-------
-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
-------