
3-15
-------
Creek in the study area is the Village of Walworth WWTP. It has an average
design capacity of 0.15 mgd and a peak hydraulic design capacity of 0.3
Como Creek

Como Creek has been classified as "effluent limited." There are no
water quality monitoring stations on the creek, and the 1972 National
Eutrophication Study of Lake Como is the only source of water quality data
for Como Creek (Table 3-5). At the time of the survey, the concentrations
measured met water quality standards or were within recommended concentra-
tions to protect water uses. There are no known point sources discharging
into Como Creek
Table 3-5. Summary of water quality data
November 1972, USEPA 1976).
Parameter
Ammonia - Nitrogen
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
NO -N and NO -N
Phosphorus - Dissolved
Phosphorus - Total
No. of
Samples
14
13
13
14
13
(mg/1) for Como Creek
Range
0.710 - 0.012
2.30 - 0.780
0.310 - 0.021
0.075 - 0.005
0.195 - 0.020
(June -
Mean
0.108
1.14
0.091
0.020
0.078
3.1 3 3. Lakes

Lake Characteristics

The two lakes of concern in the study area are Geneva Lake and Lake
Como. Geneva Lake, a deep glacial lake, has no major stream inflows
Recharge is through 130 acres of wetland drainage, groundwater, direct pre-
cipitation, and numerous small perennial and intermittent streams. A dam
at the outlet for Geneva Lake (constructed in 1836) maintains the lake at
10 feet above its natural level. Lake Como is a shallow, impounded wetland
3-16
-------
lake. The lake level is artificially maintained at 3 feet by an earthen

dike at the far eastern shore. Most of the lake bottom is composed of muck
and peat. The morphologic and hydrographic characteristics of Geneva Lake

and Lake Como are presented in Table 3-6.
Table 3-6. Morphologic and hydrographic characteristics of Geneva Lake and
Lake Como (Aqua-Tech 1978).
Drainage area
Lake area
Volume
Mean hydraulic
retention time
Shore length
Depth mean
maximum
Length
Width maximum
minimum
Watershed area lake area
Lake bottom composition
Percent of area less than
3 feet deep
Percent of area less than
20 feet deep
Geneva Lake

13,184 acres
5,262 acres
320,984 acre-feet

30 years
20.2 miles
61 feet
135 feet
7.6 miles
2.1 miles
0.5 miles
3.5.1
80% silt and mud
top 4 feet sand
and gravel
1%

77%
Lake Como

4,244 acres
946 acres
4,033 acre-feet

1.1 years
8.4 miles
4.3 feet .
9.0 feet
3.4 miles
0.6 miles

5.5:1
muck and silt
18%
required for exchange of total volume of a body of water.
Only 65 acres have a depth over 6 feet deep.
Geneva Lake Wat_e_r_ Qual1.ty

The water quality of Geneva Lake has been a concern of the residents

of the area since its establishment as a resort and recreation center.

This early concern was demonstrated by the adoption in 1893 of a State

statute that specifically prohibited the discharge of sewage effluents into

the lake. These historic efforts to divert sewage effluent, the small size

of the watershed, and the large volume of the lake, are factors attributed

to the water quality of Geneva Lake which has remained relatively good over
3-17
-------
the years. In recent years, however, algal blooms have occurred in a few
shoreline areas, and herbicides were used annually in attempts to control
these occurrences During the period from 1971 to 1976, between 11.5 and
62.0 acres of lake per year were chemically treated for algae (GLWEA 1977).

The major water quality problem presently facing Geneva Lake is the
potential for accelerated eutrophication, in which the lake becomes in-
creasingly over-nourished and over productive of plant life. Eutrophica-
tion is caused by an increase in the input of plant nutrients (e.g., nitro-
gen and phosphorus) to a lake. The opposite of an eutrophic lake is an
oligotrophic lake, which is a clear lake containing little organic matter
and with low nutrient supplies. Lakes that are in an intermediate
condition are termed "mesotrophjc."

A number of surveys conducted in the last 15 years have classified
Geneva Lake as mesotrophic. The USEPA's National Eutrophication Survey,
conducted in 1972, classified the lake as mesotrophic based on water qual-
ity data (Table 3-7). WDNR also classified Geneva Lake as mesotrophic
based on data the agency collected from 1975 to 1978 (Table 3-8) The
nutrient concentrations found were in compliance with State standards and
most were within recommended levels to protect water quality (USEPA 1976).
In addition, an ongoing comprehensive water quality sampling program has
been conducted by GLWEA, which has regularly collected and analyzed water
quality data from 1976 through 1982. This most recent information
corroborates the USEPA and WDNR classifications of Geneva Lake as
mesotrophic (Table 3-7)

For an overview of lake dynamics, data from a sampling station in the
center of Fontana Bay serve as representative data for the lake. The
temperature profile for Fontana Bay in summer indicates that the lake
stratifies and that the thermocline (the region of rapidly decreasing
temperatures and poor circulation) extends to fairly deep levels in the
lake (between 29 and 56 feet). The dissolved oxygen (DO) profile in winter
indicates that DO concentrations are above 5.0 mg/1 to a depth of 132 feet.
During the summer stratification period, however, the DO is depleted in the
hypolimnion (i.e., the lower, cold, non-circulating region). All lake
3-18
-------
Table 3-7. Summary of National Eutrophication Survey water quality data for Geneva Lake,
June - November 1972 (USEPA 1975a).
ID
Parameter

Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1)
Conductivity (umhos/cin)
PH
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaCo )
Phosphorus - Total (mg/1)
Phosphorus - Dissolved (mg/1)
N02 -N and N(>3 - N (mg/1)
Ammonia Nitrogen (mg/1)
Secchi disc (inches)
Chlorophyll a (ug/l)C
No. of
Samples
53
44
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
8
9
Maximum
22.5
11.0
415
8.60
190
0.047
0.039
0.190
0.090
144
13.4
Minimum
6.1
0.6
340
7.50
162
0.009
0.005
0.010
0.020
105
2.0
Mean
11.8
8.6
386
8.15
178
0.015
0.008
0.050
0.044
126
5.8
Standard
Deviation
5.4
1.6
21.7
0.26
7.4
0.006
0.005
0.039
0.014
11.8
4.0
Data include measurements conducted at three stations and at various depths.
The minimum value was recorded at a depth of 8 feet during November.
"Values were reported to be in error by plus or minus 20%.
-------
Table 3-8. Summary of WDNR water quality data for Geneva Lake November 1975 to April 1978
(WDNR 1978).
No. of
Parameter Samples
Temperature (°C) 9
Dissolved Oxygen 9
(rag/1)
pH 8
Conductivity
(umhos/cm) 8
KJ Alkalinity 9
o
(mg/1 as CaC03)
Nitrite Nitrogen(mg/l) 9
Nitrate Nitrogen(mg/l) 9
Ammonia Nitrogen(mg/l) 9
Total Nitrogen (mg/1) 9
Total Phosphorus(mg/l) 9
Turbidity (Jtu) 7
Maximum
(0 ft) (At Other Depth)
23.5
13.4

8.3
447.0
237.0

0.013
0.13
0.11
0.76
0.12
5.1
—
—

—
518 (70 ft)
238 (134 ft)

0.016 (140 ft)
0.29 (140 ft)
0.13 (130 ft)
0.95 (40 ft)
0.14 (140 ft)
—
Minimum
(0 ft) (At Other Depth)
0.0
7.5

7.9
347.0
172 0

0.0002
0.02
0 04
0.32
0.02
0.9

7
—
—

0
—
0
0
0
0

.8 (90 ft)

6 (140 ft)
-

001 (45 ft)
-
.03 (134 ft)
.07 (75 ft)
.01 (45 ft)
.6 (134 ft)
Mean
(0 ft)
7.9
11.1

8.1
Standard
Deviation
8.2
1.6
0.2
409.0
186.0
0.004
0.085
0.076
0.53
0.04
2.1
31.0
21 0
0.004
0.04
0.03
0 13
0.03
1.3
All samples summarized were taken at 0 ft (surface); additional samples were taken at various
depths and do not lend themselves to tabular form.
-------
water below 121 feet was completely devoid of oxygen, and the water below
46 feet had less than 5.0 mg/1 of oxygen. Similar DO levels were found in
Williams Bay and Geneva Bay at the same depths sampled in Fontana Bay. DO
reached a level of 3.0 mg/1 or less below 52 feet in both bays. Sampling
results show that DO concentrations down to 46 feet in mid-summer have not
decreased since 1966 (the first year data are available for comparison).
This fact indicates that the regime in the epilimnion is sufficient to
sustain aquatic life.

The phosphorus and nitrogen concentrations in the lake, particularly
during the spring and summer seasons, indicate that the nutrient enrichment
problem is not as severe in Geneva Lake as it is in many of the other lakes
in southeastern Wisconsin (USEPA 1975a). However, concentrations of total
phosphorus during the growing season (May - October) are close to or
slightly in excess of the threshold concentration of 0.025 mg/1 recommended
for lakes to prevent the development of biological nuisance (USEPA 1976).
In addition, phytoplankton data from the 1976-77 period (GLWEA 1977) indi-
cate that blue-green algae increase in abundance during summer stratifica-
tion until October, when they constitute approximately 99% of the plankton
population. The low diversity of the phytoplankton population in late
summer, coupled with the presence of pollution-tolerant zooplankton (GLWEA
1977), provide evidence that the trophic status of Geneva Lake changes from
mesotrophic conditions in winter to slightly eutrophic conditions during
late summer. The reduction of nutrients, particularly phosphorus, could
contribute to slowing down the eutrophication process and maintaining the
quality of Geneva Lake.

GLWEA has estimated nutrient loadings to Geneva Lake from various
sources (Table 3-9). Atmospheric dustfall and precipitation were estimated
to account for 58.7% of the total N load and 42.9% of total P load to the
lake. The next largest source was perennial streams, which contributed
32.5% of the N and 38.6% of the P. Intermittent streams, storm sewers, and
groundwater seepage were minor contributors (8.8% N and 12.2% P). Most of
the phosphorus contributed by the perennial streams was from Buena Vista
Creek. This stream contributed 80 3% of the dissolved P and 71 8% of the
total P from the perennial streams. Seepage and overflow from the infil-
3-21
-------
tration ponds of the Fontana WWTP appeared to be responsible for the high P
concentrations in Buena Vista Creek. The contribution from Buena Vista
Creek is important, because much of the P is in the soluble form-(93%),
which is readily available for aquatic plant and algae growth. This phos-
phorus source is the single largest manageable source affecting Lake
Geneva.
Table 3-9. Estimated nutrient balance for Geneva Lake for various sources
and for losses via the White River (GLWEA 1977).
Source
Dissolved Total
Total Nitrogen Phosphorus Phosphorus
Ibs/yr % total Ibs/yr % total Ibs/yr % total
Perennial streams
Intermittent
streams
Atmosphere
Groundwater seepage
Storm sewers
Totals
Losses
(White River
outflow)
39,676
1,314
71,757
8,719
768
122,234
11,232
32.5
1.1
58.7
7.1
0.6
100.0
9.2
3,160
219
1,570
224
132
5,305
241
59.6
4.1
29.6
4.2
2.5
100
4.5
3,749
252
4,777
672
267
9,717
600
38.6
2.6
49.2
6.9
2.7
100
6.1
Other data collected by GLWEA indicate that the organic matter present
in Geneva Lake waters is not excessive (i.e., BOD concentrations are low;
Table 3-10). In addition, the results of bacterial surveys of various
swimming areas and in the mixing zones of perennial streams indicate that
Geneva Lake is generally safe for all recreational uses (Table 3-11).
Fecal coliform counts in the beach areas have exceeded the permissible
state levels (200/100 ml) a few times, although counts frequently exceeded
standards for recreational uses within the mixing zone of Hillside and
Harris Creeks. The fecal coliform/fecal streptococcus (FC/FS) ratios for
tributary streams indicate that occurrences of bacteria were mainly of
animal origin (GLWEA 1977). Only a small proportion of the samples demon-
3-22
-------
strated a predominance of human fecal contamination. The results of a
bacteriological monitoring survey conducted in 1979 corroborate this find-
ing (Table 3-12) (KV Associates 1979).
Table 3-10. Water quality data for various seasons
at Fontana Bay, Geneva
Lake (GLWEA 1977).

Parameter
PH
Chloride (mg/1)
Specific conductivity
(umhos/cm)
BOD (mg/1)
Secdhi Disc (ft)
Winter
(Jan-Feb)
8 2
14.4

379
1.6
18.0
Spring
(April- June)
8 2
13.0

429
1.2
11.0
Summer
(July- Sept)
8 0
13.8

420
1.1
9.6
Fall
(Oct-Dec)
8.1
13.9

410
1.3
9.8
Lake Como Water Quality

Lake Como water quality was monitored in 1972 as part of the National
Eutrophication Survey (USEPA 1975b). Based on that survey, on field obser-
vations, and on past studies, USEPA classified Lake Como as eutrophic. The
Lake Como management study (Aqua-Tech 1978) also classified the lake as
eutrophic based on the Carlson Trophic Status Index (TSI). The median
values of Secchi disc transparency, phosphorus, and chlorophyll ji had TSIs
of 85, 73, and 68, respectively. Generally, values over 50 indicate eutro-
phic conditions.

The average total phosphorus concentration was high at 0.118 mg/1.
Concentrations ranged from 0.04 mg/1 to 0.221 mg/1, with the lower phos-
phorus concentrations occurring in late fall and winter, and the higher
concentrations occurring during the summer months Total nitrogen concen-
trations were also high, but not atypical for a shallow productive lake
ranging from 2 mg/1 to 4 mg/1 The high concentrations of phosphorus and
nitrogen result in excessive algal growth in the summer months as indicated
by the chlorophyll a^ concentrations, which averaged 50 mg/m in the spring
* ^™
through fall months.
3-23
-------
Table 3-11. Monthly average fecal collfora counts at various swimming
beaches on Geneva Lake and in the mixing zones of perennial
streams (summers of 1975-1977; GLWEA 1977).
Counts in Colonies/100 ml
Sites
City of Lake Geneva
East end of beach
Swim pier
West end of beach
Village of Fontana
North end of beach
Swim pier
South end of beach
Village of Williams Bay
East end of beach
Swim pier
Harris Creek
mixing zone
West end of beach
Linn Township
Hillside Creek
mixing zone J^
Swim area
Swim pier

June
20
14
14
432
16
12
10
20
108
.308 7
42
12
1975
July
22
80
16
16
26
28
10
12
204
—
,730 7
£ — ^ i ft v ,-^i
10
52

Aug.
38
18
18
15
16
10
10
14
30
,350
10
24

June
10
20
18
12
16
14
92
18
708
18
828 1,
46
26
1976
July
30
13
245
10
10
28
16
10
155
32
,824
42
13

Aug.
38
38
27
22
75
43
10
10
210
10
908
113
23

June
28
10
12
65
176
58
18
100
30
594
424
34
1977
July
10
12
26
54
202
98
10
90
468
—
314
90
88

Aug.
10
10
12
75
34
28
10
10
62
13
506
12
106
NOTE: Criteria for Public Swim Beaches as established by the Wisconsin
Division of Health: the average of not less than five samples taken
within 30 days shall not exceed 200 colonies per 100 ml. Underlined
values represent averages that exceeded the criteria for Public Swim
Beaches.
3-24
-------
Table 3-12. Bacterial content of shoreline water samples of Geneva Lake
and Lake Como, Wisconsin (KV Associates 1979).
Lake
Geneva Lake
Station
Fecal Coliform
(#/100 ml)
Lake Como
Bl
B2
B3
B4
B5
B6
B7
B8
B9
BIO
fill
B12
B13
B14
B15
B16
B17
B18
B19
B20
B21
B22
B23
B24
B25
B26
B27
B28
B29
B30
B31
B32
B33
B34
B35
B36
B37
6
700
16
2,100
120
1
6
1
93
33
1
3
81
2
23
6
3
5
1
600
1
10
1
1
77,000
1
1
1
240
3
1
1
10
70
1
120
50
Location

Stream, west shore of Geneva Bay
Stream, northeast shore
Hams Creek, Williams Bay
Southwick Creek, Williams Bay
Stormdrain, west side Williams Bay
Stream, Conference Point Camp
Stream, Norman Barr Camp
The Gardens Stream
Buena Vista Creek
Stream, end of road to lake
Abbey Springs Creek
Stream, Dock #519
N.M. & N. Academy Stream
Grunow Rd. Stream, east of Dock #567
Stream, east of Dock #620
Light Body's Creek (Birches)
Stream, east of golf course
Trinke Estates, inside harbor
Drainpipe, west of Dock #780
Stream, west of Dock #793

Pipe, House #9, Mars Resort
Stream, House #9, Mars Resort
Stream, A.W. Stack, House #245-7
Drainpipe
Drainpipe #800
Stream, east of Dock #91
4 ft conduit, Interlaken property
Marshy area, last house S.E. shore
Como Creek
Drainpipe, between Oak & Pine Rd.
Drainpipe, end of Acacia Rd.
Drainpipe, end of Cherry Rd.
Drainpipe, end of Poplar Rd.
Drainpipe, Como Vista Motel
Ditch, Tamarack Rd.
Stream, Uranus Road
Ditch, between Apricot & Willow Rd.
3-25
-------
During summer months the water clarity of Lake Como is very low.
Secchi disc measurements in 1976 were only 5 to 9 inches (Aqua-Tech 1978).
The turbidity of the lake is attributed to high concentrations of algae and
to the suspension of bottom sediments into the water column. The DO con-
centrations measured during the 1976-77 monitoring program were found to be
near saturation level throughout the spring and summer months. These high
DO levels result from oxygen generation by plants (photosynthesis) and the
continuous mixing of the watet column by wind. The DO, however, was de-
pleted in winter, caused by the retardation of retards air mixing with the
water body and the oxygen demand from decaying plant material.

The phosphorus budget for Lake Como that was computed on the basis of
the hydrologic and water quality data collected during 1976-77 indicates
that surface drainage (runoff) and precipitation/atmospheric fallout con-
tributed 59% and 31% of the phosphorus loading, respectively (WDNR 1977).
Small streams flowing into Lake Como were found to have total phosphorus
concentrations that ranged as high as 0.987 mg/1, with an average concen-
tration of 0.110 mg/1. Groundwater was estimated to supply only 10% of the
phosphorus load, although it is the major source of water into the lake.
Test wells located around the lake recorded low levels of phosphorus with
average concentrations of 0.035 mg/1 in all samples, including those from
the Como Beach Subdivision.

In addition to the sources of phosphorus in runoff, the layer of soft
sediments 0.7 to 20.25 feet in thickness at the bottom of Lake Como also
appears to be a significant contributor of phosphorus. When the lake is
not frozen over, these organic bottom sediments are in a constant state of
disturbance because of the shallowness of the lake.

In summary, the major water quality problems in Lake Como are exces-
sive algal growth, periodic low DO levels, and turbidity. These conditions
are detrimental to the recreational value and fishery resources of the
lake. The water quality problems can be attributed to the lake's physical
characteristics, excessive amounts of soft sediments at the bottom of the
lake, and nutrient loadings from the watershed.
3-26
-------
3.1.3.4. Floodplains

The Federal Insurance Agency of the US Department of Housing and Urban
Development administers the National Flood Insurance Program in the study
area. There are no 100-year floodplains of significance in the study area.
Areas identified on a preliminary basis from USGS mapping data as flood-
plains are limited to lands immediately bordering Como Creek and the White
River (US Department of Housing and Urban Development 1977). Revised flood
..azard boundary maps (Federal Insurance Rate Maps), prepared from more
detailed hydrologic studies, are used by both municipality and county
governments to prepare their respective zoning ordinances. Walworth County
ordinances for floodplain management are scheduled to be available in
August of 1983. The City of Lake Geneva has updated their ordinances from
the Federal Insurance Rate Maps. The city's wastewater treatment plant,
located near the White River, does not fall within the boundaries of a
designated 100-year floodplain (By telephone, City Clerk's office, City of
Lake Geneva, 23 May 1983). Based on the current revised maps, floodplain
management provisions are not required for the approval of Federal funds in
future treatment plant improvements.

3.1.4. Terrestrial and Aquatic Biota

3.1.4.1. Terrestrial Communities

The Geneva Lake-Lake Como study area occurs in the Maple-Basswood and
Oak Savanna Section of the Eastern Deciduous Forest Province (Bailey 1980).
This extensive temperate deciduous forest area is dominated by broadleaf
trees and Is generally characterized by a poorly developed understory.
Most deviations from this forest community pattern are the result of
man—induced alterations to the landscape

Vegetation. Eight terrestrial land-cover types were delineated in the
Geneva Lake-Lake Como study area from aerial photographs and field surveys
conducted during August 1979 (Figure 3-4). The most extensive cover types
were agricultural lands, deciduous forests, and wetlands. The following
3-27
-------
LEGEND

^| Commercial
^| Industrial
[^"3 High dentlty wildential
| J **«» dernity f««dential
| •! Institutional
[ fc 1 School
|$j$§ R«cr««lionil
[!^ Golt COHrM
FT! C»n»l»ry
| »J Grant pit
| • | Smwg* Irratmant plant
I I Agriculture
I | Old Held
[ j Barren
|'^">*'J oeciduous forest
I- j Mixed forett
['.'.'.'J Conifer lore*!
[ | Pine plantation
j | Forestall wetland
I Nonforested wetland
*\
Figure 3-4 Land use/land cover
-------
narrative contains a brief description of each land-cover type. Since
wetlands are important in the study area, they are discussed in greater
detail in Section 3.1.4.3.

The two agricultural types, cultivated and noncultivated (old field),
comprise approximately 50% of the terrestrial land cover in the study area
Corn (Zea mays) is the predominant crop grown in the study area on culti-
vated lands. The old-field type is comprised primarily of grasses, weeds,
and low shrubs. Both types provide habitat for a variety of ground-inhab-
iting species of wildlife, and are especially important to the ring-necked
pheasant (Phasianus ^olchicus) and the eastern cottontail rabbit
(Sylvilagus floridanus).

Five forested cover types including deciduous (predominantly upland),
coniferous, mixed, forested wetland, and pine plantation were delineated in
the study area. The deciduous forest type was by far the most extensive
(Figure 3-4). Typical overstory species in more upland areas of the decid-
uous forest included silver maple (Acer saccharinum), sugar maple
(A.saccharum), white oak (Quercus alba), northern red oak (Q rubra), bur
oak (£. macr_oc_a_rpa_), black oak (£. velutina), shagbark hickory (Carya
ovata), basswood (Tilia americana), and white ash (Fraxinus Americana). At
lower elevations, the maples are still prevalent, but species such as box
elder (Acer negundo), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), American elm
(Ulmus^ americana), cottonwood (Populus deltoides), and black willow (Salix
nigra) replace some of the more upland species.

At the lowest elevations, the latter species form the overstory of the
forested wetland (lowland forest). Several small stands (generally less
than 10 acres) of eastern larch (Larix laricina), also known as tamarack
swamps, were the only other forested wetlands in the study area.

Minimal acreages of the remaining forested types occurred in the study
area. Several small plantations of coniferous species such as red pine
(Finus jresinosa), Norway spruce (Picea abies), and blue spruce (£. pungens)
were planted in the study area. Mixed deciduous-coniferous stands were
limited.
3-29
-------
The major non-forested wetlands in the study area include sedge mead-
ows, frest (wet) meadows, shrub-carr, and some shallow marshes and fens
(SEWRPC 1981, SEWRPC 1983). Sedge meadows are stable communities, prpvided
that water levels remain constant Sedges (Carex spp.), and Canadian
bluejoint grass (Calama grostis canadensis) are the characteristic species
of this wetland type Sedge meadows that are drained or disturbed to some
extent typically succeed to shrub-carr wetlands. Shrub-carr wetlands
contain willows _C_Sali_x spp.) and red-osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera) in
addition to the sedges and grasses found in the sedge meadows. In ex-
tremely disturbed shrub-carr wetlands, the willows, dogwoods, and sedges
are replaced by exotic plants such as honeysuckle (Lomeera sp.), buckthorn
(Rhamnus sp.), and reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea).

Fresh meadows are lowland grass meadows dominated by forbs (broad-
leaved flowering plants) such as tnarsh aster (Aster gimplex), red-stem
aster (.A. puniceus), New England aster (.A hovae-angliae), and giant
goldenrod (Solidago gigantea)

Several small calcareous fen communities occur within the wetland com-
plexes located in the Village of Fontana and north of the Village of Wil-
liams Bay Fens are specialized plant communities growing on waterlogged
organic soils associated with alkaline springs and seepages. Characteris-
tic plants include shrubby cinquefoil (j?o ten til la ^ruiticosa), Riddell's
goldenrod, grass of Parnassus, white lady1s-slipper orchid (cypripedium
candidurn), and ladies' tresses orchids (Spiraathes spp.).

The springs associated with the wetland complexes on the west end of
Geneva Lake and north of the Village of Williams Bay, are trout spawning
springs. To maintain the high quality water in these springs, it is es-
-ential that the associated wetlands be maintained in an undisturbed con-
dition (SEWRPC 1981) .

Wildlife. All four groups of terrestrial wildlife (amphibians, rep-
tiles, birds, and mammals) are well represented in the study area. Each
species is associated with a particular vegetation cover type or land
cover, and one or a combination of cover types comprises a given species
habitat.
3-30
-------
Some 17 species of amphibians and 25 species of reptiles have ranges
that include the study area. Most of these species live in or near water
and are dependent on water for reproduction. Typical species include the
spotted salamander (Ambystoma maculaturn), wood frog (Rana sylvatica),
eastern milksnake (Lampropeltis triangulum), and northern redbellied snake
(Storeria occipi t_pjnac_u_lat_a) .

There have been 107 species of birds sighted in the area around Geneva
Lake (WDNR 1973, Ledger 1974). The highest numbers of species were ob-
served in forested vegetation areas. Geneva Lake has a large population of
diving ducks in autumn, including the canvasback (aythya valisineria), and
the common goldeneye (Bucephala clangula). Both Geneva Lake and Lake Como
provide good nesting areas for the mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), blue-
winged teal (A. discors), and marginally, for the wood duck (Aix sponsa)
(By telephone, John Wetzel, WDNR 1978). The marsh fringes around both
lakes, particularly south of Geneva Lake, are good ring-necked pheasant
habitat, as are nearby cornfields. The Geneva Lake area has been listed as
one of the 90 favorite locations for birding in Wisconsin.

There are 47 species of mammals (including bats) that potentially
could occur in the study area (Hamilton and Whitaker 1979). Common species
include the opossum (Didelphis virginiana), eastern cottontail rabbit fox
squirrel (Sciurus niger), gray squirrel (j>. carolinensis), raccoon (Procyon
lotor), muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), and striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis)
(By telephone, John Wetzel, WDNR 1978).

Important JJildlife Habitat. Wildlife habitat locations were initally
delineated for southeastern Wisconsin in 1963, and were subsequently up-
dated in 1970 for SEWRPC by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
Wildlife habitats considered to be of high value are those that contain a
good diversity of wildlife species, are adequate in size to meet all of the
habitat requirements for the species concerned, and are generally located
in close proximity to other wildlife habitat areas. Wildlife habitat areas
of* medium value generally lack one of the three aforementioned criteria.
Certain low-value habitats may be important if they are located in close
proximity to other medium- or high-value wildlife habitat areas, if they
3-31
-------
provide corridors linking higher value habitat areas, or if they provide
the only available habitat in an area. The major factors considered in
assigning value ratings to wildlife habitat are diversity, territorial
requirements, vegetative composition and structure, proximity to other
wildlife habitat areas, and degree of disturbance.

Wildlife habitats were classified further by SEWRPC as deer, pheasant,
waterfowl, muskrat-mink, songbirds, squirrel, or mixed habitat. These
designations were applied to assist in identifying wildlife habitats ac-
cording to the extent to which they meet requirements of particular spe-
cies, and do not imply that the named species is the most important or
dominant species in the particular habitat. For example, an area desig-
nated as a deer habitat, provides habitat for other wildlife also.

The following areas (vegetation cover/habitat) in the Geneva Lake
drainage area were rated for their value by SEWRPC in May 1981 (Figure
3-5). Of the 2,416 acres of wildlife habitat rated, the upland deciduous
forest situated in the northeast and southeast portions of the Geneva Lake
drainage area was rated as high-quality squirrel and white-tailed deer
(OdocojLleus virginianus) habitat. Other forested areas scattered through-
out the drainage basin were considered medium- to low-quality habitat for
squirrel, deer, and ring-necked pheasant. Large wetland complexes along
the eastern boundary of the drainage basin, north of Williams Bay and west
of Walworth, provide high- and medium-quality habitat for ring-necked phea-
sant, rauskrat, and waterfowl.

3.1.4.2. Aquatic Communities

Both lotic (moving water) and lentic (standing water) aquatic commu-
nities occur in the study area. Lotic communities, although numerous, are
small in size and comprise a small percentage of the overall aquatic habi-
tat. In contrast, lentic communities, primarily Geneva Lake and Lake Como,
comprise a large percentage (approximately 30%) of the aquatic habitat in
the study area. Data on aquatic biota are available primarily for Geneva
Lake and Lake Como.
3-32
-------
LEGEND

High d«ntlty

Medium d»n»tty

Low dcnolty
s 1970 habitat aieas baaed on compilation by the Southeastern
WiKonwt Regional Planning Commission
Figure 3-5 Wildlife habitat value
-------
Aquatic Flora Phytoplankton are the producers that constitute the
primary level in the food chain in virtually all aquatic systems. These
predominantly microscopic organisms are food for higher forms such as
zooplankton, microinvertebrates, macroinvertebrates, and ultimately fish.
Certain phytoplankton, the blue-green algae that include Anabaena spp. and
Nostoc spp., were present in particularly high numbers in Geneva Lake. Of
the 37 phytoplankton taxa collected from Geneva Lake, 14 species were
blue-green algae, 12 were green algae, 10 were diatoms, and 1 was a
dinoflagellate.

The shoreline of Geneva Lake is completely developed and was found to
be void of emergent or floating aquatic vegetation. Among the rooted
aquatic species, muskgrass (Chara sp.), was observed in abundance at depths
of up to 26 feet during 1967 studies conducted by Belonger (1969). Spiked
water milfoil (Myriophyllum exalbescens) was abundant at medium depths, and
eel grass (Vallisnena americana) was common in shallows. Other species
such as pondweed (Potamogetono s>pp.) and Naiad (Najas spp ) were observed
less frequently.

Lake Como is a shallow body of water (generally less than 8 feet in
depth) characterized by an abundance of aquatic plants. The shore zone, in
the areas where it's vegetated, is characterized by emergent species such
as narrow-leaved cattail (Typha angustifolia) and common rush (Juncus
effusus) (WDNR 1975). Offshore areas typically included such species as
yellow pond lily (Nyphar variegat urn), white water lily (Nymphaea tuberosa),
spiked water milfoil, and muskgrass (Aqua-Tech 1978, Belonger 1969). Other
species occurring less commonly included coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum)
and several species of potamogeton.

Aquatic Fauna. Zooplankton feed on phytoplankton, and in turn are
food for most higher aquatic animals, including fish. Zooplankton data for
the study area were available only for Geneva Lake. Some 22 species of
zooplankton were collected in the period from May 1976 to May 1977
(GLWSA 1977, Aqua-Tech 1978). The most common groups included copepods and
water fleas.
3-34
-------
Some 16 species of macroinvertebrates, predominantly bottom-dwelling
organisms, were collected from Geneva Lake from May 1976 to May 1977. The
groups collected included worms, leeches, insects, snails, and clams.
Although snails and clams were the most commonly collected macroinverte-
brates, most of the shells collected were empty. The animals that occupied
the shells may have been killed by the periodic treatment of the lake with
chemicals used to control a waterfowl parasite that causes swimmer's itch.

Because Lake Como is a shallow lake, it is subject to winterkills.
Consequently, the fishery in past years has consisted principally of the
smaller sizes of sunfish and catfish. In recent years, northern pike (Espx
lucius) and yellow perch (Perca flavescens) appear to be growing and repro-
ducing in the lake. Some 20 species of fish are known to occur in Lake
Como.

Geneva Lake, because of its size, depth, and good water quality and
clarity, supports a high diversity of fish species. Thirty-eight species
of fish have been collected. Panfish such as bluegill (Lepomis
machrochirus), black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatujs), white bass (Monrone
americana), and rock bass (Ambloplites rupestns) are abundant and receive
heavy fishing pressure.

One small river and several creeks occur in the study area. Both
Southwick Creek and Harris Creek are considered trout spawning streams by
the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. These two creeks and Van
Sykes Creek are considered the last remaining tributary trout streams to
Geneva Lake. Other creeks in the area, such as Bloomfield, Como, Piscasaw,
and Williams Bay Creek, do not normally contain game fish, and consequently
are managed for forage fish only The White River is managed for channel
catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), northern pike (Espx lucius), and sraallmouth
bass (Micropterus dolomieujL).

The survey of Wisconsin trout streams (Kmiotek 1973) does not list any
of the above streams. However, Williams Bay Creek apparently did support
*
trout population in the past.
3-35
-------
3.1.4.3. Wetlands

The wetlands discussed in this section are those that have been^clas-
sified and mapped by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Bureau
of Planning (1979a). The term "wetlands" is used to indicate an area where
water is at, near, or above the land surface long enough to be capable of
supporting aquatic or hydrophytic vegetation, and which has soils indica-
tive of wet conditions.

Wetlands have been identified by the Wisconsin DNR and by Wisconsin
state law as significant resources requiring protection (WDNR1980). Each
county has been charged with adopting zoning and subdivision regulations
for protection of shorelands in unincorporated areas, to include wetlands
as identified in the Wisconsin Wetland Inventory (WDNR 1979a).

Five basic classes of wetlands occur in the study area (Figure 3-6).
The emergent/wet meadow class, which occurs primarily as emergent raacro-
phytes, sedge meadows, fresh wet meadows, and shallow marshes, is by far
the most extensive 60-70%. Wetlands in this class occur primarily in the
south-central portion of the study area, west of Lake Petite, at the east
end of Geneva Lake and at the east and west ends of Lake Como. Scrub/shrub
wetlands (predominantly shrub-carr wetlands) comprise approximtely 20-25%
of the wetlands in the study area. The most extensive scrub/shrub wetlands
occur at the west end of Lake Como.

Most of the remainder of the wetlands in the study area (approximately
10-15%) are forested. The most extensive forested wetlands occur just
north and east of Williams Bay on Geneva Lake, and along the southeast
shoreline of Lake Como.

3.1.4.4. Threatened and Endangered Species

No plants or animals that are included on the Federal endangered or
threatened species list (50 CFR 17) are known to occur in the study area.
Fifteen species that are included on the State list occur, or could occur
in the study area (Table 3-13).
3-36
-------
LEGEND
•• Emergent/wel maadow

I I Fortitad
Scrub/Bhrub

Aquatic bad

Flala/unvegataled

Water

Laaa than flva acra watland

Q
Wlaoonatn w*
-------
Table 3-13. Species listed as threatened or endangered by the State of
Wisconsin, and that are known to occur or potentially could
occur in the Geneva Lake-Lake Corno study area (WDM 1979b)
jtatus

E
Common Name
PLANTS
Hemlock-par sley

Prairie-parsley

Prairie White-fringed Orchid

Spike-rush

Stoneroot

Ohio Goldenrod

Tuberculed Orchid
Sc i en 11 f ic Name

Conicselinum chinesnse

Polyt^aenia nuttallii

Habenaria leucophaea

Eleocharis quadrangulata

Collinsonia canadensis

Stolid ago Ohioensis

Habenaria flava herbiola
White Lady's Slipper Orchid Cypripedium candidurn
Purple Coneflower
False Asphodel
Echinacea pauida
Tofieldia glutinosa
Habitat

Marsh

Prairie

Aquatic

Upland
Forest

Marsh

Prairie

Marsh,
Prairie

Forested
Wetland

Fresh
Meadow
BIRDS
E

T
Copper's Hawk

Forested Tern

Common Tern

Great Egret
E: endangered
T: threatened
Accipiter cooperii

Sterna forsterl

Sterna hirundo
i
Casmerodius albus
3-38
-------
Four species of plants classified by the State as endangered, and four
species classified by the State as threatened (Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources 1976) have ranges that include Walworth County. The
white lady's slipper (Cypridlum candium) has been collected in the area on
the northeastern side of Williams Bay (By telephone, Donald Reed, SEWRPC,
11 September 1979).

Of the 10 species of fish listed by the State as threatened and 7
listed as endangered (WDNR 1979b), none have been collected from Geneva
Lake or Lake Como. The river red horse (Moxostoma carinatum) is listed as
threatened by the State and has been collected from the White River outside
the study area (By telephone, Don Fago, WDNR, 17 October 1980).

Since the study area lies along the migration routes of the bald eagle
(Haliacetus ^e_ucocep_h_al_ug_) and the peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus),
individuals of these species could pass through the area during migration.
Both are Federally listed. Thirteen species of birds (8 endangered and 5
threatened) are listed by the State of Wisconsin (WDNR 1979b). Of these,
the four bird species listed in Table 3-13 have been sighted recently in
the study area.

Twelve species of amphibians and reptiles are listed by the State as
threatened or endangered (WDNR 1979b). Six of these species have ranges
that include the study area. The eastern massasauga (j>istrurus^ catenatus),
which is known to occur in the area (By interview, George Knudson, WDNR, 22
December 1978), and the queen snake (Regina septemvittata) are both listed
as endangered (WDNR 1979b). Both the pickerel frog (Rana palus-trig) and
Blandings turtle (Emydoidea blandingi) are likely to occur in the study
area (By letter, Donald Reed, SEWPRC, 1981).

The three species of mammals listed by the State as endangered (WDNR
1979b) do not occur in the Geneva Lake-Lake Como study area.

On the basis of known distribution of aquatic animals, none of the
species listed by the State is expected to occur in the study area. The
river red horse (Moxostoma carinatum) has been collected from the White
3-39
-------
River (By telephone, Don Fago, WDNR, 20 December 1978), and the ranges of
the redfin shiner (Notropis umbratills) and least darter (Etheostoma

microperca) are known to include the study area.

3.1.4.5. Significant Natural Areas

Significant natural areas were inventoried in several counties in

Wisconsin, including Walworth County (Read 1976, Germain et al 1977).
Candidate sites were evaluated on the basis of the following criteria:

• Diversity of plant and animal species and plant communities;

• Expected natural area community structure and integrity;

• Relative commonness of comparable community types within the
inventory area,

• Educational value, and

• Size.

In the above inventory, significant natural areas were classified according

to the following system (Read 1976)

la - Of State Scientific Area quality, not designated

Ib - Of State Scientific Area quality, designated

2a - Natural Areas, unprotected; of less natural area signifi-
cance than state scientific areas because of suspected sus-
tained disturbance factors, excessively small size, etc.

2b - Natural areas, protected, same as 2a but under some assured
preservation status

3 - Natural History Areas, areas possessing value as educational
areas but with a sufficient history as to preclude special
preservation efforts.

Two sites in the study area that meet these criteria were designated as

significant natural areas (Table 3-14).
3-40
-------
f
Table 3-14. Significant natural areas in the Geneva Lake-Lake Como study
area (Read 1976).
Town.
Linn
Geneva
Natural Area Classification
Wychwood
Warbler Trail
Wildlife Sanc-
tuary
la
2b (3)
Description
80+ acres of relatively undis-
turbed sugar maple-basswood-
oak forest on north shore of
Geneva Lake
65 acres of hiking trail (east
shore of Lake Como) thru marsh-
land , shrub-carr.
3.2. Man-made Environment

3,2.1, Land Use

3.2.1.1. Existing Land Use

The Geneva Lake-Lake Como study area is composed of approximately 44
square miles (28,201 acres) of land area, of which only a small portion
(30%) is developed. The undeveloped land (20,133 acres) is composed mainly
of cropland, forest, and wetland (Table 3-15). While the majority of this
land is in agricultural production (Figure 3-3), the area also is consid-
ered a valuable recreational resource.

Developed land comprises approximately 8,000 acres (28.4%) of the
study area, with residential uses predominating in 22% of the study area.
Most of this development has been concentrated in the City of Lake Geneva,
the Villages of Fontana, Walworth, and Williams Bay, and along the more
than 28 miles of lake shoreline. Much of the lakeside residential growth
since the turn of the century has occurred as a result of subdividing large
lakeside estates into more dense single-family developments Commercial
land uses are concentrated primarily in the City of Lake Geneva and the
village centers. Most of the commercial land use in the study area is
recreation-related (e.g., restaurants, antique shops, and gift shops).
Small industrial developments are located in Lake Geneva and in Walworth
adjacent to railroad lines.
3-41
-------
Table 3-15. Land use/land cover in the Geneva Lake-Lake Como study area

(based on 1979 aerial photographs, SEWRPC).

Land Cover/Land Use Acres Percent of Total

Undeveloped Land

Agriculture

a
Forest

Wetlandb

Old field

c
Barren

Water

Developed Land

High-density Residential

Low-density Residential

Commercial

Golf Courses

Industrial

Institutions

Total Land
13,393
3,204
2,045
1,063
322
104
3,382
2,842
743
716
230
111
28,201
47.5%
11.4%
7.3%
3.8%
1.1%
0.4%
12.0%
10 1%
2.6%
2.5%
0.8%
0.4%
100 0%
a
Includes pine plantations, deciduous forest, coniferous forest and mixed

forest.

b
Includes forested and non-forested wetlands.

c
Includes gravel pits.
3-42
-------
3.2.1.2. Development Controls

Development in Walworth County is governed by regulations and ordi-
nances enacted at the County and municipal levels. The Walworth County
Zoning Ordinance (1971) regulates development in the unincorporated areas
of the County. An important feature of this zoning ordinance is the mini-
mum lot size allowed for new and existing development. For existing devel-
opments, a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet is required for areas not
served by sewers and 5,000 square feet for areas that are sewered. For new
developments, sewered lots must be at least 15,000 square feet and unsew-
ered lots must be at least 20,000 square feet. Unsewered lot sizes smaller
than these will not be eligible for septic system permits.

A shoreline ordinance was enacted by the County in 1974 to control de-
velopment along the shoreline of unincorporated areas. The ordinance de-
fines "shoreline" as "land within 1,000 feet of the high-water levels of
lakes, ponds, and flowages and within 300 feet of navigable streams." The
ordinance governs shoreline land use, water and air quality, and structural
development, and authorizes the creation of.

Agricultural Districts
Conservation Districts
Park Districts
Residential Districts
Business Districts and
Industrial Districts.
The Walworth County Board of Supervisors approved an Agricultural
Preservation Plan in 1978 to implement plans and policies regarding the use
of farmland and open-space in the County. To enforce this plan, the County
amended its zoning ordinance in 1974 to include an A-l exclusive agricul-
tural-use zoning district. Agricultural preservation also is encouraged
under a state tax incentive program, which allows 60% of the agricultural
real estate taxes to be deducted from the Wisconsin State Tax.

Lake Geneva, Fontana, and Williams Bay have adopted individual devel-
•
opraent ordinances in addition to zoning ordinances. The Village of
Williams Bay also adopted a lakefront master plan and a land use ordinance.
3-43
-------
The land use ordinance was designed to regulate excavation and the removal
of vegetation that may cause erosion and increased sedimentation to surface
waters.

The Village of Fontana has adopted an estate zoning ordinance. This
ordinance restricts the subdivision of lakefront property in order to pre-
vent higher density use that cannot be accommodated by existing infrastruc-
tures. Many of the subdivisions located in the study area were once large
estates.

3.2.1.3. Future Land Use Trends

Future development activity in the study area will most likely be
composed primarily of residential, and to a lesser extent, commercial land
uses. Although residential development is currently occurring at a very
slow pace, the potential exists for increases in the rate of development,
since the area is well known as a recreational and retirement site. The
natural increase in the permanent population of the study area will also
create additional demand for residential development.

Future commercial development, primarily in service-related busi-
nesses, can be expected as the population of the study area grows. This
commercial development will likely remain concentrated in the Incorporated
areas and along the major access roads. Additional commercial resort
developments may be anticipated, although such development would not be
expected in the short term.

Industrial land use will continue to be minor in the study area. The
three industrial parks that presently exist there should be able to accom-
modate any additional industrial development.

3.2.2. Population

The demographic and economic analyses conducted for this BIS describe
three geographic delineations: the sewer service areas (SSA), the revised
sewer service areas (RSSA), and the socioeconomic area. SEWRPC population
3-44
-------
data and population projections have been analyzed and are presented for
the SSAs and RSSAs. US Census data on population trends, demographic char-
acteristics, housing, and economic and fiscal parameters have been analyzed
and are presented for the socioeconomic area. The SSA and RSSA boundaries
are described in Section 1.1. (Figure 1-2). The socioeconomic area in-
cludes the SSAs and RSSAs and all of the seven minor civil divisions (MCDs)
which they encompass (the City of Lake Geneva, the Villages of Fontana,
Walworth, and Williams Bay, and the Towns of Geneva, Linn, and Walworth),
Census data are not available at the SSA and RSSA level because they are
composed of portions of one or more of the MCDs.

The Geneva Lake-Lake Como study area is an established recreational
area with a population that is composed of permanent residents, seasonal
residents, and transient residents. The US Bureau of the Census collects
data on the year-round or permanent residents only. Seasonal residents are
those who maintain second homes in the area and reside there for only a
portion of the year (usually summer). An additional segment, transients,
includes tourists who stay for a brief period at the area's many camps,
resorts, motels, and campgrounds. Seasonal and transient residents are not
counted by the census and must, therefore, be estimated using techniques
described below.

3.2.2.1. Population Trends

Permanent Population

The present-day demography of the Geneva Lake-Lake Como area has been
heavily influenced by the settlement patterns which evolved during the
1870s. In 1870, when the population of the area was approximately 1,000,
the first lakeshore residents began surveying the area for homesites
(Wolfmeyer and Gage 1976). In July 1871 the first direct train from Chica-
go arrived, bringing hundreds of seasonal summer visitors. During the
hundred-year period from 1870 to 1970, the permanent population growth of
the area varied widely, but generally was more rapid than in the state and
nation (Appendix G). Much of this growth reflected the rapid expansion of
the local economy in response to the demand for recreation-related facili-
3-45
-------
ities and services. During the period from 1940 to 1970, population growth
in the study area was consistently more rapid than in the state and nation.
A comparison of the percentage increase in the Socioeconomic area £84.9%)
to the increases in the state (40.8%) and nation (53.8%) indicates that
this growth occurred at an accelerated rate. This rapid growth contrasted
markedly with statistics for rural areas nationwide, in which the popula-
tion declined by 5.9%. This contrast reflects the growing local economy
and diverse employment opportunities between 1940 and 1970, and the fact
that, because the study area is within commuting distance of six major
employment centers, it became a "residential extension" of these areas. In
addition, the area was and continues to be a popular resort and retirement
area.

The socioeconomic area, Walworth County, and the State of Wisconsin
have exhibited declining growth rates since 1950, and population growth
continued to moderate during the decade from 1970 to 1980. During this
period, the socioeconomic area grew by only 11.4%. This moderate overall
growth does not reflect the rapid growth that occurred in Fontana (20.5%)
nor the population decline that occurred in the Village of Walworth
(-1.8%). The population increases in Lake Geneva, Williams Bay, and Ge-
neva, Linn, and Walworth Towns were 14.7%, 13.4%, 12.7%, 7.5%, and 5.3%,
respectively.

The current (1980) permanent population of the Socioeconomic Area is
18,170. The largest incorporated area is the City of Lake Geneva, which
has a population of 5,607 people. Each of the three villages has a popula-
tion of under 2,000 persons. Geneva Town had a 1980 population of 3,933
persons while Linn and Walworth Towns had 2,053 and 1,443 residents,
respectively.

Seasonal Population

Data on past trends in the area's seasonal population are not avail-
able. Local officials, however, estimate that between 100,000 and 110,000
visitors come to the Geneva Lake vicinity on an annual basis (By telephone,
George Hennerly, Director, Lake Geneva Hotel/Motel Assn., 6 November 1980).
3-46
-------
During June, July, and August, approximately 78,000 people visit the area.
The influx of visitors reaches a peak during the 4th of July weekend.

3.2.2.2. Base-Year Population

Base-year 1980 permanent and seasonal population estimates have been
prepared for each of the SSAs and for the sewered and unsewered portions of
the RSSAs. These estimates are based on 1980 census data compiled by
SEWRPC by quarter section for the SSAs. The SEWRPC/Census data only pro-
vide information on the number of permanent residents and housing units by
type and occupancy status Therefore, 1980 seasonal population estimates
have been prepared by WAPORA from SEWRPC disaggregations of 1980 seasonal
dwelling unit counts. A list of the sections enumerated by WAPORA by RSSA,
and the methodology used to derive these population estimates, are pre-
sented in Appendix G.

Permanent Popula tion

In 1980 the permanent population residing in the five RSSAs was 13,338
(Table 3-16). The population residing in the sewered and unsewered por-
tions of the RSSAs was 11,051 (83%) and 2,287 (17%), respectively. Sixty
percent of the population residing in the unsewered portions was located in
the Lake Como RSSA (where there currently are no sewers). Overall, the
RSSAs contain 89% of the permanent population residing in the SEWRPC-deli-
neated SSAs and 17% of the Walworth County population. The Lake Geneva
RSSA has the largest permanent population (6,395) followed by Williams Bay,
Fontana, Walworth, and Lake Como.

Seasonal Population

The 1980 estimated seasonal population residing in the five RSSAs is
9,021 (Table 3-16) Approximately 6,282 persons or 70% of the seasonal
population, reside in the sewered portions of the RSSAs and 2,739 or 30%
resides in the unsewered portions. Overall, the RSSAs contain 76% of the
estimated seasonal population residing in the SSAs. The Fontana RSSA has
the largest seasonal population (3,342), followed by Williams Bay, Lake
Geneva, Lake Como, and Walworth.
3-47
-------
Table 3-16 Base-year population estimates for the RSSAs in the Geneva Lake-Lake
Como study area (See Appendix G for methodology).
Base-Year 1980
Permanent
Area
063 Fontana
SSA
RSSA
Sewered
Unsewered
w 066 Walworth
** SSA
03
RSSA
Sewered
Unsewered
067 Williams Bay
SSA
RSSA
Sewered
Unsewered
Housing
Units

724
718
630
88

659
659
621
38

995
783
709
74
Population
1,953
1,920
1,688
232

1,693
1,693
1,555
138

2,407
1,951
1,759
192
Seasonal
Housing
Units

1,136
1,114
952
162

30
30
28
2

934
754
637
117
Peak

Percentage
Population
3,408
3,342
2,856
486

90
90
84
6

2,802
2,262
1,911
351
Population
5,361
5,262
4,544
718

1,783
1,783
1,639
144

5,209
4,213
3,670
543
Permanent

36%
36
37
34

95%
95
95
96

46%
46
48
45
Seasonal

64%
64
63
66

5%
5
5
4

54%
54
52
65
-------
Table 3-16. Base-year population estimates for the RSSAs in the Geneva Lake-Lake
Como Study area (See Appendix G for methodology) (concluded).
Base-Year 1980
Permanent
Area
908 Lake Como
SSA
RSSA
Sewered
Unsewered
f 059 Lake Geneva
*»
^ SSA
RSSA
Sewered
Unsewered
Combined Total
SSA
RSSA
Sewered
Unsewered
Housing
Units

536
536
0
536

3,093
2,667
2,551
116

5,967
5,363
4,511
852
Population

1,379
1,379
0
1,379

7,586
6,395
6,049
346

15,018
13,338
11,051
2,287
Seasonal
Housing
Units

448
448
0
448

1,386
661
477
184

3,934
3,007
2,094
913
Peak

Percentage
Population

1,344
1,344
0
1,344

4,158
1,983
1,431
552

11,802
9,021
6,282
2,739
Population

2,723
2,723
0
2,723

11,744
8,378
7,480
898

26,820
22,359
17,333
5,026
Permanent

51%
51
0
51

65%
76
81
39

56%
60
64
46
Seasonal

49%
49
0
49

35%
24
19
61

44%
40
36
54
-------
Transient Population

The population analysis for the Geneva Lake-Lake Como study area must
include the seasonal transient population visitors staying in hotels,
motels, camps, and campgrounds. In 1980, this seasonal transient popula-
tion was estimated to be 4869 persons within the RSSA boundaries. The
present EIS estimates that this number will not increase significantly
during the planning period. This assumption is based on the fact that no
new facilities have been constructed recently within the RSSAs, and no
plans for the development of such facilities in the future are known.
Table 3-17. Estimated seasonal transient population in the Revised Sewer
Service Areas for 1980.
Revised Sewer Resort, Hotel, Camps, ,
Service Area Motel Campgrounds
Lake Como (908) NA 0
Lake Geneva (059) 907 1138
Williams Bay (067) 92 1570
Fontana (063) 858 254
Waiworth (066) 42 50
Total 1907 2962
NA - Not Available
a
Data on the number of units collected by telephone interviews with resort
owners during August 1979. An occupancy rate of 2.51 persons per unit was
used to determine population.
b
Maximum accommodations obtained by telephone interviews with campground
officials during August 1979.
Peak Population

The 1980 estimated peak population residing in the five RSSAs is
22,359 (Table 3-16). The peak population represents the combined permanent
and seasonal populations The population residing in the sewered and un-
sewered portions is 17,333 (782) and 5,026 (22%), respectively. Overall,
60% of the peak population resides in the RSSAs on a permanent basis, and
3-50
-------
40% on a seasonal basis. However, this permanent/seasonal split is skewed
because of the large permanent population in the Lake Geneva RSSA. The
permanent/seasonal population by RSSA is shown below:

RSSA Percent Permanent Percent Seasonal
Walworth 95 5
Lake Geneva 76 24
Lake Corao 51 49
Williams Bay 46 54
Fontana 36 64
Overall 60 40

The Lake Geneva RSSA has the largest peak population, followed by Fontana,
Williams Bay, Lake Como, and Walworth.

3.2.2.3. Population Projections

Accuracy in the development of population projections is directly
related to the size of the base population, the time period for which the
projections are made, and the availability of data from which trends can be
analyzed. Population projections for small populations over long periods
of time are generally less accurate than for larger populations over the
same period of time. Attitudinal or technological changes can signifi-
cantly affect small communities, whereas larger communities are better able
to absorb such changes.

Both permanent and seasonal population projections have been prepared
for the Geneva Lake-Lake Como Revised Sewer Service Areas for the year
2005. The following sections indicate the future population levels pro-
jected for these areas and explain the methodology used to develop the
projections.

Design-Year (2005) Population Projections

SEWRPC has prepared official population projections for each of the
five Geneva Lake-Lake Como Sewer Service Areas for 1985 and 2000. The
SEWRPC projections are based in part upon adopted areawide land use devel-
opment objectives. The projections are actually, therefore, recommended
3-51
-------
population levels (population allocations) that are controlled at the
County level. According to SEWRPC officials, "The ultimate reliability of
such normative population allocations is dependent, in part, upon the
degree to which local units and private developers choose to implement
regional plan recommendations." (By letter, Thomas D. Patterson, Chief,
Planning Research Division, SEWRPC 1 April 1981) A description of the
methodology used by SEWRPC to allocate population growth to subareas is
contained in Appendix G. Importantly, the population allocations were
not developed by means of a quantitative methodology (e.g., component or
noncoinponent), but rather by using a land-holding-capacity type of anal-
ysis The result is that population is allocated to all of the develop-
able land regardless of its year-round or seasonal occupancy status. In
addition, SEWRPC subtracted the area covered by existing urban development
as of 1975, and used US Census data to determine the base population.
Because the US Census enumerates permanent population only, the seasonal
population was not counted as part of the base population. The SEWRPC
population allocations thus account for future levels of both permanent and
seasonal population, but do not account for the existing seasonal popula-
tion

Because RSSAs that will receive sewer service are smaller geogra-
phically than the SSAs (for which SEWRPC developed future population lev-
els), projections of population size within the RSSAs had to be prepared.
The basic methodology utilized to prepare the year 2005 population projec-
tions involved using the ratio of 1980 SSA population to 1980 RSSA popula-
tion, applying that ratio to the year 2000 population projections, and then
extrapolating to the year 2005. This method was not used to project the
population within the boundaries of the Villages of Fontana, Walworth, and
Williams Bay, however. Officials of these Villages were concerned that the
SEWRPC projections were too high, and therefore the Village Boards of the
respective municipalities decided that population increases of 500 persons
over the 1980 census population for Walworth and Fontana, and of 1,000
persons over the 1980 census population of Williams Bay, would be used for
the year 2005 projections. These Villages have applied to SEWRPC to amend
the 208 Plan to reflect these changes. In addition, the 1980 existing
seasonal population was added to the projected population level to yield a
design-year, peak population level.
3-52
-------
The estimated design-year, peak population level developed during the
course of this EIS is 31,229 (Table 3-18). (No attempt has beea made to
differentiate between permanent and seasonal population). The net increase
in population over the 25-year period from 1980 to 2005 is 8,870, a 38.8%
increase. The average annual increase is 347, or 1.5%. The sewered por-
tions of the RSSAs are projected to increase by 40.9% and the unsewered
portions are projected to increase by 31.9%. However, these figures are
skewed by the large population base in the Lake Geneva RSSA, where sewered
areas are projected to increase 58.8% and unsewered areas are projected to
increase by only 27.9%. The reverse situation occurs in the four other
RSSAs. The Lake Geneva RSSA is projected to remain the most populated, and
also to experience the most rapid growth (55.5% over the planning period).
The Lake Geneva RSSA will account for 53.5% of the new growth in the RSSAs.
The Waiworth RSSA also is projected to experience rapid population growth,
46.8%, although it will remain the smallest RSSA. The Lake Como RSSA is
projected to increase from 2,723 to 3,374. This net increase of 651 is the
smallest projected increase of the five RSSAs. The Fontana RSSA is pro-
jected to experience an increase of 1,084, or 20.6%. The Williams Bay RSSA
is projected to experience an increase of 1,649, or 39.1%. Overall, the
projected increase in the RSSAs is slightly higher than past trends would
indicate (especially given that population growth in the area has slowed
since 1950). It is also higher than the national average annual Increase
of 0.9% projected for the same period (By telephone, Information Special-
ist, US Bureau of the Census, 11 July 1983).

Donohue & Associates, the facilities planner, also developed popula-
tion projections for the RSSAs through the year 2005 and for the SSAs
through the year 2030 These projections are also based on SEWRPC data
which have been extrapolated by means of straight-line projection. These
projections are shown in Table 3-19.
3-53
-------
Table 3-18. Design-year population estimates for the RSSAs in the Geneva
Lake-Lake Como study area (See Appendix G for methodology).
Design-Year 2005
Population Change
1980-2005
Area

063 Fontana
SSA
RSSA
Sewered
Unsewered

066 Walworth
SSA
RSSA
Sewered
Unsewered

067 Williams Bay
SSA
RSSA
Sewered
Unsewered

908 Lake Como
SSA
RSSA
Sewered
Unsewered

059 Lake Geneva
SSA
RSSA
Sewered
Unsewered

Totals
SSA
RSSA
Sewered
Unsewered
Housing Units
2,853
2,238
1,867
371
1,570
1,017
919
98
3,026
2,139
1,861
278
1,238
1,238
0
1,238
6,734
5,326
4,942
384
15,421
11,958
9,589
2,369
Population
8,045
6,346
5,309
1,037
4,048
2,618
2,320
298
8,075
5,862
4,909
953
3,374
3,374
0
3,374
17,261
13,029
11,880
1,149
40,803
31,229
24,418
6,811
Net
2,684
1,084
765
319
2,265
835
681
154
2,866
1,649
1,239
410
651
651
0
651
5,517
4,651
4,400
251
13,983
8,870
7,085
1,785
Percentage
50.1
20.6
16.8
44.4
127.0
46.8
41.5
106.9
55.0
39.1
33.8
75.5
23.9
23.9
0
23.9
47 0
55.5
58 8
27.9
34.3
38.8
40.9
31.9
3-54
-------
Table 3-19. Population projections for 2005 and 2030 (Donohue &
Associates, Inc. 1983).

2030
2005 Population Permanent
Area Permanent Seasonal Population

063 Fontana
SSA 2,541 3,944 6,800b
RSSA 2,300 3,570 NA

066 Walworth
SSA 2,246 2,246 4,850
RSSA 2,207 2,207 NA

067 Williams Bay
SSA 4,305 7,461 7,375
RSSA 3,420 5,927 NA

908 Lake Como
SSA
RSSA

059 Lake Geneva
SSA
RSSA
1,970
1,970
12,483
11,530
3,365
3,365
19,218
17,750
2,190
NA
15 , 600
NA
a
Although Donohue lists this figure as seasonal, this is actually the peak
population.
b
NA - Not Available.
3.2.3. Socioeconomic Characteristics

3.2.3.1 Demographic Characteristics

The 1980 demographic characteristics of the socioeconomic area's

population are described in this section in terms of age, race, and house-
hold size. These data are compared to similar data from 1970, and with the

overall characteristics of Walworth County and Wisconsin (Table 3-20). In
general, the population of the socioeconomic area is older, has fewer

persons per household, and is characterized by fewer racial minorities than

that of Walworth County and Wisconsin.
3-55
-------
Table 3-20. Selected demographic characteristics, 1970 and 1980 (OS Bureau of the Census 1973, 1982a).
Population
Fontana
Lake Geneva
Walworth
Williams Bay
Geneva Town
us Linn Town
°" Walworth Town
Walworth County
Wisconsin
1970
1,464
4,890
1,637
1,554
3,490
1,910
1,370
63,444
4,417,731
1980
1,764
5,607
1,607
1,763
3,933
2,053
1,443
71,507
4,705,767
Percentage
Change
1970-1980
20.5
14.7
-1.8
13.4
12.7
7.5
5.3
12.7
6.5
% Non- White
1970
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.2
1.6
0.4
0.3
2.7
3.6
1980
0.9
3.7
2.2
0.9
2.2
1.3
0.7
2.3
5.6
Median Age
1970
33 4
32.5
31.9
32 6
34 5
32.3
28.1
26.4
27.2
1980
35.0
32.9
33.2
35.3
37.2
34.1
31.7
29.6
29.4
% 18 Years
of Age
1970
34.0
30.9
33.4
32.0
29.9
33.4
36.1
33.1
35.8
1980
26.0
23.3
25.2
24.4
24.7
28.7
29.9
26.0
28.9
% 65 + Year
1970
13.2
15.0
13.8
16.1
19.3
11.9
7.2
11.7
10.7
1980
13.8
16.5
17.1
17.8
20.1
14.9
10.7
12.8
7.0
Persons Per
Household
1970
3.03
2.81
3.02
2.89
3.15
3.07
3.43

3.22
1980
2.68
2.36
2.51
2.49
3.32
2.78
3.38
2.88
2.54
-------
Ail
Median age is an index of the overall age of a population. The median
age of the population of each MCD in the socioeconoraic area, as well as in
Waiworth County and in Wisconsin, increased from 1970 to 1980. This
increase in median age follows a nationwide trend resulting from declining
fertility rates since the mid 1960s. Overall, the median age of the Socio-
economic Area population is much higher (2 to 5 years) than those of the
County and State.

Another measure of the age characteristics of the population is the
percentage that is less than 18 years old and 65 years old or more. Since
1970, the percentage of the population that is less than 18 has declined
and the percentage over 65 has increased in the socioeconomic area. This
trend is also reflected in the age characteristics of Walworth County. At
the State level, however, the percentage of persons 65 or older decreased
from 1970 to 1980. In combination, these two age groups are referred to as
the "dependent population," because they generally are dependent on the
earnings of persons aged 18 to 64 years. The dependent population in each
of the MCDs in the socioeconomic area is larger (proportionately) than in
Walworth County and the State.

Generally, the population of the socioeconomic area can be described
as one that is maturing at a rate greater than those of Walworth County and
the State. This trend may be attributed in part to a lack of job opportu-
nities for younger residents, and the growing number of retired residents
in the area. This trend is particularly significant in the Geneva Lake-
Lake Como area, because persons 65 years and older are generally on fixed
incomes, and may therefore have difficulty financing their share of
improved wastewater treatment facilities or other community improvement
projects.
Race
Non-white individuals in the socioeconomic area, Walworth County, and
Wisconsin, represent only a small portion of the population. Although the
3-57
-------
number of non-white residents increased during the 1970s, the socioeconomic
area still has a lower proportion of residents in this group than do either
the County or the State. In general, non-whites account for less than 3%
of the total population of the socioeconoraic area.

Household Size

Following the national trends in smaller household size, the number of
persons per household in the MCDs in the socioeconomic area has also de-
clined. With the exception of Geneva and Walworth Towns, household size is
smaller than County and State averages. This decline in household size
also coincides with the more mature average age of the population.

3.2.3.2. Housing

In 1980, a total of 8,694 year-round housing units were counted by the
Bureau of the Census in the socioeconomic area (Table 3-21). This repre-
sents an increase of approximately 500 units since 1970. Units occupied on
a year-round basis account for 77% (6,735) of the total units. Of the
remaining units 1353 (15%) were classified as held for occasional use, and
606 units as vacant for sale or rent. Most of the units that were occupied
on a year-round basis were owned by the occupants, and only 31% of these
units were occupied by renters.

The predominant type of housing unit in the socioeconomic area is the
single-family detached dwelling, although condominiums, multi-family units,
and mobile home units are present The 1980 Census counted 755 condominium
units in the Socioeconoraic area primarily in Fontana (248), Lake Geneva
(116), and Williams Bay (90). Single-family dwellings comprise 77% of the
housing units occupied on a year-round basis. Approximately 22% of the
units occupied year-round occur in multi-family dwellings, and less than 1%
are mobile home units.

The number of persons per occupied dwelling unit in the socioeconomic
area has decreased from 3.16 in 1970 to 2.71 in 1980. This decrease fol-
lows the national trend of fewer children per family and larger numbers of
3-58
-------
Table 3-21. Characteristics of the housing stock in the socioeconomic area, 1980
(US Bureau of the Census 1982b).
Median Value
of
Fontana
Lake Geneva
Wai worth
Williams Bay
i
<-» Geneva Town
VO
Linn Town
Walworth Town
Total
1970 Total
Total
Year-Round
Units
958
2,558
664
1,157
1,309
1,602
446
8,694
8,196
Occupied
Units
657
2,380
640
707
1,185
739
427
6,735
5,163
Type
Single-
Fatnily
702
1,600
491
897
1,148
1,450
398
6,686
5,553
of Year-Round
Multi-
Family
256
948
173
259
126
147
36
1,945
NA
Mobile
Home
0
10
0
1
35
5
14
65
NA
Persons/
Unit
2.68
2.34
2.51
2.45
2.83
2.76
3.10
2.71
3.16
Noncondominium
Owner— Occupied
Units
$66,600
52,900
47,000
58,400
50,600
64,000
60,600
NA
NA
NA - Not available.
-------
older persons. This trend may also be indicative of an increased popula-
tion of retired persons within the socioeconomic area.
*
The median value of owner-occupied noncondominium housing units in the
socioeconomic area ranged from $47,000 in Walworth to $66,000 in Fontana.
The State and County values were exceeded in each of the MCDs except Wal-
worth and Geneva Town.

Most of the new housing unit construction during the past decade has
involved single-family homes and condominiums Between 1971 and 1978, an
average of 60 housing unit construction permits were issued annually in the
socioeconomic area (Table 3-22) However, a sharp decline in housing
construction began in 1979 and continues to the present. This decrease in
housing construction has been caused in part by the high interest rates for
mortgages and by high gasoline prices, which could serve to deter potential
seasonal homeowners.

Another trend in housing in the socioeconomic area has been the con-
version of seasonal homes to permanent residences. Seasonal homeowners
often purchase their second home with the intention of living in it perma-
nently after retirement. Many second homes have been weatherized to make
them habitable on a year-round basis (By letter, M. Hollisters, Bob Keefe
and Associates, 7 December 1978).

3.2.4. Economics

Employment data for the period 1971 to 1976 are available for Walworth
County and Wisconsin from the Regional Economic Information System of the
U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. County-level employment data are useful
for the study of trends that affect the study area, since they include the
20-mile to 25-mile radius within which most commuting to work occurs.
Employment data have been analyzed also for the seven MCDs in the socioeco-
nomic area in 1979. These data have proved useful for the study of local
economic characteristics.
3-60
-------
¥
Table 3-22. Single family housing construction permits issued in revised sewer service areas 1970-1982

Town
Geneva
Linn
Wai worth
Total

1970
14
5
10_
29

1971
37
27
12
76

1972 1973
30 26
19 28
__8_ JL4
57 68

1974
16
18
10
44

1975
22
22
12_
56

1976
19
23
J_
49

1977
24
44
_J7_
75

1978
30
31
10
61
_
1979
12
20
4
36
a
1980
7
9
_2_
18

1981
4
7
_!_
12
b
1982
2
8
_0_
10
a
May include permits not in RSSAs.

b
Through September.
-------
3.2.4 1. Employment Trends in WaLworth County

Employment data for Walworth County indicate that moderate growth
occurred from 1971 to 1976 (Table 3-23) The increase of 6.1% in total
employment was below the statewide increase of 10.4%. The moderate growth
in total employment reflects decreased employment in manufacturing (-0.6%),
farming (-7.4%), and construction (-0.2%), which offset employment in-
creases in wholesale trade (126.8%), retail trade (13.2%); finance, insur-
ance, and real estate (30.2%), agriculture (10.3%), government (7.4%), and
hospitality-recreation-tourism (7.1%). Growth in the wholesale trade,
retail trade, and government categories accounted for 79% of the total
employment growth in the County.

Sector Analysis

Employment can be divided between two economic sectors: the basic
sector and the non-basic, or service sector. The basic sector produces
goods and services for export to other areas. The specific components of
the basic sector may vary with locale, but usually include employment in
agriculture, mining, and manufacturing. Although tourism services are not
exported, they are considered basic in this analysis because local consump-
tion is attributed to non-residents. The income generated by the basic
sector circulates within the local economy and supports service sector
industries that provide goods and services for local consumption.

Economic and population trends are directly related to employment
opportunities in the basic sector. The ratio of total employment (basic
and service sector employment) to basic employment, usually referred to as
a multiplier, quantitatively describes this relationship. Specifically,
the ratio indicates the total number of jobs generated by each job in the
basic sector.

Basic Sector
In 1976, the manufacturing Industries accounted for 46% of the employ-
ment in the basic sector. The manufacture of durable goods, including
3-62
-------
Table 3-23. Walworth County employment trends, by sector, in 1971 and 1976
(US Bureau of Economic Analysis 1978).
Percentage
Category 1971 1976 Change 1971-1976

Total employment 25,833 27,413 6.1
Farm proprietors 1,566 1,450 -7.4
Non-farm proprietors 2,134 2,256 5.7
Wage and salary 22,133 23,707 7.1

Basic
Agriculture 2,473 2,727 10.3
Mining — 20
Manufacturing 5,632 5,596 -0.6
Hospitality-Recreation-
Tourism 3,448 3,692 7.1

Non-basic (service) 14,280 15,378 7.6

Multipliers d
Basic Service 1.2 13
Basic Total f 2.2 2.3
Basic Population 5.5 5.5

Labor force 27.7008 31,100 12.3
Employed 26,600 29,500 10.9
Unemployed 1,040 1,600 53.8

Unemployment rate 38% 5.2%
a
Includes farm proprietors, farm wage and salary employers, agricultural
services, forestry, fisheries, and other.
b
Mining employment was not disclosed in 1971.
^
Hospitality-Recreation-Tourism consists of 47.6% of employment in retail
trade, and 38,0% of employment in services (Cooper and Beier 1979a,b).

Indicates number of service jobs generated by 1 basic job.

Indicates number of total jobs generated by 1 basic job.

Indicates number of people supported by 1 basic job.
g
Apparent error due to rounding
3-63
-------
stainless steel and alloy tubing, farm equipment, and musical instruments,
accounted for approximately 75% of the manufacturing employment in the
County. Despite the employment loss that occurred between 1971 and- 1976,
which reflected the nationwide recession during 1974 and 1975, future
expansion in this sector is expected (SEWRPC 1978).

The agricultural sector employed 2,727 people in 1976, which repre-
sented 23% of the basic employment sector. Dairy farming is the tradi-
tional form of agriculture in W
-------
department, food, drug, and liquor stores, vending machines, and gasoline
stations, resulted In gross sales of nearly $214 million. This represents
approximately 43% of the total business sales in the County. Despite a
decrease in the number of restaurants, hotels, motels, resorts, and
sporting goods stores reporting, these categories exhibited significant
growth over 1976.

Service Sector

Employment in the service sector accounted for 56% of the employment
in Walworth County in 1976. Employment in the service sector Is concen-
trated in government enterprises (35%), services (17%), and retail trade
(15%) (Table 3-24). However, there is relatively little government employ-
ment in the Geneva Lake-Lake Como area. The high levels of employment in
Table 3-24. Employment by industry in Geneva, Linn, Lyons, Walworth and
Bloomfield Townships, 1975 (SEWRPC n.d.).

Industry
Agriculture, Forestry, and
Fisheries
Mining, Construction
Manufacturing
Transportation, Communications
Utilities and Wholesale Trade
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate
Services
Education and Public Administration
Total

Employment
520
238
1,081
142
192
2,000
1,400
7,253
Percent of
Total
7.2
3.3
14.9
2 0
2.6
27.6
19.3
100.0
the service and retail trade sectors reflect the resort and recreation
attributes of the County. Between 1971 and 1976, the employment In the
service sector in Walworth County increased 7.7%. This was below the
statewide increase of 12.0%. Although the slow growth of the service
sector in Walworth County does not parallel state and national trends, it
Is important to observe that the wholesale trade and the finance, insur-
ance, and real estate industries did experience rapid growth. The rapid

3-65
-------
growth of these two tertiary industries indicates that the local economic
base is becoming increasingly sophisticated. Estimates of planned employ-
ment for Walworth County for the year 2000 indicate that all of the service
sector industries are likely to experience growth (SEWRPC 1978).

Employment and Population Multipliers

In both 1971 and 1976, each basic job generated one service and two
total jobs, and supported almost six people. This indicates that popula-
tion growth and economic growth closely paralleled one another over the
5-year period. These multipliers are lower than the multipliers for Wis-
consin. The lower multipliers in Walworth County may indicate one of two
things. First, basic sector wages in Walworth County may be lower than
basic sector wages in Wisconsin. Therefore, fewer service sector jobs are
generated, or alternatively, most of the basic sector wages are spent
outside of Walworth County, generating service sector employment in other
areas.

Bounty Labor Trends

In 1976, Walworth County had a resident labor force of 31,100 which
constituted 47% of the total population This ratio of resident labor
force to total population, called the labor force participation rate, was
the same at both the county and state levels.

Unemployment

The unemployment rate for Walworth County was below the state and
national rates in 1970, 1976, 1979, and August 1980 (Table 3-25) The
relatively low unemployment rate indicates that the Walworth County economy
is stable and has been expanding in response to new population growth.
3-66
-------
Table 3-25. Unemployment rates in Walworth County, Wisconsin, and the US
(By telephone, John Golliher, Wisconsin Bureau of Research and
Statistics, 20 October 1980).
1971 1976 1979 August 1980
Walworth County
Wisconsin
US
3.8%
4.5%
5.9%
5.2%
5.6%
7.7%
3.4%
4.5%
5.8%
5.2%
6.8%
7.5%
3.2.4.2. Local Employment Trends

The socioeconomic area had a 1980 civilian labor force of 9,018 wor-
kers (Table 3-26). The number of unemployed workers totalled 476, and
accounted for 5.3% of the civilian labor force. Unemployment ranged from
only 4.1% of the labor force in Geneva Town to 7.9% in Walworth Town.

The U.S. Bureau of the Census describes employment by twelve industry
categories (Appendix G). The manufacturing category employed the greatest
number of workers in 1980. Almost one-quarter of the workers were employed
in a manufacturing job. The professional services category, which Includes
health, education, and other types of professional services, accounted for
19.0% of the jobs in the socioeconomic area. The third largest employment
category in the socioeconomic area was the retail category which employed
Table 3-26. Employment of civilian labor force in the socioeconomic area,
1980 (USBOC 1982b).
Civilian Labor
Force No. Unemployed % Unemployment
Fontana 891 47 5.3
Lake Geneva 2934 153 5.2
Walworth 856 40 4.8
Williams Bay 920 62 6.7
Geneva Twp. 1764 72 4.1
Linn Twp. 683 54 7.9
Study Area 9018 476 5.3
3-67
-------
almost 15% of the labor force. The personal, entertainment, and recreation
services category accounted for 9.3% of the jobs in the socioeeonoraic area,
while the construction category employed 7.3% of the employed persons.

3.2.4.3. Income

The 1979 income characteristics of permanent residents of the socio-
economic area are reported by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Three de-
scriptions are used to characterize local income levels: median household
income, median family income, and per capita income (Table 3-27). Median
household income and median family income differ in that the family income
statistics account for the total income in households with two or more
related individuals, and the household income statistics account for the
income of all households (e.g., single persons and families).

Income levels in the MCDs in the socioeconomic area varied widely in
1979 (Table 3-27). Because of this variability, it is difficult to make
general statements regarding the income levels in the Geneva Lake-Lake Como
area. Overall, however, the levels of income in the socioeconomic area
were not unusually high or low.
Table 3-27. Income characteristics of socioeconomic area, 1979
(US Bureau of the Census 1982b).

Fontana
Lake Geneva
Wai worth
Williams Bay
Geneva Town
Linn Town
Wai worth Town
Wai worth Co.
Wisconsin

Median
Household
Income
20,366
15,493
16,195
15,706
20,687
17,424
19,695
17,457
17,687

Median
Family
Income
22,656
19,304
19,604
20,127
22,315
19,754
21,343
20,796
20,422

Per Capita
Income
9,556
7,881
7,161
7,623
6,310
9,421
6,679
7,123
7,256
Percent of
Population
Below
Poverty Level
6.95
7.1
6.6
8.0
6.95
7.9
8.9
7.8
8.5
3-68
-------
In terras of median household income and median family income, Fontana,
Geneva Town, and Waiworth Town each had income levels at about the County
and State levels. Income in the remaining four MCDs fell below the county
and state levels The range in median household income was from $15,493 to
$20,687. The range in median family income was from $19,304 to $22,656.
The incoiae levels in the City of Lake Geneva were at the low end of both
ranges.

The pec-capita income distribution did not follow a similar pattern.
Par-capita income in Fontana, Lake Geneva, Williams Bay, and Linn Town
exceeded the County and State levels. This indicates that the income range
in Lake Geneva, Williams Bay and Linn Town were greater than the income
range in Geneva and Waiworth Towns

Another indicator of income is the proportion of population below the
poverty level. In Wisconsin in 1979, 8.5% of the population was below the
poverty level, while 7.8% of the population of Walworth County was below
the poverty level. Overall, this represents a low incidence of poverty in
the SOCLOeconomic area. In 1979, 7.3% of the socioeconomic area population
was below poverty level. Walworth Town and Williams Bay had the largest
proportion of their residents classified as below the poverty level (Table
3-27), while Walworth had the smallest portion of the population below
poverty level

3.2.5. Municipal Finances

A variety of community services and facilities are available to the
residents of the socioeconoraic area, including education, transportation
facilities, full-time police and fire protection, library and recreation
facilities, garbage collection and disposal, water supply, and in Lake
Geneva, Fontana, Walworth, and Williams Bay, wastewater collection and
treatment. The ability to maintain or improve these services and facili-
ties is dependent on the continued ability of area residents to finance
them
3-69
-------
3.2.5.1. Revenues and Expenditures

Data on the revenues and expenditures of the jurisdictions in the
socioeconomic area were collected for the general operations fund only
Data on trust funds, capital projects, special assessment funds and de-
tailed data on enterprises were not obtained. Local property taxes, inter-
governmental revenues, and charges for the use of property and money were
the major sources of revenue collected by the jurisdictions in the study
area for general operations during 1980. Other sources included tax cred-
its, regulation and compliance fees, public charges for services and en-
terprises (e.g., parking utility or sewer utility). Charges for sanitation
services (sanitary sewers and treatment plants, refuse collection and
landfill operations) are included in the latter two categories. The total
revenues per capita collected for general operations during 1980 ranged
from $114 in the Town of Geneva to $695 in the Village of Williams Bay
(Wisconsin Department of Revenue 1981). The revenues collected, by source
and by jurisdiction, are shown in Table 3-28.

The major expenditures for general operations by the jurisdictions in
the socioeconomic area in 1980 were for public safety, transportation, debt
service (where applicable), and general administration The towns of
Geneva, Linn and Walworth spent from 39 6% to 61.0% of their resources on
transportation (highway maintenance, traffic control, street lighting,
bicycle trails, parking lot meters and ramps, mass transit, airports, and
docks and harbors) Public safety expenditures accounted for 25% or more
of the general operations expenditures in each of the jurisdictions except
the Village of Williams Bay and the Town of Walworth. Expenditures for
sanitation (as defined above) ranged from 1.0% of the general operations
expenditures in the Town of Linn. Per capita expenditures for sanitation
ranged from $1 in the Town of Walworth to $22 in the Village of Fontana
Total expenditures per capita for general operations ranged from $108 in
the Town of Geneva to $724 in the Village of Williams Bay (Wisconsin De-
partment of Revenue 1981). The expenditures by category and by jurisdic-
tion are shown in Table 3-29
3-70
-------
Table 3-28. Sources of revenue for general operations produced by the 3urisdiction in the Geneva
Lake-Lake Como socxoecpnomic area 1980 (Wisconsin Department of Revenue 1981).
Jurisdiction

City of Lake Geneva
($1,000)
Percent
Per Capita

Village of Fontana
($1,000)
Percent
Per Capita

Village of Walworth
($1000)
Percent
Per Capita

Village of Williams
Bay ($1,000)
Percent
Per Capita

Town of Geneva ($1 000)
Percent
Per Capita

Town of Linn ($1 000)
Percent
Per Capita

Town of Walworth
Percent
Per Capita
Net Local
Property
Taxes
799 4
33 2
151
450 9
41 0
251
120 0
33 8
82
232 7
19 9
138
69 8
16 7
19
201 0
48 2
122
26 9
14 6
19
Tax
Credits
126 6
5 3
24
42 2
3 8
23
24 1
6 8
17
27 9
2 4
17
4 9
1 2
1
13 0
3 1
8
3 I
1 7
2
Inter-
Other governmental
Taxes Revenues
97 2
4 0
18
98 9
9 0
55
2 2
0 6
2
33 3
2 8
20
59 4
14 2
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
537 8
22 3
101
202 1
18 4
112
161 5
45 5
111
165 7
14 1
98
221 2
52 9
60
168 1
40 3
102
112 7
61 2
SO
Regulation
and
Compliance
168 4
7 0
32
49 8
4 5
28
15 8
4 4
11
51 2
4 4
30
36 6
8 7
10
3 6
0 9
2
2 0
1 1
I
Public
Charges for
Services
135 3
5 6
26
46 9
4 3
26
0 8
0 2
1
44 2
3 8
26
2 3
0 5
1
13 4
3 2
8
0
0
0
Use of Honey
and property
544 0
22 6
103
207 8
18 9
116
20 4
5 7
14
616 4
52 6
365
19 7
4 7
5
18 0
4 3
11
39 3
21 4
28
Inter-
governmental
charges
for Services
10 3
2 9
7
0
0
0

It 3
1 0
1

0
0
0

0
0
0
Total
Revenues
for General
Operations
2408 8
100
454
1098 6
100
611
355
100
244
Enterprises
610
NA
115
330 6
HA
184
152 7
NA
105
1171 2
100
694
418 2
100
114
417 2
100
253
184 0
100
130
282
NA
167
0
NA
0
0
NA
0
0
NA
0
-------
Table 3-29. Resources expended for general operations by the iiirisdictions in the Geneva Lake-Lake Como
socioeconomic area, 1980 (Wisconsin Department of Revenue 1981).

lur 1 ".diction
( ity of Lake Ocm va ($1 000)
rcuit
1 ..r ( niltd
-------
3.2.5.2. User Costs

The 1983 annual sewer service user costs for residences in Fontana,

Lake Geneva, Walworth, and Williams Bay are $162 ($182 without water ser-

vice), $85, $88, and $179, respectively. These user costs all fall below

USEPA's recommended upper limits (Table 3-30).
Table 3-30.
Current user costs for wastewater treatment in the socioeco-
nomic area communities (By telephone, E Lemmen, Superinten-
dent, City of Lake Geneva Water and Sewer Department; Grabow,
Asst. Clerk and Treasurer, Village of Fontana; L. Czaja,
Clerk-Treasurer, Village of Walworth, and Pat Stevenson,
Chairperson Village of Williams Bay Water and Sewer Depart-
ment, 22 June 1983).
Community
Fontana

Lake Geneva
Walwotth
Williams Bay
Geneva Town
Linn Town
Walworth Town
1979 Median
Household Income

$20,366

15,493
16,195
15,706
20,687
17,424
19,695
Current Annual
User Costs
Annual
User Costs as a
Percentage of Income
$162 (with water)
$182 (without water)
85
85
179
NA
NA
NA
0.

0.
0.
1.1
NA
NA
NA
NA - Not Available

USEPA (19782) recommended upper limits for annual user costs as a per-
centage of median household income*

1 0% when income is less than $10,000
1.5% when income is between $10,000 and $17,000
1.75% when income is greater than $17,000

(USEPA. 1982. Construction Grants 1982).
3.2.5.3. Tax Assessments

The property tax rates in the socioeconomic area jurisdictions gen-

erally are similar to the tax rates in Walworth County and other areas of

the state (Wisconsin Department of Revenue 1982). The town tax rates are

lower than the Village and City rates, as is usually the case. The general
3-73
-------
property tax full value rate ranged from $15.38 per $1,000 of full equal-
ized value in the Town of Geneva to $23.46 per $1,000 of full equalized
value in the Village of Walworth. School district*, accounted for approxi-
mately 50% of the tax level in the jurisdictions in the study area (Table
3-31). The state tax rate is $.20 per $1,000 of full value. The county
tax rate is $3.36 per $1,000 of full value (except in the city of Lake
Geneva where it is $3.34 per $1,000 of full value) The local tax rates in
the City of Lake Geneva and Village range from $4 16 to $7.17 per $1,000 of
full value, but in the towns the local tax rates range from only $0.50 to
$1.87 per $1,000 of full value. The taxes per capita vary widely between
the jurisdictions in the study area (Table 3-31) The range is from $562
in the City of Lake Geneva and the Town of Geneva to $1,595 in the Village
of Fontana. The taxes per capita in the Village of Williams Bay and the
Town of Linn also exceed $1,000. The tax distribution in the study area
reflects both the large seasonal population and the extent of agricultural
land, (i.e , the taxes per capita was computed with permanent population
data only).

3 2.5.4. Municipal Indebtedness

The financial condition of the socioeconomic area was analyzed by
means of 1981 data. The study area contains seven municipalities, eleven
school districts, one vocational school, two sanitary districts, and a
public inland lake protection and rehabilitation district All of these
jurisdictions appear to be financially sound and not overburdened with
debt. The long-term debt of the municipalities and overlapping districts
ranged from $530,583 in the Town of Walworth to $4,352,366 in the City of
Lake Geneva. The Villages of Fontana, Walworth and Williams Bay each had
self-supporting debt Only the Village of Williams Bay had short-term debt
in 1981. The short-term debt can vary widely from year to year. The
statutory debt limits of the municipalities and four of the benchmarks used
by the credit industry are presented in Table 3-32 All of the municipal-
A ties fall well below the upper limits set Thus each municipality should
be able to support additional debt for its share of wastewater treatment
facilities, without undue financial strain.
3-74
-------
Table 3-31. Tax rates in 1981 for the jurisdictions In the Geneva Lake-Lake Como socioeconomic

area (Wisconsin Department of Revenue 1982).
Jurisdiction

City of Lake Geneva

Village of Fontana

Village of Walworth

Village of Williams Bay

LO
i Town of Geneva
—i
Ui

Town of Linn

Town of Walworth

County average

State average
Tax Full Value
Rate $1,000
20.80
17.05
23.46
19.30
15 38
15.49
15.58
18.01
21.61

State
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
Full Value
County
3.34
3.36
3.36
3.36
3.36
3.36
3.36
3.35
3.66
Tax Rates
Local
5.36
4.16
7.16
6.01
.56
1.87
0.50
2.93
4.76
School
11.90
9.32
12.74
9.73
11.25
10.04
11.52
11.53
12.99
Taxes Per
Capita
$ 562
1,595
785
1,079
562
1,559
618

-------
Table 3-32 Statutory debt limits, credit industry benchmarks, and comparative statistics for the jurisdictions in
the Geneva Lake-Lake Como study area (Groves 1980, By telephone, Darrell Frankie, Wisconsin Department
of Revenue, 15 September 1981, By telephone, Fera Weigen, Wisconsin Department of Revenue, 15 December
1982
Jurisdiction
Benchmark
Overall debtaexceeding
100% of full value

Statistic
Benchmark
Overall debt
exceeding $1,200 per capita

Statistic
Benchmark
Level of overall debt
exceeding 90% of statutory limit

Statistic
Benchmark
Overall debt per capita
exceeding 15% of per capita
personnal income
Overall debt as per- Debt per
cent of full value capita
City of
Lake Geneva 2 1% $780 27
Village of
Fontana 2 1 366 90
Village of
Walworth 33 172 26
Village of
Williams Bay 2 3 278 82
Town of
Geneva 0 ft 117 52
Town of Linn 0 4 109 13
Town of
Walworth 0 7 358 99
Overall per capita debt as Statutory
Level of overall debt as a percent of per capita Debt
a percent of statutory limit personal income Limit (S1C
42 1%

41 3

66 0

45 1

7 8
8 6

14 2
7 6% 10,329,880

4 0 8,169,975

2 1 2,122,590

3 5 4,940,850

2 4 7,354,625
1 3 10,399,545

5 4 3,723,950
"Overall debis the total long-term debt of municipalities and overlapping districts for which tax revenues have been pledge In this case overall
debt includes municipal county and school district debt

This index was developed by Standard and Poor's bond rating firm It is also known as the "S&P Index"

cThe State of Wisconsin limits long-term indebtedness in the form of general obligation bonds, long term rates, state trust fund loans, and installment
contracts to 5% of the full equalized value of general property, except as noted in Appendix G
-------
3.2.6. Transportation Facilities

Transportation facilities, both public and private, have significant
effects on the permanent population, seasonal population, recreational
usage, and to a lesser degree the local employment structure of the study
area. The number of individuals visiting an area, and the number of com-
muters residing in it is dependent on the ease with which they can travel.
Transportation facilities are also one of the locational factors used by
manufacturers and other potential employers.

The study area is located within 30 to 75 miles of six metropolitan
areas in Illinois and Wisconsin. There are four modes of transportation
available in the study area: private automobile, railroad, airplane, and
bus.

Roadways

The Geneva Lake-Lake Cono area is well served by state and Federal
highway systems. OS 12 and US 14 constitute the major traffic corridors
linking the study area with Chicago, Illinois, Janesville, Wisconsin; and
Madison, Wisconsin Access to the study area from the cities of Rockford,
Illinois and Beloit, Wisconsin to the west, and Milwaukee, Wisconsin to the
north is provided by the 190-Wisconsin 15 highway Both US 12 and 1-90-
Wiscons in 15 are four-lane, limited access highways. Additional access is
provided by Illinois 47 (which becomes Wisconsin 120) and Wisconsin 50 from
Kenosaa, Wisconsin. Each of these highways is a full-access, two-lane
road Traffic counts on STH 120, US Route 12, and US Route 14 in the
.immediate vicinity of the Illinois-Wisconsin state line are made by the
Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WISDOT) approximately every three
yearss Annual average 24-hour two-way traffic count data collected in 1975
and 1978 indicate that during the three-year period, traffic increased
significantly on US Route 12, increased moderately on US Route 14, and de-
creased on STH 120.

Data on the ratio of roadway volume to roadway capacity for selected
roadway segments in the study area vicinity indicate that roadway conges-
3-77
-------
tion occurs in the study area (Table 3-33). At the present time Wisconsin
STH 50 is heavily congested on summer weekends. Trucks currently are

banned in Lake Geneva on weekends (By telephone, William Sills, Commis-

sioner, Geneva Lake Area Joint Transportation Commission, 10 December

1979).

The Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) is currently pre-

paring environmental impact statements on plans for the construction of two
freeways affecting the study area. Under the current six-year transporta-

tion improvement plan prepared by WISDOT, two road improvement projects are
scheduled in the vicinity of the study area. They are.

• Resurfacing, shoulder work, and minor alignment improvements
on STH 120 between Che Illinois-Wisconsin state line and
Lake Geneva. The projected construction start-up date is
1983.
Table 3-33. Ratios of roadway volume to roadway capacity on selected road
segments in the Geneva-Lake Coiao study area (By telephone,
Bob Roszkowski, WISDOT, 20 November 1980).

Ratio of Actual Volume
Roadway Segment Volume to Capajcity to Cap_acity__

STH 120 between the
Illinois-Wisconsin state
line and the City of
Lake Geneva 0.58 418:721

STH 50 between STH 83
and US Route 12 0.64 474:740

STU 50 between US
Route 12 and the City of Lake
Geneva 1.84 1,297:705

STH 50 between Williams Bay
and STH 15 1.22 806:661
a
Considers 2-way traffic at the 100th hourly volume at service level C.

NOTE: A ratio of 1 indicates that volume is equal to capacity.
3-78
-------
• Replacing the present traffic barriers with concrete median
barriers on 1-94 from the Illinois-Wisconsin state line
north 6 miles. The projected construction start-up date is
1984.
These recommended improvements are subject to financing availability
(By telephone, Tom Winkle, WISDOT, 3 November 1980). In addition, SEWRPC
has recommended that the segment of Wisconsin 50 between Lake Geneva and
1-94 be upgraded to four lanes between 1981 and 1985 (By telephone, Bob
Beglinger, SEWRPC, 3 November 1980). WISDOT, however, has not approved
this recommendation.

Railroads
Railroad service is provided to and from the study area by the Geneva
Lake Area Joint Transportation Commission (GLA). Under the provisions of
the Wisconsin State Rail Preservation Act, the GLA has received funding for
the purchase of the abandoned Chicago and Northwestern (C&NW) line between
Lake Geneva and Ringwood, Illinois. The State of Wisconsin will provide
funds also to purchase abandoned depots and parking facilities (By tele-
phone, William Sills, Commissioner, GLA, 23 October 1980).

The GLA-administered railroad will provide rail service for commercial
freight hauling, for commuters, and for tourist excursions. Freight ser-
vice which is currently in operation, was a major factor in restoring rail
operations to the area. It primarily serves local industries such as the
Burlington Consumers Cooperative at Genoa City, Wisconsin.
Bus
Three companies, the GLA, Greyhound Bus Lines, and Wisconsin Coach
Lines, provide intercity and Interstate bus service to the study area.

Airports

There are two privately-owned airports open to the public in the study
area* the airport owned by Marriott, Inc., at the Americana Resort in Lake
Geneva and the Big Foot Airport, which is located in Walworth.

3-79
-------
3.2 7. Recreation

The Geneva Lake-Lake Coiao area is one of the prime recreational resort
areas in the State of Wisconsin. Approximately 110,000 tourists visit the
area annually (By telephone, George Hennerly, Director, Lake Geneva Area
Hotel Association, 28 October 1980) The area's principal recreational
resources are its many lakes, and streams, whore swimming, boating, and
fishing are the major activities

Recreational Facilities

The economic data for Walworth County reflect the importance of the
hospitality-recreation-tourism (HRT) industry in the study area, although
no data specific to the study area are available. HRT sales in Walworth
County are important indicators of the economic welfare both of the State
and of local communities. In 1976 and 1977, Walworth County recorded the
seventh highest level of gross HRT sales in the State of Wisconsin.
Walworth County ranked tenth when the impact of the HRT industry on local
income was measured.

Over 70 publicly and privately owned recreational facilities are
located in the study area (Donohue & Assoc., Inc. 1978a), The Big Foot
Beach State Park is the largest publicly owned facility in the study area
In 1977, over 108,000 people, including 24,600 campers, visited the park
(WDNR 1977). Numerous resorts and motels, restaurants, golf courses,
beaches, and boating facilities, are also found in the area.

Geneva Lake and Lake Como are used for boating and fishing Because
of Geneva Lake's size, depth, and good water quality, boat activity is
heavier than it is on Lake Como (WDNR 1969a,b). A boating census, con-
ducted in July 1977, counted 4,172 boats on Geneva Lake. No similar count
has been taken on Lake Como (GLWEA 1977) There are little recent data on
fishing pressures in the Geneva Lake-Lake Como study area. Conservative
estimates by the operators of boat launching and livery services indicate
that approximately 160 fishing boats are launched daily on weekends and
holidays, and 120 boats are launched daily during the week (GLWEA 1977)
3-80
-------
Geneva Lake receives an estimated 25 person-hours of fishing per acre of
water each year, with a fish harvest of approximately 23 fish per acre (WDNR
1969a).

3.2.8. Cultural Resources

Prehistoric Sites

Early investigations of archaeological resources in the study area
were documented by Charles Brown, the former director of the Wisconsin
State Historical Society, who identifed eleven Indian trails, four vil-
lages, thirty campsites, five planting grounds, two sugar bushes, three
caches, three cemeteries, three single burials, two mound groups, three
single mounds, and one shrine. Three mounds of the twelve-mound groups
were effigy mounds (Brown 1930). Subsequent verification of these findings
was not established because of inaccurate mapping at the time of recording
and later site destruction by urban development and by amateur archae-
ologists and collectors.

The State Historical Society has acknowledged the presence of 92 known
archaeological sites in the study area. Further information on these sites
is not currently available, since no systematic archaeological survey of
the study area has been undertaken (By letter, Richard A. Erney, State
Historical Society of Wisconsin, 21 July 1977). However, the State His-
torical Society has indicated that there is a strong likelihood that other
such sites exist within the study area, based on the area's abundance of
natural resources.

Around 18,000 B.P., the Great Lakes Region was covered by the Wisconsin
Ice Sheet. The boreal forest remaining after the glacial retreat supported
large mammals that were hunted by Paleo-Indian bands aL the end of the
Pleistocene, circa 11,500 B.P. There is, however, no evidence to date of
the presences of Paleo Indian-groups in the Geneva Lake area. Among the
known archaeological sites in the study area, some are believed to be
multi—component. Through typological comparison with excavated archaeo-
logical sites in Wisconsin and Illinois, it is possible to assume that a
3-81
-------
similar pattern of prehistoric settlement and subsistence existed between
tribes of these neighboring areas

The first evidence of occupation in the study area has been estimated
at 6,000 B.C., based on the discovery of projectile points of the type
manufactured by Archaic Indians These people maintained a subsistence
economy based on shellfish gatheung and small game hunting. This economic
shift was due to climatic changes and the resulting replacement of the
boreal forests with pine, spruce, and birch, which affected the types of
wildlife that could be sustained

Adaptation to the environment continued, marked by the introduction of
plant cultivation around 2,500 B.C. and the subsequent development of a
corn-based agricultural economy (Chomko and Crawford 1978). These events
distinguished the economic pattern of the Woodland period. Regional cul-
tural variations increased, as exemplified by the variations that appeared
in the local methods of burial. The Woodland culture was characterized by
burial cults and mounds. Groups in Wisconsin constructed large mounds
which resembled animals and birds., but which contained few artifacts to aid
later investigators in unraveling this little-understood culture. Effigy
mound construction occurred primarily between 500 and 1000 A.D., but it is
believed that regional construction of such mounds continued as late as the
iaid-16th century.

The infusion of Potowatomi Indians into the Geneva Lake area altered
the cultural complexion of the region. Three Indian villages, with an
estimated total population of 500, flourished in the study area at the time
of the arrival of the first white settlers in 1831 (Rossmuller 1959).

Historic Sites

The first visit by white settlers to the Geneva Lake area was recorded
by the John Kinzie party in 1831 (Jenkins 1922) However, indirect evi-
dence supports the belief that French fur traders had prior access to the
area in the 17th century
3-82
-------
In 1883, township and section lines were marked out under the provi-
sions of a government contract prior to the granting of statehood in 1846.
In 1836, Christopher Payne obtained a land claim and erected a sawmill,
which he followed with a second mill that he operated for seven years. The
settlers had peacefully cohabitated with the Potowatomi band, led by Chief
Big Foot. However, at this time they were removed £o a reservation in
Council Bluffs, Iowa, freeing the land for increased white expansion.

The first permanent settlements outside Geneva Lake were established
in 1836 at Williams Bay by Captain Israel Williams and at Fontana by James
Van Slyke. At that time, Williams Bay was prime farmland. It remained as
such until after the turn of the century, when connection with the railway
brought increasing numbers of people and increasing development to the
area. In the same year, James Van Slyke built his home at Fontana, which
developed into the principal mill site for the area. The first general
store serving the area was built in 1837, followed by a school house in
1838. Ferguson's Owl Tavern in Geneva was the first travelers' inn.

The town of Geneva was established in 1839 and incorporated in 1844.
The first railway line to Lake Geneva was built in 1856, but was only
operational for a period of four years. It was replaced in 1871 by the
Chicago and Northwest Railway, which began transporting a large seasonal
population. The completion of the railway line coincided with the Chicago
fire of 1871, and provided access to Lake Geneva as a refuge for Chicago
families whose homes were destroyed. Keyes Park, the first resort hotel in
the area, opened in the same year.

Since then, the Geneva Lake-Lake Como area has become a well-known
resort area, attracting many wealthy Chicago families, which established
sumner homes there during the "Newport" period, from 1870 to 1920. Many of
these homes, as well as the simple log houses, barns, and outbuildings of
the early settlers, are still visible today in the study area. The struc-
tures in the study area that are included in the National Register of
Historic places are listed in Table 3-34. For additional information on
historic and archaeologic resources In the study area, see Appendix H.
3-83
-------
Table 3-34. Study Area Structures included in the National Register of
Historic Places (US Dept. of Interior 1982).

Date of
Site Location Registration

Lake Geneva Chicago Broad Street 07-31-78
and Northwestern Railroad
Depot (1891)

Longlands (1899-1901) 880 Lake Shore Dr. 09-18-78

Lanamoor (1900) 774 So Lake Shore Dr 01-15-80

The following site is under consideration for inclusion in the National
Register: Yerkes Observatory (HD) Observatory Place
3.2.9 Energy Consumption

In 1977, the study area consumed approximately 27% of the estimated

energy used in Waiworth County (Table 3-35). Natural gas, which is readily
available in the study area, provided most of the energy used in homes and

business. No restrictions in natural gas connections are anticipated for

residential and small commercial customers, although schools, and large

non-residential customers (manufacturing and commercial users) may use up
to 5,000 cubic feet per hour (By telephone, Bud McEwan, Wisconsin Southern

Gas Company, 2 January 1979).
Table 3-35. Energy consumption in Waiworth County and the Geneva Lake-Lake
Corao Area, 1977 (Algner et al 1977).
a
Consumption (in Million Btu)

Fuel

Natural Gas
Liquified Petroleum
Gas Fuel Oil
Wood
Coal
Gasoline
Electricity
Total

Wai worth County
6,140
280
1,010
280
290
2,800
1,670
12,470

Lake Geneva-
Lake Como
1,800
50
240
0
100
732
430
3,352
(27%)
a
Consumption was determined on the basis of total Wisconsin energy consumption
allocated to the sub-areas by housing units. These are considered to be
very generalized figures.
3-84
-------
4.0. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

The potential environmental consequences of the wastewater management
alternatives (Section 2.4.) are discussed in the following sections. The
impacts resulting from the construction and operation of the alternatives
for each of the communities may be beneficial or adverse, and may vary in
duration (either short-term or long-term) and significance. The important
impacts of the alternatives on the study area are indexed by environmental
resource in Table 4-1

Environmental effects are classified as either primary or secondary
impacts. Primary impacts result directly from the construction and/or
operation of the proposed project. Short-term primary impacts generally
occur during construction. Long-term primary impacts occur throughout the
life of the project and generally result from the operation of the proposed
project.

Secondary impacts are the indirect effects of the project and occur
because the project causes changes that in turn induce other actions or
effects that would not have taken place in the absence of the project.
Because the project creates change in the affected area, associated impacts
can result. For example, improved or expanded wastewatec treatment systems
can open up land for urban development that otherwise would not have exper-
ienced such development because of the lack of this capability. This resi-
dential, commercial, or industrial development could create an increased
demand for other public facilities and services, increase development
pressure on agricultural lands, woodlands, or other environmentally sensi-
tive areas, increase ambient noise levels, lead to air and water pollution;
or displace low and moderate income families Secondary impacts also may
be either short-terra or long-term. Short-term secondary impacts, for
example, include the disruption of the environment that occurs during the
construction of the development that is induced by the proposed project.
An example of a long-term secondary Impact would be the urban runoff that
occurs indefinitely after the induced development of agricultural land or
open space areas.
4-1
-------
Table 4-1. Index of important impacts for the construction and operation
of the wastewater management alternatives in the Geneva Lake-
Lake Como study area.
Environment al
Resource
Atmosphere
Soils
Surface water
Ground water
Vegetation
Wildlife
Wetlands
Land Use
Demog raphy
Prime Farmland
Economics
Recreation and
Tourism
Transportation
Energy Resources
Cultural Resources
Fiscal Impacts
Pr iroary
Impact
4.1.1 I.
4.1 1.2.
4 1.1 3.
4.1.1.4
4.1 1 5.
4.1.1.5.
4.1.1.6.
4.1.1.7.
4.1.1.8
4.1.1.9.
4.1.1.10

4.1.1.11.
4.1 1.12.
4.1.1.13.
4.1.1.14.
—
Operational
Impac t
4.1.2.1
4 1.2 2.
4.1.2 3.
4.1 2.4
4 1 2.5
4.1.2.5.
4.1.2.6.
4.1.2.7.
4.1 2.8.
—
4.1.2.9.

4.1.2.10.
4.1.2 11.
—
—
4 1.3
Secondary
Impact
__
—
4.2.3.
—
426.
4.2.6.
4.2.6.
4.2.2.
4.2.1.
4.2.6
4.2 5.

4.2.4.
—
—
4.2.6.
__
4-2
-------
Most adverse impacts can be mitigated, and many should be of short
duration. The possible mitigative measures outlined in the following
sections include planning activities and the utilization of construction
techniques that reduce the severity of both primary and secondary adverse
impacts. Construction plans and specifications, developed by facilities
planners for the communities and reviewed by the WDNR, must include these
mitigative measures if Federal monies are used to assist in financing the
proposed project.

4.1. Primary Impacts

4 1.1. Construction Impacts

Both the FPRA and the EIS Alternative require some construction The
EIS Alternative includes the construction of some new municipal wastewater
treatment systems and the upgrading of individual onsite treatment systems
throughout the life of the project The construction impacts associated
with centralized collection and treatment systems proposed under the FPRA
and under the EIS Alternative are addressed in the following subsections
for each of the major categories of the natural and man-made environment

4.1.1.1. Atmosphere

The construction activities associated with the FPRA and the EIS
Alternative, including placement of conveyance lines and land clearing for
WWTPs, will produce short-term adverse impacts to local air quality.
Clearing, grading, excavating, backfilling, and related construction activ-
ities will generate fugitive dust, noise, and odors. Emission of fumes and
noise from construction equipment will be a temporary nuisance to residents
living near the construction sites However, the EIS Alternative requires
less construction than does the FPRA Construction in currently unsewered
areas will be limited to those residences with failing onsite systems and
would not include extensive excavation for collection lines as proposed
under tne FPRA (See Figure 2-13)
4-3
-------
4.I.L.2. Soil Erosion and Sedimentation

Soils exposed during construction activity will be subjected to accel-
erated erosion until the soil surface is protected by revegetation or other
means. Conveyance lines typically are laid within road right-of-ways and
runoff from construction activities tends to concentrate in roadside drain-
ageways The FPRA involves laying considerable lengths of sewers and force
mains and can be expected to result in the greatest erosion and subsequent
sedimentation. The adverse impacts resulting from construction related
erosion and sedimentation include nutrient and other pollutant inputs to
the lakes, possible siltation, clogging of road culverts, localized flood-
ing where drainageways are filled with sediment, and damage to structures,
roads, and ditches.

4.1 1.3. Surface Water

Increased sedimentation resulting from the construction of collection
sewers could result in surface water quality degradation, as noted above.
The impacts associated with the construction of sewer lines - increased
nutrient inputs, increased turbidity, possible siltation - would occur
under the centralized collection and treatment alternatives as proposed in
the FPRA. The construction impacts would vary in intensity and duration
depending on the length of the sewer lines, their placement in relation to
drainageways, and the oitigative measures used to reduce sedimentation.
These factors will influence the amount of sediment that reaches the lakes,
and ultimately, the severity of the construction impacts.

The FPRA includes an effluent discharge to Piscasaw Creek that would
have additional impacts associated with the construction of the effluent
outfall. The construction activities would temporarily increase turbidity
levels, increase nutrient concentrations, possibly affect temperature and
dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations, and disrupt the aquatic community.
The adaptability of the fish and other biota to habitat disturbance will be
a primary factor in the severity of the impacts.
4-4
-------
4.1.1.4. Groundwater

Groundwater may be impacted by construction activities in localized
areas. Construction dewatering may cause some local failures of shallow
wells, especially where collection lines and pump stations are to be con-
structed under the FPRA A potential change in water quality would likely
occur where organic soils are disturbed either directly, or by altering the
water table. Changes in*groundwater quality might occur from construction
of collection lines extending to Lake Como under the FPRA. Organics may
leach out of these areas and affect the taste of water in nearby wells.
Spilled fuel and other construction materials could quickly pass through
the soils to contaminate the groundwater.

4.1.1.5. Terrestrial Biota

Construction activities associated with various components of the pro-
posed alternatives would result in impacts to wildlife and vegetation to
various degrees. Collection sewers and upgraded onslte systems would be
placed on residential lots; temporary loss of grassed areas and the removal
or death of trees would result from construction of these facilities. Dis-
ruption of backyard vegetation and the presence of construction equipment
and noise would cause temporary displacement of most vertebrate species and
mortality of a few (probably small maiimal) species, but replacement of
vegetation and cessation of construction activities would allow the re-
establishment of animals to the areas. More likely the animals commonly
associated with human habitation (e.g , eastern cottontail rabbits, house
sparrows, European starlings) that would be displaced, would move to suit-
able neighboring habitat and induce no density-related stress upon neigh-
boring habitats

Proposed conveyance lines for the FPRA generally parallel and are
contiguous to existing road rights-of-way. A strip of approximately 20
feet of roadside vegetation would be removed during construction along
County road rights-of-way, and a strip of approximately 20 to 40 feet would
be disrupted for placement of force mains. This could disrupt hedge row
vegetation in both residential and agricultural portions of the study area.
4-5
-------
The primary land uses and land cover along the proposed lines Include
low density residential, agricultural cropland, and wetlands. Small wood-
lots border the routes at scattered locations; second-growth roadside
shrubbery would likely be destroyed. Birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphib-
ians that reside on or near the proposed routes would migrate from dis-
turbed areas during construction Small mammals and reptiles would incur
some mortality from construction. Displacement of most animals would be
temporary, however, coinciding with the duration of construction.

Under the EIS Alternative, a new land application site is proposed in
Section 28, Town of Walworth, and that would require 80 acres of agricul-
tural land. Construction of the proposed land application facility at this
site would result in the permanent displacement or mortality of various
animals commonly associated with cultivated fields. This habitat does not
support a highly diverse vertebrate population, however, so losses would
not be expected to noticeably reduce resident vertebrate populations.
Following completion of construction, areas adjacent to the proposed facil-
ity would probably be reoccupied by wildlife communities similar in compo-
sition to preconstruction communities.

Construction activities associated with the proposed WWTP under the
FPRA and the EIS Alternative in Sections 1 and 30 probably would not de-
stroy any extensive stands of native vegetation. No significant impacts to
terrestrial wildlife would be expected. Disruption of existing communities
would be similar to that expected in Section 28.

The impacts on terrestrial biota that would result from upgrading the
existing systems under the EIS Alternative would be insignificant because a
relatively small amount of construction on developed land would be required
to complete the project.

4.1.1.6. Wetlands

Environmental impacts associated with the construction of a wastewater
collection system to Lake Como under the FPRA would include construction in
the right-of-way of Highway H adjacent to a large wetland area. This could
4-6
-------
result in loss of wildlife habitat and possibly rare or threatened plant
species, and erosion and possible sedimentation of the wetland. The rate
and direction of groundwater flow in the wetland also may be disrupted
unless care is taken in the construction process. Adverse Impacts could be
minimized with the careful use of erosion and sedimentation control prac-
tices. Construction activity during spring and early sum,aer should be
avoided to reduce disruption of wildlife reproductive cycles.

4.1.1.7. Land Use

The construction and upgrading of WWTPs at Lakes Geneva and Walworth
under both the FPRA and the EIS Alternative would require the conversion of
a gravel extraction facility and agricultural land uses to developed land
uses. The aerated lagoons and land application sites that are proposed as
treatment alternatives for the west end communities of Walworth and Fontana
would require a land area of approximately 25 to 30 acres out of an 80 acre
site proposed for condemnation. The Lake Geneva facilities are estimated
to require approximately 45 acres The oxidation ditch treatment facility
proposed for Waiworth/Fontana under the FPRA, would require 6 acres of land
currently owned by the Village of Walworth and used as a wastewater treat-
ment site.

In general, the only land uses that are compatible wih WWTPs include
agricultural, small wood lot, open space, or similar land uses. Developed
land uses, i.e., residential, commercial or institutional land uses, typi-
cally are incompatible with WWTPs. In addition, the construction of sewer
systems under the FPRA could temporarily disrupt activities along the
rights-of-way, The magnitude of these impacts is not anticipated to be
significant in much of the study area because most of the sewer systems
would follow existing road rights-of-way. However, the installation of
collection and transmission lines to the Walworth WWTP as proposed under
the FPRA could disrupt existing farm operations by damaging drain tiles, by
changing water table elevations, and by compacting soils during construc-
tion and backfill activities
4-7
-------
4.1.L 8. Demography

Temporary jobs created by the construction of wastewater collection
and treatment facilities are not likely to attract any new permanent resi-
dents to the study area These positions probably would be filled by
workers from the Geneva Lake-Lake Corao study area or from adjacent commu-
nities. Construction activities taking place on or adjacent to the property
of seasonal residents could result in the temporary reduction of use of the
seasonal dwellings. No significant demographic impacts are anticipated
during the construction of wastewater facilities.

4.1 1 9. Prime and Unique Farmlands

The construction of WWTPs and rapid infiltration systems would irre-
versibly convert prime farmland to developed land use. The WWTPs proposed
for the study area would require approximately 125 acres. Of this acreage,
the facilities in Lake Geneva and Williams Bay are not anticipated to
affect any prime agricultural land. However on the west end, the 80 acres
planned for rapid infiltration lagoons for Walworth/Fontana at the Rambow
site are listed as prime agricultural land The construction of an infil-
tration facility on this site would remove 80 acres of actively farmed,
prime agricultural land on Class 1-1 soils. These soils represent less
than 1% of the most valuable soils in the State of Wisconsin. This farm is
located in an A-l exclusive agricultural use zonLng district and the owners
are participating in the state preferential tax assessment program that
offsets their property tax for maintaining the property in agricultural
use.

Wisconsin statutes (Section 32.035) require the preparation of an
agricultural impact statement (AIS) if a proposed project involves the
actual or potential exercise of the powers of eminent domain in the acqui-
sition of an interest in more than 5 acres of land from any one farm opera-
tion. The AIS is prepared by the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture,
Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) and describes the potential effects
of the project on farm operations and agricultural resource. The AIS is
intended to reflect the general objectives and policy concerns of the DATCP
4-8
-------
of conserving important agricultural resources and maintaining a healthy
rural economy. The DATCP recognizes, however, that final project decisions
must consider a number of factors including, but not limited to, potential
agricultural impacts. The state is preparing an AIS on this pro]ect. The
preliminary draft AIS concludes that while the loss of the 80 acres of
farmland would not have a significant effect on the national, state, or
local economy or farmland resource base, the loss of this acreage would
contribute to the widespresad erosion of this resource.

In July 1982, the Soil Conservation Service published proposed rules
for implementing the Farmland Protection Policy Act (48 CFR 134) which
require the identification and consideration of the effects of Federal
programs on the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. The
proposed rules contain a numerical weighting system for assessing the
effects of a proposal action against a site's importance as farmland. When
applying data from the AIS to the 80 acre site proposed for land applica-
tion in Walworth, the site scored 115 out of a possible 160 points (See
Appendix H) indicating that the site is highly suitable for protection as
farmland

Factors for determining whether a Federal project significantly
effects a resource are contained in the Final Regulations for the Implemen-
tation of Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act
(43 CFR 23, Section 1508.27, 29 November 1978). These Regulations require
consideration of both context and intensity in determining if a project
significantly affects any aspect of the "Human Environment." Concerning
context, the Regulations state "In the case of a site specific action,
(such as construction of a rapid infiltration facility) significance would
usually depend upon the effects in the locale rather than the world as a
whole." Intensity refers to the degree of impact, the effects on public
health, unique characteristics of the geographic area (such as prime farm-
lands), the degree to which the effects may be highly controversial,
whether the action is related to other actions that are cumulatively sig-
nificant, as well as others. With due consideration of both the context
and intensity of the impacts resulting from the use of the 80 acre site for
land application of wastewater, this action would represent a significant,
4-9
-------
long terra, adverse impact. However, there are mitigative measures that
could be taken that would in large part reduce the significance of these
impacts. These are discussed in Section 4.3.

4.1.1.10. Economics

The construction activities associated with both of the alternatives
would create a limited number of short-term construction jobs. Most jobs
would be filled by persons living within the study area or within a reason-
able commuting distance of the area

The purchase of construction materials from merchants within the study
area would benefit the local economy. However, few firms offering the
necessary building materials are present within the study area. Most
construction materials would be imported from outside the area, probably
from the greater Milwaukee or Chicago areas Purchases made by construc-
tion workers within the study area also would benefit the local economy.
These benefits would be offset, though, by the reduced patronage that
businesses along the sewer lines would experience AS a result of the tempo-
rary disruptions caused by construction activities under the FPRA.

4.1.1.11. Recreation and Tourism

Any increase or decrease in tourism, or the use of recreational facil-
ities within the study area attributable to the construction of wastewater
collection and treatment facilities is dependent upon construction activi-
ties which detract from the recreational amenities of the study area. Most
recreational activities within the study area are water related and take
place on or along the perimeters of Geneva Lake and Lake Como. No major
air, water, noise, or traffic impacts are expected to occur near Geneva
Lake or Lake Como which would significantly disrupt tourism and recreation
activities. The disruption of traffic flows in the downtown areas of the
study area communities could cause a temporary displacement of tourists,
particularly if construction took place in these areas during the summer.
Access to some recreational facilities, interrupted by construction activi-
ties, may curtail some recreation and tourist activities along the shore-
line areas of both lakes under the FPRA.
4-10
-------
4.1 1,12 Transportation

Increased truck traffic during the construction of centralized waste-
water collection and treatment systems would increase traffic congestion
and disrupt traffic flows, particularly in the downtown areas of the study
area communities. Vehicular traffic also would be inconvenienced by exca-
vating, grading, backfilling, and temporary road closures during the con-
struction of conveyance lines along roadways, as proposed under the FPRA.
The temporary closure of some roads would inconvenience permanent residents
and tourists and result in increased traffic congestion on adjacent road-
ways

4.1.1.13. Energy Resources

Residential, commercial, and industrial energy requirements are not
likely to be affected during the construction of wastewater collection and
treatment facilities Trucks and construction equipment used for the
construction of wastewater treatment facilities would increase demand for
local supplies of gasoline and diesel fuel. The increased demands result-
ing from construction activities are not anticipated to have a significant
impact on the availability of fossil fuels in the study area.

4.1.1.14. Cultural Resources

Archaeological data for the study area indicates the presence of 92
sites. Information on many of the locations, however, are not readily
available (Section 3.2 8 ) Three structures in the study area are listed
on the National Register of Historic Places. Approximately 200 additional
sites of architectural significance were identified by WAPORA personnel in
1979 (Section 3.2.8 ). It LS difficult to assess adverse impacts attribut-
able to construction of wastewater collection and treatment facilities
which may affect historic, archaeological, and architectural sites, because
final collection routings under the FPRA and WWTP sites for both the FPRA
and the EIS Alternative have not been selected. However, construction of
wastewater collection facilities under previously undisturbed routes in
currently unsewered areas has the potential of disrupting these resources
4-11
-------
to a much greater extent than upgrading onslte treatment systems under the
EIS Alternative. All routes and sites should be presented to the SHPO for
assessment before construction activities begin. Construction excavations
could uncover significant cultural resources which otherwise might not be
found. To provide adequate consideration of impacts on these resources, an
archaeological survey of specific sites should be conducted following the
selection of an alternative. The State of Wisconsin requires that this
investigation be completed prior to a Step 3 award, or before construction
begins, to insure that all necessary steps are taken to protect cultural
resources.

4.1.2. Operation Impacts

Each of the alternatives, including the No Action Alternative, include
operations that will continue through the 20-year project planning period.
Included in the definition of operations are upgrading failing onsite
systems under the EIS Alternative, constructing centralized wastewater
collection systems under the FPRA, and under both the FPRA and the EIS
Alternative, renovating or constructing wastewater treatment systems.
Operation impacts associated with the alternatives for the study area com-
munities are addressed for each of the major categories of the natural and
man-raade environments.

4.1.2.1. Atmosphere

The potential emissions from the operation of the wastewater manage-
ment alternatives include aerosols, hazardous gases, and odors. The emis-
sions could pose a public health risk or be a nuisance.

Aerosols are defined as solid or liquid particles, ranging in size
from 0 01 to 50 micrometers that are suspended in the air. These particles
are produced at wastewater treatment facilities during various treatment
processes. Some of the constituents of aerosols have the potential of
being pathogenic and could cause respiratory and gastrointestinal infec-
tions, however, concentrations of bacteria or viruses in aerosols are
generally insignificant (Hickey and Reist 1975). The vast aajority of the
4-12
-------
microorganisms in aerosols are destroyed by solar radiation, desiccation
(drying out), and other environmental phenomena There are no records of
disease outbreaks resulting from pathogens present in aerosols. Therefore,
no adverse impacts are expected from aerosol emissions for any of the
alternatives.

Discharges of hazardous gases could have adverse affects on public
health and the environment. Explosive, toxic, noxious, lachrymose (causing
tears), and asphyxiating gases can be produced at wastewater treatment
facilities. These gases include chlorine, methane, ammonia, hydrogen sul-
fide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur, and phosphorus. The know-
ledge of the possibility that such gases can escape from the facilities or
into work areas in dangerous or nuisance concentrations might affect the
operation of the facilities and the adjacent land uses. Gaseous emissions,
however, can be controlled by proper design, operation, and maintenance
procedures.

Odor is a property of a substance that affects the sense of smell.
Organic material that contains sulfur or nitrogen may be partially oxidized
anaerobically and result in the emission of byproducts that may be malo-
dorous. Common emissions, such as hydrogen sulfide and ammonia, are often
referred to as sewer gases and have odors of rotten eggs and concentrated
urine, respectively. Some organic acids, aldehydes, mercaptans, skatoles,
indoles, and amines ilso may be odorous, either individually or in combi-
nation with other compounds. Sources of wastewater related odors include.

• Fresh, septic, or incompletely treated wastewater
• Screenings, grit, and skimmings containing septic or
putrescible matter
• Oil, grease, fats, and soaps from food handling enter-
prises, home, and surface runoff
• Gaseous emissions from treatment processes, manholes,
wet wells, pumping stations, leaking containers,
turbulent flow areas, and outfall areas
• Raw or incompletely stabilized sludge or septage.
4-13
-------
Wastewater treatment lagoons typically emit considerable odors when the ice
cover goes out In the spring These odors are likely to be noticeable for
at least one-half mile down wind. Effluent odors may escape from lift
stations where turbulent flows occur unless proper design steps ace taken
to minimize odors. The occasional failure of an onsite system may release
some odors Septage haulers using inadequate or improperly maintained
equipment may also create odor nuisances.

4.1.2.2. Soils

The operation of the land application sites for wastewater treatment
would alter the soils of these sites over the life of the project. The
potential changes depend on the existing chemical and hydraulic properties
of the soil, and on the chemical characteristics and application rates of
the effluent. The pH, cation exchange capacity, and phosphorus retention
capacity should be adequate to ensure that most constituents in the efflu-
ent will be removed effectively at the proposed application rates. Organic
constituents in the applied water would be oxidized by natural biological
processes within the top few feet of soil (USEPA 1981b). The volatile
solids are biologically oxidized and inorganic solids become part of the
soil matrix (USEPA 1981b).

Phosphorus would be present in the lagoon, oxidation ditch or septic
_2
tank effluent in an inorganic form as orthophosphate (primarily HPO, ), as
polyphosphates (or condensed phosphates), and as organic phosphate com-
pounds. Because the pH of wastewater is alkaline, the predominant form
usually is orthophosphate (USEP\ 1976). Polyphosphate is converted quickly
to orthophosphate in conventional wastewater treatment, in soil, or in
water. Dissolved organic phosphorus is converted more slowly (day to
weeks) to orthophosphate.

When effluent is applied to soils, dissolved inorganic phosphorus
(orthophosphate) may be absorbed by iron, aluminum, or calcium compounds,
or may be precipitated through reactions with soluble iron, aluminum, and
calcium. Because it is difficult to distinguish between adsorption and
precipitation reactions, the terra "sorptlon" is utilized to refer to the
4-14
-------
removal of phosphorus by both processes (USEPA 1981b). The degree to which
wastewater phosphorus is sorbed in soil depends on its concentration, soil
pH, temperature, time, total loading, and the concentration of other waste-
water constituents that directly react with phosphorus, or that affect soil
pH and oxidation-reduction reactions (USEPA 1981b)

The phosphorus in the adsorbed phase in soil exists in equilibrium
with the concentration of dissolved soil phosphorus (USEPA 1981b). As an
increasing amount of existing adsorptive capacity is used, such as when
wastewater enriched with phosphorus is applied, the dissolved phosphorus
concentration similarly will be increased. This may result in an increased
concentration of phosphorus in the percolate, and thus, in the groundwater
or in the recovered underdrainage water.

Adsorbed phosphorus is eventually transformed into a crystalline-
mineral state, re-establishing the adsorptive capacity of the soil. This
transformation occurs slowly, requiring from months to years. Work by
various researchers indicates that as much as 100% of the original adsorp-
tive capacity may be recovered in as little as three months. However, in
some instances it may take years for the adsorptive capacity to fully
recover because the active cations may become increasingly bound in the
crystalline form.

Dissolved organic phosphorus in applied effluent can move quickly
through the soil and enter the groundwater. Adequate retention of the
effluent in the unsaturated soil zone is necessary to allow enough time for
the organic phosphorus to be hydrolized by microorganisms to the orthophos-
phate form. It then can be adsorbed in the orthophosphate form.

The study area soils should have adequate sorption capacity for phos-
phorus where onsite seepage beds and rapid infiltration beds of current
design are constructed to standard (Ellis and Erickson 1969). Water qual-
ity sampling results appear to verify this conclusion (See Section 2.2.2.5.
and Appendix C).
4-15
-------
Nitrogen loadings in the wastewater are of greatest concern. Nitrogen
would be present in applied wastewater principally in the fora of ammonium
(NH.), nitrates (NO ), and organic nitrogen When wastewatec is applied to
soils, the natural supply of soil nitrogen Is increased. As ia natural
processes, most added organic nitrogen slowly is converted to ionized
ammonia by microblal action in the soil. This form of nitrogen, and any
ionized ammonia in the effluent, is adsorbed by so LI particles.

Soil microbes utilize ammonium directly. Microbes oxidize ammonium to
nitrite (NO ) that is quickly converted to the nitrate (NO ) form through
<£ J
nitrification. Nitrate is highly soluble and can be leached from the soil
into the groundwater. This may elevate nitrate concentrations in ground-
water but should not exceed drinking water standards of 10 mg/1. Under
anaerobic conditions (in the absence of oxygen), soil nitrate can be re-
duced by soil microbes to gaseous nitrogen forms (denitrification). These
gaseous forms move upward through the soil atmosphere and are dissipated
into the air. Denitrification depends on organic carbon for an energy
source; thus, the interface between natural soil and gravel fill in a
seepage bed or mound has both requisite characteristics for denitrifica-
tion.

Unlike phosphorus, nitrogen is not stored in soils except in organic
matter. Increases in organic matter within the soils would result from
increased microbial action and from decreased oxidation. The increased
organic matter improves the soil workability, water holding capacity, and
capability of retaining plant nutrients.

4.1.2.3. Surface Waters

Piscasaw Creek

Fiscasaw Creek flows south along the western boundary of the City of
Walworth. At this point it is a headwater stream flowing discontinuously
(USGS 1971). Piscasaw Creek is channelized and almost completely straight-
ened from the point where the existing Walworth wastewater treatment lagoon
discharges to the Illinois border, 2 miles to the south.
4-16
-------
The quality of Piscasaw Creek has probably been reduced as a result of
this channel straightening. Channelization tends to decrease the duration
of higher-than-base flows by moving water out of the watershed faster than
would occur under more natural stream conditions The result is that less
water is available to dilute wastewater effluent. This rapid loss of
streainflow is somewhat mitigated by two other hydrologic circumstances.
First, a small mount of tributary flow is introduced to the Creek at a
point approximately 1.9 miles downstream from the Walworth WWTP lagoon.
Second, a significant amount of groundwater discharges into Piscasaw Creek
downstream from the WWTP (WDNR 1980). The groundwater discharging to
Piscasaw Creek probably originates from recharge areas in the steeper
uplands to the west. As a result of these hydrologic factors, changes in
streamflow characteristics and water quality occur as the stream flows
southward.

In waste load allocation studies conducted for Piscasaw Creek, WDNR
reported that the 7-day, 10-year low-flow, just upstream of the Walworth
WWTP lagoons, is approximately 0.70 cfs. Existing effluent discharges from
the lagoons total approximately 0 22 cfs (WDNR 1980). Therefore, Piscasaw
Creek currently has about 30% of its volume as WWTP effluent in the efflu-
ent mixing zone below the lagoons At a point 0 88 miles downstream of the
Waiworth WWTP lagoons, the 7-day, 10-year low-flow is estimated to be
1.3 cfs (WDNR 1980). Thus, no more than 17% of the streamflow would be
partially assimilated WWTP effluent

Based on the preceding information, it appears that the stream segment
adversely impacted by WWTP effluent is from the mixing zone, downstream to
the confluence with the small tributary. However, field survey crews sam-
pling Piscasaw Creek during the waste load allocation study (WDNR 1980)
reported very high photosynthetic activity immediately downstream of the
WWTP lagoons. This is probably due to the growth inducing effect that WWTP
effluent nutrients have on aquatic macrophytes and benthic algae. Few
trees line the stream bank in this area and, as a result, a great deal of
oxygen can be produced by the abundant aquatic plants. Under these condi-
tions, the water quality of Piscasaw Creek is sufficient to meet full fish
and aquatic life (WDNR 1980).
4-17
-------
Under the FPRA, treatment of the combined wastewater flows of Walworth
and Fontana with an oxidation ditch WWTP would increase the effluent dis-
charge rate to approximately 1.72 cfs. The proposed FPRA facilities would
be located approximately 1/3 mile downstream of the existing Walworth WWTP
lagooas. Therefore, the effluent would be better assimilated under crit-
ical low-flow conditions. However, the FPRA proposed rate of effluent
discharge would be greater than the estimated 7-day, 10-year low-flow for
all points on Piscasaw Creek prior to Its crossing the state line. During
the critical, low-flow (7-day, 10-year) condition, the proposed treatment
facilities would result in a streamflow which is primarily effluent.

Waste load allocation studies conducted by WDNR have recommended that
the effluent limits indicated in Table 4-2 would be sufficient to protect
the water quality of Piscasaw Creek under all but the most stringent condi-
tions (WDNR 1980). This means that dissolved oxygen concentration would
not go below 5.0 mg/1 on an average daily basis, except when streamflows
are approaching the 7 day, low-flow level. This level of oxygen is gener-
ally sufficient to sustain full fish and aquatic life standards.
Table 4-2. Waste load allocation effluent limits for combined
and Walworth WWTP facilities (WDNR 1980).
Parameter
BOD- (mg/1)*
TSS (mg/1)*
NH3-N (mg/1)*
pH range (s.u )
DO minimum (mg/1)
Summer
10
10
2
6-7.6
6
Summer
10
10
5
6-7.2
6
Winter
10
10
4
6-8.1
6
Fontana
Winter
10
10
9
6-7.6
6
The BIS Alternative for Fontana and Walworth proposes the use of rapid
infiltration beds, thereby ceasing all effluent discharges to Piscasaw Creek.
The E1S Alternative would change the quality of Piscasaw Creek, although
the exact degree of impact cannot be determined. Over the long terra, the
rich community of benthic plants, aquatic macrophytes, asso-
4-18
-------
animals and insects adapted to the effluent enrichment 06 the creek
would be destabilized. The native stream community below the lagoons would
eventually revert to a level of productivity that is much less than cur-
rently exists or would exist under the FPRA. As a result, less oxygen
would be produced and the water would be less alkaline and therefore less
favorable for fish and aquatic life. Water clarity, however, would be im-
proved in the absence of any WWTP discharges. Additionally, the EIS Alter-
native would preclude any chance of slug loads of poorly treated waste from
impacting the stream. In summary, no significant beneficial or adverse
water quality impacts are anticipated for the EIS Alternative.

White River

From its headwater source in Geneva Lake, the White River flows in a
northeasterly direction, through the City and past the WWTP The original
stream channel has been straightened from the dam on the Geneva Lake outlet
to a point approximately one-eighth mile downstream of the treatment plant,
after which the stream course becomes more sinuous. The White River tra-
verses a large floodplain uarsh located about one and one-half mile down-
stream from the WWTP.

Below the WWTP, the 7-day, 10-year low-flow is estimated to be 0.89
cfs (WDNR 1981). The existing design flow of the treatment plant is
1.7 cfs, so that under low-flow conditions approximately 52% of the stream-
flow is effluent. It is evident that when water from Lake Geneva is not
being released through the dam spillway gates, (a common late summer occur-
rence) the White River downstream from the WWTP is being strongly influ-
enced by effluent. However, when summer rainstorms occur, the streamflow
below the daoi may be briefly augmented by storm sewer discharges from the
City of Lake Geneva (WDNR 1981). Groundwater influx is another source of
streamflow augmentation. During waste load allocation field studies, WDNR
estimated that groundwater added 0.38 cf& of streamflow to the White River
over each mile of stream course

Based on the potential impacts from the urban storm sewers combined
with the WWTP effluent, the effluent mixing zone area below the City WWTP
4-19
-------
appears to be the segment most vulnerable to water quality degradation.
WDNR, however, has classified all of the White River downstream of Lake
Geneva as capable of supporting a full fish and aquatic life community
(WDNR 1981). This classification is possible, in part, because of the
beneficial water quality impacts caused by a high density of aquatic plants
downstream of the WWTP The waste load allocation field survey reports
(WDNR 1981) indicate that the WWTP effluent enriches the White River suffi-
ciently to produce luxurient amounts of aquatic taacrophytes and benthic
algae. WDNR speculates in those reports that respirational uptake of
oxygen by plants is inhibited by chlorine present in the effluent (WDNR
1981) Therefore, the WWTP appears to have created a unique aquatic plant
community which adds a great deal of oxygen to the stream.

However, computer modeling of waste load allocations made by WDNR pre-
dicts that, under critical low-flow conditions, the White River would not
sustain levels of dissolved oxygen greater than 5.0 mg/1 at all times even
if no WWTP effluent were being discharged. Presumably, then, the existing
WWTP effluent discharges are now capable of causing violations of State
dissolved oxygen standards in the White River. WDNR has recognized the
natural limitations of the White River's assimilative capacity in recom-
mending effluent limits for the City of Lake Geneva that would help to
minimize violations of state standards under all but the most critical
stress flow conditions.

The FPRA for the City of Lake Geneva would result in a removal of
effluent previously discharged to the White River (See also Section
2.4.2.). This would eliminate any adverse impacts of wastewater effluent on
the White River. However, the FPRA is expectecd to result in increased
amounts of impervious surface areas such as roads, driveways, and roofs, as
a result of future commercial and residential growth (Section 4.2.2.).
Therefore, secondary water quality impacts may occur in the White River and
in Geneva Lake with the increased discharge of urban storm water pollutants
to these waters. These secondary impacts cannot readily be quantified and
therefore are not evaluated in detail. However, the types of secondary
(storm runoff) impacts expected include increased sedimentation in the
stream bed, reduced water clarity, and increased delivery of nutrients to
the River and to Geneva Lake.
4-20
-------
The EIS Alternative also proposes upgrading the existing municipal
wastewater treatment facilities in Lake Geneva with a new system of inter-
ceptor mains and a new rapid infiltration treatment system (Section
2.4.3.)* The existing Lake Geneva WWTP discharge to the White River would
thus be abandoned under both the EIS Alternative and the FPRA. Both the
EIS Alternative and the FPRA would be beneficial for the White River.
Future violations of dissolved oxygen standards would be less frequent and
less severe, and the amounts of nutrients discharged would be reduced. The
State standard violations for the existing discharge would be eliminated
However, the alternatives would both have a long terra adverse impact on the
White River due to the sudden removal of an existing source of nutrient
enrichment and loss of the streamflow contribution made by the WWTP efflu-
ent. These adverse impacts would be similar in nature to those described
for the impacts on the aquatic plant community of Piscasaw Creek

4.1 2.4. Groundwater

Long-terra impacts that could be encountered in the operational phase
of the alternatives concern the following types of pollutants: bacteria and
viruses, organics and suspended solids, phosphorus, and nitrate-nitrogen.
Movement to groundwater of other wastewater constituents or of soil chemi-
cals would occur, but are not expected to restrict any of the uses of the
groundwater,

Bacteria and dissolved organics are readily removed by filtration and
adsorption onto soil particles. Two feet of soil material is generally
adequate for bacterial removal, except in very coarse-grained, highly perm-
eable soil material Contamination of drinking water wells or surface
water with bacteria and dissolved organics in the study area is unlikely
under any of the alternatives.

Phosphorus is significant in groundwater because it can contribute to
the excessive eutrophication of lakes. Section 4.1.2.2 contains a dis-
cussion of phosphorus sorption in soils and supports the conclusion that
phosphorus contributions to the groundwater from any of the alternatives
would be minimal.
4-21
-------
The ability to predict phosphorus concentrations in percolate waters
from soil treatment systems has not yet been demonstrated (Enfield 1978).
Models that have been developed for this purpose have not yet been evalu-
ated under field conditions. Field studies have shown that most soils,
even medium sands, typically remove in excess of 95% of phosphates at
relatively short distances from effluent sources (Jones and Lee 1977).

One potential source of phosphorus input to gcoundwater is the soil
absorption systems included in the No Action Alternative and the EIS Alter-
native. The groundwater quality analyses performed in conjunction with the
Septic Leachate Detector survey showed that a very limited amount of phos-
phorus is reaching the lakes by way of groundwater. The majority of
groundwater plumes sampled, however, had phosphorus concentrations less
than 1.0 rag/1, although one plume did have a concentration of 9.05 rag/1.
The contribution of phosphorus to the lakes from onsite systems has not
been quantified from the sampling data, but from theoretical data. Thus,
onsite systems may be contributing to algal growth in localized areas where
effluent plumes emerge, but their contribution to eutrophication is not
quantifiable. The greatest quantity of phosphorus would be contributed to
groundwater under the No Action Alternative A slight amount of phosphorus
would be contributed to the groundwater under the EIS Alternative, which
continues to rely on onsite systems. The FPRA would remove almost all
phosphorus from groundwater entering the lake by installing collection
lines to all currently unsewered areas and transmitting all effluent to the
proposed WWTPs.

The EIS Alternative and the FPRA, which incorporate land application
by rapid infiltration of biologically treated effluent, are not expected to
increase the phosphorus concentration in the groundwater. Application of
wastewater onto the soil results in utilization of the soil for sorption of
phosphorus. Phosphorus in groundwater under a land application site is of
concern only when surface waters are affected. Groundwater from the
Walworth/Fontana site would likely flow to the west into Piscasaw Creek and
the Fox River Basin. The Williams Bay site would flow towards Williams Bay
in Geneva Lake and the City of Lake Geneva site would flow to the east into
the White River drainage. However, phosphorus from these land application
facilities is not expected to have any impact on these water resources.
4-22
-------
Nitrates in groundwater are of greatest concern at concentrations of
more than 10 mg/1 as nitrogen because they may cause methemoglobinemia in
infants who ingest liquids prepared with such waters. The limit was set in
the National Interim Priioary Drinking Water Regulations (40 CFR 141) of the
Safe Drinking Water Act (PL 93-523). A general discussion of nitrogen in
soils is presented in Section 4.1.2 2.

The density of soil absorption systems is reported to be the most
important parameter influencing pollution levels of nitrates in groundwater
(Scalf and Dunlop 1977). That source also notes, however, that currently
available "information has neither been sufficiently definitive nor quanti-
tative to provide a basis for density criteria." The potential for high
nitrate concentrations in groundwaters is greater in areas of higher den-
sity residential developments. Depending on the groundwater flow direction
and pumping rates of wells, nitrate contributions from soil absorption
systems may become cumulative in multi-tier developments. Thus, separation
distances are critical for new construction and maximum density codes are
crucial for new subdivisions.

The groundwatec sampling results (Section 2.2.2.5.) from wells show
that no elevated nitrates (greater than 4 mg/1 as nitrogen) occurred in the
wells that were sampled. Only two wells in Lake Como Beach had nitrates
greater than 2 0 mg/1 One was from a shallow well that also showed high
fecal coliforms indicating site problems The other value may indicate
direct pollution from the surface or anomalous sampling error because the
welL is 125 feet deep.

These slightly elevated levels oC nitrate would continue under the
No Action Alternative, and violations of the drinking water quality stan-
dard may occur, but are not likely. The EIS Alternative that includes
continued use of onstte systems may not necessarily result in declines in
concentrations of nitrates in the groundwater Wells that continue to have
elevated nitrate concentrations may need to be deepened so that a hydrau-
lically limiting layer is penetrated
4-23
-------
Sampling data from the existing rapid infiltration facilities in the
Geneva Lake area indicate that these facilities may cause minor changes in
localized concentration of nitrates in the groundwatec. However, these
changes are relatively minor in degree and are well below drinking water
standards. In addition, there is an abundance of groundwater in the
Geneva Lake area. This, coupled with fairly rapid rates of movement
through coarse glacial deposits, is expected to result tn dilution of the
nitrate concentration to near background levels after short travel dis-
tances from infiltration basins. Maintaining appropriate distances from
watersupply wells will reduce the potential for contamination from rapid
infiltration facilities.

Data from a lysiraeter under the infiltration lagoon and a potable well
on the Fontana treatment plant site show no nitrate concentrations above
1 mg/1 (Appendix C) . Data from two downgradient wells at the Interlaken
Resort show nitrate concentrations ranging from 0.5 to 6.81 mg/1, which are
relatively high but still well below drinking water standards of 10 mg/1.
However, an upgradient well, not influenced by wastewater effluent, shows
background concentrations as high as 1.9 mg/1. The high nitrate sampling
events also correspond to periods when the sewage treatment is producing
effluent nitrate concentrations of 9 83 to 19.5 mg/1. Lake Como sampling
results at Interlaken do not reflect these high concentrations indicating
adequate mixing and dilution by the time it reaches the lake.

Groundwater data for Williams Bay is minimal (Appendix C) and was
prepared for assessing the performance of seepage lagoon No. 2 (Warzyn
Engineering, Inc. 1982). The water quality data from the two monitoring
wells along the east side of the seepage lagoon indicated that nitrates are
not a problem under the lagoon. The concentrations on one sampling date
(8 July 1982) were 4.47 and 5 44 mgN/1. A well 180 feet to the west of the
seepage lagoon and upgradient had a measured nitrate concentration of
11.0 mgN/1. The concentration was inexplicable (Warzyn Engineering, Inc.
1982), and may reflect agricultural sources, or sources other than
wastewater.
4-24
-------
Nitrates in the groundwater below the rapid infiltration sites under
the proposed alternatives probably would average less than the drinking
water quality standard of 10 mgN/1. Improvements in the facilities at
Williams Bay could permit operation of the system to maximize denitrifi-
catlon. New systems at Walworth/Fontana and Lake Geneva also would have
the operational flexibility to maximize denitrification. Short-term,
localized increases in nitrate concentrations above background concentra-
tions are anticipated, but average concentrations above the drinking water
quality standard of 10 mgN/1 are not anticipated. The higher nitrate
concentrations are not expected to restrict current uses of the ground-
water. The surface waters to which the groundwater would discharge would
not be significantly affected because most surface waters are phosphorus,
rather than nitrate, limited for biological growth.

Seepage from the wastewater treatment lagoons at Walworth/Fontana
could result in elevated nitrate levels in the groundwater below the la-
goons. Clay liners are not impermeable and plastic liners can be punctured
or experience deterioration. Field studies (E.A. Hickok and Associates
1978) have shown that a seepage rate of 500 gallons/acre/day is very dif-
ficult to achieve even on in-place, fine-textured soils. On medium- to
coarse-textured soils, the quality of the liner is of utmost concern for
protection of groundwaLer quality. Monitoring wells would be installed and
sampled on a regular basts. The sampling program would identify problems
before neighboring residents would be affected.

Changes in groundwater levels would occur with the centralized alter-
natives. Export of water from the locally recharged lakeshore area to the
wastewater treatment systems would change the groundwater levels slightly.
The greatest change in groundwater levels would occur in the vicinity of
the land application sites. Inadequate data have been assembled to accu-
rately predict the water table rise. The water table rise would only
affect the land application site, and the immediately surrounding area.
Appropriate application rates at the land application sites would prevent
the water table from rising to nuisance levels.
4-25
-------
4.1.2.5. Terrestrial Biota

The land application sites proposed in Section. 38 for Walworth/Fontana
under the EIS Alternative, and Sections 1 and 30 for Williams Bay and the
City of Lake Geneva under the FPRA would affect the terrestrial biota
during plant operation No significant, adverse long-term effects would be
expected during normal plant operating conditions Wildlife, especially
waterfowl, may be attracted to the lagoons but there is little evidence
that they would be adversely affected.

4.1.2.6 Wetlands

None of the existing or proposed wastewater treatment facilities are
anticipated to impact wetlands within the study area. The existing
Lake Geneva WWTP is contiguous to a wetland characterized as forested to
the north and emergent to the south. Under both the FPRA and the EIS
Alternative, the effluent discharge from this plant would be removed from
the White River and applied to infiltration basins at a rapid infiltration
site north of the intersection of Routes 12 and 36. This would benefit the
existing wetland by eliminating the effluent impacts.

4.1.2.7. Land Use

Land use under the easement of sewage conveyance lines proposed under
the FPRA would be intermittently affected when maintenance or repairs were
performed on sections of the lines. Periodic excavating and filling would
disturb vegetation and soil along conveyance lines The release of low
level odors and aerosols from WWTPs and the knowledge that hazardous gases
could potentially be released from those plants may affect land use adja-
cent to the plants. Improper maintenance of onsite systems may create
malodorous conditions which would adversely affect adjacent land uses.

4.1.2.8. Demographics

The operation and maintenance of wastewater facilities proposed under
either of the alternatives will not have a significant impact on the demo-
4-26
-------
graphy of the study area. A limited number of long-term jobs created by
the operation and maintenance of these facilities likely will be filled by
persons living in and around the study area. It can be assumed that new
residents would not be attrated to the study area for the limited number of
positions.

4.1 2.9. Economics

The operation of wastewater facilities under the centralized collec-
tion and treatment component of the FPR.A would create a few long-term jobs.
These jobs could be filled by persons residing in the study area.

No new jobs are anticipated to be created under the SIS Alternative.
Existing contractors are expected to satisfy local demand for construction
and maintenance services of onsile systems No significant economic im-
pacts are expected to occur during the operation of wastewater treatment
facilities under any of the alternatives.

4.1.2.10 Recreation and Tourism

The operation of waslewater facilities under any of the alternatives
could affect tourist and recreational activities in the study area if a
malfunction of those facilities occurred. A failure in the system compo-
nents of the WWTPs could caus>e untreated or partially treated waste to be
discharged into Lake Geneva, Lake Como, Piscasaw Creek, or the White River
This phenomenon would result in short-term water quality degradation and a
reduction in the recreational use of these bodies of water. Odors emanat-
ing from malfunctioning onsile systens may curtail outdoor recreational
activities in the near vicinity.

4.1 2 11. Transportation

Impacts arising during the construction of collection and conveyance
lines under the FPRA would reoccur when maintenance or repairs are made on
those lines. Occasionally some roads may be closed on a temporary basis.
Truck traffic to and from the proposed treatment facilities under the FPRA
and the EIS Alternative will be associated with supply deliveries
4-27
-------
4.1.3. Fiscal Impact

The costs of implementing a wastewater collection and treatment pro-
ject in the study area would be apportioned between USEPA, the State of
Wisconsin and local residents. Apportionment of the costs is made on the
basis of what costs are eligible to be funded by the State of Wisconsin or
USEPA. The costs for each alternative are presented in Sections 2.6 2. and
2.6.3. A description of the portion of the costs that would be funded by
USEPA and by the State, and the portion of the costs the represents the
local share is contained in Section 2.7.1

Wastewater treatment facilities can create significant financial
impacts on communities and users who are responsible for the capital,
operation, maintenance and debt costs associated with sewage treatment
facilities Guidelines for determining the magnitude of the fiscal impacts
associated with wastewater collection and treatment alternatives include:

• overall debt as a percentage of full value (Table 4-3)

• overall debt as a percentage of the statutory debt limit
(Table 4-4)

• ratio of the average annual user charge to median household
income (Table 4-5).

In Wisconsin, long-term municipal indebtedness is limited to 5% of the
full equalized value of general property. As Table 4-3 indicates, none of
the communities would exceed the statutory debt limit, under either the
FPRA or EIS Alternative. Geneva Town would approach the 5% limitation
under the FPRA, however, with an estimated debt-to-value ratio of 4.6%.
The Village of Walworth also would approach the statutory debt limit under
both the FPRA (3 6%) and the EIS Alternative (3 4%).

Another index for estimating the potential fiscal impacts of a capital
improvement project is the level of overall debt (existing debt combined
with capital costs of the project) as a percentage of the statutory debt
4-28
-------
Table 4-3. Estimated debt as a percentage of full equalized value (all figures x 1,000).
Area
Lake Como (Geneva Town)
Lake Geneva
Wai worth
Fontana
Williams Bay
a
Linn Town
Existing
Debt
588
4,349
1,041
3,374
2,273
832

f FPRA
f 6,218
f
f 682
•*-
+ 472
+ 1,750
+ 598
+ 3,164
Local Share
E1S Alternative
1,004
924
398
1,627
593
937
Total
Debt f
6,806
1,592
5,031
•j-
5,273
1,513
= 1,439
5,124
5,001
2,871
*
2,866
3,996
1,769
Full
Value
147,093
206,598
42,452
163,400
98,817
207,991
Debt-to-
= Value (%)
4.6
1.1
2.4
2.6
3.6
3.4
3.1
3.1
2.9
2.9
1.9
0.9
a
Includes southeast shore, southwest shore and northwest shore collection and treatment alternatives.
-------
Table 4-4. Estimated debt as a percentage of the statutory debt limit
(all figures x 1,000).
Total Debt

Area
Lake Como (Geneva Town)
Lake Geneva
Walworth
Fontana
Wilixams Bay
a
Linn Town

FPRA
6,806
5,031
1,513
5,124
2,871
3,996
EIS
Alternative
1,592
5,273
1,439
5,001
2,866
1,769
Statutory
Debt
Limit
7,355
10,330
2,123
8,170
4,941
10,400
Overall Debt
as a % of
Statutory Limit

FPRA
92.5
48.7
71.3
62.7
58.1
38 1
EIS
Alternative
21.6
51.0
67.8
61.2
58 0
17.0
Includes southeast shore, southwest shore and northwest shore collection and

treatment alternatives.
-------
Table 4-5. Estimated average annual user costs as a percentage of median
household income.
User Cost/
Median Household
Area
Lake Como (Geneva Town)
Lake Geneva
Southeast Shore (Linn Town)
Wai worth
Fontana
Southwest Shore (Linn Town)
Williams Bay
Northwest Shore (Linn Town)
Annual
FPRA
$732
103
640
117
203
366
160
545
User Costs
EIS
Alternative
213
202
169
119
170
136
170
172
Median
Household
Income (1980)
20,687
15,493
17,424
16,195
20,366
17,424
15,706
17,424

FPRA
3.5%
0.7
3,7
0.7
1.0
2.1
1.0
3.1
Income Ratio
EIS
Alternative
1.0%
1.3
1 0
0.7
0.8
0.8
1.1
1.0
-------
limit In general, if a community's overall debt exceeds 90% of the stat-
utory debt limit, its ability to undertake other capital improvement pro-
jects in the near future could be jeopardized Communities financing pro-
jects> that would cause the overall debt to exceed this 90% guideline can
generally expect to pay a greater interest rate on general obligation or
revenue bonds that are sold to finance the project.

As Table 4-4 indicates, the 90% guideline would be exceeded by Geneva
Town and would be approached by Walworth under the FPRA and EIS Alterna-
tive Thus, implementation of the FPRA in these communities could limit
the Town's ability to implement other capital improvement projects until a
portion of the outstanding debt is retired

The USEPA considers projects to be expensive and as having an adverse
impact on the finances of the users when average annual user changes are:

• 1.0% of median household incomes less than $10,000
• 1.5% of median household incomes between $10,000 and $7,000
• 1 75% of median household incomes greater than $17,000.

Information on median household income in the study area communities,
in 1980, is presented in Table 4-5 along with the ratio of average annual
user costs to median household income As Table 4-5 indicates, implemata-
tion of the FPRA in the Lake Como, southeast shore, southwest shore and
northwest shore service areas would impose a significant financial burden
on residents of these service areas. High user costs are associated with
these alternatives because of the costs of installing collection systems in
currently unsewered areas. The estimated user costs presented in Table 4-5
do not, however, consider the effect of connection policies. The actual
annual user costs probably would be lower as a result of revenues raised by
the respective communities or utility districts from connection fees or
benefit assessments. However, regardless of whether residents of currently
unsewered areas that are proposed to be sewered under the FPRA are charged
a connection fee or a benefit assessment, or are faced with substantially
higher ad valorem taxes, the costs of constructing collection systems will
represent a substantial financial impact on residents of these areas.
4-32
-------
Thus, although the estimated average annual user charges presented in
Table 4-5 may be somewhat inflated, because they do not consider connection
policies, it also is apparent that implementing the FPRA in currently
unsewered areas will require a significant commitment from residents of
these areas to finance the proposed systems. The fiscal impacts associated
with the FPRA would be most acute for residents with fixed incomes and some
displacement of low income residents could occur.

4.2. Secondary Impacts

Each of the alternatives will have effects that extend beyond primary
or operational impacts. These indirect, or secondary impacts are likely to
occur when improvements in wastewater treatment capacity and capability
lead to changes in the study area that, in turn, induce or stimulate other
developments which would not have taken place in the absence of a project.
The categories that may experience significant secondary impacts are de-
scribed in the following sections

4.2.1. Demographics

Population growth and land development have always been dependent on
factors such as transportation access, employment opportunities, physical
setting and land values One of the more significant factors influencing
the development potential of an area is the presence or absence of central-
ized wastewater collection and treatment systems Onsite wastewater treat-
ment facilities often limit development to areas with suitable soil and
site characteristics, while centralized sewer systems allow greater loca-
tional independence because soil, slope, and drainage are less constraining
design parameters. The construction of sewers in an unsewered area often
increases the supply of buildable land, and local municipal ordinances
usually allow development at greater densities in sewered areas than in
unsewered areas

In some situations, improvements in wastewater treatment capacity and
capability can induce, or stimulate, growth that would not have occurred
without the improvements. Typically, such induced growth occurs in areas
4-33
-------
where there is significant demand for residential development, but that
demand is constrained by the lack of adequate wastewater treatment capacity
or capability. In other words, there can be a direct correlation between
the development potential of an area and the capacity and capability of
available wastewater treatment. Although the availability of sewers can
influence the development potential of an area, other factors such as site
and locational amenities, land values, employment opportunities, transpor-
tation access, and related factors are also important factors in defining
an area's development potential The dynamics of these factors obviously
vary according to the characteristics of the locality.

It is not clear, at this time, whether the development potential of
the study area is directly related to the presence or absence of central-
ized wastewater collection and treatment systems, i.e., the effect of
sewers as opposed to onsite systems on population growth rates. The FPRA
estimates a year 2005 population for the study area (including permanent
and seasonal residents) of 32,819. Based on an estimated 1980 population
in the EIS of 22,359, this represents a projected increase of 46.8% in the
study area. The population of the East Planning area under the FPRA (which
encompasses the Lake Como and Lake Geneva RSSAs) is projected to increase
by 90.2% between 1980 and 2005, from 11,101 to 21,115 . The West Planning
area (which includes the Fontana, Williams Bay, and Walworth RSSAs) is
projected to increase under the FPRA from 11,258 to 11,704 by the year
2005. This small increase under the FPRA is attributable to a much larger
1980 base seasonal population that is estimated in the EIS (Section 3.2.2.)
to exist in the West Planning area communities of Fontana and Williams Bay.
This larger base population "captures" much of the growth anticipated under
the FPRA. The growth rates that are reflected in the FRPA projections
indicate that the facilities planners assume that existing growth rates
will continue in the future, and further, that the existing development
potential of the East^ Planning areais currently constrained by the
lack of centralized collection and treatment capability and capacity.
That is, the development of sewers in unsewered areas will "unleash" the
development potential of the area, a development potential that at present
cannot be realized because of the absence of sewers in prime development
areas.
4-34
-------
The population analysis developed for the EIS, however, (Section
3.2.2.3.) differs substantially from the FPRA, particularly for the East
Planning area. For the West Planning area, the EIS estimates a population
increase of 31.7% between 1980 and 2005, from 11,258 to 14,826. For the
East Planning area, the EIS projects a population increase of 47.8%, from
11,101 to 16,405. The FPRA estimates year 2005 populations of 11,704 for
the West Planning area and 21,115 for the East Planning area. Again, the
EIS estimates are based on a larger 1980 base population than the FPRA.
However, they accommodate only the amount of growth planned for by the
respective communities between the years 1980 and 2005

The EIS projection is based on assumptions about future growth and
community planning policies defined by the West Planning area communities,
as well as the overall development potential of the area. The assumptions
which underly the population projections in the EIS are formed by analogies
from other areas with similar characteristics and are based on an under-
standing of the historic trends and underlying dynamics of the economy and
the real estate market in the Geneva Lake area. Although greater than the
FPRA projection for the West Planning area, the projected annual average
growth rate, 1.3%, represented by the EIS projections appears to be real-
istic. Further, the communities in the West Planning area should be able
to accommodate this increased population without stressing other public
facilities and services (e.g., police and fire protection, schools, etc.)
and the environmental quality and "amenity value" of the area are not
expected to be impacted by this level of population growth.

The FPRA population projections for the East Planning area (21,115)
are considerably higher (22%) than the EIS projections (16,405). In this
situation, it appears that the FPRA projections assume that improvements in
treatment capacity and capability will result in a substantially higher
population growth, and that these growth rates will be maintained into the
future. The EIS projections assume that population growth in the East
Planning area has moderated in the recent past and will not dramatically
increase in the future. If facilities are designed for the larger popula-
tion, however, there is a very real possibility that the availability of
wastewater collection and treatment facilities may induce more growth than
4-35
-------
anticipated. It should also be noted that creating an onsite waste water
management district and providing upgraded onsiLe systems technology may
expedite permit approvals for land development in currently unsewered
areas. However, it is questionable if the amount or rate of development
and population growth will meet or surpass that projected in the E1S.

A recent study (Ragatz 1980) has shown that the attractiveness of an
area such as Geneva Lake-Lake Como is primarily the result of people's per-
ceptions about the area, the quality of the recreational opportunities that
are available, land values, and proximity to metropolitan areas. There is
evidence that when a recreational lake area reaches a certain level of
development, additional development takes place very slowly, then virtually
ceases. Even though vacant, buildable land may be available, additional
development may not occur if the factors that originally made the area
attractive - spaciousness, "rustic" settings, quiet surroundings and high
quality recreational opportunities - are no longer perceived to be present.
In other words, the attractiveness of a recreational lake area may be based
to a great extent on its perceived "amenity value," and the nubtner of
people who are attracted to the area for recreation way not be the same as
the number of people who choose to become seasonal or permanent residents
of the area. Recent USEPA EIS's for other recreational lake areas (e.g.,
Moose Lake, Minnesota and Indian Lake-Sister Lake, Michigan) provide evi-
dence supporting this conclusion.

If population growth induced by the availability of centralized col-
lection and treatment systems in the East Planning Area is large enough to
reach this "saturation point," then these effects could occur. It is
likely that the availability of centralized wastewater treatment capacity
in previously unsewered areas would allow a faster growth of population in
the areas than would occur through development using onsite systems, which
must be approved individually Thus, the "saturation point" could be
reached sooner under the FPRA.

The most apparent impact of reaching the "saturation point" would be
stress on existing recreational areas and opportunities. If a perception
developed that the quality of the area's recreational opportunities had
4-36
-------
declined because of overcrowding, other less developed recreational areas
could attract those dissatisfied with conditions in the Planning Area, If
this occurred, land values in the area could diminish because of the re-
duced attractiveness of the area. It is not possible to predict what the
"saturation point" may be and when it might be reached. However, given
existing development and recreational use characteristics, it appears that
the area can only absorb a limited amount of additional population before
the amenity values of the area could begin to diminish.

In addition, a 90% increase in the population of the East Planning
area would require major improvements in other public facilities and ser-
vices. For these improvements to be made, a substantial commitment of the
community's financial resources would be required Although not quan-
tifiable at this time, the increased costs associated with necessary
improvements in other public facilities and services could lead to in-
creased taxes and user fees that could severly impact some segments of the
population. Decisions concerning the amount of growth a community would
like to foster, through zoning provisions, planning policies and other
means, are the responsibility of the local municipal governments. It
should be noted, though, that the growth potential provided by the imple-
mentation of any facilities plan can have far reaching implications that
should be coordinated with the community's overall goals and objectives
concerning future growth and development. That is, a wastewater collection
and treatment system designed to accommodate an additional 10,014 people
implies a commitment to finance the capital and O&M costs associated with
the improvements, an understanding and endorsement of the changes that
these improvements will bring about in the community, and a similar commit-
ment to improve other public facilities and services as a result of the
•
population growth.

4.2 2. Land Use

The land use impacts associated with the wastewater management altern-
atives are primarily related to induced population increases and the resul-
tant demand for residential land While the potential for additional
commercial and industrial development may exist with the availability of
4-37
-------
wastewater treatment facilities, it is Likely that this type of non-
residential development will not be significant.

The introduction of new was>tewater collection and upgraded treatment
facilities in the study area would increase population and, in turn, pro-
duce changes in land use Should the population grow according to the FPRA
projections, the most significant impact would occur in the East Planning
area. Denands for land would be substantial should a 90% net increase in
»
population (11,101 persons to 21,115 persons) be realized in the East
Planning Area. To accommodate this change, apjroKU.iit^ly 4,179 additional
dwelling units (approximately 2 5 person/d.u ) on a minnnun lot size of,
roughly, 10,000 sq. ft for sewered areas would be required This increase
would nectesst.\.-iu> t.h-" t ms formation of approximately 960 acres of vacant
buildabLd 1 \a 1 into r * -, iilij ii, i \\ ly clevelopod lands. Uiler the EIS popula-
ting ,)i »jj«iions, approximately 595 acres of buildable land would be re-
quired in the East Planning area This would be made up by an additional
3,588 dwelling units with 2.5 persons/d.u. The FPRA population projections
for the total study area, if realized, would require 1,143 additional acres
for residential developments. On a per dwelling ui'> V,-,!*., • hi* permitted
residential densities are approximat
areas while sewered areas allow approximately 4 units per acre. Persons
»
per dwelling unit for the total area would be approximately 2.5 for both
the FPRA and the EIS projections.

The pattern of land use is not expected to change significiantly
because of proposed wastewater facilities. The most signiflanct change in
land use patterns would result if 1,143 acres of land were taken from
forest, agricultural, and other lands, and opened for residential develop-
ment under the FPRA. The EIS projections would involve less acreage to be
required for development. Localized impacts may occur in the southeast
shore and Lake Geneval RSSA if the FPRA extends collection lines with the
capacity proposed. A large amount of new development in this area could
drastically alter the density and character of development and thus alter
land use patterns.
4-38
-------
4.2.3. Surface Water

Lake Geneva

Lake Geneva has been classified as mesotrophic, or moderately
"enriched," in three independent research investigations. These investiga-
tions indicated that dissolved oxygen depletion in the deeper (hypolim-
netic) waters has not worsened measurably since 1966. In general, Lake
Geneva does not appear to have changed in overall trophic status as a
result of increased residential development in its watershed. However, the
GLWSA has recently presented symptomatic evidence of worsening water qual-
ity in late summer, leading to concerns that the lake may become euthrophic
in years to come. For example, nuisance blooms of blue-green algae have
been frequently documented in shallow embayraents of Lake Geneva. Fecal
coliform counts and nutrient analyses made of samples taken from tributary
streams entering the Lake also indicate that runoff from summer storms may
be yielding significant amounts of pollution and causing localized algal
bloom problems.

The primary reason that Lake Geneva has not developed the whole-lake
symptoms of eutrophication evidenced by -nany southern Wisconsin lakes is
that it is sufficiently deep to ranain stratified throughout the summer.
Because of Geneva Lake's great depth (mean of 61 feet), much of the pollu-
tant load delivered in spring and early summer runoff settles out and is
trapped in the sediments. After stratification becomes strong during June,
the nutrients suspended below the thermocline or settled in the sediments
are sequestered from productive upper waters, where algal blooms take
place. (See Section 3.1.3.3. for detailed data on Geneva Lake's limno-
logical characteristics.)

Protection of the existing quality of Geneva Lake would mean abating
the nutrient pollution which promotes the summer algal blooms and aquatic
macrophyte growth now observed in back bays, near stream discharge points
and the mouths of ditches, and throughout the littoral zone. The GLWEA has
concluded that perennial streams represent the single largest source of
"controllable" pollutants such as nutrients, sediment, and fecal coliform
4-39
-------
organisms (GLWEA 1977), Therefore, whenever runoff water enters the Lake
during summer, especially in stream courses, culverts, and ditches, pollu-
tion abatement is desirable. Based on this conclusion, prevention or
abatement of problems with algal blooms can be best accomplished by ad-
dressing land management practices which contribute the most nutrients and
sediments to runoff channels.

Both the FPRA and the EIS Alternative will result in increased res-
idential development with the attendant future additions in impervious
surface area, storm sewers and drainage ditches to support the development.
The degree of water quality impact will vary between these alternatives
based on the amount of development supported, or "induced," and where that
development is principally concentrated. Development clustered along the
near lakeshore area or on hillsides bordering perennial streams can poten-
tially have a much more adverse water quality impact than would the same
amount of development scattered throughout the watershed. This is because
the longer it takes runoff to enter the lake, the greater the opportunity
for sediments to settle out, for dissolved nutrients to become soil-bound,
and for fecal coliforra organisms and pathogens to die off.

A review of acreage available for development, platted lot locations,
and sewer service area maps was made for the RSSAs Assuming that develop-
able sewered lots average 10,000 sq. ft and unsewered lots average 20,000
sq. ft, projections were made of the growth in acreage devoted to res-
idential land use throughout the RSSA. Substantial increases in developed
acreages were projected to occur in the Lake Geneva RSSA, whereas no sub-
stantial concentration of developed acreages were projected to result in
the west end RSSAs or in the Lake Como RSSA under the FPRA. Moderate
increases of developed acreage were projected for the Williams Bay RSSA
under the FPRA. Examples of the projected increases are presented in
Table 4-6.

As indicated in Table 4-6, a large concentration of residential growth
will occur in the Lake Geneva RSSA under the FPRA, which includes the
southeast shore of Geneva Lake. The water quality impact of this future
growth is anticipated to be substantial. The new growth would be concen-
4-40
-------
Table 4-6. Projected increases in developed residential acreage from
1980 to the year 2005 for Williams Bay & Lake Geneva RSSAs.
Increases in Residential Acreage 1980-2005
R.S.S.A.
Williams Bay
Lake Geneva
FPRA
202
960
EIS (sewered)
118
557
EIS (unsewered)
40
38
trated closer to the lake at higher residential density permitted on sew-
ered lots and would introduce biologically available nutrients to the lake.
Nutrient loads to Geneva Lake will be increased by the addition of lawn
fertilizer, construction erosion, roof drain diversions onto driveways and
roadway ditches, build up of litter and trash in drainage ways and in-
creased deposition of fecal material from domestic pets. A local example
of the relationship of the density of developed land to runoff water qual-
ity is provided in Section 2.2.3.4., illustrating the potential signifi-
cance of the adverse impact of the FPRA on water quality. Under the EIS
Alternative, the amount of development expected to occur would be measur-
ably less than that anticipated under the FPRA. In the southeast shore
area, the density of development would be half that of the FPRA and would
not result in runoff volumes as great as the FPRA. The amount of nutrients
and pathogens delivered to the lake would thus be measurably reduced.

Lake Como

Lake Como has been classified as highly euthrophic in two independent
trophic status investigations (See Section 3.1.3.3.). The principal nutri-
ent source for Lake Como is reported to be surface runoff from agricultural
land (GLWEA 1977). Therefore, improvements in water quality of Lake Como
would result from either the FPRA or the EIS Alternative. Neither alterna-
tive proposes, abatement of non-point source pollution and significant
increases in development would not result from either alternative.
4-41
-------
4.2.4. Recreation and Tourism

Any increase or decrease of tourism and recreational activities within
the study area attributable to the operation of new, expanded wastewater
facilities would occur when a major change in water quality occurs. Be-
cause the study area is dependent on its recreational activities, espec-
ially its lake related activities, any substantial decline in water quality
could cause fewer tourists to visit the study area. Permanent and seasonal
residents of the study area may decrease some of their recreational activi-
ties under these conditions.

Also, a significant increase in population and land development could
have a negative impact on recreation and tourism. This would occur should
the physical and cultural amenities, which are highly important to the
recreation and tourist trade, diminish. This would happen as a result of
the transformation of agricultural, forest, and other vacant buildable
lands to residential developments. A major population increase could also
result in crowding of recreational activities. Tourists may be sensitive
to this and decide on other locations.

4.2.5. Economics

Economic growth should continue with population growth and development
anticipated in the study area. The availability of centralized collection
and treatment systems within the RSSAs could result in additional commer-
cial development related to the tourist and recreation industry such as
hotels, motels, and restaurants. This additional development would depend
as much on ancillary economic factors such as costs, the tourist potential
of the area, the limits of market saturation, etc., as on the availability
of sewer service. If additional commercial development did occur as a
result of the construction of sewers and WWTPs, the local economy would
benefit from the increased tax revenues and employment opportunities.
These potential benefits are not quantifiable, however.
4-42
-------
Available data indicates that the permanent population of the study
area is basically characterized as middle class, whose median family income
approximated $20,000 in 1980 (US Bureau of the Census, 1982). Another
indicator of income is the portion of the population that is below poverty
level. While 8.5% of the population in the State of Wisconsin is below the
poverty level, an approximate average of 7.5% of the study area's permanent
population is below poverty level. Thus, it would be expected that few
people with fixed incomes would be displaced from the study area for fail-
ure to pay user fees associated with wastewatec facilities.

The seasonal population could be expected to have a somewhat higher
income than the permanent population. Homes they purchase are usually
second homes which is usually indicative of a moderately high to higher
income class. These people benefit the community when money is circulated
within the local economy and supports service sector industries.

4.2.6. Sensitive Environmental Resources

Flood plain_s

No 100-year floodplain area would come under pressure for secondary
development under the alternatives. Local and County ordinances effective-
ly limit most forms of development in floodplains in the study area.

Wetlands

Wetlands found in the study area are shown in Figure 3-6. Construc-
tion of wastewater collection and treatment facilities or upgrading onsite
systems will not likely lead to any residential development pressures on
wetland resources in the study area. In addition, local, County, and State
ordinances effectively limit filling of wetlands for residential develop-
ment. Wetlands and other sensitive environmental resources are protected
through classification as primary environmental corridors. In accordance
with NR 121, WDNR does not generally approve sewer extensions into areas
with potential for development in wetlands adjacent to navigable waters.
4-43
-------
Threatened^ and Endangered Spec!es

No species of plant or animal Included on the Federal threatened or
endangered species list are known to occur in the study area, and thus no
impacts are anticipated to occur from secondary residential development
under the alternatives No impacts are anticipated on species listed by
the State.

Cultural Resources

Significant cultural resources exist in the study area and more may be
uncovered during construction of centralized wastewater collection facili-
ties under the FPRA If the FPRA extends sewers along the southeast shore
of Lake Geneva with the capacity proposed, a significant amount of new
residential development may take place in the vicinity of Big Foot Beach
State Park and on the lake side of South Shore Drive. This development
could impact known and previously uncovered archaeological resources. In
addition, development pressure may be permitted through provision of cen-
tralized wastewater collection systems under the FPRA that could result in
subdivision and development of large historically and architecturally
noteworthy estates along the lakeshore. This development would occur at
higher densities than are permitted under the provision of onslte systems
as envisioned under the EIS Alternative.

Prime Agricultural Land

The Agricultural Impact Statement prepared by DATCP notes that secon-
dary development effects could occur by providing wastewater collection
facilities to portions of the Revised Sewer Service Area. The west end
RSSA does include some prime farmland and farmland of statewide signifi-
cance, as well as land zoned for exclusive agricultural use. The AIS
concludes that the provision of wastewater collection facilities under the
FPRA could facilitate the conversion of several hundred acres of productive
farmland in the RSSA into residential or other non-farm uses The EIS
Alternative will Lead to a more scattered development pattern than the
FPRA, however, development pressure on prime agricultural land would not be
as intense under the EIS Alternative.
A -4 4
-------
4.3. Mitigation of Adverse Impacts

As previously discussed, various adverse impacts would be associated
with the proposed alternatives. Many of these adverse impacts could be
reduced moderately by the application of mitigative measures. These niiti-
gative measures consist of a variety of legal requirements, planning meas-
ures, and design practices. The extent to which these measures are applied
will determine the ultimate impact of the particular action. Potential
measures for alleviating construction, operation, and secondary effects
presented in Sections 4.1 and 4.2 are discussed in the following sections.

4.3.1. Mitigation of Construction Impacts

The construction related impacts presented in Section 4.1. primarily
are short-term effects resulting from construction activities at WWTP sites
or along the route of proposed sewer systems. Proper design should mini-
mize the potential impacts and the plans and specifications should incor-
porate mitigative measures consistent with the following discussion.
Noise
The impact of noise from construction of wastewater collection lines,
rennovating wastewater treatment plants, and upgrading onsite systems could
be minimized by appropriate scheduling and public notification of the time,
location, and extent of the work.

Atmosphere

Fugitive dust from the excavation and backfilling operations for the
sewers, force mains, and treatment plants could be minimized by various
techniques. Frequent street sweeping of dirt from construction activites
would reduce the major source of dust. Prompt repaving of roads disturbed
by construction also could reduce dust effectively Construction site,
spoil piles, and unpaved access roads should be wetted periodically to
minimize dust. Soil stockpiles and backfilled trenches should be seeded
with a temporary or permanent seeding or covered with mulch to reduce
susceptibility to wind erosion.
4-45
-------
Street cleaning at sites where trucks and equipment gam access to
construction sites and of roads along which a sewer or force main would be
constructed would reduce loose dirt that otherwise would generate dust,
create unsafe driving conditions, or be washed into roadside ditches or
storm drains.

Exhaust emission and noise from construction equipment could be mini-
raized by proper equipment maintenance The resident engineer should have
and should exercise the authority to ban from the site all poorly main-
tained equipment. Soil borings along the proposed force main rights-of-way
conducted during system design, would identify organic soils that have the
potential to release odors when excavated These areas could be bypassed
by rerouting the force main if, depending on the location, a significant
impact might be expected.

Spoil disposal sites should be identified during the project design
stage to ensure that adequate sites are available and that disposal site
impacts are minimized. Landscaping and restoration of vegetation should be
conducted immediately after disposal Is completed to prevent impacts from
dust generation and unsightly conditions.

Areas disturbed by trenching and grading at the WWTP sites should be
revegetated as soon as possible to prevent erosion and dust generation.
Native plants and grasses should be used. This also will facilitate the
re-establishment of wildlife habitat.

Soil Erosion and[Sedimentaticm

Erosion and sedimentation must be minimized at all construction sites.
USEPA. Program Requirements Memorandum 78-1 establishes requirements for
control of erosion and runoff from construction activltes. Adherence to
these requirements would serve to mitigate potential problems'

• Construction site selection should consider potential occur-
rence of erosion and sediment losses
• The project plan and layout should be designed to fit the
local topography and soil conditions
4-46
-------
• When appropriate, land grading and excavating should be kept
at a minimum to reduce the possibility of creating runoff
and erosion problems which require extensive control meas-
ures

• Whenever possible, topsoil should be removed and stockpiled
before grading begins

• Land exposure should be minimized in terms of area and time

• Exposed areas subject to erosion should be covered as quick-
ly as possible by mean of mulching or vegetation

• Natural vegetation should be retained whenever feasible

• Appropriate structural or agronomic practices to control
runoff and sedimentation should be provided during and after
construction

• Early completion of stabilized drainage systems (temporary
and permanent systems) will substantially reduce erosion
potential

* Access roadways should be paved or otherwise stabilized as
soon as feasible

* Clearing and grading should not be started until a firm con-
struction schedule is known and can be effectively coordi-
nated with the grading and clearing activities.

In addition, WDNR anticipates that no disposal of spoil materials from

construction sites without authorization and concurrence on a disposal plan

with the WDNR district office.
Transportation

Route planning for the transportation of heavy construction equipment

and materials should ensure that surface load restrictions are considered.

In this way, damage to streets and roadways would be avoided. Trucks

hauling excavation spoil to disposal sites or fill material to the WWTP
sites should be routed along primary arterials to minimize the threat to

public safety and to reduce disturbance along residential streets.
4-47
-------
Prime ^Agricultural Land

Section 4.1.1.8. indicates that construction of a rapid infiltration
facility on the selected 80 acre parcel southwest of the Village of
Walworth would constitute a significant, long term adverse impact under the
EIS Alternative. However, the cost-effectiveness analysis presented in
Section 2.6. demonstrates that land application is a cost-effective, envi-
ronmentally sound wastewater management alternative for the west end commu-
nities. In order to mitigate the anticipated impact, the west end communi-
ties could choose to evaluate the possibility of maintaining independent
wastewater management at each of the Villages with two separate WWTPs and
land application facilities.

During the facilities planning process, the facilities planner in-
vestigated a new WWTP and rapid-infiltration treatment system, located at
the Donald Rarabow fanu on the southwest border of the Village of Walworth.
In reviewing facilities planning information during conduct of this EIS,
several items of interest were noted.

• Aerated lagoon - rapid infiltration treatment was found to
be a cost-effective treatment system.
• The existing Fontana WWTP has a design capacity of 0.9 mgd,
and in 1982 produced a 13/11 (BOD/TSS) effluent. Projected
year 2005 flows for Fontana (based upon the EIS design
criteria and reduced service area) is 0.641 mgd.
• Additional areas with soils similar to those found at the
Rainbow site (e.g., permeable sands and sandy loam) are
located around Walworth.
Because of the above listed facts, it appears that, from an engineer-
ing standpoint, facilities to serve only the Walworth RSSA may be feasible.
Separate facilities for Walworth and Fontana also would save the cost of
pumping all of Fontana1s flow to a Walworth/Fontana facility. Facilities
at Walworth would consist of the lagoon and seepage cells to treat 0.3 mgd
(average daily summer flow), a lagoon liner, process piping, aeration
equipment, observation wells, miscellaneous concrete structures, a service
building and laboratory, various electrical, mechanical, and plumbing
facilitJes, and new and upgraded conveyance facilities. Approximate costs
4-48
-------
for the proposed Walworth facilities, as dervied from detailed costs pre-
pared by the facilities planner for the Facilities Plan aerated lagoon
alternative, are listed in Table 4-7.
Table 4-7. Estimated costs for a separate Walworth aerated lagoon WWTP
proposed as a mitigative measure.
Capital Annual Salvage
Item Costs O&M Value
Conveyance Piping $ 175,500 $12,300 $ 87,750
Aerated Lagoon and
Seepage Basing WWTP 1,140,000 32,900 320.100
TOTALS: $1,315,500 $45,200 $407,850
The existing Fontana WWTP has a design capacity of 0.9 mgd, and pro-
duces a 13/11 (BOD/TSS) effluent, which is very good. The WDNR requires
BOD concentrations to be reduced only to 50 mg/1 prior to application to a
land application system (e.g , rapid infiltration). Projected year 2005
flow (average summer day) is 0.641 mgd. A lysimeter was installed eight
feet below the surface of the new seepage lagoon at the time of construc-
tion to monitor wastewater effluent percolating through the soil. Since
monitoring begain in 1979, NPDES drinking water limits for the parameters
measured have never been exceeded (Appendix C). However, sodium concentra-
tions, total dissolved solids concentrations, and conductivity are elevated
above background levels.

Operational procedures practiced at the plant are currently not in
compliance with WDNR policies governing rapid infiltration facilities.
Site hydraulic limitations and lagoon design prevent a dose/rest cycle as
required by the WDNR. The dose/rest cycle is promoted to maintain an
aerobic/anaerobic environment in the soil which facilitates nitrification
and denitrification. The lagoons currently are operated with a minimum of
two feet of standing water at any time, however, effluent from the lagoons
does not cause any surface water, groundwater, or public health violations.
4-49
-------
An underdrain system might be installed to drain one lagoon into a new
lagoon to promote the necessary application cycle.

In order to continue operations, Fontana would need to moderately up-
grade its existing WWTP, and expand the seepage basins by adding a new 15
to 20 acre cell. The existing WWTP upgrades would primarily include repair
of structural and mechanical problems, plus provision of additional support
services (repair minor plant equipment, laboratory supplies, etc.). New
units should not be needed at the secondary treatment facilities, because
the trickling filter portion of the WWTP will be able to handle periodic
I/I flows for short periods following rainfall events. Soue coarse gravel
pits and the Village's municipal water supply well are located to the south
of the existing WWTP, thus land north of the existing seepage basins could
be considered for utilization for the additional rapid infiltration cell.
Cost estimates for these recommended facilities are listed in Table 4-8.
Table 4-8. Estimated costs
WWTP proposed as
Item
Upgraded existing WWTP
New 10-acre Seepage Cell
Land Purchase
TOTALS :
for a separate upgraded and expanded Fontana
a mitigative measure.
Capital
Costs
$350,000
327,000
20,000
$697,000
Annual
O&M
$32,100
35,200
0
$67,300
Salvage
Value
0
59,500
20,000
$79,500
The Village of Fontana treatment facility appears to be operating
effectively at Its current flow and loading and is projected in this EIS as
being able to do so with some upgrading for the duration of the 20-year
planning period. Sufficient land exists contiguous to the plant with
apparently similar geohydrologic conditions that would be suitable for
additional infiltration lagoon construction. If higher than existing
summer flows were projected to occur, additional effluent application
4-50
-------
capacity could be provided by spray irrigating effluent on lands contiguous
to the existing plant.

If the Fontana effluent were not transmitted to a Walworth WWTP, the
areal requirements of a land application facility there would be reduced to
25 acres. The current 80-acre site is situated in an area where the soil
series is classified as Piano Silt Loam on nearly level land. This soil
series is found extensively throughout the western half of the Village of
Walworth as well as contiguous areas of the Town of Walworth. Given the
reduced areal needs of a Walworth WWTP and infiltration facility, alterna-
tive sites with geohydrologic characteristics similar to the 80-acre site
probably exist within a reasonable transmission distance of the current
plant. In order to demonstrate the effectiveness of potentially suitable
alternative sites, however, additional field investigations would be
required.

Cultural Resources

The Natural Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Executive Order 11593
(1971), the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974, and the
1973 Procedures of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation require
that care must be taken early Ln the planning process to identify cultural
resources and minimize adverse effects on them. The State Historic Preser-
vation Officer must have an opportunity to determine that the requirements
have been satisfied.

Known archaeological sites should be avoided. After an alternative is
selected and design work begins, a thorough pedestrian archaeological
survey may be required for those areas affected by proposed facilities. In
addition to the information already collected and consultation with the
State Historic Prebervation Officer and other knowledgeable informants, a
controlled surface collection of discovered sites and minor subsurface
testing should be conducted. A similar survey would be required of his-
toric structures, sites, properties, and objects in and adjacent to the
construction areas, if they might be affected by the construction or opera-
tion of the project.
4-51
-------
In consultation, with the State Historic Preservation Officer, it would
\
be determined if any of the resources identified by the surveys appears to
be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Subsequently, an
evaluation would be made of the probable effects of the project on these
resources and the mitigation procedures that are necessary

4.3.2. Mitigation of Operation Impacts

The potential adverse operational impacts of the WWTP alternatives
relate primarily to potential adverse impacts on groundwater and possible
health risks. For the land application alternative, the most significant
adverse impact is the potential for nitrate contamination of groundwater.
Adverse impacts associated with the operation of onsite systems are pri-
marily related to potential contamination of idividual well water supplies.
Measures to minimize these and other operation phase impacts from all the
alternatives are discussed below.

Atmosphere

Adverse impacts related to the operation of the proposed sewer systems
and treatment facilities would be minimal if the facilities are properly
designed, operated, and maintained. Aerosols, gaseous emissions, and odors
from the various treatment processes could be controlled to a large extent.
Above-ground pumps would be enclosed and installed to minimize sound im-
pacts. The effluent quality of any WWTP is specified by the WDNR and must
be monitored Proper and regular maintenance of onsite systems also would
maximize the efficiency of these systems and minimize odors released from
malfunctioning systems

Groundwater

Both onsite waste treatment and land application by rapid infiltration
have the potential to elevate nitrate concentration in groundwater above
background levels. At present, the densities of onsite systems and soil
properties have limited the impact of these systems on groundwater. Appro-
priate design and upgrading of onsite systems as well as formation of a
4-52
-------
management district should prevent any further degiadatiou of gtnundwatoi
quality. Section 4.1.2 4 presented groundwater data indicating that rapid
infiltration facilities can elevate nitrate concentrations but not to a
level that would restrict any groundwater uses. Appropriate operation and
maintenance of pretreatment facilities prior to land application would
limit the potential for nitrate contamination of groundwater.

4.3 3. Mitigation of Secondary Impacts

As discussed in Section 4 2, secondary impacts as a result of con-
struction of wastewater colleciton and treatment facilities under the FPKA
are expected to occur These impacts arise from induced population growth
and attendant residential development, and the effects this would have on
water quality and the agricultural resource base Adequate zoning, health,
and water quality regulation and enforcement would minimize these impacts.
Local growth management planning would assist in regulating fhe general
location, density, and type of growth that might occur

The principal mi t I&CIL Lve measure1 Lhal would effectively eliminate the
anticipated impacts would be to li.uiL the construction of new wastewater
collection and treatment ficilities to the size and scrfle identified in
Chapter 2 under the £IS Alternative fliis Alternative would not extend
collection lines into unsewered areas with the potential of inducing growth
in sensitive environmental are is Induced growth would not occur that
would increase the rate of eutrophication of Geneva Lake Treatment plants
would be si/ied according to the amount of growth anticipated by municipal
policies, growth management planning and in accordance with the capabili-
ties of public services

4 4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

Some impacts associated WIL!I the implement ition of any of the alterna-
tives cannot be avoided. The centralized collection and treatment alterna-
tives «fouid ha/e the following idverse impacts'

• Considerable short-term construction dust, noise, and
traffic nuisance
4-33
-------
• Short-term alteration of vegetation and wildlife habitat
along the sewer and force main corridors and long-terra
alteration at the WWTP sites

• Considerable erosion and siltation during construction

• Alteration and destruction of wildlife habitat at the rapid
infiltration sites

• Conversion of prime farmland to WWTP sites for some
alternatives.

The dencentralized alternatives that primarily include continued use
of existing and upgraded onsite systems and holding tanks for critical

areas would have the following adverse impacts
• Some short-term construction dust, noise, and traffic
nuisance

• Some erosion and siltation during construction

• Discharge of percolate with elevated levels of nitrates and
chlorides from soil absorption systems to the groundwater

• Occasional ephemeral odors associated with pumping septic
tanks and holding tanks and trucking it to disposal sites

• User fees for management and operation of wastewater treat-
ment services for the residents within the RSSAs.

4 5. Irretrievable and Irreveisible Resource Commitments
The major type and amounts of resources that would be committed
through the implementation of any of the alternatives are presented in

Sections A.I and 4.2. Each of the alternatives would include some or all

of the following resource commatments

• Fossil fuel, electrical energy, and human labor for facili-
ties construction and operation

• Chemicals, especially chlorine, for WWTP operation

• Tax dollars for construction and operation

• Some unsalvageable construction materials
4-54
-------
For each alternative involving a WWTP, there is a significant consump-
tion of these resources with no feasible means of recovery. Thus,
non-recoverable resources would be foregone for the provision of the
proposed wastewater control system

Accidents which could occur from system construction and operation
could cause irreversible bodily damage or death, and damage or destroy
equipment and other resources

The potential accidental destruction of undiscovered archaeological
sites through excavation activities is not reversible. This would repre-
sent permanent loss of the site.
4-55
-------
5.0 LtST OF PREPARERS
The Draft Environmental statement (DBS) was prepared by the Chicago
Regional Office of WAPORA, Inc., under contract to USEPA Region V. USEPA
and WDNR prepared the DES and hereby publishes it as a Draft EIS. The
USEPA and WDNR Project Officers and the WAPORA staff involved in the pre-
paration of the DES/DEIS included
USEPA

Jack KraLzmeyer

Marilyn Sabadaszka

Ted Rockwell

WDNR

Steve Ugoretz

Mark Williams

Charles Pape

WAPORA, Inc.

Keith Whitenight

Robert France

John Johnson

E. Clark Boli

Ross Pilling

Phil Phillips

J.P. Singh

Gerald Lenssen

James Varnell

Ellen Renzas

Mark Cameron

Ross Sweeney

Roy Greer

John Laumer
Project Officer

Project Officer (former)

Bureau of Environmental Impact

Municipal Wastewater Section

Southeast District Office

Project Administrator

Project Manager, Senior Planner
and Principal Author

Project Mananer (former)

Project Engineer

Project Engineer and Principal Author

Socioeconomist

Project Engineer

Biologist

Water Quality Scientist
5-1
-------
WAPORA, Inc.y

Steve McCoraas Environmental Scientist

Linda Gawthrop Land Use Planner

Gregg Larson Demographer

Andrew Freeman Demographer

Judy Dwyer Geographer

Lauren Rader Cultural Resources

Sharon Knight Cultural Resources and Cartographis

Peter Woods Graphics Specialist

Phil Pekron Environmental Scientist

Kent Peterson Geologist

Rhoda Granat Editor

Zear Meriweather Production Specialist

Delores Jackson-Hope Production Specialist

Donna Madras Production Specialist

In addition, serveral subcontractors and others assisted in the prepara-
tion of this document. These, along with their areas of expertise, are
listed below:

• Aerial Survey
US EPA
Vint Hill Farms VA
• Septic Leachate Analysis
K-V Associates
Falmouth MA
5-2
-------
6.0. GLOSSARY OF TECHNICAL TERMS

Activated sludge process. A method of secondary wasLewater treatment in
which a suspended microbiological culture is maintained inside an
aerated treatment basin. The microbial organisms oxidize the complex
organic matter In the wastewater to carbon dioxide, water, and energy.

Advanced secondary treatment. Wastewater treatment more stringent than
secondary treatment but not to advanced waste treatment levels.

Advanced waste treatment. Wastewater treatment to treatment levels that
provide for maximum monthly average BOD and SS concentrations less
than 10 mg/1 and/or total nitrogen removal of greater than 50% (total
nitrogea removal = TKN + nitrite and nitrate) .

Aeration. To circulate oxygen through a substance, as in wastewater treat-
ment, where it aids in purification.

Aerobic. Refers to life or processes that occur only in the presence of
oxygen.

Aerosol. A suspension of liquid or solid particles in a gas.

Algae. Simple rootless plants that grow in bodies of water in relative
proportion to the amounts of nutrients available. Algal blooms, or
sudden growth spurts, can affect water quality adversely.

Algal bloom A proliferation of one species of algae in lakes,, streams or
ponds to the exclusion of other algal species.

Alluvial. Pertaining to material that has been carried by a stream.

Ambient air. Any unconfined portion of the atmosphere: open air.

Ammonia-nitrogen. Nitrogen in the form of ammonia (NH ) that is produced
in nature when nitrogen-containing organic material is biologically
decomposed.

Anaerobic. Refers to life or processes that occur in the absence of oxygen.

Anoxia. Condition where oxygen is deficient or absent.

Aquifer. A geologic stratum or unit that contains water and will allow it
to pass through. The water may reside in and travel through innumera-
ble spaces between rock grains in a sand or gravel aquifer, small or
cavernous openings formed by solution in a limestone aquifer, or
fissures, cracks, and rubble In harder rocks such as shale.

Artesian (adj.). Refers to groundwater that is under sufficient pressure
to flow to the surface without being pumped.
6-1
-------
Artesian well. A well that normally gives a continuous flow because oE
hydrostatic pressure, created when the outlet of the well is below the
level of the water source

Bar screen. In wastewater treatment, a screen that removes large float-
ing and suspended solids.

Base flow. The rate of movement of water in a stream channel that occurs
typically during rainless, periods, when stream flow is maintained
largely or entirely by discharges of groundwater.

Bed Rock. The solid rock beneath the soil and subsoil.

Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) A bioassay-type procedure tn which the
weight of oxygen utilized by microorganisms to oxidize and assimilate
the organic matter present per liter of water is determined. It is
common to note the number of days during which a test was conducted as
a subscript to the abbreviated name. For example, BOD indicates that
the results are based on a five-day long (120-hour) test. The BOD
value is a relative measure of the amount (load) of living and dead
oxidizable organic matter in water. A high demand may deplete the
supply of oxygen in the watec, temporarily or for a prolonged time, to
the degree that many or all kinds of aquatic organisms are killed.
Determinations of BOD are useful in the evaluation of the impact of
wastewater on receiving waters.

Biota. The plants and animals of an area.

GFS. Cubic Feet per second

Chlorination. The application of chlorine to drinking water, sewage or
industrial waste for disinfection or oxidation of undesirable com-
pounds .

Circulation period. The interval of time in which the density stratifica-
tion of a lake is destroyed by the equalization of temperature, as a
result of which the entire water mass becomes uiixed.

Clay. The smallest mineral particles in soil, less than .004 mm in diame-
ter, soil that contains at least 40% clay particles, less than 45%
sand, and less than 40% silt.

Coliform bacteria. Members of a large group of bacteria that flourish in
the feces and/or intestines of warm-blooded animals, including man.
Fecal coliform bacteria, particularly Escherichia coli (E. coli),
enter water mostly in fecal matter, such as sewage or feedlot runnoff.
Coliforas apparently do not cause serious human diseases, but these
organisms are abundant in polluted waters and they are fairly easy to
detect. The abundance of coliforas in water, therefore, is used as an
index to the probability of the occurrence of such disease-producing
organisms (pathogens) as Salmonella, Shigella, and enteric viruses
which are otherwise relatively difficult to detect.
-------
Community. The plants and animals In a particular area that are closely
related through food chains and other interactions.

Cultural resources. Fragile and nonrenewable sites, districts, buildings,
structures, or objects representative of our heritage. Cultural
resources are divided into three categories' historical, architec-
tural, or archaeological. Cultural resources of special significance
may be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic
Places.

Decibel (dB). A unit of measurement used to express the relative intensity
of sound. For environmental assessment, it is common to use a fre-
quency-rated scale (A scale) on which the units (dBA) are correlated
with responses of the human ear. On the A scale, 0 dBA represents the
average least perceptible sound (rustling leaves, gentle breathing),
and 140 dBA represents the intensity at which the eardrum may rupture
(jet engine at open throttle) Intermediate value? generally are 20
dBA, faint (whisper at 5 feet, classroom, private office), 60 dBA,
loud (average restaurant or living room, playground); 80 DBA, very
loud (impossible to use a telephone, noise made by food blender or
portable standing machine, hearing impairment may result from pro-
longed exposure), 100 dBA, deafening noise (thunder, car horn at 3
feet, loud motorcycle, loud power lawn mower).

Demographic. Pertaining to the science of vital and special statistics,
especially with regard to population density and capacity for expan-
sion or decline.

Detention time. Average time required to flow through a basin. Also
called retention time

Digestion. In wastewater treatment a closed tank, sometimes heated to 95°F
where sludge is subjected to intensified bacterial action.

Disinfection. Effective killing by chemical or physical processes of all
organisms capable of causing infectious disease. Chlorination Is the
disinfection method commonly employed in sewage treatment processes

Dissolved oxygen (DO). Oxygen gas (0 ) in water. It is utilized in res-
piration by fish and other aquatrc organisms, and those organisms may
be injured or killed when the concentration is low. Because much
oxygen diffuses into water from the air, the concentration of DO is
greater, other conditions being equal, at sea level than at high
elevations, during periods of high atmospheric pressure than during
periods of low pressure, and when the water is turbulent (during
rainfall, in rapids, and waterfalls) rather than when it is placid.
Because cool water can absorb more oxygen than warm water, the con-
centration tends to be greater at low temperatures than at high tem-
peratures. Dissolved oxygen is depleted by the oxidation of organic
matter and of various inorganic chemicals. Should depletion be ex-
treme, the water may become anaerobic and could stagnate and stink.

Drainage Basin. A geographical area or region which is so sloped and
contoured that surface runoff from streams and other natural water-
6-3
-------
courses is carried away by a single drainage system by gravity to a
common outlet or outlets; also referred to as a watershed or drainage
area.

Drift. Rock material picked up and transported by a glacier and deposited
elsewhere.

Effluent. Wastewater or other liquid, partially or completely treated, or
in its natural state, flowing out of a reservoir, basin, treatment
plant, or industrial treatment plant, or part thereof.

EIS. Enviornmental Impact State-neat.

Endangered species. Any species of animal or plant that is in known danger
of extinction throughout all or a significant part of its range.

Epilimnion. The turbulent superficial layer of a lake lying above the
raetalimnion which does not have a permanent thermal stratification.
Eutrophication. The progressive enrichment of surface waters particularly
non-flowing bodies of water such as lakes and ponds, with dissolved
nutrients, such as phosphorous and nitrogen compounds, which accele-
rate the growth of algae and higher forms of plant life and result in
the utilization of the useable oxygen content of the waters at the
expense of other aquatic life forms.

Fauna. The total animal life of a particular geographic area or habitat.

Fecal coliform bacteria. See coll form bacteria

Floodplain. Belt of low, flat sroun^ bordering a stream channel subject
to periodic inundation.

Floodway The portion of the floodplain which carries moving water during
a flood event.

Flood fringe. The part of the floodplain which serves as a storage area
during a flood event.

Flora. The total plant life of a particular geographic area or habitat.

Flowmeter. A guage that indicates the amount of flow of wastewater moving
through a treatment plant.

Forbs. Non woody low vegetation species such as composites or legumes.

Force main. A pipe designed to carry wastewater under pressure.

FPRA. Facilities Plan Recommended Alternative.

Gravity system. A system of conduits (open or closed) in which no liquid
pumping is required.
6-4
-------
Gravity sewer A sewer in which wastewater flows naturally down-gradient
by the force of gravity.

Groundwater. All subsurface water, especially that part in the zone of
saturation.

Holding Tank. Enclosed tank, usually of fiberglass, steel or concrete, for
the storage of wastewater prior to removal or disposal at another
location.

Hypolimnion. The deep layer of a lake lying below the epilimnion and the
metalimnion and removed from surface influences.

Infiltration. The water entering a sewer system and service connections
from the ground through such means as, but not limited to, defective
pipes, pipe joints, improper connections, or manhole walls. Infiltra-
tion does not include, and is distinguished from, inflow.

Inflow. The water discharged into a wastewater collection system and
service connections from such sources as, but not limited to, roof
leaders, cellars, yard and area drains, foundation drains, cooling
water discharges, drains from springs and swampy areas, manhole co-
vers, cross-connections from storm sewers and combined sewers, catch
basins, storm waters, surface runoff, street wash waters or drainage.
Inflow does not include, and is distinguished from, infiltration.

Influent. Water, wastewater, or other liquid flowing into a reservoir,
basin, or treatment facility, or any unit thereof.

Interceptor sewer. A sewer designed and installed to collect sewage from a
series of trunk sewers acid to convey it to a sewage treatment plant.

Innovative Technology. A technology whose use has not been widely docu-
mented by experience and is not a variant of conventional biological
or physical/chemical treatment.

Lagoon In wastewater treatment, a shallow pond, usually man-made, in
which sunlight, algal and bacterial action acid oxygen interact to
restore the was»tewater to a reasonable state of purity

Land Treatment. A method of treatment in which the soil, air, vegetation,
bacteria, and fungi are employed to remove pollutants from wastewater.
In its most simple form, the method includes three steps: (1) pre-
treatment to screen out large solids, (2) secondary treatment and
chlorination; and (3) spraying over cropland, pasture, or natural
vegetation to allow plants and soil microorganisms to remove addi-
tional pollutants. Much of the sprayed water evaporates, and the
remainder may be allowed to percolate to the water table, discharged
through drain tiles, or reclaimed by wells.

Leachate. Solution formed when water percolates through solid wastes, soil
or other materials and extracts soluble or suspendable substances from
material.
6-5
-------
Lift station. A facility in a collector sewer system, consisting of a
receiving chamber, pumping equipment, and associated drive and control
devices, that collects wastewater from a low-lying district at some
convenient point, from which it is lifted to another portion of the
collector system.

Littoral. The shoreward region of a body of water.

Loam. The textural class name for soil having a moderate amount of sand,
silt, and clay. Loam soils contain 7 to 27% of clay, 28 to 50% of
silt, and less than 52% of sand.

Loess. Wind transported sediaent s derived from fine glacial outwash
materials.

Macroinvertebrates. Invertebrates that are visible to the unaided eye
(those retained by * standard No. 30 sieve, which has 28 meshes per
inch or 0.595 mm openings), generally connotates bottom-dwelling
aquatic animals (benthos).

Macrophyte. A large (not microscopic) plant, usually in an aquatic habi-
tat.

Mesotrophic. Waters with a moderate supply of nutrients and no significant
production of organic matter.
^
Metaliinnion. The layer oE water in a lake between the epilinmion and
hypolimnion in which the temperature exhibits the greatest difference
xn a vertical direction.

Milligram per liter (mg/l). A concentration of 1/1000 gram of a substance
in 1 liter of water. Because 1 liter of pure water weighs 1,000
grams, the concentration also can be stated as 1 ppm (part per mil-
lion, by weight) Used to measure and report the concentrations of
most substances that commonly occur in natural and polluted waters.

Moraine. A mound, ridge, or other distinctive accumulation of sediment
deposited by a glacier.

National Register of Historic Places. Official listing of the cultural
resources of the Nation that are worthy of preservation. Listing on
the National Register makes property owners eligible to be considered
for Federal grants-in-aid for historic preservation through state
programs. Listing also provides protection through comment by the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation on the effect of Federally
financed, assisted, or licensed undertakings on historic properties.

Nitrate-nitrogen. Nitrogen in the form of nitrate (NO ). It is the most
oxidized phase in the nitrogen cycle in nature and occurs in high
concentrations in the final stages of biological oxidation. It can
serve as a nutrient for the growth of algae and other aquatic plants.

Nitrite-nitrogen. Nitrogen in the form of nitrite (NO ). It is an in-
termediate stage in the nitrogen cycle in nature. Nitrite normally is
found in low concentrations and represents a transient stage in the
biological oxidation of organic materials.

6-6
-------
Honpoint source. Any area, in contrast to a pipe or other structure, from
which pollutants flow into a body of water. Common pollutants from
nonpoint sources are sediments from construction sites and fertilizers
and sediments from agricultural soils.

NPDWS. National Primary Drinking Water Standard.

Nutrients. Elements or compounds essential as raw materials for the growth
and development of an organism, e.g., carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and
phosphorus.

Outwash. Sand and gravel transported away from a glacier by streams of
meltwater and either deposited as a floodplain along a preexisting
valley bottom or broadcast over a preexisting plain in a form similar
to an alluvial fan.

Oligotrophic. Waters with a small supply of nutrients and hence an insig-
nificant production of organic matter.

Ordinance. A municipal or county regulation.

Outwash. Drift carried by melt water from a glacier and deposited beyond
the marginal moraine.

Outwash Plain. A plain formed by material deposited by nelt water from a
glacier flowing over a more or less flat surface of large area.
Deposits of this origin are usually distinguishable from odinary river
deposits by the fact that they often grade into moraines and their
constituents bear evidence of glacial origin. Also called frontal
apron.

Oxidation lagoon (pond). A holding area where organic wastes are broken
down by aerobic bacteria.

Percolation. The downward movement of water through pore spaces or larger
voids in soil or rock.

pH. A measure of the acidity or alkalinity oC a material, liquid or solid.
pH is represented on a scale of 0 to 14 with 7 being a neutral state;
0, most acid; and 14, most alkaline

Piezometric level. An imaginary point that represents the static head of
groundwater and is defined by the level to which water will rise.

Plankton. Minute plants (phytoplankton) and animals (zooplankton) that
float or swim weakly in rivers, ponds, lakes, estuaries, or seas.

Point source. In regard to water, any pipe, ditch, channel, conduit,
tunnel, well, discrete operation, vessel or other floating craft, or
other confined and discrete conveyance from which a substance con-
sidered to be a pollutant is, or may be, discharged into a body of
water.
6-7
-------
Pressure sewer system. A wastewater collection system in which household
wastes are collected in the building drain and conveyed therein to the
pretreatment and/or pressurizatton facility. The system consists of
two major elements, the on-site or pressurization facility, and the
primary conductor pressurised sewer main.

Primary treatment. The first stage in was>tewater treatment, in which
substantially all floating or settleable solids are mechanically
removed by screening and sedimentation.

Prime farmland. Agricultural lands, designated Class I or Class II, having
little or no limitations to profitable crop production.

Pumping station. A facility within a sewer system that pumps sewage/
effluent against the force of gravity.

Runoff. Water from rain, snow melt, or irrigation that flows over the
ground surface and returns to streams. It can collect pollutants from
air or land and carry them to the receiving waters.

RSSA. Revised Sewer Service Area.

Sanitary sewer. Underground pipes that carry only domestic or commercial
wastewater, not stormwater.

Screening. Use of racks of screens to remove coarse floating and suspended
solids froa sewage.

Secchi Disk. A disk, painted in four quadrants of alternating black and
white, which is lowered into a body of water. The measured depth at
which the disk is no longer visible from the surface is a measure of
relative transparency.

Secondary treatment. The second stage in the treatment of wastewater in
which bacteria are utilized to decompose the organic matter in sewage.
This step is accomplished by introducing the sewage into a trickling
filter or an activated sludge process. Effective secondary treatment
processes remove virtually all floating solids and settleable solids,
as well as 90% of the BOD and suspended solids. USEPA regulations
define secondary treatment as 30 mg/1 BOD, 30 mg/1 SS, or 85% removal
of these substances.

Sedimentation. The process of subsidence and deposition of suspended
matter carried by water, sewage, or other liquids, by gravity. It is
usually accomplished by reducing the velocity of the liquid below the
point where it can transport the suspended material.

Seepage, Water that flows through the soil

Seepage cells. Unlined wastewater lagoons designed so that all or part of
wasiewater percolates into the underlying soil.
6-8
-------
Septxc snooper. Trademark for the ENDECO (Environmental Devices Corpora-
tion) Type 2100 Septic Leachate Detector. This instrument consists of
an underwater probe, a water intake system, an analyzer control unit
and a graphic recorder. Water drawn through the instrument is con-
tinuously analyzed for specific fluorescence and conductivity. When
calibrated against typical effluents, the instrument can detect and
profile effluent-like substances and thereby locate septic tank lea-
chate or other sources of domestic sewage entering lakes and streams.

Septic tank. An underground tank used for the collection of domestic
wastes. Bacteria in the wastes decompose the organic matter, and the
sludge settles to the bottom. The effluent flows through drains into
the ground. Sludge is pumped out at regular intervals.

Septic tank effluent pump (STEP). Purap designed to transfer settled waste-
water from a septic tank to a sewer.

Septic tank soil ab&orption system (STAS). A system of wastewater disposal
in which large solids are retained in a tank; fine solids and liquids
are dispersed into the surrounding soil by a system of pipes.

SSA. Sewer Service Area.

Settling tank. A holding area for wastewater, where heavier particles sink
to the bottom and can be siphoned off.

Sewer, Interceptor. See Interceptor Sewer.

Sewer, lateral. A sewer designed and installed to collect sewage from a
limited number of individual properties and conduct it to a trunk
sewer. Also known as a street sewer or collecting sewer

Sewer, sanitary. See Sanitary Sewer.

Sewer, storm. A conduit that collects and transports storm-water runoff.
In many sewerage systems, storm sewers are separate from those carry-
ing sanitary or industrial wastewater.

Sewer, trunk A sewer designed and installed to collect sewage from a
number of lateral sewers and conduct it to an interceptor sewer or, in
some cases, to a sewage treatment plant.

Sinking fund. A fund established by periodic installments to provide for
the retirement of the principal of term bonds.

Slope. The incline of the surface of the land. It is usually expressed as
a percent (%) of slope that equals the number of feet of fall per 100
feet in horizontal distance.

Sludge. The accumulated solids that have been separated from liquids such
as as wastewater.
6-9
-------
Soil association. General term used to describe taxonomic units of soils,
relative proportions, and pattern of occurrence.

Soil textural class. The classification of soil material according to the
proportions of sand, silt, and clay. The principal textural classes
in soil, in increasing order of the amount of silt and clay, are as
follows- sand, loamy sand, sandy loam, loam, silt loam, sandy clay
loam, clay loam, silty clay loam, sandy clay, silty clay, and clay.
These class names are modified to indicate the size of the sand frac-
tion or the presence of gravel, sandy loam, gravelly loam, stony clay,
and cobbly loam, and ate used on detailed soil maps. These terms
apply only to individual soil horizons or to the surface layer of a
soil type

State equalized valuation (SEV). A measure employed within a State to
adjust actual assessed valuation upward to approximate true market
value. Thus it is possible to relate debt burden to the full value of
taxable property In each community within that State.

Stratification. The condition of a body of water when the water is divided
into layers of differing density. Climatic changes over the course of
the seasons cause a lake to divide into a bottom layer and surface
layer, with a boundary layer (thermocline) between them. Stratifica-
tion generally occurs during the summer and again during periods of
ice cover in the winter Overturns, or periods of mixing, generally
occur once in the spring and once in the autumn. This "dimictlc"
condition is most common in lakes located in middle latitudes. A lake
which stratifies and mixes more than twice per year is defined as
"polymictic".

Threatened species. Any species of animal or plant that is likely to
become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant part of its range

Till Unsorted and unstratified drift, consisting of a heterogeneous
mixture of clay, sand, gravel, and boulders, that is deposited by and
underneath a glacier.

Trickling filter process A method of secondary wastewater treatment in
which the biological growth is attached to a fixed medium, over which
wastewater is sprayed The filter organisms biochemically oxidize the
complex organic matter in the wastewater to carbon dioxide, water, and
energy.

Topography. The configuration of a surface area including its relief, or
relative evaluations, and the position of its natural and manmade
features.

Unique farmland. Land, which is unsuitable for crop production in its
natural state, that has been made productive by drainage, irriga-
tion, or fertilization practices,

Wastewater. Water carrying dissolved or suspended solids from homes,
farms, businesses, and industries
6-10
-------
Water quality. The relative condition of a body of water, as judged by
a comparison between contemporary values and certain more or less
objective standard values for biological, chemical, and/or physical
parameters. The standard values usually are based on a specific
series of intended uses, and may vary as the intended uses vary.

Watershed. The region drained by or contributing water to a stream, lake,
or other body of water.

Water table. The upper level of groundwater that is not confined by an
upper impermeable layer and is under atmospheric pressure The upper
surface of the substrate that ts wholly saturated with groundwater.

WDNR. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.

Wetlands. Those areas that are inundated by surface or ground water with a
frequency sufficient to support and under normal circumstances does or
would support a prevalence of vegetative or aquatic life that requires
saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions for growth and
reproduction.

WWTP. Wastewater Treatment Plant.
6-11
-------
-------
7 0. REFERENCES

Aigner, Vernita A., C. P. Erwin, and M. J. Osborne. 1977. Wisconsin
energy use 1972 to 1976. Office of State Planning and Energy,
Wisconsin Department of Administration, Madison WI, 116p.

Aqua-Tech, Inc. 1978. Como Lake. First, second, third, and fourth
quarterly reports. Port Washington WI, 268p.

Bailey, R. G. 1980. Descriptions of the ecoregions of the United States.
US Dept. of Agriculture No. 1391. Ogden UT, 77p. plus map.

Belonger. 1969. Aquatic plant survey of major lakes in the Fox River
(Illinois) watershed. Department of Natural Resources Research
Report No. 39, Madison WI, 60p.

Borraan, R. G. 1976. Groundwater resources and geology of Walworth
County, Wisconsin. LFSGS and Wisconsin Geological and Nature History
Survey, Madison WI. 45p.

Brown, Charles E. 1930. Indian remains. Science history and indian
remains of Lake Geneva and Lake Como, Walworth County, Wisconsin. The
Geneva Lake Historical Society, Geneva Lake WI, 59p

Brown, D. V., and R. K. White. 1977. Septage disposal alternatives in
rural areas Research bulletin 1096. Ohio Agricultural Research
and Development Center, Wooster OH, lip.

Chomko, Stephen A. and Gary W. Crawford. 1978. Plant husbandry In
prehistoric eastern North America, new evidence for its develop-
ment. American Antiquity 43(3) 408-411.

Cohen, S. and H. Wallman. 1974. Demonstration of waste flow reduction
from households. Environmental Protection Agency, National Environ-
mental Research Center, Cincinnati OH.

Cooper, R. B and A Beier. 1979. Trends in Wisconsin overnight lodging
establishments 1971-1979 University of Wisconsin-Extension,
Recreation Resources Center, Madison WI, 16p.

Cooper, R. B. and A. Beier. I979b. Tren-is in Wisconsin foodservice
establishments 1974-1979. University of Wisconsin-Extension,
Recreation Resources Center, Madison WI, 12p.

Cotter, R. D., R. D. Hutchinson, E. L. Skinner, and D. A. Wentz. 1969.
Water resources of Wisconsin: Rock-Fox River Basin. US Geological
Survey Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA-360.

Donohue & Assoc., Inc. (Jensen & Johnson Division). 1976. Infiltration/
inflow analysis for the Village of Walworth, Wisconsin. Sheboygan
WI, 25p.
7-1
-------
Donohue & Assoc., Inc. 1978a. Lake Geneva 201 facilities plan, Volume 1-
Regional Considerations. Sheboygan WI, variously paged.

Donohue & Assoc., Inc. 1978b. Infiltration/inflow analysis for the City
of Lake Geneva, Wisconsin. Sheboygan WI, variously paged.

Donohue & Assoc., Inc. 1978c. Infiltration/inflow analysis for the Village
of Williams Bay, Wisconsin. Sheboygan WI, variously paged.

Donohue & Assoc., Inc. 1980a. Sewer system evaluation survey for Fontana,
Sheboygan WI, variously paged.

Donohue & Assoc., Inc. I980b. Sludge storage basin engineering report.
Sheboygan WI, variously paged.

Donohue & Assoc., Inc. 1981a. Preliminary Geneva Lake Facilities plans,
Volume 2-treatment alternatives, East Planning Area. Sheboygan WI,
variously paged.

Donohue & Assoc., Inc. 1981b. Preliminary Geneva Lake facilities plans,
Volume 2-treatment alternatives, West Planning Area. Sheboygan WI,
variously paged.

Donohue & Assoc., Inc. 1982a. Addendum to West Geneva Lake facilities
plans Volume 2. Sheboygan WI, variously paged.

Donohue & Assoc., Inc. I982b Geneva Lake facilities plans Volume 2-
process specific addendum East Planning Area. Sheboygan WI,
variously paged.

Donohue & Assoc., Inc. I983a. Final draft Geneva Lake facilities plans,
Volume 2-treatment alternatives, West Planning Area. Sheboygan WI,
variously paged.

Donohue & Assoc., Inc. I983b. Addendum 1 to Volume 2 - facilities plans
for the Lake Geneva West Planning Area - Waiworth/Fontana.
Sheboygan WI, variously paged.

Ellis, B. and K. E. Childs. 1973. Nutrient movement from septic tanks
and lawn fertilization. Technical Bulletin No. 73-5. Department of
Natural Resources, Lansing MI, 61p.

Ellis, B. G., and A E. Erickson. 1969. Movement and transformation of
various phosphorus compounds in soils. Soil Science Department,
Michigan State University and Michigan State Water Resources Commission,
East Lansing MI, 35p.

Enfield, C. G. 1978. Evaluation of phosphorus models for prediction of
percolate water quality in land treatment. IQ McKira, Harlan L.
(Coordinator), State of knowledge in land treatment of wastewater,
volume 1. US Army COE Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory,
Hanover NH, 436p. (p. 153-162).
7-2
-------
Geldreieh, E. E. 1965. Detection and significance of fecal colifonn
bacteria in streau pollution studies. J. Water Pollution Control
Federation, 37:17722-1726.

Geneva Lake Watershed Environmental Agency. 1975. An analysis of the
sanitary quality of the public swimming beaches of Geneva Lake,
September 18, 1975. Prepared for GLWEA by Theodore W. Peters.
Fontana WI, 40p.

Geneva Lake Watershed Environmental Agency. 1977. Geneva Lake.
Preliminary draft. Waukesha WI, 167p.

Geneva Lake Environmental Agency. 1982. Land use-Geneva Lake, 1980.
Geneva Lake Environmental Agency. Fontana WI, unpaginated, 46p.

Germain, C. E., W. E. Tans, and R. H. Read. 1977. Wisconsin scientific
areas. Department of Natural Resources Tech. Bull. No. 102,
Madison WI, 52p.

Giles Engineering Associates, Inc. 1983. Subsurface exploration and
laboratory testing, proposed seepage cell facilities, Lake Geneva,
Wisconsin. Waukesha WI, variously paged.

Groves, S. M. 1980. Evaluating local government financial condition.
Financial trend monitoring system. A practition workbook. Inter-
national City Managers Association, Washington DC, 154p.

Hamilton, William J. Jr. and John 0. Whitaker, Jr. 1979. Mammals of
the Eastern United States. Second Edition. Comstock Publishing
Assoc., Cornell University Press, Ithaca NY, 346p.

Hartig, J. H., and F. J. Horvath. 1982. A preliminary assessment of
Michigan's phosphorus detergent ban. Journal of Water Pollution
Control Federation 54(2)- 194-197.

Holzworth, George C. 1972. Mixing heights, wind speeds, and potential
for urban air pollution throughout the contiguous United States.
EPA Pub AP-101. Research Triangle Park NC, 118p.

Hickey, J L., and P.C. Reist. 1975. Health significance of airborne
microorganisms from wastewater treatment processes. Journal of the
Water Pollution Control Federation, Volume 47.

Hickok and Associates. 1978. Effects of wastewater stabilization pond
seepage on groundwater quality. Prepared for the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency. Wayzata MN, variously paged.

Jenkins, Paul B. 1922. The Book of Lake Geneva. University of Chicago
Press, Chicago IL, 73p

Jones, R. A. and G. F. Lee. 1977. Septic tank disposal systems as phos-
phorus sources for surface waters. EPA 600/3-77-129. Robert S. Kerr
Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada OK.
7-3
-------
K-V Associates, Inc. 1979. Septic leachate survey. Geneva Lake and
Corao Lake, WI, Falmouth MA, 38p.

Kmiotek, S. 1973. Wisconsin trout streams Department of Natural Resources.
Pub. 6-3000, Madison WI, 113p.

McLauglin, S. R. 1968. A recycle system for conservation of water in
residences. Water and Sewage Works. 115 4, pp. 175-176.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1979. Local
cliinatological data, annual summary with comparative data. National
Climatic Center. Asheville NC, 4p.

Otis, R. J. 1979. Alternative wastewater facilities for small communities -
a case study. In. Proceedings of a Workshop on Alternative Wastewater
Treatment Systems U1LU-WRC-79-00010 Water Resources Center and
Cooperative Extension Service, University of Illinois Urbana,
Urbana IL, p. 44-69

Pound, C. E. and R.W. Crites. 1973. Wastewater treatment acid reuse by
land application, volume 1, summary USEPA Office of Research and
Development, Washington DC, 80p

Ragatz, Richard L. 1980. Trends in the market for privately owned seasonal
recreational housing. Paper presented at the National Outdoor
Recreation Trends Symposium, Durham, NH 20 April 1980.

Read, R. H. 1976. Natural area inventory-Kenosha, Racine, and Walworth
Counties, Wisconsin. Department of Natural Resources, Madison WI,
22p.

Rossmuller, Estelle. 1959. Shawneeawhee, friendly Fontana, a history.
Fontana Garden Club, Fontana-on-Geneva-Lake WI, 35p.

Scalf, M. R. and W. J. Dunlap 1977. Environmental effects of septic
tanks. EPA 600/3-77-096. Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research
Laboratory, Ada OK

Siegrist, R L., T Woltanski, and C. E. Waldorf 1978. Water conservation
and wastewater disposal In Proceedings of the second national home
sewage treatment symposium (ASAE Publication 5-77). American
Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph MI, p. 121-136.

Simpson and Curttn. 1976. Southeastern Wisconsin commuter study. Interim
report. Prepared for Wisconsin Department of Transportation.
Philadelphia PA, variously paged.

Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC). 1974.
Planning Report No. 16. A regional sanitary sewerage system plan
for Southeastern Wisconsin, Part A. SEWRPC, Waukesha WI, 809p.

Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission. 1978. 1977
annual report. SEWRPC, Waukesha WI, 149p.
7-4
-------
Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission. 1980. Summary listing
of 1975 employment file. Computer printout. 29 April 1980, Ip.

Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission. 1981.

Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, In publication. A. water
quality management plan for Geneva Lake,Walworth County Wisconsin.
SEWRPC Community Assistance Planning Report #60. Waukesha WI, 190p.

US Bureau of the Census. 1973. Census of population: 1970, Volume 1,
Characteristics of the population. Part 1 US Summary-Section 1.
Department of Commerce, Washington DC, 578p.

US Bureau of the Census. I982a. US Census of population 1980. Summary
tape file 1A. Wisconsin, Walworth County, City of Lake Geneva,
Villages of Walworth, Fontana, and Williams Bay, and Towns of Geneva,
Linn, and Walworth, Wisconsin. Printed by the Wisconsin Department
of Human and Social Services, Demographic Services Center, Madison
WI, variously paged.

US Bureau of the Census. 1982b. US Census of population and housing
1980. Summary tape file 3A. Wisconsin, Walworth County, City of
Lake Geneva, Villages of Walworth, Fontana, and Williams Bay, and
Towns of Geneva, Linn, and Walworth, Wisconsin. Printed by the
Wisconsin Department of Human and Social Services, Demographic
Services Center, Madison WI, variously paged.

US Bureau of Economic Analysis. 1978. Printout of employment by type
and broad industrial sources 1971-1976. Walworth County, Wisconsin.
Table 25.00. Regional Economic Information System, Ip.

US Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. 1971. Soil survey
Walworth County, Wisconsin. Prepared by the Soil Conservation Service
in cooperation with the University of Wisconsin, 107p +• maps.

US Department of Housing and Urban Development. 1977. Federal Insurance
Administration, Flood Hazard Boundary Map H, Walworth County, WI.
US Government Printing Office, Washington DC, 35p.

US Department of Interior. 1982. The National register of historic places
in Wisconsin. April 1982. National Park Service. Washington DC, 17p.

USEPA. 1975a. Report on Lake Geneva, Walworth County, Wisconsin. Working
paper No. 61. Pacific Northwest Environmental Research Laboratory and
National Environmental Research Center, Las Vegas NV, 8p

USEPA. 1975b. Report of Como Lake, Walworth County, Wisconsin. Working
paper. No. 60. Pacific Northwest Environmental Research Laboratory
and National Environmental Research Center, Las Vegas NV, 14p.

USEPA. 1976. Quality criteria for water. Office of Water and Hazardous
Material, Washington DC, 225p.
7-5
-------
USEPA. I977b. Alternatives for small wastewater treatment systems, onsite
disposal/septage treatment and disposal. EPA 625/4-77-011 Technology
Transfer, Washington DC, 90p

USEPA. 1978a Printout of STOIIET data - 23 October 1978, variously paged.

USEPA. I978b Innovative and alternative technology assessment manual EPA-
430/9-78-009. Office of Water Programs Operations, Washington DC,
variously paged.

USEPA. 1979b. Program Requirements Memorandum #79-8 Small wastewater systems

USEPA. 1980a. Design manual. Onsite wastewater treatment and disposal
systems. Office of Research and Development, Municipal Environmental
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati OH, 391p.

USEPA. I980b Septage management. Municipal Environmental Engineering
Laboratory, Cincinnati OH, 126p.

USEPA. I98la. Flow reduction - methods, analysis, procedures, examples.
Office of Water Program Operations, Washington DC, 92p.

USEPA. L981b Facilities Planning 1981. Municipal wastewater treatment
EPA 430/9-81-002. Office of Water Program Operations, Washington DC,
116p.

USEPA I981c. Process design manual - land treatment of municipal waste-
water EPA 625/1-81-013 Center for Environmental Research Infomation,
Technology Transfer, Cincinnati OH, variously paged.

USEPA. I982a. Construction Grants 82 (CG-82) EPA 430/9-81-020 Office of
Water Program Operations, Washington DC, 127p. + appendices.

USEPA. I982b. Management of onsite and small community wastewater systems.
Prepared for USEPA Environmental Research Information Center by
Roy F. Weston, Inc. EPA 600/8-82-009, Cincinnati OH, 223p.

USEPA. 1983. Final-generic environmental impact statement for wastewater
management in rural lake areas USEPA Region V, Water Division,
Chicago IL, variously paged.

US Geological Survey. 1971 Lake Geneva Wisconsin Quadrangle Topographic
Map, Reston VA

US Geological Survey. 1979. Local characterization of Wisconsins streams
at sewage treatment plants and industrial plants. Water Resources
Investigations, USGS 79-31. 123p

Waiworth County Park and Planning Commission, and County Zoning Administrator.
1971. Land division (subdivision) ordinance for Walworth County,
Wisconsin Elkhorn WI, 37p
7-6
-------
Warzyn Engineering, Inc. 1982. Performance assessment of Williams Bay
seepage lagoon No. 2. Madison WI, variously paged.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1969a. Lake Geneva, Walworth
County, Wisconsin, Lake Use Report FY-4. Department of Natural
Resources, Madison Wl, 17p.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1969b. Corao Lake, Walworth
County, Wisconsin, Lake use Report FY-1. Department of Natural
Resources, Madison WI, 17p.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1975. Classification of Wisconsin
lakes by trophic condition. Bureau of Water Quality, Madison WI, 107p.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1976. Endangered and threatened
vascular plants in Wisconsin. Technical Bulletin, No. 92. Scientific
Areas Preservation Council, Madison WI, 58p.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1977. Corao Lake, Walworth
County management alternatives. Office of Inland Lake Renewal,
Madison WI, 14p.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1979a. Wisconsin Wetlands
Inventory. Bureau of Planning, Madison WI, variously paged.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1979b Endangered and threatened
species. Ln Register, September 1979, 285' p. 201-220

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1980. Wisconsin's Shoreland
Management Program. Chapter NR 115. In Register, October 1980,
No. 298. Madison WI, 12p.

Wisconsin Department of Revenue (WDR). 1981. Municipal resources provided
and expended. Bulletin No. 65. Resources provided and expended
by Wisconsin counties, cities, villages, and towns for the 1980
calendar year. Division of State and Local Finance. Bureau of Local
Financial Assistance, Madison WI, p. 150-153.

Wisconsin Department of Revenue. 1982 Town, village, and city taxes-1981.
Bulletin Nos 181, 281, and 381 combined. Taxes levied 1981-collected
1982. Division of State and Local Finance. Bureau of Local Financial
Assistance, Madison WI, p 1-6, 47

Wolfmeyer, A and M Burns Gage. 1976. Lake Geneva Newport of the west,
1870-1920 Volume 1 Lake Geneva Historical Society, Inc., Lake
Geneva WI, 214p.
7-7
-------
-------
APPENDIX A

PROPERTY OWNER QUESTIONNAIRE
-------
INSTRUCTIONS Please mark a check m the appropriate box
1
Current use of property ( ) Single family residence number in household
( ) Alultifamily residential, number at unils
( ) Other (please specify) _^________
2. Typo of Occupancy
( J Year-round
( } Seasonal month* occupied
( ) Weekends only
3 Length of Present Ownership
( ) 0-1 year
{ ) I-S year*
( ) S year* plus
«. Type of Water Supply ( ) Individual welt
( ) Community /shared well
S Type of Sewage Treatment System
) Septic tankJdramfleld
) Holding tank
) Cess pool
) Other (please specify)
) Don't know
S. A. Approximate Age of Sewage Treatment System

8. Approximate Age of House
) 9-5 years old
) 5-10 year* old
) More (nan 10 years old
) Don't know
) 0-5 year* aid
) 5-10 year* old
) More than 10 years old
I Don't know
S. Sewage Treatment System Experiences ( ) Back-up*
( ) Wet ground or ponding over system
( ) Unpleasant odors
( ) Other (please specify)
7 Does your sewage treatment system discharge to
a ground surface,ditch a creek or lake' '
I. Was your sewage treatment system pumped out
or cleaned'
9. Do you consider your sewage treatment system
to be a problem or inconvenience?

10 Oo you consider other sewage treatment systems
in your subdivision of immediate area to be a
problem?

11 What do you consider the best solution to falling
private sewage treatment systems in your area7
Yes
No
Oon't know

Last year
In the last S year*
More than S yean ago
Don't know

Yes
No
( ) Ye*
( ) No
( ) Public sewers
( ) Individual replacement
or repair
( ) Other (specify)
12. Would you lika information on alternative onsite systems? ( ) Ye*
( ) No
13 Oo you think that the treatment facilities in Lake
Geneva and Walworth Williams Bay Fontana
areas should be designed lo handle 100% of the
predicted growth for the year 2000'

If no what percent of predicted growth for the
year 2000 should the communities' facilities plan
for'
( I Yes
( } No
( ) '001 - SOt
( i 79t - sot
I } SSI - MOt
( > m - jot
( i m - ot
A-l
-------
APPENDIX B

SANITARY SURVEY FORM
-------
SANITARY SURVEY FOR CONSTRUCTION GRANTS APPLICATION
Resident: Study Area:

Owner: Surveyor/Date:

Address of Weather.
Property:

Lot Location: Approximate Lot Dimensions:

Tax Map Designation: feet by feet

Preliminary Resident Interview

Age of Dwelling: years Age of sewage disposal system years

Type of Sewage Disposal System
Maintenance: years since septic tank pumped. Reason for pumping:_
years since sewage system repairs (Describe below)
Accessibility of septic tank manholes (Describe below)
Dwelling Use. Number of Bedrooms: actual, potential, Planned
Permanent Residents. adults, children
Seasonal Residents: , length of stay
Typical Number of Guests: , length of stay

If seasonal only, plan to become permanent residents: In how many years7

Water Using Fixtures (Note "w.c." Lf designed to conserve water):

Shower Heads Kitchen Lavoratories Clothes Washing Machini
Bathtubs Garbage Grinder Water Softener
_Bathroom Lavoratories Dishwasher Utility Sink
Toilets Other Kitchen Other Utilities
Plans for Changes:

Problems Recognized by Resident:
Resjdent Will Allow Follow-Up Engineering Studies Soil Borings Groundwater
Well Water Sample

B-l
-------
SANITARY SURVEY TOR CONSTRUCTION GRANTS APPLICATION
Water Supply

Water Supply Source (check one)
Public Water Supply
Community or Shared Well
On-Lot Well
Other (Describe)
If public water supply or
community well.
If shared or on-lot well:
Fixed Billing Rate $ /
Metered Rate $ /
Average usage for prior year: /

Drilled Well
Bored Well
Dug Well
Driven Well
Well Depth (if known):

Well Distance:
feet total

feet to house
feet to soil disposal area
Visual Inspection: Type of Casing

Integrity of Casing

Grouting Apparent7

Vent Type and Condition

Seal Type and Condition

Water Sample Collected.

Yes

(Attach Analysis Report)
feet to water table

feet to septic tank

feet to surface water
B-2
-------
SANITARY SURVEY FOR CONSTRUCTION GRANTS APPLICATION
Surveyor's Visual Observations of Effluent Disposal Site:
Drainage Facilities and Discharge Location.

Basement Sump

Footing Drains

Roof Drains

Driveway Runoff

Other

Property and Facility Sketch
B-3
-------
APPENDIX C

LABORATORY ANALYSIS OF GROUNDWATER
NEAR RAPID INFILTRATION SITES
-------
TableC-1 Sampling dates for Fontana-on Geneva Lake' 1979-1983
1979
201
Potable Well Lysimeter Buena Vista Creek Gardens Creek
29 Jan
22 Feb
20 Mar
—
— "•
17 Dec
13 May
1 Dec
4 May
21 Sep
10 May
18-19 Oct
21 May
5 June
11 July
26 Nov

13 May
—
4 May
21 Sep
10 May
18-19 Oct
—
—
26 Nov

13 May
1 Dec
4 May
—
10 May
18-19 Oct
—

26 Nov

13 May
1 Dec
4 May
—
10 May
18 -19 Oct
1980
1981
1982
1983 9 May 9 May
C-l
-------
TableC-2 Summary of data from Potable Well (201) and Lysiineter (202) at Fontana-on-Geneva LakQ .
Potable Well (201)
o
Date

"29 Jan 79
22 Feb 79
20 Mar 79
17 Dec 79
13 May 80
1 Dec 80
4 May 81
21 Sep 81
10 May 82
19 Oct 82
9 May §3
Lysimeter
Date

21 May 79
5 June 79
11 July 79
26 Nov 79
13 May 80
May 80
21 Sep 81
10 May 82
19 Oct 82
9 May 83
GW
El
(ft)

109.9
109.5
105.8
114 4
106.4
109.5
108.7
107.1
105.6
104.3
(202)
GW
El
(ft)

_
-
—
—
3.6
4.3
-
4.9
3.8
6.2
ORG
N
mg/1

0. ISO
0.437
0.405
0.088
0.114
0.005
1.07
0.098
0.01
0.104
0.113

ORG
N
mg/1

0.597
0.001
0.091
0.146
0.260
2.31
0 449
0.551
0.351
0.317
NH3
N
mg/1

0. 796
0.133
0.209
0.131
0.114
0.293
0.104
0.142
0.018
0.096
0.098

NH3 +
N02
N
mg/1
0.011
0.398
0.484
0.369
0.165
0.079
0.294
0.021
0 594
0.425
N03 +
NO 2
N
mg/1
0.005
0.035
0.11
0.692
0.145
0.067
0.01
0.012
0.020
0 012
0.013

N03 +
NO 2
N
mg/1
0.095
0.120
0.310
0 004
0.030
0.010
0.010
0.017
0.015
0.005
Tot
Phos
mg/1

0. 217
0 010
0.785
0.032
0.006
0.004
0.068
0.035
0.036
0 047
0.108

Tot
Phos
mg/1

0.021
0.029
0.002
0.002
0.003
0.016
0.081
0.016
0.015
0.008
Chlor-
ide
mg/1

60
48
50 5
50
82
102
96 5
189
156
196
244

Chlor-
ide
mg/1

163
168
239
252
266
218
464
250
313
183
Sul-
fate
mg/1

10.0
36.8
44.5
73
59
54
28.5
57.4
74.5
73.0
77.5

Sul-
fate
mg/1

25.0
-
34.0
38
21
32.0
91.5
84.0
46.0
39.0
Tot
Diss
Solids
mg/1
f^f s\f\
JUUU
440
535
450
512
595
460
614
718
686
745

Tot
Diss
Solids
mg/1
760
740
860
1050
795
770
948
1059
882
703
Alk
mg/1 as
CaC03

258
254
480
280
264
166
260
365
298
336
293

Alk
mg/1 as
CaC03

401
293
362
—
325
280
279
398
455
289
Hardness
mg/1 as
CaC03

330
312
288
304
280
424
468
354
332
430
420

Hardness
mg/1 as
CaC03

372
338
349
—
103
376
424
370
518
364
pH
(s.u.)

7.2
7.4
7.5
7.2
7.3
6.5
7.1
7.1
6.8
7.4
6.4

pH
(s.u.)

7.2
7.3
7.3
7.2
7.2
6.8
7.0
6.8
7.3
7.0
Temp
°C

u. y
11.0
14.0
12
5.6
14
14
13
14
11
11

Temp
°C

15
12
14.4
4
8.9
15
18.5
14
18
9.8
Con-
duct.
UMhos

724
706
798
744
742
770
850
1000
1050
1100
1900

Con-
duct.
UMhos

1416
1094
1122
1224
1183
540
1600
1800
1600
1500
1. Depth to GW below casing top
2. Depth (Staff gauge)
-------
TableC-3 Summary of data from Buena Vista Creek (203) and Gardens Creek (204) at Fontana-on- Geneva

Lake.

Buena Vista Creek (203)
n
i
Date

26 Nov 79
13 May 80
1 Dec 80
4 May 81
10 May 82
19 Oct 82
ORG
N
mg/1

0.330
0.155
0.240
1.36
0.502
0.135
NH3
N
mg/1

0.198
0 068
0.051
0 034
0.031
0.005
N03 +
NO 2
N
mg/1
0 357
0 562
1 36
2 56
0.810
1 91
Tot
Phos
mg/1

0.098
0 005
0 005
0.042
0.072
0 046
Chlor -
ide
mg/1

186
52
69
49
67
57
Sul-
fate
mg/1

45
43
48
10 2
86
55
Tot
Diss
Solids
mg/1
700
-
500
500
680
523
Alk
mg/1 as
CaC03

_
311
115
-
327
342
Hard-
ness
mg/1 as
CaC03

426
256
280
196
392
PH
(s.u )

7.6
7.8
7.4
7.6
7 6
7 9
Temp
°C

5
8.9
10
16
15
12
Con-
duct.
UMhos

980
791
740
880
840
1100
Gardens Creek (204)
26 Nov 79
13 May 80
1 Dec 80
4 May 81
10 May 82
19 Oct 82
_
0.042
0.006
0 42
0.400
0.008
0 209
0.013
0 130
0.036
0.010
0.002
6.810
2 340
3.210
3 600
2.900
4.160
0 028
0.002
0 002
0,013
0 017
0.031
54
26
47
86
92
65
47
49
48
48
43
51
_
-
591
570
718
-
_
319
186
-
322
336
_
422
424
390
424
362
7.2
7.4
6 8
6.8
6 9
7.3
7.8
6.1
11
11
10
12
816
856
940
900
1000
1200
-------
TableC-4 Sampling dates for Interlaken Resort Village 1979-1983
1979
1980
1981
1982
201
Downeradient Well 01
14 Sep
16 Nov
5 June
26 Jan
24 June
16 Dec
16 Jan
17 Dec
202
Downgradient Well 02
14 Sep
16 Nov
5 June
26 Jan
24 June
16 Dec
16 Jan
17 Dec
203
Upgradient Well U
14 Sep
16 Nov
5 June
26 Jan
24 June
16 Dec
16 Jan
17 Dec
204
Wastewater (eff)
14 Sep
16 Nov
5 June
26 Jan
24 June
16 Dec
16 Jan
17 Dec
205
Lake Como
14 Sep
16 Nov
5 June
26 Jan
24 June
16 Dec
16 Jan
17 Dec
1983 17 June
17 June
17 June
17 June
17 June
-------
TableC-5. Summary of data from 'Downgradient Wells Dl (201) and D2 (202) at Interlaken Resort Village.
Downgradient Well Dl (201)
o
I
Ui
Date

14 Sep 79
16 Nov 79
5 Jun 80
26 Jan 81
24 Jun 81
16 Dec 81
16 Jun 82
17 Dec 82
17 Jun 83
GW
El
(ft)

64.90
62.98
64.19
62.98
64 06
63 81
64.9
65.31
64.7
Downgradient Well
14 Sep 79
16 Nov 79
5 Jun 80
26 Jan 81
24 Jun 81
16 Dec 81
16 Jun 82
17 Dec 82
17 Jun 83
56.68
59.35
54.48
54.72
54.43
58.68
58 30
58.26
58.00
ORG2
N
mg/1

—
0 26
0.66
0.19
0 49
3 4
1.2
0.07
0 36
D2 (202)
0.6
0 75
1.17
0 11
1 53
1.2
0.48
0.25
3 21
NH3
N
mg/1

0 42
1 56
0.4
0 7
0 85
1 50
0 53
0 32
1 10

0.20
0.87
0 23
0 78
0.15
0.62
0.92
0.14
0 15
N03 +
N02
N
mg/1
0 8
0.12
1.20
3.1
3 45
2 0
6.0
2.6
6 81

0.50
0 12
0.57
1.03
0.95
1.1
1.4
0.02
2.58
Tot
Sol.
Phos
mg/1

0.001
0.040
0.044
0 049
0.858

_
-
_
_
0.001
0.070
0.028
0.035
0.578
Chlor-
ide
mg/1

153
168
122
137
136
149
193
200
70

339
331
372
373
321
291
302
266
236
Sul-
fate
mg/1

18
18 2
44
47
44
45
35
23

10
9
3.6
11.8
12
7
23
16
8
Tot
Diss.
Solids
mg/1
787
704
738
1012
1132
6124
1402
448
778

1320
1018
1114
1266
1228
1256
1266
982
970
Alk
mg/1 as
CaC03

336
368
434
360
428
668
404
500

416
445
484
515
516
520
524
474
480
Hard-
ness
mg/1 as
CaC03

456
372
588
564
640
590
675
470

692
640
652
700
656
600
600
700
460
PH
(a.u.)

6 9
7.7
7.0
6.9
6.5
8.5
8.0
7.6

—
_
_
_
6.5
7.4
7.5
7.4
1. Add 800 feet for sealevel datum

2. Org-N derived by Total kj eldahl nitrogen minus ammonia nitrogen
-------
TableC-6 Summary of data from background well-U (203) and STP effluent analysis (204) at Interlaken
Resort Village
Background Well-U (203)
Date

14 Sep 79
16 Nov 79
5 June 80
26 Jan 81
24 June 81
16 Dec 81
16 June 81
17 Dec 82
17 June 83
GW
El
(ft)

92 26
90 46
88 63
89 09
89 01
88 46
90 07
90 51
92 7
ORG2
N
mg/1

1.3
0 48
0 42
0 13
0 14
4.4
1 1
0 16
1 57
NH3
N
mg/1

0.98
0 47
0 48
0 87
1 09
0 62
0 43
0 34
0 33
N03 +
NO 2
N
mg/1
0 45
0.32
0 55
1 28
1 22
1 2
1 9
0 5
1.31
Tot
Sol
Phns
mg/1
_
-
-
-
0 001
0 049
0 038
0 025
0 286
Chlor-
ide
mg/1

20
76
59
66
49
53
61
54
59
Sul-
fate
mg/1

11
48
23
47
60
50
42
86
36
Tot.
Diss
Solids
mg/1
450
816
646
650
704
958
878
1320
834
Alk
mg/1 as
CaC03

308
443
424
452
436
420
494
440
444
Hard-
ness
mg/1 as
CaC03
400
548
366
520
548
510
690
650
520
oH
(s u
\ O » LI *

6.3
6.9
7.4
7.0
7.1
6 5
7 8
8.3
7.9
Sewage Treatment Plant Effluent (204)
14 Sep 79
16 Nov 79
5 June 80
26 Jan 81
24 June 81
16 Dec 81
16 June 82
17 Dec 82
17 June 83

-
-
-
-
-
-
-

4 68
2 81
5 9
5 02
1 72
1.50
10 7
0.71
1.06
17
1 0
10
9
0 18
0 48
11.3
1 7
0 17
0 55
2.55
0.72
19 5
12 8
5 1
6 3
2.8
9.83
-
-
-
-
3.50
3.4
4.0
3.5
4 5
711
687
71
623
364
554
278
230
395
11
6
6 4
13.4
7 0
6
32
23
36
1496
1430
1500
1530
1142
1680
1084
1520
1110
350
340
402
358
316
376
532
330
340
376
268
374
500
324
380
310
600
380
6 5
7 0
7 6
6.9
7.4
7.1
7 5
7.4
7.7
1. Add 800 feet for sealevel datum
2. Organic-N derived by total kjeldahl nitrogen minus annonia nitrogen
-------
Table C-7 Summary of data from Lake Gomo (205).

Lake Como (205)

n
"•4
Date

14 Sep 79
16 Nov 79
5 June 80
26 Jan 81
24 June 81
16 Dec 81
16 June 82
17 Dec 82
17 June 83
GW
El
(ft)

-
49.7
49 7
49.7
-
-
-
-
"
ORG
N
mg/1

1.08
1.27
1 91
2 18
1 89
2.4
1 3
0.70
3 75
NH3
N
rag/1

0.28
0.35
0 05
1 18
0.13
0 23
0 25
0 25
0 17
N03 +
N02
N
mg/1
1 0
0.1
0.3
1 95
1.25
2.2
1.5
0.29
1.13
Tot
Sol.
Phos
mg/1
-
-
-
-
0.030
0 040
0 036
0 21
0.677
Chlor-
ide
mg/1

20
41
25
33
36
318
47
24
29
Sul-
fate
rag /I

15
24
8 8
23.3
17 0
13
23
40
15
Tot.
Diss.
Solids
mg/1
312
292
268
338
308
1198
628
98
296
Alk
mg/1 as
CaC03

117
158
162
168
170
368
216
82
180
Hard-
ness
mg/1 as
CaC03
200
220
220
500
228
360
220
400
210
_. TJ
pH
(s . u. J

6.8
7.4
8.3
6.9
7.7
7 4
8 2
6.2
7.8
1 Add 800 feet for USGS sealevel datum
-------
TableC-8. Sampling dates for Williams Bay, 1982
201
Well 1

Background

7 June
23 June
8 July
202
Well 2
Upper
Seepage cells
203
Well 3
Upper
Seepage cells

7 June
23 June
8 July
204
Well 4
Upper
Seepage cells

7 June
23 June
8 July
205
STP effluent
206
B 1
Between Upper &
Lower Seepage cells
23 June
8 July
CO
-------
Table L-9 Nummary of groundwater elevations for monitoring wells (201, 203, 204) at WilUams Bay,
1982
Date
7 June
201 (Background)
GW el. (feet)
951 12
203 (Upper
Seepage cells)
GW el (feet)

968.42
204 (Upper
Seepage
GW el. (feet)

966.38
Table 10. Sun^ry^of Jata from monitoring wells (201,203,204) and sewage treatment nlant effluent at
1982 TKN
Dates mg/1
23 June 1.87
8 July 0.92
Upper Seepage Cells,
23 June 2.11
8 July 1 38
Upper Seepage Cells,
23 June 1 49
8 July 1.11
N03-N
mg/1
11 0
W3, 203
4.47
W4, 204
5 44
Chlor-
ides
mg/1
31 0
35.0

33 0
39.0

41.0
40 0
PH
(s.u )
7 5
7.0

7 6
7.0

7.6
7 0
Conduct
m mhos
800
800

680
780

860
820
BODs
mg/1
24.0
10.0

32.0
14.0

38.0
15.0
Na
mg/1
39 0
23.0

37.0
39.0

44.0
40.0
-------
Table C-10 Cont.
Sewage Treatment Plant effluent- 205
1982
Dates

23 June
8 July
TKN
mg/1

—
5 54
N03-N
mg/1

—

Chlor-
ides
mg/1
-
41.0
pH
(s.u. )

-
7 0
Conduct
m mhos

-
820
BOD
mg/1

6.0
18.0
Na
mg/1

—
36.0
1 TKN = Total kjeldahl nitrogen
o
-------
Groundwater and surface water sampling locations for Fontana-on-Geneva lake,
Interlaken Resort Village, and Williams Bay, based on WDWR sampling reports.
Fon tana-on-Geneva Lake

Well 201. Potable well. Located on WWTP site, well depth is 135-150 feet.

Well 202. Suction vacuum Lysimeter. Ceramic cup 8 feet below bottom of
west lagoon

Well 203. Buena Vista Creek

Well 204. Gardens Creek
Interlaken Resort Village

Well 201. Downgradient well, Dl, approximately 600 feet north of seepage
bed //I.

Well 202. Downgradient well, D2, approximately 500 feet north of seepage
bed #2

Well 203. Background well, U, approximately 400 feet southwest of absorption
field #1, and 500 feet southeast of absorption field #2

Well 204. Wastewater effluent

Well 205. Lake Como
Williams Bay

Well 201. Well Wl West well, 1700 feet west of existing upper seepage cell
along access road.

Well 202. Well W2 West dike well, N % point at west dike of existing upper
seepage cell

Well 203. Well W3 East dike well, N % point at east dike of existing upper
seepage cell

Well 204. Well W4 SE cor well, SB corner of existing upper seepage cell
dike #2

Well 205. Wastewater effluent from secondary clanfier.

Well 206. B-l lower cell, located 200 feet NW oflower seepage cell.

Well 207 B-2 lower cell, to be located 15 feet east of lower seepage cell
at 200 feet N of SE corner
-------
APPENDIX D

QUANTITIES AND COST ESTIMATES
FOR INITIAL AND FUTURE
ONSITE SYSTEMS
-------
Table D-l. Quantities and costs for constructing initial upgrades and operating
onsite systems for the Lake Como Beach RSSA.
Item Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage <)&•!

Seasonal structures
Septic tank-SFD
Upgrade
Replacement
Soil absorption systems
Seepage bed
Pump tank & mound
Holding tank
SFD
Large commercial
Low flow toilet
Blackwater holding tank
Initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Initial capital cost
482
418
64
482
42
27 (1)'
-
15
0
50
50
-
-
-
_
130
715
-
1,050
a 4,790
-
-
-
1,470
750
-
-
-
_
59,718
45,760
-
44,100
129,330
-
-
-
73,500
37,500
389,908
136,468
526,376
._
27,456
—
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
22,500
49,956
-
-
3,856
-
-
4,320
-
1,792
-
3,000
-
--
2,000
15,468
--
-
Permanent structures

Septic tank-SFD 455 - _ 9, .00
Upgrade 399 130 51,870
Replacement 56 715 40,040 24,024
Soil absorption systems 455 _ _ 4,'550
Seepage bed 42 1,050 44,100
Pump tank & mound 28 (2)a 4,790 134,120 _ 1,920
Holding tank SFD 11 _ _ 7,920
Large commercial 2 _ _ _ 7,^00
Low flow toilet 33 1,470 48,510
Blackwater holding tank 33 750 23,430 14,058 3,<>60
Initial cost - _ 342,OJO 38,082 34,650
Service factor (35%) - - 119,725
Initial capital cost - - 461,795

aThe first number is the number of initial upgrades and the number in parenthess is
the number of existing systems
D-l
-------
Table D-2. Quantities and costs for constructing initial upgrades and operating
onsite systems for the Lake Geneva Golf Hills area of the Lake Geneva
RSSA
Item
Quantity
Unit Cost
Construction
Salvage
O&M
Seasonal structures
Septic tank-SFD
Upgrade
Replacement
Soil absorption systems
Seepage bed
Pump tank & mound
Holding tank
SFD
Large commercial
Low flow toilet
Blackwater holding tank
Initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Initial capital cost
130
715

1,050
4,790
1,470
750
Permanent structures

Septic tank-SFD
Upgrade
Replacement
Soil absorption systems
Seepage bed
Pump tank & mound
Holding tank SFD
Large commercial
Low flow toilet
Blackwater holding tank
Initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Initial capital cost
83
79
4
83
8
2
2

11
11
130
715

1,050
4,790
1,470
750
10,270
2,860

8,400
9,580
16,170
8,250
55,530
19,436
74,966
1,716
4,950
6,666
1,660
830

128
1,440
1,320
5,378
D-2
-------
Table D-i Quantities and costs for constructing initial upgrades and operating
onsite systems for the Southeast ihore area of tne r.a-ce Ceie a R5S-.
Item Quantity Lnit Cost Construction Salvage 0&1

Seasonal structures
Septic tank-SFD
Upgrade
Replacement
Soil absorption systems
Seepage bed
Pump tank & mound
Holding tank
SFD
Large commercial
Low flow toilet
Blackwater holding tank
Initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Initial capital cost
Permanent structures
Septic tank-SFD
Upgrade
Replacement
Soil absorption systems
Seepage bed
Pump tank & mound
Holding tank SFD
Large commercial
Low flow toilet
Blackwater holding tank
Initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Initial capital cost
167
154
13
167
8
8
-
-
-
14
14
-
-
~"

90
81
9
90
10
5
-
-
7
7
-
-
-
_
130
715
-
1,050
4,790
-
-
-
1,470
750
-
-
—

_
130
715
-
1,050
4,790
-
-
1,470
750
-
-
-
—
20,020
9,295
-
8,400
38,320
-
-
-
20,580
10,500
107,123
37,493
144,616

_
14,608
6,435
_
10,500
23,950
-
-
10,290
5,250
71,033
24,862
95,895
__
-
5,577
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6,300
11,877
-
—

_
-
3,861
—
-
-
-
-
-
3,150
7,011
-
_
1 , 3 J6
-
-
1,6'0
-
5,2
..
-
-
-
560
4,0^8
-
—

1.8CO
-
-
9CO
-
-
-
-
-
840
3,860
-
-
D-3
-------
Table D-4. Quantities and costs for constructing initial upgrades and operating
onsite systems for Section 11 of Walworth Town within the Fontana RSSA.
Item
Quantity
Unit Cost
Construction
Salvage
O&M
Seasonal, structures

Septic tank-SFD
Upgrade
Replacement
Soil absorption systems
Seepage bed
Pump tank & mound
Holding tank
SFD
Large commercial
Low flow toilet
Blackwater holding tank
Initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Initial capital cost
4
4
130
715

1,050
4,790
1,470
750
520
32
40
520
182
702
72
Permanent structures

1,050
4,790
1,470
750
1,040
1,040
364
1,404
160
D-4
-------
Table D-5. Quantities and costs for constructing initial upgrades and operating
onsite systems for the Southwest Shore area of the Fontana RSSA.
Item
Quantity
Unit Cost
Construction
Salvage
O&M
Seasonal structures
Septic tank-SFD
Upgrade
Replacement
Soil absorption systems
Seepage bed
Pump tank & mound
Holding tank
SFD
Large commercial
Low flow toilet
Blackwater holding tank
Initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Initial capital cost
Permanent structures
Septic tank-SFD
Upgrade
Replacement
Soil absorption systems
Seepage bed
Pump tank & mound
Holding tank SFD
Large commercial
Low flow toilet
Blackwater holding tank
Initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Initial capital cost
151
127
2k
151
11
3
-
3
-
13
13
-
_
—

43
37
6
43
4
3
2
-
4
4
-
-
-

130
715
-
1,050
4,790
-
-
-
1,470
750
-
-
—

_
130
715
_
1,050
4,790
-
-
1,470
750
-
-
-

16,510
17,160
—
11,550
14,370
-
-
-
19,110
9,750
88,450
30,958
119,408

8,840
4,290
—
4,200
14,370
-
-
5,880
3,000
40,580
14,203
54,783

_
10,296
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
5,850
16,146
-
™

_
-
2,575
—
-
-
-
-
-
1,800
4,375
-
-
1 , 208
_
_
1,510

192
-
600
-
-
520
4,030
-
—

860
_
-
430
_
192
1,440
-
-
480
3,402
-
-
D-5
-------
Table D-6. Quantities and costs for constructing initial upgrades and operating
onsite systems for the Northwest Shore area of the Williams Bay RSSA.
Item
Quantity
Unit Cost
Construction
Salvage
O&M
Seasonal structures
Septic tank-SFD
Upgrade
Replacement
Soil absorption systems
Seepage bed
Pump tank & mound
Holding tank
SFD
Large commercial
Low flow toilet
Blackwater holding tank
Initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Initial capital cost
Permanent structures
Septic tank-SFD
Upgrade
Replacement
Soil absorption systems
Seepage bed
Pump tank & mound
Holding tank SFD
Large commercial
Low flow toilet
Blackwater holding tank
Initial cost
Service factor (35%)
Initial capital cost
162
150
12
162
13
1
—
-
-
4
4
-
-
™

50
47
3
50
2
1
-
-
1
1
-
-
-

130
715
-
1,050
4,790
-
-
-
1,470
750
-
-
—

_
130
715
-
1,050
4,790
-
-
1,470
750
-
-
-
_
22,902
8,580
-
13,650
4,790
-
-
-
5,880
3,000
58,802
20,581
79,383

_
9,250
2,145
-
2,100
4,790
-
-
1,470
750
20,505
7,177
27,682
_
-
5,148
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,800
6,948
-
—

_
-
1,287
-
-
-
-
-
-
450
1,737
-
-
1,296
-
_
1,620
-
64
-
-
-
-
160
3,140
-
—

1,000
-
-
500
-
64
-
-
-
120
1,684
-
-
D-6
-------
Table D-7. Quantities and costs for constructing initial upgrades and operating
onsite systems for the Geneva Bay Estates and Forest Rest subdivisions
within the Lake Geneva RSSA.
Item
Seasonal structures
Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage O&M
Septic tank-SFD 10 - - - 80
Upgrade 10 130 1,300
Replacement - 715 - -
Soil absorption systems 10 - - - 100
Seepage bed - 1,050 - -
Pump tank & mound - 4,790 - -
Holding tank - - -
SFD - - -
Large commercial - - -
Low flow toilet - 1,470 - -
Blackwater holding tank - 750 - - -
Initial cost - - 1,300 - 180
Service factor (35%) - - 455
Initial capital cost - - 1,755

Permanent structures

Septic tank-SFD 20 - - - 400
Upgrade 20 130 2,600
Replacement - 715
Soil absorption systems 20 - - - 20C
Seepage bed _ i,Q50 - -
Pump tank & mound - 4,790 - -
Holding tank SFD - _
Large commercial _ ^ _
Low flow toilet - 1,470
Blackwater holding tank - 750 - -
Initial cost - - 2,600 - 600
Service factor (35%) - - 910
Initial capital cost - - 3,510
D-7
-------
Table D-8
Quantities and costs for constructing future upgrades and new systems and
operating onsite systems for the Lake Como Beach RSSA.
Item
Seasonal Upgrades
Quantity
Unxt Cost
Construction
Salvage
O&M
Septic tank
Soil absorption system
Seepage bed
Pump tank & mound
Low flow toilet
Blackwater holding tank
Holding tank-SFD
Total future costs
Annual future costs
Permanent upgrades
Septic tank
Soil absorption system
Seepage bed
Pump tank & mound
Low flow toilet
Blackwater holding tank
Holding tank-SFD
Total future costs
Annual future costs
New permanent residences
Building sewer
Septic tank
Soil absorption system
Seepage bed
Dry Well
Pumptank & mound
Total future costs
Annual future costs
14
39
24
15
27
27
3
-
~

15
44
25
19
16
16
8
-
—

257
257
257
176
2
79
-
-
750
-
1,050
4,790
1,470
750
3,400
-
—

750
-
1 ,050
4,790
1,470
750
3,400
-
—

35
650
-
1 ,970
1 ,450
4,790
-
-
10,500
-
25,200
71 ,850
39,690
20,250
10,200
177,690
8,885

11,250
-
26,250
91,010
23,520
12,000
27,200
191 ,230
9,562

8,995
167,050
-
346,720
2,900
378,410
904,075
45,204
6,300
-
-
-
-
12,150
6,120
24,570
—

6,750
-
-
-
-
7,200
16,320
30,270
—

5,400
100,230
-
-
-
-
105,630
-
112
390
_
960
_
1,080
600
3,142
157

300
440
-
1 ,216
-
1,920
5,760
9,636
482

3,084
2,570
-
-
5,056
10,710
536
D-8
-------
Table D-9. Quantities and costs for constructing future upgrades and new systems and
operating onsite systems for the Lake Geneva Golf Hills area of the
Lake Geneva RSSA.
Item
Seasonal Upgrades
Quantit>
Unit Cost
Construction
Salvage
O&M
Septic tank
Soil absorption system
Seepage bed
Pump tank & mound
Low flow toilet
Blackwater holding tank
Holding tank-SFD
Total future costs
Annual future costs
Permanent upgrades
Septic tank
Soil absorption system
Seepage bed
Pump tank & mound
Low flow toilet
Blackwater holding tank
Holding tank-SFD
Total future costs
Annual future costs
New permanent residences
Building sewer
Septic tank
Soil absorption system
Seepage bed
Dry Well
Pumptank & mound
Total future costs
Annual future costs
-

4
1-0
7
3
8
8
2"
-
—

33
33
33
23
-
10
-
-
750
1,050
4,790
1 ,470
750
3,400

750
-
I ,050
4, 790
1 ,470
750
3,400
-
—

35
650
-
l',970
1,450
4, 790
-
-

7
14
11
6
6
37
1

1
21

47
11
5
-

,000
-
,350
,370
,760
,000
,800
,520
,876

,155
,450
-
,310

,900
,815
,791
-

1', 800
-
-
-
-
3,600'
4,080
9,480'
—

693
12,870
-
-
-
-
13,563
-
-

80
100
-
192
-
960
l',440
2,772
139

™
396
330
-
_
640
1, 566
68
D-9
-------
Table D-10. Quantities and costs for constructing future upgrades and new systems and
operating onsite systems for the Southeast Shore area of the Lake
Geneva RSSA.
Item
Seasonal Upgrades
Quantity
Unit Cost
Construction
Salvage
O&M
Septic tank
Soil absorption system
Seepage bed
Pump tank & mound
Low flow toilet
Blackwater holding tank
Holding tank-SFD
Total future costs
Annual future costs
Permanent upgrades
Septic tank
Soil absorption system
Seepage bed
Pump tank & mound
Low flow toilet
Blackwater holding tank
Holding tank-SFD
Total future costs
Annual future costs
New permanent residences
Building sewer
Septic tank
Soil absorption system
Seepage bed
Dry Well
Pumptank & mound
Total future costs
Annual future costs
14
22
14
8
16
16
5
-
~

8
13
10
3
10
10
3
-
_

42
42
42
30
2
10
-
-
750
_
1,050
4,790
1,470
750
3,400
-
«

750
-
1 ,050
4,790
1 ,470
750
3,400
-
_

35
650
-
1 ,970
1 ,450
4,790
-
-
10,500
-
14,700
38,320
23,520
12,000
17,000
116,040
5,802

6,000
-
10,500
14,370
14, 700
7,500
10,200
63,270
3, 164

1 ,470
27,300
-
59,100
2,900
47,900
138,670
6,934
6,300
-
-
-
-
7,200
10,200
23,700
*•*"

3,600
-
-
-
-
4,500
6,100
14,220
—

882
16,380
-
-
-
-
17,262
_
112
220
-
512
-
640
1 ,000
2,484
124

160
130
-
192
-
1,200
2,160
3,842
192

„ _
504
420
-
-
640
1,564
78
D-10
-------
Table D-l1. Quantities and costs for constructing future upgrades and new systems and
operating onsite systems for Section 11 of Walworth Town within
the Fontana RSSA.
Item
Seasonal Upgrades
Quantity
Unit Cost
Construction
Salvage
OS,*1
Septic tank
Soil absorption system
Seepage bed
Pump tank & mound
Low flow toilet
Blackwater holding tank
Holding tank-SFD
Total future costs
Annual future costs
Permanent upgrades
Septic tank
Soil absorption system
Seepage bed
Pump tank & mound
Low flow toilet
Blackwater holding tank
Holding tank-SFD
Total future costs
Annual future costs
New permanent residences
Building sewer
Septic tank
Soil absorption system
Seepage bed
Dry Well
Pumptank & mound
Total future costs
Annual future costs
-
1
-
1
-
-
-
-
~"

1
-
1
-
-
_
-
•—

24
24
24
20
_
4
-
-

1
4
1

1
1
4

750
-
,050
,790
,470
750
,400
-
~

750
-
,050
,790
,470
750
,400
-
—

35
650
-
,970
,450
, 790
-
-
-
-
-
4,790
-
-
-
4,790
240

-
_
4,790
-
_
_
4, 790
240

840
15,600
-
39,400
-
19, 160
75,000
3, 750
_ _
10
- -
6'+
- -
-
-
74
4

10
_
64
_
-
_
74
— 4

504
9,360 283
240
-
-
25h
9,864 784
39
D-ll
-------
Table D-12. Quantities and costs for constructing future upgrades and new systems and
operating onsite systems for the Southwest Shore area of the Fontana
RSSA
Item
Seasonal Upgrades
Quantity
Unit Cost
Construction
Salvage
O&M
Septic tank
Soil absorption system
Seepage bed
Pump tank & mound
Low flow toilet
Blackwater holding tank
Holding tank-SFD
Total future costs
Annual future costs
Permanent upgrades
Septic tank
Soil absorption system
Seepage bed
Pump tank & mound
Low flow toilet
Blackwater holding tank
Holding tank-SFD
Total future costs
Annual future costs
New permanent residences
Building sewer
Septic tank
Soil absorption system
Seepage bed
Dry Well
Pumptank & mound «
Total future costs
Annual future costs
10
18
12
6
10
10
4
-
~

2
5
2
3
2
2
3
-
" "

63
63
63
54
-
9
-
-

1,
4,
1,

1,
1,
4,

750
-
050
790
470
750
400
-
~

750
-
050
790
470
750
400
-
•™

35
650
-
970
450
790
-
-
7

12
28
14
7
13
84
4

2
14
2
1
10
32
1

2
40

106

43
192
9
,500
-
,600
,740
,700
,500
,600
,640
,232

,500
-
, 100
,370
,940
,500
,200
,610
,631

,205
,950
-
,380
-
,110
,645
,632
4,500
—
-
-
-
4,500
8,160
17,160
—

900
-
-
-
-
900
6,120
7,920
"

1,323
24,570
-
—
-
-
25,893
-
80
180
_
384
_
400
800
1,844
92

40
50
-
192
-
240
2, 160
2,682
134

_
756
630
-
-
576
1,962
98
D-12
-------
Table D-13. Quantities and costs for constructing future upgrades and new systems and
operating onsite systems for the Northwest Shore (Williams Bay, Linn
Township)
Item
Seasonal Upgrades
Quantity
Unit Cost
Construction
Salvage
O&M
Septic tank
Soil absorption system
Seepage bed
Pump tank & mound
Low flow toilet
Blackwater holding tank
Holding tank-SFD
Total future costs
Annual future costs
Permanent upgrades
Septic tank
Soil absorption system
Seepage bed
Pump tank & mound
Low flow toilet
Blackwater holding tank
Holding tank-SFD
Total future costs
Annual future costs
New permanent residences
Building sewer
Septic tank
Soil absorption system
Seepage bed
Dry Well
Pumptank & mound
Total future costs
Annual future costs
18
26
18
8
9
9
-
-
~

2
3
3
—
2
2
-
-
—

87
87
87
69
12
6
-
-
750
-
1 ,050
4,790
1,470
750
3,400
-
—

750
-
1 ,050
4, 790
1,470
750
3,400

—

35
650
_
1 ,970
1,450
4,790
-
-
13,500
-
18,900
38,320
13,230
6,750
-
90,700
4,535

1 ,500
-
3, 150
-
2,940
1 ,500
-
9,090
455

3,045
56,550
_
135,930
17,400
28,740
241,665
12,083
8,100
-
-
-
-
4,050
-
12,150
~

900
-
-
-
-
900
-
1 ,800

1,827
33,930
—
_
_
_
35,757
-
144
26C
-
512
-
360
-
1,276
64

40
30
-
-
-
240
-
310
16

1,040
870
—
_
384
2,298
115
D-13
-------
Table D-14. Quantities and costs for constructing future upgrades and new systems and
operating onsite systems for the Geneva Bay Estated and Forest Rest
subdivisions of the Lake Geneva RSSA

Xtem Quantity Unit Cost Construction Salvage O&M
Seasonal Upgrades

Septic tank - 750
Soil absorption system
Seepage bed - 1,050
Pump tank & mound - 4,790
Low flow toilet - 1,470
Blackwater holding tank - 759
Holding tank-SFD - 3,400
Total future costs
Annual future costs
Permanentupgrades

Septic tank - 750
Soil absorption system
Seepage bed _ 1 ,050
Pump tank & mound _ 4,790
Low flow toilet - 1,470
Blackwater holding tank _ 750
Holding tank-SFD - 3,400
Total future costs
Annual future costs
New permanent residences

Building sewer 9 35 315 189
Septic tank 9 650 5,850 3,510 108
Soil absorption system 9 - - 90
Seepage bed 8 1,970 15,760
Dry Well - 1,450 - - -
Puraptank & mound 1 4,790 4,790 - 64
Total future costs - - 26,715 3,699 262
Annual future costs - - 1,336 - 13
D-14
-------
Table D-15. Initial inspection and administration costs for establishing the
management district and performing initial site inspections and
disaggregations by service area

Item Unit Cost Quantity Total

Site inspections $10/hr 7,000 hr $70,000
Documentation and resident
notifications 7/hr 3,000 hr 21,000
Administration 15/hr 3,000 hr 45,000
Subtotal 136,000
Other direct and indirect cost(200%) 272,000
Total 408,000
Residents in Service Area

Lake Como RSSA

Lake Geneva RSSA
Southeast Shore
L.G. Golf Hills
Geneva Bay Est. & For. Rest

Fontana RSSA
Southwest Shore
Section II

Williams Bay RSSA
Northwest Shore
Residences
937
257
83
30
194
12
212
1725
Cost Share
$221,544
60,345
19,584
6,936
46,104
2,856
50,184
407,553
-------
Table D-16 Annual costs for the unsewered areas within the RSSAs and
disaggregation by service area.
Item Unit Cost Quantity Total

Clerical support $7/hr 1,000 hr $7,000
Sanitarian $15/hr 2,000 hr 30.000
Subtotal 37,000
Other direct and indirect costs (200%) 74,000
Total 111,000
Residents in Service Area

Lake Como RSSA

Lake Geneva RSSA
Southeast Shore
L.G Golf Hills
Geneva Bay Est & For Rest

Fontana RSSA
Southwest Shore
Section II

Williams Bay RSSA
Northwest Shore
Residences
937
257
83
30
194
12
212
1725
Annual Cost Share

$60,273
16,539
5,328
1,887
12,543
111
13,653
111,003
-------
APPENDIX E

PROJECTED WASTEWATER FLOWS AND LOADINGS
-------
Table E-l Wastewater Flows projected for Lake Geneva WWTP for the year 2005.

Sewered
a
Parameter
Basis
Population

Permanent residential
Seasonal residential
Transient
Total

Wastewater Flow

Base Flow
Permanent residential
Seasonal residential
Trans lent
Subtotal
Comiuerc tal
Industrial
Municipal
Average Daily Base Flow
Peak Factor
Peak Daily Base Flow
50 g/c/d
40 g/c/d
35 g/c/d

45 g/c/d
10 g/c/d
5 g/c/d
Annual Average
Wettest 30-day
Maximum Day

Total Flow
Average
Wettest 30-day
Maximum Day
Units Winter

10,449

10,449
nigd
mgd
mgd
mgd
mgd
mgd
0.132
0.460
2. 146
1.280
1.608
4.385
Summer
10,449
1,431
2.045
13,925
mgd
mgd
mgd
mgd
mgd
mgd
mgd
mgd

mgd
0 522

0.522"
0.470
0.104
0.052
1.148
1.95
2.239
0.522
0 057
0.072
0.651
0.470
0.104
0 052
1.277
1.95
2.490
0.132
0.460
2.146
1.409
1.737
4.636
Factors from Donohue & As&oc., Inc. (1982b).

See Table C-6.
fc-1
-------
Table E-2 Wastewater Flows projected for Walworth WWTP for the year 2005

Sewered RSSA

Basis
Parameter

Population

Permanent residential
Seasonal residential
Transient
Total

Wajstewater Flow

Base^Flpw
Permanent residential
Seasonal residential
Transient
Subtotal
Conraercial
Industrial
Hunicipal
Average Daily Base Flow
Peak Factor
Peak Daily Base Flow

I/I6
Annual Average
Wettest 30-day
Maximum Day

Total Flow
Average
Wettest 30-day
Maximum Day
Units Winter
2528
2528
mgd
mgd
mgd
tngd
mgd
mgd
0
0.066
0.132
0 206
0.272
0.853
Summer
2528
90
50
2668
44 g/c/d*
40 g/c/d°
35 g/c/db
26.4 g/c/da'c
7.2 g/c/d^
4.1 g/c/da'c
mgd
mgd
mgd
mgd
mgd
mgd
mgd
mgd
mgd
0.111
0.111
0.067
0.018
0.010
0.206
3.5
0.721
0.111
0.004
0.002
0.117
0.067
0.018
0.010
0 212
3.5
0.742
0
0.066
0.132
0.212
0.278
0.874
Factors from Design Conditions received by WAPORA from Paul Wintheiser,
Donohue, as a supplement to Donohue & Assoc., Inc. (1983).

Based on factors used for Lake Geneva wastewater flow projections Donohue &
Assoc., Inc. (1982b).

Based on permanent residential population.

From Donohue & Assoc., Inc. (1983).

See Table C-6.
E-2
-------
Table E-3 Wa&tewater Flows projected for Fontana WWTP for the year 2005.

Severed RSSA

Parameter
Basis
Population

Permanent residential
Seasonal re&idential
Transient Abbey Resort
Other
Total

Waste water Flow

Base Flow
Permanent residential
Seasonal re&idential
Transient.
Abbey Resort
Other
Subtotal
Commercial
Industrial
Municipal
Average Daily Base Flow
Peak Factor
Peak Daily Base Flow
jJnits Winter

2253

430
81.3 g/c/d!
40.0 g/c/d

146.5 g/c/d*
35 0 g/c/d"
a,c
18.0 g/c/da'C

3.9 g/c/da»C
Annual Average
Wettest 30-day
Maximum Day

Total Flow
Average
Wettest 30-day
Maximum Day
2883
Summer
2453
2856
753
359
6421
mgd
ragd
mgd
mgd
mgd
mgd
mgd
mgd
mgd
mgd
mgd
mgd
mgd
mgd
0.199
0.063
0.262
0.044
0.010
0 316
2.26
0.714
0.187
0.325
0.769
0.503
0.641
1.483
0.199
0.114
0.110
0.013
0.436
0.044
0.010
0.490
2.26
1.107
0.187
0.325
0.769
0.677
0.815
1 876
Based on an analysis of water records in I/I report (Donohue & Assoc.,
Inc. 1978d). See Table D-7.

Based on factors used for Lake Geneva wastewater flow projections
(Donohue & Assoc., Inc. I982b).

Based on permanent residential population.

Factors from Donohue & Assoc., Inc. 1983.

See Table C-6.
E-T
-------
Table E-4 Wastewater Flows projected for Williams Bay WWTP for the year 2005.

Sewered RSSA

Parameter Basis Units Winter Summer
Permanent residential
Seasonal residential
Transient
Total

Wastewater Flow
Base Flow

Permanent residential
Seasonal residential
Transient
Subtotal
Commercial
Industrial
Municipal
Average Daily Base Flow
Peak Factor
Peak Daily Base Flow
Annual Aveiage
Wettest 30-day
Maximum Day

Total Flow

Average
Wettest 30-day
Maximum Day
mgd
mgd
mgd
mgd
mgd
mgd
2998
2998
0.239
0.279
1.800
0.518
0.558
2.163
2998
1911
1662
6571
54.7 g/c/d.
40 g/c/d.
35 g/c/d°

31.1 g/c/dd)C
7.2 g/c/da»c

mgd
mgd
mgd

mgd
0.164

0.164
0 093
0,022
0.279
1.3
0.363
0.163
0.076
0.058
0.298
0.093
0.022
0.413
1.3
0.537
0.239
0.279
1.800
0.652
0.692
2.337
Based on an analysis of water records in I/I report (Donohue & Assoc ,
Inc. 1978c). See Table C-8.

Based on factors used for Lake Geneva wastewater flow projections
(Donohue & Assoc., Inc. 1982b).

Based upon residential permanent population.

From Donohue & Assoc., Inc. (1983).

See Table C-6.
E-4
-------
Table E-5 BOD, suspended solids and nutrient loadings for Geneva Lake service
area for the year 2005
jtem

Lake Geneva
Population
BOD
SS
TKN
NH -N
P J
Unit
Ib/day
Ib/day
Ib/day
Ib/day
Ib/day
Permanent
10,449
1,776
2,090
355
209
77
Seasonal Transient Total
1,431
200
229
37
23
8
2,045
245
286
55
29
11
13,925
2,221
2,605
447
261
96
Fontana
Popu lation
BOD
SS
TKN
Nh -N
P J
Ib/day
Ib/day
Ib/day
Ib/day
Ib/day
2,453
589
564
83
49
18
2,856
543
514
74
46
17
1,112
189
177
24
16
6
6,421
1,321
1,255
181
111
41
Walworth
Population
BOD Ib/day
Sb Ib/day
TKN Ib/day
Nh -N Ib/day
P 3 Ib/day
,528
430
506
86
51
19
90
13
14
Z
I
1
50
6
7
1
I
2,668
449
527
89
53
20
Williams Bay
Population
BOD Ib/day
bb Ib/day
TKN Ib/day
Nh -N Ib/day
P 3 Ib/day
2,998
510
600
192
60
72
1,911
268
306
97
31
36
1,662
199
233
75
23
28
6,571
977
1,139
364
114
136
Based on design factors presented in Table 2-20.

Loading for winter season except for Fontana which includes an additional
430 winter transient population at the Abbey Resort (see Table C-3), BOD-73,
SS-69, TKN-10, Nh -N-6, and P-2 Ib/day.

Loading for summer season.
E-5
-------
Table E~6 I/I flows for Geneva Lake - Lake Corao sewered RSSAs.
Flow
Average
Exibting Sewerb
I/I Flow
+10% for deterioration
Total

New Sewers

Maximum day
Ratio of Peak/Ave
I/I flow

Wettest 30-day
Unit
Fontana
Wai worth

mgd
mgd
mgd
mgd
a
0 170
0.017
0.187
0 187
d
0
-
0
0
Lake Geneva Wil1 tarns Bay
mgd

mgd
4.11
0.769

0.325C
2
0.132

0.066
0.120
0.012
0.132
0.132
16.26
2.146
0.460
g
0.217
0.022
0.237
0.237
6.44,
1.80'
0.279
From Fontana SStS (Donohue & Assoc., Inc. 1980a) .

From Design Conditions received by WAPORA from Paul Wintheiser, Donohue, as a supplement to
Donohue & Assoc., Inc (1983) .

Based on average I/I flow ratio of sewered/sewered & unsewered service areas.

From Walworth I/I report (Donohue & Assoc., Inc. 1976).

Ratio Peak/Wettest 30-day from Design Conditions (see Note b)

From Lake Geneva I/I report (Donohue & Assoc., Inc. 1978a).

From Process Specific Addendum (Donohue & Assoc., Inc. I982b) .

From Williams Bay I/I report (Donohue & Assoc., Inc. 1978c) .
Ratio Peak/Wettest 30-day from Donohue & Assoc., Inc. (1983).
-------
Table E-7 Theoretical unit wastewater flow rates for Fontana.
Permanent Residential Population
Item
WATER SUPPLY
Municipal Wells fl & 12
Country Club Estates Well
Total
WASTEWATER FLOW
X Return to sewer system
Flow to UWTP
Total
Ave
THEORETICAL UNIT FLOW RATES
1976 Population
unit Flow
Units

gat
gal
gal

gal
gal/day

g/c/d
1st Quarter

9,691,000
4,504,000
14,195,000

95Z
13.485,300
147,780

1825d
81 0
4th Quarter

9,627,000
5,270,000
15,097,000

902
13,587.300
148,900

1825
81.6
Two Quarter
Total

19,518,000
9,774,000
29,292,000

92 41
27,072,600
148,340

1825°
81 3
Abbey^
3rd Quarter

12,561,000
12,581.000

80Z
10.064,800
110,300

753b
146 5
Resort
1st Quarter

6,059,000
6,059,000

95X
5,756,100
63,080

140 5
Other
Coramerica)
Year Total

13,817,000
13,817,000

87Z
12,020,800
32,930

I825d
18 0

Public
Year Total

2,970,000
2,970,000

87%
2,583,900
7,080

I825d
3 9
Based on 1976 water supply data In I/I report (Donohue & Assoc , Inc 1978d)

1976 summer flow rate based on 300 units total {By phone. Abbey Resort, August 1979) and occupancy rate of 2.51 persons per
unit
c Winter population based on 300 units and 146 5 g/c/d

1976 permanent residential population (Donohue & Assoc , Inc 1978)
-------
Table E-8 Theoretical unit wastewater flow rates for Williams Bay.
T
CO
Permanent Residential Population
Commercial
Public
Item
Metered Water
% Return to WWTP
Flow to WWTP
b
Unit Flow Rate
Units
gal /day
gal/day
g/c/d
Ath Quarter
1976
106,900
90%
96,200
55.6
1st Quarter
1977
94,700
95%
90,000
52.9
Average
100,800
0.92
93,100
54.7
4th Quarter
Average
62,200
0.85
52,900
31.1
4th Quarter
Average
13,900
0.88
12,200
7.2
r>

Based on I/T report (Donohue & Assoc., Inc. 1978c).

Based on permanent residential population of 1700 from I/I report.
-------
APPENDIX F

COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS AND
COMPUTATION OF LOCAL USER COSTS
-------
Table F-l. Estimated local share capital costs of the FPRA*
Approximate
Area

Lake Geneva-Lake Como RSSAs
Lake Como Beach
Collection
Interceptor
WWTP
Total

Southeast Shore
Collection
Interceptor
WWTP
Total
Lake Geneva-Total

Walworth/Fontana RSSAs
Walworth-Total
Fon tana-Total
Southwest Shore-Total
Williams Bay RSSA
Williams Bay-Total
Northwest Shore-Total
construction
Cost

7,301,181
1,599,409
(see Table F-2)

1,034,095
1,152,528
(see Table F-2)

(see Table F-2)

2,612,362
704,803
1,379,213

892,913
1,138,323
Capital
Cost

9,272,500
2,031,250

1,313,300
1,463,710

3,312,700
895,100
1,751,600

1,134,000
1,445,670
Grant

60
60

60
60
60

60
60
Grant
Amount3

4,380,709
959,646
^

620,457
691,517
—

1,567,417
422,882
827,528

535,748
682,994
Local
•

4,891,791
1,071,604
254,520
6,217,915

692,843
772,193
81.450
1,546,486
682,110

1,750,283
472,218
924,072

598,252
792,676
«•«•
the amount that
-------
Table F-2 Determination of grant eligible capital cost and local share
for the Lake Geneva WWTP for the FPRA.
(1) Innovative items at the WWTP and land treatment site which Involve
land treatment and sludge application (resource recovery)•
Digester Modification-
Anaerobic Digesters
Sludge Pumps
Sludge Vehicle
Sludge Transport
Land Application System
Total Construction Cost
Total Capital Cost (+30%)
Federal Grant (85%)
Local Share
$
5,000
146,000
10,000
105,000
65,000
1,280.000
1,611,000
2,094,200
1,780,070
$314,130
(2) Conventional Items.

Total WWTP System
Minus Innovative
Total Construction Cost
Total Capital Cost (+30%)
Federal Grant (75%)
Local Share
$3,777,000
1,611,000
2,166,000
2,815,800
2,111,850
$703,950
Total local share, Lake Geneva WWTP
$1,018,080
Disaggregation of local share.

Lake Como (25%)
Lake Geneva (67%)
Southeast Shore (8%)
254,520
682,110
81,450
F-2
-------
Table F-3. Estimated local share capital costs for the EIS Alternative a
Tl

LJ
Area

Lake Geneva-Lake Como RSSAs
Lake Como Beach
Administration
Permanent
Seasonal
Total

Lake Geneva Golf Hills
Administration
Permanent
Seasonal
Total

Geneva Bay Est. and Forest Rest
Administration
Permanent
Seasonal
Total

Southeast Shore
Administration
Permanent
Seasonal
Total

Lake Geneva-Total
Approximate
Construction
Cost
342,070
390,000
55,530
0
2,600
1,300
Capital
Cost
62,332
107,000
(see Table F-4)
60,345
95,895
144,616
Grant
0
60
0
Grant
Amount*
0
37,399
Local
Share
221,544
461,795
526,375
0
60
0
0
205,242
0
221,544
256,553
526,376
1,004,473
19,584
74,966
0
0
60
0
0
33,318
0
19,584
41,648
0
61,232
6,936
3,510
6,755
0
60
0
0
1,560
0
6,936
1,950
1,755
10,641

60,345
58,496
144,616
263,457

923,931
-------
Table F-3 (concluded)
Approximate

Area
Walworth/Fontana RSSAs
Walworth-Total
Font ana-Total
Fontana Section II
Administration
Permanent
Seasonal
Total
Southwest Shore
Administration
Permanent
Seasonal
Williams Bay RSSA
Williams Bay-Total
Northwest Shore
Administration
Permanent
Seasonal
Total
Construction
Cost

594,016
2,428,110

-
1,040
502

-
40,580
113,000

885,276

-
20,505
58,800

Capital
Cost

754,400
3,083,700

2,856
1,404
702

46,104
54,783
119,408

1,124,300

50,184
27,682
79,383

%
Grant

60
60

0
60
0

Grant
Amount13
356,410

1,456,866
0
624
0
0
24,348
0
531,165
0
12,303
0
Local
Share
397,990

1,626,834
2,856
780
702
4,338
46,104
30,435
119.408
195,947
593,135
50,184
15,379
79.383
144,945
Low flow toilets are not grant-eligible but these costs were not separated.
Grant amounts are calculated from construction costs to approximate the
amount that would be grant-eligible
-------
Table F-4. Determination of grant eligible Capital cost and Local
Share for the Lake Geneva WWTP for the EIS Alternative.
(1) Innovative items at the WWTP and land treatment site which
involve land treatment and sludge application (resource
recovery).
Digester Modifications
Anaerobic Digester
Sludge Pumps
Sludge Vehicle
Sludge Transport
Land Application System
Total Construction Cost
Total Capital Cost (+27%)
Federal Grant (85%)
Local Share
$
5,000
129,900
9,000
105,000
57,900
1,167.900
1,474,700
1,872,869
1,591,939
$280,930
(2) Conventional Items

Total WWTP
Minus Innovative
Total Construction Cost
Total Capital Cost (+27%)
Federal Grant (75%)
Local Share
3,499,900
1.474,700
2,025,200
2,572,004
1,929,003
$643,001
Total Local Share, Lake Geneva WWTP
$923,931
F-5
-------
Table F-5 Cost indices used to update Facilities Plan cost estimates.

EPA Facility Plan Estimate E_I__S Estimate %
Item Index Date Index Date Index Increase

WWTP
Construction and salvage SCCTa 2nd Qtr 82 193 3d Qtr 82 194 0.0
O&M OMRb 2nd Qtr 82 4.42 3d Qtr 82 4.58 20

Sewers and interceptors

Construction and salvage CUSSC 1st Qtr 78 148 3d Qtr 82 187 26 4
O&M Sewers OMRd 1st Qtr 78 1.083 3d Qtr 82 1.606 48 3^
O&M Pump stations OMRe 1st Qtr 78 156 7 3d Qtr 82 239.0 52.5f

Note.

aSCCT-Small City Conventional Treatment (5 mgd WWTP), Green Bay WI.
boMR-Operation Maintenance Repair (5 mgd WWTP).
cCUSS-Complete Urban Sewer System, Milwaukee WI.
dOMR-Operation Maintenance Repair for municipal sewers excluding lift or pumping stations.
eOMR-Operation Maintenance Repair for raw water pumping stations.
^50.0% increase used for interceptors (including sewers and pumping stations).
-------
Table F-7 Estimated total present worth costs for Facilities Plan RSSA Recommended Alternative (as presented In Facility Planning documents)

Initial Annual Future Construction
Item Ca
pltal OiM 10th Yr. 15th Yr
WWTPs
Lake Geneva §4,910,000 $366
Walworth/Fontana 4,641,000 146
Williams Bay 1,304,000 80
b
Collector Sewers
Lake Como Beach 9
Southeast Shore 1
Southwest Shore
Northwest Shore
Interceptors
Lake Como Beachc i
c
Southeast Shore 1
Southwest Shu re
Northwest Shore
Sewer OSM

,272,500
,313,300
679,750
723,300

,607,000
,158,000
507,000
437,000
-
— Includes pumping stations and force
,500 - $ 391,000
,000 100,000 270,000
,000 - 87,000

13,000 151,300
6,300 812,500
3,600
4,200 67,500

290
2,190
190
570
99,980
mains to seepage cell sites

Salvage
Value
S 783,
1.229,
166,

4,749,
1,266,
339,
412,

962,
693,
305,
261,
-

000
000
000

750
000
900
300

570
210
020
440

O&M
$3,845,000
1,532,000
839,000

136,400
66,100
37,800
44,100

3,000
23,000
2 000
6,000
1,049,000
Includes interceptors between
Present Worth
Future
Construction Salvage

Vatimatf

$139,000 $ 202,000
146,000 310,000
31,000 42,000

76,000 1.199,
408,200 319,
85,
33,900 104,

243,
175,
77,
66,
_

300
700
800
100

000
000
000
000

Fontana Main pump station to
Total
$8,692,000
6,009,000
2,132,000

8,285,600
1,467,900
631,800
767,700

1,367,000
1,006,000
432,000
377,000
1,049,000
Date
3rd
3rd
3rd

3rd
3rd
3rd
3rd

1st
1st
1st
1st
1st
Walworth/Fontana
Qtr.
Qtr
Qtr

Qtr.
Qtr.
Qtr.
Qtr

Qtr
Qtr
Qtr.
Qtr
Qtr
WWTP
n » i
83^
83 l

«E'l
«2h'i
82*'<
" » *•

78w

78|!
78
78h

— See Table 2-35 for list of subdivisions proposed for collector sewers
c/
— To Lake Geneva WWTP

- To Walworth/Fontana WWTP
e/
— To Williams Bay WWTP
f/
- Calculated at 7 1/8X
c/
•* Back calculated from
h/

Interest rate.
present worth.

- By letter, P. Wlnthelser, Donohue & Assoc., Inc., 14 February 1983
—' Frnm TV^nrthiirt f. Anann
Tno /1QH9K
AnnArt A ^ v Tt nvtxl An«a««4-f ** f* f

(included

in
««..

this Appendix) .

communications, 16 February 1983)
^ Donohue & Assoc.. Inc. (1982a. Appendix BB, also included in Donohue & Assoc , Inc , 1983a Appendix Q)
k/ By letter, Alan L Berg, Donahue & Assoc , Inc , to Mark B Williams, WDNR, 3 November 1983)
i/ By letter, Alan L Berg, Donahue & Assoc , Inc , to Mark B. Williams, WDNR, 14 October 1983)
-------
Table F-8 Estimated total present worth costs for the FPRA (updated to 3rd quarter 1982 costs) f
Item

WWTPs
lake Geneva
WaIwo rt h/Fontana
Williams Bay
b
Collector Sewers
Lake Como Beachc
Southeast Shore c
Southwest Shore d
Northwest Shore6

Interceptors
Lake Como Beachc
Southeast Shore c
Southwest Shored
Northwest Shoree

Sewer 04M

Total
Initial
Capital
$4,910.000
4,641,000
1,304,000
2,031,250
1,463,710
640,850
552,370
$27,141,930
Annual Future Construction
OiM 10th Yr 15th Yr.
$366,500
146,000
80,000
100,000
9,272,500
1,313,300
679,750
723,300
13,000
6,300
3,600
4,200
151,300
812,500
-
67,500
440
3,290
290
860

149,970

$709,650 $1,047,300
391,000
270,000
87,000
Salvage
Value
5 783,000
1,229,000
166,000
4,749,750
1,266,000
339,900
412,300
1,216,690
876,220
385,530
330,460
$1,018,700 $12,278,500
Present Worth
Future
OSM
S3,

1,
$7,
Construction
701,
474,
807,
131,
63,
36,
42,
4.
33,
2,
8,
514,
166,
030
310
840
280
620
350
410
440
220
930
680
440
240
$129
137
28
72
389

,090
,630
,890
,560
,670
-
,370

-
_
-
-
$840,610
Salvage
$ 180,090
282,670
38,180
1,919
291
78
84
279
201
88
76

$2,813
,980
,180
,180
,830
,840
,530
,670
,010
-
,830
Total
1:
2,
8,
1,

1.
1.

1,
S32,
560,
970,
102,
384,
475,
637,
713,
755,
295.
555,
485,
514,
334,
800
270
550
360
410
920
250
850
400
110
040
440
950
Includes pumping stations and force mine to seepage cell sites. Includes Interceptors between Fontana main pump station to Walworth/Fontana WWTP

See Table 2-35 for list of subdivisions proposed for collector sewers

To Lake Geneva WWTP.
To Walworth/Fontana WWTP

To Williams Bay WWTP.
Updated from costs presented In Table F-7 using cost Indices presented In Table F-5

&/ Calculated at 7 5/8% interest rate
£/
£/
-------
& ASSOCIATES, INC.

CONSULTING ENGINEERS

SHEBOYGAN, WISCONSIN
CLIENT.
DATE.
PROJECT.
BY.
PROJECT NO..
PAGE NO.
RECEIVED FEB 16 1983
'_ re /-(y
C V"-'
•7
O
A
t \~~ **•
/•^
i: 1-=; r
r
^ C.
- /r
V
Cr-cT '..!_ ft i <:^^j *
^ 77- .
^ (, F
^'-
' '
-------
*jtft ASSOCIATES, INC.
v
ULTING ENGINEERS

EBOYGAN, WISCONSIN
CLIENT
DATE
PROJECT
BY.
PROJECT NO
PAGE NO.
T
S\TTtttrfT'
A. 4cc_
6
C
D
MC /
\f-\L
co-rr-s
C
r
f ^
, r;
-r

. TNR/J
cc;
-------
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
SHEBOYGAN, WISCONSIN
PROJECT
PROJECT NO..
UAJt.
BYfiECEIVCDF£B16 L.a
PAGE NO
, ;/4
UJoRTH CO
T
.. -
WUTP
M
'A '
P
c= / ir
- -
•Sue - f\£
c. UJ
/f

H R
oco
7 <•
/ -
4 9/0cDOO
coo
coo
-------
DONOHUE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
CLIENT.
DATE
CONSULTING ENGINEERS

SHEBOYGAN, WISCONSIN
PROJECT.
PROJECT NO.
BY.
PAGE NO.
C(S
6RT* ^f H Cosrs
Rwi,
60 MO
6.
s. P.l-J.
P.W.
hV).
M
Rvo-
RWl.
34,
44 coo
-0-
^23000
9,673,000
f coo
8,000
ooo
D/\J I O
^33,000.1 _

-------
CONSULTING ENGINEERS

SHEBOYGAN, WISCONSIN
PROJECT.
BY.
PROJECT NO.
PAGE NO.
-f £Lr, ZsT

O I'f
RkJ

S HUJ
ro
^fccT P.lx)

P,U
p.
= P.UJ.

P,uj.
OOO
/, 607, 000
'
^ JRT r
-------
MONOHUE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
(^SHEBOYGAN, WISCONSIN
CLIENT.
DATE.
PROJECT.
BY.
PROJECT NO,.
PAGE NO.
4/4
f
T'
<•»« ' '1 «^
000
, 06.4.00C
847, ooo
31 !
_ T^*"^

r**t'-+C4
I i
-------
APPENDIX G

POPULATION/SOCIOECONOMIC
-------
SOUTHEASTERN WISCONSIN REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION

916 NO EAST AVENUE • PO BOX 769 • WAUKESHA WISCONSIN 53186 • TELEPHONE <414| 547 b721

Serving the Counties of HCNOSMA
• A*HIN*TOH

VAUK KIMA
December 19, 1977
jf
Mr. Alan L. Berg, P.E. Re: Wastewater Facilities Plan
Donohue and Associates, Inc. Geneva Lake Area '
4738 H. 40th Street Donahue Project U553.2/4U71.2/
P.O. Box 1067 1*563.0/4550.3
Sheboygan, Wisconsin 53081

Attention. Ms. Jane McLamarrah

Dear Mr. Berg:

This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter of December 6, 1977, wherein
you request the Commission to compile 1985 and 2000 population allocations by
specified U.S. public Land Survey sections for use by your firm in wastewater
facilities planning in the Geneva Lake Area. Pursuant to your request, we have
compiled and are sending to you herewith the requested information.

We caution you that the 1985 and 2000 population information we are pro-
viding to you represents an allocation of the Commission's forecasted population
for Walworth County as distributed in the preparation of the new Regional Land
Use Plan for the Year 2000. As an allocation—rather than a forecast or pro-
jection—the ultimate reliability of this information is dependent upon the
degree to which local units of government choose to implement the plan recommen-
dations. For example, a major zoning change could change an allocation in any
single small areal unit. Accordingly, we would recommend that this information
be used with caution and with the full realization that it represents neither a
forecast nor a pro3ection.

We are enclosing an invoice in the amount of $300 to cover the cost of
compiling the requested information. Should you have any further questions in
this regard, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Executive Director
KWB/jms
Enclosures
-------
MEMORANDUM December 28, 1977

TO: /(jhuck Theobald

FROM: Jane McLamarrahc- "]i ^--

SUBJECT: SEWRPC Population Allocations
Geneva Lake Area Facilities Plan
As you know SEWRPC has provided us with population allocations by section for
the Geneva Lake Planning Region. I have taken these allocations and converted
them to a sub-basin basis rather than a section basis. To do this I estimated
percentages of each section included within the sub-basin and allocated the same
percentage of population to that sub-basin. Attached to this memo are the
results of this population allocation by sub-basin for the years 1985 and 2000.
Please review these figures to determine whether or not they are reasonable. If
they are not, please advise as soon as possible so that more accurate data can
be used for interceptor sizing and location.

Also attached are copies of the Watershed Inventory for the Geneva Lake Area.
The Area, Existing Land Use, Septic Tanks and Holding Tanks columns are taken
directly from SEWRPC data. The Existing Dwelling Units and the Area Served by
Sanitary Sewer columns were determined from analysis of aerial photos. The
Existing Population was allocated to the sub-basins from SEWRPC quarter section
data by determining a persons per dwelling unit ratio for the quarter section
and multiplying by the existing number of dwelling units.

All existing data columns were determined for the year 1975.

JM/amv

Attachments: Projected Watershed Inventory
Watershed Inventory

cc: Al Berg
Ted Boratad
-------
PROJECTED WATERSHED INVENTORY Page ' of 4

Geneva Lake Area
Wai worth County, Wisconsin Date By h\cLd naf <.

Population Population Population Landi Use - 2000
Sub-Basin 1975 \985 ^000 Res Com Ind Agrj_._ Wetland Open Land Remarks
LG I I 100 IV 14

id a 2fi i \ 4-0
10 ^35 > i
-------
PROJECTED WATERSHED INVENTORY Page J of 4_
Geneva Lake Area
Wai worth County, Wisconsin Date By
Population Population Population Land Use - 2000
Sub-Basin 1975 1985 2000 Res Com Ind Aqri. Wetland Open Land Remarks
LC. 7

Ct, I
LC I ia to 36

Ld 5 £ (63 tm

3 (p I? 3- Ifi'l 1 b 0

i 4 fr 5^ 414, 5*,0

L
-------
PROJECTED WATERSHED INVENTORY Page & of
Geneva Lake Area
Wai worth County, Wisconsin Date By
Population Population Population Land Use - 2000
Sub-Basin 1975 1985 2000 Res Com Ind Agri. Wetland Open Land Remarks
LT
FC
WRl 31U XS7S 3*31

WR3 M tj% 531
i
\ WR b" $& 744 /o j 0
U ._
{' ti G
,;« 17 7^ ?4
'Pi:1* ^3
i 14

404
I
PCI £) ^^ H4 j

PC 4,
I
-------
PROJECTED WATERSHED INVENTORY Page + of

Geneva Lake Area
Walworth County, Wisconsin Date_
Population Population Population Land Use - 2000
Sub-Basin 1975 1965 2000 Res Com Ind Aqr?. Wetland Open Land Remarks
-r- ^ 41 * I*

r/"1 i I 471
n.iv-J"
-------
TELEPHONE MEMO
SEWfiflL
IUBJECT
DONOHUE & ASSOCIATES, INC
•3738 No. 40th Street
SHSBOYGAN, WISCONSIN
FROM
DATE /
//I fa 8
CLIENT
JOB NO.
fl/uCiii.L

--V Jwbioivfvir
-------
3 J ~*
I- 4
. «
'£*. r',-?

-------
IUE & ASSOCIATES, INC
X"
^X CONSULTING ENGINEERS

.SHEBOYGAN. WISCONSIN
CLIENT
PROIECT
DATE ///./ /

O1 f\
w/( f&t*
BY
PROIECT NO
PAGE NO.
-------
?MOHUE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
, "
*r CONSULTING ENGINEERS
SHEBOYGAN, WISCONSIN
CLIENT LUIUJfifth Lfll DATE
PROJECT BY ff/.
PROJECT NO.,
PAGE NO.
i
ED POULT? Oti PfQJ £07/0/05 FWi'MUlfiM.
i \/r/\& s~\r\*?/~^ t

7500 -
7CCD ••
60CO ••
4500 ~
3500 --
7000
- i
i
7,375
/
/
/
t/T.
peso
-------
OHUE & ASSOCIATES, INC.

CONSULTING ENGINEERS

SHEBOYGAN, WISCONSIN
CLIENT
PROJECT
PROJECT NO..
DATE
///?
BY
7/f M^
PAGE NO.
fONl ft TJOti PROJECTIONS
-------
6ONOHUE & ASSOCIATES. INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
I SHEBOYCAN, WISCONSIN
GkH&fi DATE i
PROJECT
BY
PROJECT NO..
PAGE NO.
? n D&lMrtiJC-
50?
-------
DONOHUE & ASSOOATES, INC.

CONSULTING ENGINEERS

SHEBOYGAN, WISCONSIN
CLIENT
PROJECT
PROJECT NO..
DATC
//// m
PAGE NO.
.1.1 ,...
-------
SOUTHEASTERN WISCONSIN REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION

916 NO EASTAVEIMUF • PO BOX /69 • WAUKEbHA WISCONSIN 53187 • TELEPHONE (4|4f 547 6721

Serving the Counties of KVNOSH*
MIL WAUK ec

oz A u « e E

RACINE

WALWORTH

W *$H IMG-TOW
April 1, 1981
Ms. Ellen W. Renzas
Assistant Socioeconomist
Wapora, Inc.
35 E. Wacker Drive
Svite H90
Chicago, Illinois 60601

Dear Ms. Renzas

Pursuant to your March 30, 1981, telephone request of this writer, we are
sending to you herewith copies of pages 4-09-411 from SEWRPC Planning Report No. 25,
A Regional Land Use Plan and a Regional Transportation Plan for Southeastern
Wisconsin—2000, Volume II, Alternative and Recommended Plans This section of
the Planning Report provides a description of the methodology used in the
distribution of the forecast county population increments to units of geography
below the county level Therefore, it also represents a discussion of the
methodology whereby resident population levels for sanitary sewerage system service
areas for the design year 2000 were determined.

As you will note from the enclosed discussion, the design year 2000 resident
population levels for sanitary sewer system service areas recommended by this
Commission are based in part upon adopted areawide land use development objectives
Consequently these levels are not always based upon pro-jections of local trends
and are, in fact, sometimes at variance with existing trends. These recommended
levels are, however, consistent with federal policies which seek to discourage
urban sprawl and protect critical environmental areas and prime agricultural
lands. The ultimate reliability of such normative population allocations is
dependent, in part, upon the degree to which local units and private developers
choose to implement regional plan recommendations

We trust you will find this material helpful Should you have any further
questions in this regard, please do not hesitate to call.

Sincerely,
Thomas D. Patterson, Chief
Planning Research Division
TDP/bg
Enclosures
-------
Chapter VII

THE RECOMMENDED LAND USE PLAN
«
m
INTRODUCTION

Previous chapters of this report have described, compared,
and evaluated two alternative land use plans for the
Southeastern Wisconsin Region for the year 2000 a con-
trolled centralization plan and a controlled decentraliza-
tion plan In the controlled centralization plan alternative,
the development concept is one of centralization with
virtually all new urban development occurring at medium
density, in planned neighborhood units, and m areas of
the Region which can be readily served by such impor-
tant urban facilities and services as centralized public
sanitary sewer, public water supply, and mass transit In
contrast, the controlled decentralization plan alternative
emphasizes lower density and more diffused residential
development and the use of onsite soil absorption sewage
disposal (septic tank) systems and private water supply
wells Based upon a careful evaluation of these two land
use plan alternatives against the adopted regional land use
development objectives and standards, the recommenda-
tions of the Technical and Citizen Advisory Committees
concerned, and a review of the results of a senes of public
informational meetings and public hearings concerning
the land use plan alternatives held throughout the Region
in July of 1976, the Commission directed the staff to
refine and detail the controlled centralization plan alter-
native for presentation as the recommended new land
use plan for southeastern Wisconsin The controlled
centralization plan, refined to incorporate the specific
suggestions of interested citizen leaders and local planners
and engineers and to reflect detailed community devel-
opment proposals, is set forth m this chapter as the
recommended new year 2000 land use element of the
comprehensive plan for the physical development of
the Region

The basic concepts underlying the recommended land use
plan for the year 2000 are the same as those underlying
the regional land use plan for 1990 adopted by the Com-
mission in 1966 Like the adopted year 1990 regional
land use plan, the recommended land use plan for the
year 2000 advocates a return" tc7~historic development
trends^ within the Region that were most evident prior
to the late 1950's, with urban development proposed to
continue to occur largely in concentric rings along the
full periphery of, and outward from, existing urban
centers While the plan places heavy emphasis on the
continued effect of the urban land market in determining
the location, intensity, and character of future urban
development, the plan proposes to regulate to a greater
degree than in the past the effect of this market on devel-
opment in order to ensure that new urban development
occurs at densities consistent with the provision of
public centralized sanitary sewer, water supply, and
mass transit facilities and services and in locations wtwre
such facilities can be readily and economically extended
or obtained, particularly including the older central cities
In so doing, the plan seeks to provide a more orderly and
economic development pattern and an abatement of
areawide developmental and environmental problems
within the Region, thereby channeling the results of
market forces into better conformance with the estab
lished regional development objectives

Similar to the adopted year 1990 regional land use plan,
historic growth trends within the Region under the
recommended plan for the year 2000 would continue to
be altered by encouraging intensive urban development-
consisting primarily of residential, commercial, recrea-
tional, industrial, and institutional land uses—to occur in
those areas of the Region having soils suitable for such
development and which may be readily provided with
sanitary sewer systems, public water supply, mass transit,
and other essential urban services New urban develop-
ment would occur in planned neighborhood development
units, primarily at medium population density levels-
thai is, with new single-family residential development
averaging about four dwelling units per net residential
acre and with new multiple-family residential develop
ment averaging about 10 dwelling units per net residential
acre As in the adopted year 1990 regional land use plan,
the most basic regional development objectives would be
achieved by protecting from further urban development
the floodlands of the perennial streams, by protecting
from development the best remaining woodlands and
wetlands, by protecting the most productive agricultural
lands in the Region, and by developing an integrated
system of park and open space areas centered on the
primary environmental corridors Under the recom-
mended land use plan for the year 2000, the allocation
of future land use within each county of the Region is
such as to approximate the forecast county population
levels set forth in Chapter III and, to the extent possible,
the proposals contained in local community development
plans and zoning ordinances

DESIGN METHODOLOGY

Following the methodology utilized in the preparation
of the adopted 1990 regional land use plan, the following
three general guidelines were used in the design of the
recommended regional land use plan for the year 2000

1 New urban development should emphasize
medium densities and should be located in those
areas of the Region readily provided with essential
urban services, particularly centralized sanitary
sewer systems and water supply and mass transit
services, and new residential development should
occur largely in planned neighborhood units
409
-------
2 Ho new urban development should be allocated
to the delineated primary environmental cor
ndors in order to preserve the best remaining
elements of the natural resource base of south-
eastern Wisconsin

3 To the maximum extent possible, no new urban
development should be allocated to the delineated
prime agricultural lands, thereby preserving highly
productive lands for the continuing production of
food and fibre

The specific procedures utilized in preparing the recom-
mended regional land use plan for the year 2000 were
as follows

1 A determination was made of the amount of
"developable" land located within each U S
Public Land Survey quarter section Developable
land was defined as land which, while not pres-
ently developed for urban use, was suitable and
could be assumed available for such use The
developable land area was determined for each
quarter section by subtracting from the quarter
section total the area within the quarter section
included in primary environmental corridors, the
area covered by soils having "severe" and "very
severe" limitations for urban development even
with public centralized sanitary sewers, and the
area covered by existing urban development as
. of 1975

2 An identification was made of those quarter
sections served by public sanitary sewerage
facilities as of 1975 and those planned to be
served by such facilities in the adopted regional
sanitary sewerage systemj)lan__

3 An assignment of a proposed potential urban or
rural density was made to each quarter section
based upon consideration of existing development
densities in the quarter section concerned and in
adjacent quarter sections, trends in densities in
adjacent quarter sections, the forecast population
increase in the planning analysis areas (sec Map 2),
community plans and zoning provisions, and
planning judgment The specific density categories
utilized m the plan preparation are identified and
defined in Table 54 (see also Appendix Tables
G-l and G-2) These categories include urban
high-density, with a net lot area per dwelling unit
ranging from 0 06 to 0 14 acre, urban medium
density, with a net lot area per dwelling unit
ranging from 0 15 to 0 44 acre, urban low-density,
with a net lot area per dwelling unit ranging from
0 45 to 1 44 acres, suburban residential density,
with a net lot area per dwelling unit ranging from
1 45 to 5 00 acres, and rural density, with a net
lot area per dwelling unit exceeding 5 00 acres

The standards set forth in Chapter II of this
volume require that the urban high , medium ,
and low-density categones of residential devel
410
opment be provided with a full array of urt» •
services, including centralized sanitary te*t
and water supply services and walk-in element*
school service The standards further requb
that the suburban residential density ctUfoc
be provided with partial urban services, includM
solid waste collection and pobce, fire, and rani
services, but not including walk-in elements
school or centralized sanitary sewer and wst«
supply services Thus, within the context of U4
report, the term "suburban" is utilized m tt
literal sense, that is, "sub-urban," indiesta
that a particular area of urban development I
being provided with less than the full range a
available urban services This meaning of ft*
term suburban should not be confused with Utf
more popular meaning used to identify eM
divisions adjacent to a large central city Tito
together, the urban high , medium-, and Jo*
density and the suburban residential dendU
categones constitute the full range of urbM
development contemplated in the recommended
land use plan, with any development exceedin|
a net lot area of 5 acres per dwelling unit deemed
by definition to constitute either rural estate ot
farm residential development
4 A determination was made of the location of til
proposed community and major regional lind
uses by quarter section, including community
and major multipurpose commercial cent«»;
community and major industrial centers, majof
institutional centers, including county, state, tnd
federal administrative offices, major medictl
centers, universities, technical/vocational school*,
and cultural/entertainment centers and Iibranrt
as recommended in the regional library facilitirt
and services plan, major state, regional, and
county parks and special purpose recreation sites;
and major transportation and utility center*
including airports as recommended in the adopted
regional airport system plan bus, rail, and «*
passenger terminals, sewage treatment plants
asjrecommended in theljBgpted regional sanitary
sewerage system plan, anamajor electric power
generation plants Locations for these proposed
community and major regional land uses were
formulated within the context of the land us*
pattern existing in the Region in 1975 and the
framework of existing community plan8 an"
zoning provisions

5 A determination was made of those quarter
sections to which new urban development should
be assigned, following the three general guidelines
set forth above

6 New residential land was allocated as follows
I
a New residential development was allocated, (
first, to land identified in the 1975 land use ^
inventory as "under development", that &
land platted and committed to residential use

M
-------
J
f

I
f
H
M
J
I
but not yet used for such development In this
step, lands were designated for development at
high-, medium-, or low , or suburban-residential
densities, depending on the development pat-
tern to which the land was committed

b When the existing supply of residential land
under development was exhausted, new residen-
tial development was allocated, generally at
medium densities, to available developable land
in quarter sections covered by soils suitable for
such use and within delineated sanitary sewer
service areas It should be noted that no new
suburban density residential development, as
defined earlier, was allocated in this step

c About 10 percent of the forecast increase in
the population of the Region through the
plan design year 2000 was accommodated in
rural density residential development, as
defined earlier, in response to the apparent
demand for very low-density country estate
type development

7 All new high-, medium , and low-density residen-
tial development was assumed to occur in planned
neighborhood units Accordingly, a distribution
of urban land uses which support residential uses
at the neighborhood level was made to the devel-
opable land areas in those quarter sections to
which new high-, medium-, or low-density residen-
tial development was assigned This distribution
of urban land uses was made in terms of the
following land use categones neighborhood
commercial, neighborhood institutional, neigh-
borhood park, and neighborhood transportation
(streets and highways) The distribution of urban
land was based upon the land development percen-
tages embodied in the neighborhood development
standards for each residential density category

8 A calculation was made of the incremental and
total housing units and population by quarter
section and planning analysis area Assumptions
concerning the average household size were
varied by county based on trend analyses (see
Table 154)

9 An adjustment was made of the planned land use
distribution, including population and housing
units, utilizing the year 2000 regional and county
population forecasts as set forth in Chapter III of
this volume for control totals

10 A recommended regional land use plan computer
tape file was prepared for use in the assignment of
forecast employment, for the development of
alternative transportation plans, and for area
source air pollution analyses The file mcludps for
each quarter section both existing and future land
use by major category and existing and future
population, housing units, and employment
PLAN DESCRIPTION

Commission forecasts indicate that the population of the
Southeastern Wisconsin Region may be expected to reach
a level of about 2 22 million persons by the year 2000, an
increase of approximately 460,000 persons over the 1970
population level, while employment may be expected to
reach about 1 02 million jobs by the year 2000, an
increase of 267,000 jobs over the 1972 level The recom-
mended land use plan proposes to accommodate this
growth in population and employment through the
conversion of approximately 113 square miles of land
from rural to urban use by the year 2000 The future
land use pattern proposed by the plan is shown on
Map 53 and on a map included in a packet attached to
the back cover of this volume, and is summarized for
the Region overall in Table 270 and for the individual
counties and planning analysis areas in the Region in
Appendix Tables G-19 through G-29

Residential Development
The recommended land use plan proposes to meet the
housing needs of the growing regional population through
the maintenance of existing urban areas and as needed an
outward expansion of existing urban areas The future
intensity and distribution of residential development
would be established largely through the operation of
the urban land market, guided in the public interest,
however, by the required adaptation to certain physio-
graphic and cultural features of the Region, particularly
the primary environmental corridors and the sanitary
sewer service areas identified in the adopted regional
sanitary sewerage system plan The recommended land
use plan would seek to discourage scattered, "leap-frog"
urban development in outlying areas of the Region, both
through maintenance of rural development densities in
these areas—that is, average lot sizes of at least five acres
for single-family housing development—and through
encouragement of higher-density development in those
areas of the Region that can be most readily served by
essential urban services

The recommended regional land use plan proposes to add
about 60,900 acres to the existing stock of residential
land within the Region in order to meet the additional
housing needs associated with the forecast increase in the
regional population by the plan design year As indicated
in Table 271, the recommended plan proposes an addi-
tional 38,600 acres of urban residential land—that is,
residential land to be developed at a high-, medium-, and
low-, or suburban-density—and an additional 22,300 acres
of rural residential land, or very low-density residential
development with lot sizes exceeding five acres Under
the recommended land use plan, most of the additional
housing required in the Region by the year 2000 would
be developed in urban residential areas, predominantly
at medium density, with a typical single-family lot size
of one quarter acre and a typical multiple-family develop-
ment averaging about 10 dwelling units per net acre
While rural residential development accounts for a sub-
stantial proportion, 37 percent, of the total proposed
increase in residential land, such development would
411
-------
SOUTHEASTERN WISCONSIN REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION

916NO EAST AVENUE • PO BOX769 * WAUKESHA WISCONSIN 53187 • TELEPHONE (414) 547 6721

Serving the Counties of KENOSHA
Ml i_ W AUK E K

OZ AUK EE

RACING

Vr AL. WOR T H

WAU K CSHA
June 27, 1983
Mr. Ross Pilling
Project Manager
Wapora, Inc.
35 E. Wacker Drive
Suite 490
Chicago, Illinois 60601

Dear Mr. Pilling:

Pursuant to your letter request of June 22, 1983, we are providing to you
herewith estimates by U.S. Public Land Survey one-quarter section of the
numbers of year-round and seasonal housing units located in 1980 in the sewer
service areas of Lake Geneva, Fontana, Walworth, Williams Bay, and Lake Como
in Walworth County, Wisconsin. It should be noted that while these data are
derived from official counts from the 1980 federal census, the manner in which
they are derived for individual one-quarter sections makes it necessary to
regard them as estimates rather than precise counts. This is also to acknowl-
edge your telephone instructions to disregard the request contained in your
letter of June 22, 1983, for 1980 census data for selected enumeration dis-
tricts in Walworth County.

We are inclosing herewith SEWRPC Invoice No. CTS-4341 in the amount of
$160.00 to cover the data processing and staff costs of responding to your
request. Pursuant to the June 27 telephone instructions of Ms. Ellen Renzas
of your staff, this material is being sent by express mail, the cost of which
has been added to the invoice.

Should you have any questions concerning the enclosed material, please do
not hesitate to call.

Sincerely,
Kdrt W. Bauer
Executive Director
KWB/ib
Enclosures
-------
CENSPAC
, S CO TRT rtCD
1,'
f-— — —
i
t

_
-
0023 1980 P
OUARTE"
BLK EO SECTION
0116104
-0116111
~ 0116112
. 0116113
- 0116114
- 0116131 »
_ 0116132
0116133
— 0116134
• 0116141
- 0116142
0116143
0116144
0116151
0116154
0116231
0116212
0117172
0117101
0117182
_ 01171M
0117184
SERVICE AREA 063uf
TOTAL
PL P POP
51
1 52
T9
27
6

11
107
6
391
233
297
104
76
45
217
16
36
39
138
22
AM" Flte
TOTAL IN5TI OTH GRP
HH POO INMATES QUARTER
51
52
79
27
6

11
107
6
391
233
297
104
76
45
217
16
36
39
138
22
06/24/83 PACE 1
TOTAL TOT V/R TOT OCC TOT VAC TOT SEA
HU HU V/R HU V/R HU HU
47
42
64
35
39
43
91
172
16
285
160
161
57
57
26
143
30
M
81
78
29
20
24
44
15
2

5
42
2
231
145
142
57
42
24
135
30
64
62
64
26
17
19
32
11
2

4
38
2
ISO
84
106
42
31
16
78
6
14
15
49
a
3
5
12
4

1
4

81
61
36
15
11
8
57
24
50
47
15
18
27
IB
20
20
37
43
86
130
14
54
IS
219

15
2
8

19
14
3
TOTAL SEWEft SERVICE AREA
1953
1953
1920
1176
724'
452
744

111
kJ>
-------
— CENSPAC
002T
06/24/83
PAGE
1980 POPULATION AND HOUSING UNIT FILE
SEWCR SERVICE AREA 06A WALWORTH

QUARTER TOTAL TOTAL INSTI ~ OTH GRP TOTAL TOT V/R TOT OCC TOT VAC TOT SEA
S CO TRT ICO BLK FD SECTION PL f POP HH POP INMATES .QUARTER HU HU V/R MU Y/R HU HU
0116153
~ 0116164
•"0116211
— 0116214
-~ 0116221
0116272
0116223
0116224
;f -
26
313
208
3
500
505
9f
41.
26
313
208
3 _
500
505
74 23
15 \
10
139
90
1
205
205
26
15 *
10
136
90
I
204
204
26
13 s
9
132
88
1
193
198
25
2
t
4
2

11
6
I

1
1

TOTAL SEWER SEKVICE AREA
1670
23
691
6B6
659
-------
CENSPAC „ 0023
' S CO TRT HCD BLK
j .,

1
,
_;
r
*

QUARTER
ED SECTION PL f>
- 0116011
0116012
~ 0116013 .
- 0116014
- 0116121
- 0116122
0116123
0116124
0117042
0117043
0117044
0117051
0117052
- 0117053
0117054
- 0117061
~ 0117062
C117063
- 0117064
- 0117071 -
0117072
0117073
0216254
0216361
0216364
0217312
0217313 /
0217333
0217334
TOTAL
POP
775
81
48
312
19

65
72
29
118
46
13

203
7
132
173
3

33
130
37
60
U
64
24
TOTAL INSTI OTH GR?
HH POP INMATES QUARTER
7*1 _M _ .
81
46
312.
19.

65
22
29
118
46
13

203
7
13Z
173
5

33
130
37
60
U
64
24
06/244
TOTAL TOT
HU
394
45
54
268
18
4

77
31
40
138
5?
15

245
9
91
228
9
,

12
62
35
30
6 '
56
19
'83
Y/R
HU
393
42
25
170
10

77
27
34
138
52
n

215
4
7?
197
5

12
5!
15
24
4
26
9
TOT OCC
V/R HU
305
33
20
130
8

27
9
12
49
19
5

83
3
55
68
2

11
49
14
22
4
22
8
PAGE
TOT VAC TOT
' Y/R HU
88
9
5
40
2

50
18
22
89
33
a

155
1
17
129
3

1
2
I
2
S,
4
1
1
SEA
HU
1
3
29
98
8
4

4
6

10
5
19
31
4

It
20
6
2
30
10
TOTAL SEWER SERVICE AREA
2407
2375
1938
1635
955
680
303
-------
CENSPAC
0023
Iff'
06/24/83
PAGE
S CO TRT ICO BLK FO SECTION
0217211
0217213
0217214
0217223
0217224
0217271
0217272
0217281
0217232
02172
-------

QUARTFR
_1_S CO TRT «CD BLK EO SECTION PL
J _ - 0117011
" 3117012
... "~ OU7013*
.'_ ~ 0117014
_. 0117021 >
. " 0117022
~ 0117023
011702*
. 0117031
0117032
3117033
011703*
011707*
0117031
0117082
Q1170S3
011708*
01 1 70-* 1
0117092
01170«»3
011709*
0117101
0117102
. . _ 0117103
. . 0117104-
0117111v
_ - 0117112
0117113
0117U4
_ 0117122

ICE AREA 059 L
TOTAL
P POP
413
122
35
27
14
22

7
12
10
2

9
56
50

U7
8
5
*5
92
36
15

135
11
22
1
Akij HMFVA -- PART A
TOTAL IUSTI OTH GR"
HH I'OP INMATES QUARTER
389 17 7
122
35
27 _
1* ... _
22

7
12
10
2

q
56
SO

H7
8
3
45
92
36
15

US
11
22

06/27/83 PAGE I
TOTAL TOT r/R TOT OCC TOT VAC TOT SCA
M HU V/R HM V/R HU HU
162
l>2
21
31
6
30

14
ir
20
2

1"
135
46
1
123
16
3
58
74
37
9

1 16
18
35
143
6,
21
31
6
25

9
15
10
2

!«
102
3d

103
6
2
33
69
27
7

100
11
21
136
48
12
11
5
9

3
5
4
1

3
22
13

53
3
1
16
33
13
5

48
4
9
7 '
16
9
20
1
16

6
10
6
1

15
80
20

50
3
1
17
36
14
2

52
7 '
13 ,
19
58

5
2
10

3
a
i
20
10
1
25
5
10
2

16
7
14
SEWER SERVICE A* fcA — PART A TOTAL
1282
1258
17
1084
B63
461
402
221
-------
00*3
PART a
06'27'83
M«f
S CO TRT
1

._
_
.

_
._

_ _ _
_„
_
, _
_ _

'
,
QUARTER
HCt> BLK EO SECTION
0117142
0117151
0117152
0117161
0117162
~ 0118062
- 0118063
- 0217251
- 0217252
0217253
- 0217254
— 0217261
0217263
— 0217264
0217284
0217321
0217324
0217331
0217332
0217341
0217342
0217343
0217344
0217351
0217352
0217353
0217354
0217361
0217362
0217363
0217364
0218302
0218303
02IB312
0218313

TOTAL
PL P POP
113
28
20
28
17
236
34
7
146
977
•J23
61
$1
413
38
6
15
3B
35
49
218
73
15
916
SO
47
127
617
729

341
3
2
719
47

TOTAL INSTI~OTH CRP
HH POP INMATES QUARTER
103 10
23 .
20
23
17
233 3
34
7 _
146
977
523
61
"1
413
38
A
15
3B
35
49
218
71
15
916
80
47 _
127
6U . 6
729

339 2
8
_ 2 _
219
47

TOTAL
HU
85
20
14
37
27
100
12
2
57
420
226
23
29
155
36
11
176
IB
63
2R
133
39
5
40*
37
27
78
379
443

?59
3
1
100
21

TOT V/R
HU
80
20
14
20
12
100
12
2
57
416
224
23
29
153
14
2
5
14
13
20
79
29
5
397
29
17
53
353
413

170
3
1
99
20

TOT OCC
Y/R HU
33
10
7
10
6
98
11
2
53
392
215
20
28
149
13
2
5
13
12
17
76
25
5
375
28
15
49
316
377

156
3
1
91
19

TOT VAC TOT
»/R HU
47
10
7
10
6
2
I

4
24
9
3
1
4"
1

1
1
3
3
4

22-
1
2
4
37
36

8
I

SEA
HU
5

17
15

4
2

2
22
9
171
4
50
8
54
10

7
8
10
25
26
30

1
1

SEMER SERVICE AREA — PART B TOTAL
6304
6283
21
3468
2898
2632
266
573
-------
Methodology for estimation of the 1980 base-year population and 2005
design-year population in the Geneva Lake-Lake Como study area.

1. Data source:
SEWRPC computerized tabulation of 1980:

o total permanent population
o household population
o total housing units
o total year-round housing units
o total occupied year-round housing units
o total vacant year-round housing units
o total seasonal housing units
Data are available by quarter section and aggregated to the
SEWRPC designated sewer service areas.

2. Study area classifications:
Facilities planning document (Donohue 1983) and SEWRPC sources
were used to determine the quarter sections that comprise each of
the five RSSAs and the breakout of the sewered and unsewered
areas. Data were tabulated by Sewer Service Area, and both
sewered and unsewered areas in the Revised Sewer Service Area.

3. Base-year 1980 permanent population and housing units:
The data listed for population and year-round occupied units were
aggregated to determine the permanent population and housing
units.

4. Base-year 1980 seasonal population and housing units:
The data listed for total seasonal housing units and 95% of the
total vacant year-round housing units were added together to
determine the seasonal housing units. A household size factor of
3 was used to determine the seasonal population (By telephone,
Jack Gray, Marketing Specialist, University of Wisconsin Recrea-
tion Resource Center, 29 June 1983). A combined vacancy rate of
5% was assumed for the permanent and seasonal housing stock.
-------
5. Design-year peak population:
SEWRPC population allocations for the year 2000 for the SSAs were
used as the basis of the design-year population estimates. The
relationship between the 1980 permanent population in the SSAs
and the year 2000 permanent population in the SSAs was assumed to
be the same in the RSSAs (and the sewered and unsewered portions
of the RSSAs). The formula shown below was used to develop the
relationship and the actual population numbers.

Solve for X (2000 RSSA Pern. Pop.):

1980 SSA Perm. Pop. = ^980 RSSA Perm. Pop.
2000 SSA Perm. Pop. X

2000 RSSA Perm. Pop. - (1980 RSSA Perm. Pop.)x(2000 SSA Perm. Pop.)
1980 SSA Perm. Pop.

2000 RSSA Peak Pop. =• (2000 RSSA Perm. Pop.) + (1980 Seasonal)

The 1980 seasonal population as determined above was added to the
permanent population figures to yield design-year, peak popula-
tion figures.

6. Design-year peak housing units:
The 1980 household size (persons per housing unit) was assumed to
be the same in the year 2000. The 1980 houshold sizes in the SSA
and RSSA (sewered and unsewered portions) were individually
calculated from the SEWRPC computerized data and then divided
into the year 2000 permanent population estimates to yield the
number of permanent housing units. The 1980 seasonal housing
units as determined above was added to the permanent housing unit
figures to yield design-year, peak housing units.
-------
Table G-i Employed persons by industry, Aprtl 1980 (USDOC 1982b).
F on tana
Lake Geneva
Mai worth
Williams Bay
Geneva
Townshi p
Linn Township
Wai worth
Township
Agriculture
Forestry
Fisheries,
Mining
15 (1.8)
13 (0 5)
12 (1.4)
10 (1 1)
130 (7.7)
135 (14 6)
92 (14 6)
Construction
55 (6.5)
172 (6.2)
53 (6.2)
113 (13.2)
118 (6.9)
64 (6.9)
43 (6.8)
Manu-
facturing
183 (21.7)
800 (28 8)
260 (30 4)
152 (17 7)
294 (17.4)
207 (22.4)
197 (31.3)
Trans-
portation
32 (3.8)
90 (3.2)
33 (3 8)
18 (2.1)
47 (2.8)
22 (2 4)
18 (2.8)
Communi-
cation,
Public
Utilities
9 (1.1)
78 (2.8)
14 (1.6)
15 (1 7)
39 (2.3)
16 (1.7)
13 (Z.I)
Wholesale
- Trade
36 (4.2)
88 (3.1)
35 (4.1)
19 (2.2)
74 (4.4)
42 (4 5)
25 (3.9)
Retail
Trade
113 (13.4)
429 (15 4)
139 (16.2)
146 (17.0)
208 (12.3)
140 (15.2)
68 (10.8)
Finance,
Insurance,
Real
Estate
61 (7 2)
132 (4.7)
21 (2.4)
59 (6.9)
99 (5 8)
48 (5 2)
10 (1 6)
Business
Repair
Services
39 (4.6)
110 (3.9)
16 (1.9)
8 (0 9)
64 (3 8)
30 (3 2)
20 (3 2)
Personal
Enter-
tainment,
Recreation
132 (15 6)
301 (10.8)
61 (7.1)
100 (11 6)
70 (4 1)
72 (7 8)
43 (6 8)
Pro-
fessional
Services
154 (16 2)
482 (17.3)
144 (16 8)
206 (24.0)
334 (19 7)
186 (20.2)
95 (15 1)
Public
Admin-
istration
15 (1.8)
86 (3 1)
28 (3.3)
12 (1.4)
43 (2.5)
8 (0.9)
5 (0.8)
Study Area
407 (4 8) 618 (7.3) 2093 (24.9) 260 (3.1) 184 (2.2) 319 (3.8) 1243 (14.8) 430 (5 1) 287 (3 4) 779 (9 3) 1601 (19.0) 197 (2.3)
-------
fable G-2 Financial characteristics of the taxing jurisdictions In the Geneva Lake - Lake Como Study Area, year-ended 1981.

Jurisdictional
Taxing District
City of Lake Geneva
School District
Wai worth County
Village of Fontana
School District
Wai worth County
Village of Walworth
School District
Walworth County
Village of Williams Bay
School District
Walworth County
Town of Geneva
School District
Walworth County
Lake Como Public Inland
Lake Protection/Rehab-
ilatation District
Town of Linn
School District
Walworth County
Linn Sanitary District
Town of Walworth
School District
Walworth County
Linn Sanitary District
Delavan Lake Sanitary
District
Net
Direct
Debt (S)a
3,260,000
121,628
580,893
2,356,823
244,064
459,434
1,041,600
106,523
119,363
1,612,322
41,424
277,846
0
157,550
413,584

0
50,000
211,663
584,813
0
52,000
159,499
209,415
0

Self-
Supporting
Debt (S)b
0
0
0
379,000
0
0
93,000
0
0
50,000
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Debt
Service Short-Tenn Overall
CD c Debt ($)d Debt ($}e
389,845 0 4,352,366
NA
0
313,660 0 3,373,981
NA
0
133,854 0 1,401,340
NA
0
296,723 50,000 2,228,315
NA
0
0 0 571,134
NA
0

00 0
386 0 846,862
NA
0
00 0
10,303 0 431,217
NA
0
0

Full Assessed
Value ($)f Value <$)f
206,596,600 195,837,466

163,399,500 89,400,850

42,451,800 13,058,674

98,817,000 100,994,740

147,092,500 37,665,330

207,990,900 48,281,429

176,494,790*
74,479,000 7,919,026

1,705,390*

3,023,110*
Per Capital Statutory Assess-
Personal Popu- Debt merit
Income ($)g lation f Limit h Level :
10,324 5,578 10,329,830 94 79

9,196 1,747 8,169,975 54.71

8,135 1,613 2,122,590 30 76

7,992 1,768 4,940,850 102 20

4,860 4,026 7,354,625 25 61

8,218 2,067 10,399,545 23 21

6,685 1,478 3,723,950 10 63

* 1980 Data
-------
a - Net Direct Debt - Debt for which the municipality or separate district
has pledged its "full faith and credit" (tax revenues). Includes
general obligation bonds, long-term notes, state trust fund notes, and
installment contracts. By telephone, Darrel Frankie, Wisconsin
Department of Revenue, 15 September 1982,

b - Self-Supporting Debt - Debt for which the muncipality or district has
pledged a repayment source separate from its general tax revenues.
School districts do not have self-supporting debt. By telephone,
Mike Treviranus, Wisconsin Department of Revenue, 15 December 1982.

c - Debt Service - Principal and interest and debt service fees. Munici-
pal debt service. Darrell Frankxe, Wisconsin Department of Revenue,
7 February 1983, School district debt service. By telephone,
Corrine Wakeman, Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction 7 February
1983.

d - Short-Term Debt - Debt which must be retired within one year, munici-
pal short-term debt. By telephone, Mike Treviranus, Wisconsin Depart-
ment of Revenue, 19 January 1983.

e - Overall Debt - The combined total net direct debt and debt service of
the municipality and separate districts. The school district debt
service was not included. This is not significant due to the low
total debt service.

f - Wisconsin Department of Revenue, 1982. Town, Village and city taxes
for 1981. Bulletin Nos. 181, 281, and 381 combined. Taxes levied
1981 - collected 1982. Madison, WI, p. 47.

g - 1981 data were extrapolated from 1980 data. By telephone,
Carol Doran, Wisconsin Department of Revenue, 15 December 1982.
-------
h - Statutory Debt Limit - The State of Wisconsin limits indebtedness in
the form of general obligation bonds, long-term notes, state trust
fund loans, and installment contracts to 5% of the full value of
municipalities (and counties) and to 10% of the full value of school
districts (and vocational schools). Special district indebtedness is
controlled at the municipal level.
-------
Table G-3. Methodology for determination of 1983 annual user charges
for permanent residences in the study area.
1. (gallons/capital/day) x (days/quarter) x (persons/household)
gallons/household/quarter
2a Fontana. (85 gpcd) x (90 days) x (2 68 persons/household) - 20,502 g/h/q

b. Lake Geneva: (48 gpcd) x (90 days) x (2.36 persons/household) = 10,195 g/h/q

c. Walworth: (40 gpcd) x (90 days) x (2.51 persons/household) = 9,036 g/h/q

d. Williams Bay: (55 gpcd) x (90 days) x (2.49 persons/household) = 12,325 g/h/q

3. Based on the rate structures presented in Table G-3.

The annual 1983 user charges would be:

a. Fontana: $27.50 + (10.5 gallons x $1.25) = $40.63 x 4 = $162.52 (with water)
$32.50 + (10.5 gallons x $1.25) - $45.63 x 4 - $182.52 (without wate

b. Lake Geneva: $ 9.00 + (13.62 gallons x $.90) = $21.26 x 4 = $ 85.04

c. Walworth: $ 7.50 + ( 9.0 gallons x $1.54) = $21.36 x 4 = $ 85.44

d. Williams Bay: $ 4.00 + (12.32 gallons x $3.30) - $44.66 x 4 - $178.64
-------
Table G-4 Population counts for Waiworth County, Wisconsin, and the U S (US Bureau of the Census)

Pontana

Geneva Town

Lake Geneva

Linn Town

Waiworth Town

Waiworth

Williams Bay

Socioeconomlc Area

Wisconsin 1,054,670 1,315,497 1,693,330 2,069,042 2,333,860 2,632,067 2,939,006 3,137,587 3,434,575 3,951,777 4,417,731

U S. 38,558,371 50,189,209 62,979,766 76,212,168 92,228,496 106,021,537 123,202,624 132,164,569 151,325,798 179,323,175 203,211,926
1870
NA
NA
NA
895
2,291
NA
NA
3,186
1880
NA
930
1,969
823
1.27S
NA
NA
5,000
1890
NA
1,073
2,297
854
1,372
NA
HA
5,596
1900
NA
1,191
2,585
1,082
2,003
NA
NA
6,861
1910
NA
1,142
3,079
1,201
1,698
755
NA
7,875
1920
NA
1,153
2,632
1,112
1,255
757
436
7,345
1930
385
1,103
3,073
1,220
876
920
630
8,207
1940
461
1,444
3,238
1,179
917
875
717
8,825
195C
726
1,778
4,300
1,455
936
1,137
1,118
11,450
I960
1,326
2,253
4,929
1,620
1,064
1,494
1,347
14,033
1970
1,464
3,490
4,890
1,910
1,370
1,637
1,554
16,315
-------
-------
APPENDIX H

HISTORC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
-------
Historic resources
-------
THE STATE HISTORICAL
SOCIETY OF WISCONSIN
SIS STATE STREET / MADISON. WISCONSIN 33706

July 21, 1977
Ms. Jane A. McLamarrah
Donohue & Associates, Inc.
4738 North 40th Street
P. 0. Box 1067
Sheboygan, Wisconsin 53081

Dear Ms. McLamarrah:
SHSW: 0586-77
RE: Facilities Plan - WJTP
V. of Fontana » 4553.2
C. of L. Geneva = 4471.2
V. of Walworth - 4563.0
V. of Williams Bay - 4550.3
Applicants for any project requiring federal licenses or permits,
or involving the use of federal funds towards the purchase or
development of an area or property must comply with the National
Historic Preservation Act (PL 89-665, as amended) and the Executive
Order for the Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment
(EO 11593). The primary responsibility of the Historic Preservation
Division is to assist project applicants in complying with these laws
as outlined in the Procedures for the Protection of Historic and
Cultural Properties (36 CFR 800).

Pursuant to your request and the procedures established in 36 CFR 800,
we have examined our files for archeological, architectural and
historical resources in the vicinity of this project area. Our
cultural resources search has revealed the following information:

Our preliminary windshield historic structure survey revealed the
existence of many historic and architectural sites within the study
area, as indicated in the following breakdown:
In T2N, R16 - 1 known site;
R17E - 9 known sites;
RISE - 1 known site,
TIN, RlfiE - 6 known ^ites,
R17E - 66 known sites,
R18E - 1 known site.
In Walworth - 8 known sites;
Williams Bay - 11 known sites;
Lake Geneva - 67 known sites;
Fontana - *) knot-m sites.
The above numbers include sites which are probably part of an eligible
NRHP historic district along the shores of Lake Geneva. More detailed
information regarding the locations and addresses of these properties
is on file in the Wisconsin Inventory of Historic Places, and can be
made available to you either in person, or upon request by specific
areas.
-------
. Jane A. McLamarrah - 2 July 21, 1977
With regard to archeological resources, our information is incomplete
since a systematic archeological survey of this area has not been
undertaken. However, our files reveal the following breakdown of
known archeological resources reported within outlined planning acea:

Town of Geneva - 46;
Town of Linn - 24;
Town of Delavan - 1;
Town of Walworth - 21,

Enclosed, please find a map indicating the approximate locations of the
known archeological resources reported in the vicinity of the project
planning area. Within the project area, there are 92 known sites,
including villages (-M-) , campsites (A) and work&hop sites (X); mounds
(^,4=0 and mound groups (00^,00), garden beds (///), cornfields ("O and
sugarbushes (Q ) ; and impliment chaches (-gr) , burials 0-J-O and sacred
springs
In view of the high density and number of known archeological resources
and the strong probability that additional resources are likely to exist
within the project area, an archeological survey may be necessary, depend-
ing upon the ground conditions of the rights-of-way selected. Please
forward more detailed information of the selected rights-of-way when such
is available so that a proper determination of the impact this project
may have upon these resources may be made

Any further correspondence on this matter should be directed to the
attention of Mr. Richard W. Dexter (608/262-2732) in the Historic
Preservation Division.

Sincerely,

Richard A. Erney
State Historic Preservation Officer
By Jeff Dean
State Preservation Planner

RAE:jdd

Enclosure
-------
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTOaiC PLACES
April 1982
H — National significance
S — State significance
L — Local significance
NHL — National Historic landmark
E — Site officially determined eligible by
the Keeper of the National Register,
but not listed on the National Register,
date enclosed in parentheses
Theastic Croups

(Centric)
(Courthouses) --
(Eschweiler) —
(Grout)
(Liste Kilns) --
(Shater)
(tfildhageo) --
Sites vich no "VR date" vere not entered on Che National
at the tune this list was printed
indicates property is part oE the Centric Barns in Rock County Thematic Croup
indicates property is part of the County Courthouses of Wisconsin Thematic Croup
indicates property is pare of the EachweUer Thematic Resources of tarjchon County
indicates property is part of the Crout Buildings in Milton Thematic Croup
indicate* property is part of the Lm» Kilns Thematic Croup
indicates property is part of the Shaltr Statues Thematic Croup
indicates property is part of the Henry Wildhagen Schools of Ashland Thematic Croup
coswrnr
SITS
LOCATION
HR DATE
Del av an S
Delavan, Town of S
Ease Troy S
East Troy I>
E Dehorn S
Slkhorn 1>
Lake Delavan S
Lake Geneva L
Lake Geneva L
Lake Geneve S
Lyons, Town of L
Spring Prairie,
Town at S
Whitewater, Town oC S
WALMORTH COUNTT

S towel 1, Israel. Temperance Rouse (1840)
Mile Long Site
Cobblestone- Inn (1846-49)
Looms, Horace, House (1851)
Elderkia, Edward, House (1856-57)
Webster, Joseph Fhilbrick, Rouse
Jones, Fred B , Estate (1900)
Lake Geneve Depot (1891)
Loraooor (1900)
YounglamU (1899-1901)
Keyerhofer Cobblestone Bouse (1850)

String, Janes Jesse, House (1844)
Heart Prairie Lutheran Church (1855-57)
61-6S E tfalworth Ave.
(confidential)
1090 Church St
T4H R18E Section 6
127 S. Lincoln St.
9 E. Rockuell St.
3335 S. Shore Dr
Broad Se.
774 S Lake Shore Dr.
880 Lake Shore Dr.
T2N RISE, Sec. 3Z

T3H R13Z Section 25
T4H R15E Section 34
08-11-78
06-Z3-77
01-18-78
12-03-74
05-03-74
02-23-72
12-27-74
07-31-78
01-15-80
09-18-79
12-08-80

01-24-74
12-27-74
Shell Lake
Spooner
WASHBOTtH COUNTY

Salem Swedish Lutheran Church (1895)
Siegner, Ceo 7., House (1904)
301 8ch Ave. Vest
513 Dale St.
07H33-80
03-01-82
-------

184(5
HISTORIC PRESERVATION DIVISION
December 13, 1982
SHSW: 458-82
RE: Lake Geneva/Lake Como
Regional Sewer EIS
Mr. Peter J. Woods
WAPORA, Inc.
35 East Wacker Drive
Suite #490
Chicago, Illinois 60601

Dear Mr. Woods:
To update our letter of July 1977, our inventory of historical and
archeological sites now contains the following numbers of properties
for your study area'
Rural Areas:

T2N, R16E 26 Properties
T2N, R17E 18 Properties
T2N, RISE 44 Properties
TIN, R16E 77 Properties
TIN, RISE 19 Properties
Incorporated Areas;

Walworth 21 Properties
Williams Bay 41 Properties
Lk. Geneva 134 Properties
Fontana 34 Properties
The above figures do not include all the archeological sites recorded
in our 1977 letter.

As you can clearly see, the number of properties has more than
doubled. There is no way that I can provide you with a more
detailed analysis on the current status of any of these properties.
However, you are more than welcome to make an appointment to come
and examine our records

We would like to be kept informed on the status of this project
and the timetable for development of the EIS Our major concern is
that all the studies needed to determine the direct impacts of
this project on properties listed in, or eligible for inclusion
in the National Register of Historic Places have yet to be under-
taken.
THE STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF WISCONSIN
*J U> M A1F STREET MADSSON/WISCONSIN S57OC5 RICHARD A EKNEY. DIRECTOR
-------
Mr. Peter J. Woods - 2
December 13, 1982
Please contact me at (608) 262-2732, if I can be of any further
assistance.
^^—Sincerely,
I // -/? ,\
tW/
'Richard W^exter
Chief, Registration and
Compliance Section
RWDclkr

Enclosure
-------
-------
APPENDIX I

FARMLAND PROTECTION POLICY REGULATIONS
-------
cc* L
Regional Directors
Federal Register / Vol 43. No. 134 / 'luesday. July 12 !Sb3 /Proposed Rules 313C3
to r.u \ e in election for purposes of
uck'.v or dropping coverage no more
t.i.in once dicing any twelve monthi1
period
(„ U c, C 3392 and 3397]
D(LU>IO C03E
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricu1turaf MarXeting Service

7 CFR Parts 27, 28, and 61

Cotton and Cottonseed, Revision in
Co Tec'on
In FR Doc 83-18089. appernng on
p?ge 31047, m the issue of Wednesday
Julv. G, 1S83, under the "DATE ' heading
"September 6. 1982 should have read
* September 6. 1983 .
CODE '
SoH Conserval.on Service

7 CFR Part SS3

Farmland Protection Policy
A*S5«JCY. Soil Conservation Service,
Agriculture
ACTION Proposed rule

SUMMA w This act-on proposes a rule
for i-iiplenuntatton of the Farmland
Protection Pol.cy Act, Subtitle I of Title
XV of the Agriculture and Food Act of
M01. Pub I 97-98 The rule would add a
ne-/ Part 658 to Tt'lc 7 of the Code of
Federal Regulations to sUite criteria for
identifying and considering the effects of
Federal programs on the conversion of
farmland to non-agricultural uses and
identifies technical assistance to
agencies of State, Federal, and local
governments that wi'l be provided b>
the Department of Agriculture
DATES- Written comments on this
proposed rule must be received bv.
&pp'e-nberl2 1933
/DDa^ss- Interested persons t.ho'il'1
send untie i coinirents to Howard
TnnKerslev E\ecut,veSecretary USDA
Land Use Issues Working Croup Soil
Coi'se"v ition Service P O Box 28(JO
Washington D C 20013. telephone 202-
382-1855
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
Ho* .nd faikerslej telephone 202-3S2-
issr
SUopLtMEKTARYlNPOaMYTIOM The
purpose of tha Farmland Protection
j'o'icy ^cl is to "minimi 't the exit nt to
i.hieh I edeial programs contribute to
the ur> iscessarv and irr( icisible
eon% ersion of farcrland to
rti>nagricultural uses, and to assure that
Federal program* are administered in a
n to a w't range of
Federal agency decisions on
applications by these entities for Federal
program assistance
This actioi has betn reviewed under
Executive Order 12291 and Secretary s
Memorandum No 1512-1 and IMS bef-n
designated ' nontnajor " The Assistant
Secretary for Natural Resources aid
Environment has determmf d that this
action will not have economic impaut on
the economy of $130 m UIOT or more
result in a major increase in costs or
p-'t,es for consumers, individual
industries, Fede1-?!. State, or local
government agencies, orgeograph'c
regions or result in significant adv erse
effects on competition, employment
investrnent productivity, innovation, or
on Ire ability of U S -based enterprise1*
to compete with foreign-based
enterprises in domestic or export
markets Tnis rule does not contain
information collection requirements
which require approval by the Office of
Management and Budget under 44 U S.C
3501 et seq
Th.s document has been prepared bj
the Land Use Division of the Soil
Conservation Service in consultation
with the Natural Resources and
Environment Committee of the
Department of Agriculture The
Chairman of the Committee ts johi B
Croitsll, Jr, Assistant Secretary for
Natural Resources and Environment

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 658

Agriculture, Soil conservation
Farmland
Accordingly, it is proposed to add 7
CFR Part 658 Table of Contents <-nd
text to read as follows

PAP* 653—FARMLAND PROTECTION
POLICY

Sec.
6581 Purpose
6i8 2 Derni'ions
55*J 3 Aoplicabihtj ard exemption*.
6584 Criteria
6585 Guidelines for use of criteria
658 6 Technical assistance
65S.r USDA asstslaice *vith Federal
agennes reviews of polities and
procedures
AutViont> Suctions 15J9-1549 Pub L. 97-
98, OS SUit 1341-1344 7 U SC.4^01 et seq )

$ 658 1 Purpose
1 his ptirt sets out the criteria
developed bv 'he Secretary of
Agriculture in cooperation with other
Jedf ral agencies pursuant to Section
1541 (<•) of the Farmland Protect.on
Fohcv Act (FPPA) 7 U S C 4202{a) As
required b> Section 154l(b) of the Act 7
USC 4202{b} Federal agencies arc to
u»e the criteria to identify and take into
account she advers? effects of »beir
pio^r-ms on the preservption of
-------
31384
Federal Register / Vol 48, No 134 / Tuesday, J il} 12, 1983 / Proposed Ru'es
farmland, to consider alternative
acUo.is, as aopropnate, that could
red JGC such adverse efiects, and to
cr.su-e Ilia* their programs are
compatible to the extent practicable
w»tn State and local government and
private programs and policies to protect
fmir>!a"d Guidelines to assist agencies
in using the cntera are included m this
pail Thu» pajt e.
puiposps is exempted by Section 154"(b)
of the Act 7 U S C 4203(bj
(2} Construction or improvemer t
projects that were beyond tne planning
stage and in either the sctiv e design or
construction state on June 22,1902. the
effective date of the Act. are exenpt
from the Act. [Section 154C[c)[4] of the
Act, 7 USC 4201(c)(4)]

§6534 Criteria
Tnis section states the criteria
required by Section 1541[a] of the Act, 7
USC 4202(a) The criteria were
developed by the Secretary of ^
Agriculture m cooperation with other
Federal agencies and are as follows-
(a) Land Evaluation Criteria Based
on the following criteria, all farmland
will be evaluated and each parcel
ass'gned an overall score between 0 and
100 representing its value as farmland
relative to other parcels m the area. This
evaluation will be provided by the Soil
Conservation Service by means of its
Land Evaluation System which is based
on the National Cooperative Soil
• Survey, SCS field office technical guides
and other sources of information
relating to agricultural land. The criteria
are-
[1) "Whether the Bite is prime- or unique
fanrlard as defined by the Act
(2) If the site is not prime or unique
farm'and as dafined by the Act, whethsr
it has been dcternured by the State or
local unit of government to be farmland
of state-wide or local importance and
determined by the Secretary of
Agriculture to be considered as
"farmland" covered by the Act
(3} The total amount of farmland land
in the area and the percentage of tlus
total which is farmland covered by the
Act
(4) The value, for agricultural
production, of the farmland to be
converted by the project relative to the
value of other farmland ui the area. and.
(5) The percentage of farmland m the
area with this value which the project
would convert
(b) Site Assessment Catena The
following criteria are to be used by
Federal agencies to assess the
suitability of each proposed s.te for
protection as farmland elong with the
land evaluation information described in
paragraph (a) of this section Eacn
criterion will be given a score on a scale
of 0 to 10 Conditions suggesta^g top.
median, and bottom sco-es are ind'cated
for each cr tenon The agency would
make scoring dec sions in toe context of
each proposed site by examining the
site, the surrounding ?res arc! the
prcgra-" s and policies of the State or
local unit of government m-whira the
site is located The criteria arc
(1) Is the land use in Sir area uhere
the project is interred a!re?dy
subsianha'ly nonagncu'tural?
Very liC'e of tne tand "n the area jn
non2 of la"d in area in ronagncul-
tural use _ — „ 0
(2) Is the land adjacent to the site
already substantially nonagricultural?
None of adjacent land in nonagricul-
tural use .,,.,,, *»«.. -,tu,,,J1 ^ ___ ir
Some of adjacent land in nonagncul-
tural use ,.u_,,.u_..— ___ _ _„"
Almost all of adjacent land in nonag-
ncultural use
10

'. 0
(-
' [3] Has a substantial percentage of the
Bite been farmed during the last several
ftMOtt
Most of site has been fanned during
last several yeare __ __ 10
Some of the sue has been fanned
during last several years — _._ &
Very little of the site lias been
fanned dunrg last several jeara 0
(4) Is the site protected by state or
local government zoning, tax
concessions, "right to farm" legislation
or other similar laws'
Points
10
Site is pro'ected ly all available leg-
islation _ —
Site is protected by some of available
leg slanoiu— _— _
Site is not protected by any such
legislation ........ .. __.*_ . ~ ..•»_
(5) Does the project have special siting
requirements that call for uae of this
site'
Project has ro special siting requ re-
tne-ls ». _» — „. _ JO
Project has some special siting re-
quirements _ — - 5-
Project has substantial epectel e'tmg
requirements _ - — — _ 0
[6) C?n the purpose served by tb.s
proj'cct be achieved, without significant
-------
Federal Register / Vol 48. No 134 / Tuesday, July 12. 1983 / Proposed Rules
3186S
addittoual cost, on other available lands
with similar attributes but having less
relativ e v a!ue for agricultural
production?
JWrj
A i»rt,e number of other sites less
valuable for agr'culture exist— _„ 1O
A few other sites less valuable for
agriculture exist _ _ 5 •
No other sites le•
0
Proposed^ project is partly compatible
•with existing agricultural use _____
Proposed project is fully compatible-
with existing agricultural use ... ~
10

0
(8) How close Is the site lo an urban
center?
The site is distant from an urban
center—..- .. __ --- „. —
The site 19 close but not adjacent to
an urban center _ ,,,„„,,_, _ — . «.«.„.„
The site a adjacent to aa urbdn
COOL tut __™ w, ««, « «- »..-.... nMW
10

5 -^
(13) Does the farm containing the site
have access to farm suppHers,
equipment dealers, processing and
storage facilities for farm products and
other support services for agriculture?
Eas> access to many services .
Reasondble access to adequate serv-
Pair'-*

10 /
(9) How close «s the site lo streets,
water ard sew&r mstal'dbons and other
facilities which would promote
non?grtcultural use?
Poor access or inadequate services
AYQildbl? !«•.«•; , .. J.L i o MM
None of the services exist at or near
site _ . .. _ 10 V
Sor-e of the sen, ices exist at or ne.ir
Bita _„ 5
All of the services exist dt or near
site . _ __ — _ __— „_.____ 0
_ 0
(14) Does fne farm contauiing the site
have substantial on-fann investments
such aa barns other storate buildings,
fruit trees and vines, field terraces,
•waterways or other soil and water
conservation measures7
PmiU
{10) Has the owner or developer of the
site, consistent with applicable laws.
made significant investments such as
extensile eng'neenng or architectural
Mudies. in preparing to develop the site
for nonagnculiural use?
No significant Jnie-itirent tnndc to
co ivert sits ~ -.10
Snmp invcstnenf made to conn.fl
sito » 5
Hiyh level of an-farm investment •••
Average amount of on-fam invest-
irent »^.^^m...^.^^,,, ,,,, ,- S
Low Jevel to ro on farm investment— 0
(15) Would the project, by converting
that farmland to nonagncultural use,
reduce the demand for agricultural
support services so as to jeopardize the
continued eMstence of thi se support
services m the art-a and thus, the
viability of the farms remaining in the
oren7
§bS3.5 Guidelines for use- ot criteria.
As stated above and as provided to
the Act. each Federal agency shall us&
the criteria to identify and take into
account the adverse effects of Federal
programs on the preservation of
farmland, consider alternative actions.
as appropriate, that could lessen such
adverse effects*, and assure that such
Federal programs, to the extent
practicable, are compatible with State.
unit of local government and private
programs and policies to protect
farmland, Tha following are suggested
guidelines to assist the agencies tn this
task
(a) The Soil Conservation Service will
measure the relative \a!ue of the site as
farmland accort.irg to the criteria set
forth in § 558 4(a) above It will then
assign an overall score to the site
reflecting its value on a relative scale of
0 to ICO
(b) Individual Federal agencies will b&
able to measure the suitability of the site
for protection as farmland according to
the criteria set forth in 5 658 4(b) above
Using any reldt.ve weighting aTiong the
criteria that the agency desires, the
agency may assign a total score to the-
site on a scale of 0 to 160 Sites most
suitable for protection under these
cntera would rece ve the highest
overall scores, and sites least suitable,
the low est scores.
(c) The score for relative \ alue of the
site for agricultural [Subsection (a)
above] and the score for suitability of
the site for protection as farmland
{Subsection (b) above] when combined,
would be for the site in question a
-------
31568
Federal Register / Vol 48. No 134 / Tuesday. July 12. 1963 (Proposed Rules
measurement of all the criteria which
USDA h developed for the agencies to
use
(d) With assistance from Ihe Soil
Conservation Service, numerous States
«nd local units of government have been
deve'opmg and adopting Land
Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA)
systems to evaluate the productivity of
agricultural land and i*s suitability or
nonsuttabihty for conservation to
nonagncultural use Therefore, State
and local units of government in which
Federal agencies intend to locate
projects ma> have already performed an
evaluation process similar to the cntena
contained in this rule applicable to
Federal agencies In such cases, a
Federal agency will find the local or
State evaluation an appropriate
berchmark for assuring,,as the Act
requires that its program to the extent' .
practicable, is compatible with State or
unit of local government programs and
policies to protect farmland

§ 658 6 Technical assistance.
(a) Section 1543 of the Act. 7 U S C
4204, authorizes OSDA to provide
technical assistance to States, units of
local government, and nonprofit
organizations in developing their
programs or policies to protect farmland
from unnecessary corversion to
ronagncultural uses or to guide urban
development In § 2 62, of this Title the
Soil Conservation Service is delegated
Icadtrship responsibility within USDA
for the activities treated in this Part.
(b} In providing assistance to States.
local units of government, and nonprofit
organizations, USDA will make
available maps and other soils
information from the National
Cooperative Soil Survey through SCS
field offices and will assist Sta'e and
local offtctalii in devising Land
Evaluation and Site Assessment [LESAJ
systems These systems would provide
uniform and systematic ways for State
ard local officials to identify farmland
of varying qualities and to assess its
desirability for farming
(c) Additional assistance may within
available resources, be obtained from
local offices of other USDA agencies
The Agricultural Stabil'Zation and
Conservation Service and the Forest
Serv ice can provide information
including aerial photography, crop
history data, and related information In
many State*?, the Cooperative Extens.on
Service can provide help in
understanding and identifying fir/Hand
protection issues and problems,
resolving conflicts., developing
alternate es, deciding on appropriate
action1?. «'nd implementing ihose
decisions
The Forest Service will cooperate m
planning for uses of land adjacent to
National Forests and will consider
wherever practicable, coordinating the
management of National Forest lands
with the management of adjacent tends
(d} Pursuant to Section 1540 [a] and
(b) of the Act. 7 U S C 4201 (a) and (b),
USDA will encourage Federal agencies
to protect farmland from unnecessary
end irreversible conversion to
nonagncultural uses USDA wi'l.
consistent with available resources,
provide information and technical^
assistance to States, units of local
government, and nonprofit organizations
in their efforts to protect farmland
(e) An opportunity will be provided
for consultation by elected officials of
State and local governments that would
- be affected by the proposed action. „
consistent with the provisions of ~
Executive Order 12372,
-"Intergovernmental Review of Federal
Program." and related rules and
regulations promulgated by USDA
(f) Officials of State agencies. local
.units of government, nonprofit
organizations, or regional, area, state-
level, or field offices of Federal agencies
or landholders may obtain assistance by
contacting the office of the SCS State
Conservationist A list of Soil
Conservation Service state office
locations appears in Appendix A,
§ 661 6 of this Title If further assistance
is needed, requests should be made to
the Assistant Secretary for Natural
Resource's and Environment, Office of
the Secretary, Department of
Agnculture Washington, D C 20250

§ 558 7 USDA assistance with Federal
agencies' reviews of policies and
procedures
(a) Section 1542 of the Act, 7 U S C
4203 requires each Federal ageicy. uith
the assistance of USDA, to re/ie v
current pro\ isions of la A, aomin.slrauve
rules and regulations, and policies and
procedures applicable to it to determine
whether anj provision thereof VM!!
p-event sucn agency from taking
appropriate action to comply fu'tv wuh_
the provisions of the Act Each Federal
agency with the nssis.aice of USDA, is
also required as approp^te, to develop
proposals for action to bring its
programs, authorities, and
administrative activities into conformity
with the purpose and policy of the Act
(b) USDA can provide certain
assistance to other Federal agencies for
the purposes specified in Sectior 1542 of
the Act, 7 U S C 4203 If a Federal
agency identifies, or suggests changes in
lnv\s, administrative rules and
regulations, policies, or procedures lh.il
may affect (he ayoncy's compliance with
the Act, USDA can advise the agency of
the probable effects of the changes on
the protection of farmland This
assistance is provided on request, as
permitted by staffing and budget
limitat.ons To request this assistance,
officials of Federal agencies should
correspond with the Chief, Soil
Conservation Service, P O Box 2890.
Washington, D C 20013
Ddted July 6 1983
JobnB Crowell.fr,
Assistant Secretary Natural Resources ontl
Environment.
[FR Doc 83-18430 Filed 7-11-S3 MS ail]
BILLING COM MKM8-U
7 CFR Part 991

Hops of Domestic Production; Waiver
of Bona Fide Effort Requirement for
the 1983-84 Marketing Year

AGENCY- Agricultural Marketing Service,
USDA
ACTION Proposed rule -

SUMMARY: This notice of proposed
rulemaking invites written comments on
waiving the bona fide effort requiremeil
which obligates hop producers to make
a bona fide effort to produce their
annual allotment or have their allotment
bases reduced This proposal is
considered necessary because of the
current inactive market and burdensome
oversupply of hops The proposal was
recommended unanimously by the Hop
Administrative Committee which works
with the USDA in administering the
marketing order
DATE- Comments must be received by
July 27.1983
ADDRESS: Send two copies of comments
to t' 2 Hearing Clerk. Room 1077, South
Building US Department of
Agncu'ture, Washington, D C 20250
where they wih be avai'able for public
inspection durng regular business
hours
F03 FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Frank M Grosbfrger, Acting Chief,
Specialty Crops Branch Washington,
DC 20250(202)447-5053
SUPPLEMENT VJY tSFOHMATlOH" This
proposed ru'e has been reviewed under
USDA guidel'nes implementing
Executive Order 12291 and Secretary's
MeinoranJun No 1512-1 ard has been
determined to be a "non major' rule
under criteria contained therein
William 1 Manlev. Deputy
Administrator, Agnculturil Marketing
Service has certified that this action
will not have a significant econom-c
impact on a substantial number of t,nali
entities
GPO 1983-754 681
-------