-------
F-2
Such pipes o: severs shall be four inches in dianer-jr or larger.
4.23 GP-ADE:
Severs dhall be laid at such a grade as to r.aintain a savage flow velocity of not l»ss
than two feet per second when flowing full. Severs four to six laches in diameter shall
have a grade of not less than 12 inches per 100 feet or cna inch per eight fesC of
sever pipe.
4.3 SEPTIC TAJ.-.K3
4.3.1 LOCATION
Septic tanks shall be located at least 50 feet frcr. any pctnblc water supply, well serin-
or unprotected water suction line, except in the case of schools, resorts, trailer oarks
restaurants, taverns or other dwellings or habitable buildings which serve the public
such distance shall be 75 feet, except where the Michigan Department of Health regula-
tions require a greater distance, or upon the written approval of Che health officer an
exception is granted. No septic tank shall be located closer than 5 feet to any foot-
ing or foundation vail. Mo saptic tank shall be placed within 10 feet of any lot lines
or within 25 £ejL~ o." the highest knovn water -ark cf any lake, creek, river, pond or
other body of ^-ater. No septic tank shall he located where it is inaccessible for clean-
ing or inspection, nor shall any structure be placed over any sep'ic tank rendering it
inaccessible for cleaning or inspection.
4.32 MATERIALS A.VD CONSTRUCTION
Septic tanks shall be of watertight construction and of a material not subject to decay
or ccrrision when installed. Concrete blacks or bricks at least eight inches in thick-
ness oiay be used in septic tank construction. Septic tanks shall be provided with one
or more suitable openings with watertight covers to permit cleaning and inspection.
Tnc cutlet freer, such tank shall be constructed so as to permit clow of liquid frocn the
tank end to prevent the escape of floating or settled solids. The inlet shall be de-
signed to perr.it gissas collected above the liquid level to pass through Che inlet and
out the vent pLp'J serving the sewers leading into tha septic tank. Cinder blocks shall
not be approved for septic tank construction.
4.33 CAPACITY
Every septic ta.-.k hereafter installed shall have a liquid capacity of at least Che aver-
age volc.re of savage flowing into it during any 24-hour period. However, in no case
shall the liquid capacity of any septic tank be less than 500 gallons. If a compart-
ment tank is installed, the first cocpartmsn; shall have not less Chan one-half nor
more tiian two-thirds Che total capacity.
The following capacity for septic tanks shall be required except in the opinion of the
health officer where increased capacities nay be required.
Tvo-bedrocn dialling 500 gallons (with garbage grinder 750)
Three-bed COOT. 750 gallons (with garbage grin-Jar 1000 gallon)
Four beiiruoc. dwelling 1000 gallons (with garbage grinder 1250 gallon)
-------
F-2
4.4 DOSI.VC TANK
The health cffi:«r -ay require that dosing tanks be provided with autcnatic slp!ions
or purps of a type approved by tha Michigan Dcparcr-.cn: of Health be used on instal-
lations '-'here tha liquid capacity of the septic tank is 2,COO gallons or more,
4.51 LOCATION
Sub-surface disposal systems shall be located at least 50 feet fron any potable water
supply, well casing, spring structure, or unprotected vaCer suction, lines, except
where tha Michigan D-spartr.enc o: Health requires a greater distance. Such drain
fields shall be located at least 10 feet fron a lot line, and 25 feet from anv lake,
pond, creek, or other surface vater flooding, or its highest knovn level and at lease
10 feet froa any habitable building or dwelling.
4.52 SEPTIC TANK EFFLUENT
Under no condition may the overflow from any septic tank or any other sewage wastes
from any existing or hereinafter constructed premise be discharged upon the surface
of the ground vithin two hundred (2QOJ jyards of any habitable building other than
the building fron which it originates. No sewage shall be discharged into any road-
side ditch.
4.53 SIZE AND QUALITY OF DRAIM LINES
4.53 SIZE
Sub-surface disposal system lines shall have a diameter of not Jess than four inches.
4.53.2 QUALITY
Sub-surface disposal systen lines shall bs constructed from extra quality drain tile,
or such other materials as approved by Che Michigan Department of Health and the health
officer.
4.54 DEPTH AND POSITION OF TILE OR OTHER APPROVED DEVICE FOR DISTRIBUTION LINES
4.541 DEPTH, SLOPE, AND LENGTH OF LIMES
The top of the sub-surface distribution lines shall be not less than 12 inches nor
more than 30 inches below the finished grade.
Slope of the distribution lines shall be not core than 4 inches per 100 feet.
Length o£ any one lateral line shall not exceed 100 feet,
4.542 HEADERS
Watertight headers, or a distribution box or other method or device approved by the
ho a lilt officer shall bo set true and level so as to afford an even distribution of all
septic tank cffluctvt throughout the sub-surface dlspo.sal nrcn.
4.55 FILTER MATERIAL
Sub-surface disposal system lines for distributing septic tank effluent for direct
soil absorption shall be laid over at least six ir.chas of washed stone froa one-half
to one inch in sice, or an equivalent aggregate approved by the health officer.
-------
F-2
4.5o l.-'.^.s;.:-: CONSTK'JCTIO:;
Treache^ shall be not less than IS Inches wide at the bottom. The sane washed stone
or such ocu.<:r sp.gresnte as say be necessary Co prevan: the filtering of backfill
r.itcric.l around c!>c lateral distribution li-.es shall be spread over t'.io distribu-
tion lir.-j co a depth of at lease two ir.ch.es.
4.57 sllLD AF.ZA
Sub-surface disposal field area shall comply vich Chs following minimr. trench or
stone bed areis, depending upon the average daily volume of septic tank effluent
and the type soil in the drain area,
Minimum absorption area
Perc. test time per single family rssi-
for one inch dro? dance 3 bedrooms or less
SOIL
Coarse sand or gravel Less than 5 nin. 300 sq. face
Sand 5-10 min. 450 sq. feet
Loan 11 - 20 tnirs. 600 sq. feet
Sandy clay or clay loan 21 - 30 nin. 750 sq. feet
Clay 31 - 45 ain. 900 sq. feet
Heavy Clay ovar 45 tr.in. DOC suitable
Minimus filter bad (Area: 400 sq.fc.)
In hea'/y soils (clay) where the drop in vater level is over 45 minutes per inch by
standard percolation test or where ground vater or an impervious hard pan is found
less than 4 feet from the ground surface, an alternate drainage device may be ap-
proved at the discretion of the health officer or the pa.r-.it denied. Drainage fo .
syste.tr.3 to serve other than single family residences of 3 bedrooms or less shall be
prescribed by the health officer.
Sub-surface disposal systeos shall contain a: least or.e (1) lineal foot of tile for
every three (3) feec of trench width. Trench a::cavacior.3 exceeding 36 inches in
width at the bottom shall be considered tile bads ar.d shall require 5QX moce trench
bottOQ absorption area than required for single line trench.
Article V. PERMIT
On ar.d after January 1, 1964, no person shall begin construction of any sevage dis-
posal facility as defined in these minimum standards ur.cil such person cc his duly
authorized representative has cads written application "2 the health officer and
has received a duly signed construction perr.i: fror. the health officer, provided,
however, no such application or constructior. parrr.it shall be required in those cases
where a permit from the State Department of Health is a statutory prerequisite and
has been obtained. Such construction permit shall be issued only whan plans ar.d
specifications for tne proposed installation of the average system are not less
than the requirements set forth in these ai.iir.u.i standards.
Said pen-lit shall be ir. duplicate and shall cor.tair. a sketch showing nil partiuent
pisns and specificatior.3 of chs prcposed sewerage disposal installation. Said per-
siit shall be sig-.od by the applicant and the health officer. One copy of the pcr-
r.lt shall be given to the applicant to be posted at the. construction site. One copy
o: the application permit shall be retained by the health officer end remain on file
in die health department.
-------
F-2
The health officer shall oaV.c such inspection at the construction sice as he deer.s
necessary. Failure Co construct according Co the approved plans and specifications
shall be deemed a violation of these -,ir,t-u.-n standards for vhich the person in-
stalling the syster: shall be held liable.
Article III. PRIVATE WATER SUPPLIES
3.1 Private water supplies hereafter installed shall cor.ply vith th-z following:
3.11 LOCATION
All veil casing, spring structures, water suction lines, or othar drinking water or
potable water structure shall be located 50 fecc or trore fron all sources of pos-
sible contamination such as sccpaga pits, cesspools, privies, barnyards, septic
tanks, sub-surface disposal systems, surface water drains, vasts water or other
sources of possible contaaination. Buried or ur.exposed severs or pipes through
vhich sewage may back up shall noc be located closer than can (10) feet fro,-a any
potable vater well casing or suction pipe. Whan such severs or pipes are locatad
within the tan to fifty (10 to 50 foot area),the sever pipes shall be constructed
of extra heavy cas: iron with leaded and caulked joints tested for water tight-
ness. All wells shall be located so that possibilities of flooding are reduced
to a minimus. The area itreaediately adjacent to the vail shall be such that the
surface water is diverted away from the veil casing.
3.13 KINIHUH DEPTH
No vslls lass than 25' in depth shall hsreafter be installed or constructed with-
out written approval of the health officer.
-------
APPENDIX
F-3
CRevised, 1972)
SANITARY CODE OF
MINIMUM STANDARDS
Regulating
Sewage Disposal - Wafer Supplies
and
Sanitation of Habitable Buildings
GRAND TI7AVEnSE - LEELANAU - BENZiE
DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT
1Q7A7 TRAVERSE HIGHWAY TRAVERSE CITY, MICHIGAN
8ENZIE MEDICAL CAflE FACILITY FRANKFORT, .MICHIGAN
-------
F-3
m
, r;_
— Cj
3 i
-«
C o
/•* —
_£ 2
ff
-r _5
o ~
c", ^
vE3
CJ C
> —
*3 ^j
£ ^
? _2
Cj '--f
o >
CJ
-j
>>
J
£•3
,— -j
z ^2
3 ^
~ 2
U >-*
•^ ,-
& =
« .£
s^
2. -1
w ^
— H
>7!
o 5
^ -^
= 3
— u
— o
2 —
P *-•
f O
r"i
-.hnient. industry, or semi-public establishment
ial computation by the Health Ofliccr to deter-
to be installed.
'—
.Q
«
41
*3
"?
i)
§
ij
<;
Cd
O .j
a-i
vi* .2
SJ .
'5 S>'3
2 2
rit
IS^
o 2'§.
iv* ""^ •«
C) >1 SJ
^•=5
«T3 «)
•5SS
5P
a; a. «
o o'^ «
:iil
l-Js
£«§!
o-S'Sq
2S2^
3 O
S-a^§
P i- ^.«vT
w **T
^ OT
Sl2S"
.^5K =
?.fo-
_ '" -- S
flit
~|S2
O ^ G,-—
Plra^
SPOSAL SYSTEM
5
u
o
<
S
P
«
C3
D
M
^^
in
V
*?
^•'
u
o
w
M
.X
H
u
W
b
£.
Location- same as
<
I*
"Z —
"1
« 2
•c £
C X
•~* C5
« £
Is
So
*g
« 2
j^ ^2
^4
SI
rj
J
<;
D
a
Q
2
<
K
N
OT
c^
m
-T«
C 0 _£
— > ii
3 =
g
. .
| Jlls 5S
* =5-^^= S 3
M ipil HI -
I 1 i IK5 all
S g < 2-Sof =s^s
w w ... "" "~
3 s
« a=
S II = i°S3 E > 2 ^-§5 3
^ -r- c -2-J--S w a p a2=a a
rP — •" -^ rT f1 O !T" —* f
•*^.— ^^w^"i *«-(i—i asiJ3^
fc, . .
M -3!
c.
§3
S u
i- ^
~i~s
~ =.
-2 »
~ ~*
£ ^'
_ •—
= S
5 i
- r
i f
*.""•. "-
£"
2J
*• so
fl-C
.S3
C ""
.5 ®
3
Sa
-1
«"• •T^
1«
S
«3
•So
4J
O ^
u--«
"3 ^
w
CJ •i-
ij —
w "~*
C3 O
,/j ^
— — "
3 ~< —
— j -
"- >j "^
1-ii
c 9 "*
C i," 5
§"1 -
- >. J
>
5
o
•«5
0
'**
u-5
C
J:
^.
o
VI
£J
-—
CJ
^J
_3
U
J2
=
v]
_^
=•5
" :
o —
2 ^
ci
C
*A
_o
>,
c
d
C
1
O
c
a
i.
C!
-1
_a
"o
•o
C3
"•J
^;
— '
-;
"
j^
5
?•
2
MJi
C C
— a
3 —
u u
« E
u S
0 "=
*" >1
u c
OT ir
•J3 ^ .
9 5 c
g 2
« ™ T1.
S S «J
^if
- 2 u
a- o
— 0 ,„
V '— ~
*il
-^ C ^J
*!"£ u
ts3
C; '- ^
"* ^ ~
-" £j
— - CJ
-fl o ^
^ = 2
3 c ti
= "? 3?
3.=-::
/• _ ~
23-
k require-
o
.-3
^
W
lore reslricti
ions.
™ o
,fJ
£ =?
UI ^
ZJ ^
£ — *
— ^J
,""" o
"I
c J
M '
J -
r C
2
O
g
D
£T
Cfi
2
0
CJ
C
2
-~
cn
<
«
*~,
"
^•i-: •— -•Ort'^y'*1""' """^iv'^^"'3
15J}*32 = ?:*o; *|I«lJ^
C^j*^-'-«C-^O-'!^' —^ >». — > !3J
"^tCJ »«.I1—lC."r-Ji-""- "t^TCJ"'*'*^^
^m*mn
^iKmii ;;s?ti;
S?:^I3 3 =--^^u =Era:33-S
1^325-31:3^2 -^o|E||
a i .j^^:;-,1^ a-= - a ,, 3-^"~~5'1.
§ 22i22cS£^-l S2i" = ':S
2 ^aP.rao-3;^"-^^ Sc —-^ i 3 "2
f-1 o-r'^-S--— ~d— J"1 — ~n 3 S .- ~" o
-: = =... ^ ^ - ~ ¥-*•-• •= =• _j - -7 2r^
-= i 3 = s 5^
" -2 = s ° =• 3
o c
"^ «
« ?,
a?25S.5 3^
o
S3
? -- ? :1 - O ^ ^|
_ _ _«^'3i^2
2= ^ .__^ _ ^ .. . -,--
" - -• - - "I ' ' • ~ 2
^ <
r -w ~ « i) o
• ' => - ~ -2 >
-------
F-3
'•-•-•' -~ z ° ~ - ~ 5. 5 = ~ :£. "S=~ .5 ^ = § 5 ~ 5 25- S «i ji.5 5
^ — ^* ~* —^ ** ^1 — ii " ~" — ~ X "" •—* -i"—>-*"^*^JI^ *" *T ^ ^ 1-" ••" **
' "* — -- " - j " — 2- " _-j'-"-^~ ™ •-* ^ _, ^™ •" i "~ ~ £T "^ •* "i* ^* '•• O
~— ^ " """* —- —^ ;• "" ."I C , _ 3 ^ ™ ™ i" ^, — ~ .^ ^_ *"* ~" ~" *~ "*** ~*
i r --" = ~»~~ f = ~? -^ " "i." .4 - 5 = - 5 T- J- :•<""" 5 =
---^-.ri^s £ S §: - r-i 7, i •= -= S --"-•---
^ -? = -.- 2 ; ^ .5 §. ^ - ~ ^ •= ~ o -3 ^ - r - S .1 -• ^
~r<=---- ^ S o £! _2 - = s o o >, - ± - .- 5 -J
s-^l:i; !E!^;;c3 |:!J Cis!l§
5 |
- ^
\j
w ^
s o
» j]
.-i -^
— ' *-.
^ o
•— c
r r ""
""* -I ~
•— "" 5
^ > -5
**" ^
•£ = -f
_ « -^
* 2 -
C 3 0
J 5"5
*t^ -, —
"51-
-2 " -
B. SI
c
.i x c
UJ J7 C
i; ~^ zj
c "" c
•— _j O
— ~ 5
-^ > *-
yi ^ "^
'"=. * -
V
'/T * "•
ij — C
M
« -". "-J
< ^" 3 —
" — - ~*
r- "T r w
"^ CS
'i-5
X — i
^ 5
.— VI
=3 'S
"T"
£
-3
ij
^i
a
55
o
E
2 ?
r1 S
^j »
w ***
?•* -1
r w
2: c
u
5
iJ
•/;
«*
3
. c
S '—'
CJ
VI !**J
c n
w
'.T
ii j2
— ^J
—
-J
" —
• " ^
"* (-1
ing inininitin
ly volume o
3 "s
"3 ;; ^
•fi s: j;
t> ~ a
r~ ~
* ij -
>.S
Mt ~ •'
"1 5-5
^ O
-^ -~
C. -
s ^ —
o "* ~
—• £ 'J]
s —
•S 2 £
_ 0 >i
3 a-
*• -X ^
<5 -^ J5
;; r -
**• '— ™
— a
irea |>er
eiu:e
1 lu(rin/lehB
•* iv-
III
£• >•>
o ^S 5
•** C |^H
« c: ^
H - **5
5 *j
llj
«2 S
i«
3
CM
s\
V fc.
CM 5 £.
'*- 5
a - *"
w i "
•—i
C
VI
O
O
r-
^
^
S
c;
o
c-.
C^
ST
c;
in
c^
•C
C"
K
C5
3
j»
^
«M
cr
V)
CD
U3
«_
c-
•^
o
o
d
i/1
o
^ft
c—
2J
o
M
«
0
c
C-4_
C
tT
a
c"!
— *
11-4
C
.1
O
w*
JJ
—
r?
^M
«
O
ITD
O9
S"
o
o
Ci-
•4-4
cr
VI
C3
^^
O
c
s
&
1
not suitable
_4)
"a
5
«-»
O
c
—
_^1
.•5
01
O
fi
C
"„
c
5
•3
_JJ
?
•c
O
J3
X
I
£
CJ
VI
X
«3
in
2
vT
•U
CJ
VI
j; :^"
V" •!
i ^
j §5
< = -
•-* ^ ij
a
c.
c
I
tfa
•
O
•ft
S3
>
^j
GJ
a
=:
c
g-5
O **
U
T3 «
O
CJ ^
— ,-a
o
it p
S o
— C.
^ —
1
CJ
cncoun
u
E»
C
w>
'o
tfi
-S
•O
A
yi
c
^3
u
O
"5
O
JL.
O
23
*s>
s
a
x:
«>«
03
n
_U
4^
S
tJ
ounteix-
u
c
v
•n
C
n
w-
u.
a
A
!l
X3
?«
vi i
C ^
F ?,
c
"5
•o
—
HM vi
-C *O
tc n
4— .?".
> ^~*
01
u
G-
a
b
c
"H
"a
S
2
«
w
a
aj f^T
*i C^
IS
o- -
_u •£.
'. ^
15
c. .
^
— •• 1j
— *r*
-1=
C-C
C=i= < y-'s ." r i o u- - - - in £-= - = o~S="^
- i=5 S i== " " " -1 g =S -2^ £ ti 5- ^~
= r- £ < .?-= . .. 5-2 3S rf -£2 ~- =r
1 '=: $1 * §u ^^ ^^
rl -^ t-3 £ -if- 2^ 3-
r s ~ -"= - £ £ - a _ r K
."-_.= ± > >• ~r^£=I;3:=^5>S
0 i<" — Jl OS •«•' < .1 —' c-j tr: -r „-
-------
F-3
^•W^j - ~ !> ~* ^ ,- — —* ^ Z*.
r* -^ -^- ** £•• —- -* —• O
•§? .isKS^uaS'fS
o -,• ~-= •'"So „ . -
^•^ Ji "S 5 ~ "y S J: J:
£ .2: = =-w02
>= i'- ^ -.-^b -*.= 3? f? -S.-2S
c
V
L*
0!
91
•«
u
a
•O
es
«>*
09
3
'e
S
a
vi
o
—
01
(8
T3
C
2
U
a
^.
^
o
a
*j;
.3.
"s
3
d
a
u
3
2
c
5
41
"5
jr
5
§
a
X
C
Z
^"
V
-
1 fZ
X
i
•o
4J
c
5
•J3
^
«
«
c;
V
^7
iJ
5
u
a
o
• 'J
r constm
o
i
2*
- ~
3^
1EL
5
x
*M
3
•j
O
_-
™
.3
^
3
>i >i
-a =
11
n
O _j
«J C3
>5
^
•a c
u 2
as
TS w
a
k,
0
s
'S
'-
c
o
u
f»n
a
a
a
u
Q
5
^j
•* u i
C 0 C
«J£ 3
§ 3 >,
?«i
Sis
:I-H
St-B
J2 0 S
Sy-3
3.- o
•3.3 S
0^-2
§2^
~~"3
5! S! i;
^S
g>,a
rrangement
ed directly
voir. stock
« u
0
i_ C
1J c
— o
o'J
VI
Sfi
e- -y
4!
ii
u
tU
C
£
H5
c «_.-
ajg
o
•^ ;•,
^ s-
E3
H
^?
§
ay contain
S
i*
0
«1
c
o
(J
u
"!-•
*2
ij
'>
-------
APPENDIX
G
BIOTA
G-l Animal and Plant Species of the Study Area
G-2 Endangered, Threatened or Rare Animal and
Plant Species of the Study Area
-------
ANIMAL AND PLANT SPECIES OF THE STUDY AREA
APPENDIX
G-l
Fish
Game Fish
Betsie
River
Crystal
Lake
Long
Lake
Brown trout
Rainbow trout
Brook trout
Smnllmouth bass
Rock bass
Pumpkinseed
Bluegill
Yellow perch
Northern pike
Whitefish
Cisco
Smelt
Lake trout
Largemouth bass
Walleye pike
Salmo trutta x
Salmo galrdneri x
Salvelinus fontinalis x
Micrppterus dolomieui x
Ambloplites cupestris x
Lepomis gibbosus x
Lepomis microc'nirus x
Perca flavescans x
Esox lucius x
Coregonus clupeaformis
Coregonus artedii
Hypomesus olidus
Salvelinus namaycush
Micropterus salmoides
Stizostedion vitreum
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Forage Fish
Common shiner
Common blacksider darter
Emerald shiner
Johnny darter
Logperch
Central mudminnow
Creek chub
Blacknose dace
Mottled sculpin
Bluntnose minnow
Longnose dace
Hornyhead chub
Trout-perch
Stoneroller
American brook lamprey
Golden shiner
Northern redfin shiner
Iowa darter
Spot-tail shiner
Notropis cornutua x
Percina macviata x
Notropis atherinoides x
Etheostoma nigrum x
Percina caproldes x
Umbra liini x
Semotilus atromaculatus x
Rhinichthys atratulus x
Cottus bairdi x
Pimephales notatus x
Rhinicthys cataractae x
Noicomis biguttatus x
Percopsis omiscomaycus x
Campostoiaa anomalus x
Lampetra lamottei x
Notemigonus crysolevcas x
Notropis umbratilis x
Etheostoma exile
Notropis spilopterus
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
Coarse Fish
White sucker
Yellow bullhead
Balck bullhead
Brown bullhead
Redhorse
Catastomus commersoni x
Ictalurus natalis x
Ictalurus melas x
Ictalurus nebulosus x
Moxostoma s*?. x
x
-------
G-l
Other Fish
Betsie Crystal Long
River Lake Lake
Burbot
Chestnut lamprey
Silver lamprey
Bowfin
Lota lota
Icthyoj-yzon castaneus
Icthyomyzon unicuspis
Amia calva
x
X
Aquatic Vegetation
Common Name
Pondweed
Duckweed
Bladderwort
Spike rush
Bur reed
Waterweed
Watercress.
Stonewort
Muskgrass
Bulrush
Rush
Algae
Scientific Name
Potamogeton so.
Leana sp_.
Utricularia sp_.
Eleocharis sp.
Sparganiuu sp.
Anacharis s_p_.
Nasturtium sp.
Chara s_p_.
Char a s_£.
Scirpus sp.
Juncus sp.
Betsie
River
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
Crystal
Lake
Long
Lake
X
X
X
X
-------
Mammals
G-l
Common Name
1. Northern wacer shrew
2. Pygmy shrew
3. Opossum
4. tasked shrew
5. Shorttail shrew
6. Starnose mole
7. Eastern mole
8. Keen myotis
9. Little brown nyotis
10. Silver-haried bat
11. Red bat
12. Big brown bat
13. Hoary bat
14. Black bear
15. Raccoon
16. Least weasel
17. Shorttail weasel
18. Longtail weasel
19. Mink
20. River otter
21. Badger
22. Striped skunk
23. Coytoe
24. Red fox
25. Gray fox
26. Bobcat
27. Woodchuck
28. Thirteen-lined ground squirrel
29. Eastern chipmunk
30. Eastern gray squirrel
31. Eastern fox squirrel
32, Red squirrel
33. Southern flying squirrel
34. Northern flying squirrel
35. Beaver
3-6. White-footed mouse
37. Deer mouse
38. Southern bog lemming
39. Borsal redback vole
40. Meadow vole
41. Pine vole
42. Muskrat
43. Meadow jumping mouse
44. Woodland jumping mouse
45. Porcupine
46. Snowshoe hare
47. Eastern cottontail
Scientific Name
Sorex palustris*
Microsorex hoyi*
Didelphis marsupialis*
Sorex cinereus
Blarina brevicauda
Condylura cristata
Scalopus aquaticus
Myotis keeni
Myotis lucifugus
Lasionycteris noctivagans
Lasirurus borealis
Eptesicus fuscus
Lasiuru? cinereus
Ursus atnericanus
Procyon lotor
Mustela rixosa
Mustela erminea
Mustela frenata
Mustela vison
Lutra canadensis
Taxidea ta:ois
Mephitis mephitis
Canis latrans
Vulpes fulva
Urocyon cinereoargenteus
Lynx rufus
Marmota monax
Citellus tridecemlineatus
Tamias striatus
Sciurus carolinensis
Sciurus niger
Tamiasciurus hudsonicus
Glavcomys volans
Glaucomys sabrinus*
Castor canadensis
Peromyscus leucopus
Peromyscus maniculatus
Synaptomys cooperi
Clethrionomys gapperi
Microtus pennsylvanicus
Pitymys pinetorum
Ondatra zibethica
Zapus hudsonius
Napaeozapus insignis*
Erethizon dorsaturn*
Lepus americanus
Sylvilagus floridanus
-------
Reptiles
G-l
Common Name
1. Common snapping curtie
2. Wood turtle
3. Five-lintd snake
4. Northern red-bellied snake
5. Northern brown snake
6. Midland brown snake
7. Northern water snake
8. Eastern garter snake
9. Eastern ribbon snake
10. Eastern hognose snake
11. Northern ringneck snake
12. Eastern smooth green snake
13. Eastern milk snake
14. Eastern massasaugas
Scientific Name
Che1ydra serpentina
Clemmys insculpta
Eumeces fasciatus
Storeria occipitomaculata occipitomaculata
Storeria dekay dekay
Storeria dalcay wrightorum
Natrix sipedon sipedon
Thamnoptiis sirtalis sirtails
Thamnophls sauritus sauritus
Heterodon platyrhinos
Diadophis punctatus edwardsi
Qpheodrys vernalis vernalis
Lampropeltig doliata triangulum
Sistrurus catenatus catenatus
Amphibians
Common Name
15. Mudpuppy
16. Central Newt
17. Blue-spotted salamander
18. Jefferson salamander
19. Spotted salamander
20. Red-backed salamander
21. Four-toed salamander
22. Northern spring peeper
23. Eastern gray treefrog
24. Blanchard's cricket frog
25. Green frog
26. Wood frog
27. Bullfrog
Scientific Name
Necturus maculosus
Diemictylus viridescens louisianensis
Ambystonia laterale
Ambystoma jeffersonianum
Ambystoma maculaturn
Plethodon cinereus cinereus
Hemidachylium scutaturn
Hyla crucifer crucifer
Hyla versicolor versicolor
Acris crepitaws blanchardi
Rana clamitans melanota
Rana sylvatica
Rana catesbeiana
-------
G-l
CfcEEKLIST CF RESIDENT SIFiDS CF EE:JZIE CGLTiTY, MICHIGAN C NORTHWESTERN
LGI^EH FETJIMSLILA MICKEIAN) DURING HEIGHT GF SREEDL1G! SE-SGN C MID JLT:E"
TO END GF FIRST LIEEK CF JULY) 'JITH SL'^EH NE3TIKS RECORDS AMD SPECIES
Jjy William and Edith Gvarlsasa , Bialscy Department,
'Jsst Cheater Stats Ccilags, iicst C^astar, Pa.
19330 , revised. July 1573
Breeding records r neat **, young traveling with adults *
Abundance records t A - abundant. , F — frsquast, C. - commcn thnugn oftsn
prasenttlrt small, rrur.bsrs., C - occasianal, R — rare
Cctnncn La en Q
**
#*•
**
**
»*
**
.**
Grast Elu= Harcn Q
Grasn Haran C
I pac:-*- ff ?•«•-«.- T-~ n
'LjC «2U _ -_ U. V O — * W
Amsrican Eittarr. G
Muts Sciisr: C
Canada Gccss Q
r'allard F
31s ck Duck 0
Eiu2*^-!Z.nr^sc! """^ai 0
'Jcad Duck C
Hccdad "•'.aruonssr R
C^^r^'^r^'r ^^ ^ *^^« ^ •^i^ 'H*^^ fT
uUiiiiCn I >3i -wCM33— LL
Turks y l/ult'jrs C
dashauk 0
Sharp-shinned Hsuk 0
Cooper's Hawk 0
Red-tailed Hauk 0
Rad-shoulderad Hauk Q
Hroad— uirrcsd HsLik C
Said Esc;le Q
Marsh Hauk 0
C spray R
American Ksstrel R
Ruffsd Grausa F
King Rail R
Vir^irria Rail. S
Srr2 C
Ccrr-crr Gallimjla 0
American Cent G
**
»*
**
Airsrican Uccdcock C
CcrrrTicin Snips R
Upland Flavar Q
Shotted Sand~in=r C
Herring Gull F
R inn—hilled Gull A.
Caspian. Tarn Q
** =l»ck Terr G
** ''curninq 3cva C
Yallct-'—rillad Cuckcc 0"
»* alack—rilled Cuckca G
*»
Ccmrrcn
Chinney
u t ii •_ = ui
*»
**
»*
»*
Eelted Birrgf ishsr F
Cc--cn Flicker F
Pileated :Jcad~scker C
Rsd—hsadsd L'acdpecksr 0
Ysllcu-calliad Sapsucker C
Hairy Llcodpeckar F
Dcurry Uccdrecker F
Eastern Kingbird F
Western Kingbird R
Great Crested Flycatcher F
Eastern- F.-raede C*
Yellou—ialliad Flycatcher R
TraillTs Flycatcnar C
Leas
**
**
**
f^7 * -.a— - - -J-- -T i/r- hrh
v.J.^u. ^j — — — • — y Li — U L.' i
Her red Lark C
Tree Suallr'j F
Sank ~L.'2llcu' A
Rouch— 'jir~g = d 5^:3 lieu
Earn cuzllrv: F
i-T-fr-a- r. — 7T-. , n
Purpla f-'.artin F
-------
G-l
*»ElLi= Jay F
*»Ccr-n-crr Crcu F
**El=ck-capp=d Cr.ickafaa F
*Tuftad Tit^cuss R
•iilrritH-tiraastad "*_:tr73~n; C-
*Red— farsastad 'Vutrratcn C
*Ercun Craapar d
**Hous3' L'ran- C
*'J inter lilren C
**Ldng-trill=d Marsh QJrsn 0
Shcrt-faillsd Marsh LJran d.
*»Kcckincbird Q
**Catt±zd F
**3rcurr Trr^sher F
-«An=rfc3rr Rcrirr A
*«'JcGd, Thrush F
»*Hernit Thrusir C
*«Su2irEcr:rs Thrusr. R
**V=sry F
^*r-*si g ^TaT^rr ^^' *o^r^ -r»vJ Q
M^r* ^ n s n«— r^1 "~>^t>irfp H X-i rj/^Tc*-" Q
Lcgcerhaad ahrika R
* .Starling F
•YsIIcu-tJtacatad \7irso 0
Solitary I'iras R
rhiladalpnia Vir=3 .1
Lsrzlir.g 'Jirsa F
**61sck srrd Uhita !_!ar::l=r F
* Goldan-uingsd L'artisr Q
** "laahvilla Cartiar C.
r:art^rrr Ferula R
** Yellou Llarcilsr F
Magnolia Uarhlsr 0
clack-thrcatad Slus LJarbls
Yellauj-rLm-ad 'Jarbisr G
*» Slack-t^rcatHd '2r==n Llarbl
* Elackhurnian LJaralsr C
C
r F
* Fine (Jarhlar F
** Frairi= L'aral=r C
*» Gvenirird A
WortrTarrr ^a-tartrrrualT C
Lauisiarra LJctarzirrusn R
** '-'r^rrrirc 'J=rni=r C
** Yalir-jtrrrrat F
»*Carrada 'Jarblsr C
»*A-cricarr Recctart ^
»*Hcus2 3p array F
»Scbclir.k C
*»EastHrn Maadculark F
Uastern f.sadcr^lark 0
**Rsd-jjinj2d Blackbird A
**SaltiTTicrs Cricls (rvicrtinarrr Griale) F
**5rswerfs Elsckaird; R
**Ccnman Grackla A
**3rcuin—r.sadad Caubi-d F
*=C2rl2t Tanagar F
**Cardinal C
**R2sa-brsastHd Grcsbssk F
**Irrdiga cunt ing F
Oickcissal 0
*?L3pl2 Finch C
Pins Siskin R
**Arnerican Ckildfincfr F
*»Rad Crossbill R
*Rufcus—=icad Tauinsa C
Grassnsppsr 5c=rrcLj u
Hsnsl3urs Zpsrrcu Q
**l/espsr Sparrcu F
Dark-eysd CLir.ca R
•••r-v.- ^— ? — C -,-,—.. rt
- ' ~
**Jf7it2—throated Sparrow F
Suann Sparrcu F
'»Clay—cclarad. Sparrcui Q ——
Tha- authors ara gratsfu-1 ta tha
fallcuing ccntriiutors cf resting
racards fcr tha ccunty:. Carl Fraa~=~
Harold Gall, Carries Launa-n, Alan
Marfcrla, Dcrralc McEaatr:, Lyla Fr=rt
Sargej Fnst'jpslsky, Arvid Tssakar-,
Heith L'sstphal
Totals - 153 spacias ,
Srasdinn rec-rds fcr 111 spacias
-------
APPENDIX
G-2
ENDANGERED, THREATENED OR RARE ANIMAL AND PLANT
SPECIES OF THE STUDY AREA
Common Na
Manmals
Scientific Mane
Southern Bog Lensuag Synaptomys cooperi
Pine Vola
Water shrew
Microtug pinetorum
Sores salustris
Thompson's pigmy shrew Microsorex thonpsoni
Hoary bat
Badger
Gray Fow
Lasiurus. cineraus
Taigdea ta^cus
Urocyon cinereo-araencus
Status
Threat a -id
Threatened
Rare
Rare
Rare
Rare
Peripheral
Birds
Peregrine falcon
Red-shouldered hawk.
Bald eagle
Marsh hawk
Osprey
Piping plover
Loggerhead shrike
American Bittern
Barred owl
Falco ?eregrlau3 tundrius
5u t au linestus
Heliacetus leuiophalus
Circus cyaneus
Panion haliaetus
Qharadrias melidus
Laaius ludoviciatrus
Botaurus lentigiaosus
Strix varia
Endangered*
Threatened
Threatened*
Threatened
Threatened
Threatened
Threatened
Rare
Rare
Fish - None
Reptiles - None
Amphibians - None
Lants
Calypso or Fair Slipper Calypso oulbcsa
Ram's Head lady slipper Cypripeduura arietinun:
Northern wheat-grass
Pitcher's thistle
Sroos rape
Agropyron dasystacnyun
Cirsiusi potcheri
Orobanchi facicubata
Threatened
Rare/threataned-
Threatened
Treatened*
Threatened
*Species is also on the Federal list
Sources: Letter from Marvin E. Cooley, Michigan DNR, Wildlife Division,
Jan. 25, 1979.
Letter from Robert Huff, DNR, July 5,
By telephone Sylvia Taylor, DNR, June
By telephone, Mr. Bernard R. Ylkanen,
Cadillac District, July 1978.
1978.
10, 1978.
DNR, Fisheries Biologist,
-------
APPENDIX
H
POPULATION PROJECTION METHODOLOGY
-------
APPENDIX
H
POPULATION PROJECTION METHODOLOGY
WAPORA, Inc., produced independent estimates of population in the
Proposed Service Area for the year 1975 and independent projections of
population for the Proposed Service Area for the year 2000. Estimated
1975 total summer population was 8,518, of whom 4,420 were permanent
residents and 4,098 were seasonal residents. Projected year 2000 total
summer population in the Proposed Service Area is 12,490 of whom 5,748
would be permanent and 6,742 would be seasonal. This appendix describes
data sources and methodologies used by WAPORA in making its estimates and
projections and compares WAPORA's year 2000 population projections with
those contained in the Facility Plan.
Principal sources of population estimation and projection data used
by WAPORA varied considerably in terms of the type of population included
(permanent, seasonal and/or total in-summer) and the level for which the
estimate was made for (county, minor civil division, service area). The
type and level of estimates are summarized by Table H-l. The 1970 Census
of Population provides a baseline number for the permanent residential
population by minor civil division and for the occupancy rate (number of
persons per dwelling). Census populations cannot, however, be directly
disaggregated below the minor civil division level so as to provide infor-
mation specific to the Proposed Service Area. Estimates of 1972 seasonal
population for minor civil divisions in the Socioeconomic Area can be made
from a count of seasonal dwellings made by the Wilbur Smith and Associates
field survey. It is assumed in this case and others where the seasonal
population is estimated from the number of seasonal dwellings that the
occupancy rate is 4.0 persons per seasonal dwelling. An estimate of
population by minor civil division in 1975 is contained in the US Census
Bureau's Current Population Estimates. These estimates are based on
records of vital statistics (births and deaths) and other indicators such
as school enrollment and utility hookups. These estimates are for perma-
nent population only and cannot be directly disaggregated below the minor
civil division level. Also, the methods of estimation employed by these
estimates allows considerable error in population for areas as small as
the minor civil divisions included in the Socioeconomic Study Area. The Grand
Traverse Area Data Center has estimated permanent, seasonal and total
population for Benzie County. Permanent population estimates are based
on a methodology similar to that employed by the Census, while seasonal
population estimates are based on sample surveys of seasonal residents
and visitors. The Grand Traverse Area Data Center estimated that seasonal
population in the area increased by 33% from 1972 to 1975. The Williams &
Works field survey in 1976 provided another estimate of the number of
dwellings in the Proposed Service Area and an estimate of the proportion
of the population of each minor civil division included in the Proposed
Service Area. This proportional estimate of the percentage of minor civil
division population in the Proposed Service Area provides a calibration
factor that can be used to estimate service area population based on
estimates and enumerations for minor civil divisions. The Northwest
Michigan Regional Planning Commission prepared estimates of permanent
population by minor civil division for 5-year intervals from 1975 to. 2000.
-------
WAPORA utilized US Census Current Population Reports estimates of 1975
permanent population and the Northwest Michigan Regional Planning Commission's
projections of year 2000 population as a basis for projection of population
increase in the Proposed Service Area. The Commission's year 2000 estimates
contain both "high" and "low" projections based on differing assumptions. The
mean of these high and low estimates was chosen as the best estimate of
permanent year 2000 populations in the EIS. In minor civil divisions that
are only partially in the proposed Service Area, the proportion of the 1975
population in the Service Area was assumed to be the same as the proportion
of dwelling units that were found to be in the Service Area in the 1972
Williams & Works field survey. The proportion of minor civil division
population in the Proposed Service Area was also assumed to remain constant
between 1975 and 2000,
Estimation of 1975 seasonal population was based on the 1972 Wilbur
Smith field study as updated by information from the Grand Traverse Area
Data Center. No data is available from the US Census as to the number of
seasonal residents, and even the Census data on seasonal dwellings is highly
suspect as most seasonal residents are not present at the time of enumera-
tion (15 April). As a result, estimation of seasonal population is based on
a less complete data base than for permanent population and has a corres-
pondingly greater possible margin of error. The 1972 Wilbur Smith Field
survey did provide an enumeration of seasonal dwellings. The number of
units found in this enumeration was increased by a factor of one third,
based on estimates of a one-third increase in seasonal population for
Benzie County as a whole from 1972 to 1975, as made by the Grand Traverse
Area Data Center (1977). The occupancy rate for seasonal dwellings was
assumed to be 4.0 persons per unit, based on data from a variety of local
sources. Thus, seasonal population was estimated to be four times as great
as the number of seasonal dwellings. The proportion of seasonal population
in each minor civil division that was within the Proposed Service Area in
1975 was assumed to be the same as the proportion of dwelling units in the
Proposed Service Area found in the 1972 Wilbur Smith field survey. This
proportion was also assumed to remain constant from 1975 to the year 2000.
In the absence of any clear cut evidence differentiating seasonal and
permanent population growth rates, the rate of seasonal population growth
within each minor civil division for the 1975 to 2000 period was considered
to be equivalent to the rate of permanent population growth.
It must be recognized that the estimates of current seasonal population
and forecasts of future seasonal population growth presented here are highly
tentative. This is partly the result of assumptions which must be made
concerning seasonal population, such as to occupancy rate. Also, however,
seasonal population change is likely to respond much more to a variety of
social factors influencing the number of second homes that Americans own.
Most important among these volatile factors are changes in disposable
personal income, which influence the ability to afford second residences,
and changes in gasoline prices, which influence the ability of persons to
travel long distances to second homes.
-------
The in-summer population projections for the year 2000 presented here
are approximately 4% below those presented in the Facility Plan. Permanent
population is projected to be 6% lower than in the Facility Plan, while
seasonal population is projected to be 3% lower. Estimates presented in the
E1S are significantly (more than 100 persons) lower than those in the
Facility Plan for Benzonia Township and Crystal Lake Township permanent
population, for Benzonia Village seasonal population, and for both seasonal
and permanent population in Lake Township. Predicted populations in the EIS
are at least 100 higher than in the Facility Plan for permanent population of
Beulah Village and for seasonal population in Crystal Lake Township. The
population projections presented here, unlike those in the Facility Plan,
do not foresee the appearance of a large seasonal population in Benzonia,
where no seasonal population was found by the 1972 Wilbur Smith field survey.
NTor do the projections in this EIS foresee the disappearance of seasonal
populations found in the 1972 Wilbur Smith field survey in Frankfort and
Elberta. Despite relatively large differences in the internal allocation
of seasonal and permanent populations, the overall Proposed Service Area
populations forecast here for the year 2000 are not significantly different
from those forecast in the Facility Plan.
-------
H
co
H
CO
<
CJ
10
03
H
H
3
PH
C
PH
to
w
CJ
OS
3
O
to
c
o
•Ul
S3
rH
13
a
o
PM
M-<
O
cu
a.
^
L_J
£
o
A-l
sc
i7|
cu
rH g
«j 5
c en
E- 1
C
H
rH
C3
C
O
CO
03
0)
CO
XJ
c
CU
c
03
5
OJ
PH
CU
U
•H 03
> 'U
t-i U
cu
OJ
J
CJ -H
CO
^J -H
O >
C -H
s
4-1
C
3
o
CJ
CU
CJ
M
3
O
O)
•
£
0
c
o
•H
4J
i-rj
rH
3
0.
o
PH
U-l
O
to
3
CO
c
CU
CJ
CO
3
•
0
£
to
CU
•U
ca
g
4-1
CO
w
C
O
•H
ij
03
rH
3
Q
0
CU
*>
i_l
3
to
T3
rH
CU
•H
rJ"4
CO
^-t
3
CO
-a
rH
0)
•H
rM
CO
PM
JH
O
3
<-3
en
S
CO
•H
rH
rH
•H
^
•
^
0
00
c
•H
c
c
03
rH
PH
rH
03
C
O
•H
oo
CU
erf
C
03
60
•H
X!
CJ C
•H O
S -H
CO
4-1 CO
CO M-t
cu E
3 E
x; o
4-1 CJ
^i
O
2
-------
T
— a s
3 U 3
=:<-
c- -J fl
•J ,—
§ > I
C v- 3
CM a a.
w I
O
o
^ — —
o
o
a C ^
cj a <*">
-i c ^
> is 3
5 g^
en J 3
-< < A-1
F-t O ?*^
—< — tn
a;
O
x -~
> 1
a = _|
C = •'i
!*i
CO
iC -3
-T !N
00 ~T
M
-3
3
i a —
J M
X -J —«
a a .=
-------
Table H-3
SERVICE AREA POPULATION COMPARISON
EIS-Facility Plan
Political Unit
Benzonia Township
(Excluding Villages)
Benzonia Village
Beulah Village
Crystal Lake
Township
Frankfort City
Elberta
Lake Township
Service Area Total
Permanent
Seasonal
Total
Permanent
Seasonal
Total
Permanent
Seasonal
Total
Permanent
Seasonal
Total
Permanent
Seasonal
Total
Permanent
Seasonal
Total
Permanent
Seasonal
Total
Permanent
Seasonal
Total
Facility"
Plan
1,083
1,322
2,403
481
206
687
482
588
1,070
1,002
3,006
4,008
2,156
0
2,156
606
0
606
317
1,798
2,115
6,127
6,920
13,047
Difference
EIS
784
1,289
2,073
545
0
545
597
597
1,194
778
3,600
4,378
2,190
25
2,215
696
15
711
158
1,216
1,374
5,748
6,792
12,490
Quantity
-299
- 33
-332
64
-206
-142
115
9
124
-224
594
370
34
25
59
90
15
105
-159
-582
-741
-379
-178
-557
%
- 28
- 2
- 25
13
-100
- 21
24
2
12
- 22
20
9
2
100
3
15
100
17
- 50
- 32
- 35
- 6
- 3
- 4
Williams and Works, Crystal Lake Area Facility Plan, 1976.
-------
APPENDIX
I
FLOW REDUCTION DEVICES
1-1 Estimated Savings with Flow Reduction Devices
1-2 Incremental Capital Costs of Flow Reduction in
the Crystal Lake Study Area
1-3 Flow Reduction and Cost Data for Water-Saving
Devices
-------
Estimated Savings with
Shower flow control insert device
'i
Dual cycle toilet
Toilet damming device
Shallow trap toilet
Dual flush adapter for toilets
Flow Reduction
First Year
Savings (or
Cost)
$46.46
24.28
18.89
17.14
14.45
Improved ballcock assembly for toilets 11.76
Spray tap faucet
Faucet flow control device
Faucet aerator
(63.43)
6.45
1.44
APPENDIX
1-1
Devices
Annual Savings
After First
Year
$48.46
44.28
22.14
22.14
18.45
14.76
13.77
9.45
3.94
First year expenditure assumed to be difference in capital cost
between flow^-saving toilet and a standard toilet costing $75.
-------
APPENDIX
1-2
Incremental Capital Costs of Flow Reduction
in the Crystal Lake Study Area
Dual-cycle toilets:
$20/toilet x 2 toilets/permanent dwelling x 2054 permanent
dwellings in year 2000 = $82,160
S20/toilet x 1 toilet/seasonal dwelling x 1620 seasonal
dwellings in year 2000 = 32,400
^T
Shower flow control insert device:
$2/shower x 2 shower/permanent dwelling x 2054 permanent
dwellings in year 2000 = 8,216
$2/shower x 1 shower/seasonal dwelling x 1620 seasonal
dwellings in 2000 = 3,240
Faucet flow control insert device:
$3/faucet x 3 faucets/permanent dwelling x 2054 permanent
dwellings in year 2000 = 18,486
$2/faucet x 2 faucets/seasonal dwelling x 1620 seasonal
dwellings in 2000 = 6,480
Total $150,982
Note: The $20 cost for dual-cycle toilets is the difference between
its full purchase price of $95 and the price of a standard toilet, $75.
-------
Flov .'.eduction and Cast Data :or Water Saving
APPENDIX
1-3
Daily
Co
Toilet =odifica-ions
Water displacement
device — plastic
bottles, bricks, etc.
'""ater dancing device
Dual flusn adaptor
Izs roved bailock
asseoaly
Alternative toilets
Shallow trap toilet
juai cycle toilet
"=•-_:'-= toilet
Incinerator toilet
Organic wasta treatssnt
systea
Recycle toilet
Faucet raodificauions
Aerator
"low control device
Alternative faucets
Foow control faucet
Spray tap faucet
Shower modification
Shower flow control
insert device
Alternative shower
ecuiocer.t
Flow control shower head
Daily Conservation
nsarvscion (Hoc water)
10 0
30 0
25 0-
20 0-
30 0-
60 0-
90 0-
100 0
100 0
100 0
1 1
4.3 2.4
4,3 2.5
7 3.5
19 14
19 14
Useful Average
Caoital Installation L-fa Annual
Cost Ccst (.y-3.) OiM
0 H-03 15 0
3.25 H-0 20 0
4. CO H-0 10 0
3.00 H-0 10 0
30.00 55.20 20 0
95.00 55.20 0
1.50 H-0 15 0
3.00 a-o ij o
40.00 20.70 0
56.50 20.70 15 0
2.00 a-0 13 0
15.00 3-0 or 15 0
13.30
Shower cutoff valve
laemostatic mixing
valve
2.00
62,00
13.30
rf-0 « Hoosovner-ins tailed; cost assumed to be zero.
-------
APPENDIX
J
COSTS AND FINANCING
J-l Design and Costing Assumptions
J-2 Itemized and Total Costs for Each Alternative
J-3 Eligibility Requirements for Federal
and State Cost Sharing
J-4 Alternatives for Financing the Local Share
of Wastewater Treatment Facilities in
Benzie County, Michigan
J-5 Financial Impacts of the Wastewater System
Alternatives on Households, Commercial
Establishments and Industry
J-6 Private Costs
J-7 Future Costs
-------
APPENDIX
J-l
DESIGN AND COSTING ASSUMPTIONS
Treatment
(1) Rotating Biological Contactor (RBC) System
o All RBC treatment systems contain same components as treatment
facility proposed in Crystal Lake Area Facility Plan (Williams
& Works 1976) including advanced treatment for nutrient
removal.
o The location of the RBC plant was assumed to be on land in
Frankfort purchased for this purpose (see Figure III-4).
(2) Land Application
o Facilities for treatment and storage of waste waters prior to
land application are same as in Facility Plan.
o Three possible land application sites were identified (see
Figure III-3). Alternative costs were developed based on
utilizing the site in Sections 25 and 30 of Benzonia Township.
o Design assumptions -
storage period - 20 weeks per year
application rate - 2 inches per week
application technique - spray irrigation, woodlands
o Facilities for recovery and recycling of tailwater provided.
(3) Cluster Systems
o The design and costs for wastewater treatment utilizing
cluster systems were developed based on a "typical" system
serving 23 residences along the south shore of Crystal Lake.
o Design assumptions -
flow - 60 gpcd - peak flow 45 gpm
3.5 persons/home - 3-bedroom home
50% of existing septic tanks need to be replaced with new
1000-gallon tanks
o Collection of wastewaters is by a low-pressure system with two
homes connected to one simplex pumping unit.
o Cluster system includes the following requirements of the
State of Michigan.
monitoring wells
hydrogeological survey be performed for the potential area
-------
J-l
o 200-foot transmission (2- to 3-iach. force main.) to absorption
field assumed.
o Pump Station (50 gpm) required for transmission, 60-foot
static head assumed from pump station to distribution box.
Collection
o All sewer lines are to be placed at or below 6 feet of depth
to allow for frost penetration in the Crystal Lake area.
Gravity lines are assumed to be placed at an average depth of
12 feet.
o Ten % shoring of all gravity collection lines is required, due
to prevalent high groundwater as well as unsuitable soils.
o A minimum velocity of 2 fps will be maintained in all pressure
sewer lines and force mains to provide for scouring.
o Peaking factor used for design flows was 4.0.
o All pressure sewer lines and force mains 8 inches in diameter
or less will be PVC SDR26, with a pressure rating of 160 psi.
Those force mains larger than 8 inches in diameter will be
constructed of ductile iron with mechanical joints.
o When possible, force mains and pressure sewer collectors will
be placed in a common trench.
o Cleanouts in the pressure sewer system will be placed at the
beginning of each line, with one every 500 feet of pipe in
line. Cleanout valve boxes will contain shut-off valves to
provide for isolation of various sections of line for
maintenance and/or repairs.
o Individual pumping units for the pressure sewer system include
a 2- by 8-foot basin with discharge at 6 feet, control panel,
visual alarm, mercury float level controls, valves, rail
system for removal of pump, antiflotation device, and the pump
itself. (See Figure III-2).
o Effluent pumps are 1-1/2 and 2 HP pumps which reach a total
dynamic head of 80 and 120 feet respectively.
Analysis of Cost Effectiveness
o Quoted costs are in 1978 dollars
o EPA Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) Index of 135 (4th Quarter
1977) and Engineering News Record Index of 2693 (1 March 1978)
used for updating costs.
-------
J-l
o i, interest rate = 6-5/8%
o Planning period = 20 years
o Life of facilities, structures - 50 years
Mechanical components - 20 years
o Straight line depreciation
o Land for land application site valued at $1000/acre
(Century 21 Realty, Traverse City, Michigan 4/78)
o Land surrounding Crystal Lake for locating cluster systems
valued at $10,000/acre
-------
APPENDIX
J-2
ITEMIZED AND TOTAL COSTS
FOR EACH ALTERNATIVE
FACILITY PLAN PROPOSED ACTION
LIMITED ACTION ALTERNATIVE
EIS ALTERNATIVES 1-6
Note: Costs are shown to nearest $100. This should
not be interpreted as meaning that estimates
are accurate to that level. Most cost esti-
mates are accurate within + 10%.
-------
J-2
PROJECT COSTS
FACILITY PLAN
PROPOSED ACTION
TREATMENT
Q = 0.89 MGD
ROTATING BIOLOGICAL
DISCS
Costs in 1978 Dollars
X $1,000
PROCESS
Raw Sewerage Pumping Sta.
Preliminary Treatment
Primary Sedimentation
Secondary Sedimentation
Chlorine Contact
Anaerobic Digester
Digester Building & Caller}
Sludge Beds
Lab . Equipment
Service Buildings
Chlorine Equipment
Garage
Bio Disc and Building
Ferric Chloride Storage
Chemical Room
Microstrainer
Plumbing
Heating
Electrical and Instr.
Yardwork
Sub-total
Engineering and
Contingencies 25%
Total
CAPITAL COST
$191.0
89.0
102.0
102.0
51.0
583.0
127.0
121.0
38.0
190.0
38.0
25.0
760.0
25.0
38.0
144.0
164.0
127.0
253.0
177.0
3,345.0
836.0
$4,181.0
O&M
$123.0 1st yr.
148.0 20th yr
1.25/yr.
(Gradient)
SALVAGE VALUE
$1,296.0
-------
PROJECT COSTS
FACILITY PLAN
PROPOSED ACTION
COLLECTION
J-2
Costs in 1978 Dollars
X $1,000
SERVICE AREA
1980 — Service to Immediate
Service Area
Sub-Total*
A. 25% Engr. & Con-
tingencies
**B. Land Easements
1980 TOTAL
1990 — Additional Service
due to Future Growth
A. North Shore
(gravity)
B. Pilgrim Area
(gravity)
C. Benzonia Village
(gravity)
D. South Shore
(gravity)
E. Frankfort
(gravity)
F. Elberta
(gravity)
Subtotal*
G. 25% Engr. &
Contingencies
1990 TOTAL
INCREASE
CAPITAL COST
10,481.4
2,620.3
20.0
13,121.7
185.4
267.3
194.5
465.9
575.4
285.4
1,973.9
493.5
2,467.4
O&M COSTS
58.4
-0-
58.4
0.4
0.5
0.4
1.1
1.3
0.8
4.5
-0-
4.5
SALVAGE VALUE
4,724.3
944.9
36.1
5,705.3
144.4
147.44
128.4
365.3
302.5
228.3
1,316.3
263.3
1,579.6
* INCLUDES COSTS FOR PRIVATE SEWER SERVICE LINE CONNECTIONS
** FIGURES OBTAINED FROM EXISTING FACILITY PLAN
-------
J-2
Q = 0.33 MGD
PROJECT COSTS
LIMITED ACTION ALTERNATIVE
TREATMENT
ROTATING BIOLOGICAL
DISCS
Costs in 1978 Dollars
X $1,000
PROCESS
Raw Sewerage Pumping Sta.
Preliminary Treatment
Primary Sedimentation
Secondary Sedimentation
Chlorine Contact
Anaerobic Digester
Digester Building & Gallery
Sludge Beds
Lab. Equipment
Service Buildings
Chlorine Equipment
Garage
Bio Disk and Building
Ferric Chloride Storage
Chemical Room
Microstrainer
Plumbing
Heating
Electrical & Instr.
Yardwork
Sub-total
CAPITAL COST
$ 99.2
46.4
52.8
52.8
26.4
304.0
66.4
63.2
20.0
99.2
20.0
13.6
396.0
13.6
20.0
75.2
85.6
66.4
132.0
92.0
$1744.8
O&M COSTS
SALVAGE VALUE
Engineering &
Contingencies 25%
436.2
Total
2181.0
$64.0 1st yr.
77.6 20th yr.
0.68/yr.
(Gradient)
$676.0
-------
J-2
PROJECT COSTS
LIMITED ACTION ALTERNATIVE
COLLECTION
AND
ON-LOT TREATMENT
Costs in 1978 Dollars
X $1,000
SERVICE AREA
1980 — Service to Immediate
Service Area
A. Elberta to RED,
Frankfort
*B. Reconstruction,
Elberta to
Frankfort
*C. Frankfort Storm-
sewer separation
D. On-lot Systems
Sub-Total**
E. 25% Engr. & Con-
tingencies
Cluster land
1980 TOTAL
On-Lot Gradient
1990 — Additional Service due
to Future Growth
A. Frankfort
(gravity)
B. Elberta
(gravity)
C. On- lot systems
Sub-Total**
D. 25% Engr. & Con-
tingencies
CAPITAL COST
104.4
263.9
204.6
1,285.2
1,358.1
464.5
60.0
2,382.6
93.8
575.4
285.4
-
860.8
215.2
O&M COSTS SALVAGE VALUE
1.4 57.8
-
-
54.8 147,9
56.2 205.7
41.1
56.2 246.8
1.3 302.5
0.8 228.3
48.7 128.8
50.8 659.6
131.9
1990 TOTAL 1,076.0 50.8*** 791.5
INCREASE
* FIGURES OBTAINED FROM THE EXISTING FACILITY PLAN
** INCLUDES COSTS FOR PRIVATE SEWER SERVICE LINE CONNECTIONS
*** INCLUDES COST OF MONITORING AND INSPECTION OF ON-LOT SYSTEMS ESTIMATED
AT $30 PER SYSTEM PER YEAR
-------
J-2
PROJECT COSTS
EIS ALTERNATIVE 1
TREATMENT
ROTATING BIOLOGICAL DISCS
0.89 MGD
Costs in 1978 Dollars
X $1,000
PROCESS
Raw Sewerage Pumping Sta.
Preliminary Treatment
Primary Sedimentation
Secondary Sedimentation
Chlorine Contact
Anaerobic Digester
Digester Building & Gallery
Sludge Beds
Lab. Equipment
Service Buildings
Chlorine Equipment
Garage
Bio Disk and Building
Ferric Chloride Storage
Chemical Room
Micros trainer
Plumbing
Heating
Electrical and Instr.
Yardwork
Sub-total
Engineering and
Contingencies 25%
Total
CAPITAL COST
$191.0
89.0
102.0
102.0
51.0
583.0
127.0
121.0
38.0
190.0
38.0
25.0
760.0
25.0
38.0
144.0
164.0
127.0
253.0
177.0
3,345.0
836.0
$4,181.0
O&M
$123,0 1st yr.
148.0 20th yr.
1.25/yr.
(Gradient)
SALVAGE VALUE
$1,296.0
-------
PROJECT COSTS
EIS ALTERNATIVE 1
COLLECTION
J-2
Costs in 1978 Dollars
X $1,000
SERVICE AREA
1980—
1990—
Service to Immediate
Service Area
A. North Shore
B. Pilgrim Area
C. Benzonia Village
D. South Shore
E. Collection To RBD
Frankfort
F. Elberta to RED,
Frankfort
*G. Reconstruction
Elberta & Frankfort
*H. Frank. Storm Sewer
Separation
Sub-Total**
I. 25% Sngr. Con-
tingencies
J. Land Easements
1980 TOTAL
Additional Service
due to Future Growth
A. North Shore
(gravity)
B. Pilgrim Area
(pressure)
C. Benzonia Village
(gravity)
D. South Shore
(gravity)
E. Frankfort
(gravity)
F. Elberta
(gravity)
Sub-Total**
G. 25% Engr. & Con-
Tingencies
1990 TOTAL INCREASE
CAPITAL COST
2,408.7
1,069.4
1,789.0
3,767.9
661.6
104.4
263.9
204.6
10,269.5
2,567.3
20.0
12,856.8
185.4
210.0
194.5
723.0
575.4
235.4
2,173.7
543.4
2,717.1
O&M COSTS
36.5
17.3
9.8
61.9
3.0
1.4
129.9
-0-
129.9
.4
1.9
.4
4.6
1.3
.8
9.4
-0-
9. i
SALVAGE VALUE
713.8
257.4
892.8
688.4
366.7
57.8
2,976.9
595.4
36.1
3608.4
144.4
124.3
128.4
365.3
302.5
228.3
1293.2
258.6
1551.8
* FIGURES OBTAINED FROM EXIS
** INCLUDES COSTS FOR PRIVATE
TING FACILITY PLAN
SEWER SERVICE LINE
CONNECTION'S
-------
J-2
Q = 0.89 MGD
PROJECT COSTS
EIS ALTERNATIVE 2
LAND TREATMENT SYSTEM
Costs in 1978 Dollars
X $1,000
PROCESS
Preliminary Treatment
- Aerated Lagoon
Chlorination
Transmission On-Site
- Gravity Lines
Storage
Application
- Spray Irrigation
Solid Set, Woodlands
Land 300 Acres
Hydro-Geological
Survey
Tailwater Return
TOTALS
CAPITAL COST
$ 113.0
55.0
149.0
475.0
1,215.0
300.0
60.0
43.9
$2,410.9
O&M COSTS
$ 13. .0
4.1
0.4
3.2
43.4
0.6
$64.7
SALVAGE VALUE
$ 47.5
21.4
89.4
285.0
182.3
541.8
15.8
$1183.2
-------
J-2
PROJECT COSTS
EIS ALTERNATIVE 2
COLLECTION
Costs in 1978 Dollars
X $1,000
SERVICE AREA
1980 — Service to Immediate
Service Area
A. Pilgrim
B. North Shore
C. North Shore to
Benzonia
D. South Shore
E. Benzonia
F. Elberta to
Frankfort
*G. Reconstruction
Elberta to Frank-
fort
*H. Frankfort Storm
Sewer Separation
Sub-Total**
I. 25% Engr. & Con-
tingencies
*J. Land Easements
1980 TOTAL
1990 — Additional Service
due to Future Growth
A. Pilgrim(pressure)
B. North Shore (grav,)
C. Benzonia Village
(gravity)
D. South Shore
(gravity)
E. Frankfort (gravity)
F. Elberta(gravity)
Sub-Total**
G. 25% Engr. & Con-
tingencies
1990 TOTAL INCREASE
CAPITAL COST
1,069.4
2,690.3
271.6
3,995.6
1,965.
104.4
263.9
204.6
10,564.8
2,641.2
20.0
13,226.0
210.0
185.4
194.5
723.0
575.4
285.4
2,173.70
543.4
2,717.13
O&M COSTS
17.3
36.8
3.7
72.5
12.
1.4
143.7
-0-
143.7
1.9
.4
.4
4.6
1.3
.8
9.4
-0-
9.4
SALVAGE VALUE
257.4
818.5
102.5
728.2
945.6
57.8
2,910.0
582.0
36.1
3,528.1
124.3
144.4
128.4
365.3
302.5
228.3
1293.2
258.6
1551.8
* FIGURES OBTAINED FROM EXISTING FACILITY PLAN
** INCLUDES COSTS FOR PRIVATE SEWER SERVICE LINE CONNECTIONS
-------
J-2
PROJECT COSTS
EIS ALTERNATIVE 3
LAND TREATMENT SYSTEM
Q = 0.18 MGD
Costs in 1978 Dollars
X $1,000
PROCESS
Preliminary Treatment
- Aerated Lagoon
Chlorination
Transmission On-Site
- Gravity Lines
Storage
Application
- Spray Irrigation
Solid Set, Woodlands
Land 75 Acres
Hydro-Geological
Survey
Tailwater Return
TOTALS
CAPITAL COST
$ 65.8
30.4
118.8
148.5
445.5
75.0
25.0
30.4
$939.4
O&M COSTS
$ 5.2
1.8
0.4
1.3
14.4
0.2
$23.3
SALVAGE VALUE
$ 27.6
11.9
71.3
89.1
66.8
135.5
10.9
$413.1
-------
J-2
PROJECT COSTS
EIS ALTERNATIVE 3
TREATMENT
ROTATING BIOLOGICAL DISCS
0.45 MGD
Costs in 1978 Dollars
X $1,000
PROCESS
Raw Sewerage Pumping Sta.
Preliminary Treatment
Primary Sedimentation
Secondary Sedimentation
Chlorine Contact
Anaerobic Digester
Digester Building & Gallery
Sludge Beds
Lab . Equipment
Service Buildings
Chlorine Equipment
Garage
Bio. Disk and Building
Ferric Chloride Storage
Chemical Room
Micros trainer
Plumbing
Heating
Electrical & Instr.
Yardwork
Sub- total
Engineering &
Contingencies 25%
Total
CAPITAL COSTS
$ 124.0
58.0
66.0
66.0
33.0
380.0
83.0
79.0
25.0
124.0
25.0
17.0
495.0
17.0
25.0
94.0
107.0
83.0
165.0
115.0
$2,181.0
545.0
$2,726.0
O&M COSTS
$80.0 1st yr.
97.0 20th yr.
0.85/yr.
(Gradient)
SALVAGE VALUE
$845.0
-------
J-2
PROJECT COSTS
EIS ALTERNATIVE 3
COLLECTION
AND
DECENTRALIZED TREATMENT
Costs in 1978 Dollars
X $1,000
SERVICE AREA
1980 — Service to Immediate
Service Area
A. Pilgrim to RBC,
Frankfort
B. Elberta to RBC,
Frankfort
C. N.E. Corner
D. Pilgrim
E. N.E. Corner to
' Benzonia
F. Benzonia
*G. Reconstruction
Elberta to Frank-
f ,, yv 4-
ror E
*H. Frankfort Storm
n *. •
sewer separation
I. On-lot & Cluster
Systems
Subtotal
J. 25% Engr. & Con-
tingencies
*K. Land Easements &
Land Cluster
Systems
1980 TOTAL
On-Lot Gradient
1990 — Additional Service
due to Future Growth
A. N.E. Corner (gravity)
B. Pilgrim(gravity)
C. Benzonia (gravity)
D. Frankfort (gravity)
E. Elberta(gravity)
F. On-Lot
Sub-Total"*
G. 25% Engr. & Con-
tingencies
1990 TOTAL INCREASE
CAPITAL COST
371.9
104.4
937.6
915.5
102.0
1,813.0
9 f, •} Q
/.o j . y
o/-w, £
ZU4 . D
1.297.4
6,010.3
1,502.6
180.0
7,692.-9
47.1/yr.
185.4
267.3
194.5
575.4
285.4
—
1,508.0
377.0
1,885.0
O&M COSTS
2.2
1.4
7.0
3.8
2.7
9.8
— — —
21.6
48.5
-0-
—
48.5
.4
0.5
.4
1.3
.8
20.6
24 . Cfc**
-0-
24.0
SALVAGE VALUE
211.1
57.8
415.5
369.2
9.6
900.0
120.9
2,084.1
416.8
325.1
2,826.0
144.4
147.4
128.4
302.5
288.3
86.9
1,037.9
207.6
L,245.5
* FIGURES OBTAINED FROM THE EXISTING FACILITY PLAN
** INCLUDES COSTS FOR PRIVATE SEWER SERVICE LINE CONNECTIONS
*** INCLUDES COST OF MONITORING AND INSPECTION OF ON-LOT SYSTEMS ESTIMATED AT
$30 PER SYSTEM PER YEAR
-------
J-2
Q = 0.65 MGD
PROJECT COSTS
EIS ALTERNATIVE 4
LAND TREATMENT SYSTEM
Costs in 1978 Dollars
X $1,000
PROCESS
Preliminary Treatment
- Aerated Lagoon
Chlorination
Transmission On-Site
- Gravity Lines
Storage
Application
- Spray Irrigation
Solid Set, Woodlands
Land 225 Acres
Hydro-Geological
Survey
Tailwater Return
TOTALS
CAPITAL COST
$ 97.0
47,0
134.0
446.0
972.0
225.0
55.0
38.9
$2,014.9
O&M COSTS
$10.5
3.5
0.4
2.6
36.0
0.5
$53.5
SALVAGE VALUE
$ 41.0
18.0
80.0
268.0
146.0
406.4
14.0
$973.4
-------
J-2
PROJECT COSTS
EIS ALTERNATIVE 4
COLLECTION
AND
DECENTRALIZED TREATMENT
Costs in 1978 Dollars
X $1,000
SERVICE AREA
1980 — Service to Immediate
Service Area
A. Pilgrim Area
B. Pilgrim to
Frankfort
C. Elberta to
Frankfort
D. Collection of West
to C.L.C.
E. Benzonia
F. N.E. Corner
G. N.E. to Benzonia
*H. Reconstruction,
Tr"| K o Y" t* a f- ,-t T?y on If "Fry Y*1
Ci-LD G LLcL LU T L a.HK.1.0 Ll
*I. Frankfort Storm
C f^r TOT* ^On3Y*^Jt"'~f>""\'n
DcWc L o cpdL 3.L J.OI1
J. On-Lot & Cluster
Systems
Sub-Total**
K. 25% Engr. & Con-
tingencies
*L. Land Easements &
Land Cluster Systems
1980 TOTAL
On-Lot Gradient
1990 — Additional Service due
to Future Growth
A. Pilgrim Area
(gravity)
B. Frankfort (gravity)
C. Elberta(gravity)
D. N.E. Corner (gravity)
E. Benzonia(gravity)
F. On-Lot
Sub-Total**
G. 25% Engr. & Con-
tingencies
1990 TOTAL INCREASE
CAPITAL COST
915.5
371.9
104.4
1,038.4
1,813.0
937.6
102.0
96 o q
i-D j » :?
9DA f\
^UH • D
1,297.4
7,048.7
1,762.2
180.0
8,990.9
47.1/yr.
267.3
575.4
285.4
185.4
194.5
1,508.0
377.0
1,885.0
O&M COSTS
3.8
2.2
1.4
4.8
9.8
7.0
2.7
—._-._
21.6
53.3***
-0-
53.3
0.5
1.3
.8
.4
.4
20.6
24.0
-0-
24.0
SALVAGE VALUE
369.2
211.1
57.8
311.5
900.0
415.5
9.6
120.9
2,395.6
479.1
325.1
3,199.8
147.4
302.5
228.3
144.4
128.4
86.9
1,037.9
207.6
1,245.5
* FIGURES OBTAINED FROM EXISTING FACILITY PLAN
** INCLUDES COSTS FOR PRIVATE SEWER SERVICE LINE CONNECTIONS
*** INCLUDES COST OF MONITORING AND INSPECTION OF ON-LOT SYSTEMS ESTIMATED AT
$30 PER SYSTEM PER YEAR.
-------
J-2
PROJECT COSTS
EIS ALTERNATIVE 5
TREATMENT
ROTATING BIOLOGICAL DISCS
0.65 MGD
Costs in 1978 Dollars
X $1,000
PROCESS
Raw Sewerage Pumping Sta.
Preliminary Treatment
Primary Sedimentation
Secondary Sedimentation
Chlorine Contact
Anaerobic Digester
Digester Building & Gallery
Sludge Beds
Lab . Equipment
Service Building
Chlorine Equipment
Garage
Bio Disk & Building
Ferric Chloride Storage
Chemical Room
Microstrainer
Plumbing
Heating
Electrical and Inst.
Yardwork
Sub-total
Engineering &
Contingencies 25%
Total
CAPITAL COST
$ 162.0
76.0
86.0
86.0
43.0
495.0
108.0
103.0
32.0
161.0
32.0
22.0
645.0
22.0
32.0
122.0
140.0
108.0
215.0
150.0
$2,840.0
710.0
$3,550.0
O&M COSTS
$104.0 1st yr.
126.0 20th yr.
1.10/yr.
(Gradient)
SALVAGE VALUE
$1,101.0
-------
J-2
PROJECT COSTS
EIS ALTERNATIVE 5
COLLECTION
AND
DECENTRALIZED TREATMENT
Costs in 1978 Dollars
X $1,000
SERVICE AREA
1980 — Service to Immediate
Service Area
A. Pilgrim Area
B. Pilgrim to Frankfort,
RED
C. Elberta to Frankfort,
RED
D. Collection of East to
RED
E. Benzonia
F. N.E. Corner
G. N.E. to Benzonia
*H. Reconstruction,
TT T 1-, I-, -y* ^ -3 t*o T7v^fil^-P/~iivt'
c.JLDer ta. to r rsnicro r r
*I. Frankfort Storm Sewer
c «. •
separation
J. On-Lot & Cluster
System
Sub-Total**
K. 25% Engr. & Con-
tingencies
*L. Land Easements & Land
for Cluster Systems
1980 TOTAL
On-Lot Gradient
1990 — Additional Service due
to Future Growth
A. Pilgrim Area(gravity)
B. Frankfort (gravity)
C. Elberta(gravity)
D. N.E. Corner (gravity)
E. Benzonia (gravity)
F. On-Lot
Sub-Total**
G. 25% Engr. & Con-
tingencies
1990 TOTAL INCREASE
CAPITAL COST
915.5
371.9
104.4
670.4
1,813.0
937.6
102.0
9A 1 Q
iO J • -7
9n/, A
ZUn- . D
1,297.4
6,680.7
1,670.2
180.0
8,530.9
47.1/yr.
267.3
575.4
285.4
185.4
194.5
—
1,508.0
377.0
1,885.0
O&M COSTS
3.8
2.2
1.4
3.9
9.8
7.0
2.7
21.6
52.4"
—
—
52.4
.5
1.3
.8
.4
.4
20.6
24.0
-0-
24.0
SALVAGE VALUE
369.2
211.1
57.8
201.1
900.0
415.5
9.6
120.9
2,285.2
457.0
325.1
3,067.3
147.4
302.5
228.3
144.4
128.4
86.9
1,037.9
207.6
1,245.5
* FIGURES OBTAINED FROM EXISTING FACILITY PLAN
** INCLUDES COSTS FOR PRIVATE SEWER SERVICE LINE CONNECTIONS
*** INCLUDES COST OF MONITORING AND INSPECTION OF ON-LOT SYSTEMS ESTIMATED AT
S30 PER SYSTEM PER YEAR
-------
APPENDIX
J-2
Q = 0.33 MGD
PROJECT COSTS
EIS ALTERNATIVE 6
TREATMENT
ROTATING BIOLOGICAL
DISCS
Costs in
1978 Dollars
X $1,000
PROCESS
Raw Sewerage Pumping Sta.
Preliminary Treatment
Primary Sedimentation
Secondary Sedimentation
Chlorine Contact
Anaerobic Digester
Digester Building & Gallery
Sludge Beds
Lab . Equipment
Service Buildings
Chlorine Equipment
Garage
Bio Disk and Building
Ferric Chloride Storage
Chemical Room
Microstrainer
Plumbing
Heating
Electrical & Instr.
Yardwork
Subtotal
Engineering &
Contingencies 25%
TOTAL
CAPITAL COST
$ 99.2
46.4
52.8
52.8
26.4
304.0
66.4
63.2
20.0
99.2
20.0
13.6
396.0
13.6
20.0
75.2
85.6
66.4
132.0
92.0
$1744.8
436.2
$2181.0
O&M COSTS
$64.0 1st yr.
77.6 20th yr.
0.68/yr.
(Gradient)
SALVAGE VALUE
$676.0
-------
APPENDIX
J-2
Q = 0.18 MGD
PROJECT COSTS
EIS ALTERNATIVE 6
LAND TREATMENT
SYSTEM
Costs in
1978 Dollars
X $1,000
PROCESS
Preliminary Treatment
- Aerated Lagoon
Chlorination
Transmission On-Site
- Gravity Lines
Storage
Application
- Spray Irrigation
Solid Set, Woodlands
Land 75 Acres
Hydro-Geological
Survey
Tailwater Return
TOTAL
CAPITAL COST
$ 65. 8
30.4
118.8
148.5
445.5
75.0
25.0
30.4
$939.4
O&M COSTS
$ 5.2
1.8
0.4
1.3
14.4
0.2
$23.3
SALVAGE VALUE
$ 27.6
11.9
71.3
89.1
66.8
135.5
10.9
$413.1
-------
J-2
PROJECT COSTS
NEW ALTERNATIVE 6
COLLECTION AND
DECENTRALIZED
TREATMENT
Costs in
1978 Dollars
X $1,000
SERVICE AREA
1980 — Servtce Co Immediate
Service Area
A. Elberta Co RBD,
Frankfort
*B. Reconstruction,
Elberta to
Frankfort
*C. Frankfort
S torm-sewer
separation
D. N.E. Corner
E. N.E. Corner Co
Benzonia
F. Benzonia
4.
G. Cluster Systems
on S.E. Shore
H. On-lot Systems
for remainder of
Lake
I. SUBTOTAL
J. 2SZ Engr. &
Contig.
K. Land Easements
& Land Cluster
Systems
1980 TOTAL
On-Lot Gradient
1990— Additional Service
due Co Future Growth
A. Frankfort (gravity)
B. Elberta (gravity)
C. S.E. Corner (gravity)
D. Benzonia (gravity)
E. On-Lot Systems
SUBTOTAL**
F. 25% Engr. &
Contig.
1990 TOTAL
INCREASE
CAPITAL COST
$ 104.4
263.9
204.6
937.6
102.0
1813.0
103.7
564.1
4093.3
1023.3
30.0
$5146.6
71.1/yr.
575.4
285.4
185.4
194.5
-
1240.7
310.2
$1550.9
O&M COSTS
$ 1.4
.
7.0
2.7
9.8
1.1
34.6
56.6***
0
_
$56.6
1.3
0.8
0.4
0.4
35.1
38.0***
Q
$38.0
SALVAGE VALUE
$ 57.8
_
.
415.5
9.6
900.0
9.1
75.4
1462.0
292.4
54.2
31808.6
302.5
228.3
144.4
128.4
97.5
901.1
180.2
$1081.3
* Figures obcained from the exiscing Facility Plan
•'» Includes costs for private sewer service line connections
*** Includes cose of monitoring and inspection of on-loc systems estimated at v30 per 3v<"-em tier year
Includes cost of hydrogeological survey
-------
Appendix J-3
COST SHARING
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-500,
Section 202), authorized EPA to award grants for 75% of the construction
costs of wastewater management systems. Passage of the Clean Water Act
(P. L. 95-217) authorized increased Federal participation in the costs
of wastewater management systems. The Construction Grants Regulations
(40 CFR Part 35) have been modified in accordance with the later Act.
Final Rules and Regulations for implementing this Act were published in
the Federal Register on September 27, 1978.
There follows a brief discussion of the eligibility of major
components of wastewater management systems for Federal funds.
Federal Contribution
In general, EPA will share in the costs of constructing treatment
systems and in the cost of land used as part of the treatment process.
For land application systems the Federal government will also help to
defray costs of storage and ultimate disposal of effluent. The Federal
share is 75% of the cost of conventional treatment systems and 85% of
the cost of systems using innovative or alternative technologies.
Federal funds can also be used to construct collection systems when the
requirements discussed below are met.
The increase in the Federal share to 85% when innovative or
alternative technologies are used is intended to encourage reclamation
and reuse of water, recycling of wastewater constituents, elimination of
pollutant discharges, and/or recovering of energy. Alternative
technologies are those which have been proven and used in actual
practice. These include land treatment, aquifer recharge, and direct
reuse for industrial purposes. On-site, other small waste systems, and
septage treatment facilities are also classified as alternative
technologies. Innovative technologies are those which have not been
fully proven in full scale operation.
To further encourage the adoption and use of alternative and
innovative technologies, the Cost Effectiveness Analysis Guidelines in
the new regulations give these technologies a 15% preference (in terms
of present worth) over conventional technologies. This cost preference
does not apply to privately owned, on-site or other privately owned
small waste flow systems.
States that contribute to the 25% non-Federal share of conventional
projects must contribute the same relative level of funding to the 15%
non-Federal share of innovative or alternative projects.
Individual Systems (Privately or Publicly Owned)
P.L. 95-217 authorized EPA to participate in grants for con-
structing privately owned treatment works serving small commercial
establishments or one or more principal residences inhabited on or
-------
J-3
before December 27, 1977 (Final Regulations, 40 CFR 35.918,
September 27, 1978). A public body must apply for the grant, certify
that the system will be properly operated and maintained, and collect
user charges for operation and maintenance of the system. All
commercial users must pay industrial cost recovery on the Federal share
of the system. A principal residence is defined as a voting residence
or household of the family during 51% of the year. Note: The
"principal residence" requirement does not apply to publicly owned
systems.
Individual systems, including sewers, that use alternative
technologies may be eligible for 85% Federal participation, but
privately owned individual systems are not eligible for the 115% cost
preference in the cost-effective analysis. Acquisition of land on which
a privately owned individual system would be located is not eligible for
a grant.
Publicly owned on-site and cluster systems, although subject to the
same regulations as centralized treatment plants, are also considered
alternative technologies and therefore eligible for an 85% Federal
share.
EPA policy on eligibility criteria for small waste flow systems is
still being developed. It is clear that repair, renovation or
replacement of on-site systems is eligible if they are causing
documentable public health, groundwater quality or surface water quality
problems. Both privately owned systems servicing year-round residences
(individual systems) and publicly owned year-round or seasonally used
systems are eligible where there are existing problems. Seasonally
used, privately owned systems are not eligible.
Several questions on eligibility criteria remain to be answered and
are currently being addressed by EPA:
o For systems which do not have existing problems, would
preventive measures be eligible which would delay or avoid
future problems?
o Could problems with systems other than public health,
groundwater quality or surface water quality be the basis for
eligibility of repair, renovation or replacement? Examples of
"other problems", are odors, limited hydraulic capacity, and
periodic backups.
o Is non-conformance with modern sanitary codes suitable
justification for eligibility of repair, renovation or
replacement? Can non-conformance be used as a measure of the
need for preventive measures?
o If a system is causing public health, groundwater quality or
surface water quality problems but site limitations would
prevent a new on-site system from satisfying sanitary codes,
would a non-conforming on-site replacement be eligible if it
would solve the existing problems?
-------
J-3
In this EIS estimates were made of the percent repair, renovation
or replacement of on-site systems that may be found necessary during
detailed site analyses. Those estimates are felt to be conservatively
high and would probably be appropriate for generous resolutions of the
above questions.
Collection Systems
Construction Grants Program Requirements Memorandum (PRM) 78-9,
March 3, 1978, amends EPA policy on the funding of sewage collection
systems in accordance with P.L. 95-271. Collection sewers are those
installed primarily to receive wastewaters from household service lines.
Collection sewers may be grant-eligible if they are the replacement or
major rehabilitation of an existing system. For new sewers in an
existing community to be eligible for grant funds, the following
requirements must be met:
o Substantial Human Habitation — The bulk (generally 67%) of
the flow design capacity through the proposed sewer system
must be for wastewaters originating from homes in existence on
October 18, 1972. Substantial human habitation should be
evaluated block by block, or where blocks do not exist, by
areas of five acres or less.
o Cost-Effectiveness — New collector sewers will only be
considered cost-effective when the systems in use (e.g. septic
tanks) for disposal of wastes from existing population are
creating a public health problem, violating point source
discharge requirements of PL 92-500, or contaminating ground-
water. Documentation of the malfunctioning disposal systems
and the extent of the problem is required.
Where population density within the area to be served by the
collection system is less than 1.7 persons per acre (one
household per two acres), a severe pollution or public health
problem must be specifically documented and the collection
sewers must be less costly than on-site alternatives. Where
population density is less than 10 persons per acre, it must
be shown that new gravity collector sewer construction and
centralized treatment is more cost-effective than on-site
alternatives. The collection system may not have excess
capacity which could induce development in environmentally
sensitive areas such as wetlands, floodplains or prime
agricultural lands. The proposed system must conform with
approved Section 208 plans, air quality plans, and Executive
Orders and EPA policy on environmentally sensitive areas.
o Public Disclosure of Costs — Estimated monthly service
charges to a typical residential customer for the system must
be disclosed to the public in order for the collection system
to be funded. A total monthly service charge must be
presented, and the portion of the charge due to operation and
maintenance, debt service, and connection to the system must
also be disclosed.
-------
J-3
Elements of the substantial human habitation and cost-effectiveness
eligibility requirements for new collector sewers are portrayed in
Figure J-3 in a decision flow diagram. These requirements would apply
for any pressure, vacuum or gravity collector sewers except those
serving on-site or small waste flow systems.
Household Service Lines
Traditionally, gravity sewer lines built on private property
connecting a house or other building with a public sewer have been built
at the expense of the owner without local, State or Federal assistance.
Therefore, in addition to other costs for hooking up to a new sewer
system, owners installing gravity household service lines will have to
pay about $1,000, more or less depending on site and soil conditions,
distance and other factors.
Pressure sewer systems, including the individual pumping units, the
pressure line and appurtenances on private property, however, are
considered as part of the community collection system. They are,
therefore, eligible for Federal and State grants which substantially
reduce the homeowner's private costs for installation of household
service lines.
-------
J-3
I
w
00
o
•H
a
o
(LI
c
o
•H
CO
•*
U CT>
01 1
tfl H °?
1 . **•
n ' ><
FIGURE J-
ar Eligibility
Based on PRI
2
CO
Collectoi
.X
7
^™
o
S 01
r-(
CB JO
Vl *-
0) •-
CO M
/
Z
*
C 0)
o u
•H W
w 9
SW
B W
S fl
w «H
C 0
0 0-
u
u
0>
nented Groundw;
Lc Health Hazai
3 i-l
O 9
Q (X
.terminate
w
>
0) 01
£2
(Sanitary St
and Ground v
>
^
e
o
ViolatJ
V
L Analysis
en
CO
01
i-»
t>~. 0> W
1-1 u "01
(0 cb ^
C *-* -H
JM * 01 CO {»
i"l 01
AJ f"i
CD
VI Vl 60 ~
v e; G
*J > L^ -H
rM 0> ^* Vl
< CO 01 JJ
01 O
CO U
e "&
01 C
e o
3 to
O U «0
Q 2 O 01
0) O p£
>/ \
" 1
CO W 01
4) U U
Q 0) a
w «^.
• it O
0. 0) rH
O V)
0* ^
->
"^
L- Sewers
Vi
S
>«
o
>>
«j
c
rS
Sewers
I
Vl
CO,
n.
b
u
o
u
•^•^
0)
a
CJ
0)
(19
a
1
|
cd
H
a.
o
(X
o
8
%,
r
J
•i
IS
CO
(U
•H
(0 P
e 01
Vi &
0) CO
4J (U
55
V
n H
. Vl AJ JS
' S a eo
01 -rt
CO H
td
0)
> ^.
O B
«5
3 4J
§1
A 0
S £! »
co r~ QJ
•^ ^
^
1)
H
0 rt
CO
V)
s
01
CO
s
CM
f»
CT>
H
B
5
W
lock Determine
CQ
^»
J^
U 1
5*
ta
t-t
.0
57,
T<
iH
td
*\
a
o
•H
U
cd
OJ
•H
Xl
B
sg
•< 5
g 6
U 0)
U 3
01
X -^ W
^ M 3
O C 9
•H -H «
** "2 -
^ a
2*H
co eg
o
•H
4J
Q
U
•H
A
S
0
K
0)
V 0> -J
*" P rf>
0> 4J *H
3 O 60
01 a -H
CO r-l
td
-------
APPENDIX
J-4
ALTERNATIVES FOR FINANCING THE LOCAL SHARE OF
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES IN BENZIE COUNTY, MICHIGAN
The financing of wastewater facilities requires a viable strategy.
In exercising the authority delegated to them by the state to finance
local activities, local governments need not only expertise in budgeting
and debt administration but also a general knowledge of the costs and
benefits of various complex financial tools and alternative investment
strategies.
This section reviews several possible ways to fund the Proposed
Action or alternative wastewater management systems in Benzie County,
Michigan. It will:
o Describe options available for financing both the capital and
the operating costs of the wastewater facilities; and
o Discuss institutional arrangements for financing and examine
the probable effects of various organizational arrangements on
the marketability of the bond.
FINANCING CAPITAL COSTS: OPTIONS
The several methods of financing capital improvements include: (1)
pay-as-you-go methods; (2) special benefit assessments; 3) reserve
funds; and (4) debt financing.
The pay-as-you-go method requires that payments for capital facili-
ties be made from current revenues. This approach is more suitable for
recurring expenses such as street paving than for one-time long-term
investments. As the demand for public services grows, it becomes in-
creasingly difficult for local governments to finance capital improve-
ments on a pay-as-you-go basis.
In situations where the benefits to individual properties from
capital improvements can be assessed, special benefit assessments in the
form of direct fees or taxes may be used to apportion costs.
Sometimes reserve funds are established to finance capital improve-
ments . A part of current revenues is placed in a special fund each year
and invested in order to accumulate adequate funds to finance needed
capital improvements. Although this method avoids the expense of
borrowing, it requires foresight on the part of the local government.
Debt financing of capital facilities may take several forms. Local
governments may issue short-term notes or float one of several types of
bonds. Bonds are generally classified by both their guarantee of
security and method of redemption.
305H
-------
J-4
GUARANTEE OF SECURITY
General Obligation (G.O. Bonds)
Debt obligations secured by the full faith and credit of the
municipality are classified as general obligation bonds. The borrower
is pledging the financial and economic resources of the community to
support the debt. Because of the advantages of this approach to debt
financing, general obligation bonds have funded over 95% of the water
and sewer projects in the State of Michigan. Following are some of the
advantages:
o Interest rates on the debt are usually lower than on revenue
or special assessment bonds. With lower annual debt service
charges, the cash flow position of the jurisdiction is im-
proved.
o G.O. bonds for sewerage offer financial flexibility to the
municipality since funds to retire them can be obtained
through property taxes, user charges or combinations of both.
o When G.O. bonds are financed by ad valorem property taxes,
households have the advantage of a deduction from their
Federal income taxes.
o G.O. bonds offer a highly marketable financial investment
since they provide a tax-free and relatively low-risk invest-
ment venture for the lender.
o In the State of Michigan, a municipality may issue G.O. bonds
without the consent of the electorate. However, there is a
bill in the legislature that would require all bonds to be
subjected to a referendum.
A disadvantage to a general obligation approach is the State con-
stitutional restriction on the total amount of debt outstanding.
Michigan law requires that a municipality's total indebtedness not
exceed 10% of its assessed valuation. This restriction may lead small
rural areas like Crystal Lake to seek alternative regional institutional
arrangements for financing the capital costs of wastewater/treatment
systems.
Revenue Bonds
Revenue bonds differ from G.O. bonds in that they are not backed by
a pledge of full faith and credit from the municipality and therefore
require a higher interest rate. The interest is usually paid, and the
bonds eventually retired, by earnings from the enterprise.
A major advantage of revenue bonds over general obligation bonds is
that municipalities can circumvent constitutional restrictions on
borrowing. Although revenue bonds have become a popular financial
alternative to G.O. bonds in financing wastewater facilities, they have
traditionally been avoided as a financing mechanism in Michigan for
several reasons.
305H
-------
J-4
o High Interest Rates. Since the bonds are payable only from
the earnings of the enterprise and are not supported by the
full faith and credit of the jurisdictions, the risk of de-
fault is greater than on a general obligation issue.
o Margin of Risk*. The bond market requires earnings to be some
multiple of total debt service charges in order to protect
investors from possible default. According to E. F. Stratton,
bond attorney for Benzie County, Michigan, the current risk
margin for Michigan revenue bonds is 50%. For the Study Area
this high margin requirement may provide two scenarios.
First, since over 60% of the households in the Study Area have
incomes under $10,000, investors might consider the returns on
the investment to be less than the risks of possible default;
should this be the case, the bonds would be unmarketable.
Alternatively, if the bond be marketable, then the additional
margin requirements* would be charged to households, thereby
increasing the cost burden imposed by debt service obliga-
tions.
o Record of Earnings. Another difficulty in marketing revenue
bonds for new facilities in the Study Area is the lack of
previous revenue reports. Although Frankfort and Elberta have
earning reports for their own jurisdictions, there is no
revenue history for a regional system that would include the
Townships of Lake, Crystal Lake and Benzonia.
o Administrative Costs. Issuance of a revenue bond obligates
the municipality to provide separate funding and accounting
procedures to distinguish the sewer charges from general
revenue accounts.
Special Assessment Bond
A special assessment bond is payable only from the collection of
special assessments, not from general property taxes. This type of
obligation is useful when direct benefits are easily identified.
Assessments are often based on front footage or area of the benefited
property. This type of assessment may be very costly to individual
property owners, especially in rural areas. Agricultural lands may
require long sewer extensions and thus impose a very high assessment on
one user. Furthermore, not only is the individual cost high, but the
presence of sewer lines places development pressures on the rural land
and often portends the transition of land from agriculture to
residential/commercial use. Because the degree of security is lower
than with G.O. bonds, special assessment bonds represent a greater
investment risk and therefore carry a higher interest rate.
METHODS OF REDEMPTION
Two types of bonds are classified according to their method of
retirement -- (1) serial bonds and (2) term bonds. Serial bonds mature
in annual installments while term bonds mature at a fixed point in time.
305H
-------
J-4
Serial Bonds
Serial bonds provide a number of advantages for financing sewerage
facilities. First, they provide a straightforward retirement method by
maturing in annual installments. Secondly, since some bonds are retired
each year, this method avoids the use of sinking funds.* Third, serial
bonds are attractive to the investor and offer wide flexibility in
marketing and arranging the debt structure of the community. Serial
bonds fall into two categories (1) straight serials and (2) serial
annuities.
Straight Serial Bonds provide equal annual payments of principal
for the duration of the bond issue. Consequently, interest charges are
higher in the early years and decline over the life of the bond. This
has the advantage of "freeing up' surplus revenues for future invest-
ment. The municipality has the option of charging these excess revenues
to a sinking or reserve fund or of lowering the sewer rates imposed on
households.
Serial Annuities provide equal annual installment payments of
principal and interest. Total debt service charges in the early years
of the bond issue are thus equal to the charges in later years. The
advantage to this method of debt retirement is that the total costs of
the projects are averaged across the entire life of the bond. Thus,
peak installment payments in the early years are avoided, and costs are
more equitably distributed than with straight serial bonds.
Although straight and annuity serials are the most common types of
debt retirement bonds, methods of repayment may vary. Such "irregular"
serial bonds may result in:
o Gradually increasing annual debt service charges over the life
of the issue;
o Fluctuating annual installments producing combinations of
rising then declining debt service; or
o Large installments due on the last years of the issue. These
are called "ballooning" maturity bonds.
Statutory limitations restrict the use of irregular serial bonds in
the State of Michigan. According to the Revenue Bond Act, "all bonds
shall not mature at one time, they shall mature in annual series
beginning not more than two years from such probable date of beginning
of operation and ending as provided herein above for the maturity of
bonds maturing at one time, and the sum of the principal and interest to
fall due in each year shall be as nearly equal as is practicable."
Term Bonds
Term bonds differ from serial issues in that term bonds mature at a
fixed point in time. The issuing entity makes periodic payments (in-
cluding interest earned on investments) to a sinking fund which will be
used to retire the debt at maturity. The major disadvantage to this
305H
-------
J-A
approach to financing is management of the sinking fund — a complex
operation requiring expertise in national and regional monetary markets
to insure maximum return on investment. Mismanagement of the fund could
lead to default on the bond.
Until recently, term bonds requiring a sinking fund were illegal in
the State of Michigan. In 1977, the Michigan legislature passed a
resolution allowing the use of term bonds by requiring annual payments
to a sinking fund for use in purchasing or redeeming bonds to retire the
debt. There is an advantage to this method of debt retirement, particu-
larly for revenue-producing wastewater treatment facilities. If
revenues or user charges from the facilities are estimated to vary
widely from year to year, then the community has the option of retiring
a greater or lesser portion of the debt in any given year.
OPERATING COSTS
In most cases, operating costs are financed through service
charges. Service charges are generally constructed to reflect the
physical use of the system. For example, charges may be based on one or
a combination of the following factors:
o Volume of wastewater
o Pollutional load of wastewater
o Number or size of connections
o Type of property serviced (residential, commercial, industrial)
Volume and pollutional load are two of the primary methods for
determining service charges. Basing service charges on volume of waste-
water requires some method for measuring or estimating volume. Because
metering of wastewater flows is expensive and impractical, many communi-
ties utilize existing water supply meters and, often, fix wastewater
volume at a percentage of water flows. When metering is not used, a
flat rate system may be employed, charging a fixed rate for each connec-
tion based on user type.
INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
The townships and municipalities within the Study Area have avail-
able a number of organizational arrangements in financing wastewater
facilities. This section discusses these arrangements and reviews the
financial effects of various institutional structures on the market-
ability of the bond.
Organization Structure
Michigan Public Act (P.A.) 129 of 1943, (Michigan Compiled Laws
1970, Section 123.231-236 and subsequent amendments) provides for the
following institutional arrangements to administer and finance waste-
water facilities.
1. Municipal Ownership. Ownership, operation and administration
are conducted by a single community as a service to its residents.
305H
-------
J-4
2. Joint Ownership. Two or more communities jointly construct,
operate and own the facilities. Each government entity retains title to
the facilities in proportion to its share of capital expenditures. The
political subdivisions may borrow money and issue joint revenue or
general obligation bonds in the name of "the participating jurisdictions.
3. Contracting for Service. One entity provides sewer services
to an area outside its boundaries on the basis of a contractual agree-
ment. P.A. 129 of 1943, Section 2 states that "any such contracts shall
be authorized by the legislative body of each contracting political
subdivision and shall be effective for such term as shall be prescribed
therein not exceeding 50 years."
4. Special Purpose District (Sanitary Districts). A number of
local governments cooperate. This arrangement differs from joint owner-
ship in that a separate governing body is established and embodied with
the power to administer the financing and operation of the project.
Debt is issued in the name of the district authority, but repayment
obligations are the responsibility of all communities in the district.
5. Multi-Purpose Districts. These are similar to the special
purpose district, but, in contrast, multi-purpose districts have more
than one function. For example, a multi-purpose district may provide
water services, sewer services, irrigation and flood control for a
specified area. In Michigan, P.A. 40 of 1956, states that a county may,
upon petition, establish a drainage board, whose composition it
specifies, which is then authorized to create a drainage district for
draingage, water and sewer facilities.
FINANCIAL EFFECTS OF INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
FOR THE CRYSTAL LAKE STUDY AREA
Water quality problems and proposed solutions in the Crystal Lake
area extend beyond municipal boundaries. Of the five arrangements
listed above, joint contracts, special purpose districts, and con-
tractual agreements would be the most suitable for the Study Area. The
organization arrangement that is selected to administer, finance and
implement the project will affect (1) the marketability of the bond,
and (2) the administrative costs of the project. These alternative
institutional arrangements are discussed below.
Joint Ownership and Special Purpose Districts
Both the joint ownership and special district arrangements provide
a means for each participating village and township to share in the
costs and benefits provided by the wastewater management system but
would be acceptable only if the combined entities can devise a financial
structure that will insure the marketability of the bond at a desirable
interest rate. For the Crystal Lake Study Area, there are some disadvan-
tages in the use of these institutional arrangements.
First, because Crystal Lake Township, Lake Township and Benzonia
Township have no record of earnings for municipal sewerage facilities,
it might be difficult to market either general obligation or revenue
305H
-------
J-4
bonds. Second, previous bond issues for Frankfort, Benzonia Village and
Elberta have been for small improvements in water systems, streets, and
highways--too small for Moody's Bond Record and Standard and Poor's to
rate. Therefore, an investor's ability to evaluate the community's re-
sources to meet periodic principal and interest payments is impaired.
Third, in the Socioeconomic Study Area a large proportion of the popula-
tion with incomes below the poverty level are elderly or retired with
limited or fixed incomes. In 1970, the date of the latest available
statistics, approximately 20 % of all persons in the Study Area were
65 years or older. These characteristics will tend to reduce the
ability of the community to meet debt service charges under adverse
economic conditions.
Contracting for Service
A municipality or political subdivision may contract with other
political subdivisions to acquire sewage disposal services (P.A. 129 of
1943). A variation of this statute, P.A. 42 of 1964 (Section 257.310a
of Michigan Compiled Laws 1970) as amended, allows a county to acquire
the facilities, issue bonds and charge participating jurisdictions for
sewer services. There are financial advantages to this type of con-
tractual arrangement for the Crystal Lake Study Area.
County Bond Rate. Benzie County has a high-quality bond
rating (AA). Since it has an established financial record,
the market interest rate may be lower than sanitary district
or joint ownership arrangements.
Assessed Valuation. The County's total assessed property
valuation is greater than the combined valuation of each
political subdivision in the Study Area (see Table J-4-a).
This would be reflected in the rate of interest for general
obligation bonds supported by the full faith and credit of the
county.
CONCLUSIONS
Alternatives for financing a wastewater management system in the
Study Area and a range of investment strategies for policymakers to
employ at the local level were outlined above. This section summarizes
these options and recommends a strategy for financing the Crystal Lake
system.
Institutional Arrangement
Municipal ownership, joint ownership, and special purpose districts
should be avoided as an organizational approach to financing the
proposed facilities in the Study Area. The best solution would enable
the county to issue the bond, operate the system and charge the partici-
pating political subdivision for wastewater services. The major advan-
tage of this approach is that the county can issue debt pledging the
full faith and credit of its economic resources to support the issue.
Such an arrangement would both make possible a lower interest rate and
would most improve the marketability of the bond.
305H