EIS-79-
 0975D|

App.
C. 1
AEPA
United States

Environmental Protection
Agency
Region V

230 South Dearborn
Chicago, Illinois 60604
                                    June 1979
Water Division
Environmental      Draft
Impact Statement

Alternative Wastewftifi
Treatment Systems
for Rural Lake Projects

Case Study Number 1
Crystal Lake Area
Sewage Disposal Authority
Benzie County, Michigan

Appendices

-------
                       VOLUME  II APPENDICES


              DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL  IMPACT STATEMENT


ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS FOR RURAL LAKE PROJECTS


 CASE STUDY No. 1:  CRYSTAL  LAKE AREA SEWAGE DISPOSAL AUTHORITY


                   BENZIE COUNTY,  MICHIGAN




                       Prepared by the




          UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY


                 REGION V, CHICAGO,  ILLINOIS
                            AND
                     WAPORA,  INCORPORATED
                       WASHINGTON,  D.C.
                                     Approved by:
                                        n McGuire
                                        ional Administrator
                                        S.  Environmental Protection Agency
                                      une,  1979
                                      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                      Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
                                      77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Floor
                                      Chicago, IL 60604-3590

-------
                                   VOLUME II

                              APPENDIXES
     SOILS

     A-l  Available Soils Data
     A-2  Soil Factors That Affect On-Site Wastewater Disposal Systems
     A-3  Soil Limitation Ratings for Septic Tank Absorption Fields
     A-4  Comparison of Site Characteristics for Land Treatment Processes
B    NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS


C    "INVESTIGATION OF SEPTIC LEACHATE DISCHARGES INTO CRYSTAL LAKE"


D    CLASSIFICATIONS AND STANDARDS FOR SURFACE WATERS

     D-l  Michigan Surface Water Classifications
     D-2  Michigan State Water Quality Standards
     D-3  Betsie River Natural River Zoning
     D-4  Effluent Limits — Frankfort, Elberta, Beulah


E    WATER QUALITY

     E-l  Seasonal and Long-Term Changes in Lake Water Quality
     E-2  Non-Point Source Modeling — Oraernik's Model
     E-3  Earlier Water Quality Studies,  Crystal Lake Facility Planning Area
     E-4  Simplified Analysis of Lake Eutrophication



F    ON7-SITE SYSTEMS

     F-l  "Sanitary Systems of Crystal Lake, Benzie County, Michigan:
          An On-Site Survey"
     F-2  Selections from Sanitary Code of Minimum Standards - 1964
     F-3  Sanitarv Code of Minimum Standards - 1972
     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

-------
Appendices, Cone.
H    POPULATION PROJECTION METHODOLOGY
     FLOW REDUCTION DP/ICES

     1-1  Estimated Savings with FloxvT Reduction Devices
     1-2  Incremental Capital Costs of Flov Reduction in the Crystal Lake
          Study Area
     1-3  Flow Reduction and Cost Data for Water-Saving Devices
     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
K    MANAGEMENT OF SMALL WASTEWATER SYSTEMS OR DISTRICTS

     K-l  Some Management Agencies for Decentralized Facilities
     K-2  Legislation by States Authorizing Management of Small Waste
          Flow Districts
     K-3  Management Concepts for Small Waste Flow Districts


DOCUMENTS CITED IN THE APPENDIXES

-------
                                                               APPENDIX
                                                                   A
                      SOILS
A-l    Available Soils Data

A-2    Soil Factors That Affect On-Site Wastewater
       Disposal Systems

A-3    Soil Limitation Ratings for Septic Tank
       Absorption Fields

A-4    Comparison of Site Characteristics for Land
       Treatment Processes

-------
                                                                       APPENDIX
                                                                         A-l
                            AVAILABLE SOILS DATA
     The Soil Conservation Service has cautioned that available soils data
should be used for general planning purposes only (by letter, Steve Utic, SCS
1978).  The following discussion of how soils data was gathered is useful in
assessing its limitations.

     Scattered soils conservation mapping was done for private farm land in
the county from data gathered by several soil scientists over a period of 20
years.  SCS undertook the task of preparing the Land Resources Inventory
maps using the available soils data plus aerial photographs.  Soils boundaries
were extended across unmapped areas by using a stereoscope along with the
aerial photographs.  The stereoscope permitted the SCS to combine the images
of two pictures taken from points of view a little way apart and thus to get
the effect of solidity and continuity.  The completed maps were checked in
the field for accuracy.  The maps were also checked by area conservationists.
Each area may contain smaller areas with conditions or ratings different from
those on individual maps.

     The most accurate soils data available is the limited surveying carried
out in 1978 for this EIS.  However, inasmuch as this surveying mapped only
scattered locations it cannot be applied to the entire Study Area.

-------
                                                                          APPENDIX
                                                                             A-2
           SOIL FACTORS THAT AFFECT ON-SITE WASTEWATER DISPOSAL

     Evaluation of soil for on-site wastewater disposal requires an understand-
ing of the various components of wastewater and their interaction with soil.
Wastewater treatment involves:  removing suspended solids; reducing bacteria
and viruses to an acceptable level; reducing or removing undesirable chemicals;
and disposal of the treated water.  For soils to be able to treat wastewater
properly they must have certain characteristics.  How well a septic system
works depends largely on the rate at which effluent moves into and through the
soil, that is, on soil permeability.  But several other soil characteristics
may also affect performance.  Groundwater level, depth of the soil, underlying
material, slope and proximity to streams or lakes are among the other charac-
teristics that need to be considered when determining the location and size
of an on-site wastewater disposal system.

     Soil permeability - Soil permeability is that quality of the soil that
enables water and air to move through it.  It is influenced by the amount of
gravel, sand, silt and clay in the soil, the kind of clay, and other factors.
Water moves faster through sandy and gravelly soils than through clayey soils.

     Some clays expand very little when wet; other kinds are very plastic and
expand so much when wet that the pores of the soil swell shut.  This slows
water movement and reduces the capacity of the soil to absorb septic tank
effluent.

     Groundwater level - In some soils the groundwater level is but a few feet,
perhaps only one foot, below the surface the year around.  In other soils the
groundwater level is high only in winter and early in spring.  In still others
the water level is high during periods of prolonged rainfall.  A sewage absorp-
tion field will not function properly under any of these conditions.

     If the groundwater level rises to the subsurface tile or pipe, the satu-
rated soil cannot absorb effluent.  The effluent remains near the surface or
rises to the surface, and the absorption field becomes a foul-smelling,
unhealthful bog.

     Depth to rock, sand or gravel - At least 4 feet of soil material between
the bottom of the trenches or seepage bed and any rock formations is necessary
for absorption, filtration, and purification of septic tank effluent.  In areas
where the water supply comes from wells and the underlying rock is limestone,
more than 4 feet of soil may be needed to prevent unfiltered effluent from
seeping through the cracks and crevices that are common in limestone.

     Different kinds of soil - In some places the soil changes within a dis-
tance of a few feet.  The presence of different kinds of soil in an absorption
field is not significant if the different soils have about the same absorption
capacity, but it may be significant if the soils differ greatly.  Where this
is so,  serial distribution of effluent is recommended so that each kind of
soil can absorb and filter effluent according to its capability.

     Slope - Slopes of less than 15% do not usually create serious problems
in either construction or maintenance of an absorption field provided the
soils are otherwise satisfactory.

-------
     On sloping soils the trenches must be dug on the contour so that the
effluent flows slowly through the tile or pipe and disperses properly over the
absorption field.   Serial distribution is advised for a trench system on
sloping ground.

     On steeper slopes,  trench absorption fields are more difficult to lay out
and construct, and seepage beds are not practical.  Furthermore, controlling
the downhill flow of the effluent may be a serious problem.   Improperly fil-
tered effluent may reach the surface at the base of the slope, and wet,
contaminated seepage spots may result.

     If there is a layer of dense clay, rock or other impervious material near
the surface of a steep slope and especially if the soil above the clay or rock
is sandy,  the effluent will flow above the impervious layer  to the surface and
run unfiltered down the slope.

     Proximity to streams or other water bodies - Local regulations generally
do not allow absorption fields within at least 50 feet of a stream, open
ditch, lake, or other watercourse into which unfiltered effluent could escape.

     The floodplain of a stream should not be used for an absorption field.
Occasional flooding will impair the efficiency of the absorption field; fre-
quent flooding will destroy its effectiveness.

     Soil maps show the location of streams, open ditches, lakes and ponds,
and of alluvial soils that are subject to flooding.  Soil surveys usually give
the probability of flooding for alluvial soils.

     Soil conditions required for proper on-site wastewater disposal are sum-
marized in the Appendix A-3.
Source:  Bender, William H.  1971.  Soils and Septic Tanks.  Agriculture Infor-
         mation Bulletin 349, SCS, USDA.

-------
                                                                             APPENDIX
                                                                               A-3
Guide Sheet 3.—Soil limitation ratings for septic tank absorption fields
I
Item affecting use
Permeability class!/
i
Hydraulic conductivity
rate
(Uhland core method)
Q
Perculation rate
(Auger hole aethod)
Depth to water table
Flooding
Slope
Depth to hard rock, —'
bedrock, or other
impervious
materials
Stoniness class
Rockiness class-
Degree of soil limitation
Slight
Rapid!/ »
moderately
rapid , and
upper end
of moderate
More than
1 in.hr!'
Faster than
45 min/in.!'
More than
72 in.
None
0-8 pet
More than
72 in.
0 and 1
0
Moderate
Lower end
of moderate
1-0.6 in./br
45-60 min/in.
48-72 in.
Rare
8-15 pet
48-72 in.
2
1
Severe
Moderately
slowl/ and
slow
Less than
0.6 in./hr
Slower than
60 min/in.
Less than
48 in.
Occasional
or frequent
More than
15 pet
Less than
48 in.
3, 4, and 5
2, 3, 4,
and 5
  !_/  Class limits are the same as those suggested by Che Work-Planning
Conference of the National Cooperative Soil Survey.   The limitation ratings
should be related to the permeability of soil layers at and below depth of
the tile line.

  2_/  Indicate  by footnote where pollution is a hazard to water supplies.

  V  In arid or semiarid areas, soils with moderately slow permeability
aay have a limitation rating of moderate.

  4/  Based on  the assumption that tile is at a depth of 2 feet.
                                              SOS.  1971.  Guide  for Inter-
                                              preting Engineering Uses  of
                                              Soils.  USDA.

-------
APPENDIX
  A-4










. f.

UJ
(^)
OO
UJ
o
o
C£
Q.

I —
-f"
UJ
s:
i —

UJ
o:
^
Q
2T
«3C
	 1

ct:
o
u.

LO
<_:
h— •
t—
l/">





v>
(U
(U
U
O
u
O-

t-
(U
.C

o


4)
U
T3
U
3
1
I/O






X)
c
03
Ol














l_rt
a;

u
o
L-
Q,
.'3
CL
o:
UJ
I —

«^
o;
<
^
^~^

UJ
1 —

00

.
L-L.
o

__,,
c


tj
•r—

a.















j
0

"*•
TJ
C
J2
Ol
o





c
o
4->
V-
,—
14-
C

-3
Q.
13
or













OJ
-*J
i ^




c£
9±
O













o

•J~\


u
4-1
1/1
C
,«
^~" U*>
r—
-fl C
3 tj

t/1

Q.
o
t/t

JC CO
i/l
.r- 0
C •*-»
U. <\J

OJ
-2
I/I
ui .C
aj u
^ g
OJ
.* u
T> 3
U O*
•r- OJ
*-> i*.
t_ i/l
(J O
•4-J O

tr t/l

1
*-» c
^— 
C ul
O (/i
1J

o
C\j . -
-u
c c
t) fQ
*->
-a
vn 1)










(TJ

o

01





































o
3:
5
v_

Ol



-o
01
M
>

.*_)

^
u
c
o
c
^
o
-o
• c

••-J- ^~














•o
a.
i.
o


i
o
C/7






Ol
o *->

J^
3 
u 3 a) k-
<^_^ • t 4t
t/1 l^ i- 'F-
J 4-» r— (U U
0 r— -r- Q. V.
r— -^- O £3 ^
<_
a. c

Qi i/l





O
T3
"> •*—
0 a.

l/l L,

>, >^
f— r—
qj aj
^ "^
L- ^_
O GJ
<3 -*3
0 0
s: H

+-J
^
jT3
3
OJ
c
0)
CL



O
1^1

3
•r-
4-*
*U
u
•M
j;


^*

(j
•«~
.•^
u
u
o
2


r—
"9
0
4^

V.
u
4J
g



ul 01
.»= t-
<-> Ol


O


CM




^.
o>
O 03
4-> 3
-a
XI C
t-1 3
a. o
•u '-
C-i en






ai
c
o
z




^
E: X)

<4- U
O O

Ol
Ol T3
1- XJ
o ai
Z> c



i^*
-r-
1^
*" O
S c
•r— -F~
1.1 C
0 O
a. r-

ai i-

5 CL
i: o



X3 XI
0) C

01 1.
C Ol
JZ
c *-"
Ol 03

'*- £
0
-o
Ol .—
en o
,T3 U

o s-
-t-J O
^n <4-



^
c
o

-------
                                                      APPENDIX
                                                         B
NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS

-------
                                                                          APPENDIX
                                                                             B
                    NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS


                                       Primary              Secondary
Suspended Participates

(rncrograms/cu. meter)
annual geometric mean                   75                  —
max. 24-hr, cone.*                     260                  150
Sulfur Oxides

(nricrograms/cu. meter)
annual arith. average                   80 (.03 ppm)        —
max. 24-hr, cone.*                     355 (.14 ppm)
max. 3-hr, cone.*                      —                 1300 ('iSppm)
Carbon Monoxide

(nsilligrams/cu. meter)
max. 8-hr, cone.*                       10 (9 ppm)           10
max. 1-hr, cone.*                       40 (35 ppm)          40
Photochemical Oxidants

(rnicrograms/cu. meter)
max. 1-hr, cone.*                      160 (.08 ppm)        160
Nitrogen Oxides

(m'crograns/cu. meter)
annual arith. average                  100 (0.65ppm)        100
Hydrocarbons

(rncrcgrams/cu. mater)
rr.ax. 3-hr, cone.*                      160 (.24 ppm)        160
    (6-9 a.m.)
  ;:<'; to 03 exceeded mere than once a year per site.


  TE:  Values  in parts per million (ppm) are only approximate.

-------
                                                       APPENDIX
                                                           C
INVESTIGATION OF SEPTIC LEACHATE DISCHARGES
                   INTO
          CRYSTAL LAKE, MICHIGAN

-------
                                                     APPENDIX
                                                        C
INVESTIGATION OP SEPTIC LSACHATE DISCHARGES

                   INTO

          CHXSTAL LAKE, MICHIGAN
            Interpretive Report
              December, 1978
               Prepared for

               WAPOHA, Inc.
             Washington, D.C.
                Prepared by

           K-V Associates, Inc.
          ?almouth, Massachusetts

-------
                       TABLE OP CONTENTS

                                                           Page
1.0  Introduction - Plume Types and Characteristics	  1
2.0  iMethodology - Sampling and Analysis	  8
3.0  Plume Locations	 11
4.0  Nutrient Analyses	 14
5.0  Nutrient Relationships	 17
     5-1  Assumed Vastewater Characteristics	 18
     5.2  Assumed Background Levels	 19
     5»3  Attenuation of Nitrogen Compounds	 20
     5^4  Attenuation of Phosphorus Compounds	 20
6.0  Coliform Levels in Surface Waters	 21
     6.1  Cold Creek	 22
7.0  Plume Characteristics and Groundwater Hydrology	 23
8.0  Relationship of Attached Plant Growth to Plumes	 26
9.0  Conclusions	 31
References	 33
Appendix	

-------
                         INTRODUCTION
      Septic Leachate Plumes - .Types and Characteristics

     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 degradation
and soil adsorption of potential contaminants;  and 5) 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 actively emerge along shorelines, raising
sediment nutrient levels and creating local elevated concen-
trations of nutrients (Kerfoot and Brainard, 1978).  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 (LHPC, 1977).
     Wastewater effluent contains a mixture of  near UV fluorescent
organics derived from whiteners, surfactants and natural
degradation products which are persistent under the combined

                             -1-

-------
                                  -2-
^•GROUNDWATSR
                        SEPTIC  LEACHATE
      FIGURE 1.  Excessive  Loading of Septic Systems  on  Porous
                 Soils  Causes  the Development of Plumes  of
                 Poorly-treated Effluent Which Move Laterally
                 with  Groundwater Flow and May Discharge Near
                 the Shoreline of Nearby Lakes.

-------
                              -3-
conditicns of low oxygen and limited microbial activity.
Figure 2 shows two samples of sand-filtered effluent from the
Otis Air Force Ease sewage treatment plant.   One was analyzed
immediately and the other after having sat 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 fluorescent 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.  The stable ratio (cojoint
signal) between fluorescence and conductivity allows ready
detection of leachate plumes by their conservative tracers as
an early warning of potential nutrient breakthroughs or public
health problems.
     The Septic Leachate Detector (3NDECO Type 2100 "Septic
Snooper") consists of the subsurface probe, the water intake
system, the analyzer control unit, and the graphic recorder
(Figure 3).  Initially the unit is calibrated against stepwise
increases of wastewater effluent, of the type to be detected,
added to the background lake water.  The orobe of the unit is
then placed in the lake water along the shoreline.  Groundwater
seeping through the shoreline bottom is drawn into the sub-
surface intake of the crobe and travels upwards to the analyzer
unit.  As it passes through the analyzer, separate conductivity
and specific fluorescence signals are generated and sent to
a signal processor which registers the separate signals on a

-------
  SC-
 70-
  60-
LU
O
Z
UJ
3,
en
LU
C40-
  30-
  20-
  10-
       EXCITATION SCAN

       SAND FILTERED SECONDARILY-TREATED

       WASTE  WATER EFFLUENT
                                    NEWLY SAND FILTERED
                                    OTIS EFFLUENT
                            AGED
                            SAND FILTERED
                            EFFLUENT (6 mo.)
              300
           FIGURE2 .
        400           =00
      WAVELENGTH (nm)

Sand-fl" tarea iff'jent Or~oc^ces a Staole
Fl'jorasce.n" Sijna'ure, Here  Shown 3efora
       and After Aaina.

-------
 QISC-iARGc
     i
     i
     T
DUAL CHANNEL.
STHIP CHART
 RECCRC€S
            3CTTU£
    INTAKE
                                                                   INDEX
                                                                  versa
      ENDECO* SEPTIC LEACHATE  DETECTOR  (SEPTIC SNOOPER"*} SYSTEM  DIAGRAM
FIGURE ?.   The Type 2100 "SEPTIC SNOOPER™" Consists of  Comoined  Fluorcmete-/
           Conductivity Units Whose Signal is Adjusted to  Fingerprint  Effluent.
           The Unit is Mounted in a Boat  and  Piloted Along  che  Shoreline.
           Here tne Probe is Shown in  the Water with a Samole Seina  Ta,
-------
                             -6-
strip chart recorder as the boat moves forward.   The analyzed
water is continuously discharged from the unit back into the
receiving water.

Types of Plumes
     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 oval-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.
     Three different types of groundwater-related wastewater
plumes are commonly encountered during a septic leachate survey:
A) erupting plumes, 3) passive plumes, and C) 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  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 waste-
water  often  still  remain attached to  soil particles in  the

-------
                             -7-
vicinity of the previous erupting rjlume, 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 ground-water
leachings of nearstream septic leaching fields or direct pipe
discharges into streams which then empty into the lake.

-------
                             -8-
           2.0  METHODOLOGY - SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS

     Water sampling for nutriertt concentrations  along the
shoreline are coordinated with the septic  leachate  profiling to
clearly identify the source of effluent.   The shoreline of
Crystal Lake consists predominantly of sand and  cobblestones,
with a natural beach of shallow slope extending  outwards along
a natural shelf for considerable distances before dropping
steeply.  A profile of the shoreline for emergent plumes was
obtained by manually towing the septic leachate  detector along
the lee side of the shoreline in a 5 meter aluminum rowboat.
As water was drawn through the probe and through the detector,
it was scanned for specific organics and inorganics common  to
septage leachate.
     Whenever elevated concentrations of leachate were indicated
on the continual chart recorder, a search was made  of the area
to pinpoint the location of maximum concentration.   At that
tine 1) a surface water sample was taken from the discharge of
the detector for later nutrient analysis,  2) an  interstitial
groundwater sample was taken with a hand-driven  well-point
sampler to a depth of .3 meter and 3) finally a  surface water
sample for bacterial content (total and fecal coliform) was
also taken.  The combination of the triple sampling served  to
identify the source of effluent.  If the encountered olume
originated from groundwater seepage, the concentration of

-------
                             -9-
nutrients would be considerably elevated in the well-point sample.
If the source were surface effluent runoff, a low nutrient
groundwater content would exist with an elevated bacterial
content.  If a stream source oc'curred,  an isolated single plume
would not be found during search, but instead a broadening plume
traced back t) a surface water inlet.  Ground water samples taken
in the vicinity of the surface outflow would also not show as
high a nutrient content as the surface water samples.
     Water samples taken in the vicinity of the peak of plumes
were analyzed by SPA Standard Methods for the following chemical
constituents:
          Conductivity (cond.)
          Ammonia-nitrogen (NH^-N)
          Nitrate-nitrogen (NOz-N)
          Total phosphorus (TP;
          Orthophosphate phosphorus (PO^-P)
A total of 45 water samples were obtained at locations of selected
plumes for analysis.  The samples were placed in polyethylene
containers, chilled, and frozen for transport and storage.
Conductivity was determined by a Beckman (Model HC - 19)
conductivity bridge, ammonium-nitrogen by phenolate method,
nitrate-nitrogen by the brucine sulfate procedure, and
orthophosphate-phosphorus and total ohosphorus by the single
reagent procedures following standard methods (3PA, 1975)«
     Water samples for bacterial analysis were placed in steri-
lized 150 ml glass containers obtained from the Benzonia Health
Department and mailed to the Michigan Department of Public
Health, Bureau of Laboratories at Lansing for analysis.

-------
                             -10-
Analyses were performed for total coliform bacteria and fecal
colifora 07 the aembrane filter method.

-------
                     3.0  FLUME LOCATIONS

     Crystal Lake is roughly rectangular in shape, with a
maximum length of 8.1 miles northwest to southeast and a
distance along shoreline of about 25 miles.  Well-drained sand
and loamy sand upland soils on outwash plains and till plains
predominate the shoreline region.  Health Department records
confirm that high groundwater conditions occur along the northeast
shore of Crystal Lake.  More favorable soil conditions for
installation of septic systems exist along the northwest and
southern shore of the lake.  The loamy to sandy, well-drained
to excessively-drained soils along the shoreline regions are
generally suited for surface disposal at high and moderate
rates (SIS, 19', 3).
     Over 90 plut 33 of wastewater origin were logged along the
shoreline of the lake in different stages of development
(Figure 4).  Solid circles indicate erupting plumes, open circles
are dormant plumes, and solid squares represent stream source
plumes.  A line is drawn from each symbol to the location along
the shoreline where the plume was encountered.  The highest
densities of eructing plumes were observed on either side of the
presently-sewered regions of the town of 3eulah.  The 2.5 mile
stretch of the northeast shore contained 23 erupting plumes,
2 dormant plumes, and 5 stream source plumes.  Almost all
streams discharging into the northeast region contained some
effluent seepage.

-------
-12-
UJ
Z>
_j
Q.
1 i
' h-
0.
i
UJ
•
UJ
2
_i
0.
V-
•z
<
cs
O
O
O
UJ
O
es
O
Oi
<
UJ
CE
H
Ol
•
                                                       03
                                                        01
                                                        4J
                                                        co
                                                        >^
                                                        h
                                                        O

                                                        c
                                                        O

                                                        en
                                                        c
                                                        O
                                                        05
                                                        O
                                                        O
                                                        
-------
                             -13-
     An abrupt: cessation of plumes occurred when the sewered
area of Beulah was encountered on the east shore.  Variation in
the background organic signal may indicate low level leakage
from collection pipes.  However, the only plume source encountered
was at the outflow of Cold Creek, a shallow stream which drains
the center of town and areas east of Benzonia.
     As on the northeast, a densely-packed region of erupting
plumes occurred on the southeast shore for about .7 miles just
beyond the presently sewered area.
     Scattered incidents of dormant plumes with an occassional
active discharge of effluent were observed on the south shore.
One region containing a strip of cottages and residential houses
on high-ground water north of Frankfort exhibited a high frequency
of dormant plumes penetrating through medium sand soils and
beaches.
     The west end of the lake, on the other hand, was virtually
devoid of effluent plumes.  Many housing units in this region
are located back from the shorefront and have favorable ground-
water flow conditions.  The northwest side of the lakeshore
showed scattered dormant plumes.  Not all of the plumes were
encountered along the shallow sandy beaches.  In two cases the
discharge of effluent was found penetrating either concrete
or cinder block walls, often coated with green algae.

-------
                             -14-
                    4.0  NUTRIENT ANALYSES

     Completed analyses of the 'chemical content of the 45 water
samples taken along the Crystal Lake shoreline are presented
in Table 1.  The sample numbers refer to the locations given
in Figure 4.  The letter "S" refers to surface water sample and
the letter "G" to groundwater sample.  The conductivity of the
water samples as conductance (umhos/cm) is given in the second
column.  The nutrient analyses for orthophosphorus (FO^-P),
total phosphorus (TP), ammonium-nitrogen (NH^-N), and nitrate-
nitrogen (NO^-lO are presented in the next four columns in
parts-per-million (ppm - mg/1).

-------
                                       -15-
                          iA
                                                      CO
                                                                                   CM
3)
<9
£4
lA    CO   CM
                                                                    CN
               OJ
                  CO
                  CM
                                                         00
   O
   •H    i

   « D
                     ^     _    ^  	 ^ QQ ^\ £Q ^ ^)
               O «H c*- ^ CMCMCMr-irucOf
O
o
CM
O
O
r-t
0
O
lA
O
O
O
0
o
CO
o
0
o
o
lA
o
o
o
OCMOOOOCMOOOOCMOrHO
ooooooooooooooo
CM|sDO'Hr-tCMCri4''sDr-trOsrHCMl
-------
                                    -16-
ca
3
C
C
o
o
CO
I—I


03
t&
3 Z
O
P
OJ
qj p^
(4
«

z
<3
o
•H
P Pi
CO Xj

0
R
rH rH
(N CM CM U>
O*^ tA rH O
• • « •
rH

«\ ^ oo i^O
lA O O O
O O O O
• • 4 »

O O O O
CM CM ^ ^

4- O rH K> rH  CO rH LA^D rH V^ 4-

KM r-l 0-s rH lA r-t O O O KN O K"\ 4" lA
rH Z
\
1 Z
1
S 4-
f"\ T^
M4*i*
N^
C
rH rH
COOOCMKMAOO<^CM4-ONtA^D f>4" C^U3
O CM i™^ rH rH CM CN- ^D K*\ rH O O O CO "O ^O ^
O O O O O rH O O O O O O O CM4"rHCM

0 I
•H 1 'ACNrOsOrACM^i— ' rH 4" 4" 4" 4" C^CM4'i-P\
PP-t OlAOrHOrHOrHi— lOOOO O rH CM CM
fl06-t
c ,
H
P
C
03
OO O O O O OOO OOOO ^DOOO



O 1
O r^i
O 1
O 4-


CM rfSCM f^CM O^ CM 4" 4" K^ CM CM c<"N
O 4- O O O O O O O O OO O P till
OOOOOOOOOOOOO-H
C
 »H CM rH CM G^ O f^N *vO f^ O CM O ~H rH "vD CM 0s-
O 4- U3 4- ^D 4" 4* 4- 4" K^N K> 4" 4" 4" ^r KA 4" CM
O | P





0) h
r-l «D r^-QO <3^ O ^H CM r^ 4" iA
CM CM fOpr\K>rrvK\rOM«CNfO»rCsrc>4> 41 4" 4" 4" 4-

03Z 1



















O
rO\
O

rf\
O
O


4-
0
O






C
o
p

-------
                            -17-
                 5.0  NUTHI3NT RELATIONSHIPS       '         -   •

     By the use of a few calculations, the characteristics of'
the wastewater plumes can be described.  Firstly, a general
background concentration for conductance and nutrients is
determine^.  The concentration of nutrients found in the plume
is then compared to the background and to wastewater effluent
from the lake region to determine the percent breakthrough of
phosphorus and nitrogen to the lake water.  Because the well-
point sampler does not always intercept the center of the plume,
the nutrient content of the plume is always partially diluted
by surrounding ambient background groundwater concentrations
or downward seepage of lake water.  To correct for the uncertainty
of location of withdrawal of the groundwater plume sample, the
nutrient concentrations above background values found with the
groundwater plume are corrected to the assumed undiluted concen-
tration anticipated in standard sand-filtered effluent and then
divided by the nutrient content of raw effluent.  Computational
formulae can be expressed:
     for the difference between background (C ) and observed (C..)
     values:
          C, - C  a AC.      conductance -<•
          TP. - TP  = ATP.   total ohosuhorus
            101         -
          TN. - TN  = ATN.   total nitrogen (here sum of NO--N
                             and NE^.N)  >                  ?

-------
                             -18-
     for attenuation during soil  passage:

               /AC A
          100 x(A?;—/AT? =  % breakthrough  of phosphorus
               ^^i J
          100 xrATN » # breakthrough of  nitrogen


     where:   C    = conductance of background groundwater (umhos/cm)
              .    a conductance of observed olume groundwater
                    (umhos/ctn)

                . = conductance of sand-filtered effluent minus
                    the background conductance of municipal
            )        source water (uinhos/cm) ••           - '.>'•..  »,

            TP   = total phosphorus in background groundwater
                    (ppm - mg/i)

            TP.   = total phosphorus of observed plume ground-
                    water (ppm - oig/1)

            TN   = total nitrogen content of background ground-
                    water,  here calculated as NQ^-N + NH^-
                    (ppm -  mg/1)

             TN-   - total nitrogen content of observed plume
                    groundwater, here calculated as NO--N 4-
                    (ppm -  mg/1)


5•!  Assumed Vastewater Characteristics

     Local samples of effluent obtained at the Benzonia County

and Emmet County sewage treatment plants exhibited a conductance  :

total phosphorus : total nitroaren ratio of 700:8:20; subtracting

the background lake water concentration of 300 umhos/cm gives a

£>C:£>TP:£J!$ ratio of 4-00:8:20 representing the change in concen-

tration to source water by household use in the Crystal Lake

region.  Of note, the addition of total dissolved solids (as

indicated by AC) tends to be higher than soft water regions which

-------
                             -19-
often show a &C:&'T?:ATN ratio of 200:3:20 (Kerfoot and Srainard,
1978; Kerfoot, et.  al., 1976).  The common use of water softeners
in the hard water areas may be a partial contributing factor.

5«2  Assumed Background levels
     Little information exists on background groundwater con-
centrations in the Crystal Lake area.  Generally, the interstitial
lake bottom groundwater tended to be slightly higher in dissolved
solids and therefore conductance, than the raw lake water.
Sample #15 which was taken away from plume regions exhibited a
conductance of 385 uinhos/cin compared to 300 jumhos/cm for normal
lake water.  The total phosphorus content of sample #15 was
quite low at .00^ mg/1, common for sandy outwash soils which
often contain iron concentrations capable of binding phosphorus
under aerobic conditions.  This corresponds favorably with the
mean value of .0037 total PO^-P reported by Tanis (1978) for
the Crystal Lake outlet.  Similarly, ammonium-nitrogen contents
were quite low,  consistent with aerated, permeable soils.
Nitrate-nitrogen values were quite variable and the average
background for surface lake water found to be about .030 ppm.
Table 2.  Background groundwater levels for chemical constituents
          in interstitial water of Crystal Lake sediments.
                           Cond.         Nutrient Cone, (mg/1)
     Constituent        (umhos/cm)     T?     NH^-N     NC-.-N
     Value                 400        .004    .003      .030

-------
                             -20-
5.3  Attenuation of Nitrogen Corn-pounds
     On the basis of observed ratios of total nitrogen found in
groundwater plumes, breakthrough of nutrient content.ranged
from a high of 4-9# to a low of' J>% of that expected from the
typical effluent (Table 1).  A mean of 1676 penetration_was
observed based upon eleven samples with sufficiently high
conductance for meaningful analysis.  The dominant nitrogen
species (eight of eleven) was NO*-N, consistent with permeable,
aerated soils.

5.4  Attenuation of Phosphorus..Compounds
     Similarly, analysis of the observed ratios of total phos-
phorus found in groundwater plumes indicated.a high.of _256 .and a
low of .2% breakthrough of phosphorus content.  A mean penetration
of only .7% was calculated from the observed samples.  Although
the fraction of anticipated phosphorus load of the effluent
being received by the lake waters is small, the phosphorus
content of the groundwater plume is sufficiently elevated above
the observed background groundwater concentration to be able
to support the localized growth of attached algae or rooted
clants on the sandy nearshore lake bottom.

-------
                            -21-
            6.0  COLZPOHM L3VELS IN SUE?ACS WATSHS

     A series of water samples vere analysed for total and fecal
coliform content (Table 3) to determine the contribution of
septic leachate plumes to bacterial content.  Crystal Lake is
considered a recreational lake with surface waters classified
for total body contact recreation.   The Michigan Water Resources
Commission has stated that fecal coliforms shall not exceed 200
organisms per 100 ml in five or more consecutive samples.
Table
Location

#16
#18
#21
#30
#36
#38
#41
#^3
#44
3. Bacterial
Type of Plume

Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Stream source
Groundwater
Stream source
Stream source
Stream source
content of plumes.
Coliform Content
Total
900
1100
600
400
9300
<100
2400
*1CO
4300

(#/100 ml)
Fecal
30
SO
20
<10
120
<10
10
<10
<10
     No samples were found in excess of the State standards for
recreational water use.  Previous water testing has consistently
shown no apparent penetration of bacteria from plumes passing
through medium sandy soil (Kerfoot and 3rainard, 1978).  The
low fecal coliform contents indicate that the effluent fractions
which were observed in the small stream outlets of locations
^1 through u*± probably result from inland plume leakage

-------
                             -22-
through stream bank walls rather than any exposed effluent
runoff.

6.1  Cold Creek
     Previous studies have concluded that Cold Creek delivers
significant contributions of nutrients and coliform organisms
to Crystal Lake (SIS, 1978).  Total colJXorms ranged from 170
MPN/100 ml to 7^00 MPN/1QO ml and fecal coliforms ranged from
9 MPN/100 ml to 310 MPN/100 ml.  Sample #36 (Cold Creek) exhibited
a total coliform count of 9300 MPN/100 ml and a fecal content
of 120 MPN/100 ml.  The content of effluent in Cold Creek
appeared to be no more than 1.8# during two passages across the
outflow on November 15-  A dilution of 1.6# local effluent would
yield a AC:AP:AN of 6:.13i.320.  Using this to compute the
probable values of concentration of TP and TN in the surface
water based upon the mean .?# TP and 16# TN breakthrough, yields
.009 mg/1 phosphorus and .051 mg/1 nitrogen compared to the
observed  .011 mg/1 ? and 1.42 mg/1 N.  While the November
phosphorus load falls within the range expected from effluent
seepage, the nitrate-nitrogen values are far in excess and must
be related to other non-point sources.  Both stormwater runoff
and agricultural drainage may serve as potential sources.

-------
                             -23-
                   7.0  PLUME CHARACTERISTICS
                   AND GROUtfDVATER HYDROLOGY

     Distribution of the frequency and types of plumes around
the shoreline of Crystal Lake provides some insight into the
groundwater hydrology of the lake.  Kettle lakes with porous
sandy bottom soils induce groundwater flow patterns when their
long axes lie parrallel to the direction of groundwater flow.
Crystal Lakes acts as a large withdrawal well which encourages
the discharge into the lake of overloaded nearshore septic units.
While water within the lake basin seeks its own level by gravity,
the groundwaters at the eastern end are higher in elevation and
the groundwater at the western end near Lake Michigan is lower
than lake level.  This natural difference in water elevation
encourages an inflow of groundwater into the eastern periphery
of the lake and a general outflow of lake water into groundwater
at the western end (Figure 5).
     As a result of the groundwater pattern, the eastern shore-
line behaves like a recharge well, with frequent water inflows
as springs and creeks, physically encouraging erupting plumes
with more rapid groundwater transport inward towards the lake.
As mentioned earlier in Section 3.0, the lack of erupting plumes
in the Heulah region is due to the wastewater collection system.
However on the westernside, the recharge of water from individual
homes must be sufficient to offset the gradient of lake flow to
produce an erupting plume on the northwestern and southwestern

-------
                  OVERVIEV OF  GROUNOWATER FLOW
                 ARROWS INDICATE  DIRECTION OF FLOW
         .ALTERED GRADIENT
 L MICH /..Il'^r^^r - - c:
                          NATURAL  GRADIENT


                                    ^V  ALTERED
                                                     GRADIENT
Figure
   VERTICAL SCHEMATIC OF GROUNOWATER FLOW
         (VERTICAL SCALE EXAGGERATED)

Groundwater flow patterns for Crystal Lake
arrows indicate  direction of flow.
heavy

-------
                            -25-
shorelines in the direction of the lake.   Plumes would then most
likely intrude during summer and retreat  (i.e., be dormant)
during other times of the year.  On the far western shore, the
lack of plumes probably is due to sufficiently steep gradient
outflow that wastewater from near-shore systems may flow towards
Lake Michigan rather than towards Crystal Lake at all times of
the year.  The level of Crystal Lake is maintained at an eleva-
tion of 600 feet mean sea level (MSL), while the Lake Michigan
level is 580 feet above MSL.  With less than one mile lateral
distance and if a medium sand composition were maintained
throughout, the rate of outward flow towards Lake Michigan
could be in excess of .9 meters per day.
     Twelve Lee-type seepage meters were installed around the
shoreline of Crystal Lake during the week of the study.  Only
one of these remained intact following a severe storm with
gale-force winds.  The seepage meter was installed at the
southwest region in segment 12 at house #99 and showed a volume
of 52 ml over 74 hours.  The diameter of the cylinder of the
seepage meter was 45.7 cm (18 in.).  The calculated flow rate
would be 4.4 ml per meter^ per hour, a hardly detectable flow
rate.  Since seasonal springs occur in this region, there may
be some recharge in segment 12 even though the region lies
close to the outward flowing western portion of the lake.

-------
                             -26-
                     8.0  RELATIONSHIP 0?
                ATTACHED PLANT GROWTH TO PLUMES

     Extensive studies of the water quality have demonstrated
that on the basis of standard criteria of high transparency,
high dissolved oxygen in lake bottom regions, low nutrient
content, and low biological productivity, that Crystal Lake's
overall water quality ranks among the highest in Michigan.
However, the phenomenon of nutrient-dependent growths of algae
and aquatic plants along the shoreline of a nutrient-poor lake
(oligotrophic)  is an important issue with Crystal Lake for a
two-fold reason:  1) the attached algae interferes with
recreational use and esthetic value and 2) it is symptomatic of
degradation of the groundwater which provides a significant
fraction of long-term inflow to the lake basin.
     Growths of attached algae and aquatic vegetation have been
reported as most: abundant along the northeastern shore and at
the mouth of Cold Creek near Beulah in aerial and ground surveys
of Crystal Lake in the summer of 1976 (SIS, 1978).  The thickest
patches of algae (principally Cladophora) were found concen-
trated  along segments of the shoreline supporting year-round
cottages.  It was concluded that the presence of shoreline
algae,  especially as a dense patch, is highly correlated to the
location of cottage sites, with septic tank-soil absorption
systems being the likely source of nutrients  (Tanis, 1978).

-------
                            -27-
     Speciai attention was paid to the location of plume areas
in relationship to patches of Gladophora during the survey."
                              -"              ~        L-^'
In general, substantial Cladophora patches or attached vegetation
were found correlated with most emergent or dormant plumes.
Samples of the interstitial groundwater revealed a mean phos-
phorus content of .017 ppn total phosphorus, sufficient to
serve as a nutrient source for attached algae, particularly in
regions where a significant rate of inflow was maintained as in
the northeast region of the lake.  The plumes channel nutrient-
rich water to the vegetation, in effect acting as hydroponic
cultures.
     Statistical analysis of the nutrient content of the over-
lying lake waters of the emerging plumes corn-pared with the
interstitial groundwaters failed to show a significant correla-
tion.  The findings substantiate that while the nutrients
penetrating through the subsurface are sufficient to support
attached algae and plants, they are not sufficient to influence
surrounding lake water as yet.  Stream source inflows such as
Cold Greek and other streams penetrating the northeast shoreline
are of sufficient volume inflow to influence local surface water
nutrient concentrations.  These higher volume inflows do contain
noticeable nutrient loads from wastewater seepage, presumably
along their streambeds.
     Rather than compare the total phosphorus load per surface
area of the lake following Vollenweider' s model to evaluate the
impact of nutrients on aquatic algae growth, attached algae and

-------
                            -28-
piant growth in shoreline regions are sensitive to groundwater
nutrient content and should be correlated to the phosphorus
loading in ground-water per shoreline length.
     Table 4 compares the frequency of plumes to the density of
houses in different segments of the shoreline shown in Figure 6.
The nutrient loading per segment is computed using the frequency
breakthrough of N and P observed for the average plume times a
per dwelling loading of 9.1 kg/yr N and 3.6 kg/yr ?.  The loadings
of phosphorus per shoreline mile correspond to the northeastern
segments (6, 7/8), the unsewered region of segment 17 (Beulah),
and segment 12 in the southwest, coinciding with the areas report-
ing shoreline algae and plant growth problems.

-------
-29-
*JMQN\
                                                             fcfl
                                                             C
                                                             0)
                                                             O
                                                             -P
                                                             fl
                                                             03
                                                             •P
                                                             3
                                                             C
                                                             0}
                                                             C
                                                             O
                                                            JS
                                                             W

                                                             
a. o

-------
                                                     -30-
03

(4
03
CO
c
o
a
3
03
CO
03

    03
JS -P
-P  C
SC03
a -H
03  h
rH -P
    3
-'
   03
   O
   C
   CCS
I   -P
I   03
        03
        t*
        03

        03
        03
        C
        3

-------
                        -31-
                 9.0  CONCLUSIONS
A
A
       septic leachate survey was conducted along the Crystal
Lake shoreline during November,  1978.   The following observations
were obtained from the shoreline profiles, analyses of ground-
water and surface water samples, evaluation of groundwater flow
patterns, and comparison of attached algae growth with plume
location:
     1.  Over 90 groundwater plumes of wastewater origin were
observed to be entering the shoreline  of Crystal Lake.
     2.  The greatest frequency of erupting plumes was found
in the northeast and unsewered eastern shoreline.  A segment in
the southwestern section north of Frankfort also contained a
high density of dormant plumes.
     3«  A high correlation existed between the location of
emergence of plumes and attached plant growth, particularly
Cladophora.  Sroundwaters obtained near the peak concentrations
of the outflow of the observed plumes  contained sufficient
nutrients to support attached algae and aquatic week growth.
     4»  In general, considerable attenuation of nutrients in
the wastewater plume is accomplished by the well-drained, corous
soils, with an observed breakthrough of .7% phosphorus and 16%
mean nitrogen.  At the oresent time, there appears to be no
significant change in surface water nutrient contents as the
result of oluine emergence.

-------
                             -32-
     5»   The location and characteristics of emergent plumes
suggest  that srroundwater flow is entering the lake in the
eastern  sections and discharging in the western sections towards
Lake Michigan.   The low occurrence of plumes along the western
shore is undoubtedly related to the predominant outward flow
of the region.
     6.   A high correlation exists between the calculated
shoreline phosphorus loadings from observed plumes and the
regions  of reported nuisance attached algal growth.

-------
                             -33-
                           RSPESENC3S


SIS, 1978.  Crystal Lake environmental impact statement,
     chapter II, WAPORA, Inc. (in prep.)

EPA, 1975.  Methods for chemical analysis of water and wastes.
     Environmental Protection Agency, NEBC, Analytical Control
     Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268.

Kerfoot, W. 3., 3. H. Ketchum, P. Kallio, P. Bowker, A. Harm,
     and C. Scolieri, 1976.  Cape Cod waste water renovation
     and retrieval system - a study of water treatment and
     conservation, Technical Report WHOI-76-5> Woods Hole
     Cceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA.

ierf oot, '*. 3. and B. C. 3rainard, 1978.  Septic leachate
     detection - a technological breakthrough for shoreline
     on-lot system performance evaluation.  In:  State of
     Knowledge in Land Treatment of Wastewater, H. L. McKim (ed.)
     International Symposium at the Cold Regions Research and
     Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, New Hampshire.

LSPC, 1977.  Discussion of nutrient retention  coefficients,
     Draft Report 6?2 from Phase II Nonpoint Source Pollution
     Control Program, Lakes Region Planning Commission,
     Meredith, New Hampshire.

Tanis, ?. J., 1978.  ?inal summary report on Crystal Lake water
     quality study for the Crystal Lake property owners
     association (revised), Ann Arbor, Michigan.

-------
  -34-
APFENDIZ

-------
UJ
UJ
o

-------
TRACK A
SECTION 2

-------
<~77^	  _ ~	.  —J——

-------


-------
      TRACK 3



SECTIONS 5 through 16

-------

-------




-------






m


-------





-------


-------




-------


-------

-------

-------

	_____^_^ (



-------

-------
TRACK G



SCTION 13

-------

-------
 THACX D



SECTION 12

-------
V"VTT..   ,  }  '              JJ

-------

-------
                                                               APPENDIX
     CLASSIFICATIONS AND STANDARDS FOR SURFACE WATERS







D-l    Michigan Surface Water Classifications




D-2    Michigan State Water Quality Standards




D-3    Betsie River Natural River Zoning




D-4    Effluent Limits — Frankfort, Elberta, Beulah

-------
                                                                             APPENDIX
                                                                               D-l
                  MICHIGAN SURFACE WATER CLASSIFICATIONS


     Michigan has established State water quality standards to protect
public health and to preserve quality of the several bodies of water for
their designated uses.   Pertinent Michigan classifications for surface
waters follow.
          Classification                     Use

              A-I               Public and Municipal Water Supply

              A-II              Industrial Water Supply

              B-I               Total Body Contact Recreation

              B-II              Partial Body Contact Recreation

              C-I               Coldwater Fish (trout, salmon, etc.)

              C-II              Warmwater Fish (bass, pike, etc.)

              D                 Agriculture

              E                 Navigation

-------
APPENDIX
  D-2
—
r-^ '-J
1 !S
3
71
U
— ' •— <
1 i-J
.-4
i_j
£
1 r3


Z^
1
^_j




2
(T1
C
.-H

01

•ft
CO
^
1 ^


^J
T3
j

'— o
i

CJ 01
3







-
J^





h—
1
£2,
-H
c
CO

eP
•- *
A-J
O
— i
4-
01
S
1— f
•H
rH
o
^
1 V^
! 0









	 i
V— 1
1
^
4-i
•H
T3
• H
o
^J
3


, — 1
CO
V^
3
4-1
CO

£
3

O
Z




T3
0)
T3
2
01
P1
en
-*
~j~j



































9

3
•a
c
00
•H
03
0)
-a
CO
Q
4-1

CO
^
O
•H
^
3

C


•0)
e
o
o

n

;>*,
CO
S

J-l
O

Ol
i_4
CO







en
•a
•- 1
T— 1
o
01


en
3
"a

^
CO
r^
SJ)
•—4
en
o>
T3
>^
c


o


'Si

0
•H
^-
3
•n
r;
-r-1
01
e
o
CJ

_Q
p>^
CO
e:
O
OJ
V4
CO

r*;
•H
o;
C
O
•H
4-1
CO
i^
4-1
C
01

3
^
7;
3
O
^,
00

"-H
o

en
O
•H
4-1
CO
r-^
3
S
•H

01

4-1
C
0)
>
01
c.

0
4-)

£••
CO
01
0)
CJ
0)
c
4-1
c
01
4-1
X
0)
Oi
4-1

Q
4J

"3
0)
4-1
•H
S
o •<->
C 00 rH
O
O OO 0)
j"j
T) 1
1) rH
Qj L/1 I—I
CJ • CO
X ^4- rG
0) 01
iH
4-1 ^^
C 00
C S

rH m
rH CN
TO r-l
-G H

en
4-1
c
0)
•rl
^4
4-1
_. 3
Crt V II Z




-3 01
OJ OJ
> ^3
rH 01 -H
O "3 l-l *-j
03 -H O G
01 r-l r-l CO
•HO JG 3 i— I
^4 01 CJ Q. fX,
o
2
w
•a
£
CO
r^
OC

'Jl
i
-a

CU
.j^
4-J

O
4_j

0)
3
O
•r-l
1-1
3
• r—)
C
•H

0)
e
o
CJ
0)
1**^

co'
e

o
0)
rJ
CO

f~!
CJ
•H
"5
CO
•r-1
O)
4-i
O
CO
JO

j_i
o

•H
00
c
3
"4-1

*
01
4-1
G
CO
i— 1
a

o
•H
4_1
CO
3
er
co




01
4-1
c
0)
•rl
^t
U
3
C
«••


eu
^j

^3
3

0)
—<
j^
CO
CJ
•r<
y
CO

0.

4-1
cn
01






rH
~-^
CO
e


-^~
JG rH
03 Or-*
en o ---.
en -H rn oo
01 -^ S
CJ rH O
SH CO O  rH
Q
S C
0 -C
•^ C
CQ
JC
4-J

cn
01
•li
( — t

w
>H O rH O
4H o) e c
4-J
en o *->
3 JJ O 3
SH C i— 1 J2
O '01 -^
-G £ O rH
a. -U o ~--~
03 CO O 60
O 0) rH E

p^ 4-> v n m
e
iH
0
4H
rH
Q
CJ

rH
CO
0
CU C
fc Q


CJ
"S

o
cn
r-*
•H

•a
G
CO

Oi
4J
cO
3

0)
'J
CO
I-1H
S-l
3
01

14H
0

0)
a.
>^
4-1

TD
C
CO

C
O
•H
4-J
cO
a
rH

G
O
4-1
C
Oi
-a
c
0)
ex
o>
T3

0)
1-1
CO

03
"3

cfl
T3
C
CO
4-1
01

0)
IH
|^
4-1
CO
IH
0)
a.
e
0)
H



0)
3
4-J
CO
!H
0)
a.
e
Oi
H












































0)
4-J
CO
3

01
CJ
CO
4H
'H
3
en

a)
-G
4-1

4-i
O

0)
01
3

T3
01
4-1
CO
C
oo
•H
01
0)
T3
























r>
CO
4-J
CJ
S
QJ
i_j
•H
3
C^
(U


,^
J_J
*H
<~H
03
3
cy
^
0)
i_J
crt
^u
2
£
^3
00
•H
"cj
•H

4H
Q

01
4->
CO
CO

















































































-a
01
CO
"3
£
— J

^
-.
4-1
iH
CO
p-l












































-------
                                                      These  rules became
                                                      effective 6/11/77

                                                                     Appendix
               DEPARTMENT  OF NATURAL  RESOURCES                          D-3

              DIVISION OF  LAND RESOURCE  PROGRAMS

              BETSIE  RIVER NATURAL  RIVER ZONING
  Filed with  Secretary  of  State
  These rules take  effect  15  days  after  filing with  the Secretary
of State

(By authority conferred on the  commission  of natural  resources
by section 13 of Act No. 231  of  the  Public Acts  of  1970, being
§281.773 of the Michigan Compiled  Laws)
R 281.31.   Definitions.
  Rule 1.   (1)  "Applicant" means  a person  who  requests  on  proper
forms and via proper procedures, a zoning  permit,  special exception
permit, or variance.
  (2)  "Appurtenance" means a structure  incidental  to  a  dwelling,
including, but not limited to, garages,  private access roads,  pump
houses, wells, sanitary facilities, and  electrical  service  lines.
  (3)  "Building permit" means a permit  issued  by  the  appropriate
governmental subdivision as presently required  under provisions  of
the state construction coda act of 1972, Act 230  of the  Public Acts
of 1972, being §125.1501 et seq. of the  Michigan  Compiled Laws.
  (4)  "Building inspector" means  the agency or individual  appointed
by the appropriate governmental subdivision to  administer provisions
of Act No. 230 of the Public Acts  of 1972, including issuance  of
bui Iding permits.
  (5)  "Commission" means the natural resources commission.
  (6)  "Director" means the director of  the department of natural
resources.
  (7)  "Duelling, single family" means a detached building, or
portion thereof, which is used exclusively for residential  purposes,
and which is designed for or occupied exclusively by 1  family and
containing housekeeping facilities.
  (8)  "Filtered view of the-river" means  maintenance  or establishment
of woody vegetation of sufficient density to screen developments from
the river, provide  for streambank stabilization and erosion control,
serve as an aid to  infiltration of surface runoff and  provide cover
to shade the water.   It need not be so dense as to completely block
the river view.  It means no clear cutting.
  (9)   "Front" means  that side of a lot  abutting the water's edge  of
the mainstream or tributary.
  (10)  "Lot" means a parcel of land occupied or intended to be
occupied by 1 single  family dwelling and appurtenances incidental
to it, including such open spaces as are arranged and  designed to
be used in connection with such buildings.
  (11)  "Natural river district" means the Betsie river natural
river district as described  in subrula (1) of rule 3.


                                                   April 28, 1976

-------
                                                                       D-3
  (12)  "Parcel" means  a  contiguous  area  or  acreage of  land which
can be described for purposes  of  transfer, sale,  lease,  rent,  or
other conveyance.
  (13)  "Reforestation" means  renewal  of  vegetative cover by
seeding, planting, or transplanting.
  (14)  "Setback" means the  horizontal  distance between  any portion
of a structure and the  water's edge, measured  at  its  closest point.
  (15)  "Soil  erosion and sedimentation control enforcement agency"
means the local agency  appointed  by  the appropriate governmental
subdivision to enforce  the provisions  of  Act No.  347  of the Public
Acts of 1972,  being §282.101  et seq. of the  Michigan  Compiled  Laws.
  (16)  "Structure" means anything  constructed, erected, or to be
moved to or from any premise which  is  permanently located above,
on or below the ground, including signs and  billboards.
  (17)  "Zoning administrator" means the  administrator  of these
zoning rules appointed  by the natural  resources  commission.
  (18)  "Zoning permit" means a standard  form  issued  by the zoning
administrator  upon application and  declaration by the owner or his
duly authorized agent approving proposed  construction and use  of
land and buildings and  structures thereon.
  (19)  "Zoning review  board" means  a  group  of 3  or more persons
appointed by the commission to act  upon requests  for  special
exceptions.

R 281.32.  Purpose.
  Rule 2.  It  is the purpose of these  rules:
  (a)  To promote the public health, safety, and  general welfare,
to prevent economic and ecological  damages  due to unwise develop-
ment patterns  within the  natural  river district,  and  to preserve
the values of  the natural river district  for the  benefit of
present and future generations.
  (b)  To protect the free flowing conditions, fish and wildlife
resources, water quality, scenic  and aesthetic qualities and
historical and recreational values  of the Betsie river and
adjoining land.
  (c)  To prevent flood damages due to interference with natural
flood plain characteristics by excluding  developments which are
vulnerable to fTood damages,  and which may reduce the capacity of
the floodway of 'the river to withstand flooding  conditions.
  (d)  To provide for  residential and other permitted uses  that
complement the natural  characteristics of the natural river system.
  (e)  To protect individuals from buying or developing lands which
are unsuited for building purposes.

R 281.33.  Boundaries; display and filing of  zoning map; effect of
  zoning..rules.
  Rule  3.  (1)   The Betsie river natural  river district is  that
area  comprising:
  (a)  The Betsie  river  from  Grass Lake  dam in section 2, T25N,
Rl 3W  in  Benzie  county  to  its  mouth at Betsie  lake in section  35,
T26N, R16W, including  Thompsonville pond.
  (b)  The Little Betsie  river from its  headwaters in  section  24,
T25N, R13W in  Benzie county  to its  confluence with the Betsie
river in  section  25, T25N,  R14W.

-------
                                                                       D-3
  (c)  Dair creek from its  headwaters  in  section  15, T25N, R14W,
to its confluence with the  Betsie  river  in  section  19, T25N, R14W.
  (d)  The lands  lying within  400 feet
-------
                                                                       D-3
  (d)  Operation of watercraft  subject  to limitations of local
ordinances established under  the'authori ty  of Act No. 303 of the
Public Acts of 1967, being  §281.1001  et seq. of  the Michigan
Compiled Laws.                     *'
  (e)  Fishing and hunting  in compliance with current laws and
regulations.
  (f)  Reforestation.
  (g)  Normal agricultural  activities,  if those  activities meet
the requirements of these rules,  and  if the bureau  of environmental
protection of the department  of natural  resources determines that
the activities do not contribute  to stream  degradation.
  (h)  Operation^f licensed  motor vehicles on  dedicated public
roads or access roads to private  single family  dwellings.
  (i)  Private foot paths constructed by the landowner  of natural
materials to facilitate permitted uses.
  (j)  Private boat docks not to  exceed 4  feet  in width nor  more
than 20 feet in length, with  no more  than  4 feet of the dock
extending over the water, if  constructed of natural  materials  and
camouflaged into the natural  surroundings.
  (k)  Mining and extractive  industries more- than  300  feet  from
the water's edge, if constructed and  operated pursuant  to
applicable laws and rules of  the  state.
  (1)  Underground gas and utility lines to private single  family
dwellings originating from the landward side of the dwelling.
  (m)  Surface gas and utility lines  on lands or interests  in
real property continuously owned by a utility from  and after
January 1, 1971, subject to review and approval by  the  commission.
  (n)  Disposal fields and septic tanks in conformance with  local
county health codes and  the provisions of these rules.
  (o)  Cutting and filling of the land surface, unless  the  high
ground water  table is within  6 feet of the land surface,  if the
cutting and  filling meets all the requirements  of Act No.  347 of
the Public Acts of 1972, being §282.101 et seq. of the Michigan
Compiled Laws, and approval is granted by the local soil  erosion
and sedimentation  control enforcement agency.
  (p)  Other  uses  for which an applicant is granted a permit by
the zoning  administrator pursuant to rules 6 and 9.

R 281.35.  Natural vegetation .strip.
  Rule 5.  A strip 50 feet wide on each side of, and parallel to,
the Betsie  river mainstream, the Little Betsie  river,  and Dair
creek shall  be maintained in trees and  shrubs or in its natural
state, except  that dead, diseased, unsafe, or fallen trees, as
well  as noxious  plants may be removed,  and  trees and shrubs,
upon  approval  of  the  area forester, may be  selectively pruned
or  removed for landscaping purposes or  to  provide  a filtered
view  of  the  river.

R 281.36.   Special exception permits.
  Rule 6.   (1)   Special  exception  permits  may be granted to allow
a use in  the natural  river district  that is not specifically per-
mitted by rule  4,  where  implementation  of  that  use does not
contravene the  purposes  of these  rules  as  specified in rule 2.

-------
                                                                       D-3
  (2)  Application for a special  exception  permit  shall  be made
on a form provided by the zoning  administrator.
  (3)  Upon reviewing an application  for  a  special  exception
permit, the zoning review board,  at any time  prior to  rendering
a decision thereon, shall require the applicant  to furnish any
of the following information as  is deemed necessary by the zoning
review board for determining the  suitability  of  the particular
site for the proposed use:
  (a)  A detailed description of  the  proposed activity or use.
  (b)  A plan (surface view) showing  elevations  or contours of
the ground, including existing earth  fills; generalized vegetative
cover; size, location, and spatial arrangement of  all  proposed  and
existing structures on the site;  location and elevations of streets,
access roads, water supply and sanitary facilities.
  (c)  Photographs showing existing land uses and  vegetation
upstream and downstream from the  proposed use.
  (d)  Valley cross sections showing  the natural stream channel,
streambanks and high water marks, if any, with indications of
locations of proposed developments.
  (e)  Any other information deemed relevant by the zoning
administrator, and necessary to carry out the intent and pro-
visions of these rules.
  (4)  Before considering applications, the zoning review board
shall give notice by certified mail to all  property owners within
500  feet of the proposed  use as shown on the  current tax assessment
rolls, and to local officials and department of natural resources
personnel, including:   township supervisor, township building
inspector, county health  officer, local soil  erosion and sedimen-
tation control enforcement  agency, county  and township planning
and  zoning officials, soil  conservation service, and regional
office and natural rivers section of the department of natural
resources.
  (5)  In review of an  application,  the zoning review board shall
consider all relevant factors specified in these  rules in the
light of the spirit and  intent of  the purposes specified in  rule 2.
  (6)  The zoning  review  board may require public  hearings to be
held regarding  the application:   The zoning review board shall
decide on an application  within  15 days from receiving  the appli-
cation, except  that where public  hearings  are held or additional
information is  required  pursuant  to  subrule  (3) it shall render
a decision within  15 days following  the hearings or receipt of
the  last requested information.
  (7)  The zoning  review  board shall attach such  conditions  to
the  granting of  a  special exception  as are necessary  to further
the  purposes of  these rules.
  (8)  A special  exception  use shall adhere strictly  to the terms
of  the special  exception  permit  or such permit may be revoked by
the  zoning administrator.

R 281.37.  Nonconforrning  uses.
  Rule 7.   (1)   The  lawful  use of  any  land or structure existing
at  the effective  date of these rules may be  continued,  although
the  use does not  conform with these  rules.

-------
                                                                       3-3
  (2)  Routine or normal  repairs  and maintenance  work  required  to
keep a non conforming structure or other use,  such as  a roadway,
in sound condition are permitted.   Remodeling of  nonconforming
structures within the confines of the existing foundation  and
elevations is permitted.
  (3)  The granting of a  special  exception permit is  required for
the restoration of a nonconforming building or structure  damaged
or destroyed by no re than 50% of  its value due to flood,  fire or
ether means.  In determining whether 50« of the value  has  been
destroyed, the zoning review board shall  use  appraised replacement
costs as determined by a  qualified individual appointed by the
zoning review board, and  shall compare the value  of the part
destroyed to the value of the total  operating unit where  there
are several  buildings or  structures  which are used together by
the landowner as a single operating  unit.  A request for resto-
ration of a nonconforming building or structure damaged or
destroyed by more than 50% of its value shall be  approved if al";
of the following conditions exist:
  (a)  The land uoon which it is  situated is  not  subject to
flooding.
  (b)  Continued use of a nonconforming building  or structure
would not lead to accelerated bank erosion or other material
degradation of the river  resource, and approval is granted by
the local soil erosion and sedimentation control  enforcement
agency,
  (c)  The continued use  conforms with local  county health codes
and approval is granted by the local county health department.
  (d)  The continued use  conforms with local  building  codes and
approval is granted by the local  building inspector.
  (e)  Restoration of a damaged building or structure  approved
by the zoning review board shall  be started within one year from
the time of damage.
  (4)  A nonconforming use may be changed to a use of a like or
similar character, provided the new use conforms  more closely to
the rules of the natural  river district.
  (5)  A nonconforming use of any land or structure may not
hereinafter be enlarged or extended without the granting of a
special exception permit upon consideration of the factors out-
lined below in subdivisions (a),  (b),  (,c), (d), and (e).   An
enlargement or extension  of a nonconforming  use of up to S0%
of the land area or the floor area of  a residential structure
or public accommodation providing overnight  facilities not
exceeding 12 units may be approved by  the zoning review board
when the owner submits to  the zoning  review board a detailed
description of the proposed enlargement or extension together
with a site plan showing the  location  of  all new structures or
uses,  and upon a determination that  all of the followingrcon-
ditions exist:
  (a)  The  land  upon which it is  situated is not subject to
flooding.
  (b)  The  enlargement or extension  of the nonconforming use
does not  lead  to  accelerated  bank erosion or other material
degradation  of  the river  resource,  and approval  is granted  by
the  appropriate  local soil erosion  and sedimentation  control
enforcement agency.

-------
                                                                       D-3
  (c)  The enlarged or extended use conforms  with  local  county
health codes and approval  is granted by local county health
department.
  (d)  The enlarged or extended use conforms  with  local  building
codes and approval  is granted by local  building  administrator.
  (e)  The enlarged or extended use does not  contravene  the
purposes of these rules as specified in rule  2.
  (6)  Substitution of nonconforming structures  with new structures
may be made, but the granting of a special  exception permit upon
consideration of the factors outlined in subrule (5) is  required
to ensure that the  changed uses conform as  closely as possible to
the purposes of these rules as specified in rule 2.
  (7)  If a nonconforming  use is discontinued for 12 consecutive
months, any future  use at  that site shall  conform to these rules.
  (8)  A property owner may request the zoning review board to
certify the existence of a prior nonconforming use on the owner's
property which certification shall be granted where  a use meets
the criteria of this rule  and the common law  criteria of noncon-
forming uses of the state.

R 281.38.  Hearing; variances.
  Rule 8.  (1)  An  applicant who is denied  a  zoning  permit or a
special exception permit shall have a hearing pursuant to sections
71 to 87 of Act No. 306 of the Public Acts  of 1969,  being §§24.271
to 24.287 of the Michigan  Compiled Laws upon  petition thereof
filed with the director within 30 days of the denial.
  (2)  Upon receipt of a petition for a hearing, the director shall
set a date for a hearing on the facts and proposed action, and
shall appoint a hearing officer to preside  at the hearing.  The
proDosed hearing shall be  scheduled not more  than 8 weeks after
receipt of the petition.  The hearing officer shall  hear the
evidence and prepare a record of the proceedings and a proposal
for a decision, including  findings of fact and conclusions of law.
  (3)  The hearing officer shall give notice  of the hearing by
certified mail to  the persons named in subrule (4) of rule 6 at
least 30 days prior to the hearing.
  (4)  Tne record  of  the proceedings and proposal  for decision
shall be transmitted to the commission and  shall be served by
certified mail on  all other parties to the  proceedings not more
than  30 days after completion of the testimony.
  (5)  A final decision or order of the commission in a contested
case shall be made not more than 60 days after the date of the
hearing and a-copy of the  decision or order shall be delivered
or mailed forthwith to each party and to that party's attorney.
  (6)  The commission shall prepare an official  record of hearing
pursuant to section 86 of Act No, 306 of the Public Acts of 1969,
being §24.286 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.
  (7)  The final decision  or  order of the commission after a
Hearing is conclusive unless  reviewed in accordance with section
37 or sections 101  to 106  of  Act No. 306 of  the Public Acts of
1969, being §§24.237 and 24.301 to 24.306 of the Michigan Compiled
Laws.
  (3)  In determining a final decision in a  contested case, the
commission shall consider:

-------
                                                                       D-3
  (a)  The economic effect of the subject property  weighed in
light of the applicant's entire  contiguous holdings and  not
merely the portion within the natural  river district.   If the
subject portion is the remainder of a  larger holding this fact
and a description of the title history shall  be included in the
hearing evidence.
  (b)  Increase in flood levels  and flood damages  that may be
occasioned by the proposed use at the  site and upstream  and
downstream from the site, water  quality consequences and other
factors relevant within the terms of these rules.
  (c)  Cumulative effect upon the natural river district from
potential  development of holdings in a legal  position  similar
to the applicant's, if variances are requested and  granted for
these properties.
  (d)  Reasonable alternatives available to the applicant.
  (e)  All other factors relevant to the purposes  and  provisions
of these rules.
  (9)  In weighing the application for a variance,  considerations
of public health, safety, and welfare  shall prevail, unless private
injury is proved by substantial  preponderance of the evidence  to
be so great as to override the public  interest.
  (10)  A variance shall not be granted where the  commission
determines that the requested use poses substantial hazard to
life or property rights either public  or private.
  (11)  Where, by reason of the narrowness, shallowness, or shape
of a lot or property at the effective  date of these rules, the
lot or property cannot accommodate a building because of the
required building setback, variances shall be allowed only upon
a consideration of the factors prescribed in subrule (.8) of rule
8.  Such variance shall provide that the structures shall be so
placed as to best meet the spirit and objectives of the natural
rivers act, Act No. 231 of the Public Acts of 1970, being  §281.761
et seq. of  the Michigan Compiled Laws.

R 281.39.   Zoning administrator and zoning review board;  appointment
  and  duties.
  Rule 9.   (1)   The commission shall appoint a zoning administrator
and  a  zoning review board  to  act as its  agent  to enforce  these
rules, including  the  receiving  and processing of applications for
zoning permits,  special exception permits, petitions for variances,
requests  for changes,  amendments or supplements, as outlined in
these  rules, or  other  matters the commission is required  to decide.
   (2)  A  person  shall  not  commence excavation, erection,  alter-
ation, or repair  for  a building or structure, or commence  a land
use,  until  an  application  for a  zoning  permit has  been  secured
from the  zoning  administrator.   Alterations  and ordinary  main-
tenance made on  dwellings  which  do not  change  the  character of the
structure or land use, and where  the  total cost does not exceed  5%
of  the market  value of the structure  in  any  12 month period,  are
exempt from obtaining  a zoning  permit,  but may be  required to
obtain  a  local  building  permit  from the  appropriate local  building
inspector.

-------
                                                                       D-3
  (3)  Application for a zoning permit shall  be  filed  in  writing
with the zoning administrator.   There  shall  be submitted  with  all
applications- for zoning permits:
  (a)  Two copies of a site plan giving accurate dimensions  on
either a scale drawing or a rough sketch and containing  the
following information:
  (i)  Location upon the lot of all  existing and proposed
structures.
  (ii)  Existing or,intended use of  the structure.
  (iii)  Generalized vegetative cover.
  (iv)  Lines and dimensions of the  lot to be used.
  (b)  Evidence, of ownership of all  property affected  by  the
coverage of the permit.
  (c)  Evidence that all required federal, state, county, and
township licenses or permits have been acquired  or that  appli-
cations have been file for the licenses or permits.
  (d)  Other information as may be required by the zoning
administrator, and necessary to carry  out the intent and
provisions of these rules.
  (4)  One copy of both plans and specifications shall be filed
and retained by the zoning administrator, and the other  shall  be
delivered to the applicant when the  zoning administrator  has
approved the application, completed  the site inspection  and
issued the zoning permit.  To insure that new land uses  in the
natural river district are in conformance with these rules,  the
applicant shall display a permit required by these rules  f?  :e  out
within 24 hours of its issuance by placing it in a conspicuous
place facing the nearest street or roadway and displaying it con-
tinuously until the purpose for which  the permit was issued  is
completed.  Failure to obtain and display a permit is  a  violation
of these rules and shall subject a person for whose benefit  the
permit is required to court action.

R 281.40.  Violations.
  Rule 10.  (1)  Buildings erected,  razed, altered, moved, or
converted, or a use of land or premises, in violation  of these
rules are declared to be a nuisance.
  (2)  An alleged violation shall be inspected by the  zoning
administrator who shall order the applicant, in  writing,  to
correct all conditions found to be in  violation  of these  rules.
  (3)  Violations of these rules shall be resolved by  the
appropriate circuit court in accordance with section 13  of Act
No.  231 of the Public Acts of 1970,  being §281.773 of the
Michigan Compiled Laws.

R 281.41.  Changes, amendments, and  supplements  to boundaries
: and permitted uses.
  Rule 11.  (1)  Changes, amendments,  and supplements  to  boundaries
and to permitted uses requested by a local unit  of government  or by
a landowner may be granted where implementation  of the change  does
not contravene the purposes of these rules as specified  in rule 2.
  (2)  A local unit of government or a landowner who requests  a
change, amendment, or supplement to  the boundaries or to  permitted
uses shall have a hearing held in accordance with, and subject to,
sections 71 to 87 of Act No. 306 of  the Public Acts of 1969, as
prescribed in subrules (2) to (10) of  rule 8.

-------
                                                                            APPENDIX
                                                                              n_
Effluent Limits

Elberta

Quality parameters


BOD (5 day)

Suspended solids

Fecal coliform bacteria

Total phosohorus

pH


Effluent limJt?

Frankfort City

Quality parameters


BOD (5 day)

Suspended solids

Fecal coliform bacteria

Total phosphorus

PH


Effluent limits

Beulah
                                 JO day average
                                (interim - final)

                                100 mg/i - 10 mg/1

                                75 mg/1 - 10 mg/1

                                200/100 ml

                                1 mg/I or 80% removal

                                6.5 - 9.0
                                 30 day average
                                (interim - final)

                                250 mg/1 - 10 ag/1

                                75 mg/1 - 15 mg/1

                                200/100 ml

                                1 mg/1 or 80% removal

                                6.5 - 9.0
    Permit No. MI 0021415



     7 day average
  (interim - final)

  150 rag/1 - 15 mg/1

  125 mg/1 - 30 ag/1

  400/100 ml

whichever is greater

  6.5 - 9.0



    Permit No. MI 0020630



     7 day average
  (interim - final)

  300 mg/1 - 15 mg/1

  100 mg/1 - 25 mg/1

  400/100 ml

whichever is greater

  6.5 - 9.0


    Permit No. M 00351
     The original permit (Xo. MI 0022373) was issued under the XPDES permitting
system.  Expiration date of this permit was June 30, 1977.  Michigan DNR issued
a new permit (No. M 00351)  to Beulah on July 1,  1977  however, NPDES regulations
no longer apply because the treatment system  is  groundwater discharge.  There
are no effluent limits associated with this type of discharge; however, the
State of Michigan requires extensive monitoring during the term of the permit
(June 30, 1982).

-------
                                                               APPENDIX
                                                                   E
                   WATER QUALITY
E-l    Seasonal and Long-Term Changes in Lake
       Water Quality

E-2    Non-Point Source Modeling — Omernik's Model

E-3    Earlier Water Quality Studies, Crystal Lake
       Facility Planning Area

E-4    Simplified Analysis of Lake Eutrophication

-------
                                                                             APPENDIX
                                                                                E-l
           SEASONAL AND LONG-TERM CHANGES IN LAKE WATER QUALITY
     Seasonal changes of temperature and density in lakes are best described
using as an example a lake in the temperate zone which freezes over in
winter.   When ice coats the surface of a lake,  cold water at 0 C lies  in
contact with ice above warmer and denser water  between 0  and 4 C.

     With the coming of spring,  ice melts and the waters are mixed by  wind.
Shortly, the lake is in full circulation, and temperatures are approximately
uniform throughout (close to 4 C).   With further heating from the sun  and
mixing by the wind, the typical pattern of summer stratification develops.
That is, three characteristic layers are present:  (1) a surface layer of
warm water in which temperature is more or less uniform throughout; (2)  an
intermediate layer in which temperature declines rapidly with depth;  and
(3) a bottom layer of cold water throughout which temperature is again
more or less uniform.  These three layers are termed  epilimnion, metalim-
nion (or thermocline), and hypolimnion, respectively.  The  thermocline
usually serves as a barrier that eliminates or  reduces mixing between  the
surface water and the bottom water.

     In late summer and early fall,  as the lake cools in sympathy with its
surroundings, convection currents of cold water formed at night sink  to  find
their appropriate temperature level, mixing with warmer water on their way
down.  With further cooling, and turbulence created by wind, the thermocline
moves deeper and deeper.  The temperature of the epilimnion gradually
approaches that of the hypolimnion.   Finally, the density gradient associated
with the thermocline becomes so weak that it ceases to be an effective barrier
to downward-moving currents.  The lake then becomes uniform in temperature
indicating it is again well mixed.  With still  further cooling, ice forms
at the surface to complete the annual cycle.

     The physical phenomenon described above has significant bearing on
biological and chemical activities in lakes on  a seasonal basis.  In
general, growth of algae, which are plants, in  the epilimnion produces
dissolved oxygen and takes up nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus
during the summer months.  Algal growth in the  hypolimnion is limited
mainly  because sunlight  is  insufficient.   As dead  algae  settle gradually
from the epilimnion into the hypolimnion, decomposition of dead algae
depletes a significant amount of dissolved oxygen in  the bottom water.  At
the same time, stratification limits oxygen supply from the surface water
to the bottom water.  As a result, the hypolimnion shows a lower level of
dissolved oxygen while accumulating a large amount of nutrients by the
end of summer.  Then comes the fall overturn to provide a new supply of
dissolved oxygen and to redistribute the nutrients via complete mixing.

     Over each annual cycle, sedimentation builds up  progressively at the
bottom of the lake.  As a result, this slow process of deposition of
sediments reduces lake depth.  Because major nutrients enter the lake
along with the sediments, nutrient concentrations in  the lake increase
over a long period of time.  This aging process is a  natural phenomenon
and is measured in hundreds or thousands of years, depending on specific
lake and watershed characteristics.

-------
                                                                               E-l
     Human activities,  however,  have accelerated this schedule considerably.
By populating the shoreline, disturbing soils in the watershed, and altering
hydrologic flow patterns, man has increased the rate of nutrient and sediment
loading to lakes.  As a result,  many of our lakes are now characterized by
a state of eutrophication that would not have occurred under  natural
conditions for many generations.  This cultural eutrophication can in  some
instances be beneficial,  for example by increasing both the rate of growth
of individual fish and overall fishery production.   In most cases,  however,
the effects of this accelerated  process are detrimental to the desired uses
of the lake.

     The eutrophication process  of lakes is classified according to a  relative
scale based on parameters such as productivity, nutrient levels, dissolved
oxygen, and turbidity  in the lake water.  Lakes with low nutrient inputs
and low productivity are termed  oligotrophic.   Dissolved oxygen levels in
the hypolimmion of these lakes remain relatively high throughout the year.
Lakes with greater productivity  are termed mesotrophic and generally have
larger nutrient inputs than oligotrophic lakes.  Lakes with very high pro-
ductivity are termed eutrophic  and usually have high nutrient inputs.
Aquatic plants and algae grow excessively in the latter lakes,  and algal
blooms are common.  Dissolved oxygen may be depleted in the hypolimnion of
eutrophic lakes during the summer months.

-------
                                                                       APPENDIX
                                                                         E-2
              NON-POINT SOURCE MODELING - OMERNIK'S MODEL


     Because so little  data  was available on non-point source runoff in
the Study Area, which  is largely rural, empirical models or statistical
methods  have  been used  to  derive  nutrient  loadings   from  non-point
sources.  A  review of  the literature led to  the  selection of the model
proposed by Omernik (1977).   Omernik's regression model provides a quick
method of determining nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations and loading
based  on  use  of  the  land.   The  relationship  between  land  use  and
nutrient  load  was  developed  from  data  collected during  the National
Eutrophication  Survey  on a  set  of 928  non-point  source  watersheds.

     Omernik's  data  indicated  that  the  extent  of  agricultural  and
residential/urban  land  vs.   forested  land  was   the  most  significant
parameter  affecting  the influx of nutrient  from  non-point sources.   In
the US,  little or  no correlation was  found  between nutrient levels and
the percentage of  land  in  wetlands,  or  range or  cleared unproductive
land.    This  is probably due  to the  masking  effects of agricultural and
forested land.

     Use  of a  model which  relates urban/residential  and agricultural
land use  to nutrient  levels  seems appropriate where agricultural and/or
forest make up the main land-use types.

     The  regression models  for  the eastern  region of  the US  are as
follows:

     Log P = 1.8364 + 0.00971A + ap Log 1.85                     (1)

     Log N = 0.08557 + 0.00716A - 0.00227B + QN Lot 1.51         (2)

     where:

     P = Total phosphorus concentration - rag/1 as P

     N = Total nitrogen concentration - mg/1 as N

     A = Percent of watershed with agricultural plus urban land use

     B = Percent of watershed with forest land use

    ap  -  Total  phosphorus  residuals   expressed  in  standard  deviation
         units from the  log  mean residuals of Equation (1).  Determined
         from Omernik (1977), Figure 25.

    CLr  =  Total nitrogen residuals expressed in standard deviation units
         from  the  log  mean residuals of  Equation (2).   Determined from
         Omernik (1977), Figure 27.

   1.85 = f, multiplicative standard error for Equation 1.

-------
                                                                         E-2
  1.51 = f, multiplicative standard error for Equation (2).

     The  67% confidence  interval  around  the  estimated  phosphorus  or
nitrogen consideration can be calculated as shown below:

     Log PT = Log P + Log 1.85    (3)
          Li
     Log NT = Log N + Log 1.51    (4)
          J_i

     where:

     PT = Upper and lower values of the 67% phosphorus confidence limit -
          mg/1 as P

     The  67%  confidence  limit  around  the  estimated  phosphorus  or
nitrogen  concentrations   indicates  that the  model  should be  used for
purposes of  gross  estimations only.  The model does not account for any
macro-watershed"" features peculiar to the Study Area.

-------
                                                                                      APPENDIX

                                                                                         E-3
<:
Cd
o
s
rJ
Ol
H
H
rJ
Cd
H
CO
a
CO
Cd
IH
O
D
H
CO
H
M


I
o-


Cd
Ptf
Cd
IH


Pi


















cn
}-i
cu
u
cu
g
cfl
(-1
CO
CU















^
cu co
> cu
rJ 4-1
3 cfl
CO T3





















cu
y
Vu
3
O
CO






CU
vi
cfl
1-1






•s
^"l
o
c
cu
^4
CO
O.
0)
C
CO

4J

*
§

*«
cu
M
3

CO
^i
cu
ex


H
• ft
CN
^
in
tH
"v^
ON

• A
CN
p*^
-»^
r^s.
rH
**^
vO



cu
1-^
CO
rJ



C
o

4J
1>4
0
Cu
0)
OS

•
tf"S
1 —
Os
rH

•
<£
CU
w
CO
CU
•H
cn
cu
«







*
^
4J
•H
C
•H
H
cfl
i^-
I—I
(0

*>
33
0.
»i
^>,
4-1
•H
>
•H
4J
a
-j
•o
c
o
CJ













•
CN
r~
-^.
CN
rH
^*
rH
rH






CU
•H
N
C
cu
CQ

«
CU
^
Cfl
t-J

cu
•H
CO
4J
CU
03






























•
CO
4-1
C
cu
•H
J4
4-1
3
C



























00
£j
•H
^
}_i
O
3


•
M
y|

*
^
4-1
C
3
O
CJ



















•
^
o
rH
tW
g
CO
cu
4-1
Cfl

*
cn
4-1
c
cu
•H
^4
4J
3



^*>
r— 1
J—
j_J
C
0


«•
CO
01
•H
rJ
CO
4-1
3
,a
•H
1-4
H

1
O
t-i
4J
^
Cd

•
rH
4-1
Cfl
Z

n
\J~\
CO
rH
=ii:

^
CU
p-
cfl
C-
















































•
fo
PN,
^*^,
Os

O
4-1

CN
r>.
^.
O
iH








•
r^%
cu
>
}-4
3
CO

C
o
•H
4-1
CO
0
•H
a.





LO |
O l-i
O cfl
pa c.
Cfl
- C
cn co
4-1 1-1
C W
cu
•H «
s-i cn
*J g
3 5
C 0
MH
- -H
O rH
Q 0
O
M
35 -H
O. cfl
a
. cu
CU H-(
^J
3 T3
W C
CO cfl
J^|
CU rH •
a co ^
g 4-1 a
cu o c
H 4-1 01
•s
J»J
cn •>
3 •- 0)
00 CX) C
3 so 3

rH
-a
n - r*
cO *^ ^O •
CN as o
" rH >^"
>> >^ OS
rH rH •> rH
33-*
1-3 1-1 rH -
4-1
» .. • CO
CU OS 4-1 3
C VO CX 00
3 Os CU 3
•-} rH CO  -^
•H CJ rH C 00
S -H -H CN
rH rH ^
y-i Xi cfl >, CN
O34-I4-I)
PH CO *H C7S
>, ^ rH SO
4-1 <4-l rJ CO -~^
•H O O 3 rH
Cfl C7* ^-*.
W rH tn
0) O • )-l
> 0 O CU S
•H jr r^ -t-i O
C CJ C71* (^ *rH
3 CO rH g 4-1
rH
cfl
4-1
cn
S-l
CJ
^
a
C
cu
M
cfl
a.
CO
c
cfl
}-i
4-1

m
^^
4-1
•H

•H
^
M
3
4-1

r,
cu
^
3
4J
CO
r-4
CU
a
g
cu
H













I —
r^
as
rH
1
p^.
sO
as
rH



















H
Cd

0
CO
rH
cfl
4-1
cn
2"1
CJ


i~H
cfl
J-J
0
4J

•*
IE
a

*
o
Q

r,
^s,
4J
•H
^
•H
cj
3

C
O
a

^
j-i
o
rH
O
O



















































1

^J
CO
x:

«\
cn
4-1
C
cu
•H
J_l
4-1
3
C

«
CO
T3

rH
O
cn

*
>,
4.J
•H
C
•H
rH
CO
X
rH
CO



































































•
CO)

rH
rH
£
a
o
i»j
o
rH
f-f
a

#i
cn
CO
cu
C






















































rH
rH

r*.
a*
o

0
rH
(-;
y

«,
^
4-1
•i-l
^
•r-l
4J
y
3
-a
o

o-

p^
j_(
cfl

•H
j^
cu
5
rH

as
i

— .
LO

• •-
vO
f^
•~^_
-J

00

. ,
cu

cfl
rJ
rH
CO
C
•r-l
fe

,
CO

as
rH

f
t—*

T3
CU

DL,

/.
CO
•H
C
rc0
rH
CO

Cfl
j^1
CJ

*.
C
cu
00

X
o

'O
cu
^
rH
O
cn
CO
•H
T3

*1
^
o
c
CU
(-4
cO
a
cn
C
CO
V-i


rQ
C
cfl
^
c^.
0"*
iH
	
CN

. (
^O
p^
^^^
to

as

,.
i —
c<^
^s^_
l/-j
-^^
r^
rH
CO
4-1
cn
?*i
t->
u

c
o

4-1

o
Cu
0)
J-

J>^
^
cfl
g
E
3
cn





























.
CO
3

0

"H.
CO
o
XI
a.
i —
K^
iH
r*
4-1
C
0



, .
cn
cu
•H
• l-l
r^ co
f-^ u
--v 3
O ,£>

•^- l-i







-------
                                                                                                         E-3
00
 CJ
 4-1
 03





































0)
J4
-^
GO


























































03
^4
0)
4-1
0.
c
5
U
03
G_








CO
4-1
13
















0)
CJ

3
0
CO











01
Jri
*-"




1
C
0
CJ

*
^
U
G
0)
^_|
03
C.
33
G
03
j-j
4-1

A
O
Q

*
0)

3
4J
CO

01
c.
s
"J
H




r-
f-N*
ON
rH
1
CO

ON
rH

















H
w
Cfi
O
H
CO
U
0)
,J5
^4
-J
•rl
;J
01
CQ
4-1 i—l
-I fl
G CJ
•H 0)
ri UH
~
-^ T)
r-. C
O ^3

* rH
"Tl C3
f^ ^j
o
f, 4J
^
O **
CJ CO
03
« 01
!- C
o -d

o cd
0 -C

* r, •
>, CO 03
4-1 4J £
•H C J-,
> 4H

"0
c
CO

r-l
03
4_l
C
U

*,
O
£^

n
(D
J-i
3
4J
CO
S-J
0)
a
3
0)
H








co
vi3
^



UH
o

4-1
G
0)
s
4-1
)-l
CO
a
Ol
Q

C
00
•H
JU
^j
•H
S










*
CO
4H
C
a>
•H
^_j
4->
3
C

*
CO
CO
01
c
"O

cd
r~

^
uS
Cij

r>
CO
=

Q
UH
•H
i — i
O
O












.
CO

o*»
r-l

r.
co

rH
O
03
cn
•H
T3

«t
03
T3
•H
1—1
O
CO

rH
CO
4-1
0













-§
U
o
0)
rH
01
OO
UH
O

£»,
44
•H
rH
CO
&

J_J
CD

cd
3









^
JJ
nH
c
•H
r-t
03
_vi
rH
03

«x
CO
0)
T3
~i
S-i
O
rH
^
U

A
03
t3
•H
rH
0
03

•73

T3
C
0)
c-












0)
-G
U

G
•H

CO
g
cd
01
VJ
4J
CO

T3
C
cd

co
0)

cd


























































{3
o
•rl
00
CD
OS

J>>
r3

0)
CO
SH
0)
>

H

T3
C
cd
JH
CJ









(—1
C3
4-1
O


rs
CO
4-J
c
0)
•H
^-1
4-1
3
C

*L
~c
c-

•s
o
Q

*\
CD
!H
3
4-1
cO
M
0)
a.
6
01
H
„
----
rH
|^

«
ON
~^.
CO
CNI
0


ft
c
CO
60
•H
,a
o
•H
S

UH
O

>^,
4-1
•iH
cn
}_!
OJ
>
•H
C
3


01
o>
^
T3
i — |
O
U
















*
03
g

o
UH
•H
i — i
O
CJ

rH
CO
CJ
0)
UH

-a
c

O^
^»o
^r
cn

*«
C3N
-^.
rH
ro
^

0)
-G 4J
4-1 (0 •
rH 3 C
CO O
(U 0) *i-f
35 ^ 4-i
cd cfl
y i-J co
•H -H
rH rH 4J O
A CO CO r--
3 4-> 0) ---
On CO > 00
>, G CS
UH )H M -~~-
O U CN
>• 1
rH 4-1 ON
0 • -H vO
0 O rH \
-C r^ co rH
CJ ON 3 --
CO rH Cf UO
























«
v^-
o
Pu

rH
cd
4-J
O
e-

H
^J-
c^
PM

0

4-1
J_l
C


£
1 —
*--^
CO
1
r^
^^,
u-i
^
>, 0)
•H CO M
C r-l J S
O cfl
3 rH • «
CO 4J cr CO C )H
r^ (H 4-1 CO o
ON O V-l 03 CO r<3
rH d. 01 >, < S-l
CD 4-1 V-t  6 ni O •
iH g I--3 V-l ^"^
fa 3 O >N TD
OO rH UH 4J O)
*• CO SH CO
CO rH 4J >1 Ol T-l
•H 03 03 T3 O, >
C C >. 3 O 01
cd *iH }H 4J ±4 c£
H fa U CO PL, ^-s










-------
                                                                       APPENDIX
                                                                         E-4
              SIMPLIFIED ANALYSIS OF LAKE EUTROPHICATION
Introduction

     Two basic  approaches  to the  analysis of  lake  eutrophication have
evolved:

     1)   A   complex   lake/reservoir   model   which   simulates   the
          interactions occurring within ecological systems;  and

     2)   the more  simplistic  nutrient loading model which  relates  the
          loading or  concentration  of  phosphorus  in a body  of  water to
          its physical properties.

     From a  scientific standpoint,  the  better approach  is  the complex
model;  with  adequate  data  such  models  can be   used  to  accurately
represent complex  interactions  of  aquatic  organisms and water quality
constituents.  Practically  speaking, however,  the  ability  to represent
these complex interactions  is limited because some interactions have not
been  identified  and  some   that  are known  cannot be readily measured.
EPAECO  is an  example  of a  complex  reservoir  model  currently in use.  A
detailed description  of this model has been  given by Water Resources
Engineers (1975).

     In contrast to the complex reservoir models,  the empirical nutrient
budget  models for  phosphorus  can be simply derived and  can  be used with
a minimum  of field measurement.  Nutrient budget models, first derived
by Vollenweider  (1968)  and  later expanded upon by him (1975), by Dillon
(1975a  and  1975b)  and  by  Larsen  -  Mercier  (1975  and  1976), are based
upon the total phosphorus  mass  balance.  There has been a proliferation
of  simplistic  models  in  eutrophication  literature  in  recent  years
(Bachmann and  Jones,   1974;  Reckhow, 1978).  The Dillon  model  has been
demonstrated  to  work  reasonably well  for  a  broad  range of lakes with
easily  obtainable data.  The validity of the model has been  demonstrated
by comparing  results  with  data from the  National  Eutrophication Survey
(1975).  The  models  developed  by  Dillon and by Larsen and  Mercier fit
the data developed  by the  NES for  23  lakes  located in  the  northeastern
and northcentral United States (Gakstatter et al. 1975) and for 66 bodies
of water in the southeastern US (Gakstatter and Allum 1975).   The Dillon
model   (1975b)  has  been  selected  for  estimation  of  eutrophication
potential for Crystal Lake  and Betsie Lake in this study.

Historical Development

     Vollenweider  (1968)  made  one  of  the  earliest efforts  to relate
external  nutrient   loads?to  eutrophication.   He  plotted annual  total
phosphorus  loadings  (g/m /yr)  against  lake  mean depth  and  empirically
determined   the   transition   between  oligotrophic,  mesotrophic  and
eutrophic loadings.  Vollenweider later modified his simple  loading mean
depth  relationship  to  include  the mean residence time of the  water so
that unusually high  or low flushing rates  could  be taken into account.

-------
                                                                         E-4
Dillon  (1975)  further  modified  the  model  to  relate  mean depth  to  a
factor  that  incorporates  the  effect of  hydraulic  retention time  on
nutrient retention.

     The  resulting   equation,  used  to  develop  the  model for  trophic
status,  relates  hydraulic  flushing  time,  the  phosphorus  loading,  the
phosphorus  retention   ratio,   the  mean   depth  and   the  phosphorus
concentration of the water body as  follows:

     L (1-R) = zP
         P
                                    2
where:  L = phosphorus loading (gm/m /yr.)
        R = fraction of phosphorus  retained
        p = hydraulic flushing rate (per yr.)
        z = mean depth (m)
        P = phosphorus concentration (rag/1)

     The  graphical  solution,  shown  in Figure E-4-a, is  presented as a
log-log plot of L (1-R) versus z.
                    P

     The Larsen-Mercier  relationship  incorporates  the same variables as
the Dillon  relationship.

     In  relating phosphorus  loadings  to  the  lake  trophic  condition,
Vollenweider  (1968),  Dillon  and Rigler  (1975)  and Larsen and Mercier
(1975,  1976)   examined  many  lakes  in  the  United  States,  Canada and
Europe.   They established tolerance limits  of  20/ug/l  phosphorus above
which  a  lake  is considered eutrophic and  10 mg/1 phosphorus above which
a lake is considered mesotrophic.

Assumptions and Limitations

     The  Vollenweider-Dillon  model  assumes  a  steady  state,  completely
mixed  system,  implying  that  the rate  of  supply of  phosphorus and the
flushing  rate  are  constant with respect to  time.  These  assumptions are
not totally true for all lakes.  Some  lakes  are stratified  in the  summer
so that the water column is not mixed  during that time.   Complete  steady
state  conditions are  rarely  realized  in lakes.   Nutrient  inputs are
likely  to  be  quite  different during periods when stream  flow is minimal
or  when  non-point  source runoff  is minimal.   In  addition,  incomplete
mixing  of  the water may result  in  localized eutrophication problems in
the vicinity  of a discharge.

     Another  problem in  the  Vollenweider-Dillon model  is the inherent
uncertainty  when   extrapolating  a   knowledge  of  present   retention
coefficients  to the  study of future  loading effects.   That  is to  say,
due  to chemical and  biological  interactions,  the retention  coefficient
may itself  be  dependent  on the nutrient  loading.

      The  Vollenweider/Dillon  model  or simplified  plots  of loading  rate
versus  lake geometry  and  flushing  rates  can  be  very useful in describing
the  general  trends of  eutrophication in lakes  during  the  preliminary

-------
                            FIGURE E-4-a
                                                                      E-4
0.01
    1.0                             10.0
                         MEAN DEPTH(METERS)

           L= AREAL PHOSPHORUS INPUT (g/m^yr)
           R= PHOSPHORUS RETENTION  COEFFICIENT (DIMENSIONLESS)
           P- HYDRAULIC FLUSHING RATE (yr"1)
100.0

-------
                                                                         E-4
planning process.  However,  if  a significant expenditure of  monies  for
nutrient  control  is  at  stake,  a detailed  analysis  to  calculate  the
expected  phytoplankton  biomass  must  be performed  to  provide a  firmer
basis for decision making.

-------
                                                               APPENDIX
                                                                  F
                  ON-SITE SYSTEMS
F-l    "Sanitary Systems of Crystal Lake, Benzie
       County, Michigan: An On-Site Survey"

F-2    Selections from Sanitary Code of Minimum Standards
       Regulating Sewage Disposal - Water Supplies and
       Sanitation of Habitable Buildings in Grand Traverse
       and Benzie Counties, Michigan - 1964

F-3    Sanitary Code of Minimum Standards - 1972

-------
                                                      APPENDIX
                                                       F-l
     SANITARY SYSTEMS OF CRYSTAL. LAXE

3 EM IE COUNTY MICHIGAN:  AN ON-SITE SURVEY
      Technical Report to the United
  States Environmental Protection Agency
         Water Division, Region V
                  From
            University of Michigan
            Biological Station
            PelIs ton, Michigan
              December 19"3

-------
      •crlotion or
ite
         •v
                ions
    ract	

    Introduction 	  1
      Materials and Methods  	  5

     Results and Discussion  	  3
Appendix A.  Presence of Cladophora as an Indicator
             of Nutrient Concentration

.Appendix 3.  Charts of Data by Lot

.Appendix 2.  Charts of Specific Comparisons

Ar-endix D.  Survev Form 'Jsed on Crvstal' Lake
                                                            F-l

-------
                               1                                Fl





                           ABSTRACT



     A detailed survey of 2450 dwellings  on the shore o£ Crystal



Lake and their wast water systems  was  carried out by members of



The University of Michigan Biological  Station Project CLEAR during




the Steptember 20-October 30,  1978 period.   This total of 249



homes represents 231 of the total  of 1035 homes on the lake shore.



From information derived by the survey,  it  was determined that



approximately "63 of the homes on  Crystal Lake are used seasonally.



The winter population of about 550 easily climbs to 4000  on most



summer weekends.



     The shoreline was divided for purposes of doing the survey



into five sections.  These were each evaluated individual!/ (NH,



NW, W, SW, SEj ,   The important variables  calculated for each



section were:  percentage of septic systems with problems, per-



centage of septic systems more than ten  years old, percentage of



septic systems within 50 feet  of  the lake,  percentage of shore



line lots with Cladophora (a microscopic  algae), and percentage



of septic systems meeting current  public  health regulations.



     Most of the lake is surrounded by sandy, well-drained soils



except for the NE and parts of the SE  sections.  These two sections



also had the largest summer populations  and the highest concentra-



tions of Cladophora.  Central  sewering and  land application should



be considered for these areas.  The NW,  W,  and SW sections are on



better soils, have fewer septic system problems, and less Cladoon-



ora.   On-site improvements would  be necessary however, because more



than 60'< of the homes do not meet  current public health regulations

-------
                                                                 F-l
     .he naturally high water quality of Crystal Lake makes it an



attractive resort area.  However, the principal factor responsible



for making the lake attractive to people is new oeing diminished



by their presence on the shores.



     It is highly probable that one major source of nutrients to




Crystal Lake, and its consequential enrichment and eutrophic



tendency are waste water systems  of the individual dwellings on



the lake shore line.  Since this  nutrient influx is not natural,



and represents a reasonably controllable source, it is important



to determine detailed information concerning individual systems en



t::e lake.  Consequently, this survey of septic systems, used in



conjunction with soil maps, provides the information necessary to



evaluate the existing adequacy of septic systems on the Crystal



Lake shore, to determine their contribution of nutrients  to the



lake and to give planners information upon which to judge  the need



for alternative waste water systems.



This survey of I-lr  homes took place during the period of  Seote-rcer



1' to October 50, 19~3 on Crystal Lake.  Three members of Proiect



C_ZAR from the University of Michigan Biological Station  sarriea



out t.ie  actual survey  and the organisation of  information.  These



project  memoers >.ere .Mark Hummel, Sharon Mills ?.p.d  ."can Sen



              s directed oy Mark '',". Paddock.

-------
                                                                 F--1
      — ' C ^ L, A - ^ . * ^' . i w r  ^ * >v ;J -  ^j-^il
     located in 3en;ie County, Michigan, Crystal Lake spans  three



townships ,'Crvs-ai Lake, Bentcnia, and Lake) and includes  the  small



town of Beulah en its eastern shore.  The homes surveyed are  in  the



area colored dark red in William and ivorks Facility Plan map.



     Development around Crystal includes a summer camp with  115



children, a number of cottage resort complexes, and many individual



homes .



     The topographic configuration of the Crystal Lake shore  line



area is rather unique.  The lake shore rises very slowly from  the



water for about 100 to 350 feet then rises quickly at a slope  of



12-~3°  to form a bluff of about 100 feet in elevation.  Undoubted!'-'



the fact that the lake level was artificially  lowered 20 feet  a



century ago is the reason for this  lake terrace type  shore line.

-------
                                                                F-l
III.  MATERIALS AND METHODS
    SECTIONS OF THE LAKE SHORE
     The character of the lake shore dwellings varies considerably
with sections of the lake.   Density of homes,  vegetation, age of
homes,  distance from the houses to the lake,  were easily noted
differences.  These observed differences between lake shore com-
munities also reflect differences in soil conditions, age of the
septic  systems, distance from the septic system to the lake, as
well as effect on the lake.
     The lake shore survey area was divided into five sections.
The boundaries for each section were chosen after the survey had
been completed.  Boundaries reflect equal lengths of shore line,
major differences in the character of shore line housing,, and
convenient road intersections.  Buelah was not included in the
survey  because it has its own waste treatment facility separate
from the Frankfort plant.
     THE SURVEY
     3y house to house interviews and the means of visual site
evaluations and inspections, as well as through information obtaine<
from local offices and agencies, the survey was intended to:
    1.   Identify possible sources of ground water and public
        health problems;
    _.   Evaluate the reasons for inadequate functioning of exis-
        ting waste water systems;
    5.   Develop a quantitative overview of the age, design ind
        present and anticipated use of existing on-sLte system-
    -l.   Collect site-specitLC  information on  individual systems
        that indicate a need for uograding and replacement.

-------
                                -4-

                                                                 F-l
      ThZ '..\73R', IS'»S

     Two of the survey staff had worked, en. a similar project  on

Wrecked-Pickerel  Lake in Emmet County only one month before  the

Crvstal lake Survey.  The third had no such experience  and accom-

panied a partner twice to listen to wording, approach,  and ex-

planations.  When we began assembly data  into tables, we  realized

that each of our ideas of which information was most important,

and our interviewing styles, were different.

     We have two suggestions for surveys  administered by  more

than one person:

        Observe and be observed in action by partners at  the

        beginning of the survey.

    I.  Review surveys together every few days, looking for

        differences that can be remedied  before any more  surveys

        are taken.

     10GI5TICS 0? THE SURVEY

     The lake was split  into sections similar to  those  listed under

I'lVISICN' j~ SECTIONS.  We all worked  in the N'crtheast section until

it was finished, making  it easier to  keep track of  '.v'nich  homes  -\ad

already oeen surveyed.   A list of houses  was made,  noting which

-.ad had been surveyed and which had not,  and were  candidates  for
     We then began  the next  sections,  no  longer  working togeth;

in the same sections, but  taking  care  to  note  .vnicn houses :\u.i

teen surveyed ani which had  not.   We were halfwav around tne 1.

and averaging twentv  surveys  per  day per  person  .v.nen we oe-'.; in. :

:n; turns going  back  to once-covered areas  for return visits.

covered tne entire  lake shore  once ind some portions t..ice.  '•'«

often  surve-'ed  durin^ weekends  '.•/hen  peo"I.e  '\oro  nor? L:A_•!..'  t :

-------
                                                                F-l
home
    MISSING INFORMATION
     There are many gaps in the information received from resi-
dents, often the person who knew the answers was not home for
the interview, or the homeowner had bought the house recently
and had not asked the seller about the septic system and well.
     We often called homes back in our attempt to talk to someone
who knew more about the system than the original interviewee.  If
this failed, we then consulted the Benzie County Sanitarian's
permit file on installations placed since 1972.   If permits were
not located, we assumed the systems met regulations and estimated
their sizes based upon the number of bedrooms and garbage disposal
systems.  Any gaps in the data still persisting were labelled
"DK" for don't know.
 IV.   RESULTS AND  DISCUSSION
POPULATIONS AND NUMBER OF HOMES
     There are 1090 dwellings around Crystal'Lake in the proposed
sewer area.  Twenty-three percent of those were surveyed in  the
three weeks survey effort.
     Although the survey took place iu October, D ?.• verity- s ix  per-
cent of the homes surveyed were seasonal, i.e. used less than ten
months of the year  (See figure 1).  The projection from the  survey
for number of seasonal homes is therefore probably low because
many of the seasonal residents had already gone home for the  year.
     The population of the homes surveyed was 793, eighty-three
percent of which were seasonal residents.  The estimated winter
population of the Crystal Lake area is  550   The summer population
includes year-round, seasonal, and summer guests, and can  be  as
high as -+000 en any given summer weekend  (See figure I).

-------
                    -6-
  PROJECTED PEAK SUMMER AND LOW
WINTER POPULATIONS IN EACH SECTION
         ON CRYSTAL LAKE
                                                  F-l

1. TOTAL NO. HOMES

—
2. £ NO. HOMES SURVEYED
5. J % SURVEYED
-. NO. YEAR-ROUND
5. § NO. SEASONAL
6. % SEASONAL

.
g^ TOTAL NO. OF HOMES
•*— •*-•
^
3 . ^ - % SURVEYED
''^ "Z. u:
9. ^c< PROJECTED SEASONAL
10. Ic PROJECTED NO.YR-RD.

(SLOWER)
11. SEASONAL POPULATION
12. g _ ^SEASONAL POPULATION
13 5^ (WINTER)
=:£ YR-RD. POP. SURVEYED
— =:
1-:. E ^ SUB TOTAL



15. SEASONAL POPULATION
< SURVEYED
r~- /—
15. ^ i? SU:-C1ER GUEST
*' = INCREASE
1". g £ TOTAL SEASONAL POP.
13. I HOMES SURVEYED
1 « . ^ ? P RO J E C T E D '.'. I >, T E R
;r - POPULATION
2^. - PROJ. SEAS. POP.
NE |
270

(
69 i
26
25
44 :
64 !

1
270

I
26

172
98 !

I
155 ;
71

36

194




158


82
220
26

215
846
NW
146
I

61
42
9
52
85


146 :
I

42

124
2 2


230
92

20

250




230


21
251
42

48
5 9 ,S
W
256


24 ;
9
2
22
92


256


9

235
21


54
92

5

59




54


11
65
9

56
~22
SW |
230


56
24
7
49
38


230


24

201
29


153
89

IS

171




153


•7 ")
175
24

/ 5
-2o
SE
138


39
21
16
23
59
1

188


21

111
77


91
73

.5 J

1 ?. 4




9 1


50
121
21

15"
576
TOTAL
109C


249
23
57
190
76
- — '
	 1
109Q


23

827
263


666
33

132 j
1
798




666


166 -
332 '
23

531
- .! - 1

-------
                                                                 F-l
SH?TIC SYSTEM PROBLEMS
     "Septic System problems" refers to backups in the house, pon-
ding over the drainf ieid/dryweli ,  or odors.  Problems were examined
-n relationship to seasonal vs.  year-round usage, age of system,
rrequency of pumping,  and type of system.
SEASONAL VS. YEAR-ROUND
     We expected that  year-round residents to have more septic sys-
tem problems than seasonal residents because their systems must
bear more use.   However, we found instead that seasonal residents
had sixty-five  percent of the problems.  This value is probably
conservative, since a disproportionately large number of year-resi-
dents were interviewed.
AGE OF THE SYSTEMS
     There were no problems discovered within the first five years
of any system's life,  only fifteen percent in the next 3-10 years,
and eight}'-five percent with systems greater than ten years old
(See figure 2A).
     Twenty percent of the systems surveyed had problems.  Eighty-
six percent of the problems were associated with systems more than
ten years old,  although only sixty-eight percent of the systems
were more than ten years old.
PUMPING FREQUENCY
     Contrary to our expectations, systems which -vere never pumped
accounted for only two percent of the problems.  Systems pumped
everv 1-5 years had forty percent of the problems and s'.'.-terns
pumped ''only once", fifty-eight percent '"See figure _3:.   Vs a
numcer of "non-pumpers" explained, "You don't mess -.vlth something
that's working."  That is, they do not pump because the;.' do not
have problems.   Similarly, "only once" pumpers nump "onl '  .-, r.ei  : t

-------
                                      -3-
                                 SYSTEM PROBLEMS
           PROBLEMS  ASSOCIATED  WITH  AGE  GROUPS OF SYSTEMS
                                                                       F-l
-.:E 2? NUMBER
SYSTEM SYSTEMS

- - 5 - I
" - _ *• - i ^
1 1 r ~" ~° - 1 ;/ 2*
— • — i - 11^
l: OF ALL ! PROBLEMS
SYSTEM.S NUMBER

1" i 0
is '• "-1/2* ;
20 S |
! i
I' | 10-1/2* |
31 ; 25
KO , 51
"oondins, backups, odors
-• 3F ALL PROBLEMS

0
15
16
21
49
101
-': o o n 3 f H " -
IN AGE I? .


16
32
i
1
           PROBLEMS  ASSOCIATED WITH PUMPIXG FREQUENCY
;M?ING
NO.
SYSTEMS
                           SYSTEMS   PROBLEMS
'i  OF OTHER !
PROBLEMS   !
PROBLEMS
'.  WITHIN
AGE GROUP
     1-3  YRS..

                                                     50

                                                    53
                           100
                                     10 0
                                             _»_
  ":nl/  once"-^.eans  wnenever the tank needs pumping; always  le
  every  five  years,  usually less frequent than ever" ten years

  1 •'2  numbers were obtained bv counting 1/2 s"5te!Ti 5"ste^  i~  i
  i^e  tr.an  the re~t  of the system.
                                                   - reauent

-------
                                                            F-l
N'C.  0? PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED tflTH DIFFERENT  SEPTIC  SYSTEMS
55 TYPE , NO. 5 5YSTE.MS SYSTEMS WITH PROBLEMS
NO. -; XO. !i
•'= OF EACH TYPE ;
WITH PROBLEMS

5T3-DF 134; 5 ~ ' 23 : 4-3
ST =- D'v 93 ' 40 2" 33
ST ONLY 2
HT S
TOTAL 236
I
1 12
2 ! 0 i 0
i i
100 51 100
i
1 ~
23
50
0
"" ""

-------
                              -10-
                                                                 F-l
needs it", and should not necessarily be expected to have nore

problems simply because they pump less often.  Regular pumping does

not mean there will be a lower incidence of problems.  Pumping may

be a response to problems rather than a preventative measure.
TYPE OF SYSTEM

     The type of sanitary system may be related to septic system

problems.   There were problems with twenty-eight percent of all

drywell systems, as compared to seventeen percent of all drain-

field systems (See figure 3) ,   This figure may be deceiving be-

cause ninety-two percent of the drywells are older than ten years,

while only forty- five percent  of the drainfields are older than

ten years.  Therefore, it may  not be the drywell which implies

problems,  but the age of the system.

SEPTIC SYSTEM Si:£
     Size  is important information for evaluating a system accor-

ding to current Health Department regulations.  Sixty-seven percent

of the respondents were ignorant of their system's size, making it

impossible to evaluate their full compliance with regulations.

Then, permits were referred to at the Ben lie County Health Depart-
ment Office.  But many of the  permits ^ere not located for a number
of reasons:  they had not been legally inspected, the permits were

filed incorrectly, or systems  were filed under previous owners'

names .

     In addition to systems forty-one percent sized  too small  to

meet regulation, fourteen percent of the systems had v-ells too

close to their system (less than fifty feet), and another eleven

percent had septic systems  too close to the  l:ikc  fless  tK;"  c.ir^-'
 eet).
     It is likelv that some respondents, ac : i den tu 1 ly or othe rv. L so

-------
                               -11-
                                                                 F-l

gave false information on the survey.  However, considering  the

large number of problems and small sizes given, the percentage of

mis informers was probably small.

ANALYSIS OF EACH SECTION

NORTHEAST

     The northeast  (NE) section had the largest summer population,

1061, and contains  twenty-six percent of the total summer population,

making it a key area for analysis.

     The NE has high seasonal groundwater and is designated  as

wetlands on the soil association map.  Thirty-one percent of the

septic systems are  within seventy-five feet of the lake and  sixty-

two percent of the  systems do not meet Health Department regula-

tions (See figure 4).   Twenty-two percent of the systems have

problems and seventy-eight percent are more than ten years old,

making them more likely to have problems.  Even more significant,

is the fact that sixty-nine percent of the homes surveyed had

Cladoghora growth along their shores.

NORTHWEST

     The northwest  (XW) area is on sandy, well-drained soils.

Slopes vary from 0-67%. with the nsiorit^ less rlv-m 1?".  Thjr'-y-

one percent of the  homes are within seventy-five feet of the lake,

yet only twenty-four percent supported growths of Cladophora (See

Table 5 Appendix A).  The low concentrations of Cladonhora may be

correlated with the low number of systems with problems (eight

percent)  and the fewer number of septic systems arc more than ten

years old (fifty percent).   Fifty-four percent of the systems do

pot "eet regulations (See figure -i ! .

;.EST

     The west (i\)  is located on sand;/, r.ve 11 - u r;i iacJ fcil

-------
                               -12-
                                                                  F-l

0-123, slopes.  Twenty-five percent of the systems are within

seventy-fi'/e feet of the lake.  Although sixty-eight percent of

the septic systems are more than ten years old, and forty-six

percent of the systems do not meet regulations, only five per-

cent of the area had Cladophora.

SOUTHWEST

     The southwest (S'>v) area is on sandy, well-drained soils,

with slopes 0-12%.  Only six percent of the homes are within

seventy-five feet of the lake.  The SIv corner has the fewest

number of systems which do not meet regulations (forty-three

percent);  however, concentrations of Cladophora were high

(thirty-four percent) which may be correlated with the fact that

twenty-seven percent of the homes have problems and seventy-five

percent of the systems are more than ten years old.

SOUTHEAST

     Many of the lakeside homes on the SE side were situated on

a well-drained, sandy ridge.  Only four percent of the homes were

within seventy-five feet of the lake because much of the area has

a privately' owned greenbelt protecting irhe lake.  Fifty-nine

oercent of the septic ^ / s t e ~.:: dr r,ot ree" re?/.'1 ^':;o"S :v. d twenty-

four percent of the systems have problems, similar to values cal-

culated for the NE section.  Is the SE corner affecting the  lake

as much, as the N'E section, despite the greenbelt and sandy  soils'?

      	 studies show that it is not.   Forty-five percent  of  the

      in 55 section had Cladophora offshore, compared to  sixty-nine
                     are

-------
FIGURE 4
SEPTIC SYSTEM
PROBLEMS BY LAKE SECTION
 NE SECTION
                                                                       F-l
I


PROBLEMS
NO. SYSTEMS
', WITH PROBLEMS
MEET
REGULATIONS
NO . \
0
9
0
0
13


DON'T MEET
REGULATIONS

DON'T KNOW
NO. \ NO. \
14
43
35
93
62

1
17
6
T
25


TOTAL i
1
i
IS
69
22
NW SECTION-
MEET
REGULATIONS
: NO . \
PROBLEMS 0
NO. SYSTEMS
'-, WITH PROBLEMS
IS
0
0
2S

DONT MEET
REGULATIONS
NO . \
3
33
9
60
54


DON'T KNOW
NO . %
2
13
IS
40
21


TOTAL

5
61
8
W SECTION



PROBLEMS
NO. SYSTEMS

5 WITH PROBLEMS
MEET
REGULATIONS
NO . \
0
^

0
8

0
DON'T MEET
REGULATIONS
NO. \
0
11

0
0
46



DON'T KNOW
NO. ?o
2
11

2
100
46



TOTAL

2
24

8
SW SECTION •



PROBLEMS
NO. SYSTEMS
•; WITH PROBLEMS
MEET DON'T MEET
REGULATIONS
NO . *
1
6
l~
S
11

REGULATIONS
NO . 1
3
24
15
27
43

T
DON'T KNOW
NO.
7
26

a.
0
64
46
27

TOTAL
11
56
20

                                 SE SECTION




MEET
REGULATIONS
i ,VO . !
P-/DSLEMS

:,". rYSTEMS
°= '-'-I Tii PROBLEMS
0

6
3
0

15


DON'T MEET
REGULATIONS
NO . 5
4

23
17
50

59



DON'T KNOW
NO. °,
4

10
50
50

:6



TOTAL

5

59
21

-------
                               -14-
                                                                 F-l
Public Health Department codes.  Additional construction on the

south side of Mollineaux will similarly be controlled unless an
alternative sewage treatment system is constructed or the regu-

lation restricting the use of fill material is changed.
V.  SUMMARY

     The NE seems to be a problem area with a large summer popu-
lation, wet soils, twenty-two percent of the systems have prob-

lems, and Cladophora is apparent at sixty-nine percent of the

homes (more than twice the number of homes in any other section).
     The SE and SW sections are on better drained soils, homes

are set the farthest back from the lake, and sixty-two percent
and seventy-five percent of the systems respectively, are more
than ten years old.   Cladophora concentrations are still high,

but about fifty percent less on the SW shore and thirty-five
percent less on the  SE shore than those on the NE shore,
     The NV<"  and W shore seem to contribute the fewest nutrients.
Both are on well-drained sandy soils, although homes are closer
to the lake than for the SE and S»v.  Together, they have the few-

est old systems (more than 10 years old), only seventeen percent
of the problems, and by far the smallest concent r» t' OTIS of
Cladopuora, twenty-four percent anci five percent, respectively,

VI.  RECOJC-IENDATIONS
     We have had firs-thand experience with each of  the sections

around Crystal Lake.  Our perspective is a result of our experi-
ence.  V.'e walked the entire shore  line, observed  the state of  the
lake, talked with residents, township supervisors,  Lake Association

-------
                                                                F-l
                  District Sanitarian, and obtained  information



                  :le of tne seotic s'-'stems .'twer. f.'- three  oercer.'
            ted in the Results and Discussion section,  the  .\>



            he problem area with the second  largest population,



            percentage of Cladophora, and tne largest majority  of



systems not meeting regulations.  Individual septic system  improve'



ments would not adequately solve the problem because seasonal



ground '.ater comes too close to the  surface  to meet regulations.



It is also illegal to use fill material to meet  tne requirement.



The only otner decent railted alternative is  the  cluster  system,



'.nicn would, not be possible in the immediate area, due  to high



seasonal ground water, but would require pumping  to suitable  soils
dii ^j. J_
                    an  applcaton, tereore, appear  to
most effective, lowest cost, alternative.  Land  application  -/.on id



remove tne wastes from the immediate area, but not  remove  them




from their natural cycle.  A land application site  has  already



been designated in the southern part of  Section  31,  near  Bentcnia.



To transport the wastes to Frankfort for  treatment  would  be  energy



intensive, costly, and force construction of a sewer line  irouni



three-quarters of the lake.  Those areas  crossed b"  tne sever
 .^GU^U  uncouc t e aiy  p^ace  pressure  on  tieir  LOC.LL



 "emit hook-uns, either  immediately,  or  in  the  near nature.



       'lest  of  the  remaining  lake  shore,  except  f:r parts or  c.i



 5V.  section,  is  on  sandv,  .ve 11-drained soiLs.   This f.i:tor ,"akc



 site  imo rox'ement s  both  effective,  feasible  anu  econiT.ni.cil.

-------
                              -15-
                                                                F-l
      The -\"V,' 3 act ion is not in immediate trouble.   It has the

smallest population, the second smallest concentration of

_ lace"::i o r a ,  and only eight percent of the svsterns nave problems.

Individual improvements are necessary, though, since fifty-four

percent of the homes surveyed did not meet regulations.  If lake-

side lots are too small (and several of them are),  then  lots

accross the  road will have to be purchased and wastes pumped to
t h e m.

      There  are a number of cottage resorts located in this

section.  Several of the owners expressed a willingness  to com-

bine their individual septic systems into a cluster system on

their own premises.  Their willingness should be supported.

      The western shore is in good shape.  Xo problems were

reported and only five percent of the homes surveyed had

Cladophora.   The majority of homes (those in Pilgrim and Crystal ia'1

are located in a rolling, heavily wooded area between Crystal

lake and Lake Michigan.  .v'hile drainage is towards  Crystal, the

homes in these settlements are not less than two hundred feet

from Crystal's shore line.  Their immediate impact  is extremely
low.  Once again, individual  improvements are in order because

forty-six percent of the systems do not meet regulation.

      Most of the homes and septic systems in the SV»" section  are

located away  from the lake and on large  lots.  There is  plenty  o:

room for  individual  on-site improvements, which  would be  tr.e  most

effective and economical alternative.   Fifty-Five percent  or  t:io

systems  require  upgrading  to  meet regulation.

      The SE  section has the  largest  summer population and  soc^nd

highest  concentration of C lad-op ho'-a.   It  includes  i number  •>:"

-------
                                                                 F-l



disjunct parts:   clusters of small lakeside lots, a long row of



hcr.es or. a sandy ridge between Mcllineaux Road and the lake, a



low vet area between Mollineaux Road and M-115 ^.vhere present



development is restricted by Public Health Code), and a small



dense pocket of resort cottages west of Seulah.  Because forty-



three percent of the homes do not meet current regulations, some



type of improvement is necessary.  Two alternatives seem reason-



able- -on-site improvements or a sewer with land application.  On-



site improvements are attractive as the homes occur in isolated



patches throughout the area.  It would eliminate sewer conduits



crossing large expanses of undeveloped land, raising property



values and bringing pressure for development.  A sewer with land



application is attractive because of the southeast's large popula-



tion and its close proximity to the proposed land application



area near 3en:onia.  A third alternative would be to link up with



the sewage facility in Seulah, if it were upgraded.

-------
                                                      F-l
              APPENDIX A



PRESENCE OF CLADQPHORA AS AN INDICATOR




       OF NUTRIENT CONCENTRATION*

-------
                                -1-
                                                                 F-l

                      CLADOPHORA STUDY

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

       Previous studies have suggested the presence of algae

Cespgri any Cladophora) along a lake shoreline can be correlated

with nutrient influx from human activity,  Cladophora is a micro-

scopic filamentous algae which commonly grows attached to solid

substrates such as rocks and logs.

       Since Cladophora requires high concentrations of nutrients

for colonization, the normal oligotrophic state of Crystal Lake

suggests that the presence of Cladophora along the shore is a re-

sult of a localized concentration of nutrients from human sources.

       Where suitable substrate was available, an attempt was made

to link the presence of Cladophora with septic system seepage.

       A number of variables associated with septic system perfor-

mance influence the quantity of Cladophora present.  Given suitable

substrate, these include:  length of occupancy and number of resi-

dents, their water use habits, septic system age, maintenance and

problem history and distance from the lake.

       The congregation of waterfowl (and subsequent accumulation of

their dronnin?s} y.lon,? th? shori"! ine  \.-^^^":^cr with I ' ff-rfili"'

tion and lawn watering frequency  adds to the nutrient enrichment of

an adjacent shoreline.  An attempt was also made to correlate these

three variables with Cladophora presence.

       On Crystal Lake eighty-six percent of the waterfront home  lots

surveyed had suitable substrates  available for Ci adopho ra growth, bu-

only thirty-five percent of these lots had Cladopno rq present.  Of

the sites with Cladophora thirty-tliree percent h.
-------
                              - 2-



     In comparing length of occupancy (i.e., year-round vs.      F~1



seasonal) with the occurance of Cladophora, it was found that



thirty percent of the homes with Cladophora were year-round while



only sixteen percent of the homes without Cladophora were year-



round.   It appears a longer length of occupancy may increase



Cladophora growth.



     Of the homes surveyed, twenty rsercent of those with



Cladophora       had more than three living at the residence,



while forty-one percent of those without Cladophora had more than



three residents.  The number of residents does not play as large



a role  as length of residence in influencing Cladophora growth.



     Of the homes with and without Cladophora, fifty six percent



each were classified as heavy water users, thus the amount of



water use is insignificant correlation.   We found ninety-one per-



cent of the homes tfith Cladophora present had septic systems more



than eight years old compared with seventy-seven percent where



Cladophora was not present.  We learned that fifty-four percent of



the systems without Cladophora were not maintained, whereas only



thirty-eight percent of the systems were not maintained where



Cladophora was present.  In our data there does not appear to be



a ?o rd ccrr?1.P-t i:~p bf-'.>-.• een :>v^\c. intc- i"ed systems and the nvr^enc"  "•-'



Cladophora.  It was found that twenty-six percent and twenty-four



percent in sites respectively, with and without Cladophora had



septic system problems.  With these close percentage results, no



correlation with Cladophora presence can be made-.



     There appears to be a correlation between the proximity of



septic systems  to lake shore and Cladophora growth.  We learned  that



forty-five percent of  the  lots with Cladophora had septic  s/ster.s



'ess than seventy-five feet from che shorel:ne.  One s:.t";^ 'wit:'  rv-



CladoDt'.ora, only  five  percent were closer  than  fifty  feet  to  the

-------
                                                                F-l




       Our study did nor reveal a correlation between feeding



waterfowl, lawn fertilization,  and lawn watering.



       In summary, most  variables did not show strong correlations



with shoreline Cladophora colonization where adequate substrate



was available.  The strongest correlation occurred between septic



system age, their proximity to  the lake and length of occupancy.

-------
                                       F-l
ce
                                        '—  2:
                                        r-  <'
                                              r.


-------
'—\

cl

-------
                                                -6-
         ;:- a:   -s
         ' < d
         . * —,
          < —.
          — <1
          s <:
          2 >.
          v; <;
                                                      i-i      -c   •v   -M    —! !
                                                      ao      —   =>   a    v3i ;

          f~i Z i


                                                                                                               F-l
     >/; c — -

     2 '  < Ji!
=    C3
                                                 •^    >-     K»   vQ   >J   ^ j j
                                       rvi        (*g
_:^!   3033
— .     < r- 0" J   »-   vi   -^    o

-------
          : < C;   c
          . 2: —,
                                                                                              F-l
           < —I

           i^ <\   -j
           V3 5»|
           s -i
3i  '  ."T ^" ^ ^'   "•    —    •"    ^    •«•
v:i  I    s- ea   p

—i  i    <:— \P?\

-------
                                                -3-
                                                                                      F-l
      i   =§£j  _

      ;   ^ z 2.,  '"*  *"
                                       I      '!
      ,— ^ S. W,  r^J  —•
      ,=. 2 s: >•!
           vi col
      lil C — "i
      ,s j- «f»   -a  —
      i  •   -^  .   , «*  ^^
= !

                              u^  ro   ;  Cl
             i!
          • ^^
        I   _''i'
•."   -/i     — 'i I

-------
:LADC?HORA  STUDY
                                                         F-l
i -

                                       0 L
                                 3U with  no  CLADOPHOR.A
                                 69^ with  CLADCPHORA
         hore
CLADOPKCRA
NUMBER
PERCENTAGE

CLADCPHORA
NUMBER
PERCENTAGE

CLADOPKCRA
NUMBER
PERCENTAGE

CLADOPHORA
NUMBER
PERCENTAGE
-
-
1 5
'.';'
•>
p
0
sw
S
4
11
SE
S
-
-* !
_ T
M
j.
-
Shore
M
1
5
Shore
M
3
' S
Shore
i M
3
10
H
3
~

. H
0
' 0

1 H
1 6
16

1
rt
3
10
No . i
1
i 34 i
' ~6 \

No. j
13
: 35 i

. No.
> 25 •
66

No.
16
DO
                                TOTAL  45
                                76} with  no  CLADCPHORA
                                 24 -j with  CLADOPHCRA
                                TOTAL  19
                                95Jj with  no  CLADOPHORA
                                 3°. with  CLADCPHORA
                                TOTAL 33
                                06•', with  no  CLADOPHORA
                                34-] with  CLADOPHORA
                                TOTAL 29
                                55'i with no CLADOPHORA
                                •15:, with CLADOPHORA

-------
                             --                             F-l


              LEGEND FOR CHARTS


Year-Round. - >10 ..lonths/year

>5 people  - .Ticre than 3 people living at residence

Heavy ','. ater L'se - consists of homes using any one of the  foiiowin.,
                  water using fixtures-dishwasher, washing machine
                  and/or garbage disposal in addition to  the basi
                  fixtures

Septic System Old - iS years old

Septic System Xot Maintained - when no maintenance (pumping, repai: ,
                               etc.) has been done on the system  in
                               "3 years

 Close to Lake < 50'
 Close to Lake <-~5' - septic systems that were less than  30' and
                      "5r  from the  lake

Problems with Septic System - if there has been any problems with
                              the present system

Fertilize Lawn - if resident fertilizes > once a year

Water Lawn - if resident waters lawn ?once a week

 Feed Water Fowl - if water fowl are fed at shore

-------
                                                    F-l
          APPENDIX D



SURVEY FORM USED CX CRYSTAL LAXI

-------
                       SEPTIC SYSTEM SURVEY
OCCUPANTS' NAME
PROPERTY O'.vNER'S NAME

ADDRESS OF PROPERTY
                                                  Resident ?

                                                  Unanswered
                                                  Questions
PHONE NO.
                                                                 F-l
PERMANENT ADDRESS OF PROPERTY OWNER

                         PHONE NO.

-------
                                                    Date          F"1
                                            Lake
          Lot Location
Lake Frontage:   yes/no               	2ft.

Lot size:  	 x 	 ft. (1 acre=200 x 200 ft.)

V.'as additional  soil used to fill your
   site when your home was constructed?         yes/no

I.   OCCUPANCY
    1.  Are you the owner of this property?  yes/no

        A.  (If occupant is not owner)

            Can you give the name of the owner and how that
            person can be located? (write in on cover page)

        B.  (If occupant is owner)

            Are you a year-round or seasonal resident?

              Year-round (10 mo. or more) 	
              Seasonal (less than 10 mo.) 	
            IF year-round

            1.  How many residents live here year-round?
            2.  Does this number increase during the  year'?  yes/no

            5.  To how nar.y? 	

            4.  For hew long?  5-9 mo./5-4 mo./4-3  wk./l-4  wk. /'we eke ad_-


            IF seasonal

            1.  During what  seasons do people  reside  here?
                     spring/summer/fall/winter

            2.  For hew long?  5-9  mo./5-4 mo./4-S  wk./l-4 wk ./',-,eekend.;

            3.  What is the  average number of  people  v, ho Live here
                   on  a seasonal basis?  	

            -1.  Do you have  plans  to move here pe rrnanea r Ly?  yes/no

     DULLING  AND  SEPTIC SYSTEM DESCRIPTION

      1.   How  many bedrooms does  this house have? 	

      2.   Do you expect ~o add on bedrooms or  'oaciiroo^o0  >^s/ne

-------
                                                                  F-l
    4

    3

    6
Is this hous winterised?  yes/no
Do you plan to winterize? yes/no

What is the age of the house? 0-5 years/6-10 years/* 10 y =

How long have you owned this house? 	

What is the age of the present septic system?
  0-3 years/6-10 years/^-10 years/D.K.

What type of system does does this house have?
  (circle all applicable)

  Septic Tank
  Drainfield
  Trench
  Dry Well
  Other
  O.K.

What type of feeding mechanism does  the drainfield have?
  (circle all applicable)

  Gravity
  Pumped
  Dosing Box
  Distribution Box/Alternate Drainfield
ST sz.
DW sz.
DF sz.
Distance of
DF to Lake
Distance of '.'/ell
to DF or ST
IV.  WATER USE

    1.   List number of water using fixtures.   (note W.C. if
           designed to conserve)
             showers
            "bathtubs
            "sinks
                              clothes washing  machine
                              dishwasher
                              garbage disposal
             toilets                  water softener

    2.  Do you fertilize your lawn?  yes/no

        A.  How many times a year?

    5.  Do you water your lawn?  yes/no   More than once a week?
                                          Less than once a week?
    4.  Drainage Facilities:

        Basement Sump:  yes/no
                              Discharge  Location
        Roof Drains:    yes/no
        Driveway Runoff:  yes/no
        Artesian Well Overflow: yes/no

-------
                                                              F-l
5.   Water supply source:  community or shared well
                          on-lot well 	
                          other 	
6.   V.'eil deoth:
                    CLADOPHORA SURVEY
      year-round/seasonal
      fertilize? yes/no
      feed ducks?  yes/no
      water lawn?  yes/no
      artesian discharge into lake?  yes/no
      substrate available?  yes/no  Describe

      Cladophora present?  yes/no
      Describe abundance and location

-------
                                                              F-l
AJDIT'CXAl SITE AM) SOIL CHARACTERISTICS


-.  Depth to seasonal high ground water:

2.  Phosphorous retention: 	

    2 A -""-i o -2
 .
    S1 o D 3 :
    Property Sketch

    Include:  ponding water
              signs of selective
                fertility
              prominent vegetation
                and tvtse
Legend

selective fertility-xxx
ponding water- •—~^^^^_^
well- [W7
trees-^)             	^
dry well/septic  tank-(Dj^.C>-
drainf ield- PT7 / _.

-------
                                                                F-l
1.  Have you ever had Problems with ycur ssctic syste~  such  as
                      Hew often?        Describe
 a. Backups
 b.Ponding
 c.Gdors

2.  Has ycur septic system ever been inspected for  purr.ping  or
   maintair.ance?    yes/no
  a.  Was it pumped?   yes/no
  b.  When?  	                  	
  c.  Hew often is the seotic tank tur
   Has your septic system ever been repaired  or  enlarged?   yes/ no
  a.  When? _
  b.  Describe
1.  Do you you feel that how well a septic system wor'ss  affects  th
   q__uality of a lal-ca?   yes/no
2.  now much do feel septic systems are polluting this  lake?
     none                some           significantly      DK.
3-  Are you aware of the proposed alternatives  to the present  form
   of wastewater treatment on this lake?
 a-  leave as is                   c.  cluster treatment
 b.  sewer and transport           d.  central sewer  collection
    to Frankfort                     and land  aoolicaticr.

-------
                                                                                        APPENDIX
                                  SELECTION'S f.ROM                                           p_2
              (ORIGINAL) SANITARY CODE OF MINIMUM STANDARDS (1964)

                                     REGULATING

                         SEWAGE DISPOSAL - WATER SUPPLIES

                                        AND
                         SANITATION C? HABITABLE S'JILDi:.'GS

                                        IN
                    GRAND TRAVERSE AND 3ENZIE COUNTIES, MICHIGAN

 Article IV  DISPOSAL OF WATER CARRIED SEWAGE ON PREMISES '.viERS A PUBLICLY OPERATED SEtJER-
            AGE SYSTEM IS NOT AVAILABLE:

 4.1  GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

 All  flush, toilets, lavatories, bathtubs, showers, laundry drains, sinks, and any other
 similar fixtures or devices hereafter constructed to be used to conduct or receive water
 carried sewage shall be connected to a septic tank or sotr.a other device in compliance
 with these mini-un standards and the Michigan Department of Health regulations, and  fin-
 ally disposed of in a sannar in compliance with these mini-urn standards and the Michi-
 gan Department of Health regulations and any other applicable law, ordinance, or regu-
 lations.

 Provided that such facilities existing at the time these standards are adopted which may
 becoc-ne s. nuisance or r.enace to the public health in the opinion of -the health officer
 shall be connected to a saptic tank or other approved device and finally disposed of in
 a r.anner in co.-plianca with these standards and the Michigan Department of Health re-
 quirements.  Footing drains, roof water, and any other sir-.ilar waste watar not defined
 as sevage shall not be connected to or discharged ir.to the sewage disposal system.

 4.2 SEWAGE DISCHARGED INTO A BODY OF WATER

 No sewaje or sawaje disposal system shall discharge into any body of water or into or
 onto the ground surface closer than eventy-five feat (25) feet from a body of water, or
 its highest known level,  or into a public drain.

 4.21  TY?S AND LOCATION

 No unex.posed severs or pipe used to  conduct untreated savage frcm a dwelling or habitable
 building shall be located  closer than 10 Eeet froa Che nearest unprotected water suc-
 tion line, well casing, spring structure or other potable water source,  '•.'hen scch un-
 e.xpcsed pipe or sewer is  closer than 50  feet from any unprotected water suction line,
vsll casing, spring structure,  or other  potable water source,  such sewer line shall be
 constructs-- of e
-------
                                                                                     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

-------
                                                                                                                                                       J-4
             r:   01
             u   00
             i-   n
             o  i-*
             .=  s,
   z
   a
   •z.
   z
   OS
   lii
   s:
 C =
 I  b.  ^
"! O  <
 01 t/3

3 ^ <
   0£  OS
   u:o

   U  Isl
                                O
                                X
                                (N
                                                                O
                                                                §
                            O
                            CO
                            m     PO
                            —     as
                            pn     f>M

                            o"    o"
    z
    u.
             —  3
                 O     P»
                H     -
s s
« o
>> f-
              c  a.

              o  co
              01  O
             m  H
                                          X
                                          00
                                                00
                                                -a-
















AJ
hJ
O
B.
0)
os


,
3
p*.
r*.
o>
*""

1-1
ji

\4

y*


C.
•H

o> n
§ §
JZ C
O. H
91
-« a
01 -H
H e
o
N
e
C 01
O 03
CO 1
> a
o e
i
5 9)
•u a
N CO
•H
rt -O
(5 0)

O- fl
Id T)
3


c -
3 
t
u
O
o>
OS
1J
•a
3
«g


















,^

•
rn

u
01
i
01
u
01
o


ji
a

s



o

01
01
a



>
i
u
O
a,
91
as
4J
•o
3
^


















^
r~i

u
\.
(C
Z


••4

0)


O
H

01
a
j

*-*
a
4J
a)
><

U

1
a)
c
01
s
01
w
n
«
rH
TO
«f-4
U
C
(S
c
-H
tL.

T3
0)
u
«^H

3
<


4J
C
ts
00
CN

£"
2

•g



a


01
J3


                                    e
                                    01

                                    x
                                                                  o
                                                                 c
S  01   •
1-1 A CO
u  E p-»
CO  01 C*
c.  u -*
(U  W

      o"
 - 13 i-i
C  01
tc -o —
00  C -H
•rt  01  W
J=     O.
U  Ui •<
—<  cfl
£  01   -
    >- 3

C  01 *-

01  W  1-1
ij     u
a  u  u
u  o  C
                                                                                           _a
                                                                                           3
                                                                                           a.
                                                                                                              .C

                                                                                                              cu
                                                                                                               111
                                                                                                              o
                                                                                    -i     S
                                  o
                                 E-
                              C
                             s-
                                                                  00
                                                                  c

-------
                                                                            J-4
Capital Costs

     The alternative sewerage  systems  considered in this EIS are expen-
sive and per  capita  costs are high.  Pay-as-you-go financing strategies
would  clearly  be inappropriate  to  finance  the  start-up costs  for the
facilities.   (However,  pay-as-you-go  techniques might  be used  in the
future  to  finance  capital  improvements.   The  future  state  of  the
economy, the  cash  flow  position of the County and the nature of antici-
pated  expenditures  will  be critical  variables  in  determining  whether
capital improvements can be financed from current revenues.)

     Reserve funds are  usually intended to finance capital improvements
at  some  future date.    Still,  a  combination  of  capital reserve  and
pay-as-you-go  approaches  could  finance  construction  of new  low-cost
facilities.  However, unless Benzie County has a reserve fund earmarked
for  sewer  and  water  expenditures,  this  method  of  financing  current
capital costs is presently not feasible for the Study Area.

     Special benefit  assessments would provide  a viable way  to  finance
improvements  to those  households that would  benefit  most directly from
sewerage  facilities.  Or, the  County  could  finance  the  collection com-
ponent  of  these facilities  with a special  assessment tax  and  fund the
remaining capital costs through a series of user charges.

     The County should use general obligation bonds to finance the local
share  of  system  capital  costs.   This method will provide  the lowest
interest rate among alternative forms of debt financing.   In addition, a
serial  bond  should  be  tied  to the  general obligation  bond  to  gain
greater  flexibility in  marketing and arranging the County's debt struc-
ture.
305H

-------
                                                                       APPENDIX
                                                                         J-5
          FINANCIAL IMPACT OF ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER SYSTEMS ON
           HOUSEHOLDS,  COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS AND INDUSTRY
     The traditional  method of providing community  sewerage  facilities
is to  design and  construct sewer lines that collect, transmit  and de-
posit waste at a central treatment plant.   For a rural area like Crystal
Lake, however, where  population  density and per capita  income  are  low,
an expensive central treatment system can impose heavy financial burdens
on the community and force lower-income residents to move.

     A  more cost-effective  means of  achieving areawide  water  quality
objectives may lie  in alternative subregional or decentralized systems.
Decentralized and  land disposal  methods  offer  cost  advantages  because
they  do  not entail  secondary  and  advanced  treatment  facilities  and
because their operation and maintenance costs are low.

     This  appendix describes  three  ways  the  costs  associated  with  a
centralized  sewer  system and  with the several  alternative  systems de-
veloped by WAPORA might be apportioned among the political jurisdictions
in the  Crystal  Lake  Study  Area  and  summarizes the  probable  financial
impacts  of  each   alternative  under  three  different apportionings  on
residential, commercial and industrial classes of users.

     For  the analysis, the  costs of the collection  and treatment  com-
ponents of  each system were separated into capital and operating costs.
Under  one of the  methods  each  of the cost  sets  was then  apportioned
among  the  jurisdictions.   Next,  the charges  to residential,  commercial
and  industrial  classes of  users  within the  several  jurisdictions  were
calculated.   In  the  third  method,  the  costs were  apportioned  between
seasonal and permanent residents to reflect the benefits  accrued to each
class of  user.  Finally,  the charges for a given alternative become the
price to its users.

                           COST OF COMPONENTS

     Costs  are  divided  into  categories,  or  sets,   that  are  described
below.  Costs  for all  items included  in  the  collection  and  treatment
components of each alternative wastewater management system are detailed
in Appendix  J-2.   It  is assumed that the capital portion of those costs
will be covered by issuance of a bond.

     o    Capital Costs

          Interest and  principal  payments  incurred by a  General Obliga-
          tion  (G.O.)  serial  annuity  bond  for  30  years  at  an interest
          rate  of  6  7/8%  (see  Appendix  J-4  for  a  discussion  of  G.O.
          serial annuity bonds).

          (The interest  rate  on the  general obligation bond was decided
          following a  survey  of  counties  in Michigan  and consultation
          with the  Benzie County  bond  attorney about trends.   Interest
          rates on  general  obligation  bonds for counties with a Moody's

-------
                                                                        J-5
         bond  rating  of AA have recently  ranged  between 5.5 and 6.3%,
         but they are expected to rise.)

    o    Operating Costs

         1)    Personnel:  salaries and wages

         2)    Fringe benefits, including pension  accruals

         3)    Contractual services

         4)    Materials  and supplies

         5)    Replacement of equipment

         6)    Miscellaneous expenses.

    o    Private Costs

         Excavation,  plumbing,  and  other  one-time-only  expenditures
         required  to  connect  an  individual  household to  the sewer
         collection  line (see Appendix J-6).

    o    Future Costs

         Future  capital  and  operating  costs  based  on the  population
         increases  projected for  each  jurisdiction  in the  Study  Area
         have  been estimated by Arthur Beard and Associates.   An aver-
         age   annual  cost was  calculated  and  used  to  estimate  future
         cost  patterns  to the year  2000.   These  costs are  discussed  in
         Appendix  J-7 but were omitted from this analysis  of financial
         impacts  because  they will  be  borne  by a different  (future)
         population.

                           ANALYTIC  FRAMEWORK

     In order  to  establish the  financial  impact  of  the price  of  each
alternative wastewater management system on residential, industrial and
commercial  classes of  users and  to arrive  at an efficient,  equitable
rate structure  for  each  class  of  user  set of  prices),  three different
basic  approaches were employed  to  allocate capital and operating costs
among  jurisdictions and  users.

     o   Proportionate   Share Basis  (PSB)   —  Each jurisdiction  in the
          Study Area  shares in the  total costs of the project in propor-
          tion to the specific  benefits  it receives from the facilities
          as measured by the volume of wastewater flow from each.

     o    Average Cost Basis (ACB)  — The  total costs of the project are
          averaged across all jurisdictions  in the Study Area.  Charges
          to each household and  commercial establishment are a share of
          the  resulting average price.

-------
                                                                         J-5
     o    Seasonal/Residential Allocation  (SPB)  --  Total benefits  are
          apportioned between seasonal  and  permanent  households by  a
          method based on wastewater flow.

                       PROPORTIONATE SHARE BASIS

     The major concern with the ACB approach, which is based on benefits
received, is  the  possibly uneven relationship between  usage  and costs.
The cost  factors  for each of the  alternatives must  relate  closely to
benefits received.  The  following  discussion illustrates the process in
which  a  series of component  cost  and price sets  (see  below)  is appor-
tioned among  Proposed Service Area  jurisdictions and  an efficient  and
equitable rate structure determined for various classes of users.

Apportionment of Costs

     The division of operating and capital costs in the Study Area among
political  subdivisions  and  individual  classes  of users  allocated  was
based  on a  combination  of  two  factors:   (1) volume  of flow  and  (2)
population.

     o    Volume  of  flow was  used  in  this  method (PSB):  to  apportion
          capital and  operating costs  for each  alternative  system and,
          within  each system,  to separate the costs attributable to the
          seasonal  and  the  permanent  populations.    For  this  latter
          purpose the allocation scheme referred to below, attributing a
          weighted average of flow to each group, was employed.

     o    Population projections  were  used  to  determine the proportion
          of  total  costs  allowable  to those  areas  around Crystal Lake
          which would employ  a decentralized sewerage management system
          under EIS Alternatives 3, 4, 5 or 6.

                         COMPONENT PRICE SETS

     The allocation of costs by the flow and population variables deter-
mines  the  prices  charges  to each  category of user.   This  allocation
process is demonstrated in Tables J-5-a and b.

     Table J-5-a  lists  the total annual capital and operating costs for
the alternative systems.

     For Alternative  1  the total annual capital costs of $982,400 (that
is, annual principal  and interest payments on the bond) was apportioned
to  the  collection  and  treatment  components  by  determining  each com-
ponent's proportion  to total  cost.   The next step was  to allocate  the
capital  cost  of  each  component to  the political subdivisions  in  the
Study  Area.   The criterion  for allocation  in  Alternative  1  under this
method  was  the  volume of  flow contributed  by  the population  in each
jurisdiction.  Once the component capital costs were allocated by juris-
diction, a price was charged to the various classes of users by dividing
the total  capital costs  of each component by  the number of households
and commercial  establishments in each political subdivision.  This same
procedure was  employed  to allocate operating costs.  Table J-5-b demon-
strates the results of this analysis.

-------
                                                                             J-5
                                  Table J-5-a

            TOTAL ANNUAL CAPITAL (LOCAL SHARE) AND OPERATING COSTS
              FOR PROPOSED AND ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER FACILITIES
Facility Plan Proposed Action

Limited Action

EIS Alternative 1

EIS Alternative 2

EIS Alternative 3

EIS Alternative 4

EIS Alternative 5

EIS Alternative 6
Annual Debt
Service
828,000
59,400
671,400
602,100
249,200
235,300
245,500
207,500
O&M
181,400
120,200
252,900
208,400
151,800
106,800
156,400
143,900
20% Crystal
Reserve
165,612
11,900
134,286
120,426
49,800
47,100
49,100
41,500
Total
1,175,000
191,500
1,058,600
931,000
450,800
389,200
451,000
392,900

-------
J-5































o
1
in
I
1-3

CU
iH
-a
CO
H





























































W
erf
33 <
CJ
«s
£3
Pi E-*
gw
a
& X
w <
cn i-4
pt< <3
O H
cn
cn >i
cn pd
^ CJ
^_j
CJ W
33
>• H
03
*2
cn M
w
o z
Pi O
< M
33 cn
CJ M
£>
j-J HH
< o
P PQ
S3 £5
z cn

.J
h4 <
< 0
H M
O H
r . j_ j
i-J
O
Pw
























CO
•H
V-i
4-1
CO
3
*^3
S
0)
•O
C
cfl
4-)
O
MH
C
CO
£
C
M

O
o
m
M
in
CN


CO
•H
0
CU
i
0


o
CN


0



rH
cfl
•H
4J
C
0)
T3
•H
cn
*,
4-1
•H
i— 1
O
03


0

ON
•>
CN
CN




O
CN









O
O
rH







O
O^














o
m
























C
o
iH
4-1
CJ
^

T3
CU
4-1
"e
•H
nJ

0
O
VjQ
M
O
CN




0
r 1
CN









O
0N








o

i— i
M
1-1











O
m
**0




















rH

CU
^
•r-l
4-1
Cfl
C
IH
CU
4J
r-l
cn
M
W

O
in
r^.
A
in
iH




O
rH









O
vO








o
oo
o

rH











O
ON
in




















CN

0)

T-f
4-1
Cfl
C

eu
4-1
i-H
cn
M
hi

0
m
ON
A
CN
CN




O
CN









O
O
rH







0
O
"*d"













O
CN
CN




















cn


•r-f
4J
CO
C
^
0)
4-1
rH
C/>
M
W

o
vD
in
»
o
CN




o
•«J
^1
CN









0









o

*^













o

CN




















in

CU

•H
4J
CO
C

(U
4-1
rH
cn
M
Ed

0
sr
ON
«
CN
CN




O
CN









O
O
I-l







o
m
co













o
CTx
r-(




















*sO

OJ

•H
4-1
CO
C

0)
4-1
r-l
cn
rH
Pd

-------
                                                                         J-5
     Examination of total charges  allocated to each class of user based
on benefits received demonstrates the cost differentials associated with
use of the system.   Variations among household charges are sizable, with
Alternative 2  exhibiting the largest variations  between jurisdictions.
As Frankfort and Elberta would  be using their own collection and trans-
mission  sewers  to  transport the  wastewater  to  the  central  treatment
plant their annual charges would be relatively low.

     The  commercial  category  in  Table  J-5-b  represents  the  average
charge  to  commercial establishments in Benzonia  Village and Frankfort.
The allocations were based on the gallons per capita per day used by the
16  commercial  outlets in Benzonia and the  47  establishments  in Frank-
fort.

     The industrial  charge  is based on the estimated flow of industrial
wastewater from Frankfort.   One firm accounts for all of the industrial
waste  in the  Study  Area.   The  total  annual  charge for  the industry
ranges  from  $15,750  (EIS Alternative  2)  to $25,500 (Proposed Action).

                           AVERAGE COST BASIS

     The  average  cost   approach  differs  from  the  proportionate share
method  in  that  there is no  relationship  between  usage and  cost.  Total
costs  are equally divided   among  jurisdictions  and  various classes of
users.   The  advantage  to   this   approach  is  that  it  is  simple  and
straight  forward  and requires  minimum administration.   A major disad-
vantage  is that  one jurisdiction may  subsidize the  costs of  another
jurisdiction.

     Under the  average  cost approach the  capital and operating cost of
the  collection and treatment components are  totaled,  then divided by the
number  of households and commercial establishments  in the  seven juris-
dictions  to  create a total  average  price for each class of user in the
Study Area .

     The  average  cost   approach  differs  from the  proportionate share
basis  in that in the former the differential  costs  associated with  each
political  subdivision would  be averaged  across  the entire Study Area.
This  averaging  process,  however,  tends  to  distort the  actual costs
associated  with  provision  of  sewerage  facilities.   For  example,  the
average  annual household charge  for  the Proposed  Action  is $510.   A
comparison  of this  price with  the  prices charged households under the
proportionate  share approach (Table J-5-b)  shows that the  average  cost
basis  would  force Elberta and  Frankfort  to subsidize the  sewer  costs of
the other political  subdivisions in  the Crystal Lake Study Area.

           SEASONAL  AND  PERMANENT  RESIDENTIAL  COST ALLOCATIONS

     Many of  the residences  in  Benzonia Township,  Lake  Township and
Crystal Lake  Township are vacation  homes, and a  large proportion of the
total  population  in these jurisdictions  is estimated to be seasonal --
52%,  89%,  and  82% respectively.

-------
                                                                         J-5
     Inasmuch as permanent  residents  benefit from wastewater facilities
the year around while  seasonal residents benefit only  during  the vaca-
tion months,  a method was devised to account for the relative wastewater
service benefits  received  by  each group.   The scheme  employed  90-day
flows  for  the seasonal  resident  and full-year flows  for  the  permanent
resident.   The contributing   flows  from  each  group  were  assigned  as
weights in distributing  operating costs  for each  alternative  system.

     The difference  between the  proportionate  share technique  and the
seasonal/residential allocation is the split in charges between seasonal
and  permanent  residents.   Capital  charges  remain the  same  because
capital costs were  based  on  the number  of dwelling  units.   However,
operating costs were determined by the volume of wastewater flow contri-
buted  by  permanent and  seasonal  residents.  This  is  reflected  in the
total annual charge to both groups.

                                SUMMARY

     The above  analyses  offer  the policymaker three approaches to allo-
cating  costs  associated  with  alternative wastewater management systems.
The issues involved with each approach follow.

1.   Average Cost Method

     The average cost approach is probably not an appropriate method for
allocating costs in this situation.  Although the approach is simple and
direct, it is equitable  only when benefits approximate the average cost
charged to each household.  For the Crystal Lake  Study  Area,  this is
clearly not  the case.   As Table J-5-b indicates, there are built-in in-
equities,  and the  range  of actual  costs  associated with benefits re-
ceived varies considerably between jurisdictions and among alternatives.

     However,  if  differences  in  costs  among political subdivisions are
relatively small,  the  average  cost method of separating costs may be an
acceptable  approach  to   allocation.   The  policymaker  must  weigh the
advantages af lower administrative cost against the  loss of an equitable
rate structure.

2.  Proportionate Share Basis

     The basis  of this approach  is that the  costs of the  facilities are
shared  by jurisdictions  in proportion to  benefits  received  from the
system, measured,  in the present analysis,  by  volume of flow from each
of  the  political  subdivisions.   Although  the PSB method provides   a
method  of  allocating costs more  equitably  than the ACB, there are some
problems  in  relying exclusively  on a  flow factor to measure benefits.
First,  flow  ignores the relative  locations  of the political  subdivisions
and the treatment plant.  Transmission costs  should  reflect  the distance
that  a  community's  waste is  transported  to  the  treatment  facility.
Second,  flow  disregards  topography  and  the possibility  that   gravity
sewers  may need pump stations to push the  wastewater flow to the treat-
ment plant.   Sewers that serve areas with  irregular terrain will there-
fore  tend to incur  higher capital  and  operating costs.   Third, the
strength  of  the  wastewater is an  important cost factor,  especially in

-------
                                                                         J-5
industrial  areas.   High  concentrations  of  corrosive  acid  or BOD  may
impose heavy burdens on secondary treatment facilities,  accelerating the
depreciation of equipment.

3.  Seasonal/Permanent Basis

     This  method  aims  at  an  equitable allocation  of  system  costs  by
charging seasonal and  permanent  residents  rates equivalent to the bene-
fits  each  group  receives from the wastewater  facilities.   However,  the
SPB approach incorporates  many  of the same problems  of inequity  as the
ACB  method.   Weighted  costs  for seasonal  and permanent  residents  are
averaged across the  entire Study Area, but differential costs attribut-
able  to  permanent and  seasonal  residents living within different juris-
dictions are ignored.

-------
                                                                           APPENDIX
                                                                              J-6
                                PRIVATE COSTS

     Private costs are estimated expenditures for connecting individual
households to a. sewer collection line.  Private costs would be paid by only
those households that need service lines to join the sewers, and the cost of
each hookup would be the exclusive obligation of the household served.  House-
holds served by cluster and on-site systems (EIS Alternatives 3, 4, 5, and 6)
would not incur this hook-up cost.

     Table 1 presents the average private costs associated with each alterna-
tive system and the total first year average capital and operating expenditures
for all households in the Crystal Lake Study Area.  Private costs vary widely
among the alternatives, ranging from a low of $50 for the Limited Action
Alternative to a high of $1,720 for the Facility Plan Proposed Action Alterna-
tive.  Considering the low per capita income levels among the jurisdictions
around Crystal Lake, the high residential charges could cause the displace-
ment of lower-income households.

-------
                                    Table J-6-1

                    AVERAGE PRIVATE AND TOTAL FIRST YEAR COSTS
                                   PER HOUSEHOLD
Total
Private
Costs
.,384,000
0
0
0
803,000
803,000
803,000
497,000
Households
1,334
0
0
0
803
803
803
497
Private
Costs Per
Household
1,000
0
0
0
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
Annual
User
Charges
720
50
650
590
220
180
240
190
Total
Cost
1,720
50
650
590
1,220
1,180
1,240
1,190
Facility Plan Proposed Action  1,384,000

Limited Action

EIS Alternative 1

EIS Alternative 2

EIS Alternative 3

EIS Alternative 4

EIS Alternative 5

EIS Alternative 6
 NOTE:  Private hook-up costs apply only to the currently unsewered portion of the
        Proposed Service Area.

-------
                                                                             APPENDIX
                                                                                 J-7
                                 FUTURE COSTS
     Population growth would induce capital expenditures for new facilities.
Arthur Beard and Associates has estimated future capital and operating costs
to the year 2000 for each wastewater management alternative.  Future costs
associated with projected population growth are summarized below.

     Capital costs in Table 7 represent the total.cumulative costs in 1978
dollars for the construction and design of future collection sewers.
Operating costs were derived on an annual basis by determining a linear
gradient that increases at a constant rate each year.  For the Proposed
Action, operating costs would be zero in the year one and increase by
$237 each year until the year 2000, when the costs would reach $4500 in
1978 dollars.

     A number of options for financing future capital costs for the
collection facilities are available to the county.

     1.   Finance through Current Revenues.  As new facilities come on
line, fund the capital and operating costs from surplus revenues.

     2.   Increase the Rate Structure.  There are two alternatives with
this approach.  As population grows, increase the rates throughout the
Study Area, or charge only those users who benefit from the new facilities.
The funding mechanism could be either a tax on property or a direct user
charge.

     3.    Create a Reserve Fund.   Provide a cushion in the present rate
structure to allow excess revenues to be deposited in a reserve fund and
invested in order to accumulate sufficient funds to finance future capital
improvements.

     4.    Provide Debt Financing.   If the capital costs are relatively
high,  issue a bond and spread the  costs across the entire Study Area
or charge those users who benefit  from the facilities.

-------
                                  Table J-7-a

                    FUTURE CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS FOR
                          EACH WASTEWATER ALTERNATIVE
                              (in 000's dollars)
Proposed Action

Limited Action

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Alternative 3

Alternative 4

Alternative 5

Alternative 6
Capital Costs
2467.4
1076.0
2717.1
2717.1
1885.0
1885.0
1885.0
1550.9
Operating Costs
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
- 4.5
- 2.5
- 9.5
- 9.5
- 4.8
- 4.8
- 4.8
- 4.8
Gradient
.2368
.1316
.4989
.5000
.2526
.2526
.2526
.2526

-------
MANAGEMENT OF SMALL WASTEWATER SYSTEMS OR DISTRICTS
  K-l    Some Management Agencies for Decentralized
           Facilities

  K-2    Legislation by States Authorizing Management
           of Small Waste Flow Districts

  K-3    Management Concepts for Small Waste Flow
           Districts
                                                             APPENDIX
                                                                K

-------
                                                                       APPENDIX
                                                                         K-l
             SOME MANAGEMENT AGENCIES FOR DECENTRALIZED FACILITIES
     Central management entities that administer non-central systems with
various degrees of authority have been established in several States.
Although many of these entities are quasi-public, few of them both own and
operate each component of the facility.  The list of small waste flow
management agencies that follows is not comprehensive.  Rather, it presents a
sampling of what is currently being accomplished.  Many of these entities
are located in California, which has been in the vanguard of the movement
away from conventional centralized systems to centrally managed decentralized
systems to serve rural areas (State of California, Office of Appropriate
Technology, 1977).

                  Westboro (Wisconsin Town Sanitary District)

     Sanitary District No. 1 of the Town of Westboro represents the public
ownership and management of septic tanks located on private property.  In
1974  the unincorporated community of Westboro was selected as a demonstra-
tion site by the Small Scale Waste Management Project (SSWMP) at the
University of Wisconsin to determine whether a cost-effective alternative
to central sewage for small communities could be developed utilizing on-site
disposal techniques.  Westboro was thought to be typical of hundreds of
small rural communities in the Midwest which are~in need of improved
wastewater treatment and disposal facilities but are unable to afford
conventional sewerage.

     From background environmental data such as soils and engineering
studies and groundwater sampling, it was determined that the most economical
alternative would be small diameter gravity sewers that would collect
effluents from individual septic tanks and transport them to a common soil
absorption field.  The District assumed responsibility for all operation
and maintenance of the entire facility commencing at the inlet of the septic
tank.  Easements were obtained to allow permanent legal access to properties
for purposes of installation, operation, and maintenance.  Groundwater was
sampled and analyzed during both the construction and operation phases.
Monthly charges were collected from homeowners.  The system, now in  operation,
will continue to be observed by the SSWMP to assess the success of  its
mechanical performance and management capabilities.

                               Washington State

     Management systems have been mandated in certain situations in  the
State of Washington to assist in implementing the small waste  flow manage-
ment concept.  In 1974 the State's Department of  Social and Health  Services
established a requirement for the management of  on-site systems:  an
approved management system would be responsible  for the maintenance  of
sewage disposal systems when subdivisions have gross densities greater
than 3.5 housing units or 12 people per acre  (American Society of Agricultural
Engineers 1977).  It is anticipated that this concept will  soon be  applied
to all on-site systems.

-------
                                                                        K-l
      Georgetown Divide (California)  Public Utility District (GDPUD)

     The GDPUD employs a full-time geologist and registered sanitarian who
manage all the individual wastewater sytems in the District.  Although it
does not own individual systems this district has nearly complete central
management responsibility for centralized systems.  The Board of Directors
of the GDPUD passed an ordinance forming a special sewer improvement district
within  the District to allow the new 1800-lot Auburn Lake Trails subdivision
to receive central management services from the GDPUD.   The GDPUD performs
feasibility studies on lots within the subdivision to evaluate the potential
for the use of individual on-site systems, designs appropriate on-site
systems, monitors their construction and installation,  inspects and maintains
them, and monitors water quality to determine their effects upon water leaving
the subdivision.  If a septic tank needs pumping, GDPUD issues a repair order
to the homeowner.  Service charges are collected annually.

     Santa Cruz County (California) Septic Tank Maintenance District

     This district was established in 1973 when the Board of Supervisors
adopted ordinance No.  1927, "Ordinance Amending the Santa Cruz County Code,
Chapter 8.03 Septic Tank System Maintenance District."  Its primary function
is the inspection and  pumping of all septic tanks within the District.  To
date 104 residences in two subdivisions are in the district, which collects a
one-time set-up fee plus monthly charges.  Tanks are pumped every three years
and inspected annually.  The County Board of Supervisors is required to
contract for these services.  In that the District does not have the authority
to own systems, does not perform soil studies on individual sites, or offer
individual designs, its powers are limited.

      Bolinas Community (California) Public Utility District (BCPUD)

     Bolinas, California is an older community that faced an expensive public
sewer proposal.  Local residents organized to study the feasibility of
retaining many of their on-site systems, and in 1974 the BCPUD Sewage Disposal
and Drainage Ordinance was passed.  The BCPUD serves 400 on-site systems and
operates conventional sewerage facilities for 160 homes.  The District employs
a wastewater treatment plant operator who performs inspections and monitors
water quality.  The County health administration is authorized to design and
build new septic systems.

                   Kern County (California) Public Works

     In 1973 the Board of Supervisors of Kern County, California, passed an
ordinance amending the County Code to provide special regulations for water
quality control.  County Service Area No. 40, including 800 developed lots
of a 2,900-lot subdivision, was the first Kern County Service Area  (CSA) to
arrange for management of on-site disposal systems.  Inspections of install-
ations are made by the County Building Department.  Ongoing CSA responsibilities
are handled by the Public Works Department.  System design  is provided in an
Operation and Maintenance Manual.

-------
                                                                        K-l
                           Marin County ^California)

     In 1971 the Marin County Board of Supervisors adopted a regulation,
"Individual Sewage Disposal Systems," creating an inspection program for
all new installations (Marin County Code Chapter 18.06).   The Department
of Environmental Health is responsible for the inspection program.   The
Department collects a charge from the homeowner and inspects septic tanks
twice a year.  The homeowner is responsible for pumping.   The Department
also inspects new installations and reviews engineered systems.

-------
                                                                            APPENDIX
                                                                               K-2
                LEGISLATION BY STATES AUTHORIZING MANAGEMENT
                       OF SMALL WASTE FLOW DISTRICTS
     In a recent act,  the California legislature noted that  then-
existing California law authorized local governments to construct and maintain
sanitary sewerage systems but did not authorize them to manage small waste
flow systems.  The new act, California Statutes Chapter 1125 of  1977,  empowers
certain public agencies to form on-site wastewater disposal zones to collect,
treat, and dispose of wastewater without building sanitary sewers or sewage
systems.  Administrators of such on-site wastewater disposal zones are to be
responsible for the achievement of water quality objectives set by regional
water quality control boards, protection of existing and future beneficial
uses, protection of public health, and abatement of nuisances.

     The California act authorizes an assessment by the public agency upon
real property in the zone in addition to other charges, assessments, or taxes
levied on property in the zone.  The Act assigns the following functions to
an on-site wastewater disposal zone authority:

     o    To collect, treat, reclaim, or dispose of wastewater without
          the use of sanitary sewers or community sewage systems;

     o    To acquire, design, own, construct, install, operate,  monitor,
          inspect, and maintain on-site wastewater disposal systems in a
          manner which will promote water quality, prevent the pollution,
          waste, and contamination of water, and abate nuisances;

     o    To conduct investigations, make analyses, and monitor conditions
          with regard to water quality within the zone; and

     o    To adopt and enforce reasonable rules and regulations necessary
          to implement the purposes of the zone.

     To monitor compliance with Federal, State and local requirements an
authorized representative of the zone must have the right of entry to any
premises on which a source of water pollution, waste, or contamination in-
cluding but not limited to septic tanks, is located.  He may inspect the
source and take samples of discharges.

     The State of Illinois recently passed a similar act.  Public Act 80-1371
approved in 1978 also provides for the creation of municipal on-site waste-
water disposal zones.  The authorities of any municipality (city, village, or
incorporated town) are given the power to form on-site wastewater disposal
zones to "protect the public health, to prevent and abate nuisances, and to
protect existing and further beneficial water use."  Bonds may be issued to
finance the disposal system and be retired by taxation of property in the
zone.

     A representative of the zone is to be authorized to enter at all reason-
able times any premise in which a. source of water pollution, waste, or con-
tamination (e.g., septic tank) is located, for the purposes of inspection,
rehabilitation and maintenance, and to take samples from discharges.  The

-------
                                                                                K-2
municipality is to be responsible for routinely inspecting the entire system
at least once every 3 years.  The municipality must also remove and dispose
of sludge, its designated representatives may enter private property and,  if
necessary, respond to emergencies that present a hazard to health.

-------
                                                                      APPENDIX
                                                                        K-3
              MANAGEMENT CONCEPTS FOR SMALL WASTE FLOW DISTRICTS

     Several authors have discussed management concepts applicable to
decentralized technologies.   Lenning and Hermason suggested that management
of on-site systems should provide the necessary controls throughout the
entire lifecycle of a system from site evaluations through system usage.
They stressed that all segments of the cycle should be included to ensure
proper system performance (American Society of Agricultural Engineers 1977).

     Stewart stated that for on-site systems a three-phase regulatory
program would be necessary (1976).  Such a program would include:  1) a
mechanism to ensure proper siting and design installation and to ensure
that the location of the system is known by establishing a filing and
retrieval system; 2) controls to ensure that each system will be period-
ically inspected and maintained; and 3) a mechanism to guarantee that
failures will be detected and necessary repair actions taken.

     Winneberger and Burgel suggested a total management concept, similar
to a sewer utility, in which a centralized management entity is responsible
for design, installation, maintenance, and operation of decentralized systems
(American Society of Agricultural Engineers 1977).  This responsibility
includes keeping necessary records, monitoring ground and surface water
supplies and maintaining the financial solvency of the entity.

     Otis and Stewart (1976) have identified various powers and authorities
necessary to perform the functions of a management entity:

     o    To acquire by purchase, gift, grant, lease, or rent both real
          and personal property;

     o    To enter into contracts, undertake debt obligations either by
          borrowing and/or by issuing bonds, sue and be sued.  These powers
          enable a district  to acquire the property, equipment, supplies
          and services necessary to construct and operate small flow
          systems;

     o    To declare and abate nuisances;

     o    To require correction or private systems;

     o    To recommend correction procedures;

     o    To enter onto property, correct malfunctions, and bill the owner
          if he fails to repair the system;

     o    To raise revenue by fixing and collecting user charges and
          levying special assessments and taxes;

     o    To plan and control how and when wastewater facilities will be
          extended to those  within its jurisdiction;

     o    To meet the eligibility requirements for loans and grants from
          the State and Federal government.

-------
                    DOCUMENTS CITED IN THE APPENDIXES
Bacfaman, R.W., and  J.R.  Jones.  1974.   Phosphorus inputs and algal bloom
in lakes.  Iowa State Journal of Research 49:   155-160.

Clean Water  Act  of  1977.   Public  Law 95-217.   (33 U.S.C.  466  et seq).

Day, J.J.   1977.   Audited  Financial  Statements -- Village of  Elberta.

Dillon,   P.J.   1975a.  The  phosphorus  budget of Cameron  Lake,  Ontario:
The  importance of  flushing rate  to  the degree  of eutrophy of  lakes.
Limnology and Oceanography 20:   28-39.

Dillon,   P.J.   1975b.   The application of the phosphorus-loading concept
to eutrophication research.  Scientific Series No.  46,  Canada Centre for
Inland Waters, Burlington, Ontario, I4p.

Dillon,   P.J.,  and F.R.  Rigler.   1975.  A simple  method  for predicting
the  capacity of  a  lake  for development  based on  lake trophic status.
Journal  of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 32:   1519-1531.

Environmental  Protection Agency.   Construction  Grants  Program  Require-
ments Memorandum 78-9.  3 March 1978.

EPA.  Grants  for  Construction  of Treatment Works  - Clean Water Act (40
CFR 35 Part E):  Rules and Regulations.  43 FR 44022-44099, 27 September
1978.

EPA.  1975.  National Eutrophication Survey.

EPA.  1975.   Report on Betsie Lake, Benzie County, Michigan.   National
Eutrophication Survey, Working Paper No. 185.

Federal  Water Pollution  Control  Act  Amendments  of  1972, Public  Law
92-500.

Gakstatter,  J.H.,   and  M.O. Allum.   1975.  Data  presented at the  EPA
Region IV Seminar on Eutrophication, Atlanta GA.

Gakstatter,  J.H.  et al.   1975.  Lake  eutrophication:   results  from the
National Eutrophication Survey.  Paper presented at the 26th Annual AIBS
Meeting.  Oregon State University, Corvallis OR.

Larson,  D.P.,  and  H.T.  Mercier.   1975.  Lake phosphorus loading graphs:
An  alternative.  EPA,  National Eutrophication Survey,  Working Paper No.
174.  National Environmental  Research Laboratory,  Corvallis  OR,  30p.

Larson,  D.P.,  and  H.T.  Mercier,  1976.  Phosphorus retention capacity of
lakes.   Joint Fisheries Research Board of Canada 33:  1742-1750.

Merskin  and Merskin.  1977.  Audit Report — City of Frankfort.

Merskin  and Merskin.  1976.  Audit Report — Lake Township

-------
Merskin and Merskin.  1976.  Audit Report -- Village of Benzonia.

Merskin and Merskin.  1976.  Audit Report -- Village of Beulah.

Merskin and  Merskin.   1977.   Audited Statements  —  Benzonia Township.

Omernik,  J.M.  1977.   Nonpoint  source stream  nutrient  level relation-
ships:  A nationwide study.   EPA-600/3-77-105.  National Environmental
Research Laboratory, Corvallis OR.

Reckhow,  K.H.   1978.   Empirical lake models  for phosphorus:   develop-
ment,  applications,  limitations  and uncertainty.   In Perspectives  on
Lake Ecosystem Modeling,  D. Scavia   and  A. Roberts-on,  eds.,  Ann  Arbor
Science, pp. 193-221.

Vollenweider, R.A.   1975.   Input-output models  with special  reference  to
the phosphorus loading  concept in  limnology.   Schweizerische Zeitschrift
fuer Hydrologie 37:  53-84.

Vollenweider,  R.A.   1968.   The  scientific  basis  of lake and  stream
eutrophication, with particular  references  to  phosphorus and nitrogen  as
eutrophication  factors.  Technical  Report  DAS/DSI/68.27.   Organization
for Economic Cooperation  and Development, Paris,  France,  I82p.

Water  Resources  Engineers.  1975.   Simulation  of measured water quality
and  ecologic  responses  'of  Bartletts  Ferry  Reservoir  using the Reservoir
Ecologic  Model EPAECO.  EPA.   Washington, B.C.

Wilbur Smith  and  Associates.  1974.   Comprehensive  development  plan,
Benzie County MI.

Williams   and  Works;   McNamee,   Porter,  and   Seeley;  and  Perla  Stout
Associates.   1976.   Crystal  Lake  area  facility plan  for  wastewater
collection and treatment,  Benzie County,  Michigan.
                                                     6USGPO: 1980 — 654-261 — Vol.
        U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
        Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
        77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Floor
        Chicago, IL  60604-3590

-------