Waukesha Diversion Impacts on the Baseflow of the Fox River

Impacts of the Waukesha Water Diversion on the
Baseflow of the Fox River in Wisconsin
Patrick Siwula and Jason Tutkowski
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
CES 651 Stream Management and Restoration
December 2016

1
Table of Contents
Abstract………………………………………………………………………………………....2
Introduction……………………………………………………………………………….…....3
Methods………………………………………………………………………………………..11
Results……………………………………………………………………………………...….15
Discussion…………………………………………………………………………………….20
Conclusions……………………………………………………………………………….…..23
Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………….…………23
References……………………………………………………………………………............24

2
Abstract –
The City of Waukesha, WI receives most of its current public water supply from a
deep sandstone aquifer in which recharge is greatly reduced by the Maquoketa shale
confining layer. Severe drawdown and harmful levels of carcinogenic radium above
federal standards have caused the City to seek a diversion of Great Lakes water to
serve as a new primary public water supply. The Fox River, which flows through
Waukesha, currently receives all of the effluent (approximately 10 million gallons per
day) from Waukesha’s wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). If the diversion obtains all
necessary approvals and permits, then the effluent will be rerouted to the Root River.
This study investigated the impact the rerouting would have on the Fox River in terms of
baseflow reduction, cross-sectional water depth, as well as water quality.
Daily Fox River discharge data (January 1, 1964 through December 31, 2015)
was downloaded from a U.S. Geological Survey stream gage located approximately
4,000 feet upstream of Waukesha’s WWTP. Streamflow Analysis and Assessment
Software was used in order to determine baseflow in the Fox River with and without the
effluent discharged from the Waukesha WWTP. In order to determine the effect of
reduced baseflow on the Fox River, stream cross section and hydrologic data were
obtained from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. The change in water
levels at the cross sections were determined using the Hydrologic Engineering Center
River Analysis System model (HEC-RAS) by editing the model to include baseflow data
both with and without the WWTP effluent. To simplify the data evaluation, five groups of
five cross sections were reviewed out of a possible 513 throughout Waukesha and
Racine Counties. A single cross section was also reviewed along the Wisconsin-Illinois

3
state line. Results showed that declines in water surface levels were greatest just
downstream of the WWTP with a grouping average of 2.91 inches and decreased
moving further downstream, with the exception of the grouping between the villages of
Waterford and Rochester, WI. Water surface declines were found to be zero at the
Wisconsin-Illinois state line. It is unlikely that in-stream habitat will be overly affected by
these small declines, however, all reductions in baseflow need to be considered as part
of management programs moving forwards. Continued monitoring will be required to
validate the results put forth in this study to continue assessing how the Waukesha
diversion will impact the Fox River.
Introduction –
Waukesha Water Diversion.
The city of Waukesha is located at approximately 43°00′42″N 88°13′54″W
(Google, 2016) in Township 6 North and Range 19 East in Waukesha County,
Wisconsin (Waukesha County, 2009). The city spans 25 square miles and is home to
an estimated 71,970 residents (U.S. Census Bureau, 2015). Located in Southeastern
Wisconsin, the city receives ample precipitation at around 34.62 inch per year (U.S.
Climate Data, 2016). But despite having a relatively wet climate, Waukesha has had
some major water use issues.
In order to keep pace with a growing population, between 1935 and 2009
Waukesha constructed 11 groundwater wells to meet its water use demands
(Chowdhury et al. 2013). Waukesha relies on deep aquifer wells for 87 percent of its
public water, which are supplemented by shallow aquifer wells. Groundwater recharge
in the area is restricted due to the Maquoketa shale confining layer that underlies the

4
city (Waukesha Water Utility, 2016). Water use and restricted natural recharge have
both led to water levels in the deep sandstone aquifer declining 500 to 600 feet since
the late 19th century (CH2M HILL, 2012). Water in the deep aquifer also contains high
levels of carcinogenic radium that have been increasing in concentration due to
declining water levels (WDNR, 2016a). These levels have reached up to 15 pCi/L
(picocuries per liter) (Waukesha Water Utility, 2016), three times higher than the Safe
Drinking Water Act standard of 5 pCi/L for combined radium 226/228 (EPA, 2016). In
2009, the State of Wisconsin ordered Waukesha to bring their drinking water quality into
radium compliance by June 30, 2018 (CH2M HILL, 2012).
Water supply options to address both high radium and declining aquifer water
levels have been worked on by the city and the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional
Planning Commission (SEWRPC) for the past two decades. SEWRPC’s final
consensus was that Lake Michigan would be the best option for Waukesha’s current
and future water requirements (CH2M HILL, 2012). While Waukesha is situated only 17
miles west of the sizeable surface waters of Lake Michigan and the Laurentian Great
Lakes (WDNR, 2016a), Waukesha has not been able to easily utilize these water
resources. The Great Lakes–St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact
(also referred to as the Great Lakes Compact) prohibits diversions out of the Great
Lakes Basin. Waukesha is located about 1.5 miles west of the Great Lakes surface
water divide and is defined as a city within a straddling county, having a portion of its
area inside Lake Michigan’s watershed.
Fourteen initial water supply options were considered, however, eight were
eliminated in the initial screening process due to major environmental and regulatory

5
issues. That left six water supply options which were further evaluated (Waukesha
Water Utility, 2016). Options included using 1) a combination of deep and shallow
aquifer water, 2) shallow aquifer with Fox River alluvium, 3) Lake Michigan (City of
Milwaukee), 4) Lake Michigan (City of Oak Creek Alignment 1), 5) Lake Michigan (City
of Oak Creek Alignment 2), and 6) Lake Michigan (City of Racine). The severity of
environmental impact on the groundwater, geomorphology and sediments, flooding,
aquatic habitat, water quality, wetlands, and soils varied between the options.
Environmental impact analysis on each of the six major options showed that
groundwater options in the Mississippi River Basin would not be protective of public
health and the environment and would have a potential to greatly impact hundreds of
acres of wetlands and several seepage lakes (CH2M HILL, 2013a).
Due to the impacts caused by utilizing water resources within the Mississippi
River Basin, the proposed plan focused on obtaining water from the Lake Michigan
Basin. Waukesha sought an exception from the prohibition of diversions under the
Great Lakes Compact and its companion the Great Lakes–St. Lawrence River Basin
Sustainable Water Resources Agreement. Diversions are prohibited under the
Compact and Agreement with very limited exceptions. One exception allows a
community within a straddling county, like Waukesha, to apply for a diversion of Great
Lakes water. The final proposed project included an average daily demand of 10.1 mgd
and maximum daily demand of 16.7 mgd from Lake Michigan via pipeline alignment 2
through the City of Oak Creek. Return flow would be to the Root River via pipeline
alignment 2, which would be sufficient for growth in Waukesha’s planned service area
through 2050. The City of Oak Creek obtains its water from Lake Michigan and treats it

6
to drinking water standards. A pipeline and pump station would be constructed in order
to convey the treated water to Waukesha. The proposed pipeline would be 30 to 36
inches in diameter, 19.4 miles in length, and would connect Oak Creek’s water
distribution system to the Hillcrest drinking water reservoir in Waukesha. The pipeline
would follow rights-of-way in order to minimize environmental impacts. Once Waukesha
receives Lake Michigan water they would no longer use their groundwater supply wells,
however they would still maintain them for emergency purposes (CH2M HILL, 2013a).
Return flow would be in the form of treated wastewater from Waukesha’s
wastewater treatment plant and would be equal to the volume of withdrawal minus the
volume of consumptive use. A pipeline and pump station would be constructed in order
to convey the treated wastewater to the Root River in Franklin, WI. Any water use over
the maximum daily demand would be discharged to the Fox River. Waukesha’s
wastewater treatment plant includes activated sludge with a tertiary dual media filtration
of anthracite and sand with ultraviolet light disinfection. The plant has consistently met
its state and federal permits for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), total suspended
solids (TSS), ammonia (NH3-N), and total phosphorus (TP). A 20 year facilities update
plan identified provisions for improvements to the UV disinfection system and
reaeration. The proposed return flow pipeline would be 30 inches in diameter, 20.2
miles in length, and would track alongside the supply water pipeline for the majority of
its length (CH2M HILL, 2013a).
As of June 21, 2016, the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water
Resources Council approved Waukesha’s diversion application under two major
conditions: 1) The initial request for an average daily demand of 10.1 mgd would be

7
reduced to 8.2 mgd and 2) The original water service area be reduced to only i)
incorporated land within the boundaries of the City of Waukesha and land outside the
City of Waukesha’s jurisdictional boundaries that are served with municipal water by the
Applicant through the Waukesha Water Utility as of May 18, 2016 and ii) land lying
within the perimeter boundary of the City of Waukesha that is part of unincorporated
land in the Town of Waukesha. Under those conditions, the governors of each of the
eight Great Lakes states unanimously approved the diversion of Lake Michigan water to
the City of Waukesha (Water Resources Council, 2016). After that final major hurdle,
Waukesha could begin to pursue all government permits after which the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) would give final approval (WDNR, 2016a).
Any water withdrawn from the Lake Michigan watershed, per the framework set
forth in the diversion, must be returned to the watershed at a volume equal to the
volume of withdrawal minus the volume of consumptive use (CH2M Hill, 2013a). This
volume of water returning to Lake Michigan will be entirely composed of treated
wastewater and must be piped into a tributary in the watershed in order to return to the
Lake. The City of Waukesha’s proposed return flow plan has outlined several options for
locations to return water to Lake Michigan, with the preferred location being the Root
River, which rises in Waukesha County, flows through Milwaukee and Racine Counties,
and empties into Lake Michigan at the City of Racine (CH2M Hill, 2013b; WDNR, n.d.).
The Root River was chosen as the preferred option for returning flow to Lake Michigan
due to having similar size and watershed characteristics as the Fox River, where all of
the City of Waukesha’s wastewater currently flows into (CH2M HILL, 2013b). The
diverting of Waukesha’s wastewater into the Root River presents several management

8
challenges that must be met regarding both the quantity and quality of water being
diverted. Many of these challenges have been discussed as they pertain to the Root
River, however, relatively little has been done to assess the potential impacts to the Fox
River once the diversion is completed. The focus of this study is to assess the impacts
to the Fox River that the rerouting of the City of Waukesha’s wastewater to the Root
River will have in terms of baseflow reduction, cross-sectional water depth, as well as
water quality.
Fox River Watershed Characteristics.
The Fox River is located within the Upper, Middle and Lower Fox River
watersheds, which cover a total area of 513 square miles. The Upper Fox River
Watershed is 151 square miles in area and is located in Washington and Waukesha
Counties. The Fox River runs 24.5 miles through this area. The watershed is primarily
agricultural (37%) and urban (30%), although 11% is wetland, of which only 54% of the
original extent of wetlands still exist. Most stretches of the Fox River are impaired for
either degraded habitat, contaminated fish tissue, low dissolved oxygen, or degraded
biological communities. Pollutants include suspended solids, PCBs, and total
phosphorus. Most of the City of Waukesha is in this watershed, which pumps extensive
amounts of groundwater from its deep sandstone aquifer (WDNR, 2010).
The Middle Fox River Watershed is 248 square miles in area and is located
throughout Waukesha, Milwaukee, Racine, and Walworth Counties. The Fox River runs
20.1 miles through this area. The watershed is primarily agricultural (41%) with 18%
grassland, 14% wetlands, and 13% forest. Urban accounts for only 4% of all land uses.
Genesee Creek is considered an exceptional resource water and Spring Lake is

9
considered an outstanding resource water. The Vernon Marsh Wildlife Area is also
located in this watershed and has the potential to be greatly impacted by water supply
alternatives to the Great Lakes water diversion from the City of Waukesha. All stretches
of the Fox River in this watershed are also impaired. Impairments include excessive
algal growth, contaminated fish tissue, degraded biological communities, degraded
habitat, and low dissolved oxygen. Pollutants include total phosphorus, PCB’s, and
suspended solids (WDNR, 2014).
The Lower Fox River Watershed is 114 square miles in area and stretches
through Racine, Kenosha, and Walworth Counties. The Fox River runs 38.1 miles
through this area. This watershed is also primarily agricultural (47%), with forests
covering 15%, wetlands 13%, and grasslands 11%. Less than 2% of the land cover is
urban. One stretch of the Fox River is impaired for contaminated fish tissue and
degraded biological communities. Pollutants include PCBs and total phosphorus. The
Fox River in this watershed is at its largest Wisconsin extent and is greatly impacted by
agriculture and drain tiles. Bank erosion and flashy water levels can both be issues
(WDNR, 2002).
Current Wastewater Practices.
Currently, the Fox River receives all of the effluent from Waukesha’s wastewater
treatment plant (WWTP), which ranges between 9-12 mgd with an average of 10 mgd,
(CH2M HILL, 2010). This practice has been in place since 1890 and the presence of
WWTP effluent in the river represents a significant portion of the flow in the Fox River,
which has an average discharge of just above 72 mgd (CH2MHILL, 2013b; USGS,
2016). The effluent leaving the WWTP has been described as high quality, and

10
consistently meets parameters set out in the facilities National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits (CH2M HILL, 2010) (Table 1). While this effluent
does have high quality, its presence or absence alone represents a water quality
management challenge in terms of constituent ratios and biotic integrity.
Significance of the Problem.
The re-routing of this effluent to the Root River, per the plan set out in the
diversion, will represent not only a reduction in baseflow to the Fox River, but also a
reduction in the constituents present in the River, such as TSS and phosphorus. These
reductions in baseflow and constituent load may cause changes to the Fox River in
terms of water depth, habitat availability, and water quality. Additionally, there may be
impacts to other areas in Waukesha County downstream of the treatment plant, such as
Table 1. Waukesha WWTP average monthly effluent constituent concentrations (CH2MHILL, 2010).

11
the Vernon Marsh, which consists of wetlands and flowages along the Fox River
(WDNR, 2016b). There also is the potential for a reduction in assimilative capacity, or
the capacity to receive waste waters or toxic substances without deleterious effects and
without damage to aquatic life, of other downstream reaches of the Fox River itself. The
following analyses were undertaken in order to address these, and other issues arising
from the diversion of Waukesha’s wastewater.
Methods –
Stream gage discharge data was downloaded from the U.S. Geological Survey’s
(USGS) database for one gage site in the City of Waukesha, WI on the Fox River. The
site retains a unique identifier site number of 05543830, a hydrologic unit code of
07120006, global positioning system coordinates of 43°00'17" N latitude, 88°14'37" W
longitude (43.004722, -88.243611), and is positioned on the left bank of the Fox River
40 ft downstream from the Prairie street bridge in downtown Waukesha (USGS, 2016).
This gaging station is located roughly 4,000 feet upstream from the Waukesha
Wastewater treatment plant, which discharges its effluent directly into the Fox River
(Figure 1; City of Waukesha, 2011). This point on the Fox River drains an area of 126
mi2 (326.3 km2) (USGS, 2016).
Daily average discharges in units of cubic feet per second (cfs) beginning
January 1, 1963 and ending November 7, 2016 were obtained as a Microsoft Notepad
and transferred to Microsoft Excel. The data was then formatted in order to be put into
the Streamflow Analysis and Assessment Software (SAAS) stream management
software program version 4.1 (Metcalfe and Schmidt, 2016). Leap days were removed
from the data, units were converted to cubic meters per second (cms), and the time

12
range was shortened to January 1, 1964 through December 31, 2015. Since the gaging
site was located upstream from the Waukesha WWTP, two separate files were created,
one for discharge data with an additional 10 mgd (roughly 15.47 cfs or 0.438 cms)
effluent and one without the effluent to simulate the Waukesha WWTP effluent
discharge to the Fox River before and after the diversion. The data was then
highlighted and saved separately as comma separated value files (csv).
The daily discharge data was then put into the SAAS stream management tool in
order to determine baseflow in the Fox River with and without the effluent discharged
from the Waukesha WWTP by having the software conduct a baseflow separation
analysis. More information on SAAS can be found at Metcalfe et al. (2013). The
outputs from SAAS were Microsoft Notepad files of baseflow (cms) with and without
effluent from February 2, 1964 through November 30, 2015. The baseflow data was
then moved to one Microsoft Excel file and units were converted to cfs. The baseflow
Figure 1. Location of USGS Fox River gauging station in relation to Waukesha WWTP. Distance
between the two is ~4,000 ft. (Google Earth, 2016).

13
data was then put into JMP Pro 12 predictive analytics software in order to display the
data visually. A box plot graph was created of baseflow with and without effluent,
separated by month, and placed side by side for comparison. More information on JMP
can be found at SAS Institute (2016).
In order to determine the effect of reduced baseflow on the Fox River, stream
cross section and hydrologic data were obtained from WDNR as a Hydrologic
Engineering Center River Analysis System (HEC-RAS) file as well as a geographic
information system (GIS) shapefile (WDNR, 2016c). ArcMap 10.4.1 was used to view
the GIS data in order to locate the cross sections spatially and match them with a
unique identifier in the HEC-RAS file. More information on GIS can be found at ESRI
(2016).
HEC-RAS 4.1 was used to open the HEC-RAS file and display the cross
sectional information. The change in water levels at the aforementioned cross sections
was determined by editing the model to include baseflow data both with the WWTP
effluent and without the WWTP effluent. A steady flow analysis was run using only this
baseflow data in order to show differences in cross-sectional water depth based on the
presence or absence of the WWTP effluent. Identifiers were matched from the GIS
data and 26 cross sections were reviewed out of a possible 513.
Five groups of five cross sections were chosen (Figure 3). Four of the groupings were
located in Waukesha County just downstream of the Waukesha WWTP, between
Highway 59 and County Road H, along Vernon Marsh, and just north of the
Waukesha/Racine County line. The fifth grouping was located in Racine County just
south of Waterford, WI. Additionally, the last cross section in Wisconsin before the Fox

14
Figure 3 Map of cross sections along the Fox River.
River enters Illinois was also chosen. More information on HEC-RAS can be found at
USACE (2016).

15
Results –
Results from SAAS baseflow separation analysis can be seen in Tables 2 and 3
showing differences in discharge with and without Waukesha WWTP effluent.
Fox River Averaged Monthly Baseflow With Effluent (cfs)
Month BFI
25th Percentile
(75% Exceedance)
Median (50%
Exceedance)
75th Percentile
(25% Exceedance)
January 0.6795 47.15 58.98 72.50
February 0.5872 47.71 63.50 81.54
March 0.4891 65.97 97.72 132.18
April 0.5295 88.39 117.49 156.83
May 0.5693 64.77 85.57 117.88
June 0.4831 45.94 59.54 89.77
July 0.5616 38.10 49.19 67.52
August 0.5690 33.65 44.46 56.72
September 0.5637 33.27 43.90 60.25
October 0.6552 38.46 52.76 69.85
November 0.6614 47.78 60.21 78.79
December 0.6504 46.51 60.81 79.56
Table 2. Monthly baseflow index values (BFI) and averaged baseflow from January 1, 1964 through
December 31, 2015 with effluent provided from the SAAS software. The BFI is the ratio between
baseflow and total flow. Therefore a BFI of 0.5 indicates that 50% of total streamflow can be attributed to
baseflow for the respective time period.
Fox River Averaged Monthly Baseflow Without Effluent (cfs)
Month BFI
25th Percentile
(75% Exceedance)
Median (50%
Exceedance)
75th Percentile
(25% Exceedance)
January 0.5953 28.57 40.40 53.93
February 0.5060 29.10 44.92 62.97
March 0.4399 47.36 79.14 113.61
April 0.4910 69.82 98.92 138.26
May 0.5161 46.19 66.99 99.30
June 0.4105 27.33 40.97 71.19
July 0.4693 19.53 30.58 48.95
August 0.4497 15.08 25.89 38.14
September 0.4506 14.66 25.32 41.67
October 0.5646 19.88 34.15 51.28
November 0.5822 29.21 41.60 60.21
December 0.5705 27.90 42.20 60.99
Table 3. Monthly baseflow index values (BFI) and averaged baseflow from January 1, 1964 through
December 31, 2015 without effluent provided from the SAAS software. The BFI is the ratio between
baseflow and total flow. Therefore a BFI of 0.5 indicates that 50% of total streamflow can be attributed to
baseflow for the respective time period.

16
Statistical output from SAAS was input into JMP (Figure 2) in order to display
statistical data as a box plot to graphically display differences in discharge with and
without Waukesha WWTP effluent.
Figure 2. Box plot of Fox River baseflow with and without effluent discharged from the Waukesha WWTP
using data from SAAS and displaying it in JMP.
Results of the HEC-RAS steady flow analysis using edited baseflow data were
obtained for the 26 selected cross sections in 6 groupings downstream of the
Waukesha WWTP. Declines in water surface were obtained from elevation data in the
HEC-RAS graphical cross section representations and average differences in water
surface decline were calculated for each grouping and for all 26 together. Average
declines in water surface level were the greatest just downstream of the WWTP at 2.91
inches and decreased moving further downstream, with the exception of the grouping
between Waterford and Rochester, WI (Table 4). Water surface declines were found to
be zero at the Illinois state line; this cross section was omitted from the overall averages

17
so as to not skew the results (Table 4). One graphical representation from each of the
groupings was selected to be shown in order to illustrate the water surface level
declines (WS), the energy head declines (EG), as well as the declines in critical flow
(Crit) for baseflow with and without effluent from the WWTP (Figure 4).
Cross section 315328 (Just downstream of WWTP).
Cross section 303861 (Between Hwy 59 and CTR H).

18
Cross section 263404 (Vernon Marsh Area).
Cross section 177822 (North of Waukesha County Line).

19
Cross section 136828 (Between Waterford and Rochester).
Cross section 617 (At Illinois State line).
Figure 4. Graphical representations of selected cross-sections from each grouping.

20
Location
Cross-
section
Water
Surface
with
Effluent (ft)
Water
Surface
without
Effluent
(ft)
Difference
(ft)
Difference
(in)
Average
Difference
within
Groupings
(in)
Just
Downstream
of WWTP
317652 786.91 786.69 0.22 2.64
316516 786.49 786.28 0.21 2.52
315328 786.08 785.84 0.24 2.88
314594 785.86 785.59 0.27 3.24
313294 785.63 785.37 0.26 3.12 2.91
Between
Hwy 59 and
CTR H
307084 784.93 784.7 0.23 2.76
305041 784.28 784 0.28 3.36
303861 784.04 783.79 0.25 3
302506 783.89 783.66 0.23 2.76
301419 783.86 783.65 0.21 2.52 2.88
Vernon
Marsh Area
263404 778.47 778.2 0.27 3.24
259836 778.21 777.97 0.24 2.88
255515 777.99 777.8 0.19 2.28
252534 777.84 777.67 0.17 2.04
249100 777.73 777.58 0.15 1.8 2.45
North of
Waukesha
County Line
183684 773.52 773.46 0.06 0.72
182126 773.52 773.45 0.07 0.84
180732 773.51 773.45 0.06 0.72
179108 773.52 773.45 0.07 0.84
177822 773.51 773.44 0.07 0.84 0.79
Between
Waterford
and
Rochester
138673 763.61 763.46 0.15 1.8
137958 763.32 763.18 0.14 1.68
136828 763.17 763.04 0.13 1.56
135563 762.96 762.87 0.09 1.08
134512 762.31 762.13 0.18 2.16
Average: 2.13 1.66
At Illinois
State Line 617 742.5 742.5 0 0
Table 4. Declines of water levels in individual cross sectional groupings.
Discussion –
Effects on physical and biological components of Fox River.
Based on the aforementioned results of reduction in baseflow to the Fox River
resulting from the Waukesha Diversion and associated rerouting of wastewater to the

21
Root River, there are several considerations in regards to the overall health of the
system which are outlined below.
River systems are complex and change temporally and spatially across the
landscape (Vannote et al. 1980). Streamflow can have a profound effect on both the
physical and biological components of the stream system. Stream flow helps dictate the
shape of the river, its size, habitat, and the distribution, abundance, and diversity of
aquatic species (Bunn and Arthington, 2002). A change in the rates of water level
fluctuations, the intensity of these fluctuations, and frequency can have profound effects
on seedling survival rates and plant growth rates. Decreases in flows leading to
reduced inundation of floodplains can also reduce recruitment of fish, decrease aquatic
bird richness and abundance, and cause declines in wetland plant species (Bunn and
Arthington, 2002). Reduced discharge was also shown to increase coarse particulate
organic matter retention and decrease travel distance in streams. Decreased water
levels, which lead to greater protrusion of rocks, boulders, and woody debris, also
generally make riffles more effective at retaining CPOM (Dewson et al. 2007). A
decrease in baseflow can also lead to more shallow areas in the stream, which can
increase in temperature more readily and can lack complex structure (Richards et al.
1996). This was corroborated in a study by Dewson et al. (2007) which observed
reduced invertebrate densities in streams with reduced flows.
Effects on assimilative capacity of Fox River.
Assimilative capacity of a stream generally refers to its ability to receive toxic
substances or wastewater without causing damage to aquatic life or humans. Different
definitions are used throughout the scientific community, however, a focused definition

22
used by chemists and wastewater scientists specifies assimilative capacity as the
volume of waste that may be discharged to a body of water without lowering its ambient
dissolved oxygen concentration below a predetermined value (Campbell, 1981). The
City of Waukesha’s planned Great Lakes water diversion would result in approximately
10 mgd less effluent being discharged into the Fox River. The decrease in effluent
discharge would affect baseflow in the Fox River thereby decreasing overall flows as
well. A reduction in in-stream flows can reduce the assimilative capacity of a stream
(Yulianti and Burn, 1997; Poole and Berman, 2001). Other processes that affect
baseflow and can lead to reduced assimilative capacity include reduced phreatic
groundwater discharge, low flow periods due to climate, and reduced stream structure
leading to reductions in hyporheic water flows (Poole and Berman, 2001). This can
result in increased water treatment costs in order to maintain water quality standards
(Yulianti and Burn, 1997). Alternatively, a decrease in effluent could also increase biotic
health due to a decrease in suspended solids, total phosphorus, bacteria, and emerging
pollutants.
WWTP effluent has been shown to alter sex steroid hormone levels in juvenile
and adult fish, impair gonadal development and sexual differentiation in early life
stages, as well as alter induction of the egg yolk precursor protein, vitellogenin (Thorpe
et al. 2005). Additionally, the presence and interactions between pharmaceutical
products, emerging contaminants, wastewater derived transformation products, and
biotic communities are relatively poorly understood (Cwiertny et al. 2014). These types
of constituents are often present in WWTP effluent and in the case of the Fox River,
may have been impacting the biotic community in ways that have not been quantified,

23
regardless of the fact that the WWTP effluent has been consistently described as high
quality (CH2M Hill, 2010) (Table 1). The removal of the WWTP effluent from the Fox
River has the potential to actually improve the biotic community by alleviating some of
the contaminant load and thus improving the water quality. Further studies in the
interactions between pharmaceuticals, emerging contaminants, and their impacts are
needed to explore this phenomenon.
Conclusions –
The results presented here indicate that the baseflow of the Fox River will be
most impacted just downstream of the WWTP with an average baseflow water surface
decline of nearly 3 inches. Moving further downstream, the water level declines drop
and eventually reach zero at the Wisconsin-Illinois state line. It is likely that in-stream
habitat will not be overly affected, however, these declines in baseflow need to be
considered as a part of further management programs moving forwards. Continued
monitoring will be required to validate the results put forth in this study and to continue
assessing how the Waukesha diversion will impact the Fox River.
Acknowledgements –
We would like to thank Christopher Olds, floodplain engineer with the Wisconsin
DNR, for providing us with the HEC-RAS model for the Fox River and associated GIS
data. We would also like to thank Dr. Neal O’Reilly for guidance in working through the
various programs which were used to analyze the data.

24
References
Bunn, S. E., & Arthington, A. H. (2002). Basic principles and ecological consequences
of altered flow regimes for aquatic biodiversity. Environmental management,
30(4), 492-507.
Campbell, I. C. (1981). A critique of assimilative capacity. Journal (Water Pollution
Control Federation), 604-607.
CH2M HILL. (2010, April). Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements for Returning
Water Withdrawn from Lake Michigan. Retreived from Environmental Report:
http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/wateruse/documents/waukesha/appendix_e.pdf
CH2M HILL. (2012, February). City of Waukesha Water Supply. Retrieved from
Environmental Report:
http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/WaterUse/documents/Waukesha/WaukeshaWaterSupplyE
nvironmentalReport2012-1.pdf
CH2M HILL. (2013a, October). City of Waukesha Environmental Report for Water
Supply Alternatives. Retrieved from City of Waukesha Water Utility:
http://apps.ci.waukesha.wi.us/Files/5_City_of_Waukesha_Environmental_Report.
pdf
CH2M HIll. (2013b, October). City Waukesha Return Flow Plan. Retrieved from City of
Waukesha Water Utility:
http://www.waukesha-
water.com/downloads/4_City_of_Waukesha_Return_Flow_Plan.pdf

25
City of Waukesha. (2011, November). City of Waukesha Wastewater Treatment
Process. Retrieved from City of Waukesha: http://www.waukesha-
wi.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1156
Chowdhury, F., Lant, C., & Dziegielewski, B. (2013). A century of water supply
expansion for ten US cities. Applied Geography, 45, 58-76.
Cwiertny, David M., et al. (2014). "Environmental designer drugs: when transformation
may not eliminate risk." Environmental science & technology 48.20: 11737-
11745.
Dewson, Z. S., James, A. B., & Death, R. G. (2007). Stream ecosystem functioning
under reduced flow conditions. Ecological Applications, 17(6), 1797-1808.
EPA. (2016, November 1). Radionuclides Rule. Retrieved from Drinking Water
Requirements for States and Public Water Systems:
https://www.epa.gov/dwreginfo/radionuclides-rule#rule-history
ESRI. (2016). ArcGIS. Retrieved from ArcGIS: https://www.arcgis.com/home/index.html
Google. (2016). Waukesha. Retrieved from Google Maps:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Waukesha,+WI/@43.0052701,-
88.3093723,12z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x8805a626948e9757:0xab2da134
61989c95!8m2!3d43.0116784!4d-88.2314813
Karr, J. R. (1981). Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities. Fisheries, 6(6),
21-27.
Karr, J. R. (1992). Defining and assessing ecological integrity: beyond water quality.
Environmental toxicology and chemistry, 12(9), 1521-1531.

26
Lyons, J., Wang, L., & Simonson, T. D. (1996). Development and validation of an index
of biotic integrity for coldwater streams in Wisconsin. North American Journal of
Fisheries Management, 16(2), 241-256.
Metcalfe, R.A., Mackereth, R.W., Grantham, B., Jones, N., Pyrce, R.S., Haxton, T.,
Luce, J.J., and Stainton, R., 2013. Aquatic Ecosystem Assessments for Rivers
(AEAR). Science and Research Branch, Ministry of Natural Resources,
Peterborough, Ontario. 210 pp. https://www.ontario.ca/document/aquatic-
ecosystem-assessments-rivers
Metcalfe, R.A. and Schmidt, B., 2016. Streamflow Analysis and Assessment Software
(SAAS) (V4.1). [Online] Available: http://people.trentu.ca/rmetcalfe/SAAS.html
Poole, G. C., & Berman, C. H. (2001). An ecological perspective on in-stream
temperature: natural heat dynamics and mechanisms of human-caused thermal
degradation. Environmental management, 27(6), 787-802.
Richards C, Johnson LB, Host GE. (1996). Landscape-scale influences on stream
habitats and biota. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 53: 295-311
SAS Institute. (2016). JMP Pro. Retrieved from JMP Statistical Discovery from SAS:
http://www.jmp.com/en_us/software/predictive-analytics-software.html
Thorpe, K. L., et al. (2005). "Health effects in fish of long-term exposure to effluents
from wastewater treatment works." Environmental Health Perspectives 114, 82-
89.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2015). Waukesha city, Wisconsin. Retrieved from Quick Facts:
http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/5584250,00

27
U.S. Climate Data. (2016). Climate Waukesha. Retrieved from U.S. Climate Data:
http://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/waukesha/wisconsin/united-
states/uswi0723
USACE. (2016). HEC-RAS. Retrieved from Hydrologic Engineering Center:
http://www.hec.usace.army.mil/software/hec-ras/downloads.aspx
USGS. (2016, November 19). USGS Surface-Water Data for Wisconsin. Retrieved from
National Water Information System: Web Interface:
http://waterdata.usgs.gov/wi/nwis/sw
Vannote, R. L., Minshall, G. W., Cummins, K. W., Sedell, J. R., & Cushing, C. E. (1980).
The river continuum concept. Canadian journal of fisheries and aquatic sciences,
37(1), 130-137.
Water Resources Council. (2016, June 21). Final Decision. Retrieved from City of
Waukesha Diversion Application: http://www.waukeshadiversion.org/ and
http://www.waukeshadiversion.org/media/1825/waukesha-final-decision-of-
compact-council-6-21-16.pdf
Waukesha County Department of Parks & Land Use. (2009). 2009 Land Atlas and Plat
Book. Retrieved from Waukesha County:
https://www.waukeshacounty.gov/uploadedFiles/Media/PDF/Parks_and_Land_U
se/Planning_and_Zoning/Plat_Book/2009%20Waukesha%20WI%20Plat%20Boo
k.pdf
Waukesha Water Utility. (2016, October 26). Waukesha Application. Retrieved from
Waukesha Water Utility: http://waukeshaapplication.com/

28
WDNR. (n.d.). Root Pike Watershed Basin. Retrieved from
http://dnr.wi.gov/water/basin/rootpike/
WDNR. (2002). Watershed – Middle Fox River – Illinois (FX02). Retrieved from
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources:
http://dnr.wi.gov/water/watershedDetail.aspx?code=FX02&Name=Lower Fox
River - Illinois
WDNR. (2010). Watershed – Upper Fox River – Illinois (FX07). Retrieved from
http://dnr.wi.gov/water/watershedDetail.aspx?code=FX07&Name=Upper Fox
River – Illinois
WDNR. (2014). Watershed – Middle Fox River – Illinois (FX04). Retrieved from
http://dnr.wi.gov/water/watershedDetail.aspx?code=FX04&Name=Middle Fox
River - Illinois
WDNR. (2016a, June 21). City of Waukesha water diversion application. Retrieved from
Waukesha Diversion Application:
http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/WaterUse/waukesha/diversionapp.html
WDNR. (2016b, September 20). Vernon Wildlife Area. Retrieved from Wisconsin DNR:
http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/lands/wildlifeareas/vernon.html
WDNR. (2016c, November 21). Fox_RAS.zip [Computer File] and FOX_XS.zip
[Computer File]. Madison, WI. Received from Chris Olds, personal
communication, Nov. 21, 2016 [Accessed 11/23/16].

29
Yulianti, J. S., & Burn, D. H. (1997). Investigating links between climatic warming and
low streamflow in the Prairies region of Canada. Canadian Water Resources
Journal, 23(1), 45-60.

Waukesha Diversion Impacts on the Baseflow of the Fox River

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (10)

Similar to Waukesha Diversion Impacts on the Baseflow of the Fox River

Similar to Waukesha Diversion Impacts on the Baseflow of the Fox River (20)

Waukesha Diversion Impacts on the Baseflow of the Fox River