United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region 7
324 East Eleventh St
Kansas City Mo 64106
EPA 907/9-80 - 004
December, 1980
vvEPA
Environmental Final
Impact Statement
Proposed Sewerage Facilities
Marion County Lake
Improvement District
Marion County, Kansas
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VII
324 EAST ELEVENTH STREET
KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI - 64106
TO: ALL INTERESTED GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES, PUBLIC GROUPS, AND CITIZENS
Enclosed is a copy of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the
Proposed Sewerage Facilities, Marion County Lake Improvement District, Marion
County, Kansas. This document is submitted pursuant to Section 102(2)(C) of
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Public Law 91-190). All comments
submitted to this Agency on the Draft EIS and our responses have been incorporated
into the Final EIS.
Administrative action on this project will not be taken until 30 days after the
Notice of Availability of this document is published in the Federal Register.
Any objections to the decision described in the Final EIS must be submitted to
this office within the 30-day period.
After the 30-day period, we will issue a Record of Decision explaining what the
final action taken by EPA will be and mitigative measures developed through the
EIS process. Copies will be sent to all persons who received the Draft EIS or
who request a copy.
Thank you for your interest in this project.
Sincerely yours,
Kathleen Q. Camin, Ph.D.
^Regional Administrator
Enclosure
-------
EPA-907/9-80-002
EPA-7-KS-Marion County
WWTP-80
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
For
PROPOSED SEWERAGE FACILITIES
in the
MARION COUNTY LAKE IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
MARION COUNTY, KANSAS
Prepared by
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VII
Kansas City, Missouri
With Technical Assistance from Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates, Inc.
St. Louis, Missouri
Abstract: This Environmental Impact Statement examined
five alternatives for the improvement of sewerage facilities
in the Marion County Lake Improvement District, Marion County,
Kansas. The environmental, social, and economic impacts of
each of these alternatives were evaluated, along with appropriate
mitigation measures. Based upon extensive field investigations,
EPA has determined that sufficient water quality problems
do not exist to merit funding under the Construction Grants
program of the Clean Water Act of 1977, and therefore no
further grant will be awarded for this project.
EPA will take no administrative action on this project for
30 days from the date that EPA's Office of Environmental
Review publishes notice of availability of
the EIS in the Federal Register.
For further information contact:
Edward C. Vest, EIS Coordinator
U.S. EPA, Region VII
324 East Eleventh Street
Kansas City, Missouri 64106
Telephone (816) 374-2921
APPROVED BY:
Q. Camin, Ph.D.
J^Sglonal Administrator
Date
-------
SUMMARY
1. Background
The Marion County Lake Improvement District was awarded a
grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to plan
sewerage facilities for the District, which presently has no public
sewerage system. As a result of that grant, a Facility Plan was
completed proposing a conventional sewage collection and treatment
system to serve the entire planning area. To consider the potential
effects of that plan, and to examine alternative methods of solving
possible water quality problems at the Marion County Lake, EPA has
prepared this environmental impact statement.
2. Setting
The Marion County Lake Improvement District (LID) is a small
residential community surrounding the 150 acre lake, and is located
approximately 2.4 miles southeast of the City of Marion in central
Kansas. The planning area encompasses about 925 acres and contains
approximately 67 permanent homes, 99 seasonal homes, and 56 trailers
occupied seasonally or on weekends.
This development nearly surrounds the lake, although it is
separated from the shoreline by county park land and Lake Shore Drive.
The outlying portions of the planning area are devoted almost exclusively
to cattle grazing. The general atmosphere is one of a small, quiet
retirement community focused on the recreational resources of the lake
and the county park. Park facilities include a boat-launching ramp,
fishing dock, swimming beach, and limited picnic and camping facilities.
Population ranges from about 145 persons during the winter
to about 670 during summer months. On holiday weekends, campers can
bring the total to nearly 1700. The average day population is expected
to increase about 40 percent over the 20-year planning period, although
in absolute terms this amounts to an increase of only about 150 persons.
-------
Present sewerage facilities consist entirely of on-site
systems. There are approximately 150 septic tanks, 17 holding tanks,
and 20 privies on private property around the lake. There are also
several holding tanks and a septic tank system serving the various
county park facilities. Because local soils are poorly suited for
septic tank leach fields, and because lot sizes are generally quite
small (many of the originally platted lots are less than one-eighth of
an acre), there have been several failures of septic tank systems in
recent years. These failing systems have been either repaired or
replaced by holding tanks.
In 1973, the County instituted a Sanitary Code which now
prohibits the installation of septic tank systems on lots smaller than
one acre, or where the soil percolation rate is less than one inch per
hour. This ordinance has stopped the proliferation of inadequate
septic tank systems, but does not apply to units installed before
1973.
3. Proposed Project
The Facility Plan developed by consultants to the Lake
Improvement District analyzed several alternative ways to improve
sewerage facilities in the planning area. The project selected in-
cludes a conventional gravity collection system and a force main to
the City of Marion's proposed treatment plant. This plant is presently
being designed under a separate federal grant and is not a subject of
this EIS. The district would enter into a cooperative agreement with
the City to pay a proportional share of the construction, operation,
and maintenance costs of the plant. The City plant will be a three-
cell aerated lagoon with a surface area of approximately 12 acres,
located northwest of the City of Marion. Discharge of the treated
effluent will be to the Cottonwood River.
The Lake Improvement Districts proposed collection system
would consist of nearly 13,000 feet of 8-inch sewer pipe and approxi-
mately the same length of small-diameter force mains. This system
11
-------
would almost completely encircle the lake and would serve all existing
development. Most of the collection lines, as well as the 10,000 feet
of force main to the treatment plant, would be located in existing
road rights-of-way. The collection lines have far greater capacity
than would be necessary for the projected population at the lake
because the Kansas Minimum Standards of Design recommend against
gravity sewer pipes of less than 8 inches in diameter. The construc-
tion cost of this system is estimated at $830,000.
4. Alternatives
Concern over the potential adverse economic impacts on local
residents and the potential secondary impacts from induced development
led EPA to explore other alternatives for sewerage facilities for the
Marion County Lake area. As part of this analysis, more refined
population projections were developed which significantly reduced the
required capacity of the project. Because of this reduction, the
Facility Plan proposed project and the total retention lagoon alter-
native were re-analyzed to determine if the relative cost-effectiveness
of these alternatives would be affected. A new on-site systems alter-
native was also developed that would involve the repair or replacement
of failing septic tank systems with holding tanks and the purchase of
a pumping truck to service all the holding tanks in the LID. The
alternative of taking no federal action was also examined in detail.
In this case, it was assumed that septic tank systems failing in the
future would either be repaired or replaced by holding tanks, and that
all new development would comply with the existing sanitary code.
A number of other possible alternatives were also screened
to see if any merited further analysis. These included pressure sewer
and vacuum sewer collection systems and community leach fields serving
clusters of individual septic tanks.
5. Water Quality Investigations
As a part of this EIS, EPA conducted a series of water
quality investigations to determine present conditions at the lake and
111
-------
to provide a basis for an assessment of the water quality impacts of
each of the alternatives. Water samples taken from 85 wells in the
area were tested for total coliforms, fecal coliforms, and nitrates.
A septic leachate survey was conducted along the entire lakeshore to
detect insufficiently-treated septic tank effluent entering the lake.
An infrared aerial survey of the area was also conducted to detect
septic tank leach field failures.
The results of these tests all indicated that there is not a
serious water quality or public health problem at the Marion County
Lake. The infrared aerial survey indicated only three possible septic
tank leach field failures, while the septic leachate survey detected
no septic leachate plumes entering the lake. Most nutrients entering
the lake are believed to be borne in runoff from cattle grazing areas
in the lake's drainage basin. Well water samples found only two
readings above the national drinking water standards for nitrates, and
four positive readings for fecal coliforms; these readings were attri-
buted to deteriorated well casings.
6. Conclusions
Since no significant existing water quality problems could
be identified, EPA has determined that the proposed project is ineligible
for federal assistance under the Construction Grants Program of the
Clean Water Act of 1977. Those few isolated problems that were detected
can be corrected with local resources and within existing local programs,
as has been done since the passage of the County Sanitary Code.
There are several actions that local interests could take to
improve the operation and reliability of their on-site systems. These
include more thorough inspections of the on-site systems and programs
for reduction of water use. To reduce holding tank pumping costs, the
residents at the Lake could use existing hydraulically-overloaded
leach fields for grey water disposal and holding tanks for black water
if they can demonstrate to the County Sanitarian that no public health
hazard would result. The Lake Improvement District could also elect
IV
-------
to construct the proposed project entirely with local funds, although
this would be quite expensive for the local residents.
7. Public Participation
The first major public involvement in the proposed project
was the public hearing on the Facility Plan, held on June 14, 1979.
Most statements made supported the Facility Plan project. At the
commencement of the EIS process, a public workshop was held at the
Marion County Lake Meeting Hall, on September 8, 1979. This meeting
was attended by nearly 150 local residents, and included a presenta-
tion on the EIS process and the project alternatives under consideration.
Since that time, EPA and EIS preparation team personnel have had
numerous informal discussions with local residents and public officials.
The public hearing on the draft EIS was held on July 19,
1980, and was attended by approximately 35 persons. Most comments
expressed disappointment that the project would not be funded, and the
Lake Improvement District requested specific information on the cri-
teria to be used in determining when problems that might develop in
the future would be eligible for federal assistance. Over 220 copies
of the draft EIS document were distributed to local residents and
property owners for their review and comment.
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY
I. INTRODUCTION 1
A. Description of Planning Area 1
B. Project History and Description 1
C. Purpose and Issues of this EIS 14
II. DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES 19
A. Introduction 19
B. Design Parameters 19
C. System Components 26
D. Criteria for Evaluation 35
III. ALTERNATIVES 39
A. No-Action 39
B. Facility Plan Proposed Project 40
C. Down-sized Facility Plan Proposed Project 40
D. Down-sized Total Retention Lagoons 42
E. Limited Public On-Site Systems 42
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 45
A. Water Quality and Public Health 45
B. Population and Land Use Impacts 53
C. Cost Effectiveness 58
D. Local Economic Impacts 61
E. Ecological Impacts 67
F. Cultural Resources 72
G. Summary of Impacts 74
VII
-------
V. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND COORDINATION 79
A. Public Participation 79
B. Coordination 83
C. Comments on Draft EIS 89
VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 125
LIST OF PREPARERS 127
REFERENCES 129
INDEX 135
GLOSSARY 137
APPENDICES
A. Population Projections A-l
B. Hydrology, Geology, and Soils B-l
C. Flora and Fauna C-l
D. Septic Leachate Survey Report D-l
E. Cost Effectiveness E-l
Vlll
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Title
1 Marion County Location Map 2
2 Marion County Lake Planning Area 3
3 Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities 7
4 Soil Limitations For Sewage Treatment 9
5 Facility Plan Proposed Project 15
6 Alternative Treatment Plant Sites 41
7 Water Quality Sampling Sites 47
8 Present Land Use 55
9 Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey 73
B-l Profile of Local Aquifer B-3
B-2 Generalized Geologic Column B-7
B-3 Soil Associations B-9
IX
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Title
1 Current Population Estimate, Average Day 21
2 Current Population Estimate, Peak Day 21
3 Projected Permanent and Seasonal Population 22
4 Population Projection, Average Day, Year 2000 23
5 Population Projection, Peak Day, Year 2000 23
6 Average Day Design Flow, Year 2000 24
7 Peak Day Design Flow, Year 2000 25
8 EPA Well Water Sampling Results 46
9 Technical Assumptions of the Cost-Effective Analysis 59
10 Cost-Effective Analysis of Alternatives 59
11 Cost-Effective Analysis Summary 60
12 Capital Costs 64
13 Local Costs 64
14 Annual User Charges 65
15 Impact Summary 75
16 Draft EIS Distribution 80
A-l Dwelling Unit and Population Data A-3
A-2 Current Population Estimate, Peak Day A-5
A-3 Current Population Estimate, Average Day A-5
A-4 Projected Permanent and Seasonal Population A-6
A-5 Population Projection, Peak Day - Year 2000 A-7
A-6 Population Projection, Average Day - Year 2000 A-8
A-7 Population Projection Summary A-8
B-l Soil Limitations Criteria B-12
B-2 Soil Limitations for Sewage Treatment B-13
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Title
E-l Present Value Alternative 1 - No-Action E-5
E-2 Present Value Alternative 2 - Facility Plan E-6
Proposed Project
E-3 Present Value Alternative 3 - Down-Sized Facility E-8
Plan Proposed Project
E-4 Present Value Alternative 4 - Down-Sized Total E-12
Retention Lagoon
E-5 Present Value Alternative 5 - Limited Public E-15
On-Site Systems
-------
NOTE
Bibliographic references appear in the text of this document
as arabic numerals in parentheses, thus: (1). These citations appear
in numerical order in the REFERENCES section in the rear of the document.
Technical words, phrases, and abbreviations appearing in this
document which may be unfamiliar to the layman are defined in
the GLOSSARY section, which immediately precedes the Appendices.
Xll
-------
I INTRODUCTION
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is
considering grant awards to the Marion County Lake Improvement District
for the design and construction of sewerage facilities at Marion
County Lake and Park, Marion County, Kansas. This environmental
impact statement (EIS) assesses the potential impacts of those grant
awards on the social, economic, and biological environment of the
planning area.
A. DESCRIPTION OF THE PLANNING AREA
Marion County Lake is located in Marion County, Kansas,
approximately 140 miles southwest of Kansas City, and 50 miles north-
northeast of Wichita. The lake lies about 2.4 miles southeast of the
City of Marion, the county seat. Figures 1 and 2 show the location of
Marion County and the planning area.
The 150-acre lake serves as the focus of a recreation and
retirement community for approximately 145 persons year-round. During
the summer, the resident population increases to approximately 670,
and campers at the County Park surrounding the lake swell the population
to over 1700 on holiday weekends.
Present development consists of approximately 67 permanent
homes, 99 seasonal homes, and 56 seasonal trailers around Lake Shore
Drive. Inside this road is County park land, with limited facilities
for camping, picnicking, and fishing. Beyond the developed area lie
rolling grasslands used for grazing cattle. The planning area en-
compasses a total area of approximately 925 acres.
B. PROJECT HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION
1. Legislative Background
The Clean Water Act of 1977 (PL 95-217) provides for restoring
and maintaining the integrity of our nation's waters. Realizing that
-------
NEBRASKA
V
]ป ST. JOSEPH
MISSOURI
MARION
COUNTY
KANSAS CITY
Figure 1
Marion County Location Map
MILES
25 50
-------
CITY
OF MARION
MARION
LANDING FIELD
a
PLANNING
AREA BOUNDARY
*
Figure 2
Marion County Lake Planning Area
FEET
JF"
0 1000 2000
-------
local governments are not always financially capable of providing the
necessary wastewater treatment facilities, Congress has authorized
federal grant assistance for such construction under Section 201 of
the Act. For conventional sewage treatment facilities, the Act authorizes
grants up to 75 percent of the eligible project costs. To encourage
new approaches to wastewater treatment, the Act will provide grants up
to 85 percent of the project costs for "innovative or alternative"
(I/A) wastewater treatment systems. The remaining project costs must
be paid by the state and/or local governments.
This federal grant assistance is administered by EPA and is
awarded in a three-step process. The first grant to the local govern-
ment is for preparation of a Facility Plan, which is a preliminary
engineering report analyzing treatment needs, alternative treatment
methods, existing sewer system adequacy, cost estimates, and also
includes an environmental assessment of the project proposed. Upon
approval of the Facility Plan, a Step 2 grant is awarded to prepare
detailed engineering plans and specifications. When these have been
approved, the Step 3 grant is awarded to provide the federal share of
the construction costs.
2. Description of Existing Facilities and Water Quality Problems
a. Existing Facilities. The present method of wastewater
collection and treatment at the Marion County Lake is by individual
on-site systems, including septic tanks, holding tanks, and privies.
In 1973, Marion County adopted a sanitary code to regulate the instal-
lation of wells and septic tank systems (1). Nearly all of the septic
tank systems previously installed at the lake would not have been
permitted under this code, but the regulations were not retroactive.
Septic tanks are not allowed to be built on lots smaller than one
acre, where the soil percolation rate is less than one inch per hour,
where there is a well within fifty feet, or where there is less than
six feet of soil over impervious rock formations (1). Most of the
subdivisions at the lake were originally platted as 50 foot by 100 foot
lots, which are too small to contain a house, a well, and a well-designed
-------
septic tank and leach field system. The pattern of development at the
lake has been irregular because the actual property sizes varied
widely, with many owners buying more than a single 50 foot by 100 foot
lot.
There are twenty private privies around the Marion County
Lake, of which nine are still being used, mainly by weekend visitors
(2). There are eighteen holding tanks, eight of which were installed
for new houses on lots too small for septic tanks. The others were
installed either voluntarily or after an existing septic tank had
failed (3). The total number of privately-owned septic tanks at the
lake is estimated to be 150.
There are a number of septic tanks, holding tanks, and
privies on the County-owned land at the lake (4). These are used by
visitors and by the residents of the 56 trailers on leased County
land. A 1,500-gallon septic tank behind the lake office serves the
meeting hall and the lake manager's house and office. All other
County-owned sewage systems at the lake are either holding tanks or
vault privies, and are emptied as needed. These systems include two
800-gallon holding tanks near the heated dock, two 300-500 gallon
holding tanks near the beach, and six privies dispersed around the
lake. The facilities for the trailers on the County-owned land near
the dam are located near the hall, and consist of two 1,200-gallon and
two 800-gallon holding tanks, and a dumping station. Trailer residents
are permitted to discharge wash water into nearby ditches, but it is
difficult to ensure that that is all that is being discharged (5).
Figure 3 shows the location of the septic tanks, holding tanks, and
privies in the study area.
Records of failures of the on-site systems at the Marion
County Lake were not kept before the enactment of the sanitary code in
1973, and not all failures are known because the systems are not
regularly inspected. A few overt failures have occurred, with the
subsequent installation of holding tanks or improved lateral lines.
Many of the holding tanks at the lake serve houses owned by
weekend visitors, and need to be emptied only a few times per year.
-------
Holding tanks owned by permanent residents may have to be pumped more
frequently. The septic tanks at the lake are emptied when needed, as
determined by the individual owners. The privately-owned privies are
rarely emptied. Septage is removed from septic tanks, holding tanks,
and privies by several local septic tank service companies, who dis-
charge the wastes into the City of Marion's sewage treatment lagoons
(6). Some of the pumped septage, however, is reportedly discharged on
local fields, without the knowledge or authorization of the County
Health Department (3).
b. Soil Constraints. Soils in the Marion County Lake area are
mostly silty clays developed by weathering and erosion of the underlying
limestone and shale deposits. Soil cover is generally thin (less than
five feet), especially over the limestones. The limitations of various
soils for use as septic tank leach fields are rated by the Soil Conservation
Service as slight, moderate, or severe. All of the soils in the
Marion County Lake area except those immediately below the dam have
severe limitations for leach fields, as shown on Figure 4. More
detailed information on soils in the study area can be found in Appendix B.
The Facility Plan submitted by the Marion County Lake Improve-
ment District (LID) indicates that the present individual treatment
systems in the study area do not adequately protect the community's
health and environment from sewage contamination. Although it gives
no documentation of extensive septic tank failures, the Facility Plan
concludes that, based on the poor soil conditions, shallow soil depths,
and small lot sizes, the septic tanks should be replaced. It further
determines that there is a potential public health hazard from the
septic tanks in the form of bacterial and chemical contamination of
individual drinking water wells, and of the lake, which is used for
swimming. The County Sanitarian concurs with the Facility Plan recommen-
dations, based on the reported septic tank failures and contaminated
wells, and on the soil and site conditions described above (7).
-------
LEGEND
PRIVY
A HOLDING TANK
SEPTIC TANK
&. Wastewater Treatment FaciHties
Existing
-------
LEGEND
: : MODERATE LIMITATIONS FOR LAGOON
: *.", CONSTRUCTION,
SEVERE LIMITATIONS FOR SEPTIC TANK
LEACH FIELDS
MODERATE LIMITATIONS FOR SEPTIC
TANK LEACH FIELDS,
SEVERE LIMITATIONS FOR LAGOON
CONSTRUCTION
SEVERE LIMITATIONS FOR BOTH
SEPTIC TANK LEACH FIELDS AND
LAGOON CONSTRUCTION IN ALL AREAS
,:.:: SLIGHT LIMITATIONS FOR LAGOON
::::. CONSTRUCTION;
" SEVERE LIMITATIONS FOR SEPTIC TANK
LEACH FIELDS
Figure 4
Soil Limitations for Sewage Treatment
-------
3. History of the Grant Application
In view of this water quality situation, the Marion County
Lake Improvement District determined to seek federal assistance to
plan and construct sewerage facilities. The District applied for
Step I planning funds on October 4, 1977. After review by the State
of Kansas and the Flint Hills Regional Council, the A-95 review agency
for the county, EPA awarded a Step I grant on May 8, 1978 for the
development of a Facility Plan. The District then contracted with
Reiss & Goodness Engineers of Wichita, KS, to prepare the Facility
Plan, which was submitted to EPA on March 22, 1979. The Plan has been
reviewed by EPA and the Kansas Department of Health and Environment
and a final determination will be made in the Regional Administrator's
Record of Decision, to be issued after the final EIS.
4. Facility Plan Alternatives
a. Treatment Alternatives. The Facility Plan considers 6 treatment
system alternatives, which are compared on the basis of cost effectiveness
and ability to abate existing and future water pollution and public
health problems.
1) Lagoon with Zero Discharge. This alternative consists
of a two-cell lagoon designed to dispose of the total wastewater flow
by evaporation and percolation. It is rejected in the Facility Plan
because the large amount of land required (approximately 25 acres)
makes it uneconomical.
2) Aerated Lagoon with Continuous Discharge. This alternative
consists of a three-cell lagoon, with an aerated cell accomplishing 70
percent of the five-day Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD,.) removal, and
unaerated second and third cells removing the remaining BOD,, necessary
J
to meet effluent requirements. A total of three acres would be required
for the lagoon. This alternative is rejected because of its high
equipment, operation, and maintenance costs.
3) Lagoon with Land Application by Spray Irrigation. This
alternative has a three-cell waste stabilization pond to provide the
required 90-day storage and primary treatment, and spray irrigation of
the effluent. This alternative is rejected because of the equipment
11
-------
costs and large land requirements. The pond would require 16 acres,
and 28 acres would be needed for irrigation.
4) Lagoon with Controlled Discharge. This alternative
uses a four-cell lagoon with a total detention time of 120 days, so
that discharges may be limited to periods of high flow in the receiving
stream. The lagoons are not aerated, and must be shallow enough to
avoid becoming anaerobic, which requires a large surface area. This
alternative is rejected because of high land (approximately 11 acres
required) and operation costs.
5) Lagoon with Continuous Discharge. A four-cell lagoon
is proposed for this alternative. Although operation costs are less
than for either the aerated lagoon or land application alternatives,
land requirements are high enough (7 acres) to make this alternative
uneconomical.
6) Regional Plant Concept. This alternative is selected
by the Facility Plan as being the most desirable. It entails pumping
Marion Lake's wastewater to the City of Marion's proposed new treatment
plant. This plant will be a three cell aerated lagoon, northwest of
the city. The facility will discharge treated effluent into the
Cottonwood River. The effluent limitations for this facility will be
30 mg/1 BODr and 30 mg/1 TSS, because the receiving stream is desig-
nated a Class B water (8).
b. Collection Alternatives
Five collection system alternatives are considered in the
Facility Plan.
1) Vacuum Sewer System. This alternative is dependent
upon maintaining a vacuum in all the collection lines. The vacuum
sewer system alternative designed for the Marion County Lake area uses
two central vacuum stations. The wastewater from several homes is
collected by a short section of gravity sewer and discharged to a
30-gallon holding tank, from which it travels to a central vacuum
station. The operation and maintenance of vacuum sewers are costly
and difficult, and the system's reliability is suspect. For these
reasons, this alternative is rejected.
12
-------
2) Pressure Sewer System. Pressure sewers utilize
sealed, small-diameter pipelines with a number of pressurizing inlet
points, each serving one or more houses, and which join to a single
outlet. The pressurized sewer system designed for the Marion County
Lake uses grinder pumps at each home and business. Sewage flows to
the grinder pumps, where it is reduced to a slurry and pumped to the
treatment facility. The high cost of installing, operating, and
maintaining individual grinder pumps precludes the selection of pres-
sure sewers.
3) Holding Tanks. This alternative consists of
installing reinforced concrete underground holding tanks at each home,
to store all wastewater. A tank truck or, "honeywagon," purchased by
the community would empty the holding tanks as needed, and haul the
sewage to a nearby wastewater treatment facility, most likely the City
of Marion's, for disposal. This alternative was rejected because of
high operation and maintenance costs.
4) Septic Tanks and Lateral Lines with Improved Maintenance.
In this alternative, a public body would be set up to supervise the
installation and operation of all on-site systems at the Marion County
Lake. There are a number of legal difficulties that would need to be
resolved before such a system could be established. The Facility Plan
states that septic tanks cannot succeed at the Marion County Lake
because the soil is too impermeable, soil cover is too shallow, and
most of the lots are too small for adequate leach fields, and thus
rejects this option.
5) Conventional Gravity Sewer System. The wastewater
collection system selected in the Facility Plan as being the most
cost-effective is the conventional gravity sewer system. In this
alternative, wastewater would flow in eight-inch diameter sewer mains
by gravity to a pumping station, where the wastewater would be pumped
to the new Marion treatment plant. The costs of constructing a gravity
sewer system at the Marion County Lake would be minimized by installing
the lines only deep enough to serve the first floors of homes, and not
to specifically serve any basements.
13
-------
5. Facility Plan Proposed Project
The project determined to be the most cost-effective and
environmentally sound by the Facility Plan is the regional plant
concept, i.e., for the wastewater generated at the Marion County Lake
to be collected by a gravity sewer system, and pumped to, and treated
in, the City of Marion's proposed wastewater treatment facility.
The proposed gravity sewer system is designed for a 1995
projected population of 1,400 permanent residents. All development at
the lake would be served by the proposed system. The collection
system would encircle the lake, and consist of approximately 12,800 linear
feet of eight-inch sewer pipe and 12,800 linear feet of small-diameter
force main. An additional 6-inch PVC force main would convey the
wastewater from the lake to a lift station south of the City in Marion's
new system. Figure 5 shows the proposed system.
C. PURPOSES AND ISSUES OF THIS EIS
1. Legislative Background
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), Public
Law 91-190, requires that all agencies of the Federal Government
incorporate into their decision-making process careful consideration
of the environmental effects of all proposed actions. In instances
where these proposed actions could significantly affect the quality of
the human environment, Section 102(2)(c) of NEPA requires that the
agency prepare an environmental impact statement.
EPA performed an environmental review of the proposed project
and determined that it could have significant effects on the environment
in the Marion County Lake area. Therefore, on August 14, 1978, EPA
issued a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS. This EIS fulfills the
requirements of NEPA, and has been prepared in accordance with the
Council on Environmental Quality's Regulations dated November 29,
1978, and the subsequent EPA implementation regulations of June 18, 1979.
14
-------
/ 6" FORCE MAIN TO
/ CITY OF MARION
V REGIONAL TREATMENT
PLANT
LEGEND
8" GRAVITY SEWER
4" FORCE MAIN
1M" FORCE MAIN
ฐ PUMP STATIONS
ฐ MANHOLE
o PRIVY
GRINDER PUMP
Figure 5
Facility Plan Proposed Project
-------
2. Major Issues
The Notice of Intent identified several significant environ-
mental issues associated with the proposed project. These issues, and
others identified during the preparation of this EIS, are outlined
briefly in the following sections.
a. Potential Secondary Development. The proposed project could
encourage further residential development around the lake, and also
along the force main corridor from the lake community collection area
to the City of Marion treatment plant. The potential impacts of this
growth on the lake as a recreational resource and on the native grass-
land habitats of the area were identified as major concerns, and are
addressed in this EIS.
b. Water Quality and Public Health. The threats to lake water
quality and public health posed by failing septic systems are the
problems that prompted the initiation of the Marion County Lake sewerage
project. The extent and severity of those problems are addressed in
this EIS. The potential for additional adverse impacts on the water
quality of the Cottonwood River, the stream proposed to receive the
treated effluent, is also assessed, as is the possiblity of destruction
of habitat of the Neosho Madtom (Noturus placidus), a fish classified
as an endangered species by the State of Kansas.
c. Archaeological Sites. Construction of the collection lines
and force main could disrupt archaeological sites in the area, as
could other development induced by the project. A cultural resources
survey has been conducted as a part of this EIS to assess these possi-
bilities.
d. Economic Impacts. The local share of the project construction
costs and all of the system operation and maintenance costs must be
borne by the residents of the service area, many of whom are retired
on fixed incomes. Concern about the possible effects of this financial
burden on the local residents prompted an examination of the cost
effectiveness of the alternatives considered and the sizing of the
proposed project. Estimates of present population and future projec-
tions have been evaluated as part of this effort.
17
-------
II DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES
A. INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents the rationale used in developing
several additional project alternatives to be examined along with the
Facility Plan proposed project. These new alternatives were developed
to more directly address the major issues and to reflect the more
detailed information made available by field investigations conducted
for this EIS. In particular, this information concerned the extent of
existing water quality problems and the estimates of present and
future population used as a basis for system design.
During the preparation of the EIS, extensive tests were
conducted to better define the water quality problems in the Marion
County Lake area. These tests included water quality sampling in the
lake and at many individual wells, infrared aerial photography to
determine leach field failures, and septic leachate sampling in the
lake. Results of these tests indicated that water quality problems
were not as extensive as originally believed and that some smaller,
more site-specific alternatives might provide adequate treatment and
should be investigated in more detail.
Considerable data on present and projected population levels
was also obtained. Sources of this information included County Assessor's
records, electric service billings, park camping fee records, and
field interviews with local officials. Analysis of this data indicated
that revisions of the design population projections should be made,
resulting in reduced project design sewage flows. These revisions
prompted a re-analysis of several alternatives considered in the
Facility Plan. The design parameters used in developing these alter-
natives are presented in the following section.
B. DESIGN PARAMETERS
1. Population Projections
The large seasonal variations in the number of people residing
19
-------
in the Marion County Lake planning area make estimating the current
and future populations more complex than is typically the case for a
small rural community. Data gathered during the preparation of this
EIS from a variety of local sources indicate that the lake population
can be classified into several groups having relatively similar patterns
of residence. Projections are developed for each of these groups and
then added to obtain projections of the peak and average populations
at the lake. A description of the methodology used in calculating
these projections is presented in Appendix A.
a. Current Population Estimate. At present, the population
consists of four major groups - permanent residents, seasonal residents,
campers, and residents of the trailer park. The majority of the
permanent residents are retirees, whereas more of the seasonal residents
are families with children. Most of the groups camping at the lake
and using the trailer park are also families with children.
The current average and peak day populations are listed in
Tables 1 and 2. These estimates indicate that, over the course of an
entire year, the population averages approximately 373 persons per
day. On the busiest day of the year, such as the Fourth of July or
Memorial Day, there are approximately 1600 people at the lake. These
figures reflect the number of people who actually reside or camp at
the lake overnight, and not those who come only for the day.
b. Population Projections. These projections assume that the
growth trends established in the last decade will continue through the
year 2000. The number of seasonal units will continue to decrease and
the number of permanent units to increase as more people convert their
seasonal homes to retirement homes. A summary of the projections of
the permanent and seasonal populations is listed in Table 3. Projec-
tions of the number of campers are based on the expected population
increases in the Wichita SMSA.
20
-------
TABLE 1
CURRENT POPULATION ESTIMATE
AVERAGE DAY
Group Units
Holiday Campers 300
Weekend Campers 100
Seasonal-Summer 59
Seasonal-Weekend 40
Permanent Residents 67
Seasonal Trailers:
(Summer Wkd.) 20
(Holiday Wkd.) 30
(Winter Wkd.) 10
Persons
Unit
3.50
3.50
3.06
3.06
2.13
3.50
3.50
2.50
per
Population
1050
350
181
122
143
70
105
25
Days/Yr.
12
46
240
48
365
46
12
52
Person-
Days/Yr
12,600
16,100
43,440
5,856
52,195
3,220
1,260
1,300
Total Person-days/Yr.
135,971
Average Persons per Day
373
TABLE 2
CURRENT POPULATION ESTIMATE
PEAK DAY
Group Units
Holiday Campers 300
Seasonal Residents 99
Permanent Residents 67
Seasonal Trailers 35
Person per
Unit
3.50
3.06
2.13
3.50
Population
1,050
303
143
123
Peak Day Population
1,619
21
-------
TABLE 3
PROJECTED PERMANENT AND SEASONAL POPULATION
Permanent Seasonal
Year Units Population Units Population
1985
1990
1995
2000
84
100
116
132
194
230
267
303
92
84
77
69
282
257
236
211
Average day and peak day projections for the year 2000 are
listed in Tables 4 and 5.
2. Design Flows
Based upon these new population projections, revised wastewater
flows for the design year of 2000 were developed. These new design
flows were used to size all of the new alternatives considered in this
EIS in order to provide an equitable basis for comparison. Flow rates
for each of the population categories are based upon EPA guidelines
and discussions with the Facility Plan consultants. Tables 6 and 7
present the average day and peak day design wastewater flows and BOD
loadings. The revised average day design flow shown in Table 6 is
approximately 27 percent of the design flow originally used in the
Facility Plan.
3. Effluent Limitations
The Marion County Lake Improvement District has three options
for surface disposal of its treated wastewater. These include discharge
into the Cottonwood River or one of its tributaries, into the County
Lake, or by land application. Effluent limitations of the State of
Kansas govern the degree of treatment that must be achieved for all
such discharges.
All free-flowing streams in the Neosho River basin, including
the Cottonwood River and its tributaries, are designated Class B
waters. Lakes and reservoirs in the Neosho River basin are designated
Class A waters. Class A waters are protected for body contact recreation;
22
-------
TABLE 4
POPULATION PROJECTION
AVERAGE DAY POPULATION
YEAR 2000
Group Units
Holiday Campers
Weekend Campers
Seasonal-Summer
Seasonal-Weekend
Permanent Residents
Seasonal Trailers:
(Summer Wkd.)
(Holiday Wkd.)
(Winter Wkd.)
405
135
41
28
132
25
38
13
Persons
Unit
3.50
3.50
3.06
3.06
2.29
3.50
3.50
2.50
Per
Population
1,418
473
125
86
302
88
133
33
Days/Yr.
12
46
240
48
365
46
12
52
Person-
Day s/Yr.
17,016
21,758
30,000
4,128
110,230
4,048
1,596
1,716
Total Person-days per Year
190,492
Average Persons per Day
522
TABLE 5
POPULATION PROJECTION
PEAK DAY
YEAR 2000
Group Units
Holiday Campers 405
Seasonal Residents 69
Permanent Residents 132
Seasonal Trailers 44
Person per
Unit
3.50
3.06
2.29
3.50
Population
1418
211
302
154
Peak Day Population
2085
-------
TABLE 6
AVERAGE DAY DESIGN FLOW
YEAR 2000
Population
Category
Permanent
Seasonal -
Summer
Weekend
Trailers -
Weekend
Holiday
Winter
Campers -
Weekend
Holiday
YEARLY TOTAL
DAILY AVERAGE
Population
302
125
86
88
133
33
473
1418
Days/Yr
365
240
48
46
12
52
46
12
Flow
(gpcd)
65
50
50
50
50
50
25
25
BOD
(lb/ cap /day)
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
Total Flow
(gpy)
7,165,000
1,500,000
206,400
202,400
79,800
85,800
544,000
425,400
10,208,800
28,000 gpd
Total BOD,
(Ib/yr)
18,700
5,100
700
700
300
300
3,700
2,900
32,400
90 Ib/day
-------
ro
TABLE 7
PEAK DAY DESIGN FLOW
YEAR 2000
Population
Category
Permanent
Seasonal
Trailers
Campers
PEAK DAY
TOTAL
Population
302
211
154
1,418
2,085
Flow
(gpcd)
65
50
25
25
BOD
(Ib/cap/day)
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
Total Flow
(gpd)
19,630
10,550
3,850
35,450
69,500
Total BOD
(Ib/day)
50
40
30
240
360
-------
propagation of warm freshwater aquatic and semi-aquatic biota, water
fowl, and wildlife; public and industrial water supplies; and agricultural
purposes. Class B waters are protected for the same uses as Class A
waters, except that body contact recreation is downgraded to secondary
contact recreation (9). Municipal wastewaters discharged to Class B
waters, such as the Cottonwood River or its tributaries, must meet
secondary treatment effluent standards of 30 mg/1 BOD_ and 30 mg/1
TSS. Municipal discharges to Class A waters must be disinfected in
addition to meeting those standards. This standard would apply for
discharges to the Marion County Lake (8).
If the LID decided to dispose of its wastewater by land
application a minimum of primary treatment would be required (19).
Wastewater land application systems are classified in Kansas as either
treatment oriented, with no direct point discharge to State waters, or
irrigation oriented, with periodic point discharges to State waters.
Any irrigation-oriented land treatment system must include secondary
treatment before discharge. Disinfection is required for any land
treatment system that discharges on land areas such as parks, athletic
fields, or golf courses, where there is a probability of body contact.
Subsurface treatment of wastewaters in septic tank leach fields is not
governed by State regulations, although their design and construction
is regulated by the Marion County Sanitary Code.
C. SYSTEM COMPONENTS
In developing or revising wastewater collection and treatment
alternatives for the Marion County Lake planning area, consideration
was given to the full range of technologies available for each part of
the system. Separate alternatives were investigated for wastewater
collection, wastewater treatment, effluent disposal, and sludge treatment
and disposal. Discussions of the various technologies considered are
presented in the following sections.
26
-------
1. Collection Systems
In small or sparsely-populated communities, the cost of
collecting wastewater for central treatment is frequently a major
portion of the total cosl
collection system for a <
becomes an important parl
a. Gravity Sewers
tion systems because of their low operation and maintenance costs. In
sparsely-populated, rockj
frequently not cost-effe(
b. Pressure Sewers
pipelines buried just be!
consists of a number of j
serves one or more house
major types of pressure s
in which grinder pumps ar
septic tank effluent pumping (STEP) system, which utilizes the individual
septic tanks for collect!
c. Vacuum Sewers.
maintenance of a vacuum i
tainty about the performa
sewers, because a centra]
system. Water conservati
Vacuum sewers are more ea
of their smaller size and
d. Holding Tanks.
fiberglass tanks (1000-15
tanks. They collect and
septage removed is haulec
truck, or "honeywagon."
of the treatment system. The choice of
entralized wastewater treatment system thus
of the overall investigation.
These are used in most wastewater collec-
, or hilly areas, however, gravity sewers are
tive.
Pressure sewers use sealed, small-diameter
ow the frost penetration depth. The system
ressurizing inlet points, each of which
, and which join to a single outlet. The two
ewer systems are the grinder pump (GP) system,
e installed at each inlet point, and the
on and primary treatment.
This alternative is dependent upon the
n the collection lines. There is less uncer-
nce of the individual lines than for pressure
source controls the vacuum throughout the
on is increased by the use of vacuum toilets.
sily installed than are gravity sewers because
the shallower depths required. However, it
is frequently difficult to maintain a vacuum as the lines age and
deteriorate.
These are reinforced concrete, steel, or
DO gallons) installed in place of septic
contain household wastes, but do not dis-
charge an effluent, and tlius must be periodically emptied. The
to a nearby treatment plant by a large tank
27
-------
2. Wastewater Treatment
a. Centralized Treatment. In centralized treatment schemes,
wastewater is collected and treated at one site. A number of treat-
ment methods are available to communities with small wastewater flows.
The method chosen depends upon the volume and characteristics of the
wastewater, the construction and operating costs, the environmental
consequences, and the ability to produce an effluent that meets state
requirements. The site of any centralized wastewater treatment facility
for the Marion County Lake depends primarily upon the effluent limitations
at the expected discharge point and the availability of suitable land.
1) Wastewater Stabilization Ponds. These are defined as
"shallow man-made basins utilizing natural processes under partially
controlled conditions for the reduction of organic matter and the
destruction of pathogenic organisms in wastewaters" (10). Stabili-
zation ponds, or lagoons, are often used for secondary treatment in
rural communities because of their low construction and operating
costs (11). Lagoons can be classified as aerated, aerobic, or anaerobic.
The type of lagoon used is selected based on such factors as the
volume and characteristics of the wastewaters and the degree of treatment
required.
a) Aerated Lagoons. Kansas regulations define two
types of aerated lagoons, facultative and complete-mix. In facultative
aerated ponds, some solids are deposited due to incomplete mixing.
Anaerobic decomposition then occurs at the bottom of the lagoon, and
the by-products subsequently decompose aerobically in the upper layers
of the sludge blanket. Facultative ponds are between 5 and 12 feet
deep. In complete-mix aerated lagoons, typically 10-12 feet deep,
sufficient aeration is provided to maintain the suspension of all
solids and uniform oxygen dispersion, resulting in completely aerobic
decomposition of all solids (5, 10).
b) Aerobic Lagoons. This type of lagoon is oxygenated
solely by algal photosynthesis and wind action across the surface of a
relatively shallow pond. Kansas regulations distinguish three types
of aerobic lagoons: non-overflowing or evaporative ponds; discharging
28
-------
ponds; and controlled discharge ponds. A non-overflowing pond depends
upon evaporation and water loss through the pond sides and bottom to
dispose of the wastewater. A controlled discharge pond treats and
stores wastewater for discharge during times when the receiving stream
is best able to assimilate the effluent. Discharging ponds continuously
release treated effluent to a receiving stream. Aerobic lagoon systems
typically consist of two or more suitably-sized ponds, each of which
is up to 5 feet deep, except for the final pond, which may be deeper
(10).
c) Anaerobic Lagoons. This type of waste stabilization
pond is normally used for the treatment of highly-organic industrial
wastes, such as from meat packing plants. Kansas regulations do not
permit anaerobic lagoons to be used as municipal treatment facilities
(10) because adequate treatment usually requires a surface layer of
grease, which is not provided by most municipal wastewaters (12).
2) Trickling Filters. This aerobic, attached-growth
biological treatment method consists of a bed of highly permeable
media (usually rocks) on which microorganisms become attached, and
through which wastewater is percolated or trickled. Trickling filters
are the most common of the attached-growth treatment methods. They
are particularly advantageous for small communities because of their
ease of operation, low cost, and ability to accept shock loads.
Trickling filters are classified, based on hydraulic and biological
loading, as either high rate, which are used prior to further biological
treatment, or standard rate. New trickling filter systems are usually
preceded by primary settling and followed by clarification. Single-stage
rock-media trickling filters, by themselves, are not allowed for new
wastewater treatment facilities because they cannot meet the secondary
treatment effluent limitations of 30 mg/1 BOD and 30 mg/1 TSS without
additional treatment (13).
3) Activated Sludge Plants. This treatment process consists
of suspending aerobic micro-organisms in wastewater that is then
aerated and mixed. The activated sludge process is influenced by many
factors, which makes it among the most difficult and expensive treatment
29
-------
processes to operate properly (13). It is intended primarily for
treatment of large waste flows, but has been modified for small communi-
ties. Many of these modifications are commercially available as
"package plants," which are pre-engineered and easily assembled from
standard components.
An oxidation ditch is a modification of the activated sludge
process that is particularly suitable for small communities. An
oxidation ditch consists of a continuous channel through which the
wastewater is circulated, while being agitated by surface aerators.
Most facilities using this process omit primary sedimentation, but
include clarification following the oxidation ditch.
b. Decentralized Treatment. Wastewater is treated as close to
the individual sources as feasible in decentralized treatment. The
most common method is the septic tank and soil absorption system, but
a number of other systems have been developed. A community decen-
tralized treatment system consists of any combination of the many
types of on-site systems, which may be clustered or individual. These
individual or clustered systems may be managed in several ways.
1) Engineering Alternatives
a) Conventional Septic Tank - Soil Absorption System.
The conventional septic tank is a large (750-1000 gallon) underground
tank into which wastewater is discharged. Dense solids settle to the
bottom of the tank, and grease and oil float to the top. The settled
solids decompose anaerobically to some extent, and are periodically
removed. The septic tank effluent flows into the soil absorption
system, also called a lateral field, or a leach field. Further decomposi-
tion takes place as effluent percolates through the soil. Failures of
conventional systems are more often caused by poor installation and
maintenance than by the complete unsuitability of septic tanks for the
area. Modifications can be made in some cases to improve the performance
of on-site systems in areas where conventional septic tanks have not
been successful.
b) Mound Systems. In areas that have shallow bedrock,
or high groundwater, or permeability rates that are either too high or
30
-------
too low, the soil absorption system may be modified to a mound system.
This is accomplished by building the lateral field in a mound of
medium sand and topsoil on top of the existing ground. This allows
the septic tank effluent to be spread over a large area above the
indigenous soils and groundwater.
c) Dual Field Systems. Designing a septic tank -
soil absorption system to include two leach fields allows one field to
"rest" while the other is receiving the septic tank effluent. Resting
an absorption field for 6 to 12 months allows the ground to drain and
air to reenter the spaces between soil particles, which removes clogging
materials by physical and biochemical means. An alternating valve
directs flow from the septic tank to one of the dual fields. If
suitable land is available, newly installed or upgraded septic tank
systems will be better able to handle waste flows if they include dual
absorption fields.
d) Dosing Systems. These systems were developed to
increase the life of the absorption field and decrease the land require-
ments . Studies have shown that periodic, rather than continuous,
dosing increases leach field life by preventing anaerobic conditions
from occurring. A pump or siphon installed between the septic tank
and leach field doses the field 1 to 4 times daily, ensuring uniform
distribution of the effluent and reducing soil clogging. Dosing
systems are particularly advantageous for leach fields in coarse-
grained soils, where uniform distribution of the septic tank effluent
may be difficult (14).
e) Aerobic Systems. Wastewater treated under aerobic,
rather than anaerobic, conditions produces a much more biologically
stabilized effluent. An aerated, or aerobic, unit is an underground
system with an initial settling chamber (as in a conventional septic
tank), an aerated chamber, and a final settling chamber. Aerated
systems produce an effluent that may be discharged to surface waters
if disinfection, and possibly some additional treatment, are added.
The disadvantages of these systems for small communities include high
initial costs, the higher costs of the energy-intensive operation, and
the more elaborate regular maintenance required.
31
-------
f) Sand Filtration. Several types of filters, in
conjunction with other systems, may produce effluent of high enough
quality to be discharged to surface waters. The three types of sand
filters used in the treatment of small wastewater flows are intermittent
sand filters, subsurface (or buried) sand filters, and recirculating
sand filters. Intermittent sand filters have pretreated wastewater
(from a septic tank) spread over a 2-3 ft deep bed of sand. The
effluent is collected for further treatment before discharge. Buried
sand filters are constructed below the ground, and are periodically
flooded with pretreated wastewater (septic tank effluent) at approxi-
2
mately 1 gal/day/ft . The effluent is collected for further treatment
(15,16). Recirculating sand filters consist of a recirculation tank
and a coarse sand filter. The septic tank effluent is pumped through
the filter, collected, and returned to the tank. Wastewater is recycled
through the filter at a recommended ratio of 4:1 (recycle:forward
flow). Filtered effluent is discharged when the tank becomes full.
g) Evapotranspiration Systems. These systems are
recommended for those areas where poor soil conditions prevent the use
of soil absorption systems, and where annual evaporation substantially
exceeds annual precipitation. The wastewater is eliminated by evaporation
and plant transpiration. The system consists of a bed of sand, from
1-1/2 to 3 feet thick, connected to a septic tank. Many evapotranspiration
systems overflow seasonally because of poor design or construction,
particularly of the liner. The only operation and maintenance required
is that associated with the septic tank.
2) Management Alternatives. The ability of any decentralized
wastewater treatment system to operate properly depends primarily upon
how well the individual on-site systems are maintained. There are
several options than can be taken by a community setting up a decentral-
ized system management program. The managment method chosen depends
upon such factors as the soundness of the present on-site systems and
the ability and willingness of the existing political structure to
administer such a program.
32
-------
The basic components of a decentralized system management
program are planning, site evaluation, system design, installation
supervision, operation, maintenance, financing, water quality monitoring,
system inspection, public education, and environmental/public service
program coordination (17). Planning involves evaluating the overall
suitability of the community for soil absorption systems and deciding
which areas in the community may use septic tanks. System design
involves specifying the size and type of on-site system to be used,
based on a site evaluation performed by qualified personnel. Construction
supervision involves inspection of all new systems, and licensing all
septic tank installers. Maintenance of the systems is extremely
important, but is usually unenforced, and subsequently inadequate.
The regulating authority must be empowered to enter private property
to inspect systems, and to maintain those that are not operating
properly. These duties may be funded by selling permits to each
septic tank owner and requiring proof of routine maintenance and
inspection before renewal, or by a general user fee levy. Monitoring
of surface and groundwater is needed to review the overall success of
the program. Finally, the public must understand their part as individual
owners in the management program.
3. Effluent Disposal
Marion County Lake's wastewater may be treated at any of
several sites. The choice of site depends upon soil and groundwater
conditions, the flow and quality of the receiving water, and the
ability of the site's ecosystem to accept the discharge.
a. Discharge to the Marion County Lake. The Marion County Lake
is relatively low in suspended solids (18) and high in dissolved
oxygen compared to neighboring lakes. Most Kansas lakes have enough
nutrients (nitrates and phosphates) to support large algal populations,
but are limited by high suspended solids concentrations (causing low
light penetration) from becoming eutrophic (19). The Marion County
Lake has localized algal blooms, especially in the stagnant coves,
which is not unusual for old impoundments (20). The sanitary quality
33
-------
of the lake is apparently good, as there have been no recorded violations
of the lake's Class A fecal coliform standard (200 organisms/100 ml)
(9).
The Marion County Lake is fed by springs and by runoff from
pastures used for cattle grazing. The latter is likely the major
source of nutrients, bacteria, and organics to the lake.
b. Discharge to the Stream Below the Marion County Lake. There
are no available water quality or flow data for the unnamed stream
below the Marion County Lake dam. The stream is fed by a number of
springs in addition to overflows and seepage from the dam, and does
not go dry during the year. Except in stagnant coves and the area
just below the dam, the quality of the stream appears to be as good as
most spring-fed streams. Runoff accounts for relatively little of the
total stream flow (21).
c. Discharge to the Cottonwood River. Limited data characterize
the Cottonwood River as similar to the majority of Kansas surface
waters, in that it is highly turbid, moderately mineralized, well
buffered, well oxygenated, and with low organic loading, and high
nutrient and bacterial levels (22). Kansas water quality is highly
dependent upon flow, with high flows resulting in the poorest water
quality. This is because the impact on water quality from non-point
pollutants is substantially greater than that of pollutants from point
sources, because of the sparse population in the area and the relatively
high number of cattle. High amounts of fecal and total coliform and
fecal streptococcus bacteria, suspended solids, and nutrients are
evident, particularly during high flows (19). Violations of the
river's Class B fecal coliform standard (2,000 organisms/ 100 ml) have
been measured in the Cottonwood River downstream of the Marion Reservoir
and County Lake (9, 23), and are most likely the result of contributions
from non-point sources (including septic tanks) during storms.
The Cottonwood River is west of the study area, and southwest
of the City of Marion. Mud Creek and Clear Creek join north of Marion
and flow through the city to join the Cottonwood. The South Fork and
North Fork of the Cottonwood River join three miles west of Marion.
34
-------
The North Fork has been dammed by the Corps of Engineers to form the
Marion Reservoir. The average flow rate of the Cottonwood River at
the USGS sampling point just downstream of the Marion Reservoir over a
9-year period was 87.5 cfs (24).
d. Land Application. In this alternative, treated effluent
would be sprayed upon a large tract of land near the lake. The irrigated
fields could be used for a golf course, pasture, cropland, athletic
fields, or a park. Kansas regulations require treatment before land
application. The minimum treatment required depends upon the intended
use of the irrigated land (See Section XIII of reference 10).
e. Total Retention. This alternative relies primarily upon
evaporation in addition to transpiration by plants to dispose of the
wastewater. For a total retention system where soils are highly
permeable, the lagoons must be lined to prevent pollution of the
groundwater.
4. Septage Handling
The wastes pumped from septic tanks are termed septage, and
can be very difficult to treat. Septage is anaerobic, highly variable,
odorous, high in organics and solids, and can severely disrupt a small
wastewater treatment plant. Communities using septic tanks for treatment
must plan for the treatment of septage, which usually must be aerated
or otherwise pretreated before final disposal.
The relatively small volume of septage from the Marion
County Lake community is discharged directly into the Marion lagoons
without pretreatment. If the volume of septage increases appreciably,
it may become necessary to discharge the LID's septage into a holding
tank or equalization basin at the new Marion oxidation ditch treatment
plant to avoid shock loading that would disrupt the treatment process.
D. CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION
To develop revised project alternatives that more directly
address the concerns of this EIS, the various system components presented
in the previous section were evaluated with respect to the particular
35
-------
conditions in the Marion County Lake planning area. The purpose of
this evaluation was to screen out those alternatives which clearly
offered fewer advantages than the Facility Plan proposed project.
Those alternatives which had the potential to satisfy the evaluation
criteria were selected for further detailed analysis in this EIS. The
principal criteria used in assessing the potential of the various
system components are presented in the following sections.
1. Technical Feasibility
This criterion is an evaluation of the applicability of a
particular component to the situation at Marion County Lake and of its
ability to solve the area's water quality problems. This criterion
became a significant factor in considering septic tank soil absorption
field systems. With the exception of the soils immediately below the
dam, all of the soils in the entire planning area are rated as having
severe limitations for use as septic tank leach fields. (See Figure 5),
This rating was due primarily to the very low permeability of the
soils and the shallow depth to bedrock. Because of these soil con-
ditions, conventional soil absorption systems were judged to be
infeasible, and therefore were not considered in the detailed analysis
of alternatives presented in this EIS.
2. Cost Effectiveness
As mandated in the federal regulations governing municipal
sewage facility grants, cost-effectiveness must be a major criterion
in selection of the proposed project. With limited exceptions for
innovative treatment systems, or where there is an overriding environ-
mental concern, EPA must fund the most cost-effective alternative.
Initial screening of the collection and treatment system
components eliminated a number of alternatives from detailed analysis.
The Facility Plan evaluations of small-diameter pressure and vacuum
collection systems were reviewed under the new design parameters, but
remained less cost-effective than the proposed gravity collection
system. They were therefore not considered as components for the
36
-------
alternatives analyzed in detail. Likewise, aerated lagoons were not
analyzed in detail in this EIS because preliminary calculations showed
them to still be less cost-effective than other treatment methods con-
sidered.
3. Environmental Impact
The consideration of the environmental impact of the various
system components also played a role in the selection of the alternatives
examined in this EIS. Discharge of treated effluent into the Marion
County Lake was eliminated from consideration because of environmental
concerns. Although the Kansas Department of Health and Environment
regulations would permit discharge to the lake with secondary treatment
and disinfection, the addition of such effluent would degrade the
existing lake water quality and eventually lead to overenrichment.
37
-------
-------
Ill ALTERNATIVES
This chapter presents the specific project alternatives
examined in this EIS. These alternatives are based upon the design
parameters developed in the previous chapter, and seek to more ade-
quately address the major issues identified in Chapter I. In addition
to the No-Action alternative and the Facility Plan Proposed Project,
two alternatives are presented which were considered in the Facility
Plan, but which are re-evaluated in light of the revised design popu-
lation projections. Also considered is a more limited alternative
that deals only with the particular water quality problems identified
in the field surveys conducted as a part of this study.
A number of other possible alternatives were also screened.
These included pressure sewer and vacuum sewer collection systems and
community leach fields serving clusters of individual septic tanks.
Preliminary analyses showed these alternatives to be infeasible and
they were not considered further.
A. NO-ACTION
The No-Action alternative describes the situation that would
occur if EPA elects not to fund any wastewater facilities. Since
there are presently no point-source discharges, there would be no
obligation under federal regulations for the community to construct
sewerage facilities. The 1973 Marion County Sanitary Code would
continue to apply to all new private sewage systems and to any existing
systems that fail in the future. This would mean that any of the
present septic tank systems failing in the future would either be
repaired, or replaced by a holding tank. In either case, and also in
the case of any new systems installed, all costs would be borne by the
individual owner. The Marion County Health Department or the Lake
Improvement District could institute more stringent controls over
on-site sewerage systems to help improve their performance and reduce
39
-------
potential threats to public health. These measures could include
increased inspection and maintenance and water use reduction measures.
Such additional efforts would possibly require additional manpower and
funding for the Marion County Health Department. Holding tank pumping
costs could be reduced by using septic tank leach fields for disposal
of grey water and holding tanks for the black water wastes only. A
dual system such as this would reduce both the hydraulic load on the
leach field and the amount of waste discharged to the holding tank.
Implementation of such a measure would have to be within the provisions
of the County Sanitary Code.
B. FACILITY PLAN PROPOSED PROJECT
This alternative is the project recommended in the Facility
Plan. It consists of a conventional gravity collection system serving
all existing development in the Lake Improvement District and a force
main to pump sewage to the new City of Marion treatment plant, shown
on Figure 6. The systems would have sufficient capacity for ultimate
development of the planning area. If selected, this alternative would
qualify for 75 percent federal funding of the eligible construction
costs, which would include a proportional share of the cost of the
City of Marion treatment plant. Facilities included in this alternative
are described in detail in Chapter I, Section B.
C. DOWN-SIZED FACILITY PLAN PROPOSED PROJECT
This alternative is identical to the previous one except
that the project facilities have been reduced in size to reflect the
revised population projections developed in this EIS. This will
insure comparability with the other alternatives discussed. Changes
from the project recommended in the Facility Plan would include reducing
the size of the force main and pump stations transporting the wastewater
to the City of Marion pump station, and reducing the required treatment
40
-------
CITYj
OF MARION
J
U.S. 56
PUMP STATION TO
CITY OF MARION
TREATMENT PLANT
MARION
LANDING FIELD
6,
\
!ป*
V,
PLANNING
AREA BOUNDARY
~..r
Figure 6
Alternative Treatment Plant Sites
-------
capacity at the City of Marion plant. The gravity collection lines
would remain the same capacity because they are already the minimum
size generally allowed under Kansas design guidelines.
D. DOWN-SIZED TOTAL RETENTION LAGOONS
A conventional gravity collection system with treatment by
total retention lagoons was considered and rejected in the Facility
Plan because of the large land acquisition and excavation costs.
Because of the significant reduction in total yearly wastewater flows
due to the revised population projections, the total retention lagoon
was reconsidered. Based upon the new design flows presented in Chapter II,
a total area of 20 acres would be required for this new alternative.
The lagoons would be located approximately 1/2 mile northwest of the
dam, as shown on Figure 6. A gravity collection system serving the
entire lake community would also be included, and would be identical
to those of the previous two alternatives.
E. LIMITED PUBLIC ON-SITE SYSTEM
This alternative would involve the establishment of a special
service agency to manage wastewater functions in the planning area.
Such an agency would operate under the authority of the Lake Improvement
District and the County Health Department, and would be responsible
for the issuance of permits, inspection, operation, and maintenance of
all on-site systems within the District. The first step in implementing
this alternative, after forming the agency itself, would be to correct
all identifiable sewerage problems. This action would consist of
repairing septic tank systems where physically and economically feasible,
and installing holding tanks where necessary. A pumping truck, to be
owned and operated by the agency, would be provided to serve these and
other holding tanks in the District.
42
-------
Costs associated with the purchase of the truck and the
resolution of all existing sewerage problems would be eligible for an
85 percent federal grant as an "alternative" wastewater treatment
system, in accordance with 40 CFR Part 35, Subpart E, Section 35.908.
Remaining capital costs, and all operation and maintenance costs,
would be borne by the residents of the District. It is presently
estimated that up to 5 holding tanks would have to be installed to
alleviate present septic tank problems. Septage would be pumped from
the holding tanks by the agency-owned pumping truck and would be dis-
charged to the new City of Marion treatment plant. Separate black
water/ grey water systems could also be installed in individual house-
holds to reduce holding tank pumping costs. These dual systems could
only be installed on lots of sufficient size, and would be required to
meet all provisions of the County Sanitary Code.
43
-------
-------
IV ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
A. WATER QUALITY AND PUBLIC HEALTH
The Construction Grants program was initiated primarily to
help local communities abate existing municipal sewerage problems.
For this reason, the extent of present water quality and public health
problems, and the future impacts of each of the alternatives on these
parameters, are major concerns of this EIS.
1. Present Conditions
To establish a baseline for projections of future water
quality in the Marion County Lake planning area, EPA conducted extensive
field investigations. These investigations included testing water
samples from numerous public and private wells and from the lake, a
septic leachate survey of the entire lakeshore, and an infrared aerial
survey of the planning area to detect failing septic tank leach fields.
A geologic investigation of the Marion County Lake area was also
conducted to determine the potential relationships between groundwater
quality and lake water quality.
a. Water Sampling. On three separate occasions between July
and September of 1979, EPA collected and analyzed water samples from
the lake area. These included samples from 76 private residences,
3 wells on county park land, and 3 locations in the lake, as shown on
Figure 7. The first set of 15 samples were tested for total coliforms
only, while the remaining samples were tested for total coliforms,
fecal coliforms, and nitrates. The results of these tests are shown
in Table 8.
The great majority of water samples analyzed contained very
low concentrations of nitrates and fecal coliforms, which would not
have been the case if there were contamination of the aquifer by
septic tank effluent. Approximately 34 percent of the sites tested
showed high concentrations of total coliforms. These can be caused
45
-------
TABLE 8
EPA WELL WATER SAMPLING RESULTS
Number of
Parameter Concentration Samples
Total Less than 1 per 100 milliliters3 39
Coliforms 1 or more per 100 milliliters 21
Too numerous to count 31
Fecal less than 1 per 100 milliliters 70
Coliforms 1 or more per 100 milliliters 4
Nitrates Less than 10 milligrams per liter 76
Greater than 10 milligrams per liter 1
Concentrations are shown as colonies per 100 milliliters as determined
by the membrane filter test. The national drinking water standard for
total coliforms in samples examined by this method is: one per 100
milliliters as the arithmetic mean of all samples examined per month;
and four per 100 milliliters in more than one sample when less than
20 are examined per month, or four per 100 milliliters in more than
five percent of the samples when 20 or more are examined per month.
10 milligrams per liter is the maximum Nitrate level allowed by EPA
primary drinking water regulations for community or non-community
water systems.
Note: The water sampling tests presented in this table were performed
by EPA personnel on July 18, 1979, September 4, 1979, and Sep-
tember 28, 1979. Not all tests were performed for each sample.
46
-------
simply by contact with soils, and since the corresponding readings for
fecal coliforms and nitrates were generally low, the high total coliform
counts are most probably due to poorly sealed wells and deteriorating
well casings.
b. Septic Leachate Survey. To locate and measure septic tank
leachates entering the lake, EPA contracted with K-V Associates, Inc.
to conduct a "septic snooper" survey of the entire lakeshore. The
septic snooper device tests the conductivity and fluorescence of the
lake water along the shore and, by comparing with known values for the
conductivity and fluorescence of the organic matter and chloride ions
in local sewage, is able to detect areas where insufficiently treated
sewage is entering the lake. The septic leachate survey was conducted
at the Marion County Lake on November 18-20, 1979, and detected only
slight traces of organics entering the lake. Slightly higher readings
were obtained in several of the small coves, but these were attributed
to the decomposition of wind-blown leaves and run-off from upstream
cattle-grazing areas and did not show the fluorescence characteristics
of the local sewage. No indications of human waste were encountered,
and the bacterial analysis of cove surface water samples revealed
fecal coliform concentrations well below State Class A standards for
recreational use. Appendix D contains the complete Septic Leachate
Survey Report.
c. Infrared Aerial Survey. Aerial photographs of the entire
Marion County Lake planning area were taken by EPA in October of 1979.
These photos were taken through an infrared filter to detect slight
differences in surface temperature. These temperature variations can
be caused by differences in the density and lushness of vegetation,
which can, in some instances, be due to enrichment of the soil by
septic tank leachate. Over a period of time, the additional nutrients
supplied by, inadequately treated septic tank effluent will cause a
richer vegetative growth along the leach field laterals, and this
richer growth can be detected on the infrared aerial photos. This
49
-------
enrichment can also eventually over-fertilize the vegetation, and
cause burn-outs, which can also be detected from the aerial survey.
Using these photographic techniques, only three leach fields
were identified as possibly failing. Two of these failures had already
been detected through on-the-ground inspections by the County Health
Department.
d. Geologic Investigation. To determine the potential for
contamination of the local groundwater supplies by any possible pollution
of surface waters, the geologic structure of the local aquifer was
investigated. (See Appendix B). This investigation revealed that
wells in the Marion County Lake area are drilled into the top strata
of the Towanda Limestone, and that this aquifer is overlain by the
Gage Shale member, which is approximately 45 feet thick. Because this
shale is relatively impervious, the possiblity of pollution of the
aquifer from percolation from septic tank leach fields is unlikely.
The stream that was dammed to form the County Lake had
eroded a portion of the Gage Shale, but the well and boring logs for
the dam indicate that the Towanda Limestone lies at least 10 to 20 feet
below the deepest portion of the lake (See Figure B-l in Appendix B).
It is quite unlikely, therefore, that any pollutants entering the lake
could penetrate the remaining portion of the impervious Gage Shale and
affect the quality of the aquifer.
The soils of the planning area were also examined for their
suitability for septic tank leach fields. In almost all cases, soils
in the area were found to have severe limitations for use as leach
fields. These ratings are based on very shallow depth to bedrock over
most of the area and relatively tight, impermeable soils. In spite of
these soils limitations, there have not been a large number of leach
field failures in the LID. It is believed that this can be attributed
to the very low water usage in the community. Population studies
found that there are considerably fewer people in residence on a
day-to-day basis than previously thought, and it is likely that few of
50
-------
LEGEND
EPA SAMPLES TAKEN
Figure 7
Water Quality Sampling Sites
/' ,\,,
-------
-------
the seasonal residents have many appliances that are large water
users. The higher than normal proportion of elderly among the permanent
residents probably also contributes to a low per-capita water use
rate.
2. Impacts of the No-Action Alternative
If no federal grant is awarded, it is unlikely that any
public sewerage facilities will be built. It is expected that the
present County Sanitary Code will continue to be enforced, and that
inspections of private systems by the County Health Department will
continue. These inspections should detect most problems as the older
septic systems fail. Repair of these systems, or replacement with
holding tanks as has been occurring over the past several years,
should avoid any serious water quality problems.
Future homes built in the District will be required to use
holding tanks on lots of less than one acre. Any new septic systems
installed will be on lots of one acre or more, ensuring sufficient
room for a leach field of adequate size. In general, the inspection
and repair of existing on-site systems and proper sizing of future
systems should prevent the development of serious water quality problems
at the Marion County Lake.
If sewage from the Marion County Lake is not pumped to the
City of Marion treatment plant, there will be no additional adverse
impacts to the Cottonwood River from discharge of that effluent. This
would be a very minor impact in any case.
3. Impacts of Facility Plan Proposed Project or Down-sized Facility
Plan Proposed Project
The implementation of either the Facility Plan Proposed
Project or the Down-sized Facility Plan Proposed Project will result
in the collection and treatment of all sewage generated in the area
and will slightly improve water quality in the Marion County Lake.
This improvement will come primarily from protection of the lake from
future septic system failures, since there is no evidence that present
water quality is being degraded. Either of these alternatives would
51
-------
pump the Marion County Lake community's sewage to the proposed Marion
City treatment plant, which plans to discharge the treated effluent
into the Cottonwood River. Despite treatment before discharge, this
addition to the treatment plant's effluent would inevitably degrade
the water quality of the Cottonwood River to some small extent.
Construction of the collection system around the entire lake
will result in some erosion and siltation in the lake, but this should
be a relatively minor, short-term impact and can be reduced by good
construction practices.
4. Impacts of Down-sized Total Retention Lagoons
As with the previous alternatives, all sewage from the lake
area would be collected and treated outside the community, and therefore
the lake water quality would be protected from future pollution from
failure of the existing on-site systems. Since there would be no
discharge of effluent with this alternative, there would be no adverse
impacts to any receiving streams. Construction of the collection
system would result in the same short-term erosion and sedimentation
impacts mentioned previously. Also, construction of the lagoons on
the 20-acre site will result in some erosion problems, although good
construction practices should be able to contain most sediment on the
site.
5. Impacts of Limited On-Site Public System
The impacts of this alternative would be nearly identical to
those of the no-action alternative. The possibility of serious,
long-term pollution from the failure of septic tank leach fields would
be essentially eliminated by the proposed inspection program and
enforced repair or replacement with holding tanks. Since most of the
pollutants entering the lake originate from non-point sources, such as
cattle-grazing pastures, there would be little improvement over the
present water quality conditions. This alternative would, however,
prevent any further deterioration of water quality. Since no collection
or treatment facilities would be constructed under this alternative,
there would be no erosion or sedimentation impacts.
52
-------
B. POPULATION AND LAND USE IMPACTS
1. No Action Alternative
In general, the residential development of lake property has
proceeded without the benefits of zoning, land use planning, or building
codes. Prior to 1973, this resulted in the development of many small
lots (some only 50' x 100'), each with its own well and septic tank
leach field. The small lot sizes did not allow proper sizing of the
leach fields or proper separation from water supply wells. Development
at the lake ranges from small summer fishing cabins to substantial
permanent homes. The extent of present development in the Lake Improve-
ment District is shown on Figure 8.
The 1973 Marion County Sanitary Code has altered the pattern
of development by requiring a minimum lot size of at least one acre if
a septic tank system will be used. Since 1973, the subdivision of
land has mainly been in one-acre lots, as in the Echo Lane subdivision.
The pressure to develop lake property has not been great, as evidenced
by the substantial number of vacant lots left in subdivisions which
have been platted. For example, 39 of 40 platted one-acre lots in the
Echo Lane subdivision (platted in 1976) are vacant and 32 of 40 lots
are vacant in the Grandview Village subdivision (platted in 1973).
Several lots in each subdivision have been purchased, but, as is
characteristic of a recreation or retirement community, the property
owners are waiting until they can afford to build either a summer home
or a retirement home. It is probable that the lack of an adequate
public sewerage system has played at least a small part in slowing the
rate of development at the lake.
Other recent development has been on unplatted parcels of
more than one acre in area, in the northern portion of the LID (NW% of
Section 10). Several larger parcels (6-15 acres) have been purchased
in this area but only one has been subdivided recently (October,
1979), and is now in the process of being platted (58).
53
-------
If EPA determines not to fund any wastewater facilities,
land development and population growth in the LID would continue
essentially as it has since the enactment of the 1973 Marion County
Sanitary Code. Population growth under these conditions would be
expected to follow the projections presented in Chapter II.
2. Facility Plan Proposed Project
The major effect of this plan would be to create a substantial
amount of sewered, developable land within the Lake Improvement District.
At present, subdivisions are grouped on the eastern and western shores,
with large continuous vacant tracts of land north, northwest and south
of the lake. By installing a collection system around the lake with
sufficient capacity to serve the ultimate population of the LID, a
major impediment to development would be removed. In addition, the
density at which development could occur on lake property would be
greatly increased because the one acre lot size restriction would be
removed. The availability of vacant sewered land combined with the
ability to develop this land at a high density would be economically
more attractive to developers than the present situation. Thus, the
implementation of this alternative would create the potential for
increased residential development at the lake over and above the
population growth projected for the LID in Chapter II. There are, of
course, many other factors that affect the demand for residential
development at the Lake, and the provision of sewerage facilities
would play only a small part in this situation.
An increase in development would not necessarily be advan-
tageous to the LID because of the lack of control over, and planning
for, new development. Without adequate land use planning, zoning, or
a building code, the LID cannot restrict the location, timing, or
density of new subdivisions. Should a significant increase in residen-
tial development at the lake occur, it could have adverse impacts on
the quality of the recreation environment and the general aesthetics
of the lake area. Increases in population would lead to greater
54
-------
.vvS-'-Xw^^
^"'ff'V-'&v^^ \
LEGEND
;?!>, OCCUP.ED LOTS '^' COUNTY PARKLAND
ill VACANT LOTS
Figure 8
Present Land Use
800
-------
traffic around the lake, more boating, and more pressure on the lake
fishery. This level of development would also reduce the amount of
open, undeveloped land which now contributes to the peaceful, rural
atmosphere at the Marion County Lake.
3. Down-sized Facility Plan Proposed Project
The impacts associated with this alternative are essentially
identical to those described for the Facility Plan proposed project.
Although this alternative is a down-sized version of the Facility Plan
proposed project, the actual physical size of the collection system
would be exactly the same because the collection lines are already
designed as small as State regulations will allow. The pump station
for this alternative is smaller, but could be enlarged in the future
without excessive cost or hardship, and the size of the force main is
adequate to handle a substantial increase in flow. Therefore, this
alternative's potential to induce growth would be identical to that of
the previous alternative.
4. Down-sized Total Retention Lagoons
The impacts on population and land use at the lake that are
associated with this alternative would also be primarily the same as
those described for the Facility Plan proposed project because the
size and extent of the collection system would be the same.
This alternative would require approximately 20 acres of
land for the lagoon site. This land is presently used as crop land
and would not be considered for other uses in the foreseeable future.
The land is of little significance as wildlife habitat in its present
state. There is only one residence within the vicinity of the lagoon
site which would possibly be adversely affected by the presence of the
lagoons.
5. Limited Public On-Site System
Since no collection system would be constructed for this
alternative, and since all future development in the LID would be
subject to the same restrictions as now exist for sewage facilities,
this alternative would have essentially the same impact on land use
and population growth as the no-action alternative.
57
-------
C. COST-EFFECTIVENESS
The cost-effectiveness of each alternative is expressed here
as the present value of total cost. Total cost includes all capital,
operation and maintenance, administrative, and debt service costs
throughout the planning period, less the salvage value of all items
with a useful life remaining at the end of the 20-year planning period.
No distinction is made here between public and private expenditures
because the goal of cost-effective analysis is to determine the true
social cost of each alternative--the total amount of resources required
by each, which would therefore be unavailable for any other purpose.
Engineering and administrative costs are estimated to be 25%
of capital costs, and cover design, construction supervision, legal
fees, right-of-way acquisitions, and other administrative expenses.
Items for which salvage values are deducted are land, structures, and
facilities. Land is assumed to appreciate at a compound annual rate
of 3%, while other components are depreciated using the straight-line
method (26).
EPA cost-effectiveness guidelines require that each alter-
native under consideration provide an equivalent level of service.
Then, the most cost-effective alternative is the one which achieves
that level of service for the lowest present value. In practice, this
theoretical requirement is often difficult to meet because of differ-
ences among alternatives in the number of persons served or the level
of treatment provided. In this instance, all of the EIS alternatives
have been sized for the same design year population, and will all
provide sufficient protection of public health and lake water quality.
These alternatives can therefore be considered comparable for the
cost-effective analysis. The Facility Plan Proposed Project alter-
native was designed for a larger population and is not directly
comparable.
58
-------
TABLE 9
TECHNICAL ASSUMPTIONS OF THE COST-EFFECTIVE ANALYSIS
0 All costs are expressed in 1979 dollars
0 All unit costs are the most current for the Marion
region
0 Present value discount (interest) rate = 7 1/8%, as now
required by the Water Resources Council
0 Planning period = 20 years
0 Life of facilities: land - permanent
structures - 50 years
mechanical components - 20 years
0 Straight-line depreciation on structures and mechanical
components, land appreciates at 3% compounded annually
0 Land currently valued at $750/acre (27)
TABLE 10
COST-EFFECTIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
Alternative Total Present Value
No Action 948,500
Facility Plan Proposed Project* 855,100
Down-Sized Facility Plan Proposed Project 824,300
Down-Sized Total Retention Lagoons 1,357,600
Limited Public On-Site Systems 897,000
*Costs of this alternative are not directly comparable since its design
assumes a larger design population.
59
-------
TABLE 11
COST-EFFECTIVE ANALYSIS SUMMARY
ALTERNATIVE
PRESENT VALUE*
NO ACTION
FACILITY PLAN PROPOSED
PROJECT
DOWN-SIZED FACILITY
PLAN PROPOSED PROJECT
DOWN- SI ZED TOTAL
RETENTION LAGOONS
Treatment
Treatment
Collection
Total
Treatment
Collection
Total
Treatment
Collection
Total
Capital
Costs
0
183,300
646,200
829,500
154,600
599,900
754,500
617,300
599,900
1,217,200
Salvage
Values
0
21,700
54,500
76,200
8,800
19,000
27,800
8,500
19,000
27,500
Total
O&M Costs
948,500
49,300
52,500
101,800
45 , 100
52,500
97,600
115,400
52,500
167,900
Total
Present Values
948,500
210,900
644,200
855,100
190,900
633,400
824,300
724,200
633,400
1,357,600
Equivalent
Annual
Values
90,400
20,100
61,400
81,500
18,200
60,400
78,600
69,000
60,400
129,400
LIMITED PUBLIC ON-SITE
SYSTEMS
Treatment
241,300 16,200
671,900
897,000
85,500
*A11 figures rounded to nearest $100.
-------
Technical assumptions of the analysis are listed below in
Table 9, and the results are presented in Table 10, which shows that
the most cost-effective alternative is the Down-Sized Facility Plan
Proposed Project. Although this alternative would involve the least
social cost from an overall, national economic perspective, it may not
necessarily be the least costly option for the local residents.
Details of the cost-effective analysis are presented in Table 11.
Background data on the development of the cost estimates for each
alternative are presented in Appendix E.
D. LOCAL ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Investment in a wastewater treatment system at Marion County
Lake will have short-term and long-term, and direct and indirect
economic effects on the Lake Improvement District and its residents.
1. Short-Term Impacts
Minor short-term construction impacts in the form of jobs
and incomes will be associated with alternatives 2, 3, and 4. Virtually
all of these positive effects will fall outside of the LID, although
some residents may be benefitted. The indirect benefits of increased
sales by supporting industries would be realized by businesses outside
of the LID, and increased tax revenues would be captured almost completely
by the city and county governments. Construction of the collection
system would produce a small adverse impact in the district if it
disrupts camping, hunting, or fishing, and causes a loss of permit
revenue.
2. Long-Term Impacts
Long-term economic impacts would be caused by the financial
burden of funding the local share of project costs. The local share
of costs is determined in accordance with EPA regulations which identify
61
-------
items eligible for federal funding. In general, the eligible items
are the capital cost of publicly owned treatment facilities and collection
systems. Land costs are generally excluded, as is any portion of the
treatment system that is judged to provide excess capacity. Annual
operation and maintenance expenses are not eligible for federal funding
(28). The local share of total project costs, therefore, includes all
of the ineligible capital costs, the local share of the eligible
capital costs, and all of the operation and maintenance costs. For
those costs identified as eligible, EPA will fund 75% and the local
government must provide the remaining 25%. To encourage the development
and application of new approaches to wastewater treatment, the EPA
will fund 85% of the capital costs of systems that it determines to be
"innovative" or "alternative." The Limited Public On-Site System
would qualify for increased federal funding as an "alternative" treatment
system.
The total capital costs for each alternative, and the federal
and local shares, are shown in Table 12. Annual debt service to
finance the local share of capital costs was calculated by assuming
that the local capital costs would be amortized over the 20 year
planning period at 8.78%, the current (September 5, 1980) average rate
for municipal bonds listed in U.S. Financial Data by the St. Louis
Federal Reserve Bank. This debt service figure, the annual operation
and maintenance cost, and the resulting total yearly cost to the LID
of each alternative are listed in Table 13.
The cost of the system to each individual household was
calculated by allocating portions of the debt service and the oper-
ation and maintenance costs to each property owner. The debt service
costs were allocated in equal shares for each sewer connection pro-
vided. It is estimated that there would be a total of 230 connections;
thus, the owner (either permanent or seasonal) of a single residence
would pay one part in 230 of the total debt service, while Marion County
would pay 64 shares of 230, one for each of the connections expected
on county land in the trailer park and the camping areas. The operation
62
-------
and maintenance costs were apportioned among all the users of the
system based upon the amount of sewage they would be expected to
produce. Users were divided into four groups: permanent residents,
summer residents, weekend residents, and Marion County. The expected
sewage volumes from each group were calculated using the following
variables:
0 estimated population (see Table 6 in Chapter II)
0 assumed length of stay per year at the lake (see Table 6 in
Chapter II)
0 assumed per capita wastewater design flows (see Table 6 in
Chapter II)
Marion County's wastewater volume is the sum of the flows from the
county trailer park (56 units) and the 8 privies in the campgrounds.
The resulting percentage distribution of the total flow volume was
then applied to the total yearly O&M cost of each alternative to
determine the O&M component of each user charge under each alternative.
Thus seasonal residents would be charged less than year-round residents.
Marion County would pay a rate based on all sewage flow expected from
trailer occupants, campers, and picnickers. Table 14 presents an
estimate of the total user charge per household for 1980 for each of
the alternatives.
To evaluate the economic impact that user charges have on
the residents of an area, the federal government has developed guide-
lines to identify sewerage projects likely to have significant adverse
impacts on system users (29). These guidelines identify a project as
high-cost when the average annual user charges are:
0 1.5% of the median household income in communities with
median household incomes less than $6,000
0 2.0% of community median household incomes between $6,000
and $10,000
0 2.5% of community median household incomes greater than $10,000
Several methods of estimating the median household income of
the LID place the median income in the $10,000 to $15,000 range.
Therefore, if the actual median household income fell at the lower
63
-------
TABLE 12
CAPITAL COSTS
ALTERNATIVE
No Action
Facility Plan
Proposed Project
Down-Sized
Facility Plan
Proposed Project
Down-Sized
Total Retention
Lagoon
Limited Public
On-Site Systems
TOTAL
COST
$
FEDERAL
SHARE
829,500
754,500
1,217,200
241,300
$
0
570,225
515,400
851,175
204,285
LOCAL
SHARE
$ 0
259,275
239,100
366,025
37,015
TABLE 13
LOCAL COSTS - 1980
ALTERNATIVE
No Action
Facility Plan
Proposed Project
Down-Sized
Facility Plan
Proposed Project
Down-Sized
Total Retention
Lagoon
Limited Public
On-Site Systems
ANNUAL
DEBT SERVICE*
$
0
28,037
25,880
39,899
4,313
ANNUAL
OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE
$ 31,500
9,700
9,300
16,000
26,200
TOTAL
YEARLY COST
$ 31,500
37,737
35,180
55,899
30,513
*Based on local capital costs rounded up to the nearest ten thousand
dollars to reflect bonding costs. Note that the Draft EIS contained
an error in computation of the Annual Debt Service. This error has
been corrected in the above table and a more current municipal bond
interest rate has been used.
64
-------
TABLE 14
ANNUAL USER CHARGES
PERMANENT SEASONAL MARION
ALTERNATIVE RESIDENTS RESIDENTS COUNTY
No Action $ 230a $ 115a $ 4,725b
Facility Plan
Proposed Project 190 157 9,449
Down-Sized
Facility Plan
Proposed Project 178 147 8,771
Down-Sized
Total Retention
Lagoon 290 259 13,502
Limited Public
On-Site Systems 211 114 5,130
User charges for permanent and seasonal residents are presented
on a per household basis.
User charges for Marion County include charges for all trailer
hook-ups and all park facilities.
Note: The Draft EIS contained an error in computation of the Annual
User Charges. The above table presents the corrected figures.
65
-------
boundary of this range, a user charge of $250 would represent a signifi-
cant financial burden. Only the down-sized total retention lagoon
alternative shows greater user charges than the $250 benchmark figure
if the median income is at the $10,000 level. Thus, this alternative
is considered "high cost" by the federal government criterion. If the
median income within the district is actually greater than $12,000,
none of the alternatives could be considered to have significant
adverse impacts on a community-wide basis. Since some lake residents
are retirees and may be on fixed incomes, the user charge may have
some economic impact on these particular households, but it should not
be severe. It should be noted that the cost estimates for alternatives 1
and 5, which both include an increased use of holding tanks, are based
upon the same sewage flow rates as the alternatives using conventional
collection systems. This is done to provide a comparability in the
level of treatment provided among the alternatives. In actual practice,
those using holding tanks are generally much more conservative in
their use of water, and therefore it is likely that a resident willing
to practice such conservation could reduce his costs significantly
below those shown for alternatives 1 and 5 in Table 14.
Another alternative for those required to convert from
septic tank systems to holding tanks would be the installation of
separate plumbing systems for grey water and black water. (Black
water is defined as toilet waste only, whereas grey water includes
wastewater from the laundry, shower, and sinks.) Black water would be
discharged to a holding tank and pumped out for disposal at the Marion
treatment plant. The grey water could be discharged to the existing
septic tank leach field. This dual system would reduce the hydraulic
load on the septic tank system and greatly decrease the number of
pathogenic micro-organisms discharged to the leach fields. Since
black water comprises only about 35 percent of the wastewater produced
in a typical residence, this system would also significantly reduce
the amount of wastewater that would be discharged to the holding tank,
thereby reducing pump-out costs.
Several factors could have indirect long-term economic
impacts on the LID. First, the financial burden of a user charge
66
-------
could cause some amount of displacement if some lower-income households
find the charge too costly and choose to move. Similarly, this extra
cost could accelerate the trend of converting seasonal units to permanent
units as some homeowners find it too expensive to maintain a second
home at the lake. It is expected, however, that these effects would
be very slight and would occur gradually over a long period of time.
As described in section B of this chapter, the increased
development capacity of the LID resulting from a sewage collection
system would allow more dense development. This could result in a
range of economic impacts, including slightly increased LID revenues
because of greater usage of the lake. In order to judge what is most
likely to happen, an in-depth analysis of the markets for retirement
homes and recreation activities in the region would be necessary.
E. ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS
1. No-Action Alternative
a. Terrestrial Flora. The no-action alternative will not
modify the existing vegetation associations in the study area. Marion
County is located within the bluestem prairie province of the tall-grass
prairie ecoregion (31). The combination of edaphic and climatic
conditions at one time supported a diverse grassland community. This
community has since been altered by resource practices to the extent
that natural grasslands now cover less than one percent of their
original range. The project area reflects these conditions in as much
as vestiges of native vegetation occur only in the northeast quarter
of section 10 (R4E,T20S), along the creek that feeds Marion County
Lake from the northeast and along the tailwaters below the dam.
The flora found in the northeast quarter of section 10 is a
mixture of native tall-grass prairie species and introduced "weed"
species. While it is suspected that this tract of land has not been
plowed, the composition and diversity of the existing plant association
67
-------
indicates a history of disturbance from the combined practices of
overgrazing and haying. Woody riparian communities are found along
the creek bottoms and tailwaters. They are predominately a cottonwood-
elm-ash association with other common associates including black
willow, mulberry, hackberry, honey locust and boxelder. This type of
lowland plains woodland frequently occurs in the narrow belts along
river valleys, side drainages and adjacent slopes in central and
western Kansas (32).
The remaining native vegetation has been either modified by
range management techniques or completely removed by agricultural,
urban and other resource practices. An example of such manipulation
is through the use of herbicides and fertilizers to selectively enhance
certain rangeland species while eliminating others. The cultivation
of alfalfa, milo, and winter wheat in the study area has permanently
removed the prairie vegetation. Residential housing around the Lake
is responsible for both the removal and alteration of the flora by the
planting of ornamentals. Many of these introduced species, however,
do provide wildlife with a supplementary food supply. Marion County
Lake has also inundated acreage once covered by grasslands. Vegetation
management practices around the Lake have resulted in a cottonwood
parkland. The Lake, nevertheless, has increased the diversity of the
fauna and flora in the area because of its availability as a water
source in a relatively dry region.
Vegetation that was observed in the project area from October 3-5,
1979 is listed in Appendix C. This included 14 species of trees, 9
shrub and wood vine species, 35 taxa of herbs, and 8 plant taxa that
were found growing either on the shoreline or in the Lake. While this
inventory of woody and herbaceous autumn flora is by no means complete,
it is believed that these species represent the great majority of
autumn species.
Due to the time when the field investigation was made, it
was not possible to observe and list spring herbaceous flora. Spring
68
-------
species bloom and produce their seeds from late March through late
June and then wither or become extremely inconspicuous. Spring flow-
ering species would have at .least doubled the vegetation list.
b. Terrestrial Fauna. The no-action alternative should not
significantly alter the existing wildlife resources within the project
area. Appendix C lists the fish and wildlife species that inhabit the
vicinity. This alternative may indirectly benefit wildlife populations,
since implementation of a sewage system may encourage development of
additional residential area. Such development would subsequently
destroy terrestrial wildlife habitat of native rangeland birds and
small mammals.
c. Aquatic Flora. Macrophytes (rooted vegetation) are found in
the coves and the perimeter of the Lake. These are sometimes suspected
to be indicators of eutrophic conditions, but this assumption is not
necessarily correct. Macrophytes commonly occur in small impoundments
throughout Kansas where suitable habitat, reduced wave action, and
warm waters provide optimal conditions for a stable flora (33). Algae
(predominately Spirogyra) also were present, but not in the typical
abundance of a eutrophic environment. The combined effects of the
pondweeds and algae constitute a nuisance to fisherman along the
shoreline during the summer and also promote the perpetuation of an
overcrowded sunfish population. An attempt to alleviate this problem
is being made by stocking grass carp (Ctenopharynodon idella), a
species that consumes aquatic vegetation (34). Kansas Fish and Game
also has suggested an autumn drawdown water level management plan to
control the vegetation.
d. Aquatic Fauna. Field observations, conversations with
county lake personnel (34), and available data from the Kansas Fish
and Game fishery biologists (35, 36) indicate the water quality in
Marion County Lake has not been significantly degraded and is capable
of supporting a diverse fish fauna. Presently, black bass and intro-
duced northern pike, species requiring clean, well-oxygenated water
69
-------
are present in large numbers in the Lake. Other species that have
been regularly stocked include channel catfish and walleye. No fish
kills attributed to nutrient enrichment have been reported by the
lake's superintendent or the Kansas Fish and Game Commission. It
appears that with regular inspections and proper maintenance, there
should be no adverse impact on the ecology of the Lake from continued
operation of the existing septic tank systems.
2. Facility Plan Proposed Project
Implementation of the Facility Plan's concept of a collec-
tion system at Marion County Lake and pumping the raw sewage to the
City of Marion's new treatment facility would have a minor temporary
adverse impact on the terrestrial wildlife that inhabit the proposed
force main's right-of-way during the construction period. The study
area consists mostly of grazed rangeland and cultivated fields of milo
and winter wheat. While rangeland provides the proper habitat for
most grassland wildlife, farmland is of marginal value, furnishing
cover during the growing season and a food source following harvest.
The most optimal habitats occur in those areas adjacent to fence rows
and between fields. The local wildlife populations should not be
encumbered by the construction-related impacts.
There are no unique botanical areas, wetlands, or habitats
of state or federal threatened or endangered species (35, 37, 38, 39)
that will be affected by proposed project.
The Lake should not be adversely affected by such construction
activities as trenching or filling operations. In the event a heavy
rain follows trenching operations, the impoundment may suffer a temporary
increase in turbidity from the erosion of loose soil. Since the
magnitude of the project is small and the construction time-frame is
short, the amount of erosion that could occur should not interfere
with the ecology of the Lake.
Operational impacts from the additional design capacity load
of about 0.105 mgd from Marion County Lake to the city of Marion's
70
-------
treatment plant should be minimal. Marion's proposed treatment plant
will be designed to treat 0.526 mgd of sewage and release an effluent
of 30 mg/1 BOD and 30 mg/1 SS. Marion County Lakes's effluent will
comprise about 20% of the total volume. If the plant is constructed
at the proposed site, the effluent should maintain a constant flow in
a presently intermittent tributary of the Cottonwood River, from the
outfall site down to the River. It should be expected that this creek
will not support a fish fauna and may occasionally create noxious
conditions promoted by pools of standing effluent. Because of the
dilution capacity of the Cottonwood River, the biota inhabiting the
River should not be adversely effected by the effluent. A mixing zone
formed at the confluence of the Cottonwood and the tributary should
neither significantly disrupt fish movements nor drastically alter the
benthic community (40). Beyond the mixing zone, there should be no
perceptible long-term adverse impacts to the Cottonwood River. This
includes any potential impacts to the Neosho Madtom (Nbturus placidus),
a state-classified endangered species, and its habitat. This species
occurs about 70 miles downstream in the Cottonwood River below John
Redmond Reservoir in Coffey County (35).
The secondary impacts of the Marion County Lake project
would encourage development of additional residential areas. Such
development would subsequently destroy wildlife habitat of native
rangeland birds and small mammals.
The Kansas Fish and Game Commission has stated there are no
endangered or threatened species known to inhabit the planning area.
Migrating species may use the area sporadically; however, no impacts
on them are expected.
3. Down-sized Facility Plan Proposed Project
The ecological impacts associated with this alternative
would essentially be identical to those discussed in the Facility Plan
Proposed Project, except that the total amount of sewage to be treated
is estimated to be only 27 percent of the previous design volume.
71
-------
4. Down-sized Total Retention Lagoons
Lagoon treatment and zero discharge would require the acqui-
sition of about 20 acres of land to retain the effluent. The severity
of the long-term adverse impact would be dependent on the location of
the lagoon. Since the proposed site is primarily rangeland, the
impact to the wildlife by the loss of 20 acres should be minimal. A
total retention lagoon system would avoid any of the adverse effects
on receiving streams that accompany discharging systems.
5. Limited Public On-site System
Properly operating individual septic systems or holding
tanks should have no adverse impact on the ecology of the project
area. No wildlife habitat would be destroyed, as all construction
would take place on existing residential lots.
F. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A cultural resources reconnaissance survey of the Marion
County Lake Improvement District was conducted to identify any archae-
ological or historic sites that might be adversely affected by the
sewerage facility alternatives being considered. This survey was
conducted during the summer and fall of 1979 by the Archaeology Labor-
atory, Wichita State University, under the direction of Dr. Arthur H.
Rohn, Principal Investigator.
The investigation included archival searches, informant
interviews, and pedestrian surveys of all areas that could be affected
by construction of any of the project alternatives. Two small archae-
ological sites were recorded, neither of which appear to meet the
criteria for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places.
These two sites are shown as sites 531 and 532 on Figure 9. (This
figure also shows the areas that were investigated in the pedestrian
field survey.) No cultural resources were found in any of the force
main or interceptor corridors.
72
-------
LEGEND
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE
'ซ < \ INTENSIVELY SURVEYED
I** . I
CITY
OF MARION
PUMP STATION TO
CITY OF MARION
TREATMENT PLANT
MARION
LANDING FIELD
**ป****
/ :
PLANNING
AREA BOUNDARY
6" FORCE
MAIN
Figure 9
Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey ฐ
FEET
1000 2000
73
-------
Since the new City of Marion treatment plant is now proposed
to be located northwest of the city, there would be no impact expected
on site 532. The site appears to be relatively insignificant and no
cultural affiliation could be determined for it. Site 531 is located
below the Marion County Lake dam and would not be affected by any of
the alternatives under consideration. The site appears to represent a
pre-Great Bend culture.
The Gee House, a historic house located on Lake Shore Drive,
was built in 1877. Because of numerous alterations to the structure,
it does not appear to meet the criteria for nomination to the National
Register of Historic Places. In any event, none of the alternatives
would adversely affect the house.
The Marion County Lake Park represents a fine example of the
small scale projects sponsored by President Franklin Roosevelt's New
Deal administration in an attempt to counter the Great Depression of
the 1930*s. However, because it is not sufficiently old, the park
does not meet the criteria for designation as a federal, state, or
local landmark. Should the present facilities survive another ten
years, the lake and park should be reconsidered for landmark status.
None of the sewerage alternatives should have direct adverse impacts
on the park facilities.
G. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
Table 15 summarizes the principal impacts that would occur
with each of the alternatives. The numbered alternatives presented in
the table are defined as follows:
1. No Action
2. Facility Plan Proposed Project
3. Down-sized Facility Plan Proposed Project
4. Down-sized Total Retention Lagoon
5. Limited Public On-Site Systems
Detailed descriptions of these alternatives are presented in Chapter III.
74
-------
TABLE 15
IMPACT SUMMARY
IMPACT CATEGORY
ALTERNATIVE
IMPACT DESCRIPTION
Lake Water Quality
1, 5
No anticipated impact.
2,3,4 Very minor short-term erosion from construction of collection
system.
Stream Water Quality
1, 5 .009 mgd addition to Marion treatment plant effluent discharged
to Cottonwood River. Negligible impact.
2, 3 .028 mgd addition to Marion plant effluent. Negligible impact.
Very minor short-term erosion from construction of force main.
4 No discharge of effluent. Very minor short-term erosion from
construction of force main and lagoon.
Groundwater Quality
All The relatively impervious Gage shale overlying the aquifer pre-
vents pollution of groundwater.
Residential Development 1, 5
All new development must either be on one acre lots or have holding
tanks. Provide no new incentives for development.
-------
TABLE 15 (Cont.)
IMPACT SUMMARY
IMPACT CATEGORY
ALTERNATIVE
Residential Development 2, 3, 4
IMPACT DESCRIPTION
Collection system serving the entire lake area could make develop-
ment more economically attractive. Would allow an increase in
density since no limit on lot size would be required. Any growth
induced would have minor secondary impacts on open land, noise,
traffic, recreation; but growth rate is not expected to vary
significantly whether sewers are built or not, since other factors
exert more control.
Prime Farmland
1, 5
Should cause no conversion of prime farmlands to other uses.
2, 3, 4 Potential for induced residential growth could affect a small
amount of farmland.
4 only Lagoon construction will require 20 acres of prime farmland
presently used for grazing.
Cost-Effectiveness
The Down-sized Facility Plant Proposed Project (Alternative 3) was
found to be the most cost-effective. The Down-sized Total Retention
Lagoon (Alternative 4) was found to be the least cost-effective.
Local User Cost
All None of the alternatives would place a significant financial burden
on the community in general. Any of them, however, may involve some
significant impact on lower-income residents.
-------
TABLE 15 (Cont.)
IMPACT SUMMARY
IMPACT CATEGORY ALTERNATIVE
IMPACT DESCRIPTION
Threatened or
Endangered Species
All There should be no impacts on threatened or endangered species or
their habitat.
Aquatic Environment
1, 4, 5 Should have no adverse impacts on aquatic species or habitats.
2, 3 Nearly negligible impact on species in Cottonwood River by increase
in City of Marion plant effluent.
Terrestrial Environment 1, 5 No impacts on the terrestrial environment.
2, 3, 4 Extremely minor loss of habitat along force main in existing road
right-of-way.
4 only Minor loss of crop land habitat at 20-acre lagoon site.
Cultural Resources
All There should be no impacts on cultural resources resulting
from implementation of any of these alternatives.
-------
-------
V PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND COORDINATION
A. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The first major public involvement in the proposed project
was the public hearing on the Facility Plan. This meeting was held on
June 14, 1979, and was attended by approximately 50 residents of the
planning area. The Facility Plan consultants summarized the findings
of the Plan and answered questions regarding the project schedule and
costs. Most sentiments expressed were in favor of quick implementation
of the project. Following the consultant's presentation, a representative
of the EPA discussed user charges and the need for an inter-governmental
agreement between the City of Marion and the Lake Improvement District.
A member of the EIS preparation team then briefly outlined the EIS
study procedure. The hearing was adjourned after approximately two
hours.
The next point of major public involvement was a public
workshop on the EIS study. This meeting was held on September 8th,
1979 in the Marion County Lake Meeting Hall. The meeting was held on
a Saturday to enable property owners who are at the lake only on
weekends to attend. A brief presentation was made by EPA representatives
on the EIS process and the various project alternatives being considered.
This was followed by a question and answer session touching on a wide
variety of subjects. Two members of the EIS study team participated
in this workshop, which was attended by approximately 150 local citizens.
During the course of the study, EPA and EIS personnel visited
the Marion County Lake area on several occasions for informal discussions
with local citizens and officials.
The Draft EIS was completed in May of 1980 and distributed
to all interested parites. On July 19, 1980, at 2 p.m, the Public
Hearing on the Draft EIS was held in the Marion County Lake Meeting
Hall. Approximately 35 persons attended the hearing, and 12 of those
made statements for the record. The hearing lasted just over one
hour.
79
-------
The hearing was opened by the EPA Hearing Officer, who
briefly described the processes involved in preparation of the Draft
EIS, public review and comment, EPA responses to those comments,
preparation of the Final EIS, and final decision-making. The EIS
Project Officer then described the investigations undertaken in the
EIS and the findings of those studies. The hearing was then opened
for public comment.
Several statements were made indicating a feeling on the
part of some of the public that the final decision on the project had
already been made, and that the hearing was only a formality. One
commenter stated that the attendance at the hearing would have been
much greater if people had not thought that the final decision had
already been made. It was stressed by EPA in response to these com-
ments that the draft EIS was in fact a draft and would be revised in
the final EIS to reflect any new information presented at either the
public hearing or in letters of comment on the draft document. The
public was encouraged to submit any additional information bearing on
the draft EIS, and a 15 day extension of the comment period was offered.
Only after the final EIS has been filed and reviewed for a period of
at least 30 days will the EPA Regional Administrator make a final
decision on the project. This determination will be published in the
record of decision and distributed to all parties which commented on
the draft or final EIS.
A number of questions were raised regarding the criteria
used by EPA for determining the eligibility of a community for funding
under Section 201 of the Clean Water Act. In particular, information
was sought on the degree or extent of water pollution necessary to
justify a project. Generally, the principal indicator used to determine
the existence of a water quality problem or public health hazard is
significant fecal coliform contamination of groundwater or surface
water. Fecal coliforms are bacteria found in human and animal wastes
which may indicate the presence of other disease-causing organisms.
Significant contamination of surface water would be marked by recurring
violations of state or national standards. Specifically for the
-------
Marion County Lake, a violation would exist if the fecal coliform
count exceeded 200 colonies per 100 milliliters, based on five samples
taken during separate 24 hour periods within a 30 day period. To
date, no such violations have heen recorded at the Lake.
Several questions at the public hearing addressed details of
the alternatives considered. These included questions on the implemen-
tation of the "more stringent controls over on-site systems," the
legal and physical practicability of grey water systems, the community
leach field alternative, and the limited public on-site system alter-
native. Chapter III, Alternatives, has been revised in this final EIS
to more clearly address these questions.
One commenter pointed out that Figure 4 in the draft EIS
indicates that nearly all of the soils of the study area have severe
limitations for the use of septic tank leach fields. In view of this
condition, it was asked why those uses should be allowed to continue.
It was also asked that the differences between moderate limitations
and severe limitations be explained.
In response, it was pointed out that because of the map
scale used, only general soil phases could be shown and small scattered
areas of soils of different characteristics could exist. Also, with
low levels of water use and proper operation and maintenance, some
marginal soils may provide adequate service. Soils with severe limita-
tions are those where usage is generally unsound or not practical,
based upon the permeability, depth to bedrock, and slope of the surface.
Soils with moderate limitations can present problems, but may be used
with careful design and good management. In all cases, on-site study
and testing would be necessary to determine the permeability and depth
of the soil in the exact location proposed for the leach field.
One attendee inquired why the draft EIS was concerned with
water quality in the wells in the study area when the problem is with
sewage. The potential for pollution of groundwater through infiltration
from improperly operating septic tank leach fields was described.
Water supply wells tapping such polluted groundwaters could present
serious public health problems. Testing of wells in the Marion County
Lake area revealed no evidence of groundwater pollution.
81
-------
The comment was made that the draft EIS essentially says
that the present situation is good enough at Marion County Lake. The
commenter expressed the opinion that this wasn't acceptable and that
the draft EIS should be completely set aside. He also stated that the
results of the septic leachate survey were erroneous, and that one
could simply walk around the lake and see that the growths of algae
along the more heavily populated west side were much greater than
along the east side of the lake. It was also mentioned that the
leachate survey was not conducted during the period of peak sewage
flows in the summer.
In response to these comments, it was pointed out that
because of the time it takes for septic leachates to travel through
the soils, maximum pollution readings will more likely be recorded
some time after the actual peak usage period. Several studies have
been conducted (references 75 and 76) at recreational lakes in which
septic leachate detector readings were taken during times of peak
occupancy and during winter periods of low sewage flows. These studies
showed that winter readings were as high or higher than readings
obtained in the peak season. The septic leachate detector is based
upon sound scientific principles and has been used successfully in a
wide variety of recreational community lakes throughout the country.
The presence of algae in the lake is not necessarily an
indication of sewage pollution, but can be attributed to nutrients
supplied by other natural sources, such as storm run-off from adjacent
cattle grazing land and the decay of vegetation that has entered the
lake. The location of the algae can be influenced by prevailing
winds, protective coves, and various sources of nutrients.
It was also stated at the public hearing that EPA1s policy
with respect to limiting induced growth in the Marion County Lake
project was apparently in direct opposition to the policy followed in
a sewerage project in Missouri which was designed for ultimate growth.
The project the commenter referred to was probably the Longview Lake
Interceptor in the Little Blue Valley Sewer District in Jackson County.
82
-------
In this project, the design called for a segment of the main inter-
ceptor to be laid in an area that was soon to be inundated by a
proposed reservoir. The surrounding residential area was projected to
reach ultimate development within approximately 40 years.
In this instance, construction of the second, parallel
interceptor that would be required after the 20 year capacity was
exceeded would have much greater adverse environmental and economic
impacts than would constructing the interceptor to the full 40 year
capacity at the outset, prior to impoundment of the reservoir. Since
the larger pipe size was more cost effective, was consistent with
projected land use patterns, and would reduce overall environmental
impacts, it was approved under a variance from the usual construction
grants regulations. It should be noted also that this project was
funded to eliminate existing pollution from several municipal lagoon
point-source discharges into the Little Blue River.
Another commenter remarked that he was overwhelmed by the
volume of the draft EIS, and suggested that if all the money spent on
the report had been put into construction, the system would be half
built by now.
A final comment addressed the possibility that because of
the fact that Kansas had traditionally been a Republican state, the
current Democratic administration decided not to award further grants
to the Marion County Lake Improvement District. The hearing officer
assured the commenter that this was not the case, since any municipal
sewage treatment construction grant funds not spent on the Marion
County Lake project will be spent on other projects in the state of
Kansas.
B. COORDINATION
The EIS has been prepared in coordination with other federal,
state, and local agencies concerned with the Marion County Lake area.
The following table presents a list of all agencies, organizations,
and individuals who received a copy of the Draft EIS.
83
-------
TABLE 16
DRAFT EIS DISTRIBUTION
The following is a list of agencies, organizations, and persons
to whom copies of the draft statement were sent for review and comment:
Federal Agencies
U.S. Department of Defense
Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Department of the Interior
Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Farmers Home Administration
State Agencies
Forestry, Fish and Game Commission
Kansas Biological Survey
Kansas Department of Health and Environment
Kansas Geological Survey
Kansas State Budget Department
Kansas State Highway Commission
Kansas State Historical Society
Water Resources Board
Local and Regional
City of Marion
City Hall
City Library
Mayor
Flint Hills Regional Council
Marion County Health Department
Marion County Lake Superintendent
Wichita Public Library
Wichita-Sedgwick County Resource Advisory Board
84
-------
Interested Groups
Bethel College, Department of Biology
Bird Populations Institute
Case & Sons Insurance
Davis Septic Tank Service
Don's Plumbing
Flint Hills Rural Electric Corporation
KDHE, Topeka
Kansas City Power & Light
Kansas Ornithological Society
Kansas Wildlife Federation, Inc.
Marion County Record
Moser Associates
Wichita State University, Department of Anthropology
Interested Individuals
Don Alcorn
R. D. Allison
Hartman Baker
Joe Barnes
Ed Barnett
Johelen Beeman
Ted Bernhardt
Rowlan Bevans
Morris Bledsoe
Art Boese
Lloyd Boileau
Byron Boothe
Norm Bowers
R. C. Bowlby
Max L. Bowlin
E. P. Brownan
David Brakebill
Robert Buckley
Scott Bunn
D. R. Bunn
W. K. Carter
William Carter
Don Cole
C. E. & Dorothy Coleman
Norman Collins
J. Combs
D. V. Conwell
G. L. Cook
Charles Cowan
Donald L. Cox
R. L. Crowell
Ronnie Crowell
Clyde Daniels
Jim Darrow
John Darting
Charles DeForest
Lorne W. Dexter
Mrs. John Dirkson
Howard Dow
Ron Druse
Dean Duke
James Dunham
Arthur Dyck
Edward L. Eaton
Jim Edson
John Emig
Jim and Shirley Enns
Hollis Evans
Johnny Farber
William Fee
Murray Fincher
85
-------
Marion H. Ford
Robert C. Foster
Bruno Franz
David George
Dan Gilham
Howard Gilmer
Jim Gilmore
Lewis J. Gipson
Ona Griffith
B. A. Haelfrich
Dawn Halpin
Dennis Hancock
Norma Hannaford
Ann Baker Hanschu
Mrs. David Hanschu
Velda Harpe
Charles G. Haupt
Don Heinemann
Paul Heinemann
Max Heinrich
Harold Helton
Lester Henderson
Denny S. Hendricks
Robert D. Hensley
Steve Hett
E. B. Hilligos
Mrs. Wharton Hoch
Wayne Hoffman
Evans Hollis
Phillip E. Holtzinger
Milton R. Huebert
Don Hughbanks
Nadine L. Hughbanks
Mrs. Neva Huguenin
Dorris Hulse
Irvin Janzen
H. H. Jensen
Dannie Jewett
James L. Johnston
Chester Jones
John Jordon
Kenneth K. Kaufman
John Keefe
Lawrence Kennedy
LaVerne R. Kerbs
C. H. King
Leona D. King
Albert Klenda
Ervin Kline
Gene Knackstedt
Dale Koegeboehn
M. F. Koon
Paul Kruse
M. L. Love
Helen G. Loveless
Max Loveless
Leroy Matz
Mrs. R. L. May
Lawrence May
G. R. Mayes
C. L. McCully
Calvin McGully
Harry L. McKean
Mrs. Frank McMillan
Judith A. Mitchell
Bob Moody
Paul Morse
Verona Mullikin
Bill Myrick
Gwendolyn Neil
Ernest Newcomb
J. I. Newcomer
Bernie Nording
Ed Oursler
R. E. Oursler
Jack Parmele
Don Patry
Bob Perry
Harry Pierce
Robert D. Pittenger
Boyd Raymond Powers, Jr.
Charles Prewit
Paul Pritchard
Eddie Quinn
A. E. Reiss
Ernest Reynolds
Blanch Rice
Clyde W. Riffel
Robert Risenhoover
Larry Roe
G. E. Royse
Charles Royse
Cecile Ruth
Ed Rutherford
Bert Sanders
Richard Sardou, Jr.
Adrian Sayler
Richard Schill
Ben Schlegel
John F. Schock
Robert E. Schooler
Jay Schroeder
Verne Schroeder
Mrs. John Seifert
Ronald Sell
Lester Shubert
Paul Silveous
Clarence 0. Simpson
86
-------
Myron Simpson
James Smalley
Robert Smalley
Bale Smelling
Cedric Smith
Bob Steward
Jinunie Suderman
Ray M. Summey
Archie Thomas
Frank Tomlinson
Wilber J. Townsend
James J. Vinduska
Leo Vogelsberg
Fred Waddell
John Wall
Robert H. Walker
John Waner
I. C. Watson
Naomi Wesson
Bill Whitley
Lowell Wilder
Brad Wildin
Jim Williams
John Williams
Lee Williams
Linda Williams
Rodney Williams
Brad Winan
Wallace Wittenberg
Grant Wixon
Claude Wolf
E. L. Wood
Opal & Paul Woodward
Richard Wooley
H. C. Wullschleger
John C. Yoder
Henry Young
Reuben Zerger
Frank Zurbuchen
87
-------
-------
C. COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIS
The following pages present all of the letters of comment
received on the Draft EIS, along with EPA responses to those comments.
Where appropriate, changes have been made in the text of the EIS in
response to these comments. Letters of comment were received from the
following:
US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, Tulsa District
US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Soil Conservation Service
US DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Public Health Service
US DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
US DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Office of the Secretary
KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT
A. E. REISS, REISS & GOODNESS ENGINEERS
ERNEST S. NEWCOMBE
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
TULSA DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
POST OFFICE BOX 61
TULSA. OKLAHOMA 74121
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
SWTED-E
10 June 1980
Kathleen Q. Camin, Ph.D.
Regional Administrator
United States Environmental Protection
Agency-Region VII
324 East Eleventh Street
Kansas City, MO 64106
Bear Dr. Camin:
We have reviewed the environmental assessment for the proposed sewage facilities
in the Marion County Lake Improvement District, Marion County, Kansas.
In keeping with the provisions of Executive Order 11988, the project should be
located such that no encroachment upon a flood plain would occur. If it is
determined that it would be impractical to locate the facilities without encroach-
ment, measures should be taken to safeguard against flooding. The 100-year flood
elevation should be determined during detailed engineering studies and 100-year
flood protection designed for the project.
The placement of dredged or fill material in association with the proposed project
into waters of the United States falls within the scope of the inclosed nationwide
permit (Incl 1). This permit was issued pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act. Should deviations from the conditions listed in the enclosure occur, you should
contact our Regulatory Functions Section to determine whether an individual permit
is required.
Sincerely,
1 Incl
As stated
T30NALD R. HENDERS
Acting Chief, Engineering Division
90
-------
RESPONSE
EPA has determined that federal participation in this project
is not warranted under Section 201 of Public Law 92-500, as originally
proposed. Therefore, no encroachment on floodplains or placement of
dredged or fill material will occur.
91
-------
United States Soil Box 600
Department of Conservation Salina, Kansas
Agriculture Service 67401
July 17, 1980
Mr. Edward C. Vest
EIS Coordinator
United States Environmental
Protection Agency
324 East llth Street
Kansas City, Missouri 64106
Dear Mr. Vest:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement for the Proposed Sewerage Facilities, Marion County
Lake Improvement District, Marion County, Kansas.
The second paragraph of page 68, the first and second sentences infer
that fertilizer is used on native range vegetation in this area. To our
knowledge, this practice is very uncommon. Also, herbicides that are
used are primarily used to check the unnatural growth of woody species
that were once kept in check by wildfires and other natural phenomena
that have been partially or totally removed by man.
Page 90 - Reference Note 53 - Very little information, if any, was taken
from the 1930 Marion County Soil Survey. Reference should state - "SCS
Soil Survey in progress, 1977."
The map unit names of the soils on pages B-9, B-10, and B-ll should read
Chase silty clay loam, Dwight silt loam, Irwin silty clay loam, Labette-
Dwight complex, Labette-Sogn silty clay loam, Sogn silty clay loam,
Tully silty clay loam, Verdigris silt loam, and Labette silty clay loam.
Table B-l on page B-12, the unified classification under severe sewage
lagoon rating, PE should read PT.
Page B-14, paragraph d, the exception should be expanded to include
Labette-Dwight complex and Labette-Sogn silty clay loam.
We would recommend those alternatives having the least adverse impacts
on prime farmlands. If you need further assistance in identifying
possible prime farmlands in the study area, please contact Almus R.
Gantz, District Conservationist, Soil Conservation Service, Box 177,
Marion, Kansas 66861.
92
The Soil Conservation Service SCS-AS-1
.i. is an agency of the 10-79
^^yr Department of Agriculture
-------
RESPONSE
Statements regarding the use of fertilizers and herbicides on
rangeland were based on discussions with Kansas botanists and biologists
(references 20 and 38), and were not specific to the Marion County Lake
study area. In some rangeland areas of central Kansas, continued grazing
has depleted the native species, which are favored by cattle. Where
monotypic pastures of fescue have been planted to replace native vege-
tation, fertilizers are sometimes used to maintain the vigor of fescue
in nutrient-deficient soils.
Information was taken from both sources. Page 90, Reference
Note 53 has been revised accordingly.
The word "loam" is frequently used with these soil names in an
agricultural context. In a soils engineering context, it is normally
omitted.
Table B-l has been revised to read "FT."
Table B-14 has been revised accordingly.
Mr. Al Gantz was contacted during our study and provided
valuable assistance in identifying the prime farmland in the study area.
-------
Edward C. Vest 2
You may also want his assistance concerning conservation practice restoration,
Sincerely,
H. Tipple
State Conservationist
cc:
Norman Berg, Chief, Washington, D.C.
-------
-------
DEPARTMENT QF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
CENTER FOR DISEASE CONTROL
ATLANTA/GEORGIA 30333
July 7, 1980
Mr. Edward C. Vest
EIS Coordinator
U.S. EPA, Region VII
324 East Eleventh Street
Kansas City, Missouri 64106
Dear Mr. Vest:
We have completed our review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) for the Proposed Sewerage Facilities in the Marion County Lake
Improvement District, Marion County, Kansas. We are responding on behalf
of the Public Health Service and are offering the following comments for
your consideration. Based upon EPA's findings, we agree that Federal funding
for the construction of the proposed conventional gravity collection system
and force main to the City of Marion's proposed treatment plant does not
appear to be in the best interest of the public at this time.
We understand that your Agency has made detailed investigations of the extent
of water quality problems in the Marion County Lake Improvement District.
These investigations have resulted in a determination that no significant
health hazards or water quality problems presently exist at the Marion County
Lake and the construction of sewerage collection facilities at the Lake are
currently ineligible for Federal funding. Was the septic leachate survey
which was performed in November 1979 for Marion County Lake representative
of the worst case conditions during the year? Is there any record of past
beach closures because of poor water quality or of any disease outbreaks
due to locally contaminated wells and septic tank failures? Has consideration
been given to Federal participation under Section 201(h) of the Clean Water
Act for replacement of those onsite systems that have failed or have the
potential to fail even with the use of a proper maintenance program?
It appears that the Marion County Lake Improvement District and the County
Health Department need to develop a program to periodically monitor well and
lake water quality and inspect the operation and maintenance practices of
local onsite treatment systems. The District and County health department
should be encouraged to replace all onsite systems including any unvaulted
privies with satisfactory onsite facilities or with some other acceptable
treatment practice. Maintenance codes could prevent the uncontrolled dis-
charge of "septage" from septic tanks, holding tanks, and privies into areas
other than approved sites. We agree that permits and codes requiring
percolation tests by registered individuals for each onsite system and
mandatory inspection of all new onsite systems during their construction are
necessary and would be beneficial. Have the local interests given considera-
tion to the development of additional sanitary codes and well codes? Well
codes would insure that all new wells are constructed by qualified drillers
and are inspected and tested by the appropriate health department.
96
-------
RESPONSE
Previous septic leachate studies conducted at other lakes
during periods of peak use and later during the year have found that the
highest discharges of pollutants from groundwater occur during late fall
or early winter. This is due to the time it takes the peak summer
loadings to travel through the soil to the lake (references 75 and 76).
The letter on the following page from William Kerfoot of K-V Associates
cites those studies that specifically addressed testing at seasonal
lakeshore residential areas.
There have been no documented cases of waterborne disease in
the Marion County Lake area. The Marion County Sanitarian regularly
samples water quality at the swimming beach. Fecal coliform counts in
the swimming area have never exceeded 200 colonies per 100 milliliters,
which is the Class A standard for full body contact recreation. Most
readings have been between 5 and 10 colonies per 100 ml (reference 3).
There have been no beach closures due to bacterial contamination.
The limited public on-site system alternative described in
Chapter III addressed the possibility of federal participation in the
replacement of failing on-site systems. Subsection (1) of Section
201(h) of the Clean Water Act requires that the public body receiving
the grant (in this case, the Lake Improvement District) be "...otherwise
eligible for a grant...". Since the investigations conducted as a part
of this EIS determined that no significant water quality problems exist,
the public body is not considered eligible at this time.
EPA concurs with the recommendation that all existing wells
and septic tank systems be regularly monitored and inspected. The
present shortage of personnel, available funding, and appropriate mandates,
however, severely limits the County Health Department's powers over
wells and septic tank systems already in place. EPA recommends that
Marion County give serious consideration to implementing more stringent
sanitary and well codes, and to providing additional resources to
the County Health Department to allow a more thorough and comprehen-
sive testing and inspection program. The existing Marion County
97
-------
Page 2 - Mr. Edward C. Vest
According to the EIS, "most nutrients" entering Marion County Lake are
probably from cattle grazing areas in the watershed. What local efforts
have been made to minimize this nonpoint pollution source?
The EIS should provide a better description of the environmental setting
of Lake Marion. An estimate of the Lake's trophic status and its compliance
with applicable water quality standards should be indicated.
Any expected increase in residential development by any of the project
alternatives in the vicinity of the Lake should consider the potential
effects from existing and future airport operations at Marion Landing
Field.
We appreciate the opportunity to review this Draft EIS. Please send us one
copy of the final document when it becomes available.
erely yours,
Frank S. Lisella, Ph.]
Chief, Environmental Affairs Group
Environmental Health Services Division
Bureau of State Services
98
-------
Sanitary Code and state regulations together require that all new wells
and septic tank systems be properly designed, inspected, and installed
by licensed individuals.
There have been no known efforts to reduce the nonpoint source
pollution of the lake. This is probably due, in part, to the relatively
small size of the farms adjacent to the lake.
Other than the water quality sampling conducted as a part of
this study and the regular sampling of the swimming area by the County
Sanitarian, there is no water quality data available for the Marion
County Lake. The sampling results obtained through this EIS charac-
terize the lake as high in dissolved oxygen and nutrients, and low in
organics and suspended solids. The concentrations of total phosphorus
ranged from 12 to 26 micrograms per liter. Total phosphorus for eutrophic
lakes typically ranges from 10 to 30 micrograms per liter. There have
been no violations of the Class A standards for fecal coliforms.
Present aircraft operations at Marion's 2600-ft paved runway
are quite limited, and no appreciable increase is expected.
99
-------
-------
K-V ASSOCIATES, INC.
ANALYTICAL SYSTEMS
281 MAIN STREET
P.O. BOX 574 FAIMOUTH, MASSACHUSETTS 02541
617-5404)561
July 14, 1980
Mr* Joseph Leindecker
Sverdrup and Parcel
800 N. 12th Blvd.
St. Louis, Missouri 63101
REi Appropriate Time for SepticLeachate Surveys
Dear Mr. Leindecker;
Barbara Bowerman of EPA Region V recently called and asked us to forward
information on the appropriate time of year for septic leachate surveys. Sep-
arate study areas in Minnesota, Michigan, Indiana, and Massachusetts have shown
that the optimal time for leachate detection of seasonal lakefront areas
falls between late August and February. While hydraulic overflows of systems
occur at peak use periods, the. maximum loading into groundwater is delayed
in passage before reaching the shoreline* For instance, if the prevailing
groundwater flow rate is 3 feet/day and a septic leaching unit is 120 feet
from the shoreline, it will take 40 days from peak load before maximum discharge
would occur.
We are forwarding you two reports, one on Ottertail Lake, Minnesota and
the other on Steuben Lakes, Indiana where midsummer surveys were performed after
questions were raised as to whether the studies should have been performed at
peak use* In both cases, summer discharges were less than previously determined
during the late Fall - early Winter periods.
If you have any questions, please call. We are also enclosing some
recent information on groundwater flow meters that may be of interest to you.
Sincerely,
William B. Kerfoot^" /
WBKsphk
Enclosures
101
-------
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Region VII
In Reply Refer to: Professional Building
1103 Grand
Kama* City, Missouri 64106
June 23, 1980
Mr. Edward C. Vest
EIS Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
324 East llth Street
Kansas City, Missouri 64106
Dear Mr. Vest:
Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Proposed Sewerage Facilities,
Marion County Lake Improvement District, Marion, Kansas (May 1980)
The draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the referenced project has
been reviewed at the Kansas City Area Office, Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD). The review was made on the basis of the following con-
siderations: 1) HUD's areas of review responsibility in accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and 2) HUD's activities in the
immediate area that might be affected by the proposed action.
The following comment is provided for your consideration:
The Department of Housing and Urban Development recently provided a Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) for a water system project to replace and
upgrade over.12,000 feet Of water lines in the western and southwestern por-
tions of the City of Marion. The Area Office's review of the draft EIS for
the proposed sewer project did not identify a conflict with or significant
impact on this CDBG water system project. However, a total water/sewer
systems study had not been reviewed by the Area Office. It is recommended
that consideration be given in the final Environmental Impact Statement to
projected impacts of all water/sewer facilities, including water system
replacements and improvements in the City of Marion, to assure compatibility
and efficiency between upgraded water systems and proposed sewerage facilities.
Thank you for providing HUD the opportunity to review the draft EIS. Your
fullest consideration of the above comment will be appreciated.
102
-------
RESPONSE
The upgraded water system funded by the Department of Housing
and Urban Development provided improvements in the western and south-
western portions of the City of Marion. The Marion County Lake Improve-
ment District planning area lies approximately two miles to the southeast
of that water system project area, outside the Marion city limits. All
water in the Marion County Lake Improvement District planning area is
provided by private wells. Because of the geographical separation
between these two project areas, and the different governmental units
involved, there could be no impacts on, or from, the upgraded water
system.
103
-------
Should you have questions regarding our review, you may contact me at FTS
758-3192.
Sincerel
Ultican
Regional Environmental Officer
104
-------
-------
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240
ER 80/534
AU6 15 1980
Kathleen Q. Gamin, Ph.D.
Regional Administrator, Region VII
Environmental Protection Agency
324 East Eleventh Street
Kansas City, Missouri 64106
Dear Dr. Camin:
We have reviewed the draft environmental statement for Sewerage
Facilities, Marion County, Kansas and have the following com-
ments for your consideration.
General Comments
The statement should thoroughly describe the Gage Shale, which
is said to constitute a very efficient aquiclude (app. D, p.18).
In particular, a complete description of the fracture pattern(s)
and fracture characteristics of the reportedly "thinly frac-
tured" shale (app. D, p. 18) is needed to aid in the assessment
and in the understanding of the lake/aquifer relationships and
ground water hydraulics suggested by figure 5 of appendix D.
Fish and Wildlife Resources
From an environmental standpoint, we recommend that the treated
effluent be used for land application or be totally retained in
a shallow water evaporative pool. The treated effluent could
be sprayed on a tract of land set aside for wildlife habitat.
This is one alternative that was omitted but deserves discussion.
In addition, this would eliminate the problems pointed out on
page 71 with discharging into an intermittent tributary to the
Cottonwood River.
Be advised the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and the
peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), federally listed endangered
species, are known to occur in the project area.
It is the Environmental Protection Agency's responsibility to
review each project and evaluate the possible effects on federally
listed endangered species. The determination to be made on each
project is whether the proposed action "may affect or will not
affect" listed threatened and endangered species. If it is
106
-------
RESPONSE
Page 18 of Appendix D states that the upper portion of the
Gage Shale "acts as an aquitard with its low permeability." The
Kansas Geological Survey (reference 78) describes the Gage Shale as
follows: "The Gage Shale Member is mostly clayey shale, but calcareous
fossiliferous shale and a minor amount of limestone occur in the upper
part. The lower and middle parts are chiefly noncalcareous red,
green, purple, and chocolate-colored shale interbedded with gray and
yellow shale. The characteristic thickness is approximately 45 feet."
Bowers (reference 48) describes the Gage Shale from USGS
Bull. 1060-B (reference 51) as follows: "The Gage Shale is about
45 feet thick. It is tan in color and thinly jointed in the upper
half; the lower half is predominantly maroon in color and massive to
blocky."
Bowers states that the top of the water table in the lake
area prior to 1938 was located in the lower half of the Gage Shale,
where the old, hand-dug wells ended. The lower portions probably
contain more crevices and joints to transmit water than the upper
portion. This aquifer may have been very poor by today's standards.
Bowers feels that the upper part of the Gage has lower per-
meability than the lower Gage which in turn has lower permeability
than the Towanda limestone.
After the dam was constructed the piezometric surface rose
due to percolation or leakage from the lake into the aquifer. This
connection has not been verified.
Bowers says that the top of the aquifer may be at any point
where the permeability changes significantly. The top of the Towanda
limestone may be the top of the aquifer, and the Gage Shale may be a
leaky aquitard. Bowers concludes: "that the aquifer in the Marion
County Lake area is probably the Towanda limestone and/or the lower
portion of the Gage shale. The lake acts as a recharge boundary. The
upper portion of the Gage shale, because of its relatively low per-
107
-------
determined that the project "may affect" an endangered species
either adversely or beneficially, formal consultation must be
initiated. However, if it is determined the project "will not
affect" an endangered species, no further action is necessary
and the procedure is terminated. The Regional Director of our
Fish and Wildlife Service has the prerogative to request EPA to
formally consult on any project if deemed necessary. We re-
quest that Mr. Larry Visscher, Endangered Species Coordinator,
Kansas City Area Office, North Kansas City, Missouri (816-374-
6166) be contacted if further assistance is required in making
a determination.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this draft environ-
mental statement.
aea H. Rathlesberger
Special Assistant to
Assistant SECRETARY
108
-------
meability acts as an aquitard. The aquifer most likely is a very
leaky artesian aquifer. This fact could not be verified by the local
well drillers or the small scale pump test. The aquifer is adequate
for individual water supplies, as evidenced by the small drawdown to
equilibrium during the pump test."
The spray application of treated effluent on land set aside
for wildlife habitat or the retention of treated effluent in a shallow
water evaporative pool would certainly have significant benefits for
fish and wildlife resources in the study area. However, acquisiton of
such lands would be expensive compared to other methods of discharge
considered, and would require a significant amount of land classified
as prime farmland. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has officially
recommended those alternatives with the least impact on prime farm-
land. In any case, EPA has determined not to fund any project in the
Marion County Lake area at this time.
According to Marvin Schwilling, endangered species liaison
for the Kansas Fish and Game Commission, both the bald eagle and the
peregrine falcon have a statewide distribution in Kansas. The pere-
grine is an uncommon seasonal (spring and autumn) transient and an
occasional winter resident, typically found around marshes, lakes, and
rivers. There are no specific records of peregrine falcon sightings
in the study area.
The bald eagle is a winter transient and a local winter
resident in Kansas, chiefly found around large lakes, reservoirs and
marshlands. The bald eagle has been sighted in the Marion County Lake
study area. It is presumed that eagles occasionally pass through the
study area from Marion Reservoir, about five miles to the northwest,
to utilize Marion County Lake as a feeding area since prey species of
bald eagles (fish and sometimes water fowl and mammals) occur at
Marion County Lake. Marion Reservoir is the area's most often utilized
wintering habitat for eagles since it has an abundance of prey, and
109
-------
-------
diurnal and roosting habitats. While Marion County Lake can provide
feeding habitat for eagles, the close proximity of human activities
and lack of roosting habitat in the vicinity of the lake most likely
preclude the possibility of eagles as permanent winter residents at
Marion county Lake. It is, therefore, our opinion that none of the
alternatives considered for the Marion County Lake Improvement Dis-
trict would affect an endangered species either adversely or bene-
ficially.
Mr. Larry Visscher, Endangered Species Coordinator for the
Kansas City Area Office of the Fish and Wildlife Service, was con-
tacted and he concurred in our determination that the bald eagle would
be an infrequent transient at the Marion County Lake.
Ill
-------
State Of Kansas . . . John Carlin, Governor
Joseph F. Harkins, Secretary
Forbes Field
Topeka, Kansas 66680
913-862-9360
July 18, 1980
Edward C. Vest, EIS Coordinator
U.S. EPA - Region VII
324 East llth Street
Kansas City, Missouri 64106
Re: Marion County Lake Improvement District
EPA Project C20 0741 01
Dear Mr. Vest:
We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the
proposed sewerage facilities in the Marion County Lake Improvement
District and offer the following comments for your consideration in the
preparation of the Final EIS:
There are several references in the Draft EIS to "Kansas
regulations" which do not allow gravity sewer pipes less
than 8 inches in diameter. The Department's "Minimum
Standards of Design for Water Pollution Control Facilities"
are not regulations. The "Minimum Standards" are design
guidelines developed by the Department with input from
several groups, including a committee of Consulting
Engineers.
We take exception to the statement that the project is
ineligible for Federal assistance. Both the Federal
regulations and the Kansas Priority System allow projects
for the protection of water quality. The proposed pro-
ject is clearly eligible for Federal funding under this
criteria. However, the project priority ranking may
change significantly as a result of the findings reported
in the Draft EIS.
The projected waste!oads appear to completely ignore any
contributions from day visitors to the Lake area. This
position is not consistent with the agreement reached at
a May 9, 1979 meeting at our offices with representatives
of EPA, Reiss and Goodness Engineers, and our staff. It
has been reported that as many as 4400 people may visit
the Lake area daily on a major holiday weekend. We do
not believe it is prudent to assume that the only people
who use restrooms are those that stay at the Lake over-
night.
112
-------
RESPONSE
Comment noted. The "Foreword" to the "Minimum Standards"
states that the document "...is developed pursuant to K.S.A. 65-171h..."
(Par. 2), and "The standards in general indicate required minimum and
maximum design requirements." (Par. 3, emphasis added). Although
paragraph 3 also states that "...the requirements in this document may
be waived upon presentation of sufficient justification..." (again,
emphasis added), EPA feels that, while the "Minimum Standards" may not
be "regulations" in the strictest legal sense, their development pur-
suant to law and their frequent use of terms such as "required" and
"shall" give them the weight of regulations as that term is commonly
understood.
In the specific instance cited in the comment, Chapter VI,
Page 2, Article D-l of the Minimum Standards states: "No public gravity
sewer shall be less than 8 inches in diameter." No criteria are given
for justifying size reductions.
It is true that Federal regulations allow funding for projects
to protect water quality. However 40 CFR, Part 35, subpart E, Sec-
tion 35.901, states: "The primary purpose of Federal grant assistance
available under this subpart is to assist municipalities in meeting
enforceable requirements of the Act, particularly, applicable National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements."
Further, Section 35.917(b) states, "Facilities planning will demonstrate
the need for the proposed facilities," (emphasis added, both places).
Essentially, these and other regulations and guidelines promulgated
pursuant to the Clean Water Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-217) conform to the
Act's intent that the construction grants program be used to assist
municipalities in cleaning up existing pollution problems.
The investigations conducted found that, as stated in the last
three lines on page 51 of the Draft EIS, "...there is no evidence that
present water quality is being degraded." It follows that there are no
"enforceable requirements," nor any significant threats to existing
water quality. The Lake Improvement District is, therefore, ineligible
for a grant at this time.
-------
Edward C. Vest
July 18, 1980
Page 2
The City of Marion has notified our Department that they
propose to change both the treatment process and treat-
ment plant location from that proposed in the City's
original Facility Plan. The City's request is currently
being studied by our Department and EPA. The cost of
installing an additional mile of force main and other
changes should not, however change the relative ranking
of alternatives in the cost-effectiveness analysis pre-
sented in the Draft EIS.
(D We note that the major issues to be addressed in the EIS
were potential secondary development> water quality and
public health, archeological sites, and economic impacts.
The impact summary states "... growth rate is not
expected to vary significantly whether sewers are built
or not, since other factors exert more control". The
impact summary indicates no adverse problems with any
alternatives with respect to water quality and public
health or archeological sites. We find it interesting
that, with all of the concern expressed for the economic
impacts on the people, it now appears that the people
may be forced to live with the fourth most costly alter-
native. Based upon the cost-effectiveness analysis
presented in the Draft EIS, the local costs for the
"No Action" alternative are more than 40% greater than
the local costs for construction of the proposed improve-
ments. We recommend that the economic impacts of the
"No Action" alternative be discussed more thoroughly.
If you have any questions concerning these comments, please feel free to
contact me.
Sincerely yours,
Division of Environment
It.
LaVene R. Brenden, P.E.
Chief, Municipal Unit
Water Pollution Control
LRBrjaw
cc: Deborah Mau, EPA
Sverdrup and Parcel1
Reiss and Goodness Engineers
Marion County Lake Improvement District
114
-------
It must be remembered that the intent of the construction
grants program is to assist existing municipal dischargers in upgrading
their facilities to comply with the Act. There was no intention to have
EPA assume the role, historically relegated to local units of govern-
ment, of providing the initial sewerage facilities for an area. That
burden must still be assumed entirely by local residents unless it can
be shown (which was not the case at the Marion County Lake) that there
are immediate, overriding water quality concerns that will be corrected
by the initial installation of sewerage facilities.
The projected wasteloads presented in Tables 6 and 7 did not
include the contributions of day visitors. During the 1980 summer
season, it has been reported that the Memorial Day and 4th of July
weekends were the busiest, and that approximately "a couple thousand"
persons visited the Lake on those days, including the overnight campers
(reference 77). Overnight campers for the current peak day are esti-
mated to be approximately 1050 (Table 2). The number of uncounted day
visitors in the year 2000 would therefore be approximately 950 plus the
projected increase in day visitors expected by the year 2000. If one
assumes that the number of day visitors will increase at the same rate
as campers (see Appendix I, Section 2.c), the projected peak-day day
visitors will total approximately 800 persons. At 10 gallons per capita
(reference 11), the additional peak day load will equal approximately
8,000 gallons. These additional flows will occur at most only about ten
times per year. It is reported that on an average summer weekend, there
are only about a hundred visitors at the park (reference 77), well
within the conservative estimate of 350 used in Table 1. The cost of
transporting and treating this small amount of additional wastewater
should not change the relative ranking of alternatives in the cost-
effective analysis presented in this EIS.
115
-------
-------
The EIS has been revised to reflect this proposed change.
While this proposed change would raise the capital and operating and
maintenance costs of the Facility Plan proposed project alternative and
the down-sized Facility Plan proposed project alternative, we agree that
the relative rankings of the cost effectiveness of the alternatives
would not be affected.
As pointed out in Chapter IV, section D.2, annual costs for
the no-action alternative and for the limited on-site systems alter-
native were calculated using the assumption of equal per capita flow
rates for all alternatives. This conservative approach was used to
ensure comparability in the service levels provided by each project
alternative. In actual practice, individuals using on-site systems
would be able to reduce their per capita flow rates significantly
through voluntary water conservation measures. Information collected
from individuals and holding tank pumping services in the Marion County
Lake area indicate that actual per capita flow rates are considerably
less than the 65 and 50 gallons per capita per day assumed for permanent
and seasonal residents, respectively. For the 11 holding tank residences
for which we were able to obtain reliable pump-out data, all had flow
rates of less than 25 gallons per capita per day.
Please note also that the Draft EIS contained an error in the
computation of the annual debt service presented in Table 13, "Local
Costs - 1980." The correct figures are shown in revised Table 13 on
page 64 in this document. The annual debt service was calculated by
amortizing the local share of capital costs over the 20 year economic
life of the project at 8.78%, the September 5, 1980 average interest
rate for municipal bonds listed by the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank.
The revision of the annual local debt service figures resulted
in a change in the Annual User Charges presented in Table 14 on page 65.
As you will note, these changes have, in some instances, affected the
ranking of the costs of the various alternatives. As stated previously,
however, the economic impacts of the alternatives have no bearing on the
fact that sufficient water quality problems were not found to merit
federal grant assistance for any project.
117
-------
DEIS6 & GOODNE6S ENGINEERS
C
zieo WMT 2i" STROST
WICHITA, KAH&U 67204
(316) 832-0213
July 3, 1980
Mr. Edward C. Vest, EIS Coordinator
Environmental Protection Agency
Kansas Branch - Region VI
324 East llth Street
Kansas City, Missouri 64106
RE: Marion County Lake Improvement District
Environmental Impact Statement
Dear Mr. Vest:
I am appalled by the grandoise handling of this report. It purports to be
abstract and handled in the best interests of the E.P.A., but, in my opinion,
it totally ignores the local people's wishes and knowledge.
The "leachete study" for all of its questionable value needs to be defined as
to what was done and how the conclusions were arrived at. The same may be
said for the infra-red aerial survey. In so doing, it needs to be pointed out
that any spot samples would be just that and cannot be the basis for the total
conclusions.
The aerial survey was done in October of 1979 and during that month we had 6.15
inches of rain. It appears that the rains would obliterate and destroy any
positive identification of pollution, etc. and in this region of Kansas there
would not be Vegetative "burn outs" in October, In fact, everything will have
matured and be in seed.
In short, the report has been written to cover E.P.A.'s shortcomings to their
officials and does not address "local needs and planning". The citizens in this
area have been aware of the thin soil mantle, the poor porosity of the clay, the
bedrock and the results of septic tanks and holding tanks. They and their local
elected officials have been diligent in their efforts to protect the lake and
their drinking water. To this end, they are being told they should continue
status quo and go away.
To say that they are not needing a central sewer system is bureacratic lunancy and
does not answer the question nor address local problems for now or in the future.
I recommend that the "study?" be set aside as if it never existed and allow the
District to continue normally and if they want a sewer system, they should be en-
titled to the same consideration in the marketplace as any other legal entity
in the United States.
Sincerely,
REISS & GOODNESS ENGINEERS
AER/rmk
LaVene Brenden, Kansas State Department of Health & Environment
Herb Wullschleger, Chairman, Marion County Improvement District
James Johnston, Secretary, Marion County Improvement District
Cecil Post, Marion County Improvement District
D. W. Wheeler, Attorney, Marion County Improvement District
Congressman Dan Gllckman
Senator Robert Dole
Senator Nancy Kassebaum
118
-------
RESPONSE
Complete details of the septic leachate survey, including
theoretical considerations, methodology, and conclusions, were presented
in Appendix D of the Draft EIS, and are also included in this document.
The infrared aerial survey is described in Chapter IV, section I.e.
Neither of these investigations were "spot" samples. The infrared
aerial survey covered the entire study area, and the septic leachate
detector sampled continuously around the entire perimeter of the lake.
The infrared aerial survey was flown on October 17, 1979. The
rainfall records for the month of October at the Corps of Engineers
Marion Reservoir, the nearest official gaging station, are as follows:
Date Precipitation
1-17 No precipitation
18 .02"
19 .89"
22 .80"
23 .08"
30 1.82"
31 2.54"
Total for Month 6.15"
These records indicate that the study area was relatively dry
at the time of the aerial survey. As a general rule, burn outs resulting
from over-enrichment are more likely to occur shortly after periods of
soil saturation. To be sure that the Marion County aerial survey was
reasonably representative of normal conditions, several concentrations
of septic tank leach fields in the Halfday Creek area just north of
Topeka were also photographed which had previously been surveyed during
a wetter period in the spring of 1979. Specific sites in this area
indicated as possible leach field failures in the fall survey correlated
well with those discovered and verified by ground inspection in the
earlier spring survey.
119
-------
-------
The limitations of the soils in the study area for use in
septic tank absorption fields are discussed in detail in Appendix B.
There is no question that a central sewer system would provide
some benefits for the Marion County Lake area. It would provide a
solution for those few septic tank systems that are presently not func-
tioning properly, and it would insure that future failures would not
threaten the water quality of the lake. However, given the magnitude of
the water pollution problem nationwide, and the relative lack of funds
available for sewerage facility construction, it is important that a
balance be struck between the severity of the pollution problem and the
amount of funds expended to correct it.
For this reason, the Construction Grants program was established
with its main goal to be the improvement of water quality. The supple-
mentary information to 40 CFR 35, Subpart E states that "Federal assis-
tance for publicly owned treatment works under the Act is intended to
correct and reduce the backlog of pollution problems." Later, in dis-
cussing EPA policy on new collector sewer projects, it states "It was
intended to insure that the limited construction grant funds available
are obligated for collector projects only when needed to correct a
problem of public health or ground or surface water pollution." Inves-
tigations conducted for this EIS found no public health problems and no
indications of ground or surface water pollution.
121
-------
JUL29
RGAD
REGION
Wichita, Kansas, 6?211
641 South Hillside
July 26, 1980
Dr. Kathleen Q9 Gamin
Regional Administrator E. P. A.
324 East Eleventh Street
Kansas City, Missouri, 641 06
Dear Doctor Gamins
Although this letter is addressed to you and, when I say "you", I
am referring to your department and not to you as an individual.
I did not attend the meeting at the Marion County Lake office on
Saturday because we had been told at the previous meeting that you
were not going to help us fund our sewer project. I could see no
reason to go' up there in over 100 degree heat and listen to the people
say "no" again. I see by the Marion County Record that you were sur-
prised that only twenty-five people were there. The rest felt just
like I and they also knew that you had said "no."
I have had experience with these "hearings" before. A few years ago,
the D.O.T. held a hearing on a highway that concerned me. Another man
got up and said "You call this a hearing It is not a hearing -it
is a telling you're TELLING us what you are going to do. I talked
and asked one of the engineers a question. He answered in the
negative because I caught him by surplris*. His answer did not
appear in the final draft. None of the suggestions that were
made were included in the final plans they were exactly like they
were before the "hearing."
This is very similar to the hearings and explanations on this sewer
project. I told Mr. Wullschleger, our president, that the whole thing
looked very doubtful to me after the very first meeting. He and his
committee showed the State pictures of outdoor toilets and wash water
running down ditches but you don't seem to think these are a danger.
My neighbor, C.E..Coleman, was told he was out of order when he
spoke at this last meeting Why? because he was saying things seme
of the group from your office apparently didn't like.
One of the most assinine suggestions of the whole afternoon was for
each of us to install an extra holding tank in addition to our septic
tank. Most of our yards are filled with laterals and a holding tank
will take up some of that room. Also, a suggestion like this tends
to make me feel that you realize that we either are going to have
trouble or we already have trouble. We hear of "locking the barn
after the horse is stolen". Apparently that is what you want us
to do wait until after we get sick and have a lot of problems
and, then, you will do something.
Respectfully
Ernest S. Newcombe
CC Herbert C. Wullschleger, Marion County Lake.
122
-------
RESPONSE
The purpose of the public hearing on the Draft EIS was to
inform the local public of the preliminary findings of the EIS and to
provide an opportunity for the public to comment on the methods and
conclusions of the study and to allow them to provide additional in-
formation pertinent to the study. A final decision on the Marion County
Lake sewerage project will not be made until at least 30 days after the
publishing of this Final EIS.
At the public hearing, C. E. Coleman raised the possibility
that the findings of the EIS were influenced by the fact that Kansas has
traditionally been a Republican state and that the current administration
in Washington is Democratic. EPA's response was an assurance that
national politics do not exert any influence on a project such as Marion
County Lake. Any funds scheduled for this project which are not expended
will be available for use in other water pollution control projects
within the state of Kansas.
No suggestion was made that holding tanks be added to lots
with properly functioning septic tank systems. On small lots where the
existing septic tank leach field fails, the only practical alternative
may be to install a holding tank to substitute for the septic tank
system. Also, in instances where the lots are of sufficient size,
installing a second leach field to be used alternately with the first
will prolong the useful life of both fields.
It is recognized that because of the small lot sizes and the
relatively poor soils in the lake area, some septic systems have failed
in the past, and some will undoubtedly have problems in the future. The
above recommendations, combined with regular maintenance, water con-
servation, and regular inspections should greatly reduce future pollution
problems.
123
-------
-------
VI CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. CONCLUSIONS
In an attempt to determine the extent of water quality
problems in the Marion County Lake Improvement District, EPA performed
a variety of investigations. Water samples from a large number of
private and public water supplies were tested for indications of
sewage pollution; infrared aerial photos of the entire area were taken
to detect surface evidence of septic tank leach field failures; and, a
septic leachate survey of the entire lakeshore was performed to deter-
mine if insufficiently treated sewage was entering the lake from
improperly operating leach fields. The methodologies used in these
tests and the results are presented in Chapter IV.
Based upon the results of this series of tests, EPA has
determined that no significant health hazards or water quality problems
presently exist at the Marion County Lake. Because the Construction
Grants program was established primarily to assist local communities
in dealing with existing sewage problems, the construction of sewerage
facilities at the lake is considered to be ineligible for federal
assistance under this program. If, at some future time, there is a
change in water quality conditions, the Improvement District could
submit another application for federal assistance. The following
section outlines other actions that could be taken now to safeguard
the existing water quality and to deal with future water quality
problems as they arise.
B. RECOMMENDATIONS
The Lake Improvement District could construct the proposed
project, or any of the other alternatives considered, without federal
assistance. This would, however, pose extreme financial hardships for
many property owners in the District, and would result in very little
improvement in the existing water quality. A more reasonable approach
would consist of public and individual actions to improve the operation
and reliability of existing and future on-site systems.
125
-------
One such measure could involve an agreement between the Lake
Improvement District and the County Health Department to establish a
regular schedule of detailed inspections of all sewerage systems and
water supply wells in the District. This practice would reduce the
possiblity of septic tank leach field failures going unnoticed over
long periods of time. The County Health Department might also require
that percolation tests be performed only by independent, approved
persons, such as members of the department or registered engineers,
and that all septic tank systems be inspected during installation.
EPA recommends that Marion County give serious consideration to pro-
viding additional resources to the County Health Department to allow
them to implement more thorough and comprehensive testing and inspec-
tion programs, as described above.
Individuals in the District could extend the operating life
of their leach field systems and reduce the expense of pumping their
holding tanks by reducing their water consumption. A number of devices
are available that involve neither increased maintenance nor any
changes in water use habits. These include shower head flow controls,
dual cycle or other low-volume toilets, and lavatory faucet flow
control devices.
It might also be possible to establish through the County
Health Department a program of technical information and assistance to
install grey water systems that would help prevent hydraulic over-
loading of septic tank systems and reduce by approximately 65 percent
the amount of wastewater discharged to holding tanks.
126
-------
LIST OF PREPARERS
This Environmental Impact Statement was prepared by Sverdrup
& Parcel and Associates, Inc. for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region VII, under the guidance of Norm Crisp and Barbara
Bowerman, EPA EIS Project Monitors and Deborah Mau, EPA Project Engi-
neer. Principal personnel for Sverdrup & Parcel and their areas of
responsibility are listed below.
Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates, Inc.
801 North Eleventh Street
St. Louis, MO 63101
Project Manager - Frederick A. Brunner, P.E.; Ph.D. in
Environmental and Water Resource Engineering; project
manager for numerous environmental impact statements.
Project Coordinator - Joseph A. Leindecker, AICP; M.S. in
Transportation Planning; project coordinator for
several environmental impact statements; land use and
socioeconomic impact analyses for a variety of environ-
mental impact statements.
Ecology - Roger C. Stojeba; M.S. in Zoology-Ecology; aquatic
and terrestrial impact analyses for a variety of environ-
mental impact statements.
Geology and Hydrology - Ralph W. Seeger; B.S. in Geology;
Registered Professional Geologist; geology and hydrology
analyses for a variety of environmental impact state-
ments .
Land Use Analysis and Population Projections - Ann H. Bergen;
B.A. in Government; demographic and land use analyses
for several environmental impact statements.
Socioeconomics - Kevin P. Kinealy; M.S. in City and Regional
Planning, B.A. in Sociology; socioeconomic analyses for
a variety of environmental impact statements.
127
-------
Water Quality and Sanitary Engineering - Kimberly J. Perry;
M.S. in Environmental Sciences and Engineering; water
quality analyses for a variety of environmental impact
statements.
Sanitary Engineering - Dewey F. Brown, P.E.; B.S. in Civil
Engineering; project coordinator for several environ-
mental impact statements; sanitary engineer for a
variety of environmental impact statements.
In addition, two subcontractors also contributed to the
analyses presented in this EIS.
Cultural Resources Survey:
Archaeology Laboratory
Wichita State University
Wichita, KS
Arthur Rohn, Ph.D., Principal Investigator
Septic Leachate Survey:
K-V Associates
Falmouth, MA
William Kerfoot, Ph.D.
128
-------
REFERENCES
1. Marion County Sanitary Code, Resolution No. 73-8, Hillsboro
Star Journal, Hillsboro, KS, September 20, 1973.
2. Penner, Charles, Sanitarian, Marion County Department of Public
Health, letter to Kimberly J. Perry, November 2, 1979.
3. Penner, Charles, Sanitarian, Marion County Department of Public
Health, personal communication, September 6, 1979.
4. Snelling, Dale, Marion County Lake Superintendent, personal
communication, September 6, 1979.
5. Associated Water & Air Resources Engineers, Inc., Process
Design Techniques for Industrial Waste Treatment, C.E. Adams,
Jr., and W.W. Eckenfelder, Jr., ed., Enviro Press, Nashville,
1974.
6. Prewit, Charles, Prewit Septic Tank & Backhoe Service, personal
communication, September 18, 1979.
7. Penner, Charles, Sanitarian, Marion County Department of Public
Health, letter to Maurice Dingier, Reiss & Goodness Engineers,
May 18, 1979.
8. Brenden, LaVene, Water Pollution Control, Kansas State Department
of Health and Environment, personal communication, August 29,
1979.
9. Point Source Water Quality Management Plan - Neosho River Basin,
Kansas (303e Plan), Kansas State Department of Health and Environ-
ment, Topeka, KS, July, 1976.
10. Minimum Standards of Design for Water Pollution Control Facilities,
Kansas State Department of Health and Environment, Division of
Environment, Topeka, KS, 2nd ed., September, 1978.
11. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., Wastewater Engineering: Treatment, Disposal,
Reuse, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 2nd ed., 1972.
12. Baser, Frank, Water Pollution Control, Kansas State Department of
Health and Environment, personal communication, November 6, 1979.
13. Process Design Manual - Wastewater Treatment Facilities for Sewered
Small Communities, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-625/
1-77-009, October, 1977.
129
-------
14. Kreissl, J.F., Smith, Robert, and Heidman, J.A., The Cost of Small
Community Wastewater Alternatives. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Training Seminar for Wastewater Alternatives for Small
Communities, August, 1978.
15. Alternatives for Small Wastewater Treatment Systems - On-site
Disposal/Septage Treatment and Disposal, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Technology Transfer, EPA-625/4-77-011, October,
1977.
16. Boyle, W.C., and Otis, R.J., On-site Treatment, Environmental
Research Information Center, Office of Research and Development,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, July, 1979.
17. Management of On-site and Alternative Wastewater Systems, Environ-
mental Research Information Center, Office of Research and Develop-
ment, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH,
Technology Transfer Seminar on Wastewater Treatment Facilities
for Small Communities, July, 1979.
18. Water quality data for the Marion County Lake, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region VII, September, 1979.
19. Kansas Water Quality Management Plan - Water Quality Analysis
(208 Plan), Kansas State Department of Health and Environment,
Topeka, KS, October, 1978.
20. Jones, Lenny, Kansas Forestry, Fish and Game Commission, personal
communication, October 2, 1979.
21. Snelling, Dale, Marion County Lake Superintendent, personal
communication, November 8, 1979.
22. 1978 Kansas Water Quality Inventory Report (305b Report), Kansas
State Department of Health and Environment, Division of Environment,
Topkea, KS.
23. Water quality data for the Marais des Cygnes and Neosho and
Verdigris River Basin, at the Cottonwood River, 0.5 mile below
Marion Dam and 3.0 miles northeast of Marion, Kansas State
Department of Health and Environment, Division of Environment,
November, 1975 - February, 1978.
24. Water Resources Data for Kansas, Water Year 1977, U.S. Geological
Survey Water-Data Report KS-77-2.
25. 40 CFR Part 35, Subpart E.
26. 40 CFR Part 35, Subpart E, Appendix A.
130
-------
27. Hayen, M., Marion County Appraiser, personal communication,
November 6, 1979.
28. 40 CFR 35, Subpart E, Sections 35.940-1 and -2.
29. Rural Development Initiatives: Making Federal Water and Sewer
Programs Work, The White House, 1978.
30. Current Population Reports; Population Estimates and Projections,
U.S. Bureau of the Census, Series P-25, No. 755, 1979.
31. Bailey, R.G., Description of the Ecoregions of the United States,
U.S. Forest Service, U.S.D.A., Ogden, UT, 1978.
32. Chase, C.D. and Strickler, J.K., "Kansas Woodlands," U.S.D.A.,
Forest Service Res. Bull. NC-4, 1968.
33. Brooks, R.E. and Hauser, L.A., "Aquatic vascular plants of Kansas
I: Submerged and floating leaved plants," Tech. Pub. No. 7, State
Biol. Surv. Kansas, 1978.
34. Snelling, D., Marion County Lake Superintendent, personal communi-
cation, October 3, 1979, with Roger C. Stojeba.
35. Kansas Fish and Game Commission, letter dated July 6, 1979, to
Roger C. Stojeba.
36. Jones, Lenny, Fisheries Biologist, Kansas Fish and Game Commission,
personal communication, October 2, 1979.
37. McGregor, R.L., "Rare native vascular plants of Kansas," Tech.
Pub. No. 5, State Biol. Surv. Kansas, 1977.
38. Platt, D., Ph.D., Biologist, Bethel College, Newton, Kansas,
personal communication, October 4, 1979 with Roger C. Stojeba.
39. Peabody, W., Biologist, Kansas Fish and Game Commission, personal
communication, October 2, 1979 with Roger C. Stojeba.
40. Tsai, C., "Water quality and fish life below sewage outfalls,"
Trans. Am. Fish. Soc., 102 (2):281-292, 1973.
41. Marion County Park and Lake District - Policy Development Manual,
Flint Hills Regional Council, August, 1979.
42. Penner, C., Marion County Sanitarian, personal communication,
September 20, 1979.
43. 1970 Census of Population, Wichita SMSA, U.S. Bureau of Census.
131
-------
44. Kansas Power and Light, Peabody, KS, electrical consumption
records, January 1978 to December 1978.
45. Snelling, Dale, Marion County Lake Superintendent, personal
communication, November 2, 1979.
46. Snelling, Dale, Marion County Lake Superintendent, letter to
Sverdrup & Parcel dated October, 1979.
47. Bechtel, M., City of Wichita Planning Department, personal communi-
cation, November 2, 1979.
48. Bowers, N., Groundwater Hydrology of Marion County Lake, Kansas
State University, unpublished.
49. "Flood Hazard Boundary Maps," Marion County, Kansas, U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development, August 22, 1978.
50. Climates of the States, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-
tion, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1974.
51. Byrne, F.E., et al., Geology and Construction Material Resources of
Marion County, Kansas, USGS Bulletin 1060B.
52. Community Profile: Marion, Kansas, Kansas Department of Economic
Development, 1977.
53. Soil Survey of Marion Comity, Kansas, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
1930, and SCS Soil Survey in Progress, 1977.
54. Flint Hills Resource Conservation and Development Project Plan,
Flint Hills Resource Conservation and Development Council, 1974.
55. Olson, G.W., Using Soils of Kansas for Waste Disposal, Kansas
Geological Survey Bulletin 208, 1974.
56. The Mineral Industry of Kansas, U.S. Bureau of Mines Yearbook,
1975.
57. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Marion, Kansas, Local
Protection Project, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1974.
58. Hayen, M., Marion County Appraiser, personal communication,
October 10, 1979.
59. Hayen, M., Marion County Appraiser, letters to Sverdrup & Parcel
dated October 10 and 18, 1979.
60. Reis & Goodness Engineers, Facility Plan, Marion County Lake
Improvement District, Wichita, Ks, 1979.
132
-------
61. Davis, Handy, Davis Septic Tank Service, personal communication,
September 12, 1979.
62. Hensley, Charles P., Chief, Laboratory Branch, SVAN, letter to A.
T. Wicks, Chief, EIS/404 Branch, MGMT, U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Region VII, September 7, 1979.
63. Crisp, Norm, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VII,
Trip Report - July 18, 1979 - Marion County, KS, July 27, 1979.
64. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VII, Marion County
Lake Residents Well Water Sample Results, September 28, 1979.
65. Alternatives for Small Wastewater Treatment Systems, Pressure
Sewers/Vacuum Sewers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA-625/4-77-011, October, 1977.
66. Reiss, A.E., Reiss and Goodness Engineers, letter to LaVene
Brenden, Water Pollution Control, Kansas State Department of
Health and Environment, August 31, 1979.
67. Facility Plan for Municipal Wastewater Treatment for Marion,
Kansas, Moser & Associates Consulting Engineers, Newton, KS,
September, 1979.
68. Quarterly National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Permit Reports, Marion, KS, February, 1975 - January, 1979.
69. Blackman, Peggy, Mayor, Marion, KS, personal communication,
September 6, 1979.
70. Management of Small Waste Flows, Small Scale Waste Management
Project, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Municipal Environmental
Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, EPA-600/
2-78-173, September, 1978.
71. Community-Managed Septic Systems - A Viable Alternative to Sewage
Treatment Plants, U.S. General Accounting Office, CED-78-168,
November 3, 1978.
72. Application of Sewage Sludge to Cropland: Appraisal of Potential
Hazards of the Heavy Metals to Plants and Animals, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Office of Water Program Operations,
Municipal Construction Division, Washington, D.C., Construction
Grants Program Information, EPA-430/9-76-013, MCD-33, November,
1976.
73. Kuehner, J., White Motor Corp., personal communication, December 7,
1979.
133
-------
74. Tarquin, A.J., and Blank, L.T., Engineer Economy - A Behavioral
Approach, McGraw-Hill Co., NY, 1976.
75. Investigation of Septic Leachate Discharges into Steuben Lakes,
Indiana, K-V Associates, Inc., Falmouth, MA, August, 1979.
76. Septic Leachate and Groundwater Flow Survey, Otter Tail Lake,
Minnesota, K-V Associates, Inc., Falmouth, MA, September, 1979.
77. Snelling, Mrs. Dale, wife of Marion County Lake Superintendent,
personal communication, August 22, 1980.
78. The Stratigraphic Succession in Kansas, Zeller, Doris E., Ed.,
Kansas Geological Survey Bulletin 189, 1968.
134
-------
INDEX
Aerial survey 19, 45, 49, 50, 118, 119, 125
Archaeology 17, 72, 77
Coastruction Grants program 113, 121, 125
Cost effectiveness 13, 14, 27, 36, 58, 59, 60, 61, 76
Cost, local 62, 76, 114, 117
Cultural resources 17
Design flow 22, 24, 25, 112, 115
Down-sized Facility Plan proposed project 51, 57, 59, 60, 61, 64, 65,
71, 74, 76
Effluent limitations 12, 22
EIS legislation 14
Endangered species 17, 70, 71, 77, 106, 109
Existing sewerage facilities 4
Facility Plan 4, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, 19, 22, 36, 39, 40, 42, 51, 54,
57, 58, 59, 60, 64, 65, 70, 71, 74, 79, 114
Gravity sewer 13, 14, 27
Groundwater 30, 31, 33, 35, 45, 50, 75, 106, 107
Holding tank 4, 5, 6, 13, 27, 39, 40, 42, 43, 51, 52, 66, 72, 122,
123, 126
Lagoon 6, 11, 12, 28, 29, 35, 37, 42, 57, 59, 60, 64, 65, 72, 74, 76
Land application 11, 12, 22, 26, 35, 106
Land use 53, 54, 57
No-action alternative 39, 51, 52, 53, 57, 59, 60, 64, 65, 67, 69, 75
On-site system alternative 30, 32, 52, 57, 59, 60, 62, 64, 65, 74, 97
Population, existing 20
Population projections 14, 19, 20, 22, 23, 39, 40, 42
Prairie grassland 17, 67, 68
Pressure sewer 13, 27
Public participation 79
Recreation 22, 26, 53, 54, 76
Septic Snooper 49, 96, 97, 101, 118, 119
Septic tank system 4, 13, 30, 31, 53, 66, 72, 126
Soils 4, 6, 30, 31, 32, 33, 36, 49, 50, 92
135
-------
User Charge 63, 65, 66, 79
Vacuum sewers 12, 27
Water quality 4, 17, 19, 26, 33, 34, 36, 37, 39, 45, 51, 52, 58, 69,
75, 96, 99, 125
Well sampling 19, 45, 46, 96
136
-------
GLOSSARY
Absorption field - a system of buried, perforated or discontinuous
pipes (laterals) through which partially treated wastewater
leaving a septic tank is distributed over an area for further
treatment by percolation into ttye soil; same as "adsorption
field," "lateral field," or "leach field."
Adsorption field - an absorption field.
Aerobic - the presence of free elemental oxygen.
Alternative wastewater treatment systems - wastewater conveyance
and/or treatment systems other than conventional, centralized
systems. They include septic tanks and drain fields, other
on-site systems, cluster systems, and small diameter collection
systems, as defined in 40 CFR 35, Appendix E.
Anaerobic - the absence of free elemental oxygen.
Aquifer - an underground, water-bearing stratum of permeable rock,
sand, or gravel.
Alluvial - relating to material deposited by a stream.
Avian - of, pertaining to, or relating to birds.
Benthos - organisms dwelling on the bottom of a water body. The
benthos includes all organisms which crawl on, burrow into, or
grow attached to, the bottom.
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) - the quantity of oxygen used in the
biochemical decompositon of organic matter; used to indicate the
amount of organic matter present in water; BOD,, refers to a
biochemical oxygen demand reading taken from a test in which a
water sample is incubated with bacteria for 5 days at 20ฐC. In
common usage, "BOD" refers to "BOD ."
Biota - the plants and animals of an area, taken collectively.
Calcareous - any substance that contains calcium carbonate.
Carbon monoxide - odorless, toxic gas contributing to air pollution,
released mainly by motor vehicles.
cfs - cubic feet per second.
Chemical oxygen demand (COD) - a measure of the oxygen-consuming
capacity of inorganic and organic matter present in water or
wastewater.
137
-------
Chert - a hard, extremely dense sedimentary rock consisting primarily
of cryptocrystalline silica; mostly semi-vitreous and usually
occurring as nodules or concretions in limestone and dolomite.
Chlorination - disinfection of water by treatment with chlorine.
Claypan - a dense, heavy, and relatively impervious subsurface soil
layer that owes its hardness to a relatively higher clay content
than that of the overlying material; also "hardpan."
Clean Water Act - federal law passed in 1977 revising Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972; pertinent sections are
201, 208, and 303 (e).
Cluster system - wastewater treatment system in which effluent from
several individual septic tanks is collected and treated further
in a community absorption field, rather than in individual fields.
Coliform - a group of bacteria which includes organisms found on
plants, in soils, and in human and animal feces; their presence
is used as an indicator of water pollution.
Colluvial - pertaining to a loose, heterogeneous, incoherent mass of
soil material or rock fragments deposited by mass-wasting; usually
at the bottom of a cliff or steep slope.
Comminutor - a device that grinds solids in wastewater prior to other
treatment.
Complete-mix activated sludge system - a biological wastewater treat-
ment process in which a mixture of wastewater and bacteria is
agitated and mechanically aerated, allowing bacterial decomposition
of waste solids; bacteria and remaining solids are subsequently
separated from the treated wastewater by settling and wasted or
returned to the process as needed.
Construction Grants Program - a program administered by EPA to carry
out the mandate of the Clean Water Act to assist local communities
in funding municipal wastewater facilities.
Deciduous forest - an association of trees that shed their foliage at
the end of a growing season.
Design flow - the volume of wastewater a facility is expected to
process in a given length of time; usually the average daily
amount of wastewater expected to be produced in a facility's
service area 20 years after its construction.
138
-------
Differential settlement - non-uniform settlement of a geologic formation
or soil.
Dip - the angle that a structural geologic surface makes with the
horizontal, measured perpendicular to the line formed by the
intersection of the surface with the horizontal.
Drift - a general term applied to all rock material transported by a
glacier and deposited directly by or from the ice, or by running
water emanating from a glacier.
Ecosystem - a system formed by the interaction of a group of organisms
and their environment.
Ecoregion - a geographical area over which the environmental complex,
produced by climate, topography, and soil, is sufficiently uniform
to permit development of characteristic types of ecologic associations.
Edaphic - pertaining to the soil.
Effluent - wastewater discharged from a facility or one of its components.
EIS - Environmental Impact Statement.
EPA - U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Escarpment - a long, continous cliff or steep slope facing in one
general direction.
Eutrophication - the process of maturation of a lake from nutrient-poor
to nutrient-rich. The artificial addition of nutrients to lakes
accelerates the process.
Extended aeration - a complete-mix activiated sludge system in which
the amount of influent wastes is relatively small compared to the
amount of bacteria in the system, requiring longer detention
times than conventional complete-mix activated sludge processes
and resulting in less sludge wastes.
Facilities Plan - a preliminary engineering report on proposed waste-
water treatment facilities; developed to fulfill Step 1 requirements
of EPA's Construction Grants program; analyzes treatment needs,
alternative treatment methods, existing sewer system adequacy,
and costs; includes an environmental assessment; also referred to
as a "201 plan."
Fault - a surface or rock fracture along which there has been displacement.
139
-------
Fauna - the animal life of an area.
Fecal coliform - group of bacteria present in human and animal intes-
tines and excreted in feces; while harmless in themselves, fecal
colif orms may indicate the presence of pathogens .
Flaggy - tending to split into layers of suitable thickness for use as
flagstones; layered bedding 1 to 10 cm. in thickness.
Flood plain - the land adjacent to a river channel that is covered
with water when the river overflows its banks .
Flora - the plant life of an area.
Fold - a curve or bend of a flat structure or structures such as rock
strata .
Force main - a sewer through which wastewater is pumped.
gpcd - gallons per capita per day.
gpd - gallons per day
gpm - gallons per minute
~ gallons per year.
Gravity sewer - a sewer in which the wastewater flows downhill from
source to outlet, with no pumping required.
Grit chamber - initial phase of primary treatment in which large
solids - generally inorganic ones - are removed.
Habitat - the place where an organism lives .
Holding tank - a large tank (typically 1000-1500 gallons) used to
store wastewater until it can be collected by a pump truck (honeywagon)
for transport to a treatment plant.
Honeywagon - a tank truck used for transporting raw wastewater or
septage.
I/I - the combined extraneous wastewater flow from infiltration and
inflow.
Infiltration - (1) movement of water downward into the soil; (2) water
entering a sewer system underground by such means as cracks in
sewer pipes and manholes and leaky pipe joints, usually caused by
a water table above the level of the sewer.
140
-------
Inflow - water other than sewage entering a sewer system directly by
such means as connections with storm sewers, roof and foundation
drains, sump pumps, and holes in manhole covers.
Influent - wastewater entering a wastewater facility or component
thereof.
Infrared - referring to radiation with wavelengths longer than those
of red light; while invisible to the human eye, some photographic
film is sensitive to it, and, when developed, indicates differences
in heat production by the objects photographed; such film can be
used in aerial photography to detect septic system activity near
the ground surface.
Innovative wastewater treatment systems - methods of wastewater treatment
not fully proven under the circumstances of their contemplated
use, and that represent a significant advancement over the state
of the art in terms of water conservation, reclamation, reuse,
energy recovery, or cost reduction, as defined in 40 CFR 35,
Appendix ฃ.
Interceptor sewer - a sewer receiving flows from collector lines and
carrying them to a central point for treatment and discharge.
Intermittent stream - a stream or a reach of a stream that flows only
at certain times of the year.
Interstice - an opening or space, as in rock or soil.
Joint - a surface of actual or potential fracture or parting in a
rock, without displacement.
KSA - Kansas Statutes Annotated, the codified laws of the State of
Kansas.
Lagoon - a large pond in which wastewater is retained for primary
and/or secondary treatment; discharging lagoons produce an effluent
that according to Kansas law must contain no more than 30 mg/1
BOD,, and 80 mg/1 suspended solids; non-discharging lagoons rely
on evaporation for disposal of water.
Land application - wastewater treatment by the action of bacteria
present in the soil following its application onto the surface of
the ground; accomplished by overland flow, rapid infiltration, or
slow infiltration; in Kansas, land application must be preceded
by 90 days' storage.
Lateral field - absorption field for a septic tank.
141
-------
Leach field - absorption field for a septic tank.
Leaching - the separation, selective removal, or dissolution of soluble
constituents from a layer of rock or soil horizon by the action of
percolating water; the similar removal of pollutants from wastewater
percolating through soil by filtering and microbial processes.
LID - Marion County Lake Improvement District
Lift station - a small wastewater pumping station that lifts waste-
water to a higher elevation when the continuance of the gravity
sewer at reasonable slopes would involve excessive depths of
trench.
Limestone - a carbonate sedimentary rock containing more than 95%
calcite and less than 5% dolomite.
Loess - a shallowly buried layer of windblown dust of relatively
recent geologic age; generally nonstratified, porous, uncon-
solidated and fine-grained, consisting predominantly of silt.
Macrophytes - aquatic plants possessing a multi-cellular structure 9
with cells differentiated into specialized tissues. Their sizes
range from near microscopic, e.g., duckweed, to massive cypress
trees. Macrophytes can be divided into three major growth types:
floating, submerged, or emersed.
Macroscopic - large enough to be perceived or examined by the unaided
eye.
mgd - million gallons per day
mg/1 - miligrams per liter; approximately equivalent to parts per
million.
Mitigating measure - action taken to lessen or eliminate an adverse
environmental impact.
Mixing zone - that portion of a stream from the point at which effluent
is introduced, downstream to the point at which it is uniformly
mixed with the receiving waters.
Multi-media filtration - process of passing water through a series of
substances, usually some sort of granular material, for removal
of suspended solids.
NEPA - National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
Nitrite - substance released by some soil bacteria, toxic to many
organisms and usually rapidly converted by other bacteria to
nitrate, which is not toxic.
142
-------
Nitrogen dioxide - toxic, corrosive, reddish-orange gas released into
the atmosphere mainly through combustion of natural gas and coal
and exhaust from motor vehicles.
I
Non-point-source discharge - general source of pollution not originating
from a single controllable source, e.g., runoff from farmland.
Notice of Intent - announcement by a federal agency of its intent to
prepare an EIS.
NPDES - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
On-site systems - wastewater treatment systems in which the treatment
is performed on the site where the wastes are produced. Examples
include septic tanks wijth leach fields, composting toilets, etc.
Overland flow - method of la^nd application in which wastewater is
allowed to run down a grassy slope; treatment is by aerobic soil
bacteria and plant uptake of nutrients; runoff is collected and
discharged. J
j
Package plant - a small wastewater treatment plant whose various
components are contained within one structure, purchased and
installed as a unit.
Particulates - minute, separate particles dispersed in the air, contribu-
ting to pollution; main sources are coal combustion, industrial
processes, and forest fires.
I
Pathogen - disease-producing organism.
Percolation - movement of water through soil; empirically measured by
a test in which a hole I is drilled in the soil and soaked, then
filled with water, andjthe rate of downward movement of the water
surface recorded, given in minutes per inch; does not necessarily
correllate directly to
permeability.
Perennial stream - a stream or a reach of a stream that flows continuously
throughout the year. i
Permeability - quality of soil that permits it to transmit water;
empirically measured by rate of downward movement of water through
saturated soil cores; feiven in inches per hour; does not necessarily
correllate directly to; percolation.
pH - a measurement of hydrogen ion concentration; used as an expression
of acidity and alkalinity on a scale whose values run from 0 to
14, with 7 representing neutrality, numbers from 7 to 0 increasing
acidity, and numbers gjreater than 7 increasing alkalinity.
143
-------
Physiographic province - any large geologic area or region considered
as a whole, all parts of which are characterized by similar
landform features or history, and differ significantly from those
of adjacent areas.
Planning area - area covered by a Facilities Plan.
ppm - parts per million; approximately equivalent to milligrams per
liter.
Point-source discharge - introduction of treated or untreated wastewater
into a body of water at a discrete point of discharge, such as a
pipe.
Primary impact - direct effect of an action.
Primary treatment - the first major process in most wastewater treatment
plants; consisting of retaining wastewater in a tank long enough
for solids to settle.
Prime agricultural land - land that has the best combination of physical
and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage,
fiber, and oilseed crops, and that is available for one of these
uses; rated in Class I or II in SCS's agricultural capability
classification system.
Privy - a small building fixed directly over a pit or vault, equipped
with seating and used for collection of bodily wastes.
Province - an area that corresponds to a broad vegetation region, and
that has uniform regional climate and the same type or types of
zonal soils.
PVC - polyvinylchloride, a type of plastic from which some sewer pipe
is made.
Range - land producing naturalized or native forage for animal consumption,
and lands that are revegetated naturally or artificially to
provide a forage cover that is managed like naturalized or native
vegetation.
Rapid infiltration - a method of land application in which wastewater
is sprayed onto a flat area with sandy (highly permeable) soils.
RCP - Reinforced Concrete Pipe; frequently used for large-diameter
sewers.
Riparian woodland - an area of trees and other woody vegetation bordering
a stream or lake.
144
-------
Sandstone - a medium-grained sedimentary rock composed of sand-sized
particles which are united by a cementing material.
Screen - a device with openings, generally of uniform size, used to
retain or remove solids from wastewater.
SCS - Soil Conservation Service, a branch of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
Secondary impact - an indirect effect of an action; for example,
population growth induced by the existence of a proposed project.
Secondary treatment - removal of organic wastewater constituents,
usually by microbial activity, following primary treatment (settling);
a plant is recognized as providing secondary treatment if its
effluent contains no more than 30 mg/1 each of BOD- and suspended
solids, or if at least 85% of BOD_ and suspended solids are
removed from the effluent, whichever is the stricter standard.
Section 201 - portion of Clean Water Act providing for federal assistance
in the construction of municipal wastewater facilities.
Section 208 - portion of Clean Water Act providing for federal assistance
in water quality management planning for counties or multiple-county
areas; 208 plans are used to guide all county water pollution control
efforts in accordance with federal, state, and local requirements.
Section 303(e) - section of Clean Water Act mandating continuous
statewide water quality planning.
Sedimentation basin - a basin or tank in which wastewater is retained
to allow suspended matter to settle out.
Septage - the accumulated scum and sludge from septic tanks or holding
tanks.
Septic Snooper - a septic leachate detection instrument consisting ฉf
an underwater probe, a water intake system, an analyzer control
unit, and a graphic recorder. Water from near the lakeshore is
drawn through the instrument and continuously 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 leachate or other
sources of domestic sewage entering the water body.
Septic tank - a component for partial on-site treatment of wastewater,
usually for individual residences, by means of settling and
decomposition by anaerobic microorganisms; must be paired with an
absorption field for complete treatment.
145
-------
Septic tank system - wastewater treatment system consisting of a
septic tank and absorption field.
Service area - area intended to be served by a given wastewater facility.
Service - a single pipe, gate, valve, or similar means of connecting a
water or sewer main with a house.
Shale - a fine-grained sedimentary rock formed by the consolidation of
clay, silt, or mud, and characterized by a finely stratified
structure.
Siliceous - rock containing abundant silica, especially free silica,
such as quartz or chert.
Siltation - the accumulation by deposition of silt in a body of water.
Siltstone - a rock whose composition is intermediate between those of
sandstone and shale.
Slow infiltration - method of land application in which wastewater is
sprayed onto a flat area with silty or clayey (moderately permeable)
soils; Kansas requires that the receiving area be cultivated.
Sludge - accumulated solids separated from liquids, such as water or
wastewater, during treatment or processing.
Species - any group of fish, wildlife or plants which interbreeds when
mature.
Species diversity - the number of different species occurring in some
location or under some condition.
Step 1 - first stage of a project funded under EPA's Construction
Grants program: development of a Facilities Plan.
Step 2 - second stage of a project funded under EPA's Construction
Grants program: development of design drawings and specifications.
Step 3 - third stage of a project funded under EPA's Construction
Grants program: construction.
Stratum (plural, strata) - a sedimentary bed or layer, visually separable
from other layers.
Suspended solids (SS) - particles dispersed within, but not dissolved
in, wastewater; if water is allowed to stand, suspended matter
will eventually float to the top or settle to the bottom; dissolved
matter (for instance, table salt or sugar) will not.
146
-------
Synergism - cooperative action of discrete agents such that the total
effect is greater than the sum of the effects taken independently.
Taxa (plural of taxon) - a group of organisms constituting one of the
categories or formal units in taxonomic classification, such as
phylum, order, family, genus, or species, and characterized by
attributes in varying degrees of distinction.
Terrace - a large, step-like ledge breaking the continuity of a slope.
Turbidity - cloudiness of water brought about by the presence of silt
or other suspended solids.
TSS - total suspended solids, see "suspended solids."
Upland forest - a plant community consisting predominantly of trees
and other woody vegetation, found in the higher parts of a region
or tract of land.
USDA - United States Department of Agriculture.
Uplift - a structurally high area produced by positive movements that
raise or upthrust rocks, as in a dome.
Variance - a license to do some act contrary to the usual rule, generally
applying here to a zoning ordinance.
VCP - Vitrified Clay Pipe; the most common type of sewer pipe.
Waste stabilization pond - a lagoon.
147
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
In the course of field investigations for this EIS, several
data sources were consulted that seemed to indicate that estimating
present and future populations in the Lake Improvement District was a
more complex problem than it appeared in the Facility Plan. In particular,
the problems associated with wastewater flows contributed by the many
seasonal and weekend residents were apparently not addressed. This
fact becomes important in analyzing yearly wastewater flows for total
retention lagoon alternatives, and bears on all other alternatives to
some extent. This Appendix presents a more detailed investigation of
population in the LID using data gathered from a variety of sources,
including the Marion County Appraiser's Office, records of the two
electric companies serving the LID, and interviews with the Lake
Superintendent.
In general, the reliability of projections of growth for
small populations is always somewhat suspect. It is felt, however,
that the projections presented in this EIS are based upon the best
available data and reasonable assumptions and should provide a con-
servative basis for design.
1. Present Population
The population at the LID is composed of several groups,
differentiated by the amount of time each year that the group resides
at the lake and whether members in the group use the LID as their
permament or seasonal home or simply as a weekend recreational resource.
Each group was evaluated in order to determine their specific characteristics.
A summary of this evaluation follows.
a. Permanent Residents. This group includes those persons who
own homes and reside at the lake on a year-round basis. The majority
of these permanent residents are retired (41). According to the
latest figures available from the Marion County Appraiser's Office,
A-l
-------
there are currently 67 residences in the Lake Improvement District
occupied on a year-round basis by 143 persons. Thus the present
average persons per household figure is 2.13, which reflects the low
number of children expected in a retirement community. Permanent
residents are assumed to reside at the lake 365 days per year.
b. Seasonal Residents. This group includes those persons who
own vacation homes in the LID. The types of seasonal units range from
mobile homes and unimproved cabins to larger single-family cottages.
Several cabins are no more than fishing shacks with privies and are
scarcely used (42). Generally, the people owning summer and/or weekend
homes have families with children or they are older couples who now
are planning to make their seasonal home their retirement home in the
future.
Assuming that the difference between the total number of
dwelling units (see Table A-l) and the number of permanent units
represents the number of seasonal units, there are presently 99
seasonal units at the lake. The large majority of seasonal residents
have permanent homes in Wichita, so the average persons per household
figure for the Wichita SMSA, 3.06 (43), was applied to the number of
seasonal units, yielding an estimated 303 (99 x 3.06) seasonal residents
within the LID.
According to records of monthly electrical usage, approxi-
mately 60% of the seasonal residents are continually in residence from
April through November, or 240 days per year. The other 40% reside
there an average of two weekends per month, year-round, or 48 days per
year (44).
c. Campers. There are approximately one hundred (100) campsites
that are used on the 21 non-holiday weekends between May and October,
while three hundred campsites are used during the four-day holiday
weekends (Memorial Day, Fourth of July and Labor Day) (45). At 3.5
persons per campsite, (the average number of persons per campsite
estimated by the Corps of Engineers at the Marion Reservoir), the
average number of campers camping at the Lake on holiday and regular
weekends from May to October is assumed to be 1050 and 350, respectively.
A-2
-------
TABLE A-l
DWELLING UNIT AND
POPULATION DATA
Year
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
Total3
Units
149
150
154
155
155
157
159
163
163
163
166
Permanent
Units
35
32
37
45
50
51
55
54
54
61
67
Permanent
Population
79
71
82
107
112
116
129
124
136
140
143
Seasonal
Units
114
118
117
110
105
106
104
109
109
102
99
Seasonal
Population
349
361
358
337
321
324
318
334
334
312
303
Data supplied by Marion County Appraiser's Office.
Obtained by subtracting number of permanent units from the number
of total units.
ฃ
Based upon an assumed 3.06 persons per seasonal dwelling unit.
A-3
-------
d. Trailer Park Residents. There are 56 slots where trailers
can be parked on the county park land. These slots are rented from
the Lake Superintendent for periods of up to one year. All of the
slots are rented each year to at least one tenant and in some cases
one slot will be rented more than once a year. For instance, in 1978,
the 56 slots were rented a total of 65 times (46).
The major use of the trailer park is on weekends, with more
trailers in the park on summer weekends (May to October) than during
the fall and winter months (November to April). According to the Lake
Superintendent, from May to October there are between 15 and 25 trailers
in the park on regular weekends and 25 to 35 trailers in the park on
holiday weekends, and from November to April there are from 5 to 10
trailers there each weekend. For the most part, families with children
tend to use the trailer park during the summer months whereas during
the fall and winter months there are more likely to be retired couples
at the park.
Table A-2 presents an estimate of the maximum number of
people expected at the lake on the busiest day of the year. This peak
day estimate is based upon the assumption that all members of each
resident group would be at the lake on a summer holiday weekend.
Table A-3 presents the total number of person-days spent at the lake
over the entire year by each population group. This number is then
divided by 365 to give the number of persons at the lake on an average
day.
2. Population Projections
These projections are based on the assumptions that the
permanent and seasonal populations will continue to grow at the same
rate as they grew from 1969 to 1979; that the lake will remain a
viable recreational resource through the year 2000; and, that any
sewerage system provided in the LID through a federal grant will have
associated with it sufficient land use controls to insure that no
additonal development will be induced beyond that which can be expected
to occur without the project. The following methods were used to
project the future populations of each subgroup at the lake.
A-4
-------
TABLE A-2
CURRENT POPULATION ESTIMATE
PEAK DAY
Group Units
Holiday Campers 300
Seasonal Residents 99
Permanent Residents 67
Seasonal Trailers 35
Person per
Unit
3.50
3.06
2.13
3.50
Population
1,050
303
143
123
Peak Day Population
1,619
TABLE A-3
CURRENT POPULATION ESTIMATE
AVERAGE DAY
Group Units
Holiday Campers 300
Weekend Campers 100
Seasonal-Summer 59
Seasonal-Weekend 40
Permanent Residents 67
Seasonal Trailers:
(Summer Wkd.) 20
(Holiday Wkd.) 30
(Winter Wkd.) 10
Persons
Unit
3.50
3.50
3.06
3.06
2.13
3.50
3.50
2.50
per
Population
1050
350
181
122
143
70
105
25
Days/Yr.
12
46
240
48
365
46
12
52
Person-
Days/Yr.
12,600
16,100
43,440
5,856
52,195
3,220
1,260
1,300
Total Person-days per Year
135,971
Average Persons per Day
373
A-5
-------
a. Permanent and Seasonal Residents. A linear regression model
was calibrated on the data for the number of total and permanent
dwelling units from 1969 to 1979, and projections were made of total
and permanent dwelling units in the years 1985, 1990, 1995 and 2000.
The number of seasonal units was obtained by subtracting the projected
number of permanent units from the projected number of total units.
High correlation coeffcients were obtained for both regression models.
Table A-4 presents these projections.
The average persons per permanent household figure from 1969
to 1979 of approximately 2.29 was used to convert the projected number
of permanent units to population. While this figure is low by national,
state, or county standards, it does accurately reflect the nature of
the LID as a predominantly retirement community with a low number of
families with children. The average persons per household figure for
the Wichita SMSA of approximately 3.06 was used to convert the number
of seasonal units to population. As was assumed for the present day
population estimates, it was assumed that 40% of the future seasonal
residents would stay at the lake for an average of 48 days (2 weekends/
month) and that 60% would be continually in residence from April
through November, or 240 days.
TABLE A-4
PROJECTED PERMANENT AND SEASONAL POPULATION
Permanent Seasonal
Year Units Population Units Population
92 282
84 257
77 236
69 211
b.
within the trailer park that were available for use. Since 1977 the
1985
1990
1995
2000
Trailer
84
100
116
132
Park Residents.
194
230
267
302
Before
A-6
-------
pattern of slots has been rearranged and now only 56 slots exist. In
order to take into account any future rearrangement, it was assumed
that 70 slots would be available for use by the year 2000. The peak
number of seasonal trailers occupied per day is projected to be 38,
based upon a continuation of the current peak period occupancy rate of
62.5 percent.
This technique was used for all the categories of seasonal
trailers. It was also assumed that the number of days per year the
slots were filled and the number of persons per trailer would remain
constant.
c. Campers. Since the large majority of campers at Marion
County Lake come from the Wichita area, it was assumed that the future
number of campers at the lake would be a function of the population
growth of the Wichita SMSA. The Wichita area is expected to grow at
the rate of 1.5 percent per year (47), and this growth rate was applied
to both the present holiday and weekend figures to produce projections
for the year 2000.
d. Total Population. Composite projections for all population
subgroups for the peak day in the year 2000 are presented in Table A-5,
and projections for the average day are presented in Table A-6. A
summary of peak and average day figures for the years 1979 and 2000
are presented in Table A-7. These projections were used as the basis
for design of the alternatives developed in this EIS.
TABLE- A-5
POPULATION PROJECTION
PEAK DAY - YEAR 2000
Group Units
Holiday Campers 405
Seasonal Residents 69
Permananent Residents 132
Seasonal Trailers 44
Person per
Unit
3.50
3.06
2.29
3.50
Population
1418
211
302
154
Peak Day Population 2085
A-7
-------
TABLE A-6
POPULATION PROJECTION
AVERAGE DAY - YEAR 2000
Group Units
Holiday Campers
Weekend Campers
Seasonal-Summer
Seasonal-Weekend
Permanent Residents
Seasonal Trailers:
(Summer Wkd. )
(Holiday Wkd.)
(Winter Wkd.)
405
135
41
28
132
25
38
13
Persons
Unit
3.50
3.50
3.06
3.06
2.29
3.50
3.50
2.50
Per
Population
1,418
473
125
86
302
88
133
33
Days/Yr.
12
46
240
48
365
46
12
52
Person-
Day s/Yr.
17016
21758
30000
4128
110230
4048
1596
1716
Total Person-days per Year
190492
Average Persons per Day
522
TABLE A-7
POPULATION PROJECTION SUMMARY
Year
1979
2000
Peak Day
Population
1619
2085
Average Day
Population
373
522
A-8
-------
APPENDIX B
HYDROLOGY, GEOLOGY, AND SOILS
1. Climate
Marion County climate is humid continental, with long hot
summers and short cold winters.
Rainfall occurs in all months of the growing season. Heaviest
rainfall occurs in June, and 73% of the total falls between April and
September. Snow cover averages 18 to 20 inches, and is of short
duration. It is not unusual for wet and dry years to alternate. The
1930"s were dry, and resulted in "dust bowl" conditions. Wide variations
in rainfall occur. The normal annual average from 1937 to 1946 was
30.13". The pre-1930 average was 31.31". The 13-year average from
1966 through 1978 is 33.42". Recorded extremes range from 49.31" in
1967 to 22.29" in 1921. The Corps of Engineers used 37.77" for their
reservoir studies. A major rainstorm occurred in 1951 when 10.16" of
rainfall fell between July 9 and 13.
Temperatures are typical of a mid-latitude continental loca-
tion. Mean monthly average is 30.5ฐ in January, and 80.0ฐ in July;
the mean annual average is 56ฐ. The extremes range from 118ฐ to -32ฐ.
Winter cold waves occur, with high winds from the north and below-zero
temperatures, while spring and fall are cool and windy. July and
August droughts are common. Local hail storms and tornadoes occur.
Winds are northerly from December to February, and become strong
southerly winds for the rest of the year. Average annual wind speed
is 13.7 mph, with 61% being in the 8 to 18 mph range.
Frost damage to crops is rare. Average dates of first and
last killing frosts are October 18 and April 18. Earliest and latest
dates of record are September 20 and May 20.
Evaporation rates for a dry year range from a high maximum
of 16.21" in July to a low maximum of 2.39" in January. For a normal
year the maximum is 10.40" in July and a minimum of 1.92" in January.
The average is 6.26" occurring in July.
B-l
-------
2. Groundwater Resources
According to the Kansas Geological Survey, no extensive
aquifers exist in consolidated sedimentary rock within the study area.
The local aquifer is restricted to the interstices near the contact
zone between the Gage Shale and the Towanda Limestone formations. The
groundwater table prior to 1938, the year in which the Marion County
Lake dam was constructed, was in the joints and crevices of the lower
portion of the Gage Shale. Four wells drilled before 1938, and ten
wells drilled between 1975 and 1978 were all drilled into the top of
the Towanda Limestone at depths from 60 to 120 ft. Yields are reported
to be on the order of 20 to 30 gpm. The average depth of wells reaching
the Towanda Limestone in the lake area is 75-ft. Surface elevations
of wells were obtained from USGS quadrangle sheets and are 1350-1370
MSL; therefore, the top of the Towanda Limestone is probably at about
1280-ft MSL at the dam and about 1300-ft MSL at the upper end of the
lake.
The Towanda Limestone formation, the local aquifer for wells
in the Marion County Lake region, is shown on Figure B-l. Although
the Towanda was not identified in outcrop in this study, its stratigraphic
position and approximate elevation was determined from a combination
of data. The Kansas Geological Survey states that the thickness of
the Gage Shale is 45 ft. This shale overlies and separates the Towanda
Limestone from the Stovall Limestone above. The Stovall Limestone was
located and identified in outcrop at the lake-feeding tributary on the
road on the north line of Section 10-T20S-R4E and below the dam on the
N-S road through the center of Section 16, as well as locations on the
lake shore. Elevations of these two outcrops were obtained from the
USGS Topographic map. At the Section 10 outcrop the elevation of the
Stovall is taken as 1350 MSL while below the dam it is 1320 MSL.
Subtracting 45 ft for the Gage Shale thickness, the top of the Towanda
Limestone at these locations would be 1305 and 1275 MSL. The creek
channel profile from USGS map elevations is from 1340 MSL at the
Section 10 road and 1299 MSL at the dam centerline. This places the
top of the Towanda about 20 ft below the base of the dam. The profile
B-2
-------
-------
is substantiated by the absence of limestone in the borings for the
dam and by the logs of wells at the Scott Mason location in the NVfis
SW% Sec. 2 and at the Edward Barrett location in the SW^ NW% Sec. 10.
Other wells in the vicinity of the lake and Norman Bower's report
(48) show a slightly lesser dip of the Towanda. In any event, all
data places the top of the Towanda Limestone ten or more feet below
the channel of the tributary creek forming Marion County Lake.
There does not seem to be any connection between surface
water and the groundwater aquifer on top of the Towanda Limestone
formation, at least above the Marion County Lake dam. The approximate
45-ft thickness of the Gage Shale above the Towanda Limestone acts as
a barrier to prevent downward percolation from surface to the aquifer.
3. Surface Water Resources
The surface waters of the study area are limited to the
Lake, the creek that feeds the lake, and farm ponds constructed on
intermittent tributaries. West of the study area is the Cottonwood
River. Mud Creek and Clear Creek join north of Marion and flow
through the city to join the Cottonwood. The South Fork and the North
Fork of the Cottonwood River join about three miles west of Marion.
The North Fork has been dammed by the Corps of Engineers to form
Marion Reservoir. The Corps has also constructed a floodway consis-
ting of a levee and a diversion channel to keep Mud Creek from flooding
downtown Marion.
The Marion municipal water supply is obtained from Mud
Creek. During periods of low water, the supply is augmented from a
well, and rationing procedures are invoked. Water for livestock is
usually supplied by farm ponds built on intermittent streams. Several
such ponds supporting herds of cattle are in the watershed above
Marion County Lake, and drain into the lake. Runoff from these areas
is a definite source of pollution in the lake.
B-4
-------
4. Flooding Potential
The area surrounding the lake within what appears to be the
1330 MSL contour has been classified by HUD as Special Flood Hazard
Area Zone A. This is defined as "Special Flood Hazard Areas inundated
by the 100-year flood, determined by approximate methods; no base
flood elevations shown or flood hazard factors determined (49)." This
contour is within the lake perimeter road (Lake Shore Drive) and is
close to the shoreline at the lower half of the lake. The elevation
of the top of the dam is 1346 MSL and the spillway is 1339 MSL.
5. Topography
The study area is in the western portion of the Flint Hills
Upland of the Central Lowlands Physiographic Province. The area is
underlain by shales, and by limestones with siliceous zones in the
form of chert. Topography is governed by weathering of the bedrock,
with differential erosion resulting in rolling relief. In this portion
of Kansas, the topography is gently rolling, with gentle to moderate
slopes punctuated by incised stream valleys and exposures of limestone
ledges, especially in the stream valleys and road cuts. Where cherty
limestone is near or at the surface, the slopes are generally less
than one percent. Steeper slopes border the stream valleys. Topography
is nearly level in the valley of the Cottonwood River and its major
tributaries.
Marion County is within the Mississippi River Basin drainage
area. Regional drainage in this part of Kansas is to the south and
southeast via the Cottonwood River flowing into the Neosho and Grand
Rivers, joining the Arkansas River in Oklahoma. Marion County Lake
was formed by damming an unnamed tributary of the Cottonwood River.
The drainage area above the dam is about 6.5 square miles.
Elevations in the lake area range from 1460 feet above mean
sea level (MSL) in Sections 25 and 26-T19S-R4E in the northeast part
of the drainage area to 1270 feet MSL where the tributary below the
dam enters the Cottonwood River in Section 28-T20S-R4E.
B-5
-------
6. Geology
Surficial bedrock in the Marion area is comprised of shales
and limestones of Permian age. The rocks dip to the west at about 15
feet per mile off the western flank of the Nemaha ridge, a major anti-
clinal subsurface structure extending north-south across eastern
Kansas.
Bedrock formations near the surface or outcropping in the
area in descending order of age and with their outstanding characteristic
and estimated thicknesses are shown in Figure B-2 and described as
follows:
Odell Shale - varicolored - 30 ft thick
Winfield Limestone Group - 40 ft thick
Cresswell Limestone - concretions and geodes -
also locally quarried - 30 ft
thick
Grant Shale - olive to buff - 8 ft thick
Stovall Limestone - large chert nodules - 2 ft thick
Doyle Shale Group - 80 ft thick
Gage Shale - varicolored - 45 ft thick
Towanda Limestone - thin beds, flaggy - 10 ft thick
Holmesville Shale - thin bedded, calcareous - 25 ft
thick
Unconsolidated Quaternary deposits are in the valley downstream
of the dam, and consist of slope wash and gravity-type deposits containing
silty clays, chert and limestone gravel (Sanborn formation) and silty
terrace deposits.
7. Mineral Resources
Mineral production in Marion County was valued at $3,338,000
in 1974. Petroleum, stone and natural gas in order of value are the
principal mineral resources. Most of the oil production is from the
Lost Springs field which begins about 4 miles north of Marion and
B-6
-------
THICKNESS (FT.)-* FOMMTION MEMBER
\
t
\
1
(
1_
1 1
1 I 1
I 1
1 1 1
1 1
1 1 1
1 1
] 1 1
\
1
J
L ' . ' 1 ' . '
1
riHHH:
1 | ' | ' | ' I
1 1 1
1 1 1
i L JV3 jJ? -
30
M
10
' 2
45
lv
25
OOCU. SHALE
WMJPWLD LJUUTOUL
STOMALL
LIMESTONE
DOYLE SHALE
CMCSSWELL
UMESTONE
MIAMI SHALE
OAOE SHALE
TOWANDA
LIMESTONE
HOLME SVILLE
SHALE
GRAY, TAN, AND GREEN BLOGKY SILTY AND CLAYEY SHALE WITH THIN
LIMEY ZONES; A RED ZONE NEAR THE TOP
GRAY TO BUFF LOCALLY SOFT AND DOLOMITIC FOSSILIFEROUS LIME-
STOME WITH ABUNDANT GEODES- PLATY AMD THIN BEDDED IN UPPER
PART, MASSIVE AND THICK BEDDED IN LOWER PART
GRAY TO TAN SILTY CALCAREOUS FOSSILIFEROUS SHALE
HARD GRAY MASSIVE CHERTY FOSSILIFEROUS LIMESTONE
THIN-BEDDED TO MASSIVE FOSSILIFEROUS SHALE; GREENISH GRAY
TO TAN AND CALCAREOUS IN UPPER PART, AND GREEN, MAROON,
AND CLAYEY IN LOWER PART
HARD TAN TO GRAY PLATY TO BLOCKY LIMESTONE
GREENISH-GRAY SILTY CLAYEY AND PARTLY CALCAREOUS SHALE WITH
A THIN REDDISH BED AND LOCAL LENSES OF LIMESTONE
CO,
i
in
o.
Figure B-2
Generalized Geologic Column
SOURCE: USGS BULLETIN 1060
-------
continues north to Herington. This is the nearest production to the
project area. The Stenzel field, about 3 miles west southwest of
Marion, and the Robinson field, about 8 miles east southeast of Marion,
are abandoned gas fields. The latest available production figures for
Marion County are from 1977 and show 373,766 barrels of oil produced
from 559 wells and 956,000 M cu ft of gas produced from 78 wells. The
Peabody and Florence oil fields, located near these cities to the
south and southeast of the project area, declined about 1930, having
been producing since 1918. Some of the stripper wells are producing
by secondary recovery methods. It has been reported that there is
some current drilling activity around Florence, about 5 miles southeast
of the project area.
Crushed stone is produced by the Hallett Construction Co.,
with quarries in the southeast quarter of Section 4 and the northeast
quarter of Section 6-T21S-R4E, and by the Sunflower Crushed Stone Co.,
with a quarry in the southeast quarter of Section 6-T21S-R5E. No pro-
duction figures are available.
8. Soils
Soil suitability is one of the major factors affecting
alternatives to existing wastewater treatment and sewage disposal
systems. Information on soil suitability is provided by the Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
through published county soil surveys. The Marion County Soil Survey
was last published in 1930. An updated county soil survey is in
process and is scheduled for completion about 1981, but limited soils
data is available for the study area. SCS provides soil suitability
data including permeability, depth to bedrock, drainage, slopes, depth
to high groundwatet, and engineering properties.
Soils in the Marion County Lake area are mostly silty clays
developed by weathering and erosion of the underlying limestone and
shale deposits. Soil cover is generally thin, especially over the
limestones. The major soil associations found in the study area are
shown on Figure B-3 and are described below.
B-8
-------
LEGEND
A CHASE SILTY CLAY LOAM
B DWIGHT SILT LOAM
IRWIN SILTY CLAY LOAM
LABETTE-DWIGHT COMPLEX
LABETTE-SOGN SILTY CLAY LOAM
SOGN SILTY CLAY LOAM
TULLY SILTY CLAY LOAM
VERDIGRIS SILT LOAM
LABETTE SILTY CLAY LOAM
C
D
E
F
G
H
Figure B-3
Soil Associations
B-9
-------
Chase silty clay loam is formed in clayey alluvium on low terraces
of larger streams. This soil is moderately well to poorly drained,
and is slowly permeable. It is subject to occasional brief flooding.
Depth to rock is greater than 5-ft, and depth to perched high water
table is from 1 to 3 feet.
Dwight silt loam is formed from clay shales with possible mixture
of loess and old alluvium. It is moderately well drained and permea-
bility is very slow. Occasional small depressional areas may pond
water for several days. The soil is fine textured over hard cherty
limestone and is found on upland divides with slopes of less than four
percent.
Irwin silty clay loam is formed from clay shales or old alluvium
over hard limestone. The soil is moderately to well drained and
permeability is very slow. It is found on uplands with slopes up to
eight percent, but averaging less than three percent.
Labette - Dwight complex is a silt to silty clay soil formed
from limestone containing thin beds of clay shale. Depth to bedrock
is from 20 to 40 inches. The soil is well drained and permeability is
slow. This soil is found on nearly level uplands, with slopes ranging
from one to eight percent.
Labette - Sogn silty clay loam is a silty clay formed from residuum
weathered from underlying limestone. Depth to bedrock is less than 40
inches. The soil is somewhat excessively drained, with medium or
rapid runoff, and permeability is moderate.
Sogn silty clay loam is a shallow soil formed from the weathering
of limestone. Depth to bedrock is from 10 to 20 inches. The soil is
somewhat excessively drained with medium or rapid runoff and permeability
is moderate. It is normally found on slopes of less than three percent,
but ranges up to moderately steep slopes of up to 15 percent.
Tully silty clay loam is formed at the toes of slopes in areas
where soils have been formed in residuum from interbedded limestone
and shale. Slopes range from two to seven percent, and range up to 15
percent. The soil is well drained, and runoff is medium to rapid.
Permeability is slow.
B-10
-------
Verdigris silt loam is deep, well to moderately drained soil
formed in silty alluvium, and is found in the flood plains. Depth to
bedrock exceeds five feet. Slope gradient is commonly less than one
percent, ranging up to two percent. Runoff is slow to medium and
permeability is moderate. This soil is occasionally flooded.
Labette silty clay loam is formed on nearly level to sloping
uplands weathered from underlying limestone and interbedded clayey
shales. Slopes range from one to eight percent. Depth to bedrock is
about 36 inches. The soil is well drained with medium to rapid runoff
and permeability is slow becoming very slow with depth.
Limitations for septic tank leach fields and sewage lagoons
for various soils are rated as having slight, moderate, or severe
limitations. "Soils with slight limitations are good for seepage
fields, and only minimal expenditures are required for safe effluent
disposal without environmental hazards. Soils with moderate limitations
have some undesirable properties; careful planning and design of
seepage fields are needed in these areas to compensate for the limita-
tions imposed by the soils. Soils with severe limitations have problems
for seepage fields that are difficult to overcome: slow permeability,
shallowness to bedrock, wetness, flooding, slope, stoniness, or some
other unfavorable soil property." The criteria for these limitation
classifications are shown in Table B-l.
The limitations for sewage purposes of the area soils are
shown on Table B-2.
The prime farmland inventory indicates that Irwin, Chase,
Verdigris and Tully series soils are designated as prime or unique
agricultural land. The "no action" alternative or only those alternatives
having the least impact should be considered for implementation in
these prime farmland areas.
9. Geologic Constraints on Sewerage Alternatives
a. Excavation. Excavation will encounter firm rock at depths
of less than five feet over most of the study area. Excepted areas
are in Irwin, Tully, Chase and Verdigris soils. Irwin soils are on
the uplands near the drainage divides and are underlain by shale.
Tully soils are limited in area, and are found below the dam. Chase
B-ll
-------
TABLE B-l
SOIL LIMITATIONS CRITERIA
Septic Tank Seepage Field Rating
Slight
Moderate
Percolation Rate
Depth to Water
Table
Flooding
Slope
faster than 45-60 min/in
45 tain/in
Severe
slower than 60
min/in
over 72"
none
0-8%
over 72"
40" - 72"
rare
8-15%
48"-72"
under 48"
occasional
or frequent
over 15%
under 48"
Sewage Lagoon Rating
Slight
Moderate
Severe
Permeability
Depth to Water Table
Flooding
Slope
Depth to bedrock
Unified classification
Under 0.6 in/hr 0.6-2.0 in/hr over 2.0 in/hr
under 60"
none
under 2%
over 60"
40"-60"
none
2-7%
40"-60"
under 40"l
subject to flood
over 7%
under 40"
GC,SC,CL,CH GM,ML,SM,MH GP,GW,SW,SP,OL,OH,PT
1. Disregard depth to water if floor is 2-ft thickness of impervious
material.
2. Disregard flooding if floodwater has low velocity, depth under
5-ft, and is not likely to enter or damage lagoon embankment.
B-12
-------
TABLE B-2
SOIL LIMITATIONS FOR SEWAGE DISPOSAL
Soil Series
Septic Tank
Lagoon
Chase
Severe, slow permeability Moderate, some flooding
Dwight
Irwin
Severe, slow permeability Moderate, bedrock 40"-60"
Severe, slow permeability Slight, slopes under 2%
Moderate, slopes 2-7%
Severe, slopes over 7%
Labette-Dwight
Severe, slow permeability, Severe,
bedrock 20"-40" bedrock 20"-40"
Labette-Sogn
Severe, slow permeability Severe,
bedrock 20"-40" bedrock 20"-40"
Sogn
Severe,
bedrock 10"-20"
Severe,
bedrock 10"-20"
Tully
Severe, slow permeability
Slight, slopes under 2%
Moderate, slopes 2-7%
Severe, slopes over 7%
Verdigris
Moderate to severe,
occasional flooding
Severe,
frequent flooding
B-13
-------
and Verdigris soils are in the tributary creek valley below the dam,
and are subject to flooding by backwater from the Cottonwood River.
b. Lagoon Construction. None of the soils in the study area
are conducive to lagoon construction. Most are less than five feet
thick above bedrock, and have low strength and high shrink-swell
characteristics. Verdigris soils are subject to flooding and to
piping, a subsurface erosive phenomenon. Chase soils are difficult to
compact. Dwight and Verdigris soils are easily eroded, as are the
other soils to a somewhat lesser degree. Embankment erosion protec-
tion is required for all soils of the area. Grasses are not satisfactory
for protection from wave action. Most of the soils percolate slowly
to very slowly and are, therefore, suitable for water containment.
c. Surface Discharge. Any surface discharge within the drainage'
basin above the dam will eventually enter the lake. The silty clay
soils intensify runoff and the subsurface shales are relatively imper-
vious so that any downward seepage which may intersect the shale beds
will be directed down the stratigraphic dip to the west. The areas on
the west side of the creek valley and the area below the dam will not
discharge into the lake. The Towanda Limestone, the local aquifer, is
separated from the lake bed by more than 10 ft of impervious shale and
lake sediments, and is not likely to be contaminated by lake pollutants,
should they exist.
d. Land Application. Soils in the study area, except Dwight
silt loam, Labette-Dwight complex, Labette-Sogn silty clay loam and
Sogn silty clay loam are suitable for agricultural irrigation using
treated wastewater. This type of irrigation has not been practiced in
the area except for watering the Marion golf course and the grounds
around the airport. Not many crops are planted outside of the flood-
plain areas. Rangeland grass is the major ground cover in the project
area, and is used extensively for cattle grazing.
e. Treatment Plant Sites. The two proposed plant location
sites near the Cottonwood River in the SE corner of Section 5 and the
SW corner of Section 9, as shown in the Facility Plan, are in Irwin
soils. The ratings for sewage lagoons in this soil depend upon the
slope of the land, ranging from slight for 0-2% slopes to severe for
B-M
-------
slopes exceeding 7%. Maximum slope at these locations is about 4% so
the rating is slight to moderate. The well drained soils are about 6
ft thick over hard limestone. Both sites are satisfactory from a
soils standpoint. The proposed alternative site of the regional plant
is in the SW%. Sec. 4-T20S-R4E, where most of the soils are Dwight.
They occur on the upland divides and are moderately well drained.
Permeability is very slow. This site is on the west side of the
airport property, and any discharge would enter a tributary of the
Cottonwood River to the south and west of the Lake. The soil material
is rated by SCS as having low strength for foundations, but hard lime-
stone is less than 5-ft below the surface. The location is convenient
for both the City of Marion and the lake area. Pipe lines would
encounter rock excavation over much of the force main route.
An alternative site investigated by the EIS is below the
dam, in Verdigris soils and the flood plain of the tributary. The dam
has noticeable seepage, and road cracks on the crest of the dam indicate
some weakness. Verdigris soils are well drained, with slow to medium
runoff and moderate permeability. The soil has low strength for con-
struction, and is subject to piping, a subsurface erosion phemonenon.
The location in the flood plain is also subject to flooding by backwater
from the Cottonwood River. The area is presently under irrigated
cultivation. The location is convenient but not desirable for the
above reasons.
f. Cluster Tanks & Community Leach Fields. All soils in the
project area are rated as severe for septic tank systems except the
Verdigris, which is below the dam. Because of this rating, some other
means of treatment should be used, although it appears that most of
the septic tank systems are working at the present time. The installation
of holding tanks usually involves rock excavation because rock is near
the surface in the study area. Cluster tanks with grouped or common
leach fields may be a viable alternative. In order to construct
these, it probably will be necessary to use a mound type, whereby the
leach field is constructed on or above existing ground and suitable
soil encloses the tile laterals within the leach field.
B-15
-------
-------
APPENDIX C
FLORA AND FAUNA
The following vegetation was observed in the project area:
TREES
Common Name
Boxelder
Hackberry
Redbud
Green Ash
Honey Locust
Black Walnut
Red Cedar
Osage Orange
Red Mulberry
Eastern Cottonwood
Bur Oak
Black Willow
American Elm
Red Elm
Scientific Name
Accer negundo
Celtis occidentalis
Cercis canadensis
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Glenditsia triacanthos
Juglaus nigra
Juniperus virginiana
Maclura pomifera
Morus rubra
Populus detoides
Quercus macrocarpa
Salix nigra
Ulmus americana
Ulmus rubra
SHRUBS AND WOODY VINES
False Indigo
Smooth Sumac
Poison Ivy
Wild Gooseberry
Prairie Rose
Black Raspberry
Greenbriar
Coralberry
Wild Grape
Amorpha fruticosa
Rhus glabra
Rhus radicans
Ribes missouriensis
Rosa suffulta
Rubus occidentalis
Similax hispida
Symphoricarpos orbiculatus
Vitis sp.
C-l
-------
HERBS
Common Name
Pigweed
Ragweed
Big Bluestem
Little Bluestem
Three-awn Grass
Drummond Aster
Tall White Aster
Stick Tight
Sideoates Grama
Purple Thistle
Horseweed
Queen Anne's Lace
Spike Rush
Wild Rye
White Snakeroot
Snow-on-the-Mountain
Sunflower
Jerusalem Artichoke
Ground Cherry
Pokeberry
Smartweed
Pale Dock
Mad-dog Skullcap
Nettle
Goldenrod
Indian Grass
Tall Stinging Nettle
Ironweed
Cockle Bur
Scientific Name
Amaranthus retroflexus
Ambrosia sp.
Andropogon gerardi
Andropogon scoparium
Artistida oligantha
Aster drummondi
Aster simplex
Bidens sp.
Bouteloua curtipendula
Cirsium altissimum
Cenyza canadensis
Daucus carota
Eleocharis sp.
Elymus canadensis
Eupatorium rugosum
Euphorbia marginata
Helianthus sp.
Helianthus tuberosa
Physalis heterophylla
Phytolacca americana
Polygonum sp.
Rumex altissimus
Scutellaria laterifolia
Solanum sp.
Solidago sp.
Sorghastrum nutans
Urtica procera
Veronia baldwinil
Xanthum speciosum
C-2
-------
Common Name
Curlycup Gumweed
Blazing Star
Prairie Coneflower
Wild Alfalfa
Purple Prairie Clover
Blue Wild Indigo
Scientific Name
Grindelia squarrosa
Liatris punctata
Ratibida columnaris
Psoralea tenuiflora
Petalostemon purpureus
Baptisia australis
SHORELINE AND AQUATIC PLANTS
Coontail
Leafy Pondweed
Largeleaf Pondweed
Longleaf Pondweed
Sedges
Cat-tail
Filamentous Green Algae
Southern Naiad
Ceratophyllum demersum
Potamogeton foliosus
Potamogeton amplifolius
Potamogeton nodosus
Carex sp.
Typha latifolia
Spirogyra sp.
Najas guadalupensis
FAUNA KNOWN TO INHABIT THE MARION COUNTY LAKE AREA
FISH
Black Crappie
White Crappie
Gizzard Shad
Bluegill
Channel Catfish
Longeared Sunfish
Freshwater Drum
Northern Pike
Pomoxis nigromaculatus
Pomoxis annularis
Dorosoma cepedianum
Lepomis macfochirus
Ictalurus punctatus
Lepomis megalotis
Aplodinotus grunnieus
Esox lucius
C-3
-------
Common Name
Mississippi Silversides
Spotted Bass
Largemouth Bass
Grass Carp
Carp
Black Bullhead
Warmouth Sunfish
Golden Shiner
Walleye
Green Sunfish
Red Shiner
Bluntnose Minnow
Scientific Name
Menidia audeus
Micropterus punctulatus
Micropterus salmoides
Ctenopharyngodon idella
Cyprinus carpio
Ictalurus melas
Lepomis gulosus
Notemigonus crysoleucas
Stizostedion vitreum
Lepomis cyanellus
Notropis lutrensis
Pimephales notatus
AMPHIBIANS
Tiger Salamander
Plains Spadefoot Toad
Great Plains Toad
Woodhouse's Toad
Northern Cricket Frog
Spotted Chorus Frog
Striped Chorus Frog
Bullfrog
Leopard Frog
Western Narrow-mouthed Frog
Ambystoma tigrinum
Scaphyiopus bombifrons
Bufo cognatus
Bufo woodhousei
Acris crepitans
Psuedacris clarki
Psuedacris nigrita
Rana catesbeianna
Rana pipieus
Gastrophryrne olivacea
REPTILES
TURTLES
Common Musk Turtle
Yellow Mud Turtle
Common Snapping Turtle
Stenotherus odoratus
Kinosternon flavescens
Chelydra serpentina
C-4
-------
Common Name
Ornate Box Turtle
Painted Turtle
Red-eared Turtle
Smooth Softshell Turtle
Spiny Softshell Turtle
Scientific Name
Terrapene ornata
Chrysemys picta
Psuedemys scripta
Trionyx mutica
Trionyx spinifera
LIZARDS
Earless Lizard
Collared Lizard
Fence Lizard
Horned Lizard
Common Five-lined Skink
Sonoran Skink
Six-lined Racerunner
Slender Glass Lizard
Holbrookia maculata
Crotophytus collaris
Sceloporus undulatus
Phrynosoma cornutma
Eumeces fasciatus
Eumeces obsoletus
Cnemidophorus sexlineatus
Ophisaurus attenuatus
SNAKES
Eastern Ringneck Snake
Eastern Hognose Snake
Western Hognose Snake
Blue Racer
Coachwhip Snake
Black Rat Snake
Bullsnake
Prairie Kingsnake
Speckled Kingsnake
Red Kingsnake
Plains Ground Snake
Flat-headed Snake
Plains Black-headed Snake
Yellow-bellied Water Snake
Graham's Water Snake
Diadophis punctatus
Heterodon platyrhynos
Heterodon nasicus
Coluber constrictor
Masticophis flagellum
Elaphe obsoleta
Pituophis melanoleucus
Lampropeltis calligaster
Lampropeltis getulus
Lampropeltis doliata
Sonora episcopa
Tantilla gracilis
Tantilla nigriceps
Natrix erythrogaster
Natrix grahami
C-5
-------
Common Name
Diamondback Water Snake
Northern Water Snake
Northern Brown Snake
Plains Garter Snake
Red-sided Garter Snake
Western Ribbon Snake
Lined Snake
Western Massasauga
Prairie Rattle Snake
Scientific Name
Natrix rhombifera
Natrix sipedon
Storeria dekayi
Thamnophis radix
Thamnophis sirtalis
Thamnophis proximus
Tropidoclonium lineatum
Sistrurus catenatus
Crotalis viridis
BIRDS (Residents)
Pied-billed Grebe
Great Blue Heron
Green Heron
Pintail Duck
Turkey Vulture
Red-tailed Hawk
Sparrow Hawk
Bobwhite Quail
Rio Grande Turkey*
Greater Prairie Chicken
Mourning Dove
Killdeer
Woodcock
Upland Plover
Western Meadowlark
Yellow-billed Cuckoo
Dickcissel
Barn Owl
Screech Owl
Great Horned Owl
Common Night Hawk
Podilymbus padiceps
Ardea herodias
Butorides virescens
Anas acuta
Cathates aura
Buteo jamaicensis
Falco sparverius
Colinus cupido
Meleagris gallopavo
Tympanuchus cupido
Zenaidura macroura
Charadrus vociferus
Philohela minor
Bartramia longicauda
Sturnella neglecta
Coccyzus americanus
Spiza americana
Tyto alba
Otus asio
Bubo virginianus
Chordeiles minor
C-6
-------
Common Name
Red Headed Woodpecker
Hairy Woodpecker
Eastern Kingbird
Barn Swallow
Blue Jay
Common Crow
Black-capped Chickadee
Tufted Titmouse
Common Catbird
Robin
Cardinal
Mockingbird
Grasshopper Sparrow
Field Sparrow
Scientific Name
Melanerpes erythrocephalus
Dendrocopos villosus
Tyrannus tyrannus
Hirundo rustica
Cyanocitta crista
Corvus brachyrhynchus
Parus atricapillus
Parus bicolor
Dumetella carolinensis
Tundus migratorius
Richmondena cardinalis
Mimus polyglottos
Ammodramus savaimarium
Spizella pusilia
*recent introduction
MAMMALS
Virginia Oppossum
Short-tailed Shrew
Least Shrew
Eastern Mole
Little Brown Myotis
Big Brown Bat
Hoary Bat
Black-tailed Jackrabbit
Cottontail Rabbit
Fox Squirrel
Thirteen-lined Ground Squirrel
Franklin's Ground Squirrel
Pocket Gopher
Hispid Pocket Mouse
Didelphis virginianus
Blarina brevicauda
Cryptotis parva
Scalopus aquaticus
Myotis lucifugus
Eptesicus fuscus
Lasiurus cinereus
Lepus californicus
Sylvilagus floridanus
Sciurus nieer
Cynomys ludovicianus
Citellus franklinii
Geomys busarius
Perognathus hispidus
C-7
-------
Common Name
Beaver
Grasshopper Mouse
Pigmy Harvest Mouse
Dซer Mouse
Wood Mouse
Hispid Cotton Rat
Florida Wood Rat
Lemming Mouse
Prairie Vole
Coyote
Red Fox
Striped Skunk
Spotted Skunk
White-tailed Deer
Raccoon
Bobcat
Muskrat
Antelope*
Woodchuck
Longtail Weasel
Scientific Name
Castor canadensis
Onychomys leucogaster
Reithroclontomys montanus
Peromyscus maniculatus
Peromyscus leucopus
Sigmodon hispidus
Neotoma floridanus
Synaptomys cooperi
Microtus ochrogaster
Canis latrans
Vulpes fulva
Mephitis mephitis
Spilogal interuptus
Odocoileus virginianus
Procyon lotor
Lynx rufus
Ondatra zibethica
Antilocapra americana
Marmota monax
Mustela frenata
*recent introduction
C-8
-------
APPENDIX D
SEPTIC LEACHATE SURVEY REPORT
D-l
-------
-------
SEPTIC LEACHATE SURVEY
MARION COUNTY LAKE, KANSAS
November, 1979
Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
324 East llth Street
Kansas City, Missouri 64106
Prepared by
K-V Associates, Inc.
Falmouth, Massachusetts
December, 1979
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 Introduction. 1
1.1 Effluent Plume Theory 1
1.1.1 Groundwater Plumes..*.... 2
1.1.2 Runoff Plumes 3
1.2 Special Survey Technique and Equipment 6
2.0 Methodology * Sampling and Analysis............... 8
2.1 Procedure............. 9
2.2 Sample Handling 10
2.3 Calibration..... 10
z.t water Analysis........................................ 11
3.0 Plume Locations 12
4.0 Nutrient Analysis...... 16
5.0 Groundvater Flow Patterns..... 18
6.0 Coliform Levels in Surface Waters.. 21
7.0 Conclusions 23
References. 24
Appendix 25
-------
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Marion County Lake, the study area, is located in the eastern
portion of the Flint Hills, northeast of Wichita, Kansas. This lake
was formed by damming an unnamed tributary of the Cottonwood River.
The dam was constructed in the 1930's by the Civilian Conservation Corps
and provides for a lake surface of about 150 acres. The area is under-
lain by shales and limestone formations. The lake was built for fishing
and recreational purposes and is now settled by approximately 230 year-
round or seasonal dwellings along Lake Shore Drive, which encompasses
the northern two-thirds of the lake. All homes are serviced by individual
water wells and septic tanks. This lake area is currently undergoing a
sewering needs evaluation designed to determine the extent of septic
waste water impacts on the lake. The following report presents the
results of a septic leachate survey of Marion County Lake performed
during November, 1979
1.1 Effluent Plume Theory
In porous soils, groundwater inflows frequently convey wastewaters
from nearshore septic units through bottom sediments and into lake
waters, causing attached algae growth and algal blooms. The lake
shoreline is a particularly sensitive area since: 1) the groundwater
depth is shallow, encouraging soil water saturation and anaerobic
conditions; 2) septic units and leaching fields are frequently located
close to the water's edge, allowing only a short distance for bacterial
-------
-2-
degradation and soil adsorption of potential contaminants; and 3) the
recreational attractiveness of the lakeshore often induces temporary
overcrowding of homes leading to hydraulically overloaded septic units.
Rather than a passive release from lakeshore bottoms, groundwater
plumes from nearby on-site treatment units may actively emerge along
shorelines raising sediment nutrient levels and creating local elevated
concentrations of nutrients. The contribution of nutrients from
subsurface discharges of shoreline septic units has been estimated at
30 to 60 percent of the total nutrient load in certain New Hampshire
lakes (IHPC, 1977).
The capillary-like structure of sandy, porous soils and horizontal
groundwater movement induces a fairly narrow plume from malfunctioning
septic units. The point of discharge along the shoreline is often
through a small area of lake bottom, commonly forming an ovaI-shaped
area several meters wide when the septic unit is close to the shoreline.
In denser subdivisions containing several overloaded units, the discharges
may overlap forming a broader increase (see Figure 1).
1.1.1 Groundwater Plumes
Three different types of groundwater-related wastewater plumes
are commonly encountered during a septic leachate survey: 1) erupting
plumes, 2) passive plumes, and 3) stream source plumes. As the soil
becomes saturated with dissolved solids and organics during the aging
process of a leaching on-lot septic system, a breakthrough of organics
occurs first, followed by inorganic penetration (principally chlorides,
sodium, and other salts). The active emerging of the combined organic
-------
-3-
SEPTIC TANK
OVERFLOW
SURFACE
RUNOFF
r-GROUNDWATER
SEPTIC LEACHATE
Figure 1. Excessive loading of septic systems causes the development
of plumes of poorly-treated effluent which may
1) enter nearby waterways through surface runoff or
which may 2) move laterally with groundwater flow and
discharge near the shoreline of nearby lakes.
-------
-4-
and inorganic residues into the shoreline lake water describes an
erupting plume. In seasonal dwellings where wastewater loads vary in
time, a plume may be apparent during late summer when shoreline cottages
sustain heavy use, but retreat during winter during low flow conditions.
Residual organics from the wastewater often still remain attached to
soil particles in the vicinity of the previous erupting plume, slowly
releasing into the shoreline waters. This dormant plume indicates a
previous breakthrough, but sufficient treatment of the plume exists
under current conditions so that no inorganic discharge is apparent.
Stream source plumes refer to either groundwater leachings or near-
stream septic leaching fields which enter into streams which then
empty into the lake.
1.1.2 Runoff Plumes
Traditional failures of septic systems occur in tight soil
conditions when the rate of inflow into the unit is greater than the
soil percolation can accomodate* Often leakage occurs around the
septic tank or leaching unit covers, creating standing pools of poorly-
treated effluent. If sufficient drainage is present, the effluent
may flow laterally across the surface into nearby waterways. In
addition, rainfall or snow melt may also create an excess of surface
water which can wash the standing effluent into water courses. In
either case, the poorly-treated effluent frequently contains elevated
fecal coliform bacteria, indicative of the presence of pathogenic
bacteria and, if sufficiently high, must be considered a threat to
public health.
-------
-5-
1.2 Special Survey Technique and Equipment
Wastewater effluent contains a mixture of near-UV fluorescent
organics derived from whiteners, surfactants and natural degradation
products which are persistent under the combined conditions of low
oxygen and limited microbial activity. Figure 2 shows two samples of
sand filtered effluent from the Otis Air Force Base, Massachusetts,
sewage treatment plant. One was analyzed immediately and the other
after having been held in a darkened bottle for six months at 20 C.
Note that little change in fluorescence was apparent, although during
the aging process some narrowing of the fluorescence region did occur.
The aged effluent percolating through sandy loam soil under anaerobic
conditions reaches a stable ratio between the organic content and
chlorides which are highly mobile anions. It is this stable ratio
(cojoint signal) between fluorescence and conductivity that allows
ready detection of leachate plumes by their conservative tracers.
Such identified plumes are an early warning of potential nutrient
breakthrough or public health problems. The septic leachate detector
instrument utilizes this principal.
Septic surveys for shoreline wastewater discharges are conducted
TM
with a septic leachate detector, ENDECO Type 2100 "Septic Snooper" ,
and the K-V Associates, Inc. "Dowser" Groundwater Flowmeter. The
leachate detector unit can be operated out of any small rowboat. It
consists of the subsurface probe (water intake system), the analyzer
control unit, and an analog stripchart recorder. Initially the unit
is calibrated against incremental additions of wastewater effluent of the
type to be detected to the background lake water. The pump end of the
-------
EXCITATION SCAN
SAND FILTERED SECONDARILY-TREATED
WASTE WATER EFFLUENT
80-
70-
NEWLY SAND FILTERED
OTIS EFFLUENT
60-
30-
20-
10-
AGED
SAND FILTERED
EFFLUENT (6mo.)
0-
300
4OO 500
WAVELENGTH (nm)
Figure 2. Sand-filtered effluent produces a stable fluorescent
signature, here shown before and after aging*
-------
7-
probe unit is then submerged in the lake water along the near shoreline*
Groundwater seeping through the shoreline bottom is drawn into the
screened intake of the probe and travels upwards to the analyzer unit*
As it passes through the analyzer, separate conductivity and fluorescence
signals are generated* The responses are sent to a signal processor
which registers the separate signals on a strip chart recorder as the
boat moves forward* The analyzed water is continuously discharged
from the unit back into the receiving water. The battery powered unit
used for field studies can record individual fluorescence and conduc-
tivity or a combination signal. It has also been modified to operate
under the conductance conditions encountered in the field.
Well-point sampling of groundwater and bacterial sampling of
surface run-off complement the leachate detector scan, surface water
sampling and groundwater flow vector measurements for the complete
survey.
-------
.8-
2.0 METHODOLOGY - SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
The objectives of this survey were:
1) To perform a shoreline scan of the northeast and western shore
for evidence of septic leachate intrusion from on-lot septic systems*
The continuous scan along this indented shoreline was completed within
three days.
2) To take discrete water samples for subsequent nutrient analysis
only at those locations of alleged effluent plumes revealed by the
leachate detector instrument.
3) To take bacteria samples for fecal coliform analysis from all
moving surface tributaries or exceptionally high shoreline effluent
plumes.
4) To make groundwater flow measurements in the shallow holes in
the loose sand shoreline of the study areas.
5) To make visual observations relevant to sources of lake water
degradation.
This survey was executed during the period from 17 through 20
November, 1979. Daytime temperatures ranged from 10ฐ to 20ฐC. Sun
and light air conditions prevailed the day of the continuous shoreline
scan of the main body of water. The small isolated bays to the north
of the road were surveyed on a day of high winds and rough water on
the open lake.
-------
-9-
2.1 Procedure
Marion County Lake was surveyed in continuous counter-clockwise
direction starting on the eastern shore and concluding at the northwest
corner of the eastern dam. The survey team consisted of two technicians
and light-weight mobile survey gear* The basic equipment platform was
a 12-foot aluminum boat with small outboard. The septic leachate
detector instrument was securely lashed to a boat seat with shock cords
and the water intake and exhaust tubes were extended over the starboard
gunnel. A 12 vdc gel-cell battery provided electrical power to the
instrument and submersible pump. The centrifugal water pump at the end
of the 5-foot long metal tube intake wand drew near-bottom water through
the instrument detector chamber and out a flexible plastic discharge
tube from which retained samples could be taken.
A large ice chest held chilled water samples as well as supplies
and maintenance gear. Groundwater specimens were drawn through a
rugged stainless steel well-point sampler developed by K-V Associates,
Inc. This 3/8 inch bore tube had 2% foot threaded segments to accomodate
different water and ground penetration depths. It was fitted with a
slotted and pointed tip section. A 10-pound tubular steel hammer was
used to drive the point into the bottom at depths of up to 2 feet. Water
flowed easily at this depth but was impeded somewhat below this depth
by finer, clayey sediments. Interstitial water was extracted via
simple hand vacuum pump and large plastic receiving chamber. The
captured groundwater could then be readily decanted apart from entrained
sediment and bottled for later analysis. Such bottom samples accompanied
each surface background sample and each significant plume discovery
(none confirmed, in this case).
-------
-10-
In summary, the two-man team walked or motored the boat around the
lake within 15 feet of shore in shallow water. Background or plume
samples were taken as required* Specific conductance of each sample
was measured as the water was prefiltered and bottled. Relative
fluorescence and conductivity were continouously plotted on separate
analog strip recorders with positional cross references to the sewer
planning map of the lake* Well water samples were taken from four
lakeside homes along the western shore as a check for septic intrusion
to drinking water sources.
2.2 Sample Handling
Both ground and surface water samples for nutrient analysis were
retained in 250 ml clean plastic bottles. Each sample was prefiltered
on the boat, .45 urn final-filtered and acidified for preservation at
o
the end of the sampling day. The samples were held at 2 C or colder
pending laboratory analysis at a later date.
Bacterial samples were captured in similar sterilized 250 ml
plastic bottles and mailed to Kansas State Department of Health,
Water Microbiology Section, Topeka, Kansas, for fecal coliform analysis,
2.3 Calibration
The shoreline scanning work day began with a calibration of the
septic leachate instrument. Two standards were required: the first,
a background sample drawn from an assumed unpolluted central portion
of the lake; the second, a sample of local Marion municipal lagoon
effluent. For the dynamic flow-through calibrations, the instrument
was zero stabilized on 3 liters of recirculating background water,
-------
-11-
to which 27, (60 ml) of effluent was added. Signal deflections were
equalized between the two channels and adjusted to about 50% of full
scale* Marion treated effluent was also retained for later nutrient
analysis*
2.4 Water Analysis
All water samples were analyzed by EPA standard methods for the
following chemical constituents:
Nitrate nitrogen (combined NOj-NO -N)
Ammonia nitrogen (NH.-N)
Total phosphorous (TP)
-------
-12-
3.0 PLUME LOCATIONS
A careful review of septic leachate detector charts and scanning
fluorometer traces of retained water samples did not produce any defin-
itive evidence of septic effluent leaching into the waters of Marion
County Lake. The survey track and sampling locations are shown in
Figures 3 and 6.
Municipal lagoon effluent from the City of Marion was used as a
standard, representative of the baseline domestic wastewater of the
area and its associated detergent whitenets and brighteners commonly
used by the local residents. We examined for characteristic patterns
of fluorescence and conductance in surface and groundwater samples
drawn from Marion County Lake. The findings showed that although some
isolated events were recorded during the continuous leachate shoreline
scan, laboratory scanning fluorescence analysis of the associated
water samples exhibited a consistent pattern, but one not identifiable
with the pattern from lagoon effluent (Figure 4).
Elevated organic signals were observed at the ends of some coves
(Bays 1, 2, 3, and 9S). The peaks contained fluorescing materials
similar to degrading organic material, but did not contain the predominant
UV fluorescent material characteristic of the local effluent (see Figure 4),
It is possible that fecal material from cattle may be a source which
reaches the coves and ponds during runoff.
The inflow of the tributary to the reservoir was found to carry
a noticeable dissolved solid load, seen in segment 9. The phosphorus
-------
Figure 3. Bacterial and nutrient water sample stations
around Harion County Lake. The track of the
continuous leachate scan is shown by the
dashed line.
LAKE WATER SAMPLE
BACTERIA SAMPLE
CU WELL WATER SAMPLE
GWF GROUNDWATER FLOW SITE
ORGANIC PLUME
O HOUSE
I TRAILER
-------
-14-
70-
60-
LU
UJ
o
UJ
g 40
D
U.
UJ
> 30
UJ
cr
20-
10-
MARION TOWN
EFFLUENT (x ป/2)
380
CENTER
BKG. IS
r i i i I
290 350 410
470
EMISSION (nm)
Figure 4. Surface water samples from lakeshore locations showing
a distinctly different peak fluorescence emission (~ 410)
than Marion town wastewater.
-------
-15-
content of the inflow was 507, higher than the background surface water
of the lake (sample 10S * .024 TP; sample IS ป .016 TP). Examination
of the well water samples for UV fluorescence showed no traces of
wastewater effluent.
-------
-16-
4.0 NUTRIENT ANALYSIS
Completed analysis of the chemical content of 24 samples taken
from around Marion County Lake are presented in Table 1. The numerical
sampling code refers to the shoreline sampling locations as seen on the
area map (see Figure 3). The symbol "S" refers to a surface water
sample, the symbol "G" refers to a groundwater sample, and the symbol
"WW" refers to a drinking water well sample. Virtually all groundwater
samples were obtained with some difficulty from the clay bottoms of
the coves.
The conductivity of the water samples as specific conductance
(umhos/cm) is given in the second column. The nutrient analysis for
total phosphorus (TP), combined nitrate-nitrite nitrogen (NO.-NO.-N)
and ammonia nitrogen (NH.-M) are presented in the next three columns
in parts-per-million (ppm-mg/l).
-------
-17-
Table 1. Analysis of surface water (S) and groundwater (G) samples
taken around the periphery of Marion County Lake, Kansas.
Sample
Number
WWA
WWB
WWC
WWD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Marion
effluent
G
G
G
G
S
S
G
S
S
S
S
G
S
G
S
S
S
G
S
S
G
S
G
Cond.
320
320
400
320
310
320
320
340
320
1270
315
340
320
640
315
300
430
300
430
1780
Total P
ppm
.004
.004
.004
.005
.016
.024
.017
.013
.018
.012
.012
.016
.012
.010
.018
.021
.024
.007
.014
.012
.017
.013
.026
4.290
NH4-N
ppm
.004
.084
.016
.004
.067
.478
.079
.067
.144
.003
.043
.356
.039
2.201
.077
.060
.039
.106
.022
.033
.183
.033
.356
8.923
N03-N *
ppm Comments
.042 well water
.009
. 106
1.722
.022
.026
.009
.023
.011
.005
.005
.017
.009
.010
.009
.007
.010
.308
.008
.007
.017
.008
.033
.153
* combined
-------
-18-
5.0 GROUNDWATER FLOW PATTERNS
Recent investigations of the aquifer configuration and field
determinations along the shoreline reveal little influence of ground-
water inflow on Marion County Lake. Bowers (1979) reported field
well pump test results which suggest that the principal aquifer resides
in the fractured and jointed Towanda limestone at some depth below the
lake bottom (Figure 5). The thinly fractured Gage shale overlying the
Towanda limestone increases slightly in permeability with depth but is
still much less permeable than the Towanda limestone. Current water
levels in wells surrounding the lake indicate that the piezometric
surface of the groundwater has adjusted to the lake level on the east
shore but slopes downwards and away from the lake on the west shore.
Inflow from the shoreline would be expected only from the eastern shore,
based upon Bowers* observations. In agreement, the only erupting
discharges found during the leachate survey were observed at Station 9
on the east side and with the creek inflow. These inflows appear to be
shallow surface flows, restricted to stream drainage and not flows
through the Gage shale. Even in the cove where samples 7S and G were
taken, no inflow of interstitial water from lake bottom sediments was
observed in the overlying surface water.
The upper portion of the Gage shale which forms the lake bottom
acts as an aquitard with its low permeability. Bowers attributes the
rise in piezometric surface to percolation or leakage from the lake
(most probably from the deep lake bottom which intercepts more permeable
lower shale layers) into the Towanda limestone aquifer.
-------
-19-
A
o - - -
WELLซ4
-^ A
"-O-.
WELL*!
GRAN! SHALE
sss
GAGE SHALE
PROFILE THROUGH SECTION A-A
Figure 5. Projected groundwater (piezometric) heights developed
by Bowers (1979) to show effects of lake creation. The
crossection corresponds to transect A-A shown above.
-------
-20-
Our limited field findings would support the concept of a low permeability
upper lakeshore bottom of shale and silty clay soils* The dominant
soils include Chase silty clay, Dwight silt, Irwin silty clay,
Labette-Sogn complex, Sogn silty clay, Tully silty clay and Verdigris
silt. We were unable to measure shallow groundwater movement in any
more than two locations around the shore due to the difficult rock,
gravel and clay conditions, although many more such sites were attempted*
-------
-21-
6.0 COLIFORM LEVELS IN SURFACE WATERS
A series of water samples from around the lake was analyzed for
fecal coliform content to confirm the presence of surface runoff or
soil short-circuiting from malfunctioning systems. The membrane
filter coliform count indicates the density of coliform organisms.
Since these organisms may be of intestinal origin and are numerous in
sewage, high numbers are indicative of sewage pollution with its
possible hazards to public health. Here, the fecal coliform count
was used as a more specific test of recent sewage pollution.
There was no record of high levels of coliform from historical
sampling (Charles Penner, Marion County Sanitarian, December, 1979).
All current samples contained low bacterial concentrations. Kansas
water quality standards specify that fecal coliform numbers not exceed
the geometric mean of 200 organisms per 100 ml of water for class A
waters for recreational use and aquatic life. Therefore, all samples
were well within State standards.
Coliform analysis was performed by the Kansas State Department of
Health, Topeka, Kansas. See Table 2 for results and Figure 3 for
sample locations.
-------
-22-
Table 2. Bacterial content for shoreline samples, Marion County Lake.
Station Fecal Coliform
Number No./100 ail Location
Bl <5 Back of first bay, west shore
B2 <5 Back of second bay, west shore
B3 <5 West side of Bay 2, south of road
B4 <5 West end of Bay 3, west shore
B5 <5 West side of Bay 3, south of road
B6 50 End of small cove, western shore
B7 5 Back of bay, eastern shore
-------
-23-
7.0 CONCLUSIONS
A septic leachate survey was performed along the shoreline of
Marion County Lake during November, 1979, The following results were
obtained:
1) Septic leachate profiles along the shoreline recorded elevated
organic signals only at the ends of isolated coves.
2) Analysis of the organic traces by UV-fluorescent scans
indicated that the peaks contained fluorescing materials similar to
degrading organic material, but did not contain the whitening agents
characteristic of the local effluent. It is possible that fecal material
from cattle may have been a probable source which reaches the coves
from runoff from wading ponds or ditches upstream of the deposits.
3) Drinking well elevation records and the inability to obtain
any meaningful measurements of groundwater inflow from shoreline deposits
indicate that there is little groundwater inflow along the shoreline
periphery.
4) The nutrient loadings from identified sources was quite low. Of
the identified plumes of organic material, only two locations (2S and
9S) contained noticeably higher phosphorus contents than that of the
background lake content (samples IS, 10S, 12S). Sample 9S was obtained
from an erupting organic plume of stream drainage removed from developed
shoreline areas.
5) Bacterial analysis of cove surface water samples revealed
fecal coliform concentrations well below class A standards for
recreational use and aquatic life.
-------
-24-
REFERENCES
Bowers* Norman, 1979. Kansas State University groundwater hydrology
course term paper. Received via Region 7, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Kansas City, Missouri (RWS-30).
IRPC, 1977. Discussion of nutrient retention coefficients, Draft
Report 6F2 from Phase II Nonpoint Source Pollution Control
Program, Lakes Region Planning Commission, Meredith, New Hampshire.
-------
-25-
APPENDIX
-------
BAY 2
Figure 6. Selected portions of the continuous leachate
scan arc presented in this appendix, as
indicated by segment numbers on the map* The
scan consists of paired organic (fluorescence)
and conductivity strip chart*. The time scales
are slightly different, but are cross-referenced.
-------
ซ ซ i i < r
c < c- c ซ e> c c t< c> c ป' c o c o IS"
'*ftT
CHAHT HO UC-OtOO-O&tt
*'l
jr-
TO~S~*~ป~ป C-
3
II
ง
II
s-H
II
s
Hi
suwjM'nn
t
0
I
i>
O C' O <
o o o o o o
.,_
__ 1 __
o c>
o
i "O (
Ov
3
LiLT
S1
I
_j_
_j_
jfrrrS-o
o o
0"6 b""() O O O"O"O f.
( ป C ' I ( I
-------
8
O-
_
t
T
V..
\
c
nu
,-*.-&
t
srซ
,
._.
AK
- -,
J:
X
r
f
i
i.
f
1
1
'
.K
7>
3
:>
_.
_
J
-"-
i.JL
_
i"
ซ
i.L.
\
r
!
_
*\
-
^
p.
i
-.,!
t
',ปS
>
'.i
. -a
1
-
-I-.
)
).-
i
O C
*
i t
I (
' ?"
^
%?
> C.
) (.
.
' .S
.-.,-
a
"C
.>
> C
*.-
) c
^,^
1 L
-i;;
~
.ป.
C
) ^
""
"~
.*,-
~
'-.'-
::^s
_
-- -J
) C
~~~~
'.-V
c
) <
U-Si.
-
ซซ
>
1 I,
;
~~
_.=^_
v~.
~-~
' i
v
~
I (
-
~
ซ.
-"'-^
' t.
.
_(
.__
"1
-
:;;J
\
> (.
Us
ft
t&
I
I
CK
C' d o i o c o
O i. v. G > ( *> O i O t u Q o u O <, C
~ jyir4r*l> IM I* * A* HTVtC S a-tBT* ^_
-------
O-,i
< c o fc"*f*
o
I
8-f
'\*
CHAMT NO t.lC-0100 0011
\\
tf'-iffii
g. .
II
S
II
s
II
s
ฃ
,
' k< ( ป
- ^ I
V
"I~T~ป~ป~4T"ซ ซ > )
8ISTRAK
tซ
\
t i- i-_(a^U.i
ฐ'k:i'
o 6
i sOtt O o >.' o
_ sl
.1^"
Y}--
i.
;r
^>
::ir
Ov
A
10
-------
o
I
-5-
i o
CK-IO-^
OMI-
D
3!
Of12-
&
?-rr
Di-2-4^
d[
U: IM
ft
OOt
-------
a-1
0
X
Cv
(A
*
, ""
1
^
!*ซ '
* <.
i
t
rj
k
(
K
A
1
nm A
"*ซ*
1
<
(
t
ftป(
(
V
A
1
. (
Kt
',,(
4
f
> C
> (
i (
)
X
-
1
<
>
1 (
/ c
> c
) C
) C
1 ~
1
I 1
1
1
1
c
) 0 C
1
j c
c
) C
I
\
) C
1
> t
~T~
j c
,
(.
~
1
> c
Bt
\
>c
ra
V
"
*
C
ซK
k
) (
'-
4
) ^
i
1 (
> (
-.
"1
'
^.
,
(
1
\~(
^6
i
A
A
n*
^x
23
-<
O-.i
&
JปQ;
-ji-
21
^-, Si-ft
o o
'f. -7s-
00
ฃ
. I)
H-
"tn ~T
L._L_5.-?
-------
, 100390=80=7060=30=:
-------
o oooooooooooooooo o o c*
40 UC-OIOO-OOM
___________
j ( 1 1
CHAHT
i: ti n u u -j U .ป 0 ' (j >i y u t-i o a II U H 0 irj (i 'i i> n (1 u 0 Qd > u u i u i i -i -i -h.i i
H~
-
1
> ซ
,-
''--.
i
_
<
-
> i
-
re
._.
, '7*
_
4
Rt
4
STf
K
e
4
-
t-ie:
t
8
>
,.->
- *
i
:
.
-,
...
' ( u u D uj.j u n tj j. jj
^
Tซ
"1*.
1
"~"f
iNTI
-
h
,
r'
d
,/,
i
: I
xl^
-. .
'
f
rcrr!
2>
-_
---
"
_-
'
oc
-*ซ
d
X
^
....
^
n!
*ซ
n
-
^*"
a
**ป
i
X
'
_
r*
rฎ o 0 ซ
> 4
V
<
i
-
*"*
> Q O O t
_._
~
1
'
t
1^
--.
r"
1 1 j
r
s
__
i
9O66o66^
-
^Sf
_.
raw
5 O T
--
^ f
^^
~
Y (
^ r
^^;
I
RU
^?~
STR
*+ijr
i o 6 c
Alt
> \
(
(
ป t
/
5^
i
i_<
iซ
-------
-------
APPENDIX E
COST EFFECTIVENESS
This appendix presents the parameters used in developing
capital and operating cost estimates for the project alternatives
presented in this EIS. Further, the tables at the end of this appen-
dix present these parameters in the context of the present value
calculations which are the basis of the cost-effective analysis.
1. General Assumptions
All design flows are based upon the population projections
and flow rates shown in Table 6 in Chapter II. Population growth from
the present day to the year 2000 was assumed to occur at a constant
rate.
Unless otherwise noted in this appendix, all unit costs are
identical to those used in the Facility Plan.
2. Centralized Treatment Alternatives
For both the Down-Sized Facility Plan Alternative and the
Down-Sized Total Retention Lagoon Alternative, the following assump-
tions were made:
0 Because capital and O&M costs for the final pumping station
would vary depending upon the distance to be pumped to the
treatment plant, costs for this station were included with
those of the treatment system rather than the collection
system.
0 Because of the reduced design flows, capital costs for the
remaining eight pump stations were estimated to be $18,000
each rather than $20,000.
8 A 4"-diameter PVC force main (rather than 6") was proposed
for transporting sewage from the final pump station to the
treatment plant.
E-l
-------
3. Downsized Facility Plan Alternative
0 Capital cost for the final pump station was estimated to be
$25,000; O&M costs were estimated to be $1,400 per year.
0 Average daily flow was projected to be 28,000 gpd and peak
day flow 69,500 gpd.
0 Average daily BOD load was projected to be 90 Ib/day and
peak day BOD 360 Ib/day.
0 The Lake Improvement District's estimated share of the
capital costs of the new City of Marion oxidation ditch
treatment plant was based upon the additional flow and BOD
load to be contributed by the District. Capital costs of
the major plant components were allocated to the LID based
upon the following percentages:
Ditch - 60% flow, 40% BOD
Rotors - 30% flow, 70% BOD
Piping - 100% flow
Sludge Disposal - 10% flow, 90% BOD
Headworks - 100% flow
Flow Measurement - 100% flow
0 The LID's share of operation and maintenance costs of the
City's plant were allocated according to the following
percentages:
Labor - 53% flow, 47% BOD
Repair & Maintenance - 53% flow, 47% BOD
Power - 10% flow, 90% BOD
4. Downsized Total Retention Lagoon
0 Because local soils would require expensive preconstruction
treatment to meet Kansas regulations, it was assumed that a
membrane liner would be required to prevent seepage from the
lagoon.
0 Dike earthwork and perimeter fencing were assumed to be
proportional to the square root of the required lagoon
surface area.
E-2
-------
0 Based upon discussions with local realtors, land costs were
assumed to be $750 per acre.
0 Operation and maintenance costs were assumed to be $9,600
for labor and $600 for parts and materials per year.
0 Capital cost for the final pump station was estimated to be
$20,000; O&M costs were estimated to be $800 per year.
5. No-Action Alternative
Future costs for this alternative were based on the premise
that septic tank system failures and holding tank installations would
continue at the same rates that have occurred since 1973, when the
Marion County Sanitary Code was put into effect. These rates are:
0 Septic tank failures will occur at the rate of one per year.
0 Failed septic tanks will be repaired at the rate of 0.28 per
year.
0 Failed septic tanks will be replaced with holding tanks at
the rate of 0.28 per year.
0 Other septic tanks will be replaced by holding tanks at the
rate of 0.71 per year.
0 Holding tanks will be installed on new lots at the rate of
1.28 per year.
0 All units presently using privies will be converted to
holding tanks at the rate of 0.45 per year.
0 Holding tanks will have 1250 gallon capacity, but will be
emptied when reaching the 1100 gallon level.
0 Each permanent household septic tank will be pumped out once
every four years.
0 Each seasonal household septic tank will be pumped out once
every five years.
0 Holding tank pumpout costs will increase from the present
$40 to $47, based upon a projected increase from $3 to $10
in the dump charge at the new City of Marion plant.
0 Based upon discussions with local contractors, capital costs
for new holding tanks were assumed to be $700.
E-3
-------
6. Limited On-Site Systems Alternative
The same assumptions used for the No-Action Alternative
apply to this alternative, with the following exceptions:
0 All presently-failing septic tanks will be replaced with
holding tanks
0 Because of increased inspection efforts, all septic tank
systems failing in the future will be detected and replaced
with holding tanks
0 1500 gallon tank truck operating times were assumed to be
60 minutes for pump-out, 30 minutes for dumping, and 10 minutes
for travel time to and from the treatment plant
0 4500 gallon tank truck operating times were assumed to be
60 minutes per pump-out, 15 minutes between pumpouts, 45 minutes
for dumping, and 10 minutes travel time to and from the
treatment plant
0 The 1500 gallon tank truck can pump out one holding tank or
septic tank per trip
0 The 4500 gallon tank truck can pump out four holding tanks
or septic tanks per trip
0 Truck O&M was assumed to be $0.30 per mile
0 Labor was assumed to cost $15.00 per hour
0 Based upon estimates provided by Moser and Associates,
dumping charges at the new plant will be $10 per thousand
gallons
7. Detailed Present Value Calculations
The tables which follow show the development of the present
value of each project alternative. They list the design elements and
cost factors from which capital and operating cost estimates were
derived, and detail the steps taken to convert these estimates to
present value.
E-4
-------
t-d
Ui
PROJECT ELEMENT
TREATMENT
A. Capital Costs
Salvage Values
TABLE E-l
PRESENT VALUE
ALTERNATIVE 1 - NO ACTION
COST FACTORS
B.
C.
Annual Operation & Maintenance Costs
Replace failing systems with
holding tanks
Replace failing systems with
septic tanks
Pumpouts
Septic tank leach field repair
Sub-total
Total present value sum
TOTAL PRESENT VALUE
EQUIVALENT ANNUAL VALUE
0
0
2.75 tanks/yr @ $700/tank
0.45 tanks/yr @ $l,100/tank
1870/yr @ $47/pumpout
0.28 failure/yr @ $200/repair
20 yrs at 7.125% discount
PRESENT VALUES*
0
(0)
1,900
500
87,900
100
90,400
948,500
948,500
90,400
Rounded to the nearest $100
-------
TABLE E-2
PRESENT VALUE
ALTERNATIVE 2 - FACILITY PLAN PROPOSED PROJECT
PROJECT ELEMENT COST FACTORS PRESENT VALUES1
COLLECTION
A. Capital Costs
Sewer system see Facility Plan, pg. 23 461,875
Engineering & adminstrative see Facility Plan, pg. 23 115,125
Service connections see Facility Plan, pg. 28 69,150
Total present value 646,200
B. Salvage Values _
Sewer system see R&G letter of 8/31/79,
pg. 18 (215,960)
Total present value discount at 7.125% over
f 20 yrs. (54,500)
o
C. Annual 0 & M Costs
Average annual 0 & M see R&G letter of 8/31/79,
pg. 19 5,000
Total present value sum 20 yrs. at 7.125% discount 52,500
D. Total Present Value of Collection Costs 644,200
E. Equivalent Annual Value of Collection Costs 61,400
_ Rounded to the nearest $100
Reiss and Goodness Engineers
-------
fd
PROJECT ELEMENT
TABLE E-2 (Continued)
COST FACTORS
TREATMENT
A. Capital Costs
Force main (transmission system)
Engineering & administrative
LID share of regional treatment plant
Total present value
B. Salvage Values
Force main
LID share of regional treatment plant
Sub-total
Total present value
see Facility Plan, pg. 21
see Facility Plan, pg. 21
see R&G letter of 8/31/79,
pg. 15
see R&G letter of 8/31/79,
P8- 15
see R&G letter of 8/31/79,
PS- 15
discount at 7.125% over
20 yrs.
C. Annual 0 & M Costs
Average annual 0 & M
Total present value sum
D. Total Present Value of Treatment Costs
E. Equivalent Annual Value of Treatment Costs
see R&G letter of 8/31/79,
Pg. 15
20 yrs. at 7.125% discount
PRESENT VALUES
61,800
15,400
106,100
(60,600)
(25,300)
(85,900)
4,700
183,000
(21,700)
49,300
210,900
20,100
TOTAL PRESENT VALUE
EQUIVALENT ANNUAL VALUE
855,100
81,500
-------
PROJECT ELEMENT
TABLE E-3
PRESENT VALUE
ALTERNATIVE 3 - DOWN-SIZED FACILITY PLAN
PROPOSED PROJECT
COST FACTORS
COLLECTION
A. Capital Costs
Sewer system
8" sanitary sewer pipe
8" ductile iron, class 50
12" concrete encasement
0'-6f trench & backfill
6'-8' trench & backfill
8'-10' trench & backfill
10'-12' trench & backfill
manholes, constructed
drop connections
simplex grinder pumps, complete
standby grinder pump with spare
cutter impeller
rock excavation
duplex grinder pump, complete
factory built pump station
IV PVC force main
4" PVC force main
4" x 8" service branch connection
2" air release valve
1" air release valve
asphalt removal & replacement
Sub-total, sewer system
PRESENT VALUES
12,525 l.f. @ $6/1.f.=75,200
300 l.f. @ $14/1.f.=4,200
950 l.f. @ $14/1.f.=13,300
11,145 l.f. @ $2/1.f.=22,300
1,045 l.f. @ $2.50/1.f.=2,600
485 l.f. @ $3.25/1.f.-1,600
150 l.f. @ $4/1.f.=600
271 l.f. @ $90/1.f.=24,400
4 each @ $350/each=l,400
8 each @ $3,000/each=24,000
3 each @ $l,000/each=3,000
1,100 c.y. @ $40/c.y.=44,400
2 each @ $5,000/each=10,000
8 each @ $!8,000/each=l44,000
6,355 l.f. @ $2.75/1.f.=17,500
6,390 l.f. @ $4.50/1.f.=28,800
223 each & $25/each=5,600
3 each @ $200/each=600
2 each @ $150/each=300
150 s.y. @ $15/s.y.=2,300
426,100
Rounded to the nearest $100
-------
vD
PROJECT ELEMENT
Engineering & administrative
Service connections
connections to user's plumbing
4" service line with trench and
backfill
Sub-total, service connections
Total present value
B. Salvage Values
Sewer system
8" sanitary sewer pipe
8" ductile iron pipe
IV PVC force main
4" PCV force main
Sub-total, sewer system
Total Present value
TABLE E-3 (Continued)
COST FACTORS
25% of sewer system cost
217 each @ $50/each=10,900
14,100 l.f. @ $4/1.f.-56,400
3/5 of cost = 45,100
3/5 of cost = 2,500
3/5 of cost = 10,500
3/5 of cost = 17,300
discount at 7.125% over
20 yrs.
C. Annual 0 & M Costs
Average annual 0 & M
Total present value sum
D. Total Present Value of Collection Costs
E. Equivalent Annual Value of Collection Costs
see R&G letter of 8/31/79,
pg. 19
20 yrs. at 7.125% discount
PRESENT VALUES
106,500
67,300
(75,400)
5,000
599,900
(19,000)
52,500
633,400
60,400
Reiss and Goodness Engineers
-------
t-d
H
O
PROJECT ELEMENT
TREATMENT
A. Capital Costs
Force main (transmission system)
4" PVC force main
2" air release valve
tie to inlet structure
factory built lift station
Sub-total, force main
Engineering & adminstrative
LID share of regional treament plant
Total present value
B. Salvage Values
Force main
4" PCV force main
2" air release valve
tie to inlet structure
Sub-total, force main
LID share of regional treatment plant
Sub-total
Total Present value
TABLE E-3 (Continued)
COST FACTORS
PRESENT VALUES
10,100 l.f. & $4.50/1.f.=45,500
1 each @ $200/each=200
1 l.s. @ $1,000/1.s.=1,000
1 l.s. @ $25,000/1.8.=25,000
25% of transmission system
cost
based on % contribution of
LID to wastewater flow and
BOD loading
3/5 of cost = 27,300
3/5 of cost = 120
3/5 of cost = 600
3/5 of LID share of cost
discount at 7.125% over
20 yrs
71,700
17,900
65,000
154,600
(28,020)
(7,000)
(35,000)
(8,800)
-------
TABLE E-3 (Continued)
PROJECT ELEMENT COST FACTORS PRESENT VALUES
C. Annual 0 & M Costs
Average annual 0 & M
lift station power based on operating 7.2 hrs/day
at 7.94.Kw hr = 150
lift station maintenance 3% of capital cost/yr = 750
force main maintenance 1% of capital cost/yr = 490
LID share of regional plant costs based on % contribution of
LID to w.w. flow & BOD
load = 2,930
Sub-total, average annual O&M 4,300
Total present value sum 20 yrs. at 7.125% discount 45,100
D. Total Present Value of Treatment Costs 190,900
E. Equivalent Annual Value of Treatment Costs 18,200
TOTAL PRESENT VALUE 824,300
EQUIVALENT ANNUAL VALUE 78,600
-------
TABLE ฃ-4
PtESIWT VALUE
ALTERNATIVE 4 - BOW-SIZED TOTAL
RETENTION LAGOON
PROJECT ELEMENT COST FACTORS PRESENT VALUES1
COLLECTION
A. Capital Costs
Sewer system same as Alternate 3 426,100
Engineering & adminstrative 25% of sewer system cost 106,500
Service connections same as Alternate 3 67,300
Total present value 599,900
B. Salvage Values
Sewer system same as Alternate 3 (75,400)
Total present value discount at 7.125% over
20 Yrs- (19,000)
C. Annual 0 & M Costs
Average annual 0 & M see R&G letter of 8.31.79,
pg. 19 5,000
Total present value sum 20 yrs. at 7.125% discount 52,500
D. Total Present Value of Collection Costs 633,400
E. Equivalent Annual Value of Collection Costs 60,400
1 Rounded to the nearest $100
2 Reiss & Goodness Engineers
-------
ft)
H
PROJECT ELEMENT
TREATMENT
A. Capital Costs
Lagoon
soil excavation
rock excavation
land
inlet wier
pond transfer
fence
force main
lift station
Sub-total, lagoon
Engineering & adminstrative
Total present value
B. Salvage Values
Land
Force main
Sub-total
Total present value
TABLE E-4 (Continued)
COST FACTORS
PRESENT VALUES
70,568 c.y. @ $1.10/c.y. =
77,600
70,654 c.y. @ $5/c.y.=353,300
20 acres @ $750/acre=15,000
1 each @ $l,500/each=l,500
3 each @ $l,700/each=5,100
3,732 l.f. @ $2.75/1.f.-10,300
2,434 l.f. @ $4.50/1.f.=11,000
1 each @ $20,000/each=20,000
25% of lagoon cost
appreciates 3% annually,
compounded over 20 yrs.
3/5 of cost
discount at 7.125% over
20 yrs.
493,800
123,500
(27,100)
(6,600)
(33,700)
617,300
(8,500)
-------
TABLE E-4 (Continued)
PROJECT ELEMENT COST FACTORS PRESENT VALUES
C. Annual 0 & M Costs
Average annual 0 & M
lift station maintenance 3% of capital cost/yr = 600
lift station repairs S&P estimate = 600
force main maintenance 1% of capital cost/yr =110
labor 1.75 hrs/day x 365 @ $15/hr =
9,581
Sub-total, O&M 11,000
Total present value sum 20 yrs at 7.125% discount 115,400
D. Total Present Value of Treatment Costs 724,200
E. Equivalent Annual Value of Treatment Costs 69,000
TOTAL PRESENT VALUE 1,357,600
EQUIVALENT ANNUAL VALUE 129,400
3 Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates, Inc.
-------
M
\Ji
PROJECT ELEMENT
TREATMENT
A. Capital Costs
Pumpout trucks
truck #1
replacement for truck #1
truck #2
replacement for truck #2
Sub-total, pumpout trucks
Replace holding tanks
Engineering & adminstrative
Total present value
B. Salvage Values
Pumpout truck #2
C. Annual 0 & M Costs
Dumping, repair, labor, gas
Insurance
Installation of holding tanks
TABLE E-5
PRESENT VALUE
ALTERNATIVE 5 - LIMITED PUBLIC
ON-SITE SYSTEMS
COST FACTORS
PRESENT VALUES
1980 price = 80,000;
see ref. 73
P.V. of 1990 price = 40,200;
ref. 73
P.V. of 1988 price = 46,100;
ref. 73
P.V. of 1998 price = 23,200;
ref. 73
5 tanks @ $700/tank
25% of capital cost P.V.'s
above
P.V. of 8/10 of 1998 cost
based on uniform cost
gradients; see ref. 74 634,000
P.V. over 20 yrs. of $500/yr/
truck 7,500
P.V. over 20 yrs of 3.45 tanks/
yr @ $700/tank 25,300
189,500
3,500
48,300
241,300
(16,200)
Rounded to the nearest $100
-------
PROJECT ELEMENT
C. Annual 0 & M Costs (Continued)
Installation of septic tanks
Total present value
TABLE E-5 (Continued)
COST FACTORS
PRESENT VALUES
P.V. over 20 yrs. of 0.45 tanks/
yr. @ $l,100/tank 5,100
671,900
TOTAL PRESENT VALUE
EQUIVALENT ANNUAL VALUE
897,000
85,500
8
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA 907/9-80-022
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Proposed Sewerag
Facilities, Marion County Lake Improvement District,
Marion County, Kansas
5. REPORT DATE
Date of Issue
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
EPA Region VII
Barbara Bowerman, Norman Crisp
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VII
324 E. 11th Street
Kansas City, Missouri 64106
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VII
324 E. llth Street
Kansas City, Missouri 64106
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
FTS-Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
The Final Environmental Impact Statement examined five alternatives for the improve-
ment of sewerage facilities in the Marion County Lake Improvement District, Marion
County, Kansas. The environmental, social, and economic impacts of each of these
alternatives were evaluated, along with appropriate mitigation measures. Based upon
extensive field investigations, EPA has determined that sufficient water quality
problems do not exist to merit funding under the Construction Grants program of the
Clean Water Act of 1977, and therefore, no further grant will be awarded for this
project.
7.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COS AT I Field/Group
8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release unlimited.
Copies are avilable from sponsoring agenc,
at no charge until supplies are depleted.
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
21. NO. OF PAGES
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
------- |