-------
- ki -O
x 01 d
T5 a, m
•o
G
4-»
(A
4-t
C
QJ
3
i— i
w
c
o
4-1
re
4J
•H
E
•H
F- 1
w
4->
C
QJ
e
OJ
v«
•H
3
QJ
>*
-;
01
3
CT1
01
ki
^-1 01
01 00 U 00
ki u d
o» « d -H
d J3 n IH
•H u E a.
U-l [0 kl E
01 -H o «o
Q T5 1-1 »
4J kl
O --.
C 4J
C •
d 01 to
O E E
•H 01 01
4-1 U 4-1
.H rH >,
O OH tA
•H 01
> U 00
d
01 01 -H
3 kl rH
U -H -H
to 3 TO
J3 U
a, e
S TO
a
d
o
a
4J O
• d 3
.-i 3
« o
E C
00 O
C J3
re w w QJ
C -H d; r-
•H T3 (J 4-1
e -H -H
QJ ^ +J i-H
W • U -r-l
co u re -O
oc
c
•-^ o QJ 4-t
QJ
C
•H
i-H
QJ
•O
•H
3
00
00
c
•H
4-)
re
w
s-^
4->
E
GJ
•^
C
re
• H
4J
•H
C
r-H
w
QJ
00
C
•H
C
C
i-H
ti
QJ
Cb
O
1— (
QJ
01
tA
. . OJ 0> *J
•H a -H u d .
TO E > O 0)
4-1 TO 01 kl S •
oi x w a cu
01 d d
ki OO-n
re -H d
a to d
01 d 4J
•a
01
3
c
<
l/l
3
00
u .
01 to
•H a
•o re
o
—I -O
ki C
oi n
a
oo
4-> d
u •-<
3 rH
I! I"
O re
u to
e
01
4J
o
a.
00 10
•H 01
4-1 kl
10 3
01 rH
> -H
d a
S 4J
a 01
o
4J d
o
C -H
O 4-1
o d
tH O
c o
01 01
T! 4-1
• U kl
d a
TO
d 0)
01 U
V d
d n
•H d
re 01
E 4-1
d
•• -H
to n •
a E to
o u
•r( TJ d
u re E
01 01
a • u
W tfl -H
C 01 3
01
3
•O
•H re o) 01
> 3 4J u E
o to o re
a. o to
DO
oo d u
d o d
oo
n
•H 3 rH T3
u oo d
d 01 to re
01 ki re
oo to
re * 4J ki
to u 01
i 01 re c
4J 'H 3
•H 4-1 -a o
3 -n d 01
rH 10 S
01 'H O
4-1 4J /-< J3
re 3 to
d 01 d
•r< O .rt 01
T5 —< U 01
kl rH d S
o _q oi 4J
O 3 OO 01
oq
d
0) kl t4-j
4J TO
TO 01 to
S d S
01
01 kl 4J ,
U 01 tA
TO *J >i
to d TO
3 ki
kl O 4->
O I-i d
4-1 00 01
•H U
a "o d
o d o
E TO d
0) to
u d
d o
a~o
E C
o o
u u
f tA
d i u d
o d 4-1 o
d 'H d a
re oi IA
<-H E E oj
o oi ki
U 01 *H ki
•H 4J 3 01
rH tO O* d
•O >> 41 5
3 10 kl O •
a 01 to
01 E 01
U O -rl
d J3 4J
O 4-1 TO *(H
"4-1 d d n rH
O 01 01 d 'H
e n
VI-A-32
-------
B. LOCAL OPTIONS IN DESIGN
1. INTRODUCTION
An advantage of small waste flows management by local communities is the
flexibility that the communities retain in determining management system
operation, maintenance responsibilities, system expansion, and local economic
and environmental impacts. This chapter identifies the major options avail-
able to communities in designing a small waste flows management agency and
describes the factors that influence decisions in consideration of these
options.
The options available to a community engaged in designing a small waste
flows management agency can be identified in terms of the following questions:
• Who should assume ownership for the wastewater facilities?
• Should liability for wastewater facilities be borne by the homeowners,
a private organization, or the management agency?
• Should responsibility for routine operation and maintenance rest with
the homeowners, a private organization, or the management agency?
• Which functions should be incorporated into a management agency?
• Which of the functions should be performed by the homeowners, a pri-
vate organization, or the management agency?
• What types of regulatory authority should be used?
• What type of user charge system should be instituted?
A community will make decisions concerning agency design on the basis of
two types of factors. The first type, termed first order factors, are factors
that must be identified and considered before design decisions are made. They
represent existing or projected community characteristics, and include the
following:
• Types of wastewater facilities required or used,
• Expertise available for use by the community,
• Regulatory authority available to the community,
• Size of the community or management district and number of systems in
use,
• Community jurisdictional setting,
• Community attitudes toward growth, and
• Community attitudes toward public management of decentralized waste-
water facilities.
VI-B-1
-------
Second order factors are considered in agency design decisions as potential
consequences of option selection decisions. These factors include:
• Anticipated costs,
• Anticipated environmental impacts, and
• Anticipated level of risk assumed by various parties.
Each of the potential community design option decisions will be discussed in
respect to its interrelationships with the first order factors and its
influence on potential second order factors. Not all of the first or second
order factors will be relevant for consideration in each agency design
decision.
2. OWNERSHIP OF WASTEWATER FACILITIES
There are three community options concerning the assignment of responsi-
bility for the decentralized wastewater systems. These include responsibility
for system ownership, responsibility for performance of routine operation, and
maintenance and liability for performance of necessary repairs. The ownership
option as discussed here involves only the responsibility for actually owning
the decentralized systems. Such ownership does not necessarily imply
responsibility for performance of routine operation and maintenance or
liability for system repairs. It is assumed that separate parties may be
responsible for each of these options.
Ownership of wastewater facilities may be by individual homeowner, com-
munity management agency, or private organization. A private organization is
intended to include any non-public agency that owns the decentralized systems.
This may include private utility companies, community associations, and other
organizations. The first and second order factors influencing the ownership
option are discussed below.
The particular types of decentralized facilities in use or expected to be
used in the community affect the feasibility of ownership options. Ownership
of systems by homeowner is normally limited to those systems located immedi-
ately upon the individual's property. When neighborhood or community-wide
collection systems with centralized disposal are used, community management
agency or private agency ownership would be expected. However, joint owner-
ship of neighborhood systems by landowners is possible. Private agency owner-
ship may also be selected where specialized types of decentralized systems,
such as package treatment systems, are utilized, and a private company wishes
to retain ownership.
The regulatory authority within a community may define who may own de-
centralized facilities. Regulations may prohibit a management agency from
owning wastewater facilities located on privately owned property. The forma-
tion of private community associations and other private organizations to own
decentralized systems also may not be permitted by statutory authority in a
given locality. Another manner in which regulatory authority may affect the
system ownership option is in respect to acquiring access to privately owned
property to maintain or provide other services. This might occur when a
management agency is responsible for provision of routine operation and
maintenance but the homeowner owns the individual on-site system. If a manage-
VI-B-2
-------
ment agency does not have sufficient authority to acquire access to the
systems, it may accept responsibility for ownership of the systems as a way in
which to acquire the necessary access. Chapter VIII, Section E, should be
reviewed for additional insight into this problem, since it considers legal
problems associated with acquiring access to on-site systems.
Another consideration affecting facilities ownership is eligibility for
construction grants funds. According to U.S. EPA Regulations for Grants for
the Construction of Treatment Works (U.S. EPA, 1978), grants for the rehabili-
tation and upgrading of individual systems will be made only for a home that
is occupied 51 percent of the time annually. Second homes and vacation or
recreation residences frequently do not comply with this requirement and
therefore would not be eligible for grant assistance. To make these systems
eligible for construction grants funding, a community may elect to acquire
ownership of the systems. U.S. EPA has, however, ruled that "perpetual or
life-of-project easements or other binding covenant running with the land
affording complete access to and control of wastewater treatment works on
private property are tantamount to ownership of such works" (U.S. EPA, 1979).
Therefore, actual title ownership of the individual systems may not be
required for eligibility for construction grants funding. These options for
ownership and potential economic impacts on system users must be understood
during the design of the management agency.
The community jurisdictional setting may make centralized ownership by
either a community or private agency untenable. A particular instance would
be when a proposed management district encompasses more than a single juris-
diction. In this situation, agreements concerning appropriate community
management structure may be unreachable between the various parties involved.
Also, the idea of instituting a regional management structure raises the fears
of some communities about dealing with yet another level of government.
Conversely, when a management district encompasses only a portion of a juris-
diction, there may be legal and other difficulties in setting up a management
agency to serve only a portion of the jurisdiction.
Community attitudes toward the public management of decentralized systems
may affect community decisions concerning the ownership of such facilities.
The widespread acceptance of community ownership of centralized collection and
treatment facilities is quite in contrast to many communities' attitudes
toward public ownership. Traditional practice in many areas has reinforced
the attitude that ownership for these systems should remain with the indi-
vidual homeowner.
3. LIABILITY FOR WASTEWATER FACILITIES
Liability involves acceptance of the responsibility for consequences of
facility failure. These consequences may involve making necessary repairs and
possibly the payment of damages to parties injured by such facility failure.
Historically, communities have accepted all liability for the failure of
centralized collection and treatment systems, with the exception of house
connections and plumbing blockages. The opposite is true for decentralized
individual systems. The liability for system failures has traditionally
remained with the system owner. With improved management of decentralized
VI-B-3
-------
systems, there may be advantages to reassignment of the liability for system
failure. This is discussed below in relation to first and second order
factors.
The types of wastewater facilities in a community each have a different
level of risk associated with their use. Risk as used here refers to the
likelihood of system failure. The types of wastewater facilities used there-
fore affect how much risk a community is willing to accept for system failure.
This level of risk should also determine where the liability should be placed
when failures occur. Some decentralized systems that provide significant cost
advantages also carry a higher level of risk. For example, in the Seven Rural
Lake EIS's, the use of substandard and innovative decentralized systems
characterized by a higher level of risk avoid greater community costs of
installing centralized wastewater facilities. When the community management
agency accepts a higher level of risk for system failure, they should also
assume liability for system repairs. The entire community may thereby benefit
from lower overall costs because of the use of less costly systems, while the
management agency would remove from individual users the high costs incurred
by system failure. When low-risk wastewater facilities are utilized, the
liability for system failure may be assigned to the individual user.
A management agency may wish not to accept liability for system failure
unless they have available the staff and expertise to perform necessary
repairs. If expertise is not presently available, the management agency must
consider the cost of obtaining the required expertise versus the benefits to
be obtained by acceptance of liability for the facilities. In some situations
it may prove cost-effective to have the agency retain liability but contract
with a private organization to perform necessary services.
As with ownership, existing regulatory authority may limit where
liability for decentralized systems may be placed. Regulatory authority may
limit a management agency from accepting liability for decentralized facili-
ties located on private property or prevent the formation of a private
community association. In these situations, with individually owned systems,
liability may necessarily remain with the system owners.
A major selling point for private acceptance of liability for system
failures is that there would be less government involvement with the decen-
tralized systems. As previously mentioned, community acceptance of liability
for individual systems has not been commonplace and, historically, liability
has been placed upon the system owner. If cost and environmental benefits can
be obtained by community acceptance of liability, then public attitudes toward
public involvement with decentralized systems must be changed. This can best
be accomplished through active and informed public involvement in facility
planning and decision-making processes.
The potential for environmental impacts would be the greatest if the
homeowner accepts liability for the decentralized systems. This results
because an individual homeowner would be less likely to call attention to, or
immediately correct, potential environmental problems if he is liable for the
expense of correcting such problems. There is also a greater possibility that
an individual homeowner would perform inadequate repairs. However, when a
management association or private agency accepts liability for system failure,
there is a greater chance of quick identification and correction of environ-
VI-B-4
-------
mental problems. The removal of liability from the homeowner for correcting
system failures would make them more likely to report failures immediately and
to request the necessary repairs.
Total community costs will be affected by assignment of liability for
system failure. If liability is assumed by a centralized community or private
agency, the homeowner may be relieved of any direct liability for paying for
system repairs. However, the cost incurred by the centralized management
agencies in accepting such liability must be reimbursed through user charges
either directly to homeowners on the basis of individual services received or
averaged among all users in the management district. Under an averaging
method of assigning user charges, homeowners would be spared major capital
expenditures from failure of their individual systems, but would be required
to pay a percentage of the costs incurred by the management agency in serving
other properties. Some beneficial economies in scale and lower overall costs
could result when a centralized agency assumes liability, especially if a
community is experiencing extensive or frequent system failures.
4. RESPONSIBILITY FOR ROUTINE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
The operation and maintenance of an on-site wastewater system is as
important a determinant of system performance and lifespan as the system
design and installation phase. Despite this fact, the lack of proper opera-
tion and maintenance is commonplace and is a major cause of system failure.
This section discusses three alternatives for providing system operation and
maintenance. These options include operation and maintenance by the home-
owner, by private organizations, or by management agency personnel. A private
organization may include any non-public entity providing operation and
maintenance services, such as system installers, plumbers, private utility
companies, private community associations, or other private contractors
specializing in the provision of such services. A private organization could
be contracted to either individual homeowners or the management agency to
perform these services.
The ability of system users to operate and maintain their individual or
community cluster systems properly is a function of their understanding of its
operation and maintenance requirements and the difficulty encountered in
performing the maintenance tasks. As the complexity of decentralized systems
increases, greater expertise is required to perform operation and maintenance.
When this occurs, the ability and motivation of the users to perform operation
and maintenance tasks decreases. If users are expected to continue to perform
these functions, increased user education and monitoring of their abilities
and performance may be required. Similarily, as the expertise required to
perform operation and maintenance functions, increases, so does the likelihood
that the management agency will not have the necessary expertise or manpower.
The management agency may elect to either hire and train people with the
proper expertise or contract to have these functions performed by a private
organization. The system users could also contract directly with a private
organization.
The prevailing regulatory authority may limit the discretion of the
management agency in determining responsibility for operation and maintenance
of the wastewater facilities. In many states, regulatory authority may not
allow a management agency to maintain privately owned systems or even allow
VI-B-5
-------
the formation of a private community association for such purpose. The
regulatory authority to require homeowner maintenance through maintenance
permits and other devices also may not be available. All of these factors
would affect local decisions as to operation and maintenance responsibility.
The number of wastewater systems served by the management agency in-
creases the cost effectiveness of having operation and maintenance functions
performed by a centralized community association or private organization. The
desirability of centralized community or private management also increases
because of the greater potential for environmental and public health impacts,
which can be better monitored by centralized management.
The jurisdictional setting should not be a major factor in considering
responsibility for system operation and maintenance. However, problems could
arise where the management agency extends into more than one jurisdiction and
the different jurisdictions have differing regulatory approaches toward system
operation and maintenance.
The community's attitudes toward public management of decentralized
facilities will play an important role in determining whether a community
management association takes on these functions. As discussed under the
ownership and liability options, many communities are reluctant to assume any
responsibility for operating and maintaining wastewater facilities other than
conventional centralized collection and treatment systems. These attitudes
must be taken into consideration.
Costs incurred in the performance of operation and maintenance functions
may be identified in terms of individual homeowner costs and total community
costs. Average individual homeowner costs and total community costs are
normally the highest when the homeowner is responsible for routine operation
and maintenance. Since there is little actual operation and maintenance that
can be performed by the homeowner, such as turning a diversion valve, the
homeowner will have to contract to have these services provided. Unfortunate-
ly, since this will involve direct costs to the homeowners, it increases the
probability that these services will be neglected. When the operation and
maintenance responsibilities are performed by a centralized community or
private organization, total community costs and individual homeowner costs
should be lower. This would be affected by the economies in scale involved in
a singular entity's providing services to an entire community rather than each
individual homeowner contracting to have these services performed. Whether
these services should be provided directly by the management agency or by a
private organization will be determined by the costs to the community in
providing the necessary equipment and manpower compared to the costs of con-
tracting with a private organization to perform these services. In many rural
communities, it will be more cost-effective to contract with a private organi-
zation to provide these services.
The potential for environmental impacts is greatest if homeowners are
responsible for facilities operation and maintenance. Homeowners are less
likely to have the expertise to perform operation and maintenance responsi-
bilities adequately, and this may lead to environmental problems. The ability
to recognize system failures and potential for environmental problems may also
be very limited.
VI-B-6
-------
Potential problems may arise when groups of homeowners, such as private
community associations, are responsible for operations and maintenance. The
problems are inability to make fast decisions on emergency maintenance and
lack of authority to require payment of maintenance fees. In some situations,
however, private organizations may be the most effective management agencies
that are also possible to implement.
The amount of assessed risk that the management agency is willing to
assume for system failure affects where the responsibility should be placed
for facilities operation and maintenance. If the management agency is willing
to accept a high level of risk for system failures and thereby keep system
costs low by allowing the use of innovative/alternative or substandard
systems, the responsibility for operation and maintenance should be placed
with the agency. This is because the complexity of monitoring and providing
operation and maintenance services to these systems would be greater. If the
management agency wishes to assume a lower level of risk, the types of systems
permitted would be more traditional, and the homeowners could assume responsi-
bility for operation and maintenance. The assumption of a lower level of risk
could increase costs for the wastewater facilities, however.
5. INCORPORATION OF FUNCTIONS
In determining agency design, decisions must be made concerning which
functions need to be incorporated into the management structure. Although a
few functions are basic to all management agencies, (particularly if U.S. EPA
funding is requested), many of the functions are optional and their incor-
poration into agency design is left to the discretion of the community manage-
ment agency. Decisions to incorporate these optional functions will be
directly related to the first and second order factors.
The type of wastewater facilities used in a community will affect the
incorporation and manner of performance of many functions. The functions
involved with establishing system design and construction standards, review
and approval of plans, conduct of soils investigations, inspection of instal-
lations, and monitoring of system performance are basic to ensure that the
system is properly designed, installed, and operated. As more complex waste-
water technology is developed, it may be desirable to use pilot studies to
develop data concerning system performance. The complexity of wastewater
facilities used will also affect the expertise required of the staff and the
use of public education and other training programs to disseminate information
concerning new technologies.
Agency design decisions concerning incorporation of functions should be
made with knowledge that there is or will be expertise available to perform
these functions. This expertise may be found within the management agency,
other public agencies, or in private organizations. Where expertise is
limited, the hiring of new personnel may be required. Where hiring is not
feasible, the management agency may be unwilling to incorporate certain
functions if it does not have the available expertise and if the cost of
function performance by other parties is not cost-effective. The available
expertise will also affect the level to which certain functions will be
performed.
VI-B-7
-------
Available regulatory authority may legally determine for the management
agency certain options concerning incorporation of functions into agency
design and the manner in which these functions may be performed. As an
example, a community may not have the regulatory authority to require certifi-
cation of contractors or to perform periodic sanitary surveys. The management
agency must be cognizant of the authority it possesses in all phases of waste-
water management prior to making any design decisions concerning incorporation
of functions.
The number of wastewater systems in a management district may affect
decisions concerning the incorporation of several functions. As the number of
systems in an area increases, it becomes more desirable to provide water
quality monitoring, since the potential for groundwater contamination in-
creases. The incorporation of other functions may also become cost-effective
because of the economies of scale provided by a greater number of systems.
The areal size of the community or district may also indicate a greater need
for land use and wastewater planning to control the use of property and
provide effective wastewater treatment.
The community jurisdictional setting may affect a community's authority
to incorporate certain functions. For example, a county may have been granted
legislative authority to issue permits for individual systems while a township
may not have this authority. Also, if the management district includes more
than a single community there may be difficulties in reaching agreements
amongst the communities over selection of functions.
Community attitudes toward public management will directly affect the
incorporation of non-essential functions. Where the community wishes to adopt
a strong management posture, then many functions will be incorporated. But if
a minimum management approach is desired, only essential functions may be
performed. Attitudes in the community toward growth may indirectly affect the
incorporation and performance of functions. For instance, communities may
either accelerate growth or limit it by providing land use planning functions
closely related to small waste flow functions. Identification of sites that
can be developed with small-scale technologies may facilitate development that
would not occur or would occur slowly with traditional application and local
permitting procedures. On the other hand, land use planning could include so
many restrictive features in conjunction with site limitations that develop-
ment is limited or even prohibited.
The total costs to the community involved in the incorporation of func-
tions must be understood during the decision process. Obviously, as the
number of functions incorporated into the management structure increases, the
total costs to the community increase. However, these increased management
costs must be measured against the costs that might be incurred if the manage-
ment agency did not incorporate certain functions. The total costs to the
community will also be affected by who will be responsible for function
performance, as is discussed in the next section.
The decision to incorporate certain functions into agency design will
affect the potential for environmental impacts caused by the wastewater
facilities. The incorporation of functions relative to system design and
construction standards, the inspection and monitoring of systems, the setting
of septage collection and disposal standards, and the monitoring of water
quality will decrease the likelihood of potential environmental impacts. In
VI-B-8
-------
certain cases it will be necessary to weigh the additional costs involved in
performing these functions against the environmental benefits expected to be
achieved.
The level of risk assumed by the community management agency in terms of
the potential for system failure should be considered in the decision process
of incorporating functions. Generally, if a community is willing to assume a
higher level of risk for system failure, it may be desirable to incorporate
certain functions designed to mitigate the problems if they do occur. Such
functions may include conduct of extensive water quality monitoring and place-
ment of responsibility for system operation and maintenance with the manage-
ment agency. A management agency assuming a low level of risk for system
failure may not consider the incorporation of such functions necessary and
would therefore be less likely to incorporate non-essential functions.
6. OPTIONS CONCERNING RESPONSIBILITY FOR FUNCTIONS
A major agency design decision is the determination of which functions
could or should be performed by parties other than the homeowner. These
functions could be performed by the management agency, by private organiza-
tions under contract to the management agency, or by private organizations
under contract to the homeowner.
The ability to perform certain functions will be directly related to the
types of wastewater facilities utilized. As wastewater facilities become more
complex, it becomes more likely that the homeowner will not be capable of
performing the necessary operation and maintenance functions. Where this
situation occurs, these services will have to be provided by the management
agency or a contracted private agency. Whether the private agency is under
contract to the homeowner or to the community agency will not be directly
related to the type of wastewater facilities in use.
The expertise available to a community management agency may affect
whether a community will accept responsibility for performing certain func-
tions. Where expertise is not available, the community could hire additional
personnel or it could contract with a private organization to perform the
work. Where neither of these options appear administratively or economically
feasible, the responsibility for performance of the functions will have to be
left to the homeowner or to a private organization under contract to the
homeowner.
The regulatory authority possessed by the management agency will dictate
the agency's ability to accept responsibility for performing certain func-
tions . As an example, the community management agency may not have the
authority to conduct routine inspection and maintenance for wastewater
facilities located on private property. Normally, if the management agency
does not possess the authority to perform a certain function, it could not
contract with a private organization to perform this function since the
private organization must receive its authority from the community management
agency. Therefore, if regulatory authority does not permit the management
agency to perform certain functions, the functions must be performed by a
private organization under contract to the homeowners or by the homeowners
themselves.
VI-B-9
-------
As previously discussed, the size of the management district in respect
to the number of decentralized systems potentially increases the cost-
effectiveness of having certain functions performed by a centralized agency
rather than by the homeowners. This centralized agency could either be the
management agency or a private agency under contract to the management agency
or to a group of homeowners.
Attitudes in the community toward the management of wastewater facilities
may preclude the management agency from accepting responsibility for perform-
ing some or all functions. Many communities may not wish to accept the
responsibility for performing any functions associated with the use of alter-
native/innovative systems, since this is an area where communities have
historically not accepted responsibility. This attitude is understandable,
but if economics, growth considerations, and other factors make public manage-
ment desirable, this attitude should be reconsidered. Public participation in
the facility planning stages and public education should serve this purpose.
The costs for performing functions will be directly related to the party
responsible for function performance. Theoretically a community could con-
tract with a private organization to perform all necessary functions. More
commonly, a management agency would contract for specialized services such as
water quality monitoring and septage pumping. A homeowner might contract for
similar services or for necessary repairs. The costs for function performance
are generally highest when a private organization is contracted by individual
homeowners. Community contract with a private organization would normally
provide economies of scale and lower costs. However, in smaller communities
with marginal economies in scale, the cost of administering the contracts may
offset any real savings. A management agency can reduce costs by performing
functions, since it does not need to make a profit through provision of
services. However, the lack of this profit motive may lead to inefficiency in
performance of services. All of these factors must be assessed in an indi-
vidual community when assigning responsibility for function performance.
The potential for environmental impacts is lessened if a centralized
management agency or private organization under contract to the community is
responsible for performing the functions that have effects on these impacts.
These functions may include routine operation and maintenance and acceptance
of liability for system failure. When individual homeowners or private
organizations contracted to homeowners are responsible for such functions,
there is a greater potential for adverse impacts since these parties would be
more subject to cost limitations concerning function performance. Also,
individual homeowners may not possess sufficient expertise to readily detect
and correct potential environmental problems.
The level of risk assumed by the management agency for system failure
should affect the responsibility for performance of certain functions. When
the community management agency assumes a high level of risk for system
failure, the agency should also accept a greater responsibility for performing
functions related to the potential for system failure. As a lower level of
risk is assumed, more responsibility could be placed on the homeowner or on a
private organization under contract to the homeowner, since there would be
less possibility for system failure.
VI-B-10
-------
7. OPTIONS CONCERNING REGULATORY AUTHORITY
There are many types of regulatory authority that could be used in the
management of wastewater facilities. Requiring various types of permits for
system installation and usage, certification programs for installers, and
enforcement mechanisms for violations are examples of regulatory techniques.
The community must make decisions concerning the incorporation of regulatory
techniques based upon the first and second order factors.
The wastewater facilities utilized within the community will directly
affect the type of regulatory authority. As wastewater facilities become more
complex, greater regulatory authority would be desirable to ensure that the
systems were properly installed, operated, and maintained. The requirement of
installation or operating permits, and a design and installation review would
be desirable to fulfill these needs. In addition, where potential for system
failures is high because of the use of older non-conforming or new complex
systems, the community should have the regulatory authority to ensure
immediate correction of system failures. Additional regulatory authority may
be required to allow access to wastewater systems on private property for
inspection and monitoring.
The expertise available to the community management agency will affect
options concerning regulatory authority. First, if suitable expertise is
available, then the community management agency could develop innovative
regulatory techniques such as the allowance of variances for new and existing
systems, as discussed in Sections A and B of Chapter VII. However, if avail-
able expertise is limited in ability to perform various management functions,
then regulatory authority needs to be developed to ensure that the necessary
functions are performed by the homeowner or another party.
Options concerning regulatory authority are strongly influenced by
community attitudes toward growth and public management of decentralized
systems. A community wishing to facilitate growth may conduct land use
planning, soil surveys, and other studies to determine the feasibility of
decentralized systems, including innovative and alternative systems. Studies
could also be conducted on institutional arrangements and regulatory tech-
niques for the public management of the decentralized systems. Following
these prerequisite studies, if necessary, regulatory programs can be developed
to allow the use of decentralized systems and the public management of systems
in those areas of the community deemed appropriate. A community not wishing
to facilitate growth or publicly manage decentralized systems would be
unlikely to perform studies or enact regulatory techniques that would favor
land development that otherwise would not occur.
The costs involved in management of community wastewater facilities
increase as the amount of regulatory authority utilized increases. These
costs would be shared by the management agency and by those regulated. How-
ever, costs incurred through system failures and repairs due to the lack of an
effective regulatory program would probably be equal to or greater than the
costs of an effective regulatory program.
The potential for environmental impacts is much greater if a management
agency does not have adequate regulatory authority. An area in which regula-
tory authority is particulary important is in the repair and rehabilitation of
VI-B-11
-------
failed systems. Once a system has failed and has an increased potential for
causing environmental impacts, the management agency should have the regula-
tory authority to effect repairs of the system in a timely manner.
The risk of system failure assumed by a management agency may be
partially determined by the community regulatory authority. If the management
agency wants to lower the risk of system failure, it could develop regulatory
authority that requires regular system inspection and maintenance, certifica-
tion of persons involved in wastewater management, rigid permitting require-
ments, and a strong enforcement program. Conversely, if the management agency
is willing to assume a higher level of risk for system failure, less regula-
tory control will be needed.
8. OPTIONS FOR USER CHARGE SYSTEM
A community may enact a user charge system based on actual use of waste-
water facilities by an individual user or class of user or, if it had a system
of ad valorem taxes in place on December 27, 1977, it may assess user charges
based on ad valorem taxes. Under an ad valorem system, classes of users must
also be established.
The types of wastewater facilities within a community will influence the
type of user charge system a community could institute. Many types of waste-
water systems make it difficult to compare the amount of use that individuals
make of community wastewater services. Where different types of wastewater
facilities are used in the same community, different services may be provided
and different user charges may be determined for each type.
The regulatory authority and jurisdictional characteristics of a com-
munity may prevent a community from instituting certain types of user charges.
A prerequisite is for the management agency to have the power to levy and
collect fees for provision of wastewater services. This power may not be
present where a community management agency only includes a section of a
jurisdiction or includes more than one jurisdiction within its management
district. Differing jurisdictions may also provide differing and conflicting
regulatory authority for assigning user charges.
VI-B-12
-------
REFERENCES
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1978. Grants for construction of treat-
ment works-Clean Water Act (40 CFR 35 Part E): Rules and regulations, 43
FR 44022, 27 September 1978.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1979. Construction grants program
requirements memorandum 79-8, 9 May 1979.
VI-B-13
-------
C. GUIDANCE FOR ANALYSIS OF EXISTING FUNCTIONAL CAPABILITIES:
MANPOWER AND AUTHORITY
1. INTRODUCTION
The ability of a small waste flows management agency to perform functions
is directly related to the agency's labor capabilities and its authority to
regulate decentralized systems. When labor capabilities are limited, the
costs of obtaining necessary expertise and labor may be excessively high,
preventing the management agency from performing certain functions. However,
if functions can be performed by available personnel in a community, little
additional expense and effort may be required to obtain additional expertise
for staffing the selected management functions.
Analysis of existing labor capabilities should be a two-step process.
First, the types of personnel skills and expertise required by the management
agency should be identified. Then, available personnel who possess these
skills and expertise should be identified. Although identification of avail-
able personnel will be unique to each community, an analysis of the types of
personnel skills and expertise that may be required by a community can be
outlined. In order to evaluate further the capabilities of existing per-
sonnel, it is desirable to estimate the levels of effort associated with
performing various functions. A description of typical skills and expertise
required by a management agency along with the levels of effort associated
with the performance of various functions makes up the first part of this
section.
The second part of this section discusses the authority that may be
required by a management agency to regulate decentralized systems effectively.
Because the lack of authority to regulate certain aspects of decentralized
systems will limit the incorporation of certain functions, an assessment of
available and required regulatory authority must be made by a community in the
early stages of management agency design.
2. IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL SKILLS AND EXPERTISE REQUIRED BY
A MANAGEMENT AGENCY
The types of skilled personnel required by a management agency will be
directly related to its level of management of the wastewater systems. Where
the management agency is assuming a low level of management, only administra-
tive skills may be required. A management agency assuming responsibilities for
system operation, maintenance, and other functions would require more skill
and expertise from its personnel.
The broad range of skills and expertise discussed below illustrate the
types that may be required in community wastewater management. Although indi-
vidual descriptions of skills are listed, it should be recognized that one
person could embody a number of the skills. For some positions, more than one
skill level is identified in recognition of the fact that different management
agencies may require different levels of expertise.
VI-C-1
-------
a. System Designer
Designer 1. A Designer 1 is responsible for the selection of a suitable
design for a standard wastewater system after an appropriate site evaluation
has been completed. Design activity is limited to the selection of a pre-
viously designed, standardized system suitable for the known site conditions.
The Designer 1 may also assist in site evaluations and more advanced system
design under the direction of a Designer 2 or Designer 3.
A Designer 1 must be familiar with the theory and practice of on-site
wastewater disposal. Some knowledge of the principles of soils and ground-
water hydrology would be desirable. Some college-level training would be
helpful, particularly in the earth sciences, but extensive experience in
on-site waste disposal may be substituted.
Designer 2. A Designer 2 can perform the duties of a Designer 1 as well
as take on additional responsibilities, such as conducting site evaluations
that include percolation and other tests and designing a site-specific, on-
site system. System design includes design preparation of plans and specifi-
cations for conventional on-site wastewater systems. Such system designs may
be for new lots or for the upgrading and/or replacement of systems on exist-
ing, possibly substandard, lots. A Designer 2 woulc1 have some discretion in
designing systems that may not comply completely with the construction regula-
tions, particularly in designs for upgrading or replacing existing systems on
substandard lots.
A Designer 2 must be familiar with the theory and practice of on-site
wastewater disposal. Extensive knowledge of the principles of soil science,
groundwater hydrology, and the design of on-site wastewater systems is re-
quired. A Designer 2 must have the ability to perform site evaluations and
properly consider site conditions in the design of a wastewater system. A
college-level degree with training in engineering, environmental health,
and/or the earth sciences would be desirable, as well as experience in on-site
wastewater disposal. A Designer 1 with extensive experience could be quali-
fied to become a Designer 2.
Designer 3. A Designer 3 can perform all of the duties of a Designer 1
or Designer 2 as well as additional responsibilities. These may include con-
ducting extensive site analyses, including hydrogeologic survey work; super-
vision of the installation of on-site systems; preparing cost-effective
analyses of specific on- and off-site wastewater systems; preparation of
amendments to the regulations; and designing and performing pilot studies of
new technologies. Such system designs may be for new lots or for the up-
grading and/or replacement of systems on existing, possibly substandard, lots.
A Designer 3 has some discretion in designing systems that may not comply com-
pletely with the construction regulations, particularly in designs for up-
grading or replacing existing systems on substandard lots.
A Designer 3 must have extensive knowledge of all aspects of on-site
wastewater disposal. Knowledge of the principles of soils and groundwater,
design of on-site systems, and economics of alternative systems should be
extensive. A college-level degree with training in engineering, environmental
health, and/or the earth sciences would be required along with extensive
experience in on-site wastewater disposal.
VI-C-2
-------
b. Clerk
Clerk 1. A Clerk 1 provides supporting clerical services to the adminis-
trator and/or Clerk 2s and the management agency. Clerical services may
include record-keeping, filing, typing, telephone answering, maintaining
correspondence, and billing. The Clerk 1 must have an understanding of the
management agency's operation, organization, programs, and procedures.
A Clerk 1 must have developed the clerical skills required by the manage-
ment agency through past experience and/or education. This individual must be
dependable, responsible, and able to deal with the public.
Clerk 2. A Clerk 2 may perform the duties of a Clerk 1 and, in addition,
perform more administrative duties, such as managing personnel, handling
routine financial and budgeting responsibilities, and coordinating with other
agencies involved in small waste flows management.
A Clerk 2 must have developed extensive clerical skills as well as
administrative skills. Past experience and/or training should include adminis-
trative responsibilities. Some college-level training may be desirable but is
not essential, depending on experience and agency needs. This individual must
be able to deal with the public.
c. Administrator
An administrator is responsible for performing routine administrative
functions as outlined under the Clerk 2 position as well as more extensive
administrative duties. Such duties may include service contract supervision,
grants administration, design and modification of user charge systems, and
preparation of agency rules and regulations. The range of activities would
depend on the level of management of the management agency.
An administrator of a small waste flows agency should have previous
administrative experience and a complete understanding of on-site wastewater
management. Knowledge of personnel management, budgeting, grants administra-
tion and other administrative duties should be compatible with the needs of
the management agency. A college-level degree with training in administrative
areas is required. An administrator must be effective in dealing with the
public, contractors, and consultants.
d. Inspector
Inspector 1. An Inspector 1 performs routine inspection work related to
on-site wastewater management, including inspecting the construction of on-
site systems and on-site wells, taking water samples, performing sanitary
surveys, inspecting septage pumping trucks and disposal sites, and reviewing
the design of conventional on-site wastewater facilities. The Inspector 1 may
prepare routine reports and other materials concerning these inspections and
may recommend corrective actions where appropriate.
An Inspector 1 should have good understanding of on-site wastewater
technology, well construction, and septage pumping and disposal practices.
Ability to interpret and enforce regulations relating to on-site wastewater
management is required, as is the ability to deal effectively with contractors
VI-C-3
-------
and the public. College-level training in the earth sciences, environmental
health, engineering, and other related subjects would be desirable, but a
high-school education and practical experience in on-site wastewater disposal
may be substituted.
Inspector 2. An Inspector 2 is capable of performing the responsibi-
lities of an Inspector 1 plus additional responsibilities. These may include
interpreting regulations, including granting of variances for nonroutine
situations; reviewing the design of all types of wastewater systems; per-
forming extensive sanitary surveying, including septic leachate detector and
dye tests; monitoring pilot studies on alternative technologies; and preparing
reports on various aspects of on-site wastewater management.
This position requires extensive knowledge of on-site wastewater tech-
nology and of related subjects dealing with on-site wastewater management.
Knowledge of regulatory techniques, system design and installation require-
ments, and sanitary surveying should be extensive. Ability to work effec-
tively with the public and subordinates is required. A college degree with
training in environmental health, earth sciences and engineering would
normally be required. In some cases, extensive experience as an Inspector 1 or
similar position may be substituted.
e. Attorney
An attorney provides legal assistance to the management agency, including
interpretation and enforcement of regulations pertaining to on-site wastewater
management; preparation and or review of various legal instruments and docu-
ments such as contracts, deeds, easements, leases, and purchases of real
estate advising the management agency of its legal authority and liability;
and initiation and defense of law suits.
An attorney must be legally licensed to practice law within the state and
have experience and/or training in real-estate and municipal corporation law.
Particularly desirable would be an understanding of the theory and practice of
on-site wastewater disposal and small-scale technologies.
f. Soil Scientist
Soil Scientist 1. A Soil Scientist 1 performs routine work to determine
the suitability of surface or subsurface land disposal of wastewater. Typical
duties may include conducting percolation tests; observing test pits; checking
site grades, elevation, and distance to water bodies; and preparing accurate
site descriptions.
A Soil Scientist 1 should have a thorough understanding of the theory and
practice of on-site wastewater disposal. Knowledge of soil compatibilities
for on-site disposal is also required, as well as the ability to perform and
interpret the necessary tests. College-level training in the earth sciences
and/or soil science would be desirable but is not required if training is
provided or previous experience in on-site wastewater disposal has been
gained.
Soil Scientist 2. A Soil Scientist 2 can perform the duties of a Soil
Scientist I in addition to more advanced soil testing and site evaluations.
VI-C-4
-------
Work may include extensive classifications of soil types, determination of
groundwater flow, groundwater monitoring, and preparation of detailed site
analysis, including identification of most suitable on-site disposal area.
A Soil Scientist 2 should be familiar with the theory, practice, and
regulations governing on-site wastewater disposal. Extensive knowledge of
soils and hydrogeology and how soil conditions affect on-site wastewater
disposal is required. A college degree in soil science and/or hydrogeology
should be supplemented by field experience in soil evaluation and testing.
g. Laborers
Some personnel are needed to provide nontechnical labor under the direc-
tion of other personnel. The type of labor provided will vary depending on
management agency needs, but may include assistance in performance of sanitary
surveys, construction of on-site wastewater systems, sampling of surface water
and groundwater, pumping of septic tanks, and assistance in septage disposal.
Laborers should be dependable, responsible, and physically able to per-
form the work assigned.
h. Equipment Operators
Some personnel are needed to operate equipment that may be used in on-
site wastewater management, including backhoes, septage trucks, and dump
trucks.
Equipment operators must be properly trained and licensed where required
to operate the necessary equipment.
i. Plumber
Plumber 1. A Plumber 1 is an apprentice plumber who performs plumbing
duties related to on-site wastewater management under the direction of a
Plumber 2. Such duties may include connection of homes to individual disposal
systems, installation of flow reduction devices, and installation or repairs
of on-site systems.
A Plumber 1 should be licensed by the state and have a basic understand-
ing of on-site wastewater disposal.
Plumber 2. A Plumber 2 is a master plumber who can perform the work of a
Plumber 1 and assume other duties. The Plumber 2 can promote the use of water
conservation devices; read, interpret, and implement design drawings of on-
site systems; make necessary field corrections for substandard systems and
systems with unique problems; and supervise and construct all types of indi-
vidual on-site systems.
A Plumber 2 is required to be licensed within the state and to have
extensive experience in on-site wastewater disposal.
j. Small Waste Flows Construction and O & M Supervisor
A Small Waste Flows Construction and 0 & M Supervisor is responsible for
installation of all types of on-site systems. This individual supervises
VI-C-5
-------
laborers, equipment operators, and plumbers in the construction of individual
systems. This person should be able to read, interpret, and construct on-site
systems based on design drawings; prepare cost estimates for the installation,
operation, and maintenance of systems; supervise subordinates; operate heavy
equipment; coordinate with inspectors and other officials; remove and dispose
of septage; and perform necessary operation and maintenance tasks.
A Small Waste Flows Construction and 0 & M Supervisor should have exten-
sive experience in the construction of on-site systems and a thorough knowl-
edge of the theory and practice of on-site wastewater disposal.
k. Laboratory Technicians
Laboratory Technician 1. A Laboratory Technician 1 is responsible for
performing chemical and microbiological analyses of groundwater and surface
waters. Such analyses may include sampling, analysis, and reporting of
results. The Laboratory Technician 1 normally works under the supervision of a
Laboratory Technician 2 or Water Resources Scientist.
College-level training at the associates' level in basic laboratory
analysis would be desirable. Suitable on-the-job experience may be sub-
stituted as appropriate.
Laboratory Technician 2. A Laboratory Technician 2 can perform or super-
vise the work of a Laboratory Technician 1 plus perform other duties. Such
work may involve more extensive chemical and microbiological analyses, inter-
pretations of the results of the analyses, identification of water quality
problems, preparation of reports, and studies on water quality.
A Laboratory Technician 2 should have a college-level degree with train-
ing in chemistry, microbiology, and related subjects. Experience in labora-
tory analysis is also required.
1. Water Resources Scientist
A Water Resources Scientist can generally perform and/or supervise the
tasks of laboratory technicians and, in addition, perform more extensive
analyses of water resources affected by on-site wastewater disposal. Such
work may include development of surface water and groundwater monitoring
strategies, implementation of monitoring programs, computer modeling to
identify water quality impacts, design of mitigative measures to alleviate
water quality impacts, identification of water quality problems, preparation
of reports on water quality, and monitoring performance of pilot studies of
alternative technologies.
A Water Resource Scientist has an extensive educational background
including a master's degree in water resources science or related fields,
computer capabilities, and experience in water resources management and the
utilization of on-site wastewater technology.
m. Environmental Planner
An Environmental Planner is responsible for planning tasks related to
on-site wastewater management. These may include preparation of studies and
VI-C-6
-------
reports on the feasibility of on-site wastewater disposal; coordination of
land-use objectives with wastewater facility permitting; institutional studies
relative to the management of on-site systems; cost-effective analyses of
various types of wastewater facilities; assistance in acquisition of pro-
perties required for community management; preparation of environmental impact
statements related to on-site wastewater disposal; and preparation of faci-
lities plans for wastewater facilities.
An Environmental Planner should have a minimum of a bachelor's degree in
environmental planning, environmental science, or a closely related disci-
pline. Experience and familiarity with on-site wastewater disposal and the
wastewater needs of rural communities would be desirable.
n. Wastewater System Operator
Operator 1. An Operator 1 is responsible for providing necessary opera-
tion and maintenance services for a community wastewater disposal system such
as a cluster, mound, or aerobic system. Operation and maintenance may include
maintaining necessary records, ensuring that pumps are operating properly,
providing necessary maintenance and repairs to system components, ensuring
that septage is removed and properly disposed of, and generally insuring that
the entire wastewater system is operating properly. Major problems identified
are reported to the supervisor for appropriate corrections.
An Operator 1 should be completely familiar with the operational require-
ments of the particular wastewater system under his responsibility. Ability
to perform mechanical and/or electrical repairs may also be required. The
Operator 1 must be able to recognize operational problems within the system.
Previous experience in on-site wastewater disposal is required.
Operator 2. An Operator 2 is capable of performing the responsibilities
of an Operator 1 and is capable of operating more advanced forms of community
wastewater systems, such as package treatment plants, land application, and
lagoon systems. This person is also responsible for performing all necessary
operation and maintenance for such systems including tasks similar to those
outlined for an Operator 1.
An Operator 2 should have extensive knowledge of wastewater treatment
plant operations, be capable of performing necessary operation and maintenance
tasks, and be able to recognize and connect operational problems with the
system. Previous experience in operation of similar wastewater facilities is
required.
3. LEVELS OF EFFORT REQUIRED FOR FUNCTION PERFORMANCE
Determination of the level of effort in performing management functions
may be difficult because certain functions may be performed in widely varying
ways. Some functions, however, involve specific tasks for which required
levels of effort may be estimated. Table 1 presents estimates of the level of
effort involved in each function where practical. In situations where the
level of effort required to perform a function is too variable to be generally
applicable, no estimates are given or a range is provided. These estimates
should be utilized for preliminary planning purposes only until more defini-
tive, community-specific data may be obtained. The types of management agency
VI-C-7
-------
TABLE VI-C-1. ESTIMATES OF LEVEL OF EFFORT REQUIRED FOR FUNCTION PERFORMANCE
Function
Staffing
Financial
- User charge collection
- Administer grants/loans
- Collect permit/certification
fees
Permits
- Installation
- Repair
- Occupany
- Operating
Bonding
Certification Programs
Service Contract Supervision
Accept for Public Management
Privately Installed Facilities
Interagency Coordination
Training Programs
Public Education
Enforcement
Property/Access Acquisition
- Simple easements
- Right-of-ways
- Property
System Design and Construction
- Set and review standards
- Design conventional systems
- Design I/A systems
Plan Review
Soils Investigations
System Installation
- System inspection
- System installations
Person-days
required
0-2/month
.05/year
N.E.2
.05 /permit
.I/permit
. I/permit
. I/permit
.I/permit
N.E.
. 2/certif ication
N.E.
I/acceptance
N.E.
.5/month/person
.5 /month
2/violation
.5/easement
2-5/ right-of-way
5-10/property
.5 /month
.25-1/system
.5-2/systems
.25-.5/plan
.25-2/each
.2/each
3-8/system
Personnel1
required
b, c
b, c
b, c
b, c
b, c
b, c
b, c
b, c
a, b, c, e, m
b, c
c
b, c, d, e
b, c
All
b, c
b, c, d, e
b, c, d, e, m
b, c, d, e, m
b, c, d, e, m
c, d, m
a
a
d
d, f, g
d
a, f, g, h, i, j
Comments
Dependent on staff size and
organizational structure
Per user charge
Dependent on type
For collection of fees
only
Involves time involved
in permit issuance only
Dependent on type and
extend of contract
Involves inspection and
acceptance procedure
Involves inspection
and court time
Involves only design
after site analysis
completed
Percolation tests, +
test pit inspection
Number may vary
Dependent on type
(Continued)
VI-C-8
-------
TABLE VI-C-1. ESTIMATES OF LEVEL OF EFFORT REQUIRED FOR FUNCTION PERFORMANCE (concluded)
Function
Person-days
required
Pers.oiir.cl1
required
Comments
Evaluate Existing Systems
12/system
Routine Operation and Maintenance N.E.
Septage Collection and Disposal .3/system
Pilot Studies N.E.
Flow Reduction Devices
- Retrofit toilets with dams .I/home
and install low-flow shower
head
- Install low-flush toilet .5/each
Water Quality Monitoring
- Well sampling .I/well
- Surface water N.E.
Land Use Planning N.E.
Sewer and Water Planning N.E.
d, f, g, i, j
d, f, g, h,
i, j, n
a, d, f, 1
8, i
, f, g, k, 1, n
, f, g, k, 1, n
m, c
m, c
Inspect septic tank,
drainfield, and wells;
interview homeowner only
Dependent on level of
involvement and type of
systems. See levels of
effort for evaluation of
systems and septage
collection
Involves pumping
transportation and
disposal
Dependent on type and
size of water body and
other factors
1 Personnel Required
a - System Designers
b - Clerks
c - Administration
d - Inspectors
e - Attorney
f - Soil Scientist
g - Laborers
2 N.E. = Not Estimatable.
h - Equipment Operators
i - Plumbers
j - Small Waste Flows Construction and 0 & M Supervisor
k - Laboratory Technicians
1 - Water Resource Scientist
m - Environmental Planner
n - Wastewater System Operators
VI-C-9
-------
personnel who may be involved in performing various functions is also identi-
fied.
Certain functions overlap, and the definition of the specific amount of
time involved in a given task may require a combination of levels of effort.
As an example, the amount of time required to obtain a permit for a system
would involve combining the levels of effort given for review and approval of
plans, issuance of permits, and collection of permit fees. The levels of
effort are identified as person-days required to perform a given task.
4. MANAGEMENT AGENCY AUTHORITY TO REGULATE DECENTRALIZED SYSTEMS
A management agency's authority to regulate decentralized systems will
determine the ability of the agency to perform certain management functions.
The authority needed and regulations imposed in operating a small waste flows
management district should be directly related to those required to protect
the public health and welfare. As threats to the public's health and welfare
increase because of system density, frequency of malfunctions, or sensitivity
of nearby water bodies, the amount of regulation of the systems should in-
crease. Certain types of authority are basic to serve this purpose and to
manage decentralized systems effectively. These powers have been identified by
others (Otis, 1978) and have been slightly modified below:
• to own, purchase, lease and rent both real and personal property,
• to meet the eligibility requirements for loans and grants for con-
struction of decentralized systems from both Federal and state govern-
ments ,
• to enter into contracts, undertake debt obligations either by bor-
rowing and/or by issuing stock shares or bonds, and to sue and be
sued,
• to fix and collect charges for sewerage usage, including taxes for
payment of construction of decentralized systems and user charges for
routine operation and maintenance.
• to plan and control how and at what time wastewater facilities will be
extended to property within the jurisdiction, and
• to regulate the planning, design, construction and operation, and
maintenance of decentralized systems.
In U.S. EPA Region V, only Illinois has granted certain public bodies
explicit legal authority to regulate decentralized systems by passage of
Public Act 80-1371 (Illinois EPA, 1979). This act allows cities, villages, and
towns within Illinois to form on-site wastewater management zones. The act
grants such entities broad powers to regulate decentralized systems within
such zones. While other states in U.S. EPA Region V have not created such
explicit authority, the authority to regulate decentralized systems may be
implied in other authorities granted to various public bodies. This implicit
authority is normally inferred from authority granted to various public bodies
to own, operate, and maintain community wastewater facilities. The concept of
implicit vs. explicit authority is discussed in Chapter XV, Section A, as it
applies to U.S. EPA Region V states.
VI-C-10
-------
In many states, the authority needed to manage decentralized systems
effectively is fragmented among several agencies. The county health department
may have the authority to inspect and permit on-site systems individually.
The state pollution control agency or state EPA may have the authority to
regulate cluster systems. The designated 208 and county planning agencies may
perform wastewater planning. And many public bodies such as sanitary
districts, conservancy districts, counties, cities, and towns have the
authority to own, operate, and maintain community wastewater facilities that
may by implication include decentralized wastewater systems. Chapter XV,
Section B discusses the authority of state and local agencies in regulating
decentralized systems.
Because of the authority required to manage decentralized systems effec-
tively and the potential for fragmentation of authority among several
agencies, a community management agency may have to rely upon the authority of
other agencies to perform certain functions. Prior to the selection of func-
tions to be performed by the management agency or by a private party under
contract to the management agency, the authority of the management agency to
perform such functions must be determined. Table 2 presents a list of manage-
ment functions and identifies the regulatory authority that may be required to
perform them. Different types of authority are identified for certain func-
tions that may be performed in various ways.
Using Table 2, a community management agency may assess the type of
regulatory authority required to perform certain management functions. Where a
management agency does not possess sufficient authority, certain functions may
have to be performed by other parties with sufficient authority, or by the
management agency under another party's authority. If authority does not exist
among other agencies, new enabling legislation may be required to grant such
authority.
VI-C-11
-------
TABLE VI-C-2. AUTHORITY REQUIRED FOR PERFORMANCE OF FUNCTIONS
Function
Staffing
Financial
Permitting
Bonding
Certification
Service contract
supervision
Public education programs
Interagency coordination
Enforcement
Accept for public
management privately
installed facilities
Training programs
Property/ROW acquisition
Design and construction
standards
Review and approval of
plans
Authority required
Right to establish and staff a management agency
Authority to collect user charges and taxes;
eligibility for Federal and state loans; authority
to undertake debt obligations; to charge fees for
permits and other services; and to sue and be sued.
Authority to regulate and require permits for
the installation, repair, initial usage, and
continuing operation of decentralized systems
Authority to require bonding of contractor's
personnel and/or performance of work
Authority to require personnel to become certified;
and to set and administer certification standards
Authority to enter into and administer contracts
No specific authority required
Authority to make agreements with other agencies
Authority to enforce rules and regulations of the
management agency
Authority to establish a management district and
manage and/or own privately installed facilities
No specific authority required
Authority to own, purchase, lease and/or rent
property; right to undertake debt obligations
Authority to regulate the design and construction
of decentralized systems
Authority to regulate design and construction of
decentralized systems
(Continued)
VI-C-12
-------
TABLE VI-C-2. AUTHORITY REQUIRED FOR PERFORMANCE OF FUNCTIONS (Concluded)
Function
Authority required
Conduct soils
investigations
Evaluation of existing
systems
Routine inspection and
maintenance
Installation
Authority to determine suitability of property
for on-site disposal, and authority to enter
private property
Authority to enter private property and conduct
inspections and perform necessary tests to
evaluate system performance
Authority to inspect and maintain public or
privately owned decentralized facilities or to
require homeowners to maintain such systems
Authority to inspect the installation of
decentralized systems; authority to install
decentralized facilities
Septage collection and
disposal
Water quality monitoring
Authority to regulate septage collection and
disposal including setting standards, conducting
inspections, and/or actually collecting and
disposing of septage
Authority to insure safe water supplies and
prevent pollution of groundwater and surface
waters
Plot studies of alter-
native technology
Implement flow reduction
measures
Authority to conduct research and studies on
alternative technology
Authority to require the utilization of flow
reduction devices and to regulate the amount of
flow from a household
Land use planning
Sewer and water planning
Authority to regulate land use, lot sizes, and
zoning in relation to utilization of decentralized
facilities
Authority to plan wastewater and waste services
and to regulate extension of services
VI-C-13
-------
REFERENCES
Illinois EPA. 1979. Illinois water quality management plan, Vol. 4.
Springfield IL.
Otis, R. J. 1978. An alternative public wastewater facility for a small
rural community. University of Wisconsin, Small Scale Waste Management
Project, Madison WI.
VI-C-14
-------
D. MANPOWER PROJECTIONS FOR SMALL WASTE FLOWS AGENCIES
There are approximately 3.2 million on-site systems in Region V. Based
upon extrapolations from census data and estimations of the density of on-site
systems presented in Chapter X-E, it may be further estimated that about 0.66
million of these systems may continue in use with application of the optimum
operation alternative. Another 0.43 million of these systems are at densities
where either conventional sewers or the optimum operation alternative may be
considered. The total number of systems in Region V that could be included in
an optimum operation alternative, therefore, would be 1.09 million. If
greater state and local roles are assumed in the optimum operation alternative
for the regulation and management of on-site systems, additional trained man-
power would be required.
Existing state and local management of on-site systems is primarily
limited to permitting new systems and repairs, installation inspections, and
responding to complaints. In some areas of Region VI, even these minimum
regulatory functions are not provided.
Present manpower involved in the regulation of on-site systems in Region
V is difficult to quantify. Sanitarians are the personnel involved with the
regulation of these systems. Identification of the number of sanitarians in
each state could, therefore, provide a measurement of manpower levels, how-
ever, there are problems with this method. First, not all sanitarians will be
involved in on-site regulation because of the broad range of typical sani-
tarian duties. Illinois is the only state in Region V requiring sanitarians
to be registered, thus allowing for an accurate assessment of total manpower.
Other Region V states have voluntary registration programs that make assess-
ment of total manpower difficult. Furthermore, Wisconsin does not have a
sanitarian classification, as such, involved in the regulation of on-site
systems. Instead, Wisconsin requires that: on-site inspectors be certified
plumbing inspectors; system installers be licensed as master plumbers; and
soil evaluators be certified as soil testers. Estimates of total existing
manpower within the limitations discussed are given in Table VI-D-1.
TABLE VI-D-1. ESTIMATES OF PERSONNEL INVOLVED
IN REGULATION OF ON-SITE SYSTEMS
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
1,189
680
550
329
775
111
3,000
registered sanitarians
voluntarily registered and unregistered sanitarians
voluntarily registered and unregistered sanitarians
voluntarily registered sanitarians
voluntarily registered sanitarians
certified plumbing inspectors
certified soil testers
Estimates of personnel needed for the optimum operation alternative are
impractical because of the wide range of variables affecting manpower require-
VI-D-1
-------
merits and the number of potential projects utilizing this approach. Optimum
operation alternatives will require manpower for initial implementation and
continued operation and maintenance. During the implementation phase,
personnel will be required for planning (including needs documentation),
design and construction. Personnel may include facilities planners
specialized in small waste flows applications, system designers, inspectors,
soil scientists, laborers, equipment operators, environmental planners, small
waste flow contractors and water resource scientists. Once the alternative is
implemented, personnel such as administrators, clerks, inspectors, wastewater
system operators and laborers may be necessary for proper operation and
maintenance.
Based on estimates developed for the Seven Rural Lake EIS's, projections
can be made for manpower needed to implement the optimum operation alternative
throughout Region V. These estimates may be considered high due to a number
of factors: assuming all 1.09 million systems were served by the optimum
operation alternative where feasible, manpower needs would be reduced either
by sewering where optimum operation is an alternative, or by greater use of
the no-action alternative; efficient or non-efficient utilization of personnel
would affect the quantity of manpower required; and, problems would arise when
projecting characteristics for Region V based on less than the 1% sample
represented by the systems in the Seven Lakes.
The manpower classifications utilized for the Seven Lakes Studies are
neither identical nor as extensive as those utilized in Section C of this
Chapter, although they do provide an estimate of manpower needs for various
types of personnel. Figure VI-D-1 represents the manpower projections for the
Seven Rural Lakes EIS's. Figure VI-D-2 utilizes these projections to repre-
sent manpower needs for Region V based on full utilization of the optimum
operation alternative. Where feasible, titles used in the job descriptions in
this Chapter were included with those used in the Seven Rural Lakes EIS's.
Projections for Region V indicate that 660 sanitarians would be required
for initial implementation, and 640 for ongoing operation of the optimum
operation alternative. These sanitarians may act as administers of small
waste flows districts as well as provide design, inspection and enforcement
services. Comparison of these numbers with existing levels of sanitarian
staff in Region V indicates that more than enough sanitarians are already
employed, however, present sanitarians are not performing duties that would be
required under the optimum operation alternative. Projections for sanitarians
in this section are for those who would be providing full-time services for
optimum operation alternatives.
Estimates are provided also for engineers, soil scientists, laboratory
technicians, surveyors, laborers and secretaries. Although the engineer was
utilized in the Seven Rural Lake EIS's, other types of personnel could perform
the required duties also, including design of small waste flow systems, faci-
lity planning, and alternatives selection. Other job descriptions, such as
system designer or alternative technologist, may be utilized more speci-
fically.
VI-D-2
-------
FIGURE VI-D-1
MANPOWER ESTIMATES FOR THE SEVEN RURAL
LAKE EIS's BASED ON THE OPTIMUM OPERATION ALTERNATIVE
Initial Implementation Ongoing Operation
Personnel (MANYEARS) (MANYEARS)
Sanitarian 6.1 5.9
Sr. Engineer 2.0 -0-
Jr. Engineer 2.1 -0-
Soil Scientist 5.8 .4
Laboratory Technicians 0.6 1.0*
Surveyors 14.1 2.4
Laborers 7.8 7.5**
Secretarys 6.2 3.0
*Based upon well-water analysis every 5 years and 1 hour required for each
analysis.
**Labor projections taken directly from Crystal Lake EIS and Salem Township
Lakes EIS for laborers to provide septage pumping and hauling. For remaining
projects pumping calculated at once every 4 years with each pumpage requiring
two men and taking two hours.
NOTE: Total systems for which the optimum operation alternative was developed
in the Seven Lakes Projects were 10,150.
VI-D-3
-------
FIGURE VI-D-2
PROJECTED MANPOWER NEEDS FOR REGION V WITH FULL
UTILIZATION OF OPTIMUM OPERATION ALTERNATIVE
Initial Implementation Ongoing Operation
Personnel (MANYEARS) (MANYEARS)
Sanitarian (Inspector/
Administrator)* 660 640
Sr. Engineer (System
Designer) 210 -0-
Jr. Engineer (System
Designer) 5550 -0-
Soil Scientist 630 40
Laboratory Technicians 70 110
Surveyors (Inspectors) 1510 260
Laborers 840 810
Secretarys (Clerks) 660 330
*( ) - titles relate to those used in manpower descriptions in Section C of
this Chapter.
Assumption: Values were obtained by multiplying projections for Seven Lake
Studies by a factor of 107.5. This factor was obtained by dividing
the total number of systems in Region V where the optimum operation
alternative is feasible, 1,090,000, by the total number of systems
in the Seven Rural Lake EIS's.
VI-D-4
-------
Soil scientists would assist in performing sanitary surveys, site evalua-
tions and soil testing. Laboratory technicians would analyze ground and sur-
face waste samples. Surveyors would perform routine sanitary surveys, take
water samples and provide routine inspections of systems. Laborers as used
for these projections are involved only in septage pumping and hauling.
Not reflected in these projections is an increased manpower need for
small waste flow contractors, plumbers, equipment operators and other per-
sonnel directly involved in system installation. While water resource
scientists and environmental planners may also be involved in implementation
of the optimum operation alternative, they are not estimated here. Obviously,
as the use of the optimum operation alternative increases in comparison to
conventional wastewater technology, the need for these personnel will also
increase. However, projections for these personnel are not possible based on
available data.
VI-D-5
-------
E. ESTIMATING ADMINISTRATION AND OPERATIONS COSTS
1. INTRODUCTION
Administration and operations costs for a small waste flows management
district would vary from community to community, the actual costs being
dependent on a wide variety of community factors. These factors would
include, but not be limited to, community size, type of wastewater facilities,
allocation of responsibility for ownership, operations, and maintenance. A
basis has been provided for identifying representative administration and
operation and maintenance costs for specific technologies by the experience of
communities that have been using and managing small waste flow technologies,
and by other communities for which the costs of instituting a small waste
flows district have been prepared. These communities are discussed in Sec-
tions 2 and 3.
Another estimating method, discussed in Section 4, is to provide itemized
costs for only the major cost-imposing items. It should be understood that
actual unit costs will be highly dependent on community conditions, and that
such estimated costs should be considered only as representative costs.
2. REPRESENTATIVE COSTS FROM EXISTING COMMUNITIES
The use and management of small waste flows technology is already a
reality in several communities. Comparison of actual administration and
operation costs for these communities can best be accomplished by use of
available information on annual user charges. However, wastewater facility
types, level of non-user funding, and management authority vary among the
communities and must be taken into account in comparing annual user charges.
A description of each community follows, with Table IV-E-1 showing the annual
user charges for each.
a. Stinson Beach County Water District, California
A district was implemented in 1978 to manage the on-site wastewater
systems of this 500-home community. The Stinson Beach County Water District
(SBCWD) provides biennial inspections, inspection for new and repaired
systems, design review and establishment of design standards, and water
quality monitoring. SBCWD also maintains a system repair loan fund for
low-income residents. It does not provide any maintenance services, and home-
owners assume responsibility for all routine maintenance and necessary
repairs. The annual user charges for fiscal year 1979 were $132 per user
(Wheeler and Bennett, 1979).
b. Georgetown Divide Public Utility District, California
The Georgetown Divide Public Utility District On Site Waste Management
District (OSWMD) was established in 1971 to provide management services for
on-site systems in the Auburn Lake Trails Subdivision. This subdivision
contains 1800 lots, of which 217 have been developed. The OSWMD provides site
evaluations, system design, construction management, construction inspection,
and routine inspection of the on-site systems every six months. The homeowner
is responsible for providing all necessary maintenance and repairs. The
annual user charges as of 1977 were $15.60, with costs distributed among all
VI-E-1
-------
TABLE VI-E-1. ACTUAL ANNUAL USER CHARGES FOR COMMUNITIES EMPLOYING SMALL
WASTE FLOWS TECHNOLOGY
Community
Facility Type
Annual User
Charges ($)
Additional
Charges ($)
Stinson Beach,
California
Georgetown Divide
Public Utility
District, California
Marin County,
California
Westboro, Wisconsin
Lake Meade,
Pennsylvania
General Development
Utilities, Port
Charlotte and
Port St. Lucie,
Florida
on-site systems
on-site systems
on-site systems
small diameter
gravity sewer/soil
absorption field
grinder pumps/
pressure sewer and
gravity sewer to
package plant
STEP pressure
sewer to package
plant
132 (1979)
15.60 (1977)
20.00 (1979)
105 (1978)
residential
users
268 (1979)
84-102 (1979)
975 better-
ment fee
1750 con-
nection
charge
650 con-
nection
charge
VI-E-2
-------
lots, whether developed or undeveloped. This distribution has kept user costs
low (Wheeler and Bennett, 1979; El Dorado County Health Department et al. ,
1977; Prince et al., 1979).
c. Marin County, California
Marin County, California amended its on-site sewage disposal code in
October of 1971 to require a biennial inspection program of existing on-site
systems as well as to require renewable occupancy permits. The system is
administered by county personnel. Additional services include design review,
construction inspection, and establishment of design standards. The biennial
inspections are required only for homes established after the enactment of the
amendments and currently include about 500 homes. The annual user costs for
the occupancy permits are $20, plus an additional $20 for new system instal-
lation (Wheeler and Bennett, 1979; Roy F. Weston, Inc., 1979).
d. Westboro, Wisconsin
In 1974, the unincorporated community of Westboro was selected as a
demonstration 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 making use of on-site
disposal techniques. The technology used in the community consisted of small
diameter gravity sewers receiving influent from existing septic tanks serving
approximately 79 homes and a few businesses. These sewers discharge to a
single soil absorption field. A sanitary district was established that
assumed responsibility for all operation and maintenance of the facility,
commencing at the inlet of the septic tank. Annual user charges for 1978 were
proposed to be $105 per year for residential users, $153 per year for small
commercial users, $189 per year for large commercial users, and $1500 per year
for the school. In addition, one-time hook-up charges of $200 were assessed
to all users (Otis, 1978).
e. Lake Meade, Pennsylvania
The 277 homes in this community are provided wastewater services by the
Lake Meade Municipal Authority (LMMA). The wastewater facilities consist of a
combination of grinder pump/pressure sewers and gravity sewers that are dis-
charged and treated at a community treatment plant. The LMMA owns, operates,
and maintains the entire treatment system, with the homeowner responsible only
for running a gravity sewer line from his home to the grinder pump or gravity
sewer. Annual user charges are $268, with a one-time betterment assessment of
$975 and a connection charge of $1750 (Roy F. Weston, Inc., 1979).
f. General Development Utilities, Inc., Port Charlotte and Port
St. Lucie, Florida
General Development Utilities (GDU) , Inc., a major land development
company, has implemented a STEP pressure sewer system with a community treat-
ment plant to serve portions of property it owns in these two Florida com-
munities. Approximately 320 homes are served by these systems. GDU owns,
operates, and maintains the entire system, including the individual septic
tanks located on the homeowners' property. Annual user charges range between
$84 to $102, and there is also a $650 initial connection charge (Cooper and
Rezek, 1978; RoyF. Weston, Inc., 1979).
VI-E-3
-------
3. REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTED COSTS FROM COMMUNITIES PROPOSING TO
USE SMALL WASTE FLOWS TECHNOLOGY
Several communities have considered the use of small waste flows techno-
logy extensively enough to have prepared projected cost estimates for annual
administrative and operation and maintenance costs. Of particular interest
are a series of six Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) on Alternative Waste
Treatment Systems for Rural Lake Projects (U.S. EPA and WAPORA, Inc., 1980a,
1980b, 1980c, 1980d, 1979a, and 1979b). Each of these EIS's recommends a
limited action alternative to solve wastewater problems. Such an alternative
includes the continued use and upgrading of on-site systems and the use of
cluster systems with a single absorption field where necessary. Two of the
EIS's, for Crystal Lake and Green Lake, also recommended continued use and
upgrading of collection and treatment facilities serving portions of the
service area. The estimated 1979-1980 costs for annual administration and
operation and maintenance of the decentralized systems in these communities is
given in Table VI-E-2. (Costs for the centralized wastewater services at
Crystal and Green Lakes are not included in the tabular totals.)
In determining the estimated costs for these six projects, certain
assumptions were made which were common to each. These included assuming that
a management authority would be established that would accept responsibility
for:
• Hiring a sanitarian, soil scientist, site surveyors, and secretaries
as needed for providing administration, engineering, and operations
and planning services,
• Providing private well water sampling and analysis every five years,
• Providing routine pumping of septic tanks every three years for
permanent homes and every five years for seasonal homes, and
• Providing operation and maintenance for dosing systems and mounds and
for cluster systems.
Additionally, all of the communities--with the exceptions of Green Lake and
Otter Tail Lake — are assumed to provide H_0 treatment for 2% of the systems
each year.
4. ITEMIZED COSTS FOR MAJOR COST-IMPOSING ITEMS
Costs for the operation and administration of a small waste flows dis-
trict may be divided into four main categories: contracted services, office
expenses, equipment, and manpower. Major cost-imposing items may then be
identified under each category. These costs may be used for estimating total
operations and administration costs for an individual management agency. As
mentioned in the introduction, these unit costs should be used only as repre-
sentative costs.
In the following subsections, costs are indicated as annual costs wher-
ever possible. For contracted services, annual costs cannot be estimated
because variables cannot be defined. For these services, average unit values
are provided.
VI-E-4
-------
X
M
CO
pd
o
fn
CO
H
CO
o
O
W
>
CM
1
w
1
M
>
W
pq
<3
H
pd
H
CO
M
&
h- 1
S
3
Q
<2
S
•*}
o
nJ
&
CO
<3
w
Pi
<
w
^
h4
«
q
pi
o
w
H
H
t/i
fd
Total O&M and
Number of O&M O&M Administrative Administrative Administrative
Users Costs Costs/User Costs Costs/User Costs/User
1 — 1
o
CN
00
m
m
o
o
CM
O
1 — I
0
00
CO
00
CO
1 — 1
QJ
60
cfl
QJ
CO
4-J
o
QJ
O
SH
p !
CO
QJ
)-i
-,
S-J
U
^
4-J
•H
)_i
0
4-J
3
<3^
rH
cfl
en
O
p ,
en
-H
Q
§
00
•H
,d
CJ
•H
2
f.
>-,
4-1
d
0
u
QJ
•H
N
d
QJ
PQ
i — i
m
CO
m
0
0
o
CM
o
i — i
vO
i — i
CM
ON
S-i
cfl
4J
•H
d
C/3
0)
^
cfl
( "]
d
QJ
QJ
S-i
O
strict
•H
O
S-i
QJ
4-J
cO
£2
T)
d
^J
Q)
J5
OJ
CO
Minnesota
*
K^-l
4J
d
3
O
r_}
•H
[-;
O
K^
•H
ID
d
cfl
y;
i — i
i— i
ON
^O
*>.Q
n
0
CO
1 — 1
00
CO
CO
1 — 1
1 — 1
CN
CN
(T.
i — I
CM
4J
O
•H
4-1
en
•H
Q
>•%
4-1
-H
1 — 1
•H
4-1
] — t
6,
QJ
t-H
cfl
CO
sconsin
•H
£2
*v
>>
4J
d
o
u
cfl
r"!
en
O
d
QJ
CM
O
CO
1 — [
0
00
1 — 1
00
00
CM
0
oo
J—l
CO
o
1 — 1
1 — 1
1 — 1
cfl
QJ
TJ
3
4-1
CO
en
QJ
^
cO
,_J]
d
QJ
,n
3
QJ
4J
CO
diana
d
H
r\
r*~>
4-1
d
3
0
U
d
Q)
3
QJ
4-J
CO
CM
OO
CM
, — 1
O
CO
o
vD
CO
00
CO
0
oo
1 — 1
00
1 — 1
. — 1
to
d
•H
d
cfl
rH
P-i
4J
•H
, — |
•H
O
cfl
fJH
rH
•H
cfl
H
S-i
OJ
4-1
4-1
O
ounty,
CJ
I— I
•H
cfl
H
S-i
QJ
4J
4J
O
*v
cfl
QJ
S-l
00
d
•H
^
CX
CO
thority
igan
3 fi
< 0
•H
rH 3
cfl
en
O >,
D* 4-J
en d
•H 3
Q 0
O
M 4-i
cfl QJ
is i
Q) B
CO W
VI-E-5
-------
a. Contracted Services
Contracted services include major cost-imposing items involved in opera-
tion and administration that may be performed by private parties under
contract to a community management agency. The community management agency
could elect to perform these functions if it possessed the necessary expertise
and resources. Much of the cost could be passed directly to the homeowner,
depending on the management agency's liability for operation and maintenance.
Item
Septage pumping
Septage treatment
Well sampling
Water sample
analysis
Sanitary survey
HLCL treatment
O&M for cluster
system1
Units Estimated
costs per 1000 gallons
frequency of pumping
costs per 1000 gallons
costs per well
frequency of sampling
costs per analysis
costs per house
costs per treatment
costs per system
Range of Values($)
50
1
10
5
1
100
5 years
30
15
5 years
O&M for dosing sys-
tems & mounds2 costs per system
b. Office Expenses
10 - 30
25 - 35
200 - 1000
100 - 200
35 - 75
Average
Values($)
75
3 yrs.
20
10
3 yrs,
20
30
600
150
55
Office expenses incurred by the management agency will be directly
related to institutional arrangements and agency size. In certain situations,
the management agency may not need separate office space, but may use space
provided within other agencies. For example, the entire management agency
staff could consist of health department personnel who already have office
space and who may perform other duties not related to the management agency.
The figures given below are representative costs used for projecting office
expenses in the six EIS's prepared for rural lake areas discussed earlier.
Item
Rent
Utilities
Office supplies
including telephone
Units Estimated
$300/month x 12
$150/month x 12
$150/month x 12
Annual Costs ($)
3,600
1,800
1,800
1 Annual costs may include electricity for dosing systems, monthly inspections,
sampling of monitoring wells, and emergency maintenance.
2 Annual costs may include electricity for dosing pumps, routine septage pump-
ing, and monthly inspections.
VI-E-6
-------
c. Equipment
Basic equipment required by a management agency will include a vehicle of
sufficient size (for example, a station wagon) to carry personnel and other
necessary equipment. Depending on institutional arrangements, vehicles may
already be available within the community for the management agency's use.
The agency could also purchase a pumper truck for providing septage collection
services.
Item Units Estimated Annual Costs($)
Station Wagon $100 capital3 + $150
operations4/month x 12 3,000
Septage pumper
truck5 $175 capital6 + $150
operations4/month x 12 3,900
Sampling and inspection
equipment actual costs 500
d. Manpower
Department of Labor (DOL) statistics on national average annual salaries
for different professional, administrative, technical, and clerical personnel
were used as a guide for estimating typical average salaries (U.S. DOL, 1979).
The costs involved in manpower will be primarily dependent on the level of
effort provided by the management agency in the actual performance of agency
functions. A management agency taking responsibility for performing a wide
range of services could incorporate any of the types of personnel indicated
within its management agency. A minimal management approach could, con-
versely, include sharing administrative personnel with another agency. The
average costs provided below are for the personnel discussed in Section C of
this chapter.
Personnel Average Annual Salaries($)
System Designer 1 9,500
System Designer 2 15,000
System Designer 3 25,000
Clerk 1 8,500
Clerk 2 12,000
Administrator 25,000
Inspector 1 9,500
Inspector 2 15,000
Attorney 25,000
Soil Scientist 1 9,500
3Based on $7500 initial cost, 10-year life span, no salvage value, 9% interest
rate.
4Includes gas, oil, insurance, fees, and maintenance.
52500-gallon pumper truck.
6Based on $13000 initial cost, 10-year life span, no salvage value, 9%
interest rate.
VI-E-7
-------
Personnel Average Annual Salaries($)
Soil Scientist 2 20,000
Laborer 9,500
Equipment Operator 13,000
Plumber 1 12,000
Plumber 2 18,000
Small Waste Flows Contractor 20,000
Laboratory Technician 1 9,500
Laboratory Technician 2 14,000
Water Resource Scientist 25,000
Environmental Planner 15,000
Wastewater System Operator 1 9,500
Wastewater System Operator 2 15,000
VI-E-8
-------
REFERENCES
Cooper, I. A., and J. W. Rezek. 1978. Investigations of existing pressure
sewer systems. Draft. EPA Contract No. 68-03-2600. U.S. EPA, National
Environmental Research Center, Cincinnati OH.
El Dorado County Health Department, El Dorado Irrigation District, and George-
town Divide Public Utility District. 1972, revised 1977. Septic tank
maintenance district implementation. Georgetown Divide Public Utility
District, Georgetown CA.
Otis, R. J. 1978. An alternative public wastewater facility for a small rural
community. University of Wisconsin, Small Scale Waste Management Project,
Madison WI.
Prince, R. N. , M. E. Davis, and K. B. Seitzinger. 1979. Design and installa-
tion supervision by an on-site management district. Georgetown Divide
Public Utility District, Georgetown CA.
Weston, Roy F., Inc. 1979. Management of on-site and alternative wastewater
systems. Draft. Prepared for U.S. EPA Technology Transfer Seminar on
Wastewater Treatment Facilities for Small Communities. U.S. EPA, Cincin-
nati OH.
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1979. National survey
of professional, administrative, technical, and clerical pay, March 1979.
Bulletin 2045. Washington DC.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, and WAPORA, Inc. 1980a. Final
environmental impact statement, alternative waste treatment systems for
rural lake projects. Case Study No. 1: Crystal Lake Area Sewage Disposal
Authority, Benzie County, Michigan. Region V, Chicago IL.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and WAPORA, Inc. 1980b. Final environ-
mental impact statement, alternative waste treatment systems for rural
lake projects. Case Study No. 5: Otter Tail County Board of Com-
missioners, Ottertail County, Minnesota. Region V, Chicago IL.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and WAPORA, Inc. 1980c. Final environ-
mental impact statement, alternative waste treatment systems for rural
lake projects. Case Study No. 2: Green Lake Sanitary Sewer and Water
District, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota. Region V, Chicago IL.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and WAPORA, Inc. 1980d. Final environ-
mental impact statement, alternative waste treatment systems for rural
lake projects. Case Study No. 3: Springvale-Bear Creek Sewage Disposal
Authority, Emmet County, Michigan. Region V, Chicago IL.
VI-E-9
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and WAPORA, Inc. 1979a. Draft environ-
mental impact statement, alternative waste treatment systems for rural
lake projects. Case Study No. 4: Steuben Lakes Regional Waste District,
Steuben County, Indiana. Region V, Chicago IL.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and WAPORA, Inc. 1979b. Draft environ-
mental statement, Salem Utility District No. 2, Kenosha, Wisconsin.
Region V, Chicago IL.
Wheeler, G. , and J. Bennett. 1979. On-Site wastewater management districts in
California. Paper presented at a workshop on alternative wastewater
treatment systems, Urbana-Champaign, IL, 12-13 June 1979.
VI-E-10
-------
F. EXISTING TRAINING PROGRAMS FOR SMALL WASTE FLOWS MANAGEMENT
AND OPERATIONS
1. INTRODUCTION
An effective small waste flows management program relies on competent
personnel. This required competency is gained through a combination of
experience and training. More training and experience has been acquired in
conventional centralized wastewater technology because it is more widely used
than small waste flows technology. Only recently have many Federal, state,
and local institutions providing education and training begun to recognize the
need for training personnel and disseminating information on small waste flows
technology.
Training programs provided in U.S. EPA Region V states in small waste
flows management are diverse. They range from formal university degree
programs providing coursework and training in small waste flows technology to
annual conventions of statewide septic tank installer associations where
technical information may be disseminated relative to small waste flows tech-
nology. Requirements and training provided for sanitarians and other person-
nel involved in small waste flows management also are varied. Based on
contacts made with knowledgeable individuals in each Region V state, infor-
mation concerning existing training programs and requirements for sanitarians
and other personnel is presented in this section.
2. ILLINOIS
a. Sanitarian Requirements
All sanitarians are required to be registered to work within the State of
Illinois. Requirements for registration involve a minimum of a bachelor's
degree in environmental health science, one year's experience in environmental
sanitation under the direct supervision of a registered sanitarian or sanitary
engineer, and passage of a written exam. Persons with bachelor's degrees in
other scientific fields are required to have completed 30 semester hours or 45
quarter hours of basic sciences and have two years' experience. Those with
less advanced or no degrees are required to have considerably more experience.
Any person who complies with the educational but not the experience require-
ments for registration may be employed as a sanitarian-in-training (Illinois
Department of Registration and Education, 1980).
b. Contractor Requirements
All private sewage disposal contractors are required to be licensed to
work within the state. Approximately 3000 are currently licensed. The con-
tractor's work is required to be inspected during the first year of licensure
and once every three years thereafter to ensure compliance of the workmanship
with the private sewage disposal code. The Department of Public Health issues
the licenses and has the right of revocation (Illinois Department of Public
Health, 1974).
VI-F-1
-------
c. Existing Training Programs
The Illinois Department of Public Health provides a program of technical
education through an annual seminar and regional meetings, for septic system
installers, sanitarians, and other persons interested in proper on-site
disposal.
The Illinois Institute of National Resources and the Water Resources
Center of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign has provided a series
of annual workshops dealing with alternative wastewater treatment. The pur-
pose of the workshop was to instruct consultants, local officials, and state
agency personnel in the state-of-the art of alternative wastewater systems.
d. Existing University Programs
Illinois State University offers a bachelor's degree in environmental
health science; it is the only school in the state with such a program. The
program contains only one course relative to on-site wastewater disposal and
it includes in its scope a broad range of topics in water and wastewater
management. The University offers two specializations within the major: a
sanitarian specialization and an industrial hygiene specialization. All
students are required to serve a ten-week internship that provides practical
experience within the field (Rowe, 1979).
3. INDIANA
a. Sanitarian Requirements
The State of Indiana has a voluntary registration program for sani-
tarians; persons are not required to register to work. Requirements for
registration include a bachelor's degree with 45 quarter hours or 30 semester
hours training in the basic physical, chemical, and biological sciences; at
least two years' experience in environmental sanitation within the last five
years; and passage of a written examination. Persons with a Master's degree
meeting the science requirements may substitute the degree for one year of
experience. Those persons who have the necessary educational background, but
no experience, are considered as sanitarian trainees (Indiana, 1963).
As counties are responsible for the hiring of their sanitarians, they may
also set requirements for their employment. Because of this, there is a wide
range in the requirements for employment as a sanitarian within the state.
Some counties require a sanitarian to be registered within the state, others
require a college degree with a basic science background, while still others
fill sanitarian positions with political appointees and underskilled person-
nel. The trend appears to be toward professional registration of sanitarians
within the state (Decker, 1980).
b. Contractor Requirements
There are no requirements that the installers of individual systems be
certified or possess certain skills or abilities to work within the state.
VI-F-2
-------
c. Existing Training Programs
All new sanitarians are required to undergo a one-week orientation ses-
sion conducted by the Indiana State Board of Health. The orientation includes
about eight hours of instruction in on-site wastewater treatment (Decker,
1980).
In the spring of 1979, Indiana University's School of Public and Environ-
mental Affairs co-sponsored with the Indiana Association of Cities and Towns
and five regional 208 agencies a series of educational forums and technical
workshops on various topics related to water quality control. One of these
workshops dealt with septic tank pollution control and one dealt with innova-
tive/alternative technology for small communities (Smith and Echelberger,
1979).
During the winter of 1979-1980, Purdue University, through its On-Site
Waste Disposal Project, held a series of six training seminars in all facets
of on-site technology for sanitarians and other regulatory personnel. Similar
seminars are planned for the future in order to disseminate information
concerning on-site systems (Hudkins, 1980).
d. Existing University Programs
Purdue University has been funded by the state legislature for a five-
year On-Site Waste Disposal Project. The intent of this project is to study
all areas of on-site wastewater disposal including innovative/alternative
technology. It has developed a three-phase approach involving research,
demonstration, and educational programs. Under the research phase, the
university is examining the use of a variety of alternative systems and has
constructed two systems for ongoing monitoring and research. The demonstra-
tion phase currently involves the project in monitoring the performance of 40
alternative systems installed by homeowners throughout the state. A larger
demonstration project is planned for Bainbridge, where the project is looking
at alternative technology to serve this community of 2500. The educational
phase involves holding seminars throughout the state as previously mentioned,
publishing a newsletter, and providing technical assistance (Hudkins, 1980).
Indiana University, through its School of Public and Environmental
Affairs, offers degree programs at the bachelor's and Master's level in
environmental science. Although no specific courses are offered in wastewater
management, other related courses such as those provided in soil science,
hydrogeology, and water resources provide a student with good scientific
preparation for entering the wastewater field. Similar preparation, depending
on course concentrations, can be obtained with a degree in public affairs
(Indiana University, 1980).
Indiana State University, through its Department of Health and Safety,
offers a bachelor's level degree in environmental health science. A general
program that allows a student to develop a broad background in the field is
provided. On-site wastewater technology is discussed as a part of two courses
dealing with environmental health practices. Each student in the program is
required to serve a 15-week internship where practical experience in the field
can be developed. Some internships may involve actual working experience in
on-site wastewater management (Koren, 1980; Indiana State University, 1980).
VI-F-3
-------
4. MICHIGAN
a. Sanitarian Requirements
As in Indiana, the State of Michigan provides a voluntary registration
program for sanitarians. Registration is not required for employment.
Requirements for registration include a bachelor's or higher level degree in
the field of physical, biological, and sanitary science plus experience as a
practicing sanitarian. The combination of education and experience should
equal seven years. Continuing education programs are also encouraged but not
required for registered sanitarians (Michigan Department of Licensing and
Registration, 1974; Volkers, 1980).
In Michigan, counties are responsible for the hiring of sanitarians.
General requirements in most counties for entry-level sanitarians include a
bachelor's degree in a basic science sufficient to comply with the educational
requirements for registration following three years of experience. A minority
of counties may allow less-qualified personnel to work as sanitarians
(Volkers, 1980).
b. Contractor Requirements
Contractor certification is not required on a statewide basis for
personnel involved in on-site wastewater disposal. Some local counties have
developed certification requirements for contractors working within their
jurisdictions (Volkers, 1980).
c. Existing Training Programs
Every other year, the Michigan Public Health Department sponsors a basic
soils course in conjunction with the United States Soil Conservation Service
(US-SCS). This course is designed for sanitarians and other regulatory
personnel in on-site wastewater disposal, but is open for all other persons
(such as contractors) with an interest in the subject.
In conjunction with the Michigan Septic Tank Association, Michigan State
University, and various industry groups, the Michigan Public Health Department
also holds an annual on-site wastewater disposal conference. This is a two to
three day conference where information is disseminated on a broad range of
topics dealing with on-site wastewater disposal.
The Michigan Septic Tank Association also has an annual meeting and
conference where education in on-site wastewater technology is provided. The
Association also publishes a newsletter to keep members up-to-date on various
topics of interest in the field (Shelan, 1980).
d. Existing University Programs
The University of Michigan School of Public Health offers degree programs
in public health with specialization in environmental health at the Master's
and Ph.D. levels. There is also a combined degree program in environmental
health science and sanitary engineering. The programs offer a wide range of
courses, many of which provide discussion in many aspects of on-site waste-
water management (University of Michigan, 1980).
VI-F-4
-------
Ferris State College has degree programs in environmental health at the
associate's and bachelor's levels. Its degree programs offer three speciali-
zations, which are general environmental health, vector control, and environ-
mental planning and management. Specifically offered are two courses relating
to on-site wastewater disposal: "Water Supply and Pollution Control" and
"On-Site Wastewater Treatment and Disposal." It was the only university
contacted in the region that offered a specific course in on-site wastewater
management. Students in the environmental management program can participate
in environmental management studies centered upon research and field studies
into existing community problems. Students in the bachelor's degree program
are required to complete a three-month internship to obtain practical working
experience before graduation (Ferris State College Bulletin, 1980; Fleming,
1980).
5. MINNESOTA
a. Sanitarian Requirements
The State of Minnesota has two certification programs for sanitarians,
both of which are voluntary. The Minnesota Department of Health has a certi-
fication program for persons employed in general environmental health work
that may include work in on-site wastewater management. Requirements for
certification include 30 semester or 45 quarter hour credits in the physical,
enviromental, or biological sciences or a degree in environmental health,
sanitary science, or sanitary engineering, completion of one year of experi-
ence in the environmental health field; and passage of a written examination
(Minnesota Department of Health, undated).
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has a voluntary program to
certify inspectors of individual sewage treatment systems. This program was
enacted in 1979. The persons certified as inspectors do not have to be sani-
tarians. In some areas of the state, building, zoning, and housing officials
and others are certified as inspectors. Requirements for certification
include experience in inspecting a minimum of 30 systems and passage of a
written examination on the theory and practice of on-site wastewater disposal
(MPCA, 1979). A person could be and often is certified by both the Department
of Health and Pollution Control Agency.
Counties have control over the requirements for the hiring of local
sanitarians and individual sewage treatment system inspectors. In the more
urban counties with a health department, the persons generally have a minimum
of a bachelor's degree in a basic science discipline. The rural counties
without a health department are more likely to have inspectors with lesser
qualifications and may not have any sanitarians (Hansel, 1980).
b. Contractor Requirements
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has also established a voluntary
certification program for individual sewage treatment system site evaluators,
designers, installers, and pumpers, in addition to the inspectors discussed
above. Each of these personnel must meet different certification require-
ments, including experience with relevant operations of individual sewage
treatment systems and passage of a written examination. Certification in all
cases is for a period of three years, with renewal based upon passage of
VI-F-5
-------
another written examination or completion of 15 hours of training acceptable
to the Agency (MPCA, 1979).
c. Existing Training Programs
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the University of Minnesota
Agricultural Extension Service co-sponsor a series of seminars each year
entitled "Home Sewage Treatment Workshops." These seminars last three days
and are offered five to nine times a year in different areas of the state.
They are intended to provide basic information on on-site wastewater treatment
to all those involved in on-site wastewater management. An extensive workbook
entitled The 1980 Home Sewage Treatment Workshop Workbook has been developed
for use in the workshops (Machmeir and Hansel, 1980). These workshops are the
most extensive offered in the region.
The Minnesota On-Site Sewage Treatment Contractors Association holds an
annual convention each January, at which training sessions are held in all
phases of on-site wastewater disposal. The association also publishes a
monthly newsletter that contains industry information and other news of
interest.
d. Existing University Programs
The University of Minnesota offers Master's and Ph.D. level degree
programs in the School of Public Health with specialization in environmental
health. Although there are no specific courses offered solely in on-site
wastewater disposal, related courses such as environmental health aspects of
wastewater systems, water hygiene, and the microbiology of water and waste-
water provide an excellent background to the field of small waste flows
management (University of Minnesota, 1980).
Besides being actively involved in the Home Sewage Treatment Workshops,
the University of Minnesota Agricultural Extension Service has also published
several noteworthy publications on on-site wastewater management. These
include How to Run a Percolation Test (Machmeier, 1977a) , Get to Know Your
Septic Tank (Machmeier, 1977b), Town and Country Sewage Treatment (Machmeier,
1979), and Shoreland Sewage Treatment: Recommendations for Identifying and
Eliminating Nonconforming Systems (Machmeier, 1975).
5. OHIO
a. Sanitarian Requirements
Sanitarians are not required to become registered to work in Ohio
although the state does have voluntary registration procedures for sanitarians
and sanitarians-in-training. Registration as a sanitarian requires as a
minimum a bachelor's or higher degree in environmental health science and at
least one year of full-time employment as a sanitarian. Persons with degrees
in subjects other than environmental health science are required to have at
least 45 quarter hours or 30 semester hours of science courses and must
complete two years of full-time employment as a sanitarian before registra-
tion. Persons who meet the education qualifications but not the experience
requirements may be registered as sanitarian-in-training (Ohio State Board of
Sanitarian Registration, undated).
VI-F-6
-------
All registered sanitarians are also required to complete annually a
continuing education program of at least six hours in subjects relating to the
practices of the professional sanitarian (Ohio State Board of Sanitarian
Registration, undated). The Board of Sanitarian Registration annually mails a
list of approved continuing education courses. This is the only state in U.S.
EPA Region V that has such continuing education requirement for its registered
sanitarians.
Cities and counties within Ohio operate individually in setting require-
ments for hiring of sanitarians. Basically cities can set any requirements
they wish for sanitarian positions. Of 72 cities within the state, only 2
require that the person hired be capable of future registration after obtain-
ing experience. None of the cities require registration as a prerequisite to
hiring (Veverka, 1980).
Counties have the opportunity to hire sanitarians with assistance from
the State of Ohio, County Services Office, Division of Personnel. The State
of Ohio has developed position classifications for sanitarian personnel within
the state. When a county wishes to hire a sanitarian, it submits a position
description and the person's application to the County Services Office. The
office determines whether the position description matches a state classifi-
cation. If it does, the office determines whether the person meets the quali-
fications for the position and forwards recommendations to the county. The
county may still hire a person with a negative recommendation by submitting a
waiver accepting liability for the person's lower qualifications. Most
counties comply with this program (Malone, 1981).
b. Contractor Requirements
Contractors involved in on-site wastewater disposal are not required to
become certified on a statewide basis. Some counties require registration of
those contractors providing services within their jurisdictions.
c. Existing Training Programs
The Ohio Bureau of Environmental Health provides a sanitarian in training
program that provides training for either newly hired sanitarian personnel or
persons who may wish to become sanitarians within the state. The program
lasts for 16 weeks and includes 4 weeks of classroom training and 12 weeks of
on-the-job training. Classroom training consists of a course in the prin-
ciples of environmental health lasting one and one-half weeks, and a two-and-
one-half week course in Ohio environmental health programs. After classroom
training, the trainee is provided with on-the-job work experience by accom-
panying trained sanitarians and participating directly in environmental health
programs. After completion of the program, the trainee will have a working
knowledge of the administration of environmental health programs within Ohio
and will be qualified to assume the responsibilities of an entry-level sani-
tarian. Persons are paid during the training period, but there is no guaran-
tee of employment upon completion of the program. However, if the person is
willing to relocate, employment is normally available. This program of formal
sanitarian training is much more extensive than any others provided in other
U.S. EPA Region V states (Ohio Department of Health, 1976; Veverka, 1980).
VI-F-7
-------
The Ohio Department of Health offers yearly programs for sanitarians
within the state to comply with their continuing education requirement for
registration. These programs do not deal specifically with on-site wastewater
management.
The Ohio Environmental Health Association has an annual conference where
information concerning on-site wastewater management may be disseminated.
Wright State University co-sponsored with the Ohio Department of Health a
three-day conference on on-site wastewater management in September 1980. If
interest is shown and funds are available, more conferences and seminars of
this type will be held.
d. Existing University Programs
Wright State University offers a bachelor's degree in environmental
health and also a Master's degree in biology with specialization in environ-
mental health. The University offers one course in water pollution and water
supply that discusses on-site wastewater management. About three weeks of
this course are spent in the theory and application of conventional and alter-
native wastewater systems. The course includes field trips to look at actual
systems. The program provides a student with a general environmental health
background (Lucas, 1980).
7. WISCONSIN
a. Sanitarian Requirements
Wisconsin requires that personnel involved in administering and enforcing
the private sewage disposal regulations become certified plumbing inspectors
(Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services, 1980). Requirements for
certification include completion of a required training program and passage of
an examination. Inspectors who have a year of experience in plumbing inspec-
tion work are exempt from the examination but must still complete the training
program.
The state also requires all persons involved in conducting soils evalua-
tions for on-site systems to become certified soil testers (Wisconsin Depart-
ment of Health and Social Services, 1980). Each plan for an on-site system is
required to contain soils information prepared by a certified soil tester, and
each governmental unit involved with private sewage disposal is required to
have a certified soil tester on staff or under contract to review the plans.
Certified soil testers are required to pass an examination given by the
Department of Industry, Labor, and Human Relations.
b. Contractor Requirements
Private sewage disposal systems are considered to be plumbing. They are,
therefore, regulated under the plumbing code. Any person performing plumbing
work in Wisconsin is required to be licensed as a plumber. There are three
progressive grades of plumbing licensure: apprentice, journeyman, and master
plumbers. Apprentice and journeyman plumbers must work under the supervision
of a master plumber. For plumbers involved only in private sewage disposal, a
master plumber's (restricted) license may also be obtained. A master
plumber's (restricted) license requires a person to have a minimum of two
VI-F-8
-------
years' experience as a journeyman plumber (restricted) and one year of experi-
ence as an apprentice. A master plumber is required to complete more exten-
sive experience including three years as a journeyman plumber and five years
as an apprentice, or completion of a degree in engineering and three years of
experience as the the owner or co-owner of a firm engaged in plumbing work
(Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services, 1980).
c. Existing Training Programs
The State of Wisconsin through the Wisconsin Board of Vocational, Tech-
nical, and Adult Education has developed a three-day training program for
persons wishing to become certified plumbing inspectors. This program is held
annually in January. An extensive training manual has been developed for use
during this training session (Sheahan, 1980). In addition, all certified
plumbing inspectors are required to complete a minimum of 20 units of con-
tinuing education annually. Continuing education programs are offered by
state-employed certified plumbing inspectors during the winter.
The University of Wisconsin-Extension offers three to six refresher
sessions for certified soil testers each year. These generally combine field
work and class instruction in the field evaluation of soils. The sessions are
one day in length. The state also has prepared a training manual for persons
wishing to become certified as soil testers (Wisconsin Department of Health
and Social Service, 1979).
The University of Wisconsin-Extension provides a number of other training
programs related to on-site wastewater management. Each year the UW-Extension
offers a one-week course in the on-site disposal of small wastewater flows.
This course covers all aspects of on-site wastewater management. The exten-
sion service also recently offered a one-week course in land treatment system
design. Additional extension programs planned for 1981 include a one-week
program in the design of alternative wastewater treatment and disposal
systems. Also, the extension office provides dial-a-tape cassettes that
contain information about septic systems. Recorded cassettes dealing with
permit requirements, installation and inspection procedures, operation and
maintenance, and failures arid rehabilitation are also available (Quigley,
1980).
The State of Wisconsin also participated in the joint Department of Labor
and Environmental Protection Agency program designed to train rural wastewater
treatment plant operators. The program is available through the Wisconsin
Vocational Training and Adult Education District consortium. The training is
specifically designed for wastewater plant operators and no training on-site
technology is provided. (Marcos, 1980).
Training is also provided through the Wisconsin On-Site Waste Disposal
Association. This is a professional association of personnel involved in
on-site wastewater disposal including installers, soil testers, manufacturers,
and related governmental and educational personnel. Members are kept up-to-
date on regulations and information pertaining to on-site disposal through a
bimonthly newsletter and educational programs offered throughout the state
yearly. The association also holds an annual conference where topics of the
trade are discussed and information is disseminated (Wisconsin On-Site Waste
Disposal Association, 1980).
VI-F-9
-------
d. Existing University Programs
The University of Wisconsin, through its agricultural engineering and
water resource management programs, offers several courses related to on-site
wastewater management. Although there are no distinct courses in on-site
wastewater management, it is discussed in several courses. A large number of
courses such as those in soils, hydrology, environmental pollution control,
and others give a student excellent background preparation for work in small
waste flows management.
In addition to the extension programs discussed above, the University of
Wisconsin has done unparalleled research and investigation into the on-site
disposal of wastewater through its Small Scale Waste Management Project. This
project, which began in 1971, has provided extensive research and publications
dealing with nearly all aspects of on-site wastewater management, the volume
of which makes it impractical to review here. A bibliography listing over 150
publications produced by the Small Scale Waste Management Project is available
from the project (University of Wisconsin, 1979). Of singular note is the
publication Management of Small Waste Flows produced by the project and
published by U.S. EPA (University of Wisconsin, 1978).
8. NON-STATE AFFILIATED PROGRAMS
a. National Sanitation Foundation
The National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) has sponsored national con-
ferences each of the past seven years on individual on-site wastewater
systems. The past two conferences have also been co-sponsored by the U.S.
EPA. Although all seven of these conferences have had different themes, the
continuing objective of the conferences according to the NSF is "to dis-
seminate timely information on alternative systems, and provide a forum for
exchange of information among the various disciplines concerned with their
effective utilization." The conferences are designed for all persons with an
interest in on-site wastewater management and have been held in the fall of
each year and last three days. Conference proceedings are also published
(McClelland, 1977a, 1977b, 1977c, 1978, 1979, 1980).
b. U.S. EPA Technology Transfer
The U.S. EPA, through its Technology Transfer program has held a number
of training programs throughout U.S. EPA Region V dealing with small waste
flows managment. Some of these programs were geared towards the general
public, while others were designed for state and Federal regulatory personnel.
These programs generally dealt with the utilization of innovative/alternative
technologies and with relevant changes in the construction grants program.
VI-F-10
-------
REFERENCES
Decker, T. Indiana State Board of Health, General Sanitation Division,
Indianapolis, IN. Personal communications, 16 October 1980 and 30
December 1980.
Ferris State College. 1980. Ferris State College Bulletin. Big Rapids MI.
Fleming, J. R. Head, Department of Environmental Quality Programs, Ferris
State College, Big Rapids, MI. Personal communication, 10 October 1980.
Hansel, M. Staff Engineer, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Division of
Water Quality, Roseville, MN. Personal communications, 8 October 1980
and 30 December 1980.
Hudkins, S. J. On-Site Waste Disposal Project Coordinator, Purdue University,
West Lafayette, IN. Personal communication, 17 October 1980.
Illinois Department of Public Health. 1974. Private sewage disposal
licensing act and code. Springfield IL.
Illinois Department of Registration and Education. 1980. Illinois sanitarian
registration act, Illinois Revised Statutes 1977, Ch.Ill Sec.5901 to
5925, Rev. 1980. Springfield IL.
Indiana, State of 1963. Indiana sanitarians registration act. Indiana Code
of 1971, Title 25, Article 32, Chap. 1. Indianapolis IN.
Indiana State University, Department of Health and Safety. 1980. Curriculum
for environmental health. Terre Haute IN.
Indiana University, School of Public and Environmental Affairs. 1980. Envi-
ronmental programs. Bloomington IN.
Koren, Dr. H. Coordinator, Department of Health and Safety, Indiana State
University, Terre Haute, IN. Personal communication, 10 October 1980.
Lucas, Dr. J. Chairman, Department of Environmental Health, Wright State
University, Dayton, OH. Personal communication, 15 October 1980.
Machmeier, R. E. 1975. Shoreland sewage treatment: Recommendations for
identifying and eliminating nonconforming systems. Extension Bulletin
394. University of Minnesota, Agricultural Extension Service, St. Paul
MN.
Machmeier, R. E. 1977a. How to run a percolation test. Extension Folder 261.
University of Minnesota Agricultural Extension Service, St. Paul MN.
Machmeier, R. E. 1977b. Get to know your septic tank. Extension Folder 337.
University of Minnesota Agricultural Extension Service, St. Paul MN.
Machmeier, R. E. 1979. Town and country sewage treatment. Revised edition.
University of Minnesota, Agricultural Extension Service, St. Paul MN.
VI-F-11
-------
Machraeier, R. E., and M. J. Hansel. 1980. Home sewage treatment workshop.
University of Minnesota and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, St. Paul
MN.
Malone, M. Ohio Department of County Services, Division of Personnel,
Columbus, OH. Personal communication, 5 January 1981.
Marcos, R. Wisconsin Vocational Training and Adult Education District
Consortium, Madison, WI. Personal communication, 14 October 1980.
McClelland, N. I., ed. 1977a. Individual on-site wastewater systems: Pro-
ceedings of the First National Conference, 1974. Sponsored by National
Sanitation Foundation. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Ann Arbor MI.
McClelland, N. I., ed. 1977b. Individual on-site wastewater systems: Pro-
ceedings of the Second National Conference, 1975. Sponsored by National
Sanitation Foundation and USEPA Technology Transfer Program. Ann Arbor
Science Publishers, Ann Arbor MI.
McClelland, N. I., ed. 1977c. Individual on-site wastewater systems: Pro-
ceedings of the Third National Conference, 1976. Sponsored by National
Sanitation Foundation and USEPA Technology Transfer Program. Ann Arbor
Science Publishers, Ann Arbor MI.
McClelland, N. I., ed. 1978. Individual on-site wastewater systems: Pro-
ceedings of the Fourth National Conference, 1977. Sponsored by National
Sanitation Foundation and U.S. EPA Technology Transfer Program. Ann
Arbor Science Publishers, Ann Arbor MI.
McClelland, N. I., ed. 1979. Individual on-site wastewater systems: Pro-
ceedings of the Fifth National Conference, 1978. Wastewater treatment
alternatives for rural and semi-rural areas. Sponsored by National
Sanitation Foundation. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Ann Arbor MI.
McClelland, N. E., ed. 1980. Individual on-site wastewater systems: Pro-
ceedings of the Sixth National Conference, 1979. Sponsored by National
Sanitation Foundation. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Ann Arbor MI.
Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulation. 1974. Sanitarians registra-
tion act and rules. Act 147 of 1963, as amended. Lansing MI.
Minnesota Department of Health. Undated. Application for state registration,
environmental health specialist/sanitarian. Minneapolis MN.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 1979. A proposed voluntary plan for the
certification of individual sewage treatment systems personnel.
Roseville MN.
Ohio Department of Health. 1976. Environmental health training opportuni-
ties. Bureau of Environmental Health, Columbus OH.
Ohio State Board of Sanitarian Registration. Undated. Laws and rules.
Columbus OH.
VI-F-12
-------
Quigley, J. T. University of Wisconsin-Extension, Madison, WI. Personal
communication, 15 October 1980.
Rowe, D. E. 1979. Environmental Health Internship Policy Manual and Guide-
line, Illinois State University, Department of Health Sciences, Normal
IL.
Sheahan, G. 1980. Uniform dwelling code inspector training, Chapter Ind. 25,
Plumbing and potable water standards: Private sewage disposal.
Wisconsin Board of Vocational, Technical and Adult Education, Madison WI.
Shelar, A. Shelar Sanitation, Jackson, MI. Personal communication, 28
October 1980.
Smith, N. C., and W. F. Echelberger, Jr. 1979. Water Clean-Up: Educational
programs conducted in Indiana's water quality planning regions. Indiana
University, School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indianapolis IN.
University of Michigan, School of Public Health. Catalog of course descrip-
tions, 1980-1981 Edition. Ann Arbor MI.
University of Minnesota, School of Public Health. 1980-1982 Bulletin.
Minneapolis MN.
University of Wisconsin, Small Scale Waste Management Project. 1978a.
Management of small waste flows. NTIS PB-286 560. For U.S. EPA,
Municipal ERL, Cincinnati OH.
University of Wisconsin, Small Scale Waste Management Project. 1979.
Publications list of the Small Scale Waste Management Project. Madison
WI.
Veverka, F. M. Recruitment, Training and Special Services Unit, Division of
Planning, Evaluation, and Administrative Services, Bureau of Environ-
mental Health, Columbus, OH. Personal communications, 9, October 1980
and 14, November 1980.
Volkers, J. Michigan Department of Public Health, Lansing, MI. Personal
communications, 9 October 1980 and 30 December 1980.
Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services. 1979. Soil Tester
Manual. Bureau of Environmental health, Madison WI.
Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services. 1980. Wisconsin Plumbing
Code. In: Wisconsin Administrative Code. Rules of Department of Health
and Social Services. Madison WI.
Wisconsin On-Site Waste Disposal Association, Inc. 1980. Membership brochure.
Madison WI.
VI-F-13
-------
G. TRAINING PROGRAMS NEEDED
An effective small waste flows management program relies on competent
personnel to perform a myriad of related tasks. This competency is gained
through a wealth of experience and training with conventional centralized
wastewater technology. By comparison, experience and training developed with
on-site and small scale systems is limited, and typically is fragmented
between regulatory personnel and contractors. There is a recognized need for
improved training of multidisciplinary personnel to work in small waste flows
management.
Section C of this Chapter indicates types of personnel needed for small
waste flows agencies, and Section D estimates future levels of effort. This
section discusses training programs that would be desirable to improve the
expertise of these personnel.
Many types of training programs are offered by a variety of sponsors
throughout Region V. While most states have some excellent features in their
programs, no one state appears to have developed a comprehensive training
approach for all levels of personnel involved in small waste flows management.
Better training programs in small waste flows technology are required at
many levels. At the university level more classroom training should be pro-
vided in the use of decentralized wastewater technology; traditionally, the
focus of the training has been a conventional treatment of large scale works.
Little emphasis has been placed on on-site or other alternative wastewater
treatment technologies. Even those schools that offer degree programs in
environmental health sciences, and are considered to be sanitarian training
programs do not cover small waste flows technology.
Only one program at Ferris State College has been identified as devoting
an entire course to the subject. Few of these programs, even those that pro-
vide training in the subject, incorporate "hands-on" techniques that are
necessary to fully train an individual. These programs need to be strengthen-
ed to better prepare the inspectors, planners, soil and water resource scien-
tists, and administrators who are entering the field.
Training programs for field personnel (system designers, installers, soil
testers) are needed for continual updating on new developments. These pro-
grams may be offered by universities, state, regional or local levels of
government, and trade associations. The Home Sewage Treatment Workshops,
sponsored by the University of Minnesota Extension and the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency, as well as various workshops offered by the University of
Wisconsin-Extension, are excellent examples of these programs.
In addition, most colleges and universities provide training in subjects
related to small waste flows technology, such as soil science, hydrology,
geology and others; training in these related disciplines is desirable also
for personnel entering the small waste flows field.
Universities can also develop small waste flows management research and
demonstration projects. Through these projects, universities can develop and
disseminate valuable information concerning new technology and other related
matters. The University of Wisconsin and Purdue University, both in Region V,
VI-G-1
-------
are performing research and developing demonstration projects that further the
current knowledge of small waste flows technology. These programs should be
supported, encouraged, and fostered at other universities.
Improvement is necessary also for on-the-job or pre-service level train-
ing for regulatory personnel involved in small waste flows management. Most
states provide no formal training for new employees; training that is pro-
vided is dependent upon local employment. In some instances this means that
new employees will receive inadequate, incomplete and/or incompetent training.
On the other hand, the State of Ohio has an excellent voluntary pre-service
training program that includes 4 weeks of classroom and 12 weeks of on-the-job
training. Indiana also provides a one-week orientation session including
about 8 hours of training in small waste flows technology. The Ohio program
is a model for this type of training program.
Additionally, as the need for homeowner maintenance increases with the
use of more technologically complex systems, homeowners need to be instructed
in the operation and maintenance of their individual systems. This may be
accomplished through educational brochures similar to those published through
the University of Wisconsin and the University of Minnesota extension ser-
vices. The University of Wisconsin also offers a phone recording for receiv-
ing information on on-site systems via dial-a-cassette. Homeowner education
can also be provided locally by public meetings, workshops, and other means of
information dissemination related to on-site systems.
A method by which states and local communities can insure that qualified
personnel are working within the small waste flows field is to develop certi-
fication programs, which could cover system designers, system installers, site
evaluators, soil testers, septage pumpers and haulers, and system inspectors.
Certification programs need not be mandatory to be effective. Non-mandatory
programs can be effective if local officials educate the public in the bene-
fits of utilizing certified personnel. In this way economics would force non-
certified personnel to become certified or leave the business.
Requirements for certification should include provisions for requiring
both training and experience in the particular area in which the person is
being certified to perform work. Extensive experience should be an allowable
substitute for formal training but not vice-versa. Actual certification pro-
cedures should include a written exam and evaluation of work performance to
determine a person's effective knowledge of the field. Certification programs
should also require periodic evaluations, which may include written exams or
re-evaluation of work performance. Continuing education programs could also
be required for re-certification of certain personnel; for example, Ohio re-
quires its sanitarians to complete continuing education programs to remain
certified. Requirements for periodic re-evaluation and continuing education
help to insure that personnel maintain competency and keep abreast of new
technological developments within their area of expertise.
The development of certification programs and uniform standards leads to
consistency in carrying out programs throughout the state and even within one
agency. Lack of consistency leads to differing qualities of work performance.
In the case of regulatory personnel, lack of consistency may lead to varying
enforcement of regulations and to a poorer overall program.
VI-G-2
-------
H. DESIGN PROCESS FOR SMALL WASTE FLOWS AGENCIES
The process by which a community develops a management program involves
decision-making on local options, required functions and responsibility for
function performance. This decision-making process may be divided into six
major steps, which are as follows:
• Identifying inputs to the design process;
• Determining local options for system ownership and liability;
• Identifying functions which need to be provided;
• Determining how functions will be performed;
• Determining who will be responsible for function performance; and
• Implementing the management program.
Each of these steps will be discussed.
1. IDENTIFYING INPUTS TO THE DESIGN PROCESS
In the process of designing a small waste flows management program, the
first step should be the recognition of existing community characteristics or
factors that will affect agency design. While factors such as available
expertise and regulatory authority could be modified, given sufficient
interest, capital, manpower and other resources, the willingness and ability
of the community or other agencies to alter these factors will affect agency
design; other factors, such as the existing density and performance of on-site
systems, also affect the design process. Major factors which should be
recognized by the community prior to designing the management program may
include:
• Types, age, density and expected performance of proposed wastewater
systems;
• Water resources sensitivity;
• Available expertise;
• Available regulatory authority;
• Available funding;
• Contractor's competence;
• Community attitudes towards growth;
• Community attitudes towared public management of private systems;
• Jurisdictional setting.
VI-H-1
-------
Factors such as these form the information base for the design of the manage-
ment program.
2. DETERMINING LOCAL OPTIONS FOR SYSTEM OWNERSHIP AND LIABILITY
These two basic option decisions form the framework for a community's
policy toward the management of decentralized systems, and affect how deci-
sions are made in the remainder of the design process. Once these option
decisions have been made, the level of risk that the management agency is
willing to accept for system performance will be determined, and the level of
involvement of various parties within the systems will be fairly well estab-
lished. Responsibility for required functions and their performances will be
related directly to the responsibility for system ownership and liability.
Responsibility for system ownership and liability could be assigned
separately; for instance, homeowners might retain ownership of their systems
while the community management agency might assume liability for system re-
pairs. The homeowners, then, would not be responsible for the expense of
system repairs. Through their user charges they would be, in effect, pur-
chasing an insurance policy to remove them from liability. The community
management agency would then place a portion of the user charges into a
reserve fund to pay for necessary repairs. Major factors influencing the
determination of these local options include:
• types and complexity of proposed wastewater facilities
• predicted failure rate (risk) of proposed facilities
• sensitivity of water resources
• community attitudes towards public management
• available regulatory authority
• costs of proposed facility improvements to the community and indi-
vidual user
3. IDENTIFYING FUNCTIONS WHICH NEED TO BE PROVIDED
After the responsibility for ownership of, and liability for, the waste-
water facilities has been delegated, functions of the management program must
be identified. These functions will be dependent primarily on the following
factors:
• Decisions on ownership of a liability for the proposed facilities
• Types, density, and expected performance of proposed wastewater faci-
lities
• Available regulatory authority and expertise
• Sensitivity of water resources
VI-H-2
-------
• Community attitudes toward public management of individual systems.
Administrative, technical, and planning capabilities required in the
management program should be defined in terms of function selection. Certain
management program functions, such as those related to system operation and
maintenance, will be mandatory if Construction Grants funding is requested.
4. DETERMINING PERFORMANCE OF SELECTED FUNCTIONS
Once the types of functions of the management program have been defined,
the question must be addressed as to "how" these functions will be performed.
This question may be answered by defining the practices involved in performing
various functions: defining the type of permits required; devising a user
charge system; delineating staff responsibilities; and, defining enforcement
techniques. Factors affecting these decisions include:
• Decisions on ownership of and liability for the proposed facilities
• Types, density, and performance of wastewater facilities
• Available authority and expertise
• Costs of proposed facility improvements to the community
• Sensitivity of water resources
5. DETERMINING RESPONSIBILITY FOR FUNCTION PERFORMANCE
Responsibilities for individual function performance may be assumed by
the management agency, private contractors and homeowners. Decisions con-
cerning the assignment of responsibility will be based upon:
• the expertise required for function performance
• the expertise available to the management agency
• private contractors' competence
• the costs of the alternatives to the community and to individual users
• risk which the community is willing to accept
• sensitivity of water resources
6. IMPLEMENTING THE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
The final stage in the design process is the implementation of the man-.
agement program. Implementation may involve: instituting the management
agency; hiring of personnel by the management agency; developing contractual
arrangements with private organizations; legally incorporating the on-site
management district; instituting inter-agency agreements, including defining
state and local agency responsibilities; informing and educating homeowners as
to their responsibilities; and, instituting a sanitary review board.
VI-H-3
-------
Figure VI-H-1
Potential Management Agency Functions
Administrative Capabilities
a. Staffing
b. Financial
c. Permits
d. Bonding
e. Certification Programs
f. Service Contract Supervision
g. Accept for Public Management Privately Installed Facilities
h. Interagency Coordination
i. Training Programs
j. Public Education
k. Enforcement
1. Property Access Acquisition
Technical Capabilities
m. System Design
n. Plan Review
o. Soils Investigations
p. System Installation
q. Evaluate Existing Systems
r. Routine Inspection and Maintenance
s. Septage Collection and Disposal
t. Pilot Studies
u. Flow Reduction Program
v. Water Quality Monitoring
Planning Capabilities
w. Land Use Planning
x. Sewer and Water Planning
VI-H-4
-------
Figure VI-H-2
Local Decisions in Management Agency Design
Whom should assume ownership for the wastewater facilities?
Should liability for wastewater facilities be borne by the homeowners, a
private organization or by the community management agency?
Should responsibility for routine facilities operation and maintenance rest
with the homeowners, a private organization or the community management
agency?
Which functions should be incorporated into a management agency?
Which of the functions should be performed by the homeowners, a private
organization or the community management agency?
What types of regulatory authority should be utilized?
What type of user charge system should be instituted?
VI-H-5
-------
Figure VI-H-3
Major Factors Influencing Agency Design Decisions
Types of wastewater facilities required or utilized.
Expertise available for use by the community.
Size of the community or management district and number of systems in use.
Community jurisdictional setting.
Community attitudes towards growth.
Community attitudes towards public management of decentralized wastewater
facilities.
Anticipated costs, including initial costs and economic impact of failures.
Anticipated environmental impacts, especially sensitivity of water resources.
Anticipated level of risk assumed by various parties.
VI-H-6
-------
Figure VI-H-4
Management Agency Design Decision Flow Diagram
Inputs
Types of Facilities
Failure Rate (Risk) of Facilities
Sensitivity of Water Resources
Economic Impact of Failures
Community Attitude Toward Public
Management
Available Regulatory Authority
Costs of Alternatives to Community/
User
Management Design Decisions
Determine Liability for Waste-
water Facilities
• Public
• Private
• Homeowner
Types of Facilities
Expertise Requires to Perform Work
Available Expertise to the Management
Agency
Available Regulatory Authority
Sensitivity of Water Resources
Failure Rate (Risk) of Facilities
Community Attitudes Toward Public
Management
Costs of Alternatives to Community/
User
Determine Responsibility for
System Design, Soils Investiga-
tion, System Installation,
Inspection and Maintenance,
Septage Collection
• Public
• Private
• Homeowner
Types of Facilities
Decisions on Liability and Responsi-
bility
Available Regulatory Authority
Community Attitudes Toward Public
Management
Costs of Alternatives to Community/
User
Determine Ownership of Facilities
• Public
• Private
• Homeowner
Decisions on Private Liability and
Responsibilities
Types of Facilities
Community Attitudes Toward Public
Management
Available Regulatory Authority
Available Expertise
Determine Need for Incorporation
of Non-Essential Functions
• Bonding
• Plan Review
• Certification Programs
• Service Contract Supervision
• Interagency Coordination
• Training of Public/Private
Personnel
• Public Education Program
VI-H-7
-------
Figure VI-H-4 (continued)
Community Attitudes Toward Public
Management
Density
Failure Rate (Risk) of Facilities
Sensitivity of Water Resources
Available Regulatory Authority
Types of Facilities
Management Design Decisions
• Evaluate Existing Systems
• Accept for Public Management
Privately Installed Facilities
• Water Quality Monitoring
Types of Facilities
Available Regulatory Authority
Failure Rate (Risk) of Facilities
• Property Acquisition
• Flow Reduction Programs
• Pilot Studies
Local Attitudes Toward Growth
Growth Potential/Restraints
Environmentally Sensitive Areas
Available Regulatory Authority
• Land Use Planning
• Water Sewer Planning
Decisions on Incorporation of
Non-Essential Functions
Decisions on Liability and Responsi-
bility
Available Expertise
Available Regulatory Authority
Types of Wastewater Facilities
Types of Wastewater Facilities
Decisions on Liabilty and Responsi-
bility
Costs of Providing Management Services
Types of Wastewater Facilities
Decisions on Liability and Responsi-
bility
Failure Rate (Risk) of Facilities
Available Regulatory Authority
Sensitivity of Water Resources
Types of Wastewater Facilities
Decisions on Liability and Responsi-
bility
Available Regulatory Authority
Grant Eligibility for Management
Agency or Users
Determine Level of Essential
Functions to Be Provided
• Staffing
User Charge System
• Permits
—Occupancy
—Operating
—System Installation
• Grants/Loans Administration
VI-H-8
-------
Figure VI-H-4 (continued)
Management Design Decisions
Types of Wastewater Facilities • Enforcement
Decisions on Liability and Responsi-
bility
Available Regulatory Authority
Failure Rate (Risk) of Facilities
Sensitivity of Environmental Resources
VI-H-9
-------
I. HYPOTHETICAL SMALL WASTE FLOW MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
1. INTRODUCTION
Community interest in the regulation of private wastewater systems must
be weighed against individual rights to privacy and freedom to live without
unwarranted governmental interference, as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment.
Community interest outweighs this right to privacy when public health or
environmental safety is threatened by the transport of pathogens or nutrients
off-site from the private wastewater system.
The level of regulation imposed on private wastewater systems should
depend upon the type and severity of the threats they are likely to pose to
the common good. Overreaction may lead to overregulation, increased community
costs, and reduced community support for management programs. Accurate
assessment is, therefore, essential when considering the threats to the common
good posed by private wastewater systems.
The potential for adverse community public health and environmental
impacts can be assessed by the density of the on-site systems, the failure
rate associated with these systems, and the sensitivity of the affected water
resources. When houses are far apart, the probability of a system malfunction
harming other residents is too low for community concern. However, when
houses are closer together, the potential for public health and groundwater
impacts is much greater. At high densities, even with no apparent system
malfunctions, the impact on groundwater quality by nitrates and other chemical
constituents may be of community concern.
The failure rate, as it affects the common good, will be directly related
to density. In densely populated areas, the potential for adverse impacts is
greater than in sparsely settled areas. Even where the failure rate is low,
densely populated communities have an interest in aggressively preventing
future failures. Where failures occur in sparsely settled areas, they may
pose only a marginal threat to the common good. Internal failures, such as
plumbing backups, may be of indirect public interest if they result in poor
personal hygiene.
Water resources that may be affected by on-site systems include recrea-
tional lakes, water supply reservoirs, groundwater aquifers, and other water
bodies. The sensitivity of these water resources and their usage by the
public will determine the threats to the community posed by on-site systems.
Where a highly eutrophic lake is receiving a small amount of nutrient input
from on-site systems, it may not be in the community interest to prevent this
occurrence. However, when the lake is oligotrophic or is used for a water
supply, community interest is much greater.
Community involvement with existing on-site systems should be limited to
assessment of water quality and public health impacts that require remedial
action where unacceptable impacts exist, and implementation of management pro-
grams to deal with future impacts. Community interest in future wastewater
systems should be limited to regulation of the design, installation, and
operation and maintenance, consistent with the potential for adverse public
health and environmental impacts.
VI-I-1
-------
The models presented below reflect increasing levels of community interest
in the regulation of private wastewater systems. When community interest is
low, community management may be limited to initial installation. Increasing
community interest may require regulation of all phases of system life includ-
ing installation, operation and maintenance, failure, renovation and, ulti-
mately, abandonment. Abandonment represents the maximum intervention that a
community may take in regulating individual systems, and should only be taken
when community interest cannot be satisfied in any other way.
The alternative management models will all be applied to communities
within a single county to show the various types of management programs that
may be applicable to parts of a county with differing community interests.
There is a great deal of variability in the development of each management
program. Variables such as system ownership, liability, incorporation of
functions, and responsibility for functions, still need to be determined
individually by each community. The county description is presented next,
followed by the management models.
2. COUNTY DESCRIPTION
Milford County encompasses 200 square miles and is predominantly rural
with a year-round population of 9,000, which increases in summer to a popula-
tion of 12,000. The increase in seasonal population is directly attributable
to second home development surrounding Clear Lake. Figure VI-I-1 presents a
general map of Milford County.
There are two incorporated towns within the county, Milton and Littleton,
and one unincorporated village, Crossville. The remainder of the county is
rural. Each of these areas have separate wastewater needs. They will be
described separately. These descriptions will provide input data for the
design process.
a. Milton
Milton is the largest town within the county. It has a year-round popu-
lation of 2,000, which increases to 5,000 during the summer because of the
seasonal development around Clear Lake, which is within town boundaries. The
majority of Milton's permanent residents live in the southeast section of
town. Table VI-I-1 provides a breakdown of the population distribution in
Milton and the number of homes served by sewer and individual systems.
TABLE VI-I-1. POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND SEWER SERVICE IN MILTON
Population Housing
Seasonal Permanent Seasonal Permanent
Around Clear Lake 3000 300 1000 100
Remainder of Town 300 1700 100 500
Served by Sewer 0 1600 0 480
Served by Individual Systems 3300 400 1100 120
VI-I-2
-------
0>
CO
o
O
c
o
•a
S-i
o
•H
I
M
I
M
>
-------
About 80% of Milton's permanent population is served by a secondary
wastewater treatment plant, which discharges into the Major River below Clear
Lake. The sewer service area is indicated in Figure VI-I-1. The remaining
permanent population and the seasonal population is served by individual
on-site systems. None of the population surrounding Clear Lake is served by
public sewer.
Soils in Milton are generally considered adequate for on-site disposal in
areas served by individual systems. Soils around Clear Lake are all of
glacial origin. The only significant problem occurs on the north side of
Clear Lake where high ground water tables affect the performance of on-site
systems. Some impermeable soils are found in the southeastern part of town,
but these areas are already served by sewers.
A sanitary survey to determine on-site system performance was conducted
by the County Health Department. Of the 1220 seasonal and permanent homes
served by individual systems, 175 failures were reported. These failures were
identified by recurrent backups, surface ponding and direct discharges to the
lake. Of the 175 failures, 75 were associated with direct discharges or other
inadequate means of disposal, 60 were ponding of effluent on the surface of
the ground, and 40 were related to recurrent backups in the residences. The
greatest number of on-site failures, 75, were located on the north side of
Clear Lake where soil conditions are poor. Many of these failures were con-
fined to a densely developed area where average lot sizes were \ acre. The
remainder of the failures were dispersed throughout the town. Many of the
malfunctions were believed to be due to improper system maintenance rather
than the inability of the area to support on-site systems. This is parti-
cularly true where recurrent backups were found. Following pumping of the
septic tanks, and rehabilitation of the drain fields in some instances, these
systems performed adequately.
Most of the malfunctioning on-site systems could be upgraded on-site with
minimal expense. Of the 175 system failures, all could be upgraded on-site
with the exception of 50 systems located on the north side of Clear Lake where
an off-site cluster collection and disposal system was developed. In some
cases, the use of alternative systems was permitted as the most economical and
feasible manner in which to upgrade existing systems or install new systems.
Existing non-conforming systems were utilized if operating properly. These
systems were granted use variances, and in some cases flow reduction measures
were required.
Milton also operates a public water supply, with an identical service
area to that of the sewer service area. Milton's source of water is Clear
Lake. The remainder of the residents are served by individual wells. The
public water supply is continually monitored by the County Health-Department
with analysis performed by the state health department. The water quality has
been in compliance with applicable standards, although occasional bacterial
counts have nearly exceeded drinking water standards, and increased levels of
total dissolved solids and nitrates have been noted also.
Clear Lake is used also as a recreational resource not only by permanent
and seasonal residents, but also by day visitors from surrounding areas.
Swimming, boating and fishing are enjoyed and are a vital part of the town's
economy. The community is very concerned about the potential for pollution
problems at Clear Lake.
VI-I-4
-------
The County Health Department has the authority to regulate individual
systems throughout the County, including the incorporated towns. Presently,
the staff consists of one sanitarian who issues permits, inspects installa-
tions of new and rehabilitated systems, responds to complaints, and samples
public water supply sources. The sanitarian has a great deal of expertise in
on-site disposals and is familiar with alternative systems. The county sani-
tary code permits the use of standard on-site systems as well as the use of
mound systems under special circumstances. Other types of systems may be
permitted by variances granted by the county sanitarian.
State health department personnel are also available to provide technical
assistance to the local sanitarian. Such assistance may include responding to
questions, assisting in inspections, and disseminating information on new
technologies.
The town maintains and has the authority for operating its own wastewater
treatment plant and water treatment plant. As discussed, the town entered
into an agreement with the County to have the County sanitarian oversee pri-
vate wastewater systems.
Local designers and contractors are familiar with the use of many types
of alternative systems. They have been working with the sanitarian to allow
the use of a greater range of alternative systems.
The community is interested in remaining primarily rural and has no
interest in providing services to promote growth. At the same time the com-
munity needs to retain the seasonal population that is so vital to its
economy. The community has very limited financial capabilities because of its
small size and limited tax base.
b. Littleton
Littleton is the other incorporated town within the County and has a
population of 1200. Because of its distance from Clear Lake there are few
seasonal residences. The community is moderately populated with an average
lot size of one acre.
Littleton operates a small package wastewater treatment plant which
serves about 50% of its residents. The remainder of its residents are served
by individual systems. The town does not operate any public water system.
Residents use individual wells to provide their water supply.
A sanitary survey of the 200 on-site systems in Littleton identified 35
system malfunctions. These malfunctions consisted of 10 systems with direct
discharges, 10 wide surface ponding and 15 with recurrent backups. These
systems were upgraded on-site with conventional and mound systems. Several
alternative systems were also permitted under special conditions by issuance
of a variance. Existing non-conforming systems were allowed to continue in
use if operating properly. These systems were granted a use variance, and in
some cases flow reduction measures were required.
Soils in the community are considered good for on-site treatment. Some
areas with shallow depth to bedrock have been identified. In these areas
mounds were utilized for upgrading. Soils consist of glacial outwash and are
characterized by moderate to rapid permeability.
VI-I-5
-------
The County Health Department has periodically sampled private wells
within the area on an as-requested basis. Analysis of these samples has
indicated a rising level of nitrates in the groundwater. Although the systems
may appear to be operating effectively, this indicates an apparent contamina-
tion of groundwater. Because of the cost associated with the development of a
community water supply and/or expansion of the wastewater treatment capacity,
the community has an inherent interest in keeping the systems operating so as
not to pollute the groundwater.
As in the town of Milton, the County Health Department has regulatory
control over the on-site systems through an agreement with the town. The town
does operate and maintain the community package treatment plant.
c. Crossville
Crossville is the only other remaining population center within the
County. It is an unincorporated community of about 250 residents. These
residents occupy 75 homes with an average lot size of about one acre. There
are no public sewer or water services provided. All of the homes are served
by private wells and individual on-site systems.
Soils in this area are predominantly of glacial origin and are considered
adequate for on-site treatment. A small section of the community is located
on poor soils for on-site treatment characterized by a high ground water
table.
A sanitary survey in the community has identified 15 system failures.
Ten of these failures were related to recurrent backups into the home. These
systems were upgraded by septic tank pumping and drainfield rehabilitation.
The remaining five system failures were by surface ponding associated with a
high ground water table. These systems were upgraded by the use of mound
systems. All of the 15 failures were located within the same general area of
the community.
Private well-water samples taken within the community have indicated both
high levels of nitrates and positive results in fecal coliform for wells
serving those homes in which failures had been identified. The upgrading
performed on these systems should improve well-water quality.
As with the two towns, the County Health Department has the authority to
regulate on-site systems. As this area is unincorporated, it does not have
independent financial capabilities or regulatory authority to develop its own
wastewater treatment system or public water supply.
d. Rural Areas
The remainder of the County is rural and sparsely settled. The major
land use in this area is agriculture with most residents occupying large
tracts of land. The area is entirely served by private systems and individual
water supplies.
Soils in this area are generally considered good for on-site treatment
with some small areas of slowly permeable soils. For most homeowners, the
size of their lots insures an adequate site for on-site disposal.
VI-I-6
-------
The County Health Department has not performed a sanitary survey for this
area of the County. The health department has investigated infrequent com-
plaints concerning on-site system failure, however, no major problem areas
have been found. The County Health Department does maintain regulatory con-
trol over on-site systems; where malfunctions have occurred, they have been
repaired on-site. No problems with individual well-water supplies have been
reported recently.
The rural farm population does not desire or support increased regulation
of their individual on-site systems.
3. MANAGEMENT MODELS
Alternative management programs, which may be developed for the com-
munities in this County, are described below. They are given in increasing
levels of regulatory control appropriate to the communities' interest in the
on-site systems. Table VI-I-2 shows the major components of the four manage-
ment programs.
a. Status Quo Alternatives
In rural areas of the County, interest in the regulation of private
systems is low, primarily due to a low density of systems. Although some
failures have been identified, community-wide problems are not likely because
of the distance between houses. Problems with sensitive water resources would
be limited to individual wells which, although a problem, would not be of
County-wide interest.
Since community interest is low, the County management program is
minimal. The program is limited to a continuation of existing services pro-
vided by the County Health Department. Services include permit issuance,
installation inspections, well-water supply sampling on request, and investi-
gation of complaints. The homeowner retains system ownership, and is liable
for system operation, maintenance, and repairs. The County Health Department
will not conduct inspections to monitor system performance, finance system
repairs, consider the use of off-site treatment facilities, or permit the use
of experimental on-site designs. Private contractors and system designers
will provide services to homeowners for system design and construction.
Public education and training programs will be minimal and will consist
of disseminating information as requested. There has been little need for
these programs because of a lack of interest in on-site systems. Conventional
technology is utilized and contractors and homeowners are familiar with its
installation and operation requirements.
This approach is adequate for rural land areas where scattered develop-
ment, farms, and large tract subdivisions predominate, and it is in use
throughout Region V. However, these systems would not be eligible for
Construction Grants funds because of a lack of Federal government interest.
b. Owner Volunteer Assistance
Community interest in the regulation of private systems is greater in the
village of Crossville because of the higher density of on-site systems and the
VI-I-7
-------
I-J
Q
O
s
H
Z
O
3
C*g
1
I
^j
05
H
4-> CC
•H -K
-C 4J
•H U
W C
0 [5
W U
CJ O
E£ MH
"O
CJ
QJ
QJ
35
CO
0
• H
U
E
3
4-1
• H
•H
fQ
•H
CM
•H
W
CJ
E
O
u
4-1
3
B
0 Q
X X O
CJ 0 X
W
E
CJ
CO
4-1
O
oc oc <3
E E O
•H -H
4-> *J QJ
4-1 U E
E ft 4-1
^ co 3
CJ B O
CM t-M Cfi
CJ
d
o
e
o
i_i
QJ
B
3
O
CJ
E
O
X
CJ
TO
O CJ
i-H 1-1
3
••* r— 1
W -H
QJ 4-1
W "O
>. C w
CA re r— i
•H
QJ >* O
O -H -H
3 W W -O
Cr i d o
C QJ O
3
4-J 1 1
(C
CO
o
X
CJ
4J
to
QJ
c
•H
Cfl
B
•H
«
ft
o
CJ
S-f E
3 -H
C
W CO
CJ 4J
I-( [A
QJ QJ
i-i i-i CO
QJ QJ -H
re E u
5 -H QJ
ft
QJ >» X
•H -H E
4-t E O OJ
•H 3 -H i— i
(A £ 4-1 J3
QJ o r-l r-i
Cfl U 3 -H
00 CC
O O QJ ^
1 1 1
Q Q
X X
CJ CJ
(A
E
QJ
4-1
CO
o
60 B
E O
-H -H
4J (J
'E ft
CJ E
QJ
JJ
O
QJ
E
O
-C
S-i
QJ
B
O
QJ
_O
42
•H 4-1
l_l
.*. QJ
E 0
CJ E
4J
w -a
QJ
3 -H -H
i— 1 W W
O l E
^ E f
u
CJ 1
E
3
O
O
0 X
X 0
4J
^
•r-(
3 tfl
O 4J
E
E fll
4-> 'ft
O O
CO
QJ
u
CJ
t-l
Ui
QJ
QJ 4-1
4-J re
-o
3 U
•H ft
1
d
"-^
O Q Q
XXX
0 0 CJ
Cfl
CO
^*
rH Cfl
« 4-J
C E
M CJ O
-HUB
r-H 3 O
ft Cfl -H
E 4-»
re u -H
U 4-> 4-J E
re re o
-^
14
CJ
4-J (A
CO 4-J
3 E E
u E CJ
O CJ 4-> CO Cfl
14-t > CA E -H
O CJ CJ 4->
E ft QJ (A QJ
•H E 4-1 >> ft
•O -H E (A X
C -H QJ
3 V4 GO
<+4 QJ >> E CJ
4-» 4-1 -H i— (
•o re -H 4-> .0
4-) CJ 3 i— 1 -H
E « E QO to
•H re o QJ ^
< i i
O Q
X X
CJ CJ
ca
E
QJ
CA
CA
O
OO E
E 0
•H -H
4J U
'E ft
CJ E
CJ
E
o
QJ
E
O
jd
Wj
CJ
E
3
O
QJ
E
O
X
QJ
•- 4->
cfl re
QJ CJ
CO O
X E
•o
o «
4J >>
d -u
3 -H
O to
E E
&&.E
O ^ bC
co re -H
3
ft i
E
O
CJ
Q
0 X
X CJ
4-1
^
•H
CO Cfl
O 4J
E CD
Jj ^
s, &
QJ
jj
E
3
QJ O
4-1 i-J
CC 60
T3
QJ QJ
3 U
•H ft
re £
i
C
X
c/:
•^^
Q O Q
XXX
U CJ CJ
CO
(A
X
i-H CA
E E
M flj O
•HUE
r-l S O
ft W -H
E 4->
O3 U -H
re re o
4J
QJ CA
•H >» 4-J
CO Ut
>> QJ
4-J DO W ft
•H C *O X
B -H B QJ
34-13
E i— ' i— i
O 3 "O rp
QJ 4-1 i — 1
to E re
•H C -H J>
1 1 1
c
o
^-.
O O Q 0 O
3= X 3 X X X 3
• • o • • • o
(A
CA "5
E >>
QJ f-H Cfl
CA 4J C E
> 60 CJ O
O -H -H l-i E
S f-t 3 O
B O O •*-> E -J-1
•H -F-i C ffl >v U •
4-1 u E re re w -H
'E ft 4-> ft cj -H to *o
QJ d o o re re o
>>
4J
E
3
O
U
I-i
CJ
E
3
0
QJ
E
O
X
d
*O -H 'O
E B
3 jj re
4J O CO
CD U QJ CA CA
E l-i QJ CJ CJ CJ
O 00 Cfl 4-J 4-1 4-1 4-1
CJ re E w r-H co
d •- u 3 -H>»O>%
O W 3 CO l-i W
•H E i— 1 QJ >. 4-*
4-1QJ-H > 4->M-lECJ
re 4J re -H -H o o 4->
,— 1 Cfl **-! 4-» E O -H
3 >% QJ H 3 E en
QJO OreEOJE"HO4-<
> ft QJ H^ QJ U O 4-1 'H 4-t
COQJ-HQJl-i 3 r— (3
§QJ i-4 CA 60 60 >—( E
r^ QJ QJ -H QJ O O
ft 1 II 1
E
O
CJ
QJ
Cfl
4-J
1-1
CJ
T3 X
3
r— *
t3 rO
4-1 r— 1
E cc
•H ^
1 1
Vl-I-f
-------
number of identified system failures. The potential for widespread, rather
than isolated, well contamination is also greater because of the greater
system density and number of failures in one area of the community.
Following the sanitary survey, homeowners were notified by the County
sanitarian of needed system repairs. These systems were in violation of the
County nuisance ordinance and sanitary code. Since the residents were of low
income, the County Health Department applied for and distributed Construction
Grants funds to the homeowners who desired such assistance. All of the sys-
tems qualified for assistance since they had been occupied prior to 1977 and
were permanent dwellings.
Homeowners were not required to participate or accept Construction Grants
funds for their systems, but those residents who did not receive funds were
required to finance their own repairs. Three of the fifteen eligible home-
owners decided against receiving assistance so as to avoid future monitoring
and inspection of their systems.
For Construction Grant recipients, the County santarian will insure
proper system operation and maintenance. At a minimum this will be
accomplished through bi-annual sanitary surveys to determine system per-
formance, bi-annual well-water sampling, and homeowners providing proof every
three years that the system is being properly maintained. This is done by
providing pumping records. The County sanitarian provides the bi-annual
sanitary surveys and well-water sampling for the 12 homes.
Homeowners participating in the Construction Grants program agreed to
allow the County Health Department access to inspect their systems and sample
their private wells. This agreement was made in writing and attached to the
deed for the property. It shall run with the land and be in effect for all
future homeowners. The homeowners also agreed to pay annual user charges for
the additional services provided by the health department. These charges are
assessed at the time that the services are performed. The charges are for the
sanitary survey, well-water sampling, and a small administrative fee for
administering the Construction Grants program. The bi-annual costs for these
services were $25, based on $12 for the sanitary survey, $10 for the well-
water analysis and $3 for administrative services.
c. Compulsory Community Management
Littleton, with its higher system density, greater population at risk,
identified system failures, and impacted groundwater, has a greater community
interest in the regulation of individual systems. This will be reflected in a
higher level of management than under the first two management models.
Unlike the voluntary program, all homeowners with individual systems
within the corporate limits are required to participate in a community manage-
ment program. The homeowners retain ownership and liability for their on-site
systems, but the community assumes greater responsibility for insuring that
they are properly maintained and operated.
The town of Littleton entered into a working agreement with the County
Health Department to have the County sanitarian provide additional services
within the community. The community reimburses the county for these addi-
tional services through user charges collected from the homeowners.
VI-I-9
-------
Services provided by the County Health Department will include: bi-
annual sanitary surveys to determine system condition and performance; bi-
annual sampling of well-water supplies; administration of the Construction
Grants program to distribute funds to homeowners whose systems qualify; educa-
tional and training programs to educate the public, contractors and other
parties concerning on-site wastewater disposal; inspection of new or rehabi-
lated systems, and response to complaints concerning on-site disposal. Home-
owners needing individual systems repairs will be notified by the County
sanitarian.
The County sanitarian provides most of these services. However, to
assist the sanitarian, the County hired a summer employee to perform routine
sanitary surveying and water sampling. The community also provided the ser-
vices of its wastewater treatment plant operator to assist in the performance
of surveys and sampling. The state health department performs analysis on the
water samples.
The County Health Department will allow the use of alternative on-site
systems, as well as the continued use of existing on-site systems that do not
conform to present codes but are operating properly. Existing non-conforming
systems will be allowed continued use, although restrictions are sometimes
placed on their usage. Off-site alternatives have not yet been required.
Restrictions that have been applied to use variances are limitations on build-
ing occupancy, and the requirement that certain flow reduction devices be
utilized.
Private contractors and system designers continue to provide services to
individual homeowners for the installation and repair of their individual
systems.
Homeowners within the management district are required to allow the
County Health Department access to their individual systems for inspection and
private water supply for sampling. In return, homeowners whose systems quali-
fy may participate in the Construction Grants program. All homeowners are
required to pay annual user charges to cover the cost of additional services
provided by the County Health Department. These services include sanitary
surveys, well water sampling, and analysis and Construction Grants administra-
tion. Costs for providing these additional services to Littleton will be
averaged among all residents with individual systems and will be assessed
yearly by the County Health Department.
d. Comprehensive Water Quality Management
The Town of Milton not only has an interest in the individual systems
surrounding Clear Lake, but it has an interest also in all sources of pollu-
tion affecting the lake. Since Clear Lake is the area's water supply and a
major recreational resource, the town and county decided to strictly regulate
individual systems, enact regulations, and perform other duties to insure that
the water quality of the lake would be protected.
Because of the number of system failures, sensitivity of Clear Lake to
pollution, community interests in the preservation of Clear Lake, and the fact
that off-site facilities are required to serve sections of the area surround-
ing Clear Lake, the community assumed liability for the individual on-site and
VI-I-10
-------
small cluster systems within Milton. The acceptance of community liability
reduced the likelihood of environmental impacts caused by improperly perform-
ing systems.
Individual homeowners retained ownership of their on-site systems and
responsibility for initial system installation. Existing systems needed to be
upgraded before the county would accept responsibility for operation, main-
tenance and necessary repairs. Costs for the upgrading of eligible individual
systems were paid in part by Construction Grants funds.
Due LO community acceptance of liability, the type of wastewater facili-
ties, sensitivity of Clear Lake to pollution, and community interests in
pollution control, a number of needed services were identified. These ser-
vices included: permits for new and rehabilatated systems; service contracts
for systems maintenance; procedural acceptance of system liability; coordina-
tion of all agencies involved in on-site systems (i.e., state health depart-
ment, County Health Department, private contractors); training and educational
programs for on-site disposal and other pollution problems affecting Clear
Lake; plan review, soils investigations, and inspection of new installations;
routine annual inspections of on-site systems; flow reduction device utiliza-
tion; extensive annual water quality monitoring; and, area land use planning
and coordination.
The community entered into an agreement with the County Health Department
to perform many of these services. As a result the County Health Department
needs to expand its expertise and obtain other governmental and private
assistance. The health department will hire college students for the summer
to perform routine system inspection and well and surface water sampling.
Water analysis will be performed by the lab at the town wastewater treatment
plant.
The community also entered into a contract with a private contractor to
provide routine system pumping every three years and to provide necessary
repairs as indicated by the sanitary survey. The County Health Department and
community will be assisted by the State Health Department in preparing train-
ing and educational programs. The local Soil Conservation Service Office will
provide soil investijation services free of charge and the community will
coordinate with state and Federal agencies on pollution control activities,
including non-point pollution control.
The town established a Sanitary Review Board comprised of citizens of
Milford, and the County sanitarian. The Board maintains control over the
community management program, including hiring additional personnel, applying
for and distributing Construction Grants monies, entering into contracts with
private contractors, and setting and assessing user charges.
The County Health Department will allow the use of alternative systems
and existing non-conforming systems, as long as the systems continue to per-
form adequately. Use variances have been granted to existing non-conforming
systems to allow continued use, although in some cases restrictions were
placed on this usage.
VI-I-11
-------
The community pays for the additional services provided by the County
Health Department by assessing user charges from all residents served by
on-site systems. These charges are averaged among all on-site system users
regardless of any specialized services received. The user charge system was
enacted by town ordinance and is assessed yearly as part of each developed
property's tax bill.
e. Combined Management Approach
The four management models previously presented illustrate how different
areas of a County may have different wastewater needs and how different
management programs may be developed to meet these needs. However, in a small
County like Milford, a single management agency such as the County Health
Department could be utilized to manage the entire range of management pro-
grams. This approach is discussed in this section
In Milford County, a County Sanitary Commission has been formed to regu-
late all wastewater facilities, including conventional centralized wastewater
facilities. This Commission, made up of five County citizens, the County
engineer and County sanitarian, is responsibile for insuring that the waste-
water needs of the entire County are met. The Commission identified the
specific management approaches that would be needed for each section of the
County, based on both the projected types of wastewater facilities and com-
munity interests in regulating private systems.
The County sanitarian administers and provides services to the com-
munities as discussed under each management model. Summer employees hired by
the County sanitarian assist in sanitary surveys, well water sampling and
sampling of Clear Lake. The lab personnel at the Milton treatment plant
provide laboratory analysis for all water samples within the county as well as
monitor the treatment plant's effluent. The Commission will enter into con-
tracts with private contractors to provide necessary maintenance and repair to
the cluster system and to all on-site systems in Milton. The state Health
Department and Commission will provide training programs throughout the County
on proper wastewater disposal and pollution control abatement.
The County Sanitary Commission will administer the Construction Grants
program and distribute funds to individual system owners in the County who
qualify for assistance. Individual system owners in Crossville and in the
rural areas would be eligible for Construction Grants assistance if they were
willing to allow the County sanitarian to insure that the systems were pro-
perly operated and maintained.
The Commission will assess charges to Milton and Littleton communities
based on the proportionate share of services these communities receive. The
communities will obtain the monies to pay for the County services through
annual user charges to their residents. Residents in the unincorporated areas
of the County would be charged proportionately by the Commission according to
the services received from the County Health Department.
VI-I-12
-------
CHAPTER VII
VARIANCES
-------
A. ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC JUSTIFICATIONS FOR VARIANCES
On-site wastewater treatment methods have historically been regarded as
temporary. This outlook has resulted largely from the concept that on-site
treatment methods were ineffective in comparison to conventional collection
and treatment systems. This concept has been perpetuated by language in
regulations dealing with on-site wastewater disposal. The codes of all six
states in U.S. EPA Region V require that public sewerage be given preference
over on-site treatment. The following excerpt from the Indiana State Board of
Health Bulletin S.E. 8 (Indiana State Board of Health, 1978) illustrates
typical regulatory language:
...The fact that many homes use septic tank sewage disposal systems does
not mean that this is the best method of sewage disposal. Wherever
possible, the use of municipal sewers and sewage treatment facilities
should be given preference over individual sewage disposal systems.
This same distrust of on-site wastewater system effectiveness has led to
regulations requiring the upgrading of on-site systems that do not conform to
current sanitary regulations. For example, under Minnesota Shoreland Regula-
tions CONS 75(c): "...counties shall provide for the gradual elimination of
sanitary facilities inconsistent with CONS 72(b)(2), (b)(3), and (b)(5) over a
period of time not to exceed five (5) years..." (Minnesota DNR, 1971). This
provision does not require upgrading of existing systems that are functioning
properly but that do not meet the setback requirement from the waterline, but
it does require all other code provisions to be met.
The mere existence of non-conforming systems has frequently been used as
the major reason for extending centralized service into an area. In many
cases, this argument is made whether or not the public health or environmental
problems associated with these systems have been documented in those areas.
This reasoning is well illustrated in the following dialogue from a public
hearing held December A, 1975, to discuss the facilities plan for Nettle Lake,
Ohio (Floyd G. Brown and Associates Limited, 1976). In the facilities plan,
conventional sewerage had been recommended for the entire lakeshore area. The
parties involved in the exchange were a lakeshore resident and a senior staff
member of the state's environmental protection agency wastewater group. The
exchange was as follows:
RESIDENT: I wasn't at the first meeting, so there are a couple of things
I don't know. First thing—has there been a pollution or contamination
problem at the lake?
STATE EPA STAFFER: If you mean have we taken samples and analyzed them
to see if there was pollution problems is that what you are referring to?
RESIDENT: I am asking if there is a contamination or pollution problem
in our systems and the lake. And how you get to that, I don't care.
STATE EPA STAFFER: Well, I'm sure that we feel there is one or we
wouldn't have put you on the list.
RESIDENT: But did you take the tests?
VII-A-1
-------
STATE EPA STAFFER: We did not take any tests.
RESIDENT: Do you anticipate to?
STATE EPA STAFFER: No, we don't anticipate to unless there is a demand
to do it. The type of systems that are existing here—particularly maybe
not the newer ones that were installed according to what the Health
Department regulations--but the older ones, the septic tanks, maybe they
have a leach bed, maybe they don't. We just feel there is probably no
place for them to go [but] into the lake. Either over the surface of the
ground and if not there, through the ground. So it is a situation where
we have had many areas like this, not only Nettle Lake, but other areas
that this does exist, and this is one of the things we looked at when we
were writing up the priority list putting the entities on. We were told
by the Federal government to put entities on that we felt either had
problems or would have problems. It was just a matter of judgment.
RESIDENT: Okay.
A 1976 survey by the U.S. General Accounting Office (U.S. General
Accounting Office, 1978) of 258 facilities plans indicated that, with few
exceptions, conventional collection and central treatment facilities were
recommended to replace existing on-site systems. Alternatives to conventional
sewering, such as the upgrading of existing on-site systems or a combination
of upgrading and limited sewering, were rarely considered to be solutions to a
particular community's water quality problems. In fact, only one community of
the 258, recommended repair of existing systems not included in the initial
sewer service area. The other communities did not recommend upgrading of
on-site systems in non-sewer areas, presumably because the eventual failing of
these systems would justify the future extension of sewer service. (U.S.
General Accounting Office, 1978.)
A major reason for the belief that on-site systems are inherently poor
methods of wastewater disposal is the lack of accurate historical data con-
cerning the performance of on-site systems and the public health and envi-
ronmental problems associated with their use. As data become more available
from recent research, attitudes toward the continued use of on-site systems
are changing. Data developed during the study of Alternative Waste Treatment
Systems for the Seven Rural Lake Projects indicated that many non-conforming
systems, may operate satisfactorily and cause no adverse impacts. In these
seven studies, although up to 90% of the systems were non-conforming, failure
rates represented by system backups, surface ponding, elevated nitrate and
coliform levels in wells ranged from a low of 8% to a high of 27% (Peters and
Krause, 1979). Many of the problems identified were the result of poor system
maintenance and could be corrected with minimal cost and effort. In addition,
analyses were performed of effluent plumes entering the lakes from groundwater
sources. These analyses indicated that, even when the drainfield or dry
wells discharged directly to the groundwater, water quality standards were
met at the shoreline in nearly all cases, with bacteriological and nutrient
levels comparable to those found in the center of the lake. The studies
indicated that the natural assimilative capacity of soil/groundwater/surface
water systems is greater than had previously been expected, and that actual
public health and water quality problems caused by on-site systems were not as
extensive as non-conformance with sanitary codes might indicate in these
communities.
VII-A-2
-------
In an Environmental and Community Study of the Chippewa Lake Area in
Michigan, the Environmental Management Study Center of Ferris State College
(Ferris State College, 1979) found that although 78% of the homes were served
by on-site systems more than five years old, only 13% reported problems with
their systems. Of the 13% with reported problems, 8% reported odors emanating
from their systems. No data were presented to indicate whether the systems
conformed to sanitary regulations. It was also found that no correlation
could be definitely established between the amount of weed growth and the
distance of sewage systems to the lake.
Septic system longevity studies have also recently shown that the useful
life of on-site systems may be much longer than formerly believed. A Fairfax
County, Virginia, Health Department analysis of septic system survival between
1952 and 1972 showed that, of 230 systems installed in 1952, 94% were still
functioning 20 years later. Of the 1,500 systems installed since 1966, no
failures had occurred by 1971 (U.S. General Accounting Office, 1978).
An analysis of septic system longevity was also performed in Glastonbury,
Connecticut, in 1973 (Hill and Frink, 1980). In this study, the survival
rates of 2,845 septic systems were evaluated, resulting in a total system
population half-life of 27 years. Half-life is defined as the number of years
required for the cumulative failure of 50% of the systems. Evaluation of
system longevity was updated in 1978 with an analysis of 3,156 septic systems
(Hill and Frink, 1980). This second evaluation indicated that the half-life
of the systems had increased to 36 years. This increase was attributed to
improvements in on-site system design regulations.
All of these study results point to the viability of existing on-site
systems, including those that may be in non-conformance with existing code
requirements. In any small waste flows district having existing on-site
systems, it is likely that many systems do not conform to current regulatory
standards for site conditions, system design, or distances from wells or sur-
face waters. For some of these systems, upgrading to code may be done quite
easily and inexpensively—for instance, systems with undersized septic tanks.
In many situations, however, upgrading to code conformance may be infeasible
or impractical because of site limitations and/or costs. From an economic
viewpoint, it would clearly be desirable to continue using a system for its
full useful life, with usefulness measured by malfunctions of public health
concerns or adverse water quality impacts, rather than by the system's non-
conformity to regulations. The results presented, particularly from the Seven
Rural Lake EIS's, indicate that repair and renovation of existing systems,
including non-conforming systems, should only be required when the need is
clearly identified in terms of public health, water quality impacts, and
discharge requirements. The need for system repairs and renovations is best
determined by conduct of resident surveys, on-site system inspections, and
inspections of on-site wells (that is, sanitary surveys).
Evaluating the performance of existing systems by using sanitary surveys
will result in classifying systems into four main categories. These cate-
gories are:
1. Existing systems, either conforming or non-conforming, which have
definite failures. These failures may be evidenced by surface pond-
ing of effluent, backup of sewage into residences, or by documented
contamination of ground or surface water.
VII-A-3
-------
2. Conforming systems which give no evidence of system failures.
3. Non-conforming systems with no evidence of immediate problems but
which may be considered as having a proven potential for problems.
Justification of this expectation must rely on analysis of the causes
for failure of substantially similar systems in the community.
Similarity will be judged on information for system usage (number of
occupants, type of sanitary appliances), system, system design and
age, and verified site limitations (for example, permeability, depth
to groundwater or bedrock, slope, surface drainage).
4. Non-conforming systems with no evidence of immediate problems but
which may be considered as having a slight potential for problems.
These may be systems with undersized septic tanks or absorption
fields or systems that do not conform to the setback requirements
from wells or surface water, depth to bedrock and groundwater and
similar non-conformities. Comparison with existing similar systems
indicates that such systems have generally performed satisfactorily
without excessive failures.
After the performance of the systems has been classified, there are
several alternative ways that the disposition of the systems may be handled.
Obviously, for those systems that are conforming and are not exhibiting any
signs of failure, no action will need be taken. However, in the other three
classifications, there are several types of action that may be taken. For
those systems with existing problems, there are three main alternatives for
action:
1. If the system is irreparable on-site, then the wastewater must be
treated off-site by central collection systems, holding tanks, and
other alternatives,
2. The system can be upgraded on-site with a conforming system, or
3. The system can be upgraded on-site or off-site, but only with use of
non-conforming technology.
For systems that are not conforming and have either a proven or slight
potential for problems, there are several alternatives:
1. The system could be up-graded on-site with a conforming system,
2. The system could be replaced by an approved off-site system,
3. The system could be upgraded or replaced on-site or off-site with the
use of non-conforming technology,
4. Water consumption and/or building usage may be restricted; with no
change of the system, or
5. No action may be taken.
The upgrading of existing systems by the use of non-conforming technology
will require the issuance of a variance by the governing agency. All of the
state regulations in U.S. EPA Region V currently allow variances for the new
VII-A-4
-------
construction of non-conforming on-site systems where practical and physical
constraints make literal compliance with the regulations impractical or
infeasible. Presumably, variances of this type could also be granted for the
upgrading of existing systems by use of non-conforming technology. This type
of variance is considered a "construction variance" since it allows construc-
tion that is non-conforming to the regulations.
Two alternatives, the restriction of water consumption and/or building
usage and the no-action alternative, may necessitate the granting of a dif-
ferent type of variance. Generally, although not always, (for example,
Minnesota), non-conforming systems are considered "grandfathered" systems, and
their use is allowed to continue until problems arise that necessitate cor-
rection. This correction is then normally required to bring the system into
conformance, or if this is not possible, a construction variance may be re-
quired. In most cases, non-conforming systems are not inspected, and the
governing body may have little or no knowledge of system design or construc-
tion and assumes no liability for system performance. The attitude of most
governing bodies toward non-conforming systems may be described as "what we
don't know can't be our responsibility." Most governing bodies would probably
prefer to maintain this position. Problems arise, however, when these non-
conforming systems are inspected during a sanitary survey. The governing body
then becomes cognizant of the non-conforming system, and their liability in
terms of system performance may change. For example, if the governing body
chose either of the two alternatives mentioned above, basically allowing the
continued use of the non-conforming system with no structural changes, a court
may rule upon subsequent system failure that the governing body was negligent
in not requiring these systems to be upgraded since they were cognizant of the
non-conformity and potential for problems. Inspection of the non-conforming
systems and a subsequent decision not to require upgrading may be considered
tantamount to permitting the systems. To prevent this type of liability
problem, a second type of variance termed a "usage variance" could be con-
sidered.
A usage variance would be granted to those systems that are considered to
have additional useful life, and that are not causing (or have only a slight
potential for causing) public health or water quality problems. A usage vari-
ance would allow the continued use of non-conforming systems, although re-
strictions on this usage may be applied. By issuance of a usage variance, the
governing body would be legally recognizing that a non-conforming system
exists. At the same time, the governing body would notify the system owner of
the system's non-conformity, measures that can prolong the life of the system,
and of the owner's liability in case of system failure. This process would
allow a clear record between the governing body, system owner, and other
interested parties concerning the continued use of the system and the
liability in case of system failure. With appropriate legislation granting
the governing body the power to grant such variances, and with documentation
of the justification for granting each variance, the governing body would be
considered as acting within their discretion in decisions to grant such
variances. The governing body would not be liable for legal action in the
case of subsequent system failure.
The granting of construction or usage variances may also be made condi-
tional upon satisfactory system performance, or upon the conformance of usage
restrictions. A conditional variance may require periodic monitoring of
VII-A-5
-------
system performance and, where unsatisfactory performance is found, the
variance could be revoked and upgrading or abandonment may be required. A
conditional variance may be required to be renewed each year, with an annual
renewal fee covering the cost of system inspection. Restrictions placed on
the granting of variance could require that water conservation measures be
enacted in the home and/or that the use of the structure be limited to a
certain occupancy or number of bedrooms. The use of conditional variances and
placement of restrictions on the granting of variances should aid in miti-
gating potential legal problems arising from the granting of variances and the
allowance of non-conforming systems.
Decisions to grant all variances should be on a well-documented, case-
by-case basis. Construction variances should be restricted to those situa-
tions in which compliance with regulations is impractical or infeasible and in
which the proposed construction can be reasonably expected, on the basis of
data concerning similar systems, soil conditions, and other information, to
perform adequately and cause no adverse impacts. The granting of usage
variances should be limited to situations in which site-specific performance
data can be obtained concerning the acceptability of existing system per-
formance. This performance data may require monitoring of ground and surface
water quality at the site and soil sampling in the absorption field to deter-
mine field performance. Costs for the development of these data may be borne
by the homeowner as part of a non-refundable fee for a usage variance.
The type of variances granted should be directly related to the financial
resources and staff expertise available to the governing body. Where finan-
cial resources are sufficient to allow performance monitoring and retention of
experienced personnel to minimize errors in the granting of variances, the
governing body may be more liberal in the types of variances allowed. In
recognition of the greater risk involved in granting liberal variances, suf-
ficient financial resources to repair systems where variances have been
granted would also be desirable. Where financial resources and experienced
staff are limited, then more conservative variance guidelines may be
established. Although local costs may be incurred when corrections must be
made to systems previously granted variances, these are expected to be sub-
stantially less than the costs involved in making unnecessary system repairs
for code conformance or the cost of total abandonment of useful systems if no
variances are allowed. This concept will be further explored in Section B of
this chapter.
Current U.S. EPA construction grant policy reflected in PRM 78-9
encourages the continued use of existing on-site systems. PRM 78-9 states
that collector sewer systems will be funded "...only when the system in use
(e.g. septic tanks or raw discharges from homes) for disposal of wastes from
the existing population are creating a public health problem, contaminating
groundwater, or violating the point source discharge requirements of the Act
(U.S. EPA, 1978a)." However, since none of the states currently provide for
usage variances for the continued use of adequately performing but non-
conforming systems, they may have difficulty in complying with this policy and
the requirements of 40 CFR Subpart E, Section 35.9l8-l(f) of the construction
grants regulations (U.S. EPA, 1978b). This regulation requires that an appli-
cant seeking funds for individual systems "certify before Step 2 grant award
that the project will be constructed...to meet local, state and Federal
requirements including those protecting present and potential underground
VII-A-6
-------
potable water sources." To comply with U.S. EPA policy and construction
grants regulations for funding, and to avoid uncertainties in liability,
states and localities should consider modifying their regulations to allow the
granting of usage variances in specific situations, as justified by per-
formance data. Because it should be U.S. EPA's policy in the awarding of
construction grant funds to ensure compliance with appropriate governing
regulations, changes in the language of 35.918(f) are not recommended.
With regard to construction variances, no changes in legislation or
regulations are needed. Sections allowing variances are broadly stated and
generally allow Health Officers considerable latitude in selecting appropriate
designs. What is needed is not changed codes but a higher level of skill and
confidence on the part of field personnel in allowing or denying variances.
The keys here are training and information, not law.
VII-A-7
-------
REFERENCES
Ferris State College. 1979. Environmental and community study, Chippewa Lake
area, Mecosta County, Michigan. Environmental Management Study Center,
Big Rapids MI.
Floyd G. Brown and Associates, Ltd. 1976. Facilities plan, Nettle Lake area,
Williams County, Ohio. Marian OH.
Hill, D. E. and C. R. Frink. 1980. Septic system longevity increased by
improved design. J. Water Pollution Control Fed. 52(8) : 2199-2203.
Indiana State Board of Health. 1978. Septic tank-absorption field sewage
disposal systems for one or two family dwellings. Bulletin S.E.8.
Indianapolis IN.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 1971. Elements and explanations
of the shoreland rules and regulations. Supplementary Report No. 2. St.
Paul MN.
Peters, G. 0., Jr., and A. E. Krause. 1979. Decentralized approaches to
rural lake wastewater planning - seven case studies. Paper presented at
the National Sanitation Foundation and U.S. EPA's Sixth National
Conference on Individual On-Site Wastewater Systems, Ann Arbor MI. 29-31
October 1979.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1978a. Construction grants program
requirements memorandum 78-9, 3 March 1978.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1978b. Grants for construction of
treatment works - Clean Water Act (40 CFR 35 Part E): Rules and
regulations. 43 FR 44022, 27 September 1978.
U.S. General Accounting Office. 1978. Community-managed septic systems: A
viable alternative to sewage treatment plants. CED-78-168. Washington
DC.
VII-A-8
-------
B. EFFECTS OF VARIANCE PROCEDURES ON AGENCY DESIGN, MANPOWER
AND COST
One of the objections against variance procedures is the additional costs
for design, monitoring and administration. Since systems requiring variances
may require more detailed site analysis, more intensive monitoring and addi-
tional administrative time, it is reasonable to expect costs for these func-
tions to increase. However, because of construction measures that may be
avoided, the net costs to individual homeowners may be lower.
In order to investigate this hypothesis, four scenarios have been devel-
oped, each incorporating site conditions, system performance and degree of
system conformance with codes that may be found in Region V.
For each scenario, two structural options were developed: one which
brings all systems into compliance with codes; and one which corrects failures
with use of construction or use variances where necessary. For cost esti-
mates, 100 systems were included in each option. The four different scenarios
and corrective measures for each option are shown in Table VII-B-1.
Cost data developed for the cost variability study, Chapter IV-A, was
utilized to estimate the capital costs, salvage values, and operation and
maintenance costs for each option. The site analysis costs developed for the
Cost Variability study were utilized for the variance option.
This site analysis included a sanitary survey, well sampling septic tank
inspection, soil sampling, header and drainfield excavation, well water meter
installations, shallow groundwater sampling, engineering design for on-site
alternatives, supervision, documentation, and clerical support. For the
systems in the code compliance option, a less extensive site analysis was
costed. This site analysis included only a sanitary survey, septic tank
inspection, header and drainfield excavation, reduced level of engineering
design for on-site alternatives and reduced levels of supervision, documenta-
tion and clerical support.
In order to estimate increased monitoring and administrative costs re-
quired for the variance option, assumptions were made concerning the frequency
of well water sampling, sanitary surveying and shallow groundwater sampling
under each option. With non-standard systems in the variance option, it was
assumed that each of these activities would be performed yearly. The cost of
these services would be $37/year per residence, based on $12/year for sanitary
surveys, $10/year for well water analysis, and $15/year for shallow ground-
water analysis. For standard systems, well waters would be sampled every five
years, sanitary surveys performed every three years and shallow groundwater
surveys would not be performed on a routine basis. The annual cost would be
$6.
The time required for a sanitarian to administer the variance option was
assumed to be 50 percent greater than the time required for the code com-
pliance option. Assuming that a sanitarian could administer 1500 standard
systems, he could also administer 1000 non-standard systems. Assuming a sani-
tarian earns $25,000/year, his time would cost $17/year for standard systems
and $25/year for non-standard systems. Clerical time required for standard
and non-standard systems was not considered to change appreciably and was
VII-B-1
-------
Q
PH
3
D
£^
5*
EH
CO
55
O
p
§
Q
PH
3
O
n
H
fjj
CH
Pi
o
C_>
p
w
CO
o
PH
O
PS
e
|g
CO
55 CO
O £5
n 0
H rH
n H
55 O
O
O fTl
£_j
O 55
rH 1— 1
H t-3
CO PH
rH S
X 0
w u
1 — 1
1
PH
1
1 — 1
rH
>
M
!__}
PQ
<3^
H
CU
u d
d o
CO -H
•H 4-1
r4 ft
CO O
£>
rio
CD
S-l
• H
d
cu
Pi
>
jj
•H
E
C "
i
d
o
55
O
•H
CO
d
D
u
CO
j-J *O ""O
d rH 0)
0) 0) PS
e -H
4-> 4-1 3
CO d 0
CD -H r— 1
(-1 CO P"H
H SH
P '
oi d
O 3 -H
CNCD S
W d
3-8
3-85-80
LO LO
co
co
H
CO
3
CD
d
S-8
1 1
d
o
•H
4-1
CO
O
O
rH
^^_
en
rH
•H
O
'O
o
o
60
5-8
O
i — t
5-8
LO
rH
rH
4-> CO
d <
CD CO
E --. 13-13
CD H rH 13 1)
U CO tn CD CD PS
co 13 -H PS
r—i G '•W ^
PH d d 3 0
O -H O rH
3 S <3 •— i P=H
O M tti
rH 13 Q
rH CD • d
co en 3 X -r-t
J3 O CD co S
CO P 55 S
3-8
5-8 5-83-80-80
LO LO LO LO rH
CO
en tn CD
H T3 M PS
CO d d
d co •
T3 o H 3
CD S 0
N 60 rH
-H 13 d PH
en CD -H
M en *O •
CD O rH X
> P O CO
o o w s
O^ LO O*^ O*^
LO rH LO LO
(r.
P— i
r-S
O
ffi u
s^
•* 03
W i— 1
i — 1
•H O
O -P
w
QJ
'O W
0 0
O rH
60 U
5-8
LO
i — I
3-8
LO
H CNX d
0) CD O CO -H
55 > CsE S
o"^ o^ o^
O 5-2 s-S O O
CO
O co
d o W S
5-8 5-8 5~8 5-8
LO LO O O
i — t i — 1 rH rH
O
o CD
4-1 -M
CO
. •* i — |
^
S-J O
CD 4-1
ft
CD
3 en
O O
rH i-H
en u
s-8
O
CN
Q-8
O
v^-
CO
en
13
T3 0)
CD PQ • •
tn 13 13
tn O • CD CD
13 P 4-> PS PS
d rH
d 13 < 3 3
O CD O O
S N --rH rH
• H en PH PH
TO tn rO
CD SH d • •
tn CD d d x
o > o -H co
P 0 S S S
3-8 3-8 5-8 3-8
LO O LO O
^
CD
4_>
CD
E iH
CO CU
•H 4-1
-O en
d
Z rH
3
o
rH
r-l
CO
XI
cn ^
o
- o
H 14
3 13
O CD
p~] ^O
5-8
LO
CN
5-8
O
r-~.
^>
g
CD
4_>
en
£**
cn
d
o
•H
4-1
ft
^-t
0
tn
CO
rH
•H
O
en
0) -
rH ^
^ G
CO CO
4-> •(->
SH U
CD -H
•U 4-1
CO p<
3 CD
en
13
d 13
d (-I
O CO
SH 13
60 d
CO
J3 4-1
60 CO
•H
X i
1 CO
<£
•• H CO
§ 0 H"
W X co
o
PJ
I-J
VII-B-2
-------
costed at $8/year. Total monitoring and administrative costs for standard
systems were, therefore, costed at $31 versus $70 for non-standard systems
based on these data and assumptions. Monitoring costs for standard systems
were rounded to $30 for cost estimates.
Since non-standard systems may require more frequent upgrading or re-
placement than standard systems, replacement costs were also calculated under
each scenario. For non-standard systems a failure rate of 1.5% per year was
utilized while for standard systems a 0.5% per year rate was used. Costs for
replacement were determined from the average cost per upgrade under the stand-
ard and non-standard compliance options for each scenario.
Tables VII-B-2 through VII-B-5 indicate the present worth costs for code
compliance versus variance options for each of the four scenarios. For each
scenario, the total present worth cost for the variance option is less than
that for the code compliance option. From these estimates it is concluded
that the increased costs associated with site analysis, increased monitoring,
and more frequent replacement for non-standard systems, do not offset the
higher capital costs associated with standard systems. The difference between
present worth costs for code compliance versus variance options increases as
the difference between failure rates and non-compliance rates increases. The
greatest difference in present worth is shown where the code compliance option
is off-site treatment. The off-site facility chosen (small diameter sewers
and cluster system) is probably the cheapest off-site remedy for this number
and density of residences. Therefore, even with the high construction costs
of the variance option for scenario 4, the present worth is approximately 20
percent less costly than the cheapest off-site alternative.
The difference in present worths for scenario 1 is negligible. In this
scenario (low percentages of system failure and non-conformance), it is just
as cost-effective to require code compliance as it is to incur the greater
responsibilities associated with the variance option.
As shown in this section, the use of variances and non-standard systems
may lower overall costs to the community, particularly where a large number of
systems may require upgrading or off-site treatment to comply with codes. To
obtain this lower overall cost, the management agency may be accepting a
higher risk of system failure associated with non-standard systems. When this
higher level of risk is allowed by the management agency, it may also elect to
assume liability for system repairs. Assumption of liability will affect
decisions on user charge systems and other components of the management pro-
gram. In such a manner, decisions to allow variances may have an effect on
the design of the management program.
VII-B-3
-------
(^1
w
XH
CO
1— 1
0
'O
o
00
C
rH
o
1
w
CJ
CO
OS
0
W
CJ
1— 1
cu
0
§
Q
52
H
w
SE
o
2,
w
^
5
H
1
CO
E-H
CO
0
CJ
g
OS
g
1
CO
S
PJ
.
CM
1
CO
1
H
9
CO
£^
4J
re o>
4J tO
O 01
l£
to
4-1
to
0
CJ
§
4J
to
CO
OJ
PH
4J
i~l B
re OJ
4J CO
O OJ
H w
O4
I4_4
4J O 1-4
B re
0) J3 3
to 4J B
DUG
14 O <
04 2
to
4J
M
O
CJ
re
3
E
B
<4-l
4J O OJ
B 00
oi js re
tO 4-> >
OJ IH r-H
u O re
P* 3 co
01
00
re
CO
V4H
4-1 O f-4
Ol JB 4-1
10 4-J -H
OJ IX C*4
(H o re
OH S CJ
14H
4J O
B 01
OJ JS 4J
tO 4-1 -H
01 U CO
l-l O
Pi 3
x:
i^
o
>.
4J
4J
B
re
o*
4J
11
O
to
4J
to
O
CJ
4J
E
E
U
re
i-H
O,
ot
C£
00
B
'n
O
•H
B
O
X
OJ
3
T-H
re
0)
3
rH
CO
to
o
CJ
to
•H
10
T-H
re
B
E
OJ
4J
M
in in o
PH O\ •«< O
CO so O OO
•^ CO OO ••
in f^ CM •-"
l-H V>
1
in inlo OJ
-H colo *J
r-l tO
to
u
1 Ol
p.
CM so re
SO CO 4J 9
. o
CO H P-i
OJ
00
n
IH
CM CM OJ
OS O\ >
SO SO
l-H l-l
O 0
CO CO
o o
CM CM
00 1
CO
so r
in
CM 1
CO
m in
r- 1 11
CO
co a
CO CO
apoo
o m o m o
m r— CM so — i oo
o os in CM co in
. . . . CM
in so co m "
n O CM n
i
E
in in o in m oj
1-1 C^l^l 4J
— to
to
u
1 01
Oi
o in CM r- I-H
O CO O 4-> ^
. . .0
i CO i-i H P-i
o>
00
o so o r- re
O CO U
CM 1— 01
o m o in
CM CM
0 O 1 O
r»- co
00 00
CM CM
O CO CO 1
r-
CM
On O 1
CO CO
O
O CM O 1
n so so
O n
n CM
I O I O
0 0
CO CO
4J
B
OJ *
e oa
4J TJ rH 0
a -H bn -H
01 OJ 4J
IH -H E CJ
H UH 3 3
B S "O
CMH «H OJ £3
O a e K K
CMM -H Z
X Q = CO
3°TOTJ°A
g
OJ
CO
to OJ
•o
e re
O b
•H 00
4J 0,
O 00
to B
J3 -rf
•H
-H 3
•H CT
o oj
« IH
I? 4J
.
co co
II u
co
*"^ PS
co co
g
z
VII-B-4
-------
,_v
w
ee
o
•£J
o
00
CJN
t-H
d
CM
O
rH
Z
M
o
w
O
UH
Id
O
z
OH
§
CJ
3
Q
s
H
CO
z
o
•
>
Q
•3*
g
H
CO
OS
O
CO
H
CO
8
g
OS
§
g
W
CO
p !
en
i
pa
i
t-H
I-H
U
CO
u
to
o
CJ
E
01
4J
to
u
IH
01
CH
i-H d
R] 01
4-1 U
H IH
OH
1 i
i-H B
4J 10
O 01
H IH
CH
UH
4J O rH
d IS
01 £ 3
10 4J B
U J> <
to
M
O
01 IH i-H
u o n
BH S CO
00
CO
i-H
CO
CO
4J O rH
01 J3 4J
tQ 4-1 *H
U O R!
IH ^ CJ
UH
4-1 O
B 01
01 .e 4J
tfl 4-1 -rl
H O
OH S
4=
*H
O
^
4J
4J
E
n
3
O1
.C
4J
O
to
to
o
u
d
e
u
W
D.
0>
00
d
•iH
O
•H
E
O
3-
3
o
3
(Q
CJ
i— 1
n
CA
4J>
O
O
CO
-H
U
r-f
c
E
i— i
in o o o o NO
m oo o CM o m **
r** *>tf' ON OO *>J CO ""^
O vD -d" r* ** -a" "^
CO ON CO f** *tf CM
CM o i
-3- ON m
CM >£) O O I
m m co
CM CM
^ CM o co i
ON NO r^- in
m m i-1 *-•
m in m i m
ON ON ON ON
1
*^ ta
H to Ji S
CO 13 B O B
C n >-H o
•O 3 H (14 -H
01 O 4J
H s; oo £ u
•H B 3 3
M -o -H B t3
IH HI -0 -rt 01 3
> o o a S,
6 o ae s co
dmo
apoo
o in o O o in o
cnf-o CM cMcneo co
co I-H ^ oo in in r^ *-H
•. •> •. M « »> CM
CM en I-H co CM CM
I-H CM
1
g
inmin in omin 01
I-H OO *-H 4J
10
IH
1 0)
o.
\B in O •» CM i-" i-H
so *^ oo in in *J S
. . - - . o
^ ^ CO l-H I-H f"H CU
00
NO en vo '^ o vo KJ
CM f- CM CM O U
\O O\ VO CM 01
I-H i-H l-l *H . 3 rH IK -H fcu -H
•U E O 01 4J 4J
S-HUET4|U|O
i-H U S-, 01 'H -H 01 -rl 01 9
nuco to « x 02 BOSK
.C O IH <0 -rl Z
co a Q E r: co
aonefJBA
8
4J
CO
^N •
to oi
•a
d a
0 IH
•|H 00
fr3
O 00
to d
-O -H
n IH
•H
i-H 3
.H a1
O 01
ta h
-* 4J
d o
n d
jj
to
a, to
OI >>
CO CO
II II
CO
co to
B
o
z
VII-B-5
-------
^-^
CA
«
i— <
rH
O
t3
O
CO
r- <
C«
t— i
CO"
O
i— i
•2
Z
W
0!
O
U
U
^
M
rJ
EU
0
CJ
Q
§
H
,
Z
0
z
>
1
C5
§
H
W
os
o
H
OO
O
CJ
tc
H
OS
^
EH
Z
00
U
1
CQ
1
rH
W
E
w
CA
O
CJ
m
OJ
w
^
03
14
Oi
rH E
CQ O>
4J CA
H "
P-
4J
rH B
n OJ
O OJ
H r4
CM
U-l
4-> O rH
C co
0) .E 3
W 4J E
0) r4 E
W 0 <
D-, 3
w
4J
CA
o
CJ
<0
3
E
C
IH
4J O OJ
B 00
cu j= n
OJ )-J rH
t4 O CO
04 3 00
V
00
1 — 1
CD
4J O rH
E
W
*J
W
O
en
u
rH
TO
C
E
GJ
*J
moo o o in
t.N O O> "^ ^O ^H CO
r* oo * * o
QJ
ID lO CM i— ' iO B!
vj ^ CN
«j in
co r** ^H
\0 CM O O 1
r*^ in n
in o^ ^
i-t CN
CM -^ O CO 1
in o ^ir -a*
^^ CT^ r*~ in
mm'—" »— *
»-^ l-H 1— ( t-^
H [JL, -^
N 00 E U
CO -H C 3 .3
< W -H E ^
-^ a; r-i x o: PC
H > 0 W S5
CO O IX Z CO
aouBTTdmoo
a poo
o m o o o o m
^^ •*! o o m in co in
f. *. - ». -, r. CS
o >sD m in r*. in •*
** ro i-i CM «IN CM
i-i CM
£
omin o omm aj
I-H ^H t-" CO CM *J
i— I tA
CA
U
1 U
C^ ON O --I CM O r^
»-H oo »-( v^ in o w
o CM o in in *J 2c
•^ c
H OJ > 3
CO 6 O C 0 C
*O *J rH O i— t O
p— I •O (0 ta -H fi4 -H
O GJ OJ 4J 4J
•H N in E U E U
MH -H H 3 3 3 3
•H IM CMH QJ -H cl) "3
Q o x^r £ w
uoT,do
33UBf.tBA
E
01
4J
CA
r» '
CA 0)
•o
E n
o u
•H 00
4-J a
C. 3
O 00
CA E
-0 -H
CO 14
•H
-H 3
•H cr
O 01
K k-
^ 4-t
E O
n E
CA
tj g
•H 0)
4J 4J
a. CA
>
oo oo
II II
ll
H
g
VII-B-6
-------
^
CO
1-1
re
r-*
o
-o
o
oo
c
s»^
-*
o
OS
g
to
ce
0
(X
td
0
t— t
OH
r:
o
u
p
g
5g
H
u
Z
S
10
2
5
H
cn
oc
o
C/5
H
(72
O
X
H
OH
i
H
Z
b}
l/l
OH
in
r
j>
w
1-9
cc
^
H
4J
11 C
ID (U
H-> CO
t- t-
OH
to
W
o
(J
S
0.
K
w
tl
1-1 E
re tu
4J V.
O QJ
H *
OH
4J O r-<
B «
i B
n o <
OH &
4J
CO
o
1-1
3
B
.s
141
4J 0 4)
C CD
V A <*
10 4J >
1) 1* — 1
u o ,
•Fl
*J
re
3
Cf
r-
^4
O
3
to
to
o
o
B
E
tu
u
re
o.
tu
B
• H
0
• H
B
O
30
V
3
rH
TO
tu
s
w
CO
CO
o
CO
^">
1— 1
ro
G
E
QJ
oooo o ooooo
o o o o *"^ **^ in "^ oo in co oo
r*- o \o in *
co r^- oo c*i -^
CM r-H ^ V>
,
O O O|O E
o o o o QJ
CO
to
S-i
1 QJ
in ^ r~- f*H
r~» o ^c re •
co r** co 4J 7
» o
CM i-i H DH
(U
00
CM r* m re
CM »-» CO QJ
i i i
1 t O
CO
•X
•j- in CM
CM **
r- in CM
CM i-t
00 SO CM
1-1 CM r^.
«-T
o r*- NJ
•-H CM CO
^J \Q \£
CM -—
i i b
00
4-)
C
4-> C
« o
a c -H
Ul 0 W 4->
H -H w C
4J -H QJ
oj u E e
H i— t c re
t O l-i l-i
UH
O
9DUapoam°D
CM O *«• -3" 00 CO
ri i-H r-* CO J O O 1
in CM co
CO rH
rM~ ^
CM 00 CO O 1
^D ^ y^
u-r £ «
O O I 1 O
CO 00 CO
•o
QJ 1
CO i-f
« O 4J 3 S
T3 Q 4J O C O C
C ,__( rH O f-t O
3 T3 <; PM -H tM >H
C QJ *•••» OD 4J ^
§(-> S U
333
W QJH C XCC CPCft^
O > W *H S
a o s: z; w
aou^T^FA
•C
• o
4J
T3 4)
(J -H
00 i-H
OH
c
oo • re
C= IX
•H QJ 00
H > C
• H l-l -r-t
3 3 a,
a1 w E
QJ 3
U (J ft
•H
4-1 00^
O O C
c rH re
o •*->
E oo u
QJ O -H
4_) IH ^J
w -o ft
>-> >> QJ
W X W
II II It
ID
bJ
O
Z
VII-B-7
-------
CHAPTER VIII
IMPLEMENTATION
-------
A. RIGHTS OF ENTRY TO PRIVATE PROPERTY IN CONNECTION WITH
PUBLICLY MANAGED DECENTRALIZED WASTEWATER SYSTEMS
The Clean Water Act of 1977 authorized the U.S. EPA to make grants to
municipal governments for small-scale wastewater treatment facilities, such as
septic tank/leach field systems, located partially on private property. Among
the several conditions of such a grant is the requirement that the muncipality
implement a program of operation and maintenance.1 Such a program will
necessitate occasional entries onto private property by municipal officials
for the purposes of inspection. The aim of this paper is to set out in a brief
form the different ways that municipal governments might obtain legal
authority for such entry. Confusion about this point has impeded the progress
of EPA's grant program and, more importantly, has frustrated efforts to deploy
appropriate water technologies in rural areas. The lack of regular,
conscientious maintenance programs is a chief reason for the failure of many
on-site waste management systems. Indeed, numerous applications for
conventional sewer projects in rural communities may be traceable in part to
the frustrations of local health officials about developing novel management
schemes for decentralized facilities.
If rural communities are to achieve cost-efficient and environmentally
safe wastewater treatment technologies, they will need to create management
tools capable of overcoming traditional public health objections to on-site
facilities. Although some communities are closer to a solution of the
management problem, most are just beginning to come to grips with it.
A viable management agency must be endowed with a number of capabilities:
the authority to plan, design, construct, inspect, and maintain on-site
systems; to produce revenue through a user charge system; to enter into
contracts; and to undertake debt obligations. To perform these functions--
particularly the function of inspection—the right of access to private
property is a necessity. Our interviews with engineers, lawyers, title
insurance experts, and state regulators revealed that confusion about the
right of access has inhibited the development of community on-site systems.
Through interviews with experts and research into legal questions, we
discovered three ways that municipal officials can legally gain access to
property for the purposes of maintenance and inspection of on-site waste
management systems. These are as follows:
(1) by gaining permission of the property owners,
(2) by the acquisition of deeded rights, and
(3) by a statutory grant of authority from the state legislature.
1. WITH THE OWNER'S PERMISSION
The easiest way to gain access to private property for purposes of
inspection is with the owner's permission. This can be oral or written. No
matter what other means are used to gain access, permission by the owner
should be sought first. Almost everyone we spoke with who has a record of
success in this field advocated a thorough program of public education and
good public relations. The key is to explain to the public in simple language
VIII-A-1
-------
that a publicly managed decentralized system is safer and cheaper than
conventional sewer-type systems.
In the course of our interviews, we discovered a few entrepreneurs who
are paid by land owners to inspect and maintain their septic systems. These
contractors are, for the most part, the same people who originally designed
and installed the septic tank/leach field system. Homeowners were convinced to
sign a long-term maintenance contract that relieved them of the burden of
caring for the system and that proved to be a lucrative source of income for
the contractors. Such maintenance contracts really constitute a kind of
extended warranty on the part of the original contractor. Obviously, in such
cases, gaining access to the property is really no problem at all.
Permission can always be revoked. Moreover, when the property changes
hands, the permission granted by the previous owner has no effect. In many
instances, municipal officials may have difficulty locating the owners of the
property in order to obtain permission. Some owners, usually a small
minority, will refuse to grant permission under any circumstances. For these
reasons, municipal officials need additional legal authority to enter
property.
2. OWNERSHIP
a. Easements
Black's Law Dictionary defines easement as "A right in the owner of one
parcel of land, by reason of such ownership, to use the land of another for a
special purpose not inconsistent with a general property in the owner."
A number of the title insurance attorneys we spoke with recommended that
muncipal officials obtain easements to property for the purpose of inspection.
They interpreted easement as a legal right, formally conveyed by deed or other
witnessed and notarized writing, filed with the municipal land records. Such
a right would be perpetual. This recommendation is similar to the practice of
electric companies who routinely acquire easements for the purpose of
stringing and maintaining electric lines to private property.
As applied to wastewater systems located wholly on private property, with
no physical connection to publicly owned property, the term easement is not
strictly correct. Easements, as the dictionary definition suggests, involve
at least two parcels of land: one piece of land, known in law as the dominant
estate, which is benefitted by the easement, and an adjoining parcel of land
through which the easement runs, known as the servient estate. In the case
contemplated, there is no dominant estate, no property owned by the municipal
government adjacent to the property to be inspected. Hence, no easement,
strictly speaking, can be said to exist. A right to enter property of
another, unconnected to the ownership of adjoining land, is sometimes called
an easement in gross. The problem with easements in gross is that they are
sometimes held not "to run with the land"; that is, they are sometimes held to
expire upon a change of land ownership. When the owner of land burdened by
the easement in gross dies, sells out, or is foreclosed upon, the easement in
gross may expire.
VIII-A-2
-------
As is evident from the above discussion, the law of real property is
highly formal and technical. It is controlled almost entirely by state
courts. Muncipal governments interested in acquiring easements or the limited
rights of access should consult first with local property lawyers. State
governments with active rural sewage programs might do well to refer the
question of the proper form of easements for on-site waste management
districts to the property law section of the State Bar Association.
b. Ownership of the Fee
One Farmer's Home Administration official with whom we spoke said that he
would be opposed to Federal funding for any sewage system not physically
located on publicly owned land. He would insist that the municipal government
actually acquire the land on which septic tanks and leach fields are placed.
This seems to be an unnecessarily difficult and impractical answer, one which
the Clean Water Act provisions on privately owned systems were designed to
overcome.
c. Ownership of Appliances
Pio Lombardo and Lyle Hird, two well-regarded designers of on-site
systems, both suggested another way to solve the access problem: to have the
municipality own the physical appliances of the on-site systems, just as urban
municipalities own the actual sewers. In their view, this would somehow
guarantee community access. In Wisconsin, Hird designed a grinder pump system
and the community purchased the pump. In Iowa, the Farmer's Home Administra-
tion refused to permit a similar arrangement. Ownership of appliances and its
implications for access to property, in our view, need further investigation
by property attorneys.
d. Practical Problems
Certain practical problems arise in the acquisition of deeded property
rights by a municipality, whether the rights acquired are easements, easements
in gross, or outright ownership.
The people we interviewed reported that most citizens recognize the need
to permit access, but there is usually a minority—perhaps composed of those
who have recently installed a new septic tank at their own expense—who will
resist a community system because they see no need to pay a user fee. The
time and expense involved in procuring deeded rights is significant for a
small town, even when people recognize the need and are cooperative. But a
determined minority opposed to a particular project can raise the cost of
acquiring deeded rights and often delay a project. In such cases, the local
government could use its power of eminent domain if it can demonstrate that
the project is in the interest of public health and safety and that it is
necessary. This is costly and time-consuming. An alternative way of dealing
with recalcitrant land owners is to exclude them from proposed community
managed systems altogether and continue to manage their on-site systems with
existing practices, that is require remedial measures strictly at the owner's
expense upon failure and complaint.
VIII-A-3
-------
3. STATUTORY GRANTS OF AUTHORITY
A third general way for municipal governments to obtain legal access--
without regard to the owner's permission or deeded rights — is by a statutory
grant. All such statutory grants are limited by the Fourth Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution. This section discusses the constitutional limitations and
the three types of statutes that confer rights of entry.
a. Fourth Amendment
The Fourth Amendment reads in part:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches
and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrant shall
issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Fourth Amendment cases usually arise in connection with criminal law.
The police search a defendant's home, car, or person and find contraband or
other evidence of the crime. At the trial, the defendant moves to suppress
the evidence on the grounds that the search was "unreasonable."
In 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court held that administrative searches in
connection with fire and building codes were subject to the Fourth Amendment's
requirement of "reasonableness."2 The court went so far as to say that
judicially approved warrants may be necessary in many cases to establish
reasonableness. Such warrants could be general in scope, encompassing several
blocks; and the standards of probable cause in administrative cases would be
far less stringent than in criminal cases.
In a companion case,3 the Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment's protec-
tion extended to the area defined as curtilage. "Generally speaking,
curtilage has been held to include all buildings in close proximity to a
dwelling, which are continually used for carrying on domestic employment—or
such place as is necessary and convenient to a dwelling and is habitually used
for family purposes..."4 In medieval times, when the concept originated,
curtilage was held to be the land and buildings between the castle and the
walls. If conducted without the owner's consent, warrantless searches of the
curtilage are impermissible. On the other hand, however, searches of open
fields may be performed without warrants.5 Whether the land entered is within
the protected curtilage or is open fields has been determined on a case-by-
case basis. Guidelines do not formally exist, but the area's proximity to a
dwelling and its enclosure or use for domestic purposes have been suggested as
factors to be considered by inspectors.6 In practice, the court's view of the
matter is likely to be affected as much by the character of the search as by
the area searched. Thus, opening up a manhole or inspecting for surface
ponding near a house might well be considered an open fields case. Digging up
the grass with a backhoe some distance from the house might well be considered
a curtilage case.7 The key question for Fourth Amendment purposes is whether
the search violated the individual's reasonable expectations of privacy.
Statutes conferring upon municipal officials' rights of entry must be
construed against this rather murky background.
VIII-A-4
-------
b. Statutory Authority
In general, there are three types of statutes that confer rights of entry
on municipal officials in connection with wastewater treatment systems. They
are as follows:
(1) statutes to abate or prevent nuisances,
(2) statutes requiring licenses or permits, and
(3) statutes establishing special wastewater management districts for
decentralized alternative-type systems.
Nuisance Abatement. Statutory language that expressly confers the power
to enter and inspect private property upon municipalities or regional
districts is commonly based on the municipal corporation's power to
provide for public improvements or prevent and abate public nuisances.
Authority to construct is usually considered a general power granted all
municipal corporations unless expressly denied by statute.8 The term local
improvements has been held to include sewers.9 Incident to the power to build
drains and sewers, septic tanks may be installed10 at the discretion of the
commission, district, or similar legislative body authorized to order
construction.11
Because septic tanks or cesspools are considered to be nuisances per se
when so constructed or maintained as to threaten or injure the health of
others,12 municipal corporations can regulate and take actions necessary to
assure compliance with its requirements for the construction and maintenance
of private treatment systems.13 If the owner of property permits such a
nuisance to exist on his land, "a city has authority to order the nuisance
abated and upon failure of the owner to comply therewith, to enter upon the
property, abate the nuisance, and assess its expenses in doing so against the
owner of the property."14 Municipal corporations can even order an owner to
discontinue use of private septic tanks and septic fields and connect the
owner's premises into the public sewer system.15
Municipal ordinances and actions in this, as in all other areas, must be
reasonable. The discretion vested in those responsible for establishing and
maintaining a sanitary system is not unbridled. Decisions concerning the
necessity, location, and terms of permits for such systems are subject to
judicial review and can be overruled if fraud, oppression, or arbitrary action
is found by a court.16 In contested cases, municipal officials would be
well-advised to obtain a warrant from their local judiciary. This may prevent
future lawsuits against the municipality.
Regulation of the Installation and Maintenance of Private Sewage
Treatment Systems. This can be accomplished through building or plumbing
codes that require owners to obtain a renewable permit for the construction or
continued use of septic tanks. Provisions allowing periodic inspection and
supervision are generally sustained by the courts as a reasonable and neces-
sary exercise of a municipal corporation's police powers.17 If not granted in
express terms, courts often imply entry and inspection to be necessary pre-
VIII-A-5
-------
requisites for the issuance of permits to construct or continue to use private
sewer systems. The manner of use and removal of contents at regular intervals
may be dictated by ordinances18 and, without doubt, private sewage treatment
systems "may be reason of location, defective construction, inadequate main-
tenance, wear and want of repair, or improper use, constitute health menaces
and consequently public nuisances subject to summary abatement by proper
municipal authorities."19 As long as the terms regulating inspection and
supervision provide a reasonable means of serving an authorized purpose, they
tend to be upheld by the courts.
On-Site Waste Management Districts. We found three states with compre-
hensive legislation for the establishment of on-site waste management
districts -- California, North Carolina, and Illinois. In Illinois, when a
town forms a management district, it receives authority to sell bonds and has
access rights equivalent to public ownership.20 In order to form a district
and obtain these rights, the town must hold public meetings and gain the
assent of a majority in the town. Parts of the town can be excluded if
citizens there are adamant in their opposition. In all, it takes 30 to 60
days and state approval to form an on-site management zone.
The access provisions of the Illinois statute have, to our knowledge, not
yet received a court challenge on Fourth Amendment grounds. Here are some
practical suggestions for surviving such a challenge.
• The degree of intrusiveness of any inspection program should be
minimized. Inspections should be conducted as infrequently as
possible, consistent with maintaining the effectiveness of the on-site
district.
• Homeowners should be notified prior to the inspection.
• State codes and local ordinances should require that on-site systems
be so designed as to make inspection easy and quick. This may mean
access holes, alarm systems, and the like.
• Inspectors should be trained to stay within the limits of the
statutes. The courts will not tolerate "fishing expeditions" by
public officials on private property.
• Public relations and public education should be major components of
any inspection program.
• If, after receiving notification, a homeowner refuses to allow
municipal officials on his property, the district should seek a
judicial warrant. This relatively easy step, which should be taken
only after persuasion fails, could save a good deal of trouble later
on.
States in Region V are beginning to move in the direction of on-site
management districts, but infringing on the rights of private property is a
subject of considerable controversy, raising the issue of land-use planning.
Michigan officials do not know whether enabling legislation exists and are
presently seeking an opinion from the Attorney General on this. The Indiana
state legislature turned down enabling legislation last year that would have
allowed counties and towns to take on all the authority necessary to manage
VIII-A-6
-------
on-site systems. The Ohio legislature also rejected enabling legislation last
year, but according to an Ohio EPA official, the legislation was so badly
composed that it would not have met EPA funding standards for centralized
management of a decentralized system.
Minnesota has dealt more successfully with this through its Shoreland
Management Act,21 which promotes community-owned cluster systems and community
management. This is an especially intriguing concept in new developments,
particularly, where zoning administrators will make concessions on the size of
the lot and density of the population in return for setting aside a common
area for on-site waste disposal and providing for community management.
Wisconsin has legislation allowing communities to set up on-site waste
management districts, but towns and their engineers still have to get
individual easements;22 this law is not as comprehensive as it might be.
VIII-A-7
-------
FOOTNOTES
1. Clean Water Act § 201 (h) and regulations found in 43 Fed. Reg. at 44,061
(1978).
2. See v. City of Seattle, 387 U.S. 541 (1967). This
leading case was most recently reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in
Marshall v. Barlow, Inc., 98 Sup. Ct. 1816 (1978).
3. Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523 (1967).
4. Wattenburg v. U.S., 388 F. 2d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 1968).
5. Air Pollution Variance Board of Colorado v. Western Alfalfa Corp., 416
U.S. 861 (1974).
6. Comment, Administrative Water Rights Inspections in California, 12 U.D.
C.L. Rev. 105 (1979).
7.
8. 11 McQuillin, The Law of Municipal Corporations, 3d ed. (Callaghan & Co.,
Mundelein, 111. 1977) § 31.10a, at 182.
9. See City of Des Plaines v. Boeckenhauer, 383 111. 475, 50 N.E. 2d 483
(1943); Prevo v. City of Hammond, 186 Ind. 612, 116 N.E. 584 (1917); In
re Petition of Brown, 304 Mich. 193, 7 N.W. 2d 268 (1943); and George
Williams College v. Village of Williams Bay, 242 Wis. 311, 7 N.W. 2d 891
(1943).
10. Schueler v. Kirwood, 191 Mo. App. 575, 177 S.W. 760 (1915).
11. 11 McQuillin, Supra § 31.14, at 192.
12. 58 Am. Jur. 2d, Nuisances, § 88, at 652; 7 McQuillin, The Law of
Municipal Corporations, 3d ed. (Callaghan & Co., Mundelein, 111. 1968) §
24.257, at 106.
13. See Bearcreek Tp. of Jay County v. DeHoff, 113 Ind. App. 530, 49 N.E. 2d
391 (1943); and Kasch v. Akron, 100 Ohio 229, 126 N.E. 61 (1919).
14. 7 McQuillin, Supra § 24.257, at 107.
15. Village of Riverwoods v. Untermyer, 54 111. App. 3d 816, 369 N.E. 2d 1385
(1977).
16. 11 McQuillin, Supra § 31.14, at 192.
17. 7 McQuillin, Supra § 24.263, at 115.
VIII-A-8
-------
18. State v. McMahon, 69 Min. 265, 72 N.W. 79 (1897)
19. 7 McQuillin, Supra § 24.263, at 114.
20. 11 McQuillin, Supra § 32.15, at 277.
21.
22.
VIII-A-9
-------
B. USER CHARGE STUDY
1. INTRODUCTION
Communities implementing the Optimum Operation Alternative will incur
local costs which must be recovered from the users of the wastewater facili-
ties. These costs generally are recovered through a local user charge system.
User charges are the fees collected by a government agency to offset the costs
of goods, services, or privileges supplied to consumers by the agency (U.S.
GAO, 1980). In the case of small alternative wastewater systems the costs
consist of debt service (local publicly financed capital costs plus interest
payments), operation and maintenance, administration, and a reserve fund.
Communities utilizing U.S. EPA wastewater facilities construction grants are
required to establish a user charge system. Communities have a wide array
options as to how costs are allocated to users. The allocation of user
charges are determined by considerations such as equity, efficiency, the
organization of the local management agency, the types of on-site technologies
employed, permanent and seasonal residents, and the extent of local water
quality problems. These topics and examples of user charge allocation schemes
are described within this report.
2. PURPOSE OF USER CHARGE SYSTEMS
User charge systems serve two major purposes. First and foremost, user
charges have the purpose of recovering the capital, 0 & M, and administrative
costs incurred by the local management agency in the provision of wastewater
facilities and services to community residents. U.S. EPA's Program Require-
ments Memorandum (PRM) 76-3 requires that a community's Facilities Plan in-
clude an estimated monthly user charge for typical residential residents.
Additionally, U.S. EPA requires communities to establish an approved (by U.S.
EPA) user charge system during Step 3 of the Construction Grants process. All
users must be billed for their proportionate shares of 0 & M costs. Annual
user charges must equal total annual 0 & M costs. Although debt service costs
are not required to be part of the U.S. EPA mandated user charge system, they
often are included by localities.
The second purpose of user charges is the protection of the community's
water quality resources. This is the overall purpose of the local management
agency and user charges should reflect this objective. The promotion of water
quality is a major factor in determining how charges are allocated to users
and is related to the consideration of equity and efficiency issues.
Equity refers to charging users in proportion to the costs (capital,
0 & M, administrative, and liability) they impose on the management agency.-
The concept of equity can also be expanded to include billing users on the
basis of the benefits they derive from the community's wastewater facilities.
Equity is in line with the first stated purpose of a user charge system, i.e.,
recovery of local costs. Billing users on the basis of equity (considering
both costs imposed and benefits received) is a fundamental principle in the
revenue financing of centralized wastewater facilities (American Public Works
Association, American Society of Civil Engineers, and Water Pollution Control
Federation, 1973). Equity also is relevant to the establishment of user
charge systems for small waste flows facilities. Measurement of equity in
terms of costs imposed on the management agency is relatively straightforward
VIII-B-1
-------
if enough data are available for local management agency personnel to assign
specific costs to each user. However, measurements of benefits received are
more difficult to determine. Two predominant benefits related to the provi-
sion of wastewater facilities are improvement in water quality and enhanced
use of property. Improvement in water quality benefits everyone in the
service area to varying degrees. In lake areas, activities such as fishing,
boating, and swimming acitivities are enhanced by water quality improvement.
Local residents receive primary benefits from their own use of the lake and
secondary benefits in terms of increased tourism in the area and an increase
in their property values. If present wastewater facilities are inadequate to
serve certain residences, then upgraded facilities may increase the owners'
use of their property. It also should be pointed out that the converse may
also hold true in that if water use restrictions are placed on a residence in
order to assure operability of an on-site system, then the owner's use of the
property also may be restricted resulting in a negative benefit. Placing
dollar figures on the amount of benefits received by users is at best very
subjective. Historically, assessed property values have been the most
extensively used method of assigning benefits from centralized wastewater
facilities. At present data on the property value benefits associated with
on-site technologies are not available. Therefore, until these data become
available, the community should measures equity on the basis of costs imposed
on the system.
Efficiency considerations in the development of user charges are focused
on meeting the overall water quality objectives of the management agency (the
second stated purpose of user charges). Ffficient user charges are those
which promote the wise use of wastewater facilities. Charges that promote
efficiency may not be equitable for all cases. For example, if the equitable
user charge for a person served by a holding tank is so high as to encourage
the person to occasionally (and illegally) dispose of the wastes personally in
a manner that is potentially injurious to the health of the person and his or
her surrounding neighbors, then the particular user charge is inefficient. A
user charge also is inefficient if the costs of determining the precise costs
attributable to each user exceeds the expected improvement, in water quality.
An example of an efficient user charge system would be one which encourages
users to reduce their flows or maintain their system in order to meet water
quality objectives. A user charge based on metered flows would be both
equitable and efficient if it is not too expensive to implement. Clearly,
equity and efficiency considerations must be balanced in the development of a
local user charge system.
There are discreet differences between the ways in which user charges
have, been allocated in the "classic" way for centralized facilitied and the
way that user charges need to be allocated for decentralized facilities. The
differences are most evident when a mix of several on- and off-site techno-
logies are employed. Centralized systems generally serve all users in the
same way, i.e., a sewer collects and transports waste to a publicly owned
. wastewater treatment plant. Capital costs are easily amortized over a certain
number of years and 0 & M costs are constant from month to month. Decen-
tralized facilities serving an area may involve several different types of
privately owned systems each having different cost characteristics. In addi-
tion, 0 & M costs are not constant on a regular basis and may even come at
intervals of once every two to five years in the case of pumping septic tanks.
In light of these differences, user charges for decentralized facilities must
VIII-B-2
-------
be approached from a different perspective than user charges for conventional
centralized facilities. The issues of equity and efficiency become more acute
and a wider range of ways to allocate user charges should be examined.
3. COMPONENTS OF USER CHARGE SYSTEMS
User charges basically consist of debt service (repayment of capital plus
interest on public debt), operation and maintenance (0 & M) costs, administra-
tive costs, and a reserve fund. As stated above, capital costs are not a
required part of U.S. EPA approved user charge systems. However, it is appro-
priate to include capital costs in a local user charge system. As an option
the local management agency may require users to pay for all capital as an
upfront charge at the beginning of the project's operation.
0 & M costs, if the project receives U.S. EPA grant funds, must be allo-
cated on the basis of each user's proportionate use of the system. Propor-
tionate use is rather straightforward to measure for centralized facilities.
However, for decentralized facilities, proportionate use can be determined in
a number of ways. Proportionate use can be measured by type of user, (i.e.,
residential or commercial), type of user group, or by specific individual
characteristics as flow, waste load type, and degree of seasonality. In the
case of some on-site technologies, some 0 & M costs may be paid by users
directly to private contractors such as septic tank pumpers and haulers.
Administrative costs consist of the salaries and fringe benefits paid to
management agency employees such as sanitarians, secretaries, surveyors, and
soil scientists. Also included under administrative costs are rent payments
for office space, office supplies and telephone, lease (plus gas & oil) of a
service van, and lease of a small motorboat used for monitoring. Administra-
tive costs may be included in the 0 & M charges or split out by themselves at
the option of the local management agency.
A reserve fund is not required but is encouraged by U.S. EPA. The re-
serve fund can be used to provide for the replacement of existing systems '
which fail in the future. The reserve fund may also reflect the liability a
management agency is willing to assume for each type of system used. In this
sense, the reserve fund is analogous to an insurance policy. Two methods may
be used to compute reserve fund charges. The first is relatively simple and
consist of charging all users a fixed percentage capital costs of their sys-
tems. The amount collected at the end of 20 years should be enough to replace
all systems. This method does not accurately reflect the actual liability or
potential for failure attached to each system. The second method of computing-
reserve fund charges does reflect each system's failure potential. Under this
method, "premiums" (reserve fund charges) are billed to users at a rate re-
flecting the failure potential and replacement cost of their systems or com-
ponents thereof. Thus reserve fund charges can be extracted from different
user groups at varying rates. Probabilities for system and component (e.g.,
drainfield) failure can be determined by design engineers and sanitarians.
Initial probability estimates can be derived from sanitary survey and detailed
site analysis data. These estimates can be updated over time to reflect
actual failure rates.
VIII-B-3
-------
4. ALLOCATION OF USER CHARGES
Local management agencies may allocate each component of user charges in
a variety of ways. The major ways of allocating user charges are:
• averaging the costs among all users in the service area;
• averaging costs within user groups defined on the basis of criteria
such as flow, technology used, or location;
• charging each individual user the specific costs of facilities and
services provided to the user by the local management agency; and
• allowing the users to deal directly with private contractors and
requiring payments for administration costs only.
The selection of either of these (or other) allocation methods may be based on
the consideration of the following factors: the cost of implementing the user
charge system; community support for the overall wastewater facilities pro-
ject; the mix of technologies employed; the proportion of seasonal and per-
manent users in the service area; the income characteristics of the population
to be served; and the concepts of equity and efficiency. It must be pointed
out that each of the four components of a user charge system (debt service, 0
& M, administration, and reserve fund) may be allocated independently through
the allocation methods delineated above. For instance, debt service charges
may be based on user groups while administration charges may be averaged among
all users.
The cost of implementing the user charge system may be expensive, yet
politically feasible, if all users are charged by the community for the speci
fie costs they impose on the community. A sophisticated bookkeeping system
would be required to allocate specific capital, 0 & M, and reserve fund •
charges for each user and may exceed the administrative capacity of the local
government. Averaging all costs among all users would be the least expensive
and time consuming method of allocating costs. A system based on user groups
probably would be intermediate in cost.
Community support is measured by a number of methods. These include the
number of persons directly served by the project and the overall benefits
received by the community in terms of improved water quality and public health
conditions. If community support is high in terms of benefits received, there
is a strong justification for averaging costs evenly amongst all users since
everyone receives benefits from the project. If only a few users benefits
from the project, then users who benefit the most would pay more. With low
community support and benefits it may not politically feasible to allocate
costs evenly among all users.
In areas where a variety of on- and off-site technologies will be used,
allocating costs by user classes or by individual users would be most
equitable. Costs may vary significantly according to the type of technology
used. Unless community support is very high, users with low cost systems
would be quite reluctant to subsidize users with high cost systems. Charging
by user class or by individual user will require the local management agency
to spend more time and effort for bookkeeping than it would with the case of
averaging costs among all users and may lead to inefficiencies.
VIII-B-4
-------
Many lakeside communities have a substantial population of seasonal
residents. The local management agency may wish to allocate user charges
differently between permanent and seasonal residents. Debt service and re-
serve fund charges would be the same for both groups. However, 0 & M and
administration costs could be prorated to seasonal residents based on how much
of the year they spend in the service area. Charging seasonal users on the
basis of the amount of time they reside in the service area is equitable since
they are imposing fewer costs on the management agency. Trying to determine
the degree of seasonality may prove difficult (i.e., inefficient) to the local
management agency in the absence of water meters. The agency may request that
seasonal residents present copies of electrical bills if they wish to be
granted seasonal status and leave the burden of proof with seasonal users.
The income characteristics of the service area can be an important factor
in the political acceptability of a particular user charge system. Many
lakeside community residents are former seasonal residents who have retired in
the service area. Some of these persons may have relatively low fixed in-
comes. A user charge system which allocates high costs to certain users may
place a severe economic hardship on retired persons. If the service area has
a high proportion of persons with low or fixed incomes, then the management
agency may want to average costs among all users to mitigate the impacts of
high cost systems. Other mitigative measures include averaging specific high
cost user charge components such as 0 & M or the establishment of a local
low-interest loan program funded by revenue from the reserve fund.
Examples of the different ways in which user charges can be allocated are
shown in Table VIII-B-1. The examples involve a hypothetical lakeside
community consisting of a total 2,480 households or dwelling unit equivalents.
Approximately half of the dwellings are located in a densely developed village
and are served by conventional centralized facilities. The facilities plan
for the service area calls for the upgrading of the centralized facilities.
The rest of the community is less densely developed and located around the
lake. Centralized facilities are not cost-effective for this part of the
community and these residences will be served by a variety of on-site
technologies. The examples assume that centralized facilities will be funded
on the basis of a 75% federal grant, 15% state grant, and a 10% local share.
The on-site systems will be funded with an 85% federal grant, 9% state grant,
and 6% local share. The costs used in the examples are based on costs
estimates from the Seven Lakes EIS's for similar facilities. Back-up costs
data are presented in Table VIII-B-2. These cost sheets demonstrate how raw
community-wide costs are broken down into user charges.
Two user charge allocation options are not provided in the example. The
first is the option where individual users are billed for the specific costs
attributed to their systems. These costs are site specific and beyond the
scope of the example. It is likely that the individual costs would be roughly
similar to the user class allocation option. The other allocation option not
presented in the example is the case where individual users deal directly for
the construction and 0 & M of their systems. These users would be billed for
administration costs but would bargain directly with private contractors for
capital and certain maintenance costs. This allocation method has the dis-
advantage of being somewhat unpredictable, subject to high one-time costs, and
thus inefficient.
VIII-B-5
-------
The three options presented in Table VIII-B-1 illustrate the degree to
which actual charges can vary. The question of which class is subsidizing or
being subsidized by other user classes can be examined by comparing the
different allocation schemes. In the first option where all costs are
averaged among all users (both sewered and on-site), the annual user charge
for household would be $104. Under the second option, users served by
centralized facilities would pay $113. The reserve fund in both of these
options was determined by charging users 20% of the total (i.e., without the
state or Federal grant) averaged capital costs of the project.
The third option consists of allocating user charges by class of user.
The user classes are based on the twelve different types of on-site actions
proposed for the service area. Under this scheme, user charges vary con-
siderably from a low of $75 to a high of $373. The reserve fund charges for
the third option also were based on the 20% of capital cost criteria. The
reserve fund charges for all options can be based on estimated liabilities
associated with failure potential. Failure potential is determined by
estimating the percentage of each type of system that would need to be
replaced each year. An example of computing a reserve fund charge based on
system component failure potential is presented along with the back-up cost
information in Table VIII-B-2.
The hypothetical user charge allocation systems presented in Table
VIII-B-1 represent options which local management agencies can consider for
their communities. These options do not represent all of the options
available to communities and they may wish to develop additional options.
Communities should be encouraged to develop options such as these prior to the
adoption of a local user charge system.
VIII-B-6
-------
W
as
o
Cu
o
55
o
g
u
s
1-9
g
jj2
u
1
[an
O
CO
| ^
OH
W
1
CQ
I-H
I-H
iJ
oa
H
IA 41
00
U CO
41 -C
"-> O
0
Ul U
O, 41
tA
41 S
4-1
e
'"^
Cl -H
4J E
•rt T3
IA <
e IH
O TO -f
01
•0 >.
C -~ 01
to *o ^
T3 O 41
01 .C IA
i-i 41 41
01 IA 05
3 3
41 O
to J! +
\^ ' ^^
W 4-1 S
•e to
i-H O t£
o u
41
CO
3 +
O
41
^H U
i-H -H
re >
00 41
C tA
0
s *->
re Xi
QJ
>> Q
C
CJ
t:
CJ
«
u
o
1— 1
i-H
re
M re
CJ CJ
00 Li
JW ft
ffi
x: a;
u o
•H
»- >
CJ la
M QJ
£) W
• •
rH
S*S
0
• H
^j
SI
41
00
U
TO
-3- J3
O U
41
IA
3
tA •
•o c
00 rH -H
n o £
js -o
01 <
tO ^N
3 ^
O re +
J= 41
41 -^ U
4J -0 >
sj QJ
r-i ^ W
r-t
CJ *•>
2 1
-^. D.
W QJ
3
T3 *O
QJ QJ
4J
o re
OO U
f-*
CM rH
OJ (A
4J QJ
^H 00
W I-'
C J3
o u
QJ
"S o
1H
QJ
QJ CM
W
=&
o
• H
+J
s-
QJ
t_i
re
^ *^ tj
rH
•CO- V-l
CJ
j_)
•H -f-
C
o d
fM in *w s
O TD
^
1-1 |^
C 03 +
OO Qj
QJ >>
*J -^ QJ
re 13 >
u i— i ij
*.
re EA
4J J2
•9 M
CM CO Li O
U Xi- ** O
3
en +
d
QJ CJ
QJ U
S -H
4J >
QJ Ll
ON O Xl QJ
r-( i-H W
QJ X>
« 0
ct)
&
QJ
M
*D
4-1
re
u
/-N^-N O
w w •— i
33 « CJ
•O "O W
CJ QJ U 3
QJ
tN (^ 00 >.
i— \O Li 00
CM CM « O
* - X. r-i
i-t rH U O
L. x:
*O CJ QJ U
QJ 4-> CQ QJ
U .H ^J jj
CJ CO
S i
QJ d
WO CO
=Ss
O
•H
j_i
O.
O
^ r*- oo r*»- ON ON r*~ in r^ o\ oo ^o o
CM ^ CM CO rH CM CO CM
UOCMCMCMCMCM CMCMCM CM CM CMCM
CM in in in in un in in in in in in in
CM ONrHr-t CO0NrH fNj vj OUO
1— 1
c° PO in r^* oo oo oo "fl* f** co CM ON r^
w
"s ^
M r--. QJ b 3 O (0
CO ^-s Q *U r-t
3-cQ/-vuo QJ by i— i 3
QJT33 rH CO » W W
OO ^T U Q re rH *O X! OO
^N >^"« ' r- O cox! O O E
- oj H ;c rHQj ajs1-^ *-^ ^» *j
3 rC] C/D W W re W (fl *t3 f— i E-H £-H [0
T3U »
cMXlretwHHH H'-'C d d LI
rH rH www w^re re^-vre cj
CM "O &-T3 W *J
r, r^j QJ ^ 111 i os o; pg • p*] (n
rnn:Wire [JH E tn3fe'-^3
* — ' W CO CO •—*. tfl x-^, "D W i— 1
t I li-Hi-HrHCOrH*OTrM"OQJ'O- U
T3 OOO-OTS'O-'TJ "O3
CJWC/3WO o o 3 o*? re 3 rexo reTJrn
Li *i ^ ^ p, pt Q, «^3 fa "^3 pj QJ
3 \ ^v. CO CO CO U SO
. > d
W QJ -
d V* U "t3 TJ 4J
re o 3 d rH d
J-) W *O 3 CJ QJ
XI QJ O -H rH
u re LI E ^ re
•H d >
•U f-H 3 TJ -H -H
CL-H o d re 3
QJ o I-H re LI o*
W W tfa W Q W
>> W 3
QJ H < OS X: OS T3
X W W In W Q QJ
VIII-B-7
-------
CO
o
HH
E
o
1
cs
a
o>
9
s
hH
H
s
o
o;
£
w
en
0
^P
1
£_J
CO
CM
1
CC
I
I-H
to
cc
CM OO
l-H SO
CM CM
r-T ^
II II
CA eg
*O "O
0 0
a; cu
U CA
3 3
O O
,£ .C
MH -O *+H
O rH O
-». ° -w.
QJ
CA
3
,£! »-« CM CM CM CT\
•^. -co-
4J
O
CA
CA
O OOOCOOCO^
i— ( f — O I"™1 CO O LO
C 00 CM i-H
3 <*>
cu o
to CJ
CU
4-t
C
•H
CA
00 CA Cfl
•^ 4J O
(^ CA O
CA O
cu E cu •£> cj co
CO W CU ^i * (L>
E «j eu cu 4J co 4-> CA h .i-t
OJ-CI-iMMJSQJQJWWQJ >% *•>
4->COco«J>»COUit-id -H ^»* *H
CAWJ3J3CO«nJOT34-> CO OJ r-H
C >»fHCOCO I-HJ3J3 -HC *H 4J ->CA -H
OC/3« 'O R) CO CO J-J O •— ( COOJ J-IJH4J U
•i-t ixtUrH QJ l-i & ^l -H O ^ • >iQJCA (0
JJ ^CU4JCO N CJ C J-£ 5*6 +J 5^ QJ *H (0 *H cO co 3 'H
< umtno CLOSES?* ooo N G.cj>-iH4Jd •-!
OOB U -H ^H Ui-HCU^COCi^lH
C ey cu u co co *•-* -H co 4J
C C C 4J4-)X>t^E^4-tU
3- • -i-t u OOQJ*OOOCU
ISM co .A f*H O HHQO co oo
•H \O LO i"™1 CO \O CM -CT
C uO *^ '*^
3 »
E CM
o
>. QJ
CA QJ -H
4J • > CA CO
CO QJ ig ij 4J 1
O 1-t • X CU tA C
43 >>, C QJ CJ
r-H CO *^. O to +
CO CU -H >-H
'H CO *H (Q CO 3 QJ
a CJ > • IH j_l C N
CO O to to 4-> -H C T^
Ui-HCUXtACl4< <— 1
tA **^. -H CC CO
>™ ^ ^™t SCO r-t M
(0 (0 4-» -H CO 4-1
O O CU TT O O QJ
HHC3O
t— i
•o
i—i
o
CA
3
O
-Z,
CA
4J
CA
O -^ O CO CM "*
t_J '-H CO CO OJ O
S-
j
to
CA
o OO\OOCOOOCM
O ^ CO xj CM ^ ^*
•H 23coScSSS
C -J- ^J CM
3 -«>
0
CJ)
I-l
^>
CO CU
4-> • > CA
CA QJ in to -4-J
O to • X QJ w
U fO U *^ W O
J3 >» C QJ CJ
r-H CO --». O ^
CO QJ -H i-H
•H CO -H 03 CO 3
OH 0 > . tH 4-1 C
co O 1- to 4J -H C
L> r-H QJ X CO &4 <
CA *-*. -H CO
(0 CO 4J -H CO
O O QJ *O O O
E-< E-t Q O < CM t-i
VIII-B-8
-------
T3
D
3
C
•H
C
0
u
1
es
M
HH
>
a
CQ
to
bO
O
rH
O
C
u
QJ
H
QJ
•H
1
C
O
rH
ra
3
•o
^
•iH
•o
rH
WH
O
CA
CO
O
u
CO
m
M
CA
•o
o
Xl
QJ
CO
3
o
WH
O
;**-
CO
QJ
u
(0
*o
<
!
CO
CO
C
o
CL
0
CO
XJ
f-H
•H
O
CO
p*
(Q
E-
CJ
•H
4-1
a.
QJ
CO
m
CM
m
i
CA
T:
o
QJ
to
3
O
*o
0 0
QJ =fe
CA
o
,£ en *tf CM v£ in
--». rH tn (•"-
CO
4->
O
CJ
C
f-H
u
"cL
QJ
00
col
4-» QJ
O I~H 1-4 r*~ O oo in O fC
u CM rH \o O CM en en «—(
in vT o N£> CM CM «— &
-H 1 CM rH CM CM
C CM 1
3
i QJ
O 4J
CJ (A
CO
C
o
• H
&
o
CA
X:
CO QJ -H
4J • > W O
CO QJ IM I- 4J CO
C SH • [X QJ CA
U TO L< -^ tA O Jtf
-C >> C QJ CJ C
rH CA ""-^ O Ll W
TO QJ -H i — 1 E— I
•rH CO 'H CD TO 3 (•*
O, U > • iH 4J C -H
(C O V- U *J --H C 4J
CO '^ -H TO QJ
rH r^ S C U rH CO
4J *J X) b8 E 5-S 4J
O O CJ T3 O O
HHQO i— m oo 3
CO O
4J S
O TJ
cj d
CO
cC
d
o
-H
4J
U
3
QJ
CX
col 3
*J O
CO rH
O en PH
«J"V£)rHir;
i e
E O
0 4J
O (A
CO
C
o
-H
ex
0
rH
CA QJ -H
4-J • > CA O
(A QJ IH U J-> CO
O U • >» QJ CA
U TO Ui -^. CA O Jd
x: >, d QJ cj d
rH CO ^ O IH TO
TO QJ -iH rH E-.
•rl TO -iH TO • IH 4J C -H
noinLi4JiHd 4J
(JrHQJ>»CO&(< &
CA "*-* -i
CO
C
o
4-1
CH
col O
4-1 CO
CO XI
o in ON o o o iniin <
U \£> CM CO NO O r- rH
•— oo •— i co en ^3- oo i— f
•f-i -4" rH ]<» CO
d CM
3 -^
§d
flj
0 H
CJ
u
•H
Q.
QJ
CO
x:
•tH
QJ
u
CA QJ rH
•*-» > a
CO QJ l-i QJ
o w • i> r**j
tJ TO Li {A
_d >> C QJ 1
rH « -^ O Li
TO QJ -H rH
•H TO TH TO TO O
&, U > • Lt *J Q,
TO O L( Li 4J -H CO
U rH QJ >i CO D. CA
CO -^. -H TO QJ
rH rn 1C d (J rH CJ
TO TO 4-* -H TO
*J *J XI t^J E 3"£ *^
O O QJ "COO
HH-QC
u
CO
o
O
to
4-1
to
O f*- -tf CM O eM r-lr-i
oo • > «
CA QJ U Ll 4J
O TO Li -^. W C
x: t>. c QJ cj
rH IB -s^ O IH
•H (0 -M TO (0 3
&. U > • l-l 4-1 C
TO C Li in 4-> -H d
O rH QJ >> 10 Q, <
CA "-^. -iH TO
rH -H X d U -H
4-* 4-1 -Q CC £ g*2 *J
O 0 QJ T3 O C
VIII-B-9
-------
T)
QJ
3
c
•H
4J
C
o
CN
CQ
t— i
>
W
CO
H
tn
m
it
CO
T:
"o
X
QJ
3
O
O
5JJ.
•o
QJ
•H
U-l
C
•H
re
Q
^
O
i— (
re
CO
c
H
u
•H
p.
QJ
CO
X
• H
QJ
U
TO
r-l
d
QJ
OS
rH
O
o
tfl
QJ
QJ
m
en
ll
w
*o
i— i
o
QJ
«
r-l O
O X
QJ =5=
CO
3
O
X co
QJ
CO
4J
3
LJ
TO
CO OJ PH-
4j • > to d.
CO QJ in i-t 4-J QJ
O ^ • ^> QJ Cfl PH
(J TO ^ --v. Cfl O
X >. C QJ O 1
p-t W "*%. O V-
re • >-i 4-1 c P-
TO O l-l l-i *J -i-t C to
L/p-(QJ>,Wd.< W
W ^>. •<-! TO QJ
-H PH z: c u p-t u
4_» jj ,l~- t^J g g*g iJ
O O QJ T5 O O
f-lE-iQO
O
u
•o
c
3
O
2
T3
C
TO
Cfl T3
4-1 QJ
Ifl Cfl
p- CO \D -J OO CN i-*
•H CO i-CO- TO
d —•
3 -to- ^i
g TO
O H
U
-H
a
QJ
CO
4-i
3
QJ
D
TO
CO QJ p-i
4J • J> W d<
10 QJ U l-l 4J QJ
O VH >> QJ W 0£
U TO fcJ "*^ Cfl O
X ^i C QJ U 1
pH M -^ O l-<
TO QJ -H i — I P-<
•H TO -H TO TO 3 O
d< tJ > • k* 4J C p(
roOUil-i^-HC W
Ur-*Qj>iCfld.
O O
CJ Cj|
CO Cfl |
4J 4J
CO CO
o PH
3 to- 3
g C e
O O O
CJ -H CJ
4-1
3
QJ
PS
o
pH
fe
TJ
•o
^
W QJ W QJ
4-> • > Cfl 1 4J • > Cfl
W QJ U1-I4J W QJ Uj U 4J
O J-i • >.QJCfl Jtf Cl-i- >>QJCfl
U TO i-i "^» WO C O TO Ul "-», W O
X>-. CQJO TO J=>> CQ^CJ
pH Cfl -^. O l-l E— i pH to \ O IM
TO QJ -H •— 1 TO QJ -p^ i — f
•i-t re *i-f TO TO 3 C -i-i re -p^ re ra 3
d4L>>-J-i4->C -^ d-U>-S-(4-'C
re o ^ ^ *J *p* c "D fc o ^ uj 4-J -f^ c
U p-t QJ >, Cfl d-i W d- <
Cfl -«^. -H TO O W *>^ *H TO
TOTO4-»-HTO nJTO4J'Hre
4-» 4-i X fcC E 5^ J-* jJ 4-) X cB E 31* 4-J
COCL T3OC • OOQJ T3OO
HHQO
-------
oo
II
w
•o
0
x:
QJ
W
O
o
*t?
i-H
QJ
•H
d
-H
Q
3
o
i-H
r-H
TO
x:
CO
X!
4J
•H
3
"d
TO
H
U
4-J
rt
t«
d
o
H
4->
U
QJ
OS
3
O
U-i
T3
T>
d
TO
E-H
60
d
|H
•0
t
•1-1
TJ
O
-C
w
3
0
4_i
O
^fc
T3
"O QJ 'O
i — 1 -H i-H
O 4H O
x: ex:
QJ -H 0»
W TO M
3 U 3
C Q O
XJ cn oj oj r^- —4 J->
M r-4 K
o to o
u! x: u
•o
QJ
w
o
Q
x:
•u
"rH
d
w nj w ]
J+J E— i 4->
w w j
u o~i oj o •— ' •— < —* m -H u co
>>t * - *• ex >> ••
4-> i— r-. I-H QJ 4J m
•H OJ t/} -i-t OJ
c d —
E C c
o! o oj
O! -H ul
4-J
U
OJ
3
O
r— 1
tin
•D
•o
w o; "^ w
tO QJ U iJ 4-J «
o ^ • >^ QJ w ^: o
U TO IH '^~ « O d U
x; >. d QJ o TO
f-H to ^> O S-t E-H f-4
TO QJ -f-t i — I TO
••H C3 -H "TO TO 3 C? -H
a,o>'i-4-Jd ^ D-
Oi—iQrf>lw:a-< i— ( o
w -^ -T-i re o
r-l—l SdO-H SC ,-H
4J 4J Xl tC E S*2 *J 4J
O O QJ *D O C • C
HHQO i— i
i— i
TO
X»
CO
t?
QJ
O
Q
5
3
d
TO
H
OO O W I
QJ lH IH 4J
W • >> QJ W ^.
TO ^ ^*^ WO d
x: >, c QJ u TO
w -^ o n H
QJ -IH ^H
TO -H TO TO 3 C
U > • U 4J d -H
O SH i-l 4-) -H d "O
«— t QJ >> H Ci- < >— I
W ^^ -H TO O
-* r c u -4 x
4J rf> cB £ 5^ J-1
C 0, -COO
H Q O <
3
O
•^
rH O O
0 XI
J-l ^J. QJ
QJ W
W 3
3 0
O (^ CO oj ro OJ x:
.d "^ LO LT) O \D "^*-
4-i 4->
w w
0 0
t/3 W
4-» 4J
O C^-^fJOOOJCCOJ O
r** *"H o\i I-H rn \o •*&
d oj d
3 -to- 3
E =
0 0
u u
E
QJ
en
CO
u
QJ
4-*
W QJ 3
4-) • > W •— 1
W QJ l-i 1- 4-J O
O M >> QJ W ^^
U TO IH ^ WO J«i
js >> d QJ u d
i-H W \ O l-i TO
TO QJ -H i — f-H
•H TO -H TO TO 3 U
CL U > • IH 4J C H
W "-^ rH TO QJ
— —I E C 0 F- ' CO
TO TO 4-* 'rH TO
4-J *J X) t^J E £*6 4-*
C O QJ IT O O
r*- O"> oj r^ LO
OJ \O iT) uT) O
OJ
•CO-
CO oo oo o> oj r~» LO
-3- r- •— oo •— " O
^D OO OJ in CM \C \C
^ 04 •—
W Qj
4-> • > cn
W QJ in Li j-J
O IH >, Qj W
(J TO IH "--.WO !
x: >> d QJ o
i-H cn ^^ O IM
TO QJ --H r-H
r-i 'TO --H TO 1c 3
d, O > • IH 4J C
TO O in IH 4J -« d
U •— ' QJ >, W d, <
10 *^^. -IH TO
-H -H r: d u r-H
TO TO 4-> -H TO
4_i ^j X) tfl E S'S J-J
O O CL1 T? C O
E- H 0 O < oj H
VIII-B-11
-------
REFERENCES
American Public Works Association, American Society of Civil Engineers, and
Water Pollution Control Federation. 1973. Financing and charges for
wastewater systems. Joint Committee Report.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1976. PRM 76-3: Presentation of local
government costs of wastewater treatment works in facility plans.
Washington DC.
U.S. General Accounting Office. 1980. EPA should help communities cope with
federal pollution control requirements. CED-80-92. Washington DC.
VIII-B-1I
-------
C. WATER QUALITY MONITORING PLANS
The success of pollution control programs cannot be taken for granted;
there are many causes of suboptimal performance for any facility. Generally,
more complex programs and/or more facilities will increase the probability of
failure. However, causes of failure can be thoroughly addressed so that many
potential failures may be avoided. To the extent that failures may yet occur,
and depending upon the value of impacted resources, long-term monitoring may
be necessary to complement structural elements of a selected pollution control
program.
Monitoring of groundwaters affected by funded on-site systems is required
by 40 CFR 35.318-1(i) and PRM 79-8, although these policies do not address
monitoring of surface waters. Where primary body contact waters or drinking
water supplies may be adversely affected by funded systems, surface water
monitoring plans will also be required. Groundwater and surface water moni-
toring approaches are discussed below as they would be applied in decen-
tralized wastewater management.
1. GROUNDWATER
Nearly all on-site and many small-scale wastewater technologies discharge
effluents to the soil. Except in rare instances, the treated effluents then
enter groundwater. Effluent impacts on receiving groundwaters, and the re-
sulting degradation in the groundwater's potential use, are not easily
predicted. Because of the difficulties in predicting groundwater impacts,
planning and long-term operational success depend upon sample collection and
laboratory analysis.
Three types of groundwater monitoring strategies may be needed: potable
well sampling, aquifer sampling, and shallow groundwater sampling.
a. Potable Well Sampling
Many dwellings served by on-site systems in Region V have well water
supplied on-site also. These wells are usually the point closest to on-site
wastewater systems where groundwater quality is a concern. Requirements for
monitoring potable water wells are stated in 40 CFR 35.318-l(i) and PRM 79-8.
PRM 79-8 states: "A comprehensive program for regulation and inspection of
(funded publicly and privately-owned and small alternative wastewater systems)
shall also include, at a minimum, testing of selected existing potable water
wells on an annual basis."
This policy allows a case-by-case selection of wells to be tested each
year. In developing local monitoring programs, the following suggestions are
made :
• On-site wells that are within 50 feet of drain fields, within 100 feet
and down gradient from drain fields in unconfined aquifers, or pene-
trating fractured or channeled aquifers that are unconfined could be
sampled annually.
VIII-C-1
-------
• Sand point wells and other shallow wells that are down gradient from
drain fields could be sampled every two or five years or when the
on-site system is inspected every three years.
• Wells that are not at risk need not be monitored. Examples are pro-
perly located wells cased and grouted to a known, continuous confining
layer; wells that are known to be substantially up-gradient from
wastewater disposal systems; and wells that have tested satisfactorily
over extended periods of time.
• Private wells serving more than one dwelling could be sampled as
suggested for on-site systems except where water withdrawal may be
sufficient to alter natural groundwater flow patterns. These could be
sampled annually unless a hydrogeologist demonstrates why more or less
frequent sampling is appropriate.
• Public water supplies should be sampled as required by state requla-
tory agencies.
At a minimum, a sample analysis should include nitrate nitrogen and fecal
coliform bacteria. Where improperly protected wells (inadequate seals, cas-
ing, or grouting) must be sampled, analysis is also recommended for non-
naturally occurring constituents of domestic wastewater, such as brighteners.
This analysis will help determine the source of contamination.
When samples are positive for bacteria or show unexpectedly high nitrate
concentrations, provisions should be made for confirmatory sampling within a
short time.
b. Aquifer Sampling
Sampling of aquifers in addition to potable well sampling will be
necessary when large numbers of on-site systems are present in a groundwater
shed, or when wastewater from multiple dwellings or dwelling unit equivalents
is land disposed at a single site.
Accumulations of nitrates in an aquifer down gradient from on-site sys-
tems are unlikely to be of public health concern unless a number of systems
are lined up in the direction of groundwater flow. While the boundaries of
groundwater sheds and flow vectors within them are difficult to delineate, it
is safe to assume that single or double tiers of development will not generate
hazardous concentrations or nitrates. Therefore, strip developments along
roads or lakeshores should seldom be causes for aquifer monitoring; on-site
well monitoring will suffice. For more intensive development, the need for,
and design of, aquifer monitoring programs should be determined on a case-by-
case basis by qualified hydrogeologists.
Monitoring programs for cluster systems, rapid infiltration, or slow rate
land application should be developed in concert with detailed design of the
system itself. Hydrogeologic studies conducted for site evaluation and system
design will provide information required for development of the monitoring
program. A minimum system size above which aquifer monitoring should be
required is not recommended here. State regulatory agencies are encouraged to
address this topic.
VIII-C-2
-------
c. Shallow Groundwater Sampling
On-site systems along stream banks and lake shores, and larger land
disposal systems further removed, may contribute pathogenic organisms and
phosphorus to these water resources by way of effluent transport in ground-
water. Although unacceptable discharges of this type should have been dis-
covered and remedied during the Construction Grants process or similar work,
continued surveillance of suspect systems may be advisable. The need for and
design of a monitoring program should be based on results of prior sampling,
uses of the impacted surface waters, possible temporal changes in the dis-
charges, results of septic leachate scans, and requests for this service from
property owners.
An advantage of monitoring groundwater before it enters surface waters is
that dilution in the surface waters is avoided. Since mixing rates are seldom
known, back calculating from surface water measurements to groundwater counts
or concentrations is rarely accurate.
Technical problems with sampling effluent plumes from on-site systems
before the plumes enter lakes (see Chapter Il-D) remain to be solved. The
need to solve these problems arises from economic decisions that will have to
be made for on-site systems near shoreline — a means is required to measure the
nutrient concentrations and bacteria counts at the interface between ground-
and surface-waters. Given reproducible sampling methods, the states could set
criteria for groundwater discharges to sensitive surface waters. Monitoring
which shows individual effluent plumes to be violating these criteria could be
the basis for future abandonment or upgrading of on-site systems.
d. Viruses and Toxic Substances in Groundwater
Parameters recommended above for analysis do not include viruses or toxic
substances. Possible contamination of groundwater by these parameters is a
concern as discussed in Chapter II-A. At present, the threats posed by these
materials in on-site settings have been insufficiently measured. Because of
the costs of sampling and analysis and uncertainties in the effects of these
materials, grantees will not be required to include analyses of them in
groundwater monitoring plans.
2. SURFACE WATERS
Two types of surface water monitoring may be advisable in rural com-
munities: effluent surveys and non-point source monitoring.
a. Effluent Surveys
In lake communities, periodic repetition of septic leachate surveys (see
Chapter II-D and E) would identify future groundwater failures of on-site
systems and improve understanding of factors that influence effluent plume
movement. As with septic leachate surveys conducted in Step 1, capabilities
for collecting, storing and analyzing selected samples are advisable.
Because the state-of-the-art in leachate detection is still developing,
and because of uncertainties regarding presently available instrumentation,
shoreline septic leachate surveys will not be required in monitoring programs.
VIII-C-3
-------
Currently available instrumentation will be eligible for Construction Grants
funding until superior equipment is developed. To be eligible for these
instruments, grantees will be required to show that comparable instruments are
not available on a timely basis from other nearby grantees. Grantees will be
required also to make funded instruments available to other grantees.
Where leachates from cluster systems, rapid infiltration systems, or slow
rate land application systems are expected to emerge in streams or lakes,
monitoring of the leachate may be required depending on proximity of the
systems to surface waters, use of the surface waters, and results of aquifer
monitoring. Appropriate monitoring methods should be specified during de-
tailed design of the systems.
b. Non-point Source Monitoring
Grantees will not be required to monitor non-point sources of pollution.
However, Construction Grants funded laboratory facilities may be used for
sample analysis. In comparing the cost-effectiveness of constructing a local
laboratory, contracting with private laboratories or joint use with other
municipal laboratories, the projected number and type of samples can include
those generated by a non-point source monitoring program, which the grantee
implements prior to or concurrent with Step 3 of Construction Grants
activities.
VIII-C-4
-------
D. IMPLEMENTATON METHODS FOR WATER CONSERVATION
For areas with central water distribution, typical methods suggested for
implementing water conservation programs include pricing schemes, regulation
(such as plumbing and building code changes and use regulations), taxes,
education, and subsidies (Clouser et al. , 1979; Flack et al., 1977). These
methods can be effective for areas served by central water facilities. These
methods deserve particular attention in areas with community water supply and
on-site wastewater disposal. Since customers of a community water supply
usually consume more water than those who use individual wells, a greater
chance exists for hydraulically overloading on-site systems.
Many of the methods listed above, however, do not apply to individual
water supply systems. The methods which are feasible and reserve further
discussion for these areas include:
• Regulation (plumbing code changes and use permits)
• Public education
• Subsidies
1. REGULATION
Two major regulatory approaches to implement water conservation include
plumbing code changes and use permits. Plumbing codes can be changed so that
all new (and replacement) water-using fixtures such as toilets, shower heads,
and faucet aerators will be the low-flow type. The results of such a change
would not be immediate since replacement of water-using fixtures at existing
dwellings would not occur frequently. Plumbing code changes would have better
results in areas where new houses are being constructed. In these residences
low-flow fixtures would be installed as original equipment. To encourage user
acceptance and promote good public relations, care should be taken to require
fixtures that do not change existing life styles and habits. Plumbing code
changes may also allow and encourage development and acceptance of new devices
such as composting, recycle, and air assisted toilets.
Use permits could be required such that septic tank permits would not be
issued unless flow reduction devices were installed. This system would easily
lend itself to use with new septic tank permits. Use permits could be used
also for existing septic systems by instituting a renewable permit system;
proof of installation of flow conservation devices would be a condition of
renewal. A renewal permit system would also have joint benefits if main-
tenance and inspection requirements were additional conditions of the renewal.
2. PUBLIC EDUCATION
In the Seven Rural Lake EIS's sanitary surveys, very few homeowners
claimed to have water conservation devices. Many of those without water
VIII-D-1
-------
conservation devices did not realize the benefits of flow reduction and were
unaware of the existence of these devices. In either case, public education
could provide information to aid the homeowners. One of the main reasons for
water conservation in rural areas is to prolong the life of individual on-site
treatment systems. Test data is needed to confirm and quantify this
theoretical benefit. Until relevant test data is obtained, methods suggested
in Chapter IV-D may be used to estimate the benefits of water conservation to
on-site systems. Additional benefits of water conservation, which should be
mentioned as part of a public education program, include savings from reduced
water pumping treatment (where applicable) and heating (Flack, 1981, personal
communication).
Public education should be used in conjunction with other water conserva-
tion implementation methodologies (Schaefer, 1979). For example, changes in
building codes and requirements for renewable use permits would have greater
chances for success if accompanied by a thorough public education program
explaining, in simple terms, why and how water use could be reduced. Educa-
tion can also increase the effectiveness of community-supplied or subsidized
water conservation devices.
3. SUBSIDIES
To provide individuals with an incentive for installing water conserva-
tion devices, communities may purchase particular devices at a bulk rate and
furnish them to the local citizens at a lower price than otherwise possible.
This type of effort often results in good public relations between the local
government and the citizen, and achieves the goal of water conservation. If
the water conservation devices were sold at a reduced rate, people would have
a tendancy to install them in order to recover their investment. However, if
the devices were free, there would be no immediate incentive to install them,
since no initial investment had been made. To combat this problem two "kits"
could be offered: one containing inexpensive items such as plastic bottles
for displacement of flushing water, and orifice restrictors for reducing
shower flows; the other containing more expensive devices such as dual flush
controls for toilets, faucet aerators and low-flow shower heads. The inexpen-
sive kits could be given away and the more expensive kits could be sold at a
reduced price. Thus, the community could minimize the risk of spending a lot
of money for devices that never get installed.
4. SUMMARY
In areas without central sewer, the three main methodologies for imple-
menting water conservation are: 1) regulation, 2) public education and 3)
subsidies. Studies should be conducted to determine the method most effective
in reducing water usage, and the effects of reduction on the operation and
costs of decentralized wastewater facilities. Little data exists on these
subjects due to one or more of the following reasons: 1) the concentration on
urban water-users as compared to rural water users, 2) the small amount of
residential water that can be saved compared to the total water used in rural
areas, especially for irrigation, and 3) the lack of an agency with the knowl-
edge of the benefits of flow conservation and with the interest and funds
required to carry out such a program. For these and other reasons a community
may not be able to readily demonstrate a need for water conservation.
VIII-D-2
-------
REFERENCES
Clouser, Rodney L. , and William L. Miller. 1979. Household demand for water
and policies to encourage conservation. Purdue University Water
Resources Research Center, West Lafayette IN.
Flack, J. Ernest, and Wade P. Weakly, with Duane W. Hill. 1977. Achieving
urban water conservation: A handbook. Completion Report No. 80.
Colorado State University, Environmental Resources Center, Fort Collins
CO.
Flack, J. Ernest. University of Colorado Department of Civil, Environmental,
and Architectural Engineering, Boulder, Colorado. Personal Communica-
tion. 8 January 1981.
Schaefer, Richard K. 1979. Economics and water conservation. In:
Proceedings, National Conference on Water Conservation and Municipal
Wastewater Flow Reduction, Chicago IL November 29, 1978. U.S. EPA,
Washington DC.
VIII-D-3
-------
PART THREE
FACILITIES PLANNING METHODOLOGIES
-------
CHAPTER IX
PLANNING AREA DEFINITION
-------
A. DEVELOPMENTAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA FOR IDENTIFICATION
OF SMALL WASTE FLOWS AREAS
1. INTRODUCTION
Faced with demands to improve wastewater facilities and services in
unsewered communities, governments and wastewater utilities typically either
propose centralized collection and treatment facilities, or if that is not
economically feasible, opt to do nothing until it is. Intermediate solutions
historically have seldom been seriously investigated.
This chapter discusses the major economic, public health and water
quality factors that planners should take into account when deciding whether
to consider intermediate solutions, especially upgrading and community manage-
ment of existing wastewater systems. These factors are applicable to un-
sewered neighborhoods in or near sewered communities, as well as to communi-
ties with no sewers.
In assessing the potential need for intermediate solutions, planners will
want to ask two key questions:
• Are improvements actually necessary?
• Is upgrading and community management of existing wastewater systems
cost-effective compared to constructing sewers?
If the answers to both questions are positive, planners may also ask:
• Is it economically attractive to plan and implement an upgrading and
community management program with Construction Grants funding?
The following sections of this report address each of these questions.
2. WHY DO ANYTHING?
Whether sewers are constructed or the community provides more management
services, the owners of private wastewater systems will relinquish all or some
control over that part of their property, and will usually have to pay for the
new management or sewer service that is provided. Each approach represents an
intrusion that should be justified either on the grounds that the property
owners are individually better off (for example, it would cost an owner less
to hook up to a new sewer than to replace a failing drain field) or that the
community as a whole is better off than they are at present. Legitimate
justifications for such intrusions would include:
protecting public health
improving surface or groundwater quality
abating and preventing nuisances
improving property values
providing infrastructure for development.
Aside from funding agency requirements to document need for government
expenditures, property owners affected by new improvements should be advised
from the inception of a project as to the justifications on which plans are
based.
IX-A-1
-------
a. Protecting Public Health
Improper disposal of wastewater, particularly toilet wastes, can directly
threaten public health through several modes of disease transmission, includ-
ing direct contact, insect and rodent vectors, and drinking water contamina-
tion. In addition, poor personal hygiene resulting from sluggish wastewater
flow out of a dwelling can threaten the residents' health and, indirectly,
that of the people with whom they come into contact.
Three types of septic tank system malfuction permit these direct and
indirect modes of disease transmission: Surface malfunctions, drinking water
aquifer contamination, and recurrent backups. Interpretation of the malfunc-
tions' significance and their potential for disease transmission, however, is
based on judgement; quantitative criteria do not exist for making this judge-
ment. Nevertheless, information on density of development and the percentage
of existing systems that are malfunctioning can be used together to support
the judgement. As housing density increases, potentials for direct contact,
transmission by vectors, and well contamination also increase. Failure rates
correlate with the probability that persons living nearby may be affected
through one of these modes of disease transmission. Failure notes, if
interpreted in light of their causes and feasibility of control, are also a
reasonable guide to estimating future failures.
b. Improving Surface Water and Groundwater Quality
Measuring wastewater impacts on water resources must be a primary
objective of a needs assessment. Water quality impacts of on-site systems are
typically localized. Contamination of entire aquifers by on-site systems
occurs only where development is dense and covers large areas above unconfined
aquifers. Groundwater transport of domestic effluents at detectable levels
for more than a few hundred feet occurs very rarely, except in channeled or
grossly fissured bedrock. And in surface waters, rapid dilution of these
small wastewater flows limits their impacts to the areas of discharge.
Nevertheless, contamination of water resources by on-site systems has a
significance to the public that is measured not by the volume of water
polluted or the pollutant load that is discharged. It is the threat posed by
the proximity of contaminated waters to residences, to swimming areas, and to
sources of drinking water that makes this type of contamination significant.
These dispersed, small-scale impacts pose limited threats to ecological
values, and are of most concern because of their possible public health con-
sequences. In contrast, centralized treatment plant effluents are of most
concern for their ecological impacts, generally speaking. Their public health
impacts are minimized because their discharge points are located, where
possible, away from areas of most intensive water use.
The strong interrelation between public health and water quality impacts
of on-site systems, the multiple paths possible for disease transmission, and
the normal lack of data on water quality, epidemiology, and failure rates
combine to make the planner's and the decision maker's task complex and
potentially inconclusive. Nevertheless, the public benefits of improving
wastewater services and facilities will often more than justify a thorough
needs assessment.
IX-A-2
-------
c. Abating and Preventing Nuisances
Aside from their potential public health effects, direct discharges and
surface malfunctions can be odor sources. Odors can also be released from
properly operating septic tanks through soil stacks (vents) in the household
plumbing. Neighbors are quick to recognize and complain about septic sewage
odors, and often erroneously assume that these represent improperly operating
systems.
Other nuisances occur in the form of marshy places, dead vegetation, and
algae-filled ditches resulting from direct discharges and from surface
malfunctions. These are visually unpleasant, especially when their cause is
known.
As with public health impacts, the community's interest in abating odor
and visual nuisances is related to density of development. If houses are far
apart or are removed from public rights-of-way, these problems are primarily
of concern to the wastewater system's owners and users. As distances between
houses decrease, these aesthetic impacts increase.
d. Increasing Property Values
A property's intrinsic value is measured in terms of its possible uses.
Its economic value is measured in terms of the willingness of potential buyers
to pay for these uses. Lack of adequate wastewater services or facilities
can reduce property uses and intrinsic value in three ways:
• regulatory restrictions on new building construction or modifications
to existing buildings,
• hydraulic capacity limitations which prevent occupants from using water
as desired,
• reduced enjoyment in the use of property because of nuisances or the
fear of sewage-related illness.
With the possible exceptions of dwellings located near new treatment
facilities, pumping stations, or potential sewer overflow locations, new
centralized systems can remove all three restrictions. The increased uses
thus achieved may be reflected in increased economic value as well, depending
on other market variables. One of these variables may be the homeowner's cost
for the new facilities. Thus, while the improvements in use and intrinsic
value may be unequivocal, translation of those improvements into higher
economic values may be problematic and variable from one community to another,
depending on the cost of new centralized facilities.
In contrast, increased management services for on-site systems may
counter these use restrictions, but such success is subject to qualifications.
New building construction may be allowed on sites that are marginal or
unsuitable for standard on-site systems. But the innovative on-site technol-
ogies that make this possible may first have to be tested locally. Flow
reduction devices may save enough water to allow new uses without increasing
wastewater flows. But the devices may need maintenance or special use proce-
dures to be effective in the long term. Nuisances and fears of illness may be
IX-A-3
-------
abated by a management program. But continuing public funding and support
will be necessary to maintain the program.
Therefore, improvements in use and intrinsic value are problematic. And
any increase in economic value is even more problematic. However, because the
homeowner costs of management services are in most cases a fraction of the
costs of new centralized systems, the net increase in economic value may be
higher even though all use restrictions are not removed.
Quantitative analyses of the net economic value increases with either
approach are not likely to be accurate. However, qualitative assessments are
possible, and may contribute to a determination of whether any increase in
services or facilities is justified.
e. Providing Infrastructure For Development
In addition to increases in value of individual properties, a community's
ability to accommodate new development can be expanded by investment in new
wastewater facilities. Unsewered communities providing only standard permit-
ting and enforcement services are leaving development up to private initiative
and the ability of sites to acccommodate standard septic tank systems.
Sewers, of course, can be constructed to collect any type of wastewater
and to overcome any site limitations. Communities with definite industrial,
commercial, or residential development demand and with adequate financial
capability typically opt for expansion of collection and treatment facilities.
The capability of on-site wastewater facilities to accommodate devel-
opment is limited by the assimilative capacity of the land. Conservative
design standards probably prevent the full assimilative capacity of a site or
of entire communities from being utilized. Lacking the data to accurately
assess assimilative capacity, and lacking the means of ensuring maintenance of
innovative technologies that may expand assimilative capacity, a conservative
approach is the surest way to protect public health and water quality. How-
ever, these institutional limitations can be reviewed and perhaps made more
flexible. Performance data from existing on-site systems, local pilot studies
on innovative technologies, and appropriate management services are key ele-
ments in supporting such flexibility. Where acceptable, small-scale systems
such as cluster systems, small lagoons, land application, and package plants
can provide additional capacity to accommodate development without the sub-
stantial public investment required to build sewers.
f. A Preliminary Needs Assessment
Considerable time and money can be spent studying solutions to problems
that do not exist. One way to avoid this is to keep an account of information
on needs.
At the inception of a wastewater project, the account may include simply
the statements of knowledgeable citizens and officials. Recorded in writing
or on tape, the opinions of public health and public works officials, real
estate brokers, development commissions, planning and zoning officials, and
civic leaders can identify the types (public health, water quality, nuisance,
property value, development potential) and degrees of severity of local waste-
IX-A-4
-------
water-related problems. Such informal information can indicate which problems
call for more formal documentation of need. A brief synopsis of this informal
information can also serve as a focal point for discussion and as a means of
encouraging further serious consideration, if warranted.
3. BUILD SEWERS OR UPGRADE AND MANAGE ON-SITE SYSTEMS?
Several factors will influence a community's decision either to build
sewers or to upgrade and manage existing wastewater systems. The ability of
the chosen approach to meet the community's needs will be important. However,
lack of state enabling legislation for on-site management districts, and other
obstacles to implementation, may make that approach unattractive even before
its technical and economic merits are measured.
But for many small communities, the most significant factor will be cost.
In seven rural lake communities studied by EPA Region V, the amortized local
cost per house for new centralized wastewater systems ranged from $247 to $795
per year, even with generous grant and loan programs. The weighted average
was $497 per year. In contrast, comprehensive on-site system management
programs were estimated to cost $50 to $170 per house per year, with a
weighted average of $91 per house per year (all figures are in 1980 dollars).
See Technical Reference Document X.E., "On-Site Systems in Region V and
Potential Cost Avoidance from Adoption of Optimum Operation Alternative" for
an expanded analysis of these cost differentials.
To evaluate the effects of key developmental and environmental factors on
the relative costs of sewering and on-site system management, numerous present
worth analyses were prepared. The methods and results of these analyses are
reported in Technical Reference Document IV.A., "Cost Variability Study."
Housing density, measured as dwellings per mile of potential sewer, was the
primary independent variable. Graphs showing the results of the analyses are
plotted as 20-year present worth per house over a range of housing densities.
Other variables incorporated in the analyses are listed in Table IX.A.I. In
addition to those listed, variable rates of on-site system replacement (10%,
20, and 50%) were also included.
The results of these analyses can be helpful to planners during the early
stages of comparing wastewater management approaches. Table IX.A.2. presents
data that planners can compare to parts of their community.
To understand this table, it is necessary to visualize the cost per house
for sewers as declining curvilinearly as housing density increases. However,
costs per house for on-site management change little, if at all, within a
reasonable range of densities. Therefore, at some housing density, cost
curves for on-site and sewered alternatives may cross. At higher densities,
sewers will become more cost-effective; at lower densities, on-site management
will be cost-effective. The point at which the cost curves intersect is here
called the "trade-off density," that is, the housing density at which the
present worth of installing sewers is equal to the present worth of on-site
management.
Table IX.A.2. presents trade-off densities for a variety of variables.
Eight environmental scenarios are represented, each except the first incor-
IX-A-5
-------
TABLE IX-A-1. FACTORS VARIED AND TECHNOLOGIES CONSIDERED IN THE COST VARIABILITY STUDY
Environmental Factors
Topography
Average Depth o£ Groundwater
Average Depth of Bedrock
Soil Unstable
Developmental Factors
Growth Rate
Housing Density
Technologies
Collection Only (assumes
collection system and
treatment facilities are
in place nearby)
Centralized Treatment
(transport and treatment costs
derived from engineering studies
for Seven Rural Lake EIS's)
Small-scale Land Application
Cluster Systems
Values
Flat
Optimal (8T average depth of cut)
Rough (16' average depth of cut)
Rough (necessitates one pump and force main)
Rough (necessitates one pump and force main; 50% of houses
require grinder pumps)
Below deepest sewer
6' below ground surface (with flat topography only)
Below deepest sewer
2' below ground surface
6' feet below ground surface
Not a problem
Imported fill needed to replace 1,000' of peat soil
0% in 20 years
50% in 20 years
25, 50, 75, 100 houses per mile of potential sewer for 0
growth rate
39, 75, 113, 150 houses per mile of potential sewer for
50% growth rate
Conventional Gravity Sewers
Small Diameter Gravity Sewers
Pressure Sewers with Septic Tank Effluent Pumps
Pressure Sewers with Grinder Pumps
Four sewering methods
Spray Irrigation
Overland Flow
Rapid Infiltration
Four Sewering Methods
Four Sewering Methods
IX-A-6
-------
TABLE IX-A-2. TRADE-OFF DENSITIES (IN HOMES PER MILE) ABOVE WHICH OFF-SITE FACILITIES ARE
COMPETITIVE. BASED ON 50% REPLACEMENT OF ON-SITE SYSTEMS AT 0% AND 50%
GROWTH.
Scenarios
1 No constraints
Collection
only
0%
45
50%
69
Centralized
treatment
0%
93
50%
125
Land Cluster
application system
0% 50% 0% 50%
-
8' adc1
2 No constraints -
16' adc
3 Steep topography 57 81 - 137
1 pump
4 Flat; 6' to
groundwater; peat2
5 Flat; 6' to
groundwater
6 Steep topography; 77 113 - 150
1 pump; 6' to
bedrock
7 Flat 75 109 - 144
8 Steep topography; 76 111 - 138
2' to bedrock; 50%
of houses need
grinder pumps
1 adc = average depth of cut.
2 Imported fill needed to replace 1,000' of peat soil.
- Greater than 150 homes per mile.
IX-A-7
-------
porating one or more factors that increase the cost of sewering. On-site
system costs are also increased as appropriate to reflect the different
settings.
Four centralized treatment cases are also included. The first,
"Collected Only," assumes that interceptor sewers and treatment plants with
sufficient reserve capacity are already in place. The interceptor and
treatment costs for "Centralized Treatment" were derived from case studies of
communities with 200 to 4,200 dwellings, and hence reflect an economy of scale
that depends on total size of the community. The remaining treatment cases,
"Land Application" and "Cluster System," were assumed to be applied only with
a limited number of one-mile segments, so that economies of scale were small.
As a result, these treatment cases are not competitive with on-site manage-
ment, except for Scenario 8, which requires very elaborate on-site
technologies.
The last major variable reflected in Table IX.A.2. is growth rate, which
was taken as either 0% or 50% over a 20-year planning period. Note that costs
per house were calculated from the number of houses present in the design
year, or 20 years from the beginning of the planning period. Higher growth
rates favor sewering relative to lower growth rates.
One key variable not reflected in Table IX.A.2 is percent replacement of
onsite systems. All trade-off densities were derived from cost curves of 50%
replacement of existing systems. The mix of on-site technologies included a
large proportion of sophisticated designs, to reflect supposedly high natural
constraints to on-site systems. Therefore, the trade-off densities shown in
Table IX. A. 2. are lower than would be obtained with 10% or 20%, replacement
levels appropriate for most communities. Table IX.A.2. is conservative in
favor of sewering.
Using this information, planners can make a first estimate as to whether
sewer construction will come anywhere near on-site management costs. In
general, if a treatment plant and interceptors are required, housing densities
of 100 homes or more per mile of collector sewer at the end of the planning
period would be be necessary to make sewering cost-effective. Converted to
average property frontage, 100 homes per mile is equivalent to 95 feet per
house, assuming that 10% of frontage will be taken up by side roads, rights-
of-way, and other undeveloped property. Even if all lots are twice as deep as
they are wide, the average lot size would have to be less than one-half acre.
In cases where nearby interceptors and treatment capacity are already
available and no environmental obstacles to sewer construction have to be
overcome, sewering may be cost-effective at densities as low as 30 homes per
mile in the design year. Assuming that 10% of frontage will be taken up by
side roads and other undeveloped property, average frontages of 320 feet may
be cost-effective to sewer under the most favorable conditions. Assuming
square lots, the average lot size would be 7\ acres or smaller when the area
is fully developed.
The effects of environmental constraints on sewer construction become
evident when the trade-off densities for other scenarios are examined. Topo-
graphy which results in a 16-foot average depth of cut for sewer trenches, for
example, increases the trade-off density from <38 to 123. Flat topography
IX-A-8
-------
requiring lift stations at intervals, combined with groundwater that needs to
be lowered, raises the trade-off density above the range studied. Thus, while
housing density is a significant factor in the cost-effectiveness comparisons,
environmental constraints to sewer construction must also be considered, even
in very preliminary analyses.
The trade-off density figures in Table IX.A.2. or the more comprehensive
information in the Cost Variability Study (TRD IV.A), can be used in a
segment-by-segment analysis of costs. Using a topographic map or other map
that shows individual buildings, lay out segments within a community of one
mile or less in length and calculate housing density. For each segment,
estimate from available data:
• percentage of on-site systems needing replacement (10%, 20%, or 50%)
• expected growth (0% or 50% over 20 years)
• environmental scenario that best approximates the actual setting
• availability of existing interceptors and treatment capacity.
Compare appropriate per-house cost values from the Cost Variability Study for
sewering and on-site management on a segment-by-segment basis. Or, use Table
IX.A.2. to designate segments that may be cost-effective to sewer. This type
of cost analysis should not be used to make decisions on whether to sewer or
not. But along with the preliminary needs assessment discussed in the
previous section, it can provide a rapid, low-cost means of focusing
subsequent data collection and analysis where it is needed.
4. FUNDING OF ON-SITE UPGRADING AND MANAGEMENT: LOCAL MONEY OR
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS?
Interested parties have expressed the concern that Construction Grants
program requirements for planning and procurement, plus increased local costs
for project adminstration, will offset the economic advantages of the grants.
This concern has increased because of the 1981 changes in the Clean Water Act
that limit federal funding of facilities planning and design to a percentage
of construction costs. It is widely recognized that locating, analyzing, and
designing replacement facilities for problem on-site systems will represent a
larger percentage of construction costs than will design of centralized
facilities. Thus, it has been suggested that small communities would save
both time and expense by funding their own on-site programs.
To analyze the relationships between community size, on-site upgrading
costs, and the economic benefits of using Construction Grants funds,
statistics were drawn from the Cost Variability Study (Technical Reference
Document IV.A), and several assumptions were made regarding the costs of a
non-Construction Grants on-site upgrading program.
First, the least expensive and most expensive mixes of on-site technol-
ogies were selected from the eight scenarios of the Cost Variability Study.
The average cost per house increased within each scenario as the percent
replacement increased:
IX-A-9
-------
Least Expensive Most Expensive
(Scenarios 4&5) (Scenario 8)
$/house $/house
10% Replacement 168 879
20% Replacement 533 1,152
50% Replacement 1,117 3,183
Note that these were averages for all houses in a segment, not just the ones
requiring upgrading. These figures were 20% above construction costs to
account for project administration, legal fees, and project contingencies.
The costs of sanitary surveys, detailed site analysis, and design also
increased as the replacement rate increased:
$/house for Sanitary Survey,
Detailed Site Analysis, and Design
10% Replacement $307
20% Replacement 438
50% Replacement 720
It was assumed that these measures would be required whether or not federal
funding was involved.
The increased project costs for a federally-funded project were assumed
to be as follows:
• for a community of 400 or fewer dwellings, $30,000 for studies and
reports that would not be essential in a locally funded program.
Covers facilities plan and management program description (plan of
operation)
• an additional 10% of all other costs to pay for the extra administra-
tion required to maintain contact with state and federal grants
personnel and meet certification requirements.
The local cost trade-offs were than evaluated in the form of three cases
representing past, present, and future funding equations:
Case 1: Step 1 and 2 Grant applicants approved before May 1982 were
eligible for 85% federal funding if innovative or alternative
technologies were selected. Step 3 construction was also
eligible for 85% federal funding if innovative or alternative
technologies were selected. Step 3 construction was also
eligible for 85% funding.
Case 2: After May 1982, grants were not awarded for Step 1 or 2 work.
Instead, applicants could receive allowances of up to 11% of
their estimated construction costs to help pay for facilities
planning and design (based on an allowance of 12.971% and a
federal share of 85%). Construction of innovative or alterna-
tive technologies remains eligible for 85% grants.
IX-A-10
-------
Case 3: After September 1984, grants for construction will not exceed
75%. The maximum for planning and design would then be 9.7%
(based on an allowance of 12.971% and a federal share of 75%).
Given the above assumptions and cases, formulas can be written for the
local capital costs of an on-site upgrading and management program. (Post-
construction costs for maintenance, monitoring, administration, etc., are
assumed to be the same with total local construction funding or with Federal
funding.)
These formulas are:
Total local funding:
x's + x*y
Federal funding, Case 1:
1.1 • .5 (30,000 + x's + x'y)
Federal funding, Case 2:
1.1 (30,000 + x's + x-y) - .11 x y - .85 x y
Federal funding, Case 3:
1.1 (30,000 + x's + x-y) - .097 xy - .75xy
Where:
x = number of unsewered houses in community
y = cost of construction per house in the community
s = cost of sanitary survey, detailed site analysis, and design per
house in the community
To find the number of homes at which total local funding would be equal
to local shares with federal funding, the first formula is made equal to each
of the federal funding formulas and solved for "x", the number of homes:
Case 1:
x-s + x-y = 1.1 x .15 (30,000 + x-s + x-y)
5928
x =
y+s
Case 2:
x-s + x'y = 1.1 (30,000 + x-5 + x-y) - .llxy - .85 xy
33,000
x = l
.86y - .15
Case 3:
33,000
x = l
x«s + x-y = 1.1 (30,000 + x-5 + x-y) - .097xy - .75xy
33,000
.747y - .Is
IX-A-11
-------
Substituting values for cost of construction per house, y, and appro-
priate costs for sanitary surveys, detailed site analysis, and design, s, the
community sizes below which total local funding would be less expensive have
been calculated. These values, and the input data, are presented in Table
IX.A.3.
Subject to the assumptions on which the unit costs and formulas were
based, few communities that have substantial problems with on-site systems
would not benefit from federal assistance. This was especially true under the
old (pre-1982) funding formula. But it will remain true even in late 1984,
when the federal share drops to 75%.
These community sizes at the margin are in all cases so small that the
economic question of whether local costs would be less with total local
funding is overshadowed by another question: Will unsewered communities of
these sizes ever be high enough on state priority lists to receive federal
funding for on-site upgrading and management?" This issue is addressed in
Technical Reference Document XV.D, "Benefits of Separate State Priority Lists
for Small Waste Flow Areas."
The issue of the amount of time required to solve wastewater problems
with Construction Grants funds should contribute to local decisions on whether
to proceed alone. The primary factor that should be considered is timely
solution of water quality and public health problems. Even if sufficient
priority is given to a project, it will still take an average of 2.25 years
more to construct facilities with federal funds than with local funds alone
(based on past experience with centralized system projects).
Inevitably, however, the decision to go it alone or to wait for federal
assistance will be partly economic. The formulas presented above can be used
to calculate net and percentage savings with federal funding. Tables IX.A.4
and IX.A.5 present these statistics for hypothetical communities of 100 and
1,000 unsewered houses. The same input data is used, except that the assumed
costs of facilities plan and management plan preparation increase to $50,000
for 1,000 homes. Declining allowances are also reflected, as percentages of
construction costs.
Comparison of the percentages of local savings for Cases 2 and 3 versus
Case 1 in these tables shows the significant effects of changes in federal
funding of planning and design. The significantly reduced benefits are due
primarily to the proportionately high costs of planning and design for small
wastewater facilities. The allowance formula in effect since May 1982 was
based on planning and design costs for centralized systems. The relatively
low allowance for centralized facilities is due in part to the high capital
cost of sewers and treatment plants. Applicants proposing projects with
comparable planning and design costs but significantly lower capital costs are
therefore penalized in regard to the federal share of their total project.
Nevertheless, the local price per household of federally funded on-site
upgrading and management projects are in all cases a bargain compared to con-
struction of sewers and treatment plants. The costs of house sewers alone,
which are paid for by the property owner without grant assistance, range from
$800 to $2,000. This is roughly equivalent to the range of local costs per
house for the examples of entire on-site projects in Tables IX.A.4 and 5.
IX-A-12
-------
TABLE IX-A-3.
NUMBER OF HOUSES IN A COMMUNITY BELOW WHICH TOTAL LOCAL FUNDING
WOULD BE LESS EXPENSIVE FOR THE COMMUNITY THAN FEDERAL FUNDING
Case 1: 85% Federal Funding of All Expenses
Scenario 4
(least costly)
Scenario 8
(most costly)
Case 2: 85% Federal
Scenario 4
(lease costly)
Scenario 8
(most costly)
10% replacement
20% replacement
50% replacement
10% replacement
20% replacement
50% replacement
Funding of Allowance
10% replacement
20% replacement
50% replacement
10% replacement
20% replacement
50% replacement
Case 3: 75% Federal Funding of Allowance
Scenario 4
(least costly)
Scenario 8
(most costly)
10% replacement
20% replacement
50% replacement
10% replacement
20% replacement
50% replacement
y
$ 168
533
1,117
879
1,152
3,183
s
$307
438
720
307
438
720
X
12 houses
6
3
5
4
2
and Construction
$ 168
533
1,117
879
1,152
3,183
$307
438
720
307
438
720
290 houses
80
37
45
35
12
and Construction
168
533
1,117
879
1,152
3,183
307
438
720
307
438
720
348 houses
93
43
53
40
14
IX-A-13
-------
TABLE IX-A-4.
NET AND PERCENTAGE SAVING TO UNSEWERED COMMUNITIES WITH 100
HOMES: TOTAL LOCAL FUNDING VS. CONSTRUCTION GRANTS FUNDING
Local Cost
Replacement Local with Construe- Net Level
Level Funding tion Grant Funding Savings
% ($1,000)
Percent
Local
Savings
($1,000) ($1,000) %
Case I: 85% Federal Funding of All Expenses
Scenario 4
(least costly)
Scenario 8
(most costly)
10 47.5
20 97.1
50 183.7
10 118.6
20 159.0
50 390.3
Case 2: 85% Federal Funding of Allowance
Scenario 4
(least costly)
Scenario 8
(most costly)
10 47.5
20 97.1
50 183.7
10 118.6
20 159.0
50 390.3
Case 3: 75% Federal Funding of Allowance
Scenario 4
(least costly)
Scenario 8
(most costly)
Case 3: 75%
Scenario 4
(least costly)
Scenario 8
(most costly)
10 47.5
20 97.1
50 183.7
10 118.6
20 159.0
50 390.3
Federal Funding of Allowance
10 47.5
20 97.1
50 183.7
10 118.6
20 159.0
50 390.3
12.8
21.0
35.3
24.5
31.2
69.3
and Construction
69.1
88.6
127.9
79.1
97.3
159.9
and Construction
70.9
94.5
127.9
79.1
97.3
159.9
and Construction
70.9
94.5
140.1
88.8
110.0
194.9
34.7
76.1
148.4
94.1
127.8
321.0
(21.6)
8.5
55.8
39.4
61.7
230.4
(23.4)
2.6
55.8
39.4
61.7
230.4
(23.4)
2.6
43.5
29.8
49.0
195.4
73
78
81
79
80
82
_
9
30
33
39
59
_
9
30
33
39
59
_
3
24
25
31
50
IX-A-14
-------
TABLE IX-A-5.
NET AND PERCENTAGE SAVING TO UNSEWERED COMMUNITIES WITH 1000
HOMES: TOTAL LOCAL FUNDING VS. CONSTRUCTION GRANTS FUNDING
Local Cost
Replacement Local with Construe- Net Level
Level Funding tion Grant Funding Savings
% ($1,000)
Percent
Local
Savings
($1,000) ($1,000) %
Case 1: 85% Federal Funding of All Expenses
Scenario 4
(least costly)
Scenario 8
(most costly
Case 2: 85%
Scenario 4
(least costly)
Scenario 8
(most costly)
Case 3: 75%
Scenario 4
(least costly)
Scenario
(most costly)
10
20
50
10
20
50
Federal Funding
10
20
50
10
20
50
Federal Funding
10
20
50
10
20
50
475
971
1,837
1,186
1,590
3,903
of Allowances
475
971
1,837 1
1,186
1,590
3,903 1
of Allowances
475
971
1,837 1
1,186
1,590
3,903 1
86.6
168.5
311.4 1
203.9
270.6 1
652.2 3
and Construction
417.9
622.1
,036.9
533.3
744.1
,419.9 2
and Construction
436.4
680.7
,159.8
630.0
859.4
,770.1 2
388.4
802.5
,525.6
982.1
,319.4
,250.7
57.1
348.9
800.1
652.7
845.8
,483.1
38.6
290.3
677.2
556.0
730.6
,123.9
82
83
83
83
83
83
12
36
44
55
53
64
8
30
37
47
46
55
IX-A-15
-------
B. APPROACHES FOR DEFINING FACILITIES PLANNING AREA BOUNDARIES
Current construction grants program guidelines (40 CFR Section 35.917-2
and 35.917-4) indicate the responsibilities for delineating facilities plan-
ning area boundaries. Specifically, the guidelines state:
To assure that facilities planning will include the appropriate geo-
graphic areas, the State shall:
(1) Delineate, as a preliminary basis for planning, the boundaries of
the planning areas. In the determination of each area, appropriate
attention should be given to including the entire area where cost
savings, other management advantages, or environmental gains may
result from interconnection of individual waste treatment systems or
collective management of such systems;
(2) Include maps, which shall be updated annually, showing the identi-
fied areas and boundary determinations, as part of the State submis-
sion under Section 106 of the act;
(3) Consult with local officials in making the area and boundary deter-
minations ; and
(4) Where individual systems are likely to be cost-effective, delineate
a planning area large enough to take advantage of economies of scale
and efficiencies in planning and management.
If the State does not delineate the planning area boundaries, the EPA Regional
Administration (RA) may make the preliminary delineation of the boundaries of
the planning area. In addition, the RA may revise boundaries selected by the
locality or State agency, after appropriate consultation with State and local
officials.
When deciding on facility planning area boundaries, a number of issues
must be evaluated, including:
• Local area growth and development objectives
• Wastewater treatment needs
• Housing density and identified public health problems
• Sensitivity of local water resources to on-site system failure
• Availability of data (both socioeconomic and natural environment)
• Cooperation of local municipalities.
Three basic approaches can be taken for delineating planning areas:
• Jurisdictional approach
IX-B-1
-------
• Environmental approach
• Developmental approach.
Each of these approaches has advantages and disadvantages for the small waste
flows approach depending on the identified issues in each project area. The
jurisdictional approach can be utilized to designate study areas based on
county boundaries, municipal boundaries, or census count boundaries (census
tract or minor civil division). This approach allows the planner access to
key design and impact data, including census data, population (existing and
projected), income characteristics, employment patterns, and land use plans.
This approach may also have possible management advantages due to in-place
governmental structures to handle administration of the facility plan and/or
small waste flows district. Additionally, finance mechanisms may be easier to
implement at this level. However, numerous drawbacks also exist in this
approach. It could lead to conflicts between jurisdictions due to lack of
cooperation which in turn could limit the range of alternatives that could be
implemented (i.e., land application). Environmental impact evaluation may not
be comprehensive at this level. This approach may exclude small outlying
problem areas.
Based on previous work done in the Seven Lakes EIS's, this approach would
have been difficult to utilize because large lakes in the Midwest generally
traverse several municipal boundaries. In addition, numerous problems areas
would have been missed by this type of approach.
The environmental approach considers the watershed or lake drainage basin
as the principal unit of delineation for facility planning. From an impact
assessment point of view, this is an ideal area for impact evaluation. Point
and non-point sources of pollution can be comprehensively addressed at this
level. This unit of evaluation adequately considers the sensitivity of water
resources to septic tank failures. Data for natural resources may be more
readily available at this level. Disadvantages to the approach may include
the problem of municipal boundary crossover. In addition, the approach may
not adequately consider county growth objectives.
The developmental approach to study area delineation would utilize
special development districts; areas designated for future residential, com-
mercial, and industrial growth; and undeveloped waterfront areas as planning
area boundaries. This approach would include all areas which are expected to
increase in population during the planning period. Growth objectives would be
adequately addressed in this approach. However, several problems may arise
including difficulty in obtaining socioeconomic and environmental data. This
approach may not adequately address the major sources of water quality
problems or septic tank failures.
IX-B-2
-------
CHAPTER IX
PLANNING AREA DEFINITION
-------
C. USE OF SEGMENTATION IN SWF PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION
Segmentation of proposed sewer service areas was used in all of the Seven
Rural Lake EIS study areas to provide a level of data aggregation between the
individual dwelling and an entire community or lakeshore. As the studies
progressed, a number of purposes were found in the use of this approach.
Segmentation helped to organize and summarize site-specific data such as the
following:
• Existing number of structures
• Existing seasonal and permanent population
• Average lot sizes and housing patterns
• Soils
• Environmentally sensitive areas
• Land use/vegetation
• Identified wastewater management problems
Segmentation will help facilitate and schedule work such as Step II sanitary
or site surveys. In the final design phases, segments requiring conventional
facilities will proceed rapidly with regulatory approval and construction,
while segments requiring special design considerations will receive a higher
level of review. The segment will be a mechanism for legal action via the
issuance of block warrants where appropriate during Step I or II surveys and
site analyses.
In the Seven Lake projects, the segment typically consisted of a small
geographic area (one mile long, several residential lots wide, depending on
the development pattern), containing a variable number of dwelling units
segregated according to established land-use patterns, neighborhoods, or
physical barriers such as roads, forests, waterways, etc. The segment pro-
vided a useful subarea for defining wastewater management problems and needs;
identifying land-use characteristics, socioeconomic characteristics, housing
features,- and occupancy status of residents; identifying site-specific con-
straints to on-site management; and allowing formulation of on-site and small
waste flows alternatives. A major reason for using the segment approach is
that in most study areas, a wide diversity of socioeconomic, environmental,
and land-use characteristics exist. The segment approach allows these factors
to be spatially evaluated.
A number of criteria are available for delineating segments; these are
highly dependent on local environmental conditions, data availability, settle-
ment patterns, etc. No single approach need be taken in a study area. Areas
with malfunctioning on-site disposal systems or other identified wastewater
management problems are useful for segment delineation. Areas with malfunc-
tions may also have restrictive environmental conditions, such as high ground-
water or poor soils, which may be due to older housing units with small lot
IX-C-1
-------
sizes. Areas can be subdivided according to land-use information such as
housing densities, platted subdivisions, distinct land-use patterns (i.e.,
residential areas vs. farmland), zoning, census count units (census tracts or
minor civil divisions), or physical boundaries such as forests, water bodies,
or significant topographic features.
Using an environmental constraints evaluation, the segment approach can
delineate high groundwater areas, sensitive potable water supply aquifers,
shallow bedrock areas, poor soils for on-site wastewater management, and
sensitive watershed areas.
As discussed here "segmentation" is a planning and implementation tool.
This use of the word is not the same as its use in Construction Grants par-
lance where its meaning is to divide a study area or proposed facilities for
separate grant actions.
IX-C-2
-------
CHAPTER X
DEMOGRAPHY AND RECREATION
-------
A. NUMBER AND RANGE OF RURAL AND RURAL LAKE PROJECTS
1. PURPOSE AND METHODOLOGY
To plan for future rural wastewater management, the number and range of
rural projects that will occur in U.S. EPA Region V must be estimated. This
information provides a generalized indicator, as discussed in other sections
of this report, of the magnitude and types of wastewater problems found in
rural projects as well as the capital investment and manpower required to
alleviate such problems. In addition, the evaluation of rural project
locations and characteristics provides further insight into the unique
problems associated with rural wastewater management projects.
This section presents on a state-by-state basis the number of rural
projects anticipated during the next five to twenty years. "Rural" is defined
in this report as a service area (community, township, county, or portions
thereof) with an existing population of less than 10,000. To determine the
number of projects likely to occur during the next five years, U.S. EPA Region
V Facility Planning Branch records were evaluated via a computer printout of
all active facilities plan projects in Region V (EPA, 1980). All projects
with a population of 10,000 people or less and in the Step I facility planning
phase were identified as likely candidates for small waste flows management
during the next five years. Small waste flows management is an approach to
wastewater management that relies on non-sewered and neighborhood-scale
sewered technologies.
Because of the large number of projects identified as meeting these
criteria, only 25 percent were surveyed to ascertain detailed characteristics
of these projects. The sample selected for each state was based on that
state's proportional share of the total number of regional projects.
Individual state samples were based on the proportional share of projects
within the state falling within each of three population categories: 0-3500,
3501-5000, and 5001-10,000. The total number of projects and the proportional
sample are indicated in Table X-A-1.
The precise number of potential rural projects in U.S. EPA Region V is
not known. Estimates can, however, be developed from a variety of sources.
Estimation methods are different for communities with over 2,500 populations
and those under 2,500. These estimates are statistical projections only.
They do not presuppose the future of the Construction Grants program. The
estimates are probably high to the extent that not all communities will need
or request grants.
For communities over 2,500 population, the estimate of post-1985 projects
takes the total number of "places" (see description of term later in section)
in each state, subtracts the number of places requesting grants through 1985
and subtracts the number of places that have substantially completed the
Construction Grants process. The number of places between 2,500 and 10,000
population was taken from County and City Note Book - 1977 (U.S. Bureau of the
Census, 1978). The number of places requesting grants through 1985 was taken
from U.S. EPA's Grants Information Control System (GICS), a computer file of
all active and proposed projects. The number of places that have sub-
stantially completed the Construction Grants process was assumed to be those
listed in U.S. EPA's File of Approved Municipal Revenue System (FOAMRS).
X-A-1
-------
TABLE X-A-1,
ESTIMATED TOTAL AND PROPORTIONAL SAMPLE BY STATE AND POPULATION
CATEGORY OF RURAL PROJECTS IN U.S. EPA REGION V - 1980 to 1985
Total rural
State projects
Percent of
regional total
Proportional
25% sample
Total
rural lake
projects
Illinois 240
0-3500 172
3501-5000 32
5,001-10,000 36
Indiana 177
0-3500 134
3501-5000 12
5001-10,000 31
Michigan 122
0-3500 78
3501-5000 17
5001-10,000 27
Minnesota 276
0-3500 252
3501-5000 15
5001-10,000 9
Ohio 143
0-3500 88
3501-5000 24
5001-10,000 31
Wisconsin 163
0-3500 144
3501-5000 8
5001-10,000 11.
Total 1121
21.4
15.3
2.9
3.2
15.8
11.9
1.1
2.8
10.9
7.0
1.5
2.4
24.6
22.5
1.3
.8
12.8
7.9
2.1
2.8
14.5
12.8
0.7
1.0
100.0
60
43
8
9
44
33
3
8
30
20
4
6
69
63
4
2
36
22
6
8
41
36
2
3
280
12
12
42
72
29
171
Source: U.S. EPA Region V, Facility Planning Branch, Unpublished printout
from EPA's Grants Information Control System, 1980 and file data on
grant applications.
Since Department of Commerce defines places of 2,500 or more as urban and this
number is different from a GICS category that begins at 3,500, adjustments to
the raw GICS data were made based on the 25% proportional sample discussed
above. Community projections for 2500-5,000, 5001-7,500 and 7,500-10,000 are
presented in Table X-A-2. Anomalous results for Indiana and Michigan probably
reflect the fact that the data bases are not exactly comparable.
X-A-2
-------
TABLE X-A-2.
PROJECTION OF SMALL COMMUNITIES OF POPULATION 2,500-10,000 IN
REGION V POTENTIALLY APPLYING FOR CONSTRUCTION GRANTS ASSISTANCE
AFTER 1985
State
Illinois
2501-5000
5001-7500
7501-10,000
Indiana
2501-5000
5001-7500
7501-10000
Michigan
2501-5000
5001-7500
7501-10000
Minnesota
2501-5000
5001-7500
7501-10000
Ohio
2501-5000
5001-7500
7501-10000
Wisconsin
2501-5000
5001-7500
7501-10000
Region V
2501-5000
5001-7500
7501-10000
Total
Number of
places
128
54
37
50
22
14
72
34
17
70
21
17
101
57
33
62
20
22
483
208
140
831
Communities
applying before
1985
48
36
29
31
29
27
35
9
36
31
24
11
201
145
346
Potential
completed with
Construction
Grants
18
5
5
8
9
11
32
21
12
11
3
0
13
12
6
14
6
6
96
56
40
192
Potential
applicants
after 1985
62
45
13
(15)
11
(9)
24
26
52
41
24
19
186
107
293
A different approach must be taken for estimating number of projects with
populations below 2,500 since the U.S. Bureau does not list individual places
below this size. Also the units of government (county, township or other
municipal corporation) applying for grant assistance will affect the number of
applications. Several methods of making this projection are discussed below.
X-A-3
-------
County Applicants. The lowest number of potential projects is estimated
by assuming that only county governments will apply for places under 2,500.
There are 524 counties in Region V ranging from 72 in Wisconsin to 102 in
Illinois. It is conceivable that every county has sparsely settled areas
where Construction Grants assistance would help remedy water quality and
public health problems. Some counties are heavily urbanized so that unsewered
areas are limited and unlikely to be considered for Construction Grants
assistance. Other counties are so sparsely settled that wastewater management
needs are better addressed by local initiatives without Federal help.
Potential county applicants could number in the 400-500 range. If counties
were to apply on behalf of places over 2,500 as well as those under 2,500,
this estimate would be double counted if added to the 639 places in the
2,500-10,000 population range.
Township Applicants. There are 8120 townships within Region V. As there
is no reasonable way to estimate what proportion of these have needs for
improved wastewater management, this number can only serve as an unrealisti-
cally high upper limit on the number of potential applicants.
Places. The U.S. Bureau of the Census publishes statistics on the number
of incorporated and unincorporated places in each state. Incorporated places
include cities, towns and villages. These units of government typically have
responsibilities for wastewater management and thus are potential applicants.
Unincorporated places are closely settled population centers without corporate
boundaries, contain a population of at least 1,000, and have a definite
nucleus of residences (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1978). Places less than
2,500 population can be determined by subtracting number of places over 2,500
from the total listed. From this remainder can be subtracted the number of
places less than 2,500 that are already on priority lists, working on
Construction Grants and substantially furnished with Construction Grants.
Table X-A-3 presents this data by state.
TABLE X-A-3. PROJECTION OF SMALL COMMUNITIES OF POPULATION 0-2,500 IN
REGION V POTENTIALLY APPLYING FOR CONSTRUCTON GRANTS ASSISTANCE
AFTER 1985
Places <2500
Places < 2500 finished with Potential
Total number Places applying Construction applicants
State
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
of places ->2500 - before 1985 -
1310
578
591
855
982
600
4916 -
400
150
245
168
364
163
1490
156
117
66
232
76
128
775
Grants =
16
69
73
36
40
57
291
= after 1985
738
242
207
419
502
252
2360
X-A-4
-------
Figure X-A-1 summarizes data on number of places below 10,000 population
and numbers already involved in the Construction Grants process. The numbers
presented are subject to an unknown net error due to double counting of
communities that have approved user charge systems and are still receiving
Step 3 grants and to undercounting places where more than one place is covered
by single grants. Error due to single places receiving multiple grants is
expected to be negligible for these smaller communities.
In summary, there appear to be approximately 2660 places remaining in
Region V not yet involved in the Construction Grants process, the vast
majority of which, 2360, have populations less than 2500 persons. Because
nearly all communities below 10,000 population likely have unsewered areas,
they are candidates for small waste flows management for all or part of their
facilities planning areas.
2. ILLINOIS
The State of Illinois has the largest population of the six states in
Region V (11,197,051 people in 1976) and the third largest land area (56,400
square miles). This results in a population density of 198.5 persons per
square mile, the second most densely populated state in Region V. The state
is provided good access by a large number of interstate, four-lane, and other
limited access highways that traverse the entire state. Lake Michigan to the
northeast represents the only natural feature that has limited development.
a. Number of Rural Projects 1980 to 2000
The analysis of U.S. EPA Region V records indicates that there are 240
projects on the state priority list or receiving grants that currently meet
the rural project criteria. Although the densely populated nature of the
state would seem to imply a smaller number of rural projects than in less
populous states, the 240 projects in Illinois are second only to Minnesota in
Region V. This can in part be explained by the fact that a large portion of
Illinois' population is concentrated in the Chicago metropolitan area,
resulting in a more rural density pattern throughout other portions of the
state.
Of the 240 projects in Illinois that are likely candidates for small
waste flows management during the next five years, only twelve have been
identified as potential rural lake projects. This determination was made via
the 25% sample and by locating all 240 projects on state maps to ascertain
their proximity to lakes. The relatively low number of rural lake projects in
Illinois is apparently due to the small number of lakes within the state that
have significant residential usage on their shorelines. The Illinois EPA's
Assessment and Classification of Illinois Lakes - Vol. II lists only 106 lakes
with 10% or more of their shoreline in residential usage.
Projections for the twenty-year period from 1980 to 2000 indicate that as
many as 1529 rural places may be candidates for small waste flows management.
With 284 rural projects already in various stages of Construction Grants
activity, a maximum of 1245 places are estimated to remain as candidates for
small waste flows management between 1985 and 2000.
X-A-5
-------
3,000
2,500
to
o 2,000
o
a:
LJ
§ 1,500
1,000
500
3,426
1,066
291
483
297
96
TOTAL PLACES
PLACES ON 5 YEAR STATE
PRIORTY LISTS, RECEIVING
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS FUNDS
OR SUBSTANTIALLY FINISHED
WITH CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
PLACES SUBSTANTIALLY
FINISHED WITH CONSTRUCTION
GRANTS (USER CHARGE SYSTEM
HAS BEEN APPROVED)
208
143
56
140
98
40
0-
2,500
2,500-
5,000
5,000-
7,500
7,500-
10,000
POPULATION
Figure X-A-1.
Involvement of small communities in the
Construction Grants Program.
X-A-6
-------
b. Locational Characteristics
The relatively flat nature of the northern two-thirds of the state limits
the number of natural lakes found in Illinois and consequently the number of
rural lake projects. Of the 12 identified rural lake projects, 7 are located
in the southern one-third of the state; 3 other projects are located in the
McHenry-Lake County area (extreme northeast portion of the state) where a
large number of lakes exist. An additional 12 to 14 projects were identified
as being located on dammed-up portions of the Mississippi River. In some
aspects, they exhibit similar development characteristics to many rural lake
areas.
Although Illinois has a relatively high proportion of man-made lakes
(approximately one-third of the major lakes in the state are man-made), only
two rural lake projects were identified that either served or discharged into
a man-made water body. Rather, most of the rural lake projects identified
were associated with relatively small natural lakes such as 18-acre Prestbury
Lake in Sugar Grove.
The overall distribution of the 240 projects as indicated in Figure X-A-2
is fairly even throughout the state. Nearly 40% of the rural projects are
located in the interstate or other four-lane, limited-access highway
corridors. This correlation is apparently related to the growth induced by
the relatively recent construction of these highways through small rural
communities. Perhaps the resulting development and population growth have
required these communities to consider more sophisticated methods of
wastewater treatment than currently used.
c. Project Characteristics
The 25% sample of rural projects in Illinois included 60 projects, of
which approximately 20% were rural lake projects. Data on population, income,
land use, and level of wastewater treatment were surveyed. This information
is summarized in Table X-A-4.
Population Characteristics. Sixty-five percent of the rural project areas
surveyed have an existing population of 3500 people or less. Most of these
project areas have less than 2000 people. Project areas with 5001 to 10,000
people represented 20% of the sample and were largely comprised of multiple
jurisdiction service areas that included several communities and/or townships.
Rural project areas in all three population groups projected significant
growth during the planning period. In fact, one-third of the rural projects
for which future population data was available projected greater than 50%
growth during the planning period.
Per Capita Income. Rural project areas generally had a lower per capita
income than the state per capita income of $5,334 in 1975 (U.S. DOC 1979).
Rural lake project areas were found to have a lower per capita income ($4,334)
than non-lake projects ($5,015). In Illinois, the difference in rural versus
statewide per capita income figures is largely explained by the agricultural
basis of rural economics and the lack of higher paying employment
opportunities.
X-A-7
-------
ILLINOIS
• RURAL PROJECT
A RURAL LAKE PROJECT
Figure X-A-2. Distribution of rural projects in Illinois.
X-A-8
-------
TABLE X-A-4. CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED RURAL PROJECTS IN ILLINOIS
Existing
popu-
lation
0-3500
3501-5000
Number
of
projects
39
9
5001-10,000 12
Total
60
Number
of lake
projects
7
3
2
12
Per
capita
income1
4,945
4,470
5,068
-
Level of
wastewater
management2
1
17
5
1
23
2
16
2
7
25
3
6
2
4
12
Projected
population
growth3
<10%
5
1
0
6
10-50%
14
2
2
18
>50%
8
1
3
12
1 1975 per capita income figure from U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current
Population Reports, Series P-25, No. 752, January 1979
2 Level 1 - No treatment or on-site systems
Level 2 - Primary treatment
Level 3 - Secondary treatment or greater
3 Total may differ from the number of projects indicated because of data
deficiencies
Land Use. With the exception of those projects located near the Chicago
and St. Louis metropolitan areas, the project areas sampled were found to be
largely rural in character and agriculturally oriented. Seasonal and resort
land uses are uncommon in the state, although several of the rural lake
projects are comprised largely of second home residences. Most of the rural
service areas have a relatively small percentage of developed land, but
residential development is generally increasing.
3.
INDIANA
Indiana has the smallest land area (36,291 square miles) of the six
states in Region V and a 1976 population of 5,313,034 persons. Its population
density of 146.4 persons per square mile ranks Indiana as the fourth most
densely populated state in Region V. The state is afforded good access by a
system of interstate and other four-lane highways focusing on Indianapolis.
a. Number of Rural Projects 1980 to 2000
U.S. EPA Region V records indicate 177 projects that currently meet the
rural project criteria. Of these projects, only 12 (6.8%) have been
identified as rural lake projects. This determination is based on the 25%
sample survey and by locating all 177 projects on state maps to ascertain
their proximity to lakes. The relatively low number of rural lake projects in
Indiana is somewhat surprising since the state has nearly 100 major lakes.
However, the low population densities and largely seasonal populations
associated with many of these lakes may account for the low interest in
facility planning in these areas at this time.
X-A-9
-------
The projections for the period from 1980 to 2000 indicate that approxi-
mately 664 places are candidates for small waste flow planning during this
period. Since 274 projects have been identified as currently involved in some
type of facility planning activity, a maximum of 390 places remain as possible
candidates for small waste flows management between 1985 and 2000.
b. Locational Characteristics
The majority of the lakes in Indiana are concentrated in the northeastern
section of the state. Accordingly, 7 of the 12 identified rural lake projects
are also found in this portion of the state, primarily associated with small
natural lakes. The southern two-thirds of Indiana is relatively devoid of
natural lakes although a number of man-made lakes and reservoirs exist. Of
the 5 rural lake projects located in this portion of the state, 4 are
associated with reservoir areas. This includes two different projects on the
Brookville Reservoir near the Ohio-Indiana border.
The 177 rural projects within Indiana appear to be distributed evenly
throughout the state as indicated in Figure X-A-3. As is the case in
Illinois, a large percentage of the rural projects (nearly 45%) are located in
the interstate and other major limited-access highway corridors.
c. Project Characteristics
The 25% sample of rural projects in Indiana included 44 projects;
approximately 25% were rural lake projects. Data on population, income, land
use, and level of wastewater treatment were surveyed. This information is
summarized in Table X-A-5.
Population Characteristics. Approximately 82% of the rural areas
surveyed have an existing population of 3500 people or less; most of these
project areas have less than 2000 people. Project areas with 3501 to 5000
represented 7% of the sample, while project areas with from 5001 to 10,000
people accounted for the remaining 11% of the sample.
Many of the project areas sampled are comprised of multiple jurisdiction
service areas that involve more than one community and/or township.
Rural project areas in all three population categories expect significant
population growth during the planning period. Over half of the projects have
a predicted growth rate of more than 10% and one-quarter anticipate a growth
rate of over 50%. Seasonal population was not apparent in most of the rural
projects surveyed.
Per Capita Income. Rural project areas generally had a lower per capita
income than the state per capita income of $4,673 in 1975 (U.S. DOC 1979).
Rural lake projects were found to have a lower per capita income ($4,170) than
non-lake projects ($4,322). The agricultural orientation and general lack of
higher-paying employment opportunities in rural areas of Indiana largely
explain the difference in the statewide versus rural income levels.
Land Use. Except for the projects located in the vicinity of Indiana-
polis, the project areas sampled were found to be rural and agriculturally
oriented. Seasonal and resort land uses are not common in the state although
several of the rural lake projects indicated a seasonal population increase,
X-A-10
-------
INDIANA
RURAL I
PROJECT |
RURAL LAKE I
PROJECT
r'—lSJS-' — ~ —?-—- -T J-=.J
| • . V A / RT ,
!• V * / •/ WAYNE|
• •• ' •
• •
. J
26
Figure X-A-3. Distribution of rural projects in Indiana.
X-A-11
-------
TABLE X-A-5. CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED RURAL PROJECTS IN INDIANA
Existing
popu-
lation
0-3500
3501-5000
Number
of
projects
36
3
5001-10,000 5
Total
44
Number
of lake
projects
8
1
2
11
Level of
wastewater
Per management2
capita
income1 1
$4,459 17
3,953 1
4,389 0
18
2
11
0
2
13
3
8
2
3
13
Projected
population
growth3
<10% 10%-50%
6 12
-
2 1
8 13
>50%
7
2
2
11
1 1975 per capita income figure from U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population
Reports, Series P-25, No. 752, January 1979
2 Level 1 - No treatment or on-site systems
Level 2 - Primary treatment
Level 3 - Secondary treatment or greater
3 Total may differ from the number of projects indicated because of data
deficiencies
implying some form of seasonal/resort land use. Many of the rural service
areas have a high percentage of undeveloped land that is projected to decrease
in the future as population growth increases.
Level of Wastewater Treatment. The most common type of wastewater
treatment in the surveyed rural areas is an on-site septic tank system (40% of
the projects). Primary treatment and secondary or greater treatment levels
each account for 30% of the projects. More than 70% of the rural lake
projects rely on septic tank systems, which are claimed in some cases to be
contributing to the eutrophication of the lakes. Rural project areas relying
on primary and secondary treatment systems are generally at or near their
design capacity in almost all areas.
4.
MICHIGAN
The State of Michigan has the second largest land area (58,216 square
miles) of the six Region V states and the third largest 1976 population
(9,142,785 people). The population density of 157.0 persons per square mile
makes it the third most densely populated state in Region V. Other than the
borders with Indiana and Wisconsin, Michigan is completely surrounded by
bodies of water (Lake Michigan, Lake Erie, Lake Huron, Lake Superior) that
have provided natural geographic barriers to its growth. These natural
features have also served to limit access to and from the state, although good
internal access is provided in the southern two-thirds of Michigan by a number
of interstate and other major highways.
X-A-12
-------
a. Number of Rural Projects 1980 to 2000
The analysis of U.S. EPA Region V records indicated only 122 projects
that currently meet the rural project criteria. This figure is not surprising
considering that the northern half of Michigan is largely state and national
forest holdings. The bulk of the state's population is concentrated in the
southern half, which is less rural than the population density figure would
indicate.
Of the 122 projects in Michigan that are candidates for small waste flows
management during the next 5 years, 42 (34.4%) have been identified as rural
lake projects based on the survey and mapping of the projects. Only Minnesota
has a larger number of rural lake projects, but Michigan has the highest
percentage of rural lake projects. This high percentage is not surprising
considering the state is largely surrounded by lakes and has well over 600
major interior lakes.
Projections for the twenty-year period from 1980 to 2000 indicate that
714 places are candidates for small waste flows planning. This total
represents the smallest number projected for any of the Region V states. Since
260 projects will have been involved in Construction Grant programs by 1985,
an estimated 454 places remain possible candidates for small waste flow
management between 1985 and 2000.
b. Locational Characteristics
Although there are lakes throughout the entire state, the rural lake
projects are largely concentrated in the northern half of Michigan and the
Upper Peninsula. In fact, over 65% of the projects in this portion of the
state are classified as rural lake projects. Within the state as a whole, the
rural lake projects tend to be located near borders with few rural lake
projects found in the interior. Only 30% of the rural lake projects in
Michigan are located in the southern half of the state. The southern portion
of Michigan, however, has the largest concentration of rural projects (over
62%) of the state's total. This is largely due to the fact that the south is
more heavily populated and developed than the north.
Rural projects are more common in the interior of the southern half of
the state where major transportation routes are more prevalent. Where
interstate and other major four-lane highways are found in Michigan, rural
projects are largely concentrated in the development corridors as indicated in
Figure X-A-4. There is also an apparent concentration of rural projects along
the water, with over 20% of the projects located near one of the four Great
Lakes bordering Michigan.
c. Project Characteristics
The sample of rural projects in Michigan included 30 projects, of which
17 (57%) were rural lake projects. Data on population, income, land use, and
level of wastewater treatment were surveyed. This information is summarized
in Table X-A-6.
Population Characteristics. Over 75% of the rural projects surveyed
serve an existing population of 3500 people or less. These projects generally
X-A-13
-------
MICHIGAN
• RURAL PROJECT
\ A RURAL LAKE PROJECT
N _.-.^ —
* *^
NORTHWESTERN *** **)
SECTION XX° ^
-i /A/"*
60 / /
o^—v r
MAROUETTE *»*\
•
ESCANABAoj
|l \ . ••\
8 v *•• /
I 1 «» GRAND*RAPIDS_ (
* t &°\ .1-* *
MILES, \ •£> ^^v^-
38 l^r . A I
Figure X-A-4. Distribution of rural projects in Michigan.
X-A-14
-------
tended to fall in either the lower (less than 1000) or upper (3000-3500)
ranges of this category. The larger (over 3500 people) rural project areas
show no distinct trend toward single or multiple jurisdiction service areas.
Rural project areas in all three population categories are predicted to have
significant growth during the planning period. For those projects for which
future population data was available, nearly two-thirds are expected to have
future population growth exceeding 50%. Significant seasonal populations were
apparent in many of the rural project areas, particularly the rural lake
projects.
Per Capita Income. The state per capita income of $4,884 in 1976 exceeds
that for all categories of rural projects (U.S. DOC, 1979). Rural lake
projects in Michigan were characterized by a slightly higher per capita income
than non-lake projects, but the average per capita income figure for all rural
projects was over $1,100 lower than the state figure. In Michigan, this
relatively large difference in rural area per capita incomes is largely due to
the seasonal nature of employment generally found in these areas. Employment
in various service establishments catering to resort and/or seasonal
residents, as well as in agriculture, leads to a lack of economic diversifica-
tion and a consequent limiting of employment opportunities.
TABLE X-A-6. CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED RURAL PROJECTS IN MICHIGAN
Level of Projected
Existing Number
popu- of
lation projects
0-3500 23
3501-5000 3
5001-10,000 4
Total 30
Number
of lake
projects
13
2
2
17
wastewater population
Per management2 growth3
capita
income1 1
$3765 9
3887 0
4156 1
10
2 3 <10% 10%-50% >50%
14 0 - 4 9
21-11
3 0 - - 1
19 1 - 5 1
1975 per capita income figure from U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population
Reports, Series P-25, No. 752, January 1979
2 Level 1 - No treatment or on-site systems
Level 2 - Primary treatment
Level 3 - Secondary treatment or greater
3 Total may differ from the number of projects indicated because of data
deficiencies
Land Use. The rural projects surveyed in Michigan are largely dominated
by agricultural, residential, other undeveloped land, or a combination of
these uses. Although no absolute pattern is apparent, the rural agricultural
areas are more predominant in the southern portion of the state while rural
lake resort/seasonal areas are more predominant in the north and the Upper
X-A-15
-------
Peninsula. Many of the rural service areas are fairly large and consist of
more than one jurisdiction, often including a city and portions of one or more
townships. These service areas are also characterized by large expanses of
undeveloped land (agriculture, forest, water), but are generally experiencing
increased development, which is largely residential.
Level of Wastewater Treatment. Primary wastewater treatment is the
predominant mode (63.3%) among the rural projects surveyed. Over 30% of the
rural projects currently had on-site systems or no treatment. None of the
rural lake projects is using a secondary or better treatment system.
Approximately 59% of the rural lake projects currently rely on primary
treatment. Where inadequate wastewater treatment exists, the lakes are often
characterized by poor water quality, due perhaps in part to the level of
treatment as well as to the runoff characteristics of the watershed.
5. MINNESOTA
Minnesota has the largest land area (84,068 square miles) of the six
Region V states and the smallest population (3,970,576 people) in 1976. The
resultant population density of 47.2 persons per square mile makes Minnesota
the least densely populated state in Region V. The presence of large tracts
of state and national forests and Indian reservations in the northern half of
the state increases the actual population density somewhat, but does not
prevent Minnesota from being the most rural state in Region V.
a. Number of Rural Projects 1980 to 2000
The largely rural nature of Minnesota justifies the findings from U.S.
EPA Region V records that the state has the most rural projects (276) in the
Region. This total represents nearly 25% of all the identified rural projects
in Region V.
The 72 rural lake projects as identified during state mapping and the 25%
sample survey represent over 26% of the states rural projects. This
percentage is second only to Michigan of the Region V states while the actual
number of lake projects is the largest within the Region. The large number of
rural lake projects in Minnesota is not surprising considering that the state
has over 700 major lakes, including several large lakes: Mille Lacs Lake,
Leech Lake, Upper and Lower Red Lakes, and Lake of the Woods. As a result of
the large number of lakes, Minnesota attracts a large seasonal and resort
population that also contributes to the large number of rural projects.
The projections for the twenty-year period from 1980 to 2000 indicate
that Minnesota has 963 rural places that are likely candidates for small waste
flow planning in Region V. With 326 rural projects currently involved in
Construction Grants, Minnesota has a maximum 637 estimated places as
candidates for small waste flows management from 1985 to 2000.
b. Locational Characteristics
Although lakes are apparent throughout the entire state, the heaviest
concentration of rural lake projects occurs in the central portion of
Minnesota. Nearly half of the rural lake projects lie within this area,
defined by U.S. 10 to the north and U.S. 212 to the south. Only 30% of the
X-A-16
-------
rural lake projects are located in the northern one-third of the state. There
are large public land holdings in this area and less development than in other
portions of Minnesota. The southern two-thirds of Minnesota has the largest
concentration of total rural projects (84%) owing to greater development and
population density.
As indicated in Figure X-A-5, Minnesota does not exhibit the development
pattern along major highways as found in the other Region V states. Only 20%
of the rural projects are located within the development corridors of the
interstate and other major four-lane highways in the state. Minnesota is not
well served by highways of this type, which in part may explain why it is less
developed than the other states in Region V.
c. Project Characteristics
The 25% sample of rural projects in Minnesota included 69 projects of
which over 43% were rural lake projects. Data on population, income levels,
land use, and level of wastewater treatment were surveyed. This information
is summarized in Table X-A-7.
Population Characteristics. Over 90% of the rural projects surveyed in
Minnesota serve an existing population of 3500 people or less. Approximately
60% of the rural service areas in this category have less than 1000 people.
Rural project areas of under 5000 people generally are projected to have
significant population growth during the planning period. This population
growth will largely fall in the 10% to 50% range. Seasonal and resort
population influx during the summer months represents a significant portion of
the population for those rural service areas for which it was reported.
Per Capita Income. Rural project areas in Minnesota have an average per
capita income that is significantly lower than the 1975 state figure of $4825.
Rural lake projects have a slightly higher per capita income figure than
non-lake projects, but the difference is not significant. The difference in
rural versus statewide per capita income figures in Minnesota can be
attributed to both the agricultural orientation and the seasonal nature of
many rural economies. Both of these characteristics tend to limit the number
and type of employment opportunities available to area residents.
Land Use. Farmland and seasonal/resort land uses are dominant in the
rural project areas. Many of the rural lake project areas are characterized
as recreational areas with a significant number of summer homes and resort
facilities. Agricultural and other undeveloped land is predominant in the
non-lake rural areas. Most of the rural project areas are experiencing or
projecting increased residential development, although at least one community
justified its need for increased wastewater treatment capacity on the
construction of an industrial park.
Level of Wastewater Treatment. Rural project areas in Minnesota are less
reliant on on-site systems than might be expected for such a largely seasonal
usage pattern. Only 23% of the rural projects have on-site systems or no
wastewater treatment while approximately 35% have secondary treatment
facilities or better. Only 20% of the rural lake projects are currently
relying on septic or other on-site systems. However, many of the projects are
providing primary or greater levels of treatment only to portions of the
service area. Many of the rural project areas' requests for construction
grant funds are for upgrading rather than expanding facilities.
X-A-17
-------
_n
~ A" .}
CANADA
(.
\
i
• • •
BEMIDJP
A A«'
\«
f
* A * DULUTH0 / ^\^
MINNESOTA
• RURAL PROJECT
A RURAL LAKE PROJECT
Figure X-A-5. Distribution of rural projects in Minnesota.
X-A-18
-------
^4
H
O
CO
E?
£5
i— i
S
55
CO
H
CJ
JV]
r^
0
PS
OH
r^
pM
S
PS
Q
13
CJ
w
w
co
flj
o
co
CJ
rH
H
co
rH
PS
£—•
CJ
U «3 S
0) i— 1 O
•>-) 3 rH
O OH 60
M O
Pi f\J
CN
W 4-J
0) d
<4H 4-> OJ
0 03 S
& 01
i-l U 60
0) 4-> 03
> en d
0) 03 03
i-3 s e
03
4-)
M *iH
OJ OH
P-i 03
CJ
Ol
^H ^
OJ 03
'e '""'
3 m
55 o
J_j
3
CO OH
•H 0
X OH
O
A
s-s
0
m
i
o
1— 1
g-S
0
V
CO
CM
i— 1
,_,
HJ
S
0
u
d
•H
CO
4-1
U
OJ
o
^
OH
CO
4-)
U
01
• i—)
O
S-l
OH
d
0
rH
4_)
03
—1
r»- O O r~-
f^*^ OJ ^D O^
rH i— 1
CM O O CM
rH i— 1 CM >J
CM CM
00 i— 1 O C3-N
CM CM
i— 1 i— 1
^4" in ^
m rH oo i
O*\ CO ^G
OO
^O i— 1 CO O
CN CO
CO CO CO O\
^o ^o
0
o
0 0
o
o o
o m I-H
O 1 t rH
U-) r_) r_| 03
CO O O 4->
i m o o
o co in H
d
o
•H
4O
«3
rH
3
O-
O
P-4
4->
d
0)
SH
S-l
3
CJ
„
3
03
01
ihH
3
m
CO
3
in
d
(U
CJ
>
CO
d
E
o
J^
M-l
01
S-i
3
60
•H
MH
OJ
E
O
U
d
•H
O3
4-)
•H
OH
CJ
^H
o>
OH
m
r--
o>
i— i
T-H
C7^
r^
o^
i-i
>
u
3
d
03
1—5
»
CM
m
m
O
55
».
m
CM
i
OH
co
0)
•H
S-i
OJ
co
*»
CO
4_)
S-l
0
OH
OJ
PS
W
E
01
4_)
CO
CO
01
4-1
•H
CO
1
a
o
S-J
0
4-1
d
0)
gi
4_j
03
Ol
S-i
4.)
0
55
1
rH
rH
OJ
OJ
i-5
IN
4_J
d
0)
s
03
OJ
4J
^
V)
flj
E
•H
^
OH
I
CM
i— 1
01
Ol
rJ
^H
OJ
4-)
OJ
M
60
^)
O
4_)
c
0)
s
«
Ol
S-l
4_J
r*^
(-1
n3
•O
d
o
CJ
01
co
i
CO
1— 1
01
^
01
03
4_)
03
T)
MH
O
OJ
CO
3
u
01
•°
T3
0>
4-1
03
U
•iH
rO
d
•H
CO
4J
U
a;
o
1-1
OH
>4H
O
^
01
JZ
3
d
0)
tf"j
4_)
s
o
}^
4H
S-l
01
<4_j
• H
^
^^
TO
E
i— i
03
O
H
CO
1)
•H
U
d
0)
•H
u
•H
4H
Ol
•a
CO
X-A-19
-------
6. OHIO
The State of Ohio is the most densely populated state in Region V with a
1976 population density of 260.3 persons per square mile. The 1976 population
of 10,727,985 people is well-distributed throughout the 41,222 square miles of
land area within the state, as there are only several major state and national
forest land holdings. Ohio is also well-served by the interstate and U.S.
highway network that has encouraged development throughout the state. Lake
Erie, which forms the majority of the northern border of Ohio, serves as the
only major geographical development barrier.
a. Number of Rural Projects 1980 to 2000
The analysis of U.S. EPA Region V records indicates that 143 projects in
Ohio currently meet the criteria for rural projects. As might be expected for
the most densely populated state in the Region, this figure represents the
second lowest number of rural projects of the six states. Although Ohio has
approximately 75 major natural and man-made lakes, only 4 rural lake projects
were identified. This may be due to the fact that over half of the major
lakes in Ohio are man-made and may not be designed for recreational purposes.
Consequently, development around these lakes may be limited.
Projections for 1980 to 2000 indicate that 1173 places could be
candidates for small waste flows management. With 283 projects involved
already with the Construction Grants process, a maximum of 890 places are
estimated to remain as candidates for small waste flows management between
1985 and 2000.
b. Locational Characteristics
The limited number of rural lake projects identified in Ohio does not
permit any extensive locational analysis of these types of projects. It is
apparent, however, that all four rural lake projects are located on relatively
small natural lakes, partially supporting the earlier finding that development
around the many man-made lakes in Ohio may be largely restricted by the public
ownership and/or purposes of such facilities.
As illustrated in Figure X-A-6, the rural projects located in Ohio appear
to be evenly distributed throughout the state. Interstate highway and other
major highway corridors account for the location of over 40% of the rural
projects in the state.
c. Project Characteristics
The 25% sample of rural projects in Ohio surveyed 36 projects. Only four
of these projects were classified as rural lake projects. During the survey,
data on population, income, land use, and level of wastewater treatment were
compiled. This information is summarized in Table X-A-8.
Population Characteristics . Nearly 70% of the rural projects surveyed in
Ohio had 3500 people or less. Over 75% of the projects in this population
category had less than 2000 people. Service areas with 5000 to 10,000 people
represented 25% of the sample and all of the rural projects in this category
are predicting population growth of 10% or greater during the planning period.
X-A-20
-------
OHIO
• RURAL PROJECT
A RURAL LAKE PROJECT
'AKRON0/*" YOUNGSTOWNO.
)N - J
30
Figure X-A-6. Distribution of rural projects in Ohio.
X-A-21
-------
o
1— 1
w
0
*
to
H
QJ
f*3
^^
O
fV]
PM
,_}
^
P^
P
PS
Q
W
QJ
W
j_j
w
to
CT j
O
to
u
r-l
H
to
t— 1
P3
w
H
U
PH
3
W
CJ
00
1
^
1
^
w
H?
P3
^
H
d
TD O CO
0) -H X!
4-> 4-1 4-1
u co S
0) i— 1 O
•r-) 3 S-l
0 ft 00
S-l O
p [ (*N !
IN
S-l 4->
4-1 Ol d
O 4-1 0)
co S
r-l S 0)
01 0) 00
> 4-1 CO
01 co d
h^3 CO CO
S S
CO
4-1
SH T-l
01 ft
P-i co
0
01
S-l ^
Ol CO
XI I—I
e
3 4-1
55 0
^
OJ
XI 4-1
S O
3
55
00
d
•H 1
4-1 3
•H O
X ft
w
o
A
0^
O
m
i
o
i— i
5*^
O
|
V
co
CM
i— 1
^
OJ
e
o
u
d
•r-l
CO
4_>
O
0)
•r-)
O
S-(
ft
CO
4-1
U
01
•i—)
o
S-l
ft
d
o
•H
4_>
CO
r-l
^O i — 1 CM C7>
r^* r— I r^- in
i — i -
I—I O O rH
CO i-H ^ OO
co i— i m o>
r— 1 r— 1
O> O O O^
r~~ co co
CO 00
CM r-l i— 1 >3-
in CM o> \o
CM CO
O
O
O O
0
o o
O in r-l
O 1 1 r-l
in r-l r-l CO
CO O O 4-)
i m o o
o co m H
d
o
•H
4-1
CO
i— 1
3
O
PU
4_t
d
O1
S-l
S-l
3
3
CO
Ol
S-l
3
m
CO
3
CO
d
0)
^j
•
;/}
•
^
S
O
S-l
4-1
01
S-l
3
00
H
4-J
01
S
O
u
d
H
CO
4-1
r-l
ft
n)
U
S-l
OJ
ft
in
ON
i— 1
-t
C7i
r^.
ON
, — |
>
S-l
CO
3
d
CO
r-)
»•
CM
m
•
o
J25
*•
m
CM
1
PLJ
CO
01
• H
S-i
01
co
«>
CO
4-1
S-i
o
ft
0)
03
CO
S
o>
*_>
CO
^
00
0)
4_)
•H
CO
1
d
o
S-l
o
4_1
d
Ol
g
4-1
CO
01
S-l
4-1
o
£5
1
r— 1
1— 1
Ol
^
OJ
CM
4-1
d
0)
e
4-1
(0
0)
S-l
4-1
E>>
S-l
CO
Q
•H
S-l
PH
1
CM
i— 1
Ol
^
01
I_J
S-l
01
4_)
CO
Ol
S-l
00
S-l
o
4-1
d
Ol
S
4-1
(0
0)
S-l
4-1
£>*
S-l
CO
T3
d
o
o
01
to
1
CO
1— 1
01
^
0)
CO
4_>
CO
"O
4-1
o
OJ
CO
3
CO
u
OJ
Ol
4-1
CO
u
•H
'O
d
• H
CO
4_>
u
OJ
•r-3
o
S-l
ft
4-1
o
S-i
0)
XI
c
3
rj
OJ
<-]
4-1
g
o
S-l
4-1
S-l
Ol
4-4
4-1
•H
T3
K**
CO
S
r— i
CO
4-1
0
H
•*J
00
Ol
•r-l
O
d
OJ
• H
O
•H
4-4
01
"O
X-A-22
-------
In fact, 24 out of the 25 rural projects for which future population data was
available expect population growth of 10% or more. Multiple jurisdiction
service areas are common among the sampled rural projects with population
figures generally broken down by municipal and rural totals. No seasonal
population estimates were included for any of the projects surveyed.
Per Capita Income. The average per capita income figure for rural
projects in Ohio ($4354) is much closer to the state figure ($4772) than in
any other Region V state. This apparently is due to the more urbanized nature
of Ohio and the lower reliance on agricultural and seasonal employment
opportunities in rural communities throughout the state.
Land Use. Rural service areas in Ohio are generally more highly
developed than in the other Region V states. Residential land uses are
predominant, but most of the rural service areas also have a core of
commercial and/or industrial land uses. The general pattern within many rural
project areas appears to include a central urban area that is well developed
and a less developed fringe area, which includes agricultural and rural
residential development.
Level of Wastewater Treatment. Over 52% of the rural projects surveyed
in Ohio currently rely on some type of primary treatment of wastewater. An
additional 25% of the rural project areas currently use on-site systems or
provide no wastewater treatment. The large population growth projected for
nearly all of the rural projects in Ohio necessitates service expansion, as
well as upgrading of existing facilities.
7. WISCONSIN
Wisconsin's 1976 population of 4,610,871 people and land area of 56,154
square miles results in a population density of 82.1 persons per square mile.
This figure is the second lowest of the six states in Region V, with only
Minnesota less densely developed. Wisconsin does not have an extensive
interstate highway system, particularly in the northern portion of the state
where national and state forest lands are common.
a. Number of Rural Projects 1980 to 2000
The analysis of U.S. EPA Region V records indicates 163 projects that
meet the criteria for rural projects. The population within Wisconsin is
largely concentrated in the southern portion of the state with more scattered
development patterns apparent in the northern portion of the state. As a
result, the overall population density figure for Wisconsin may be somewhat
misleading.
Although Wisconsin has well over 350 major lakes, only 29 projects
(17.8%) of the rural projects were identified during the survey and mapping as
rural lake projects. This may in part be explained by the fact that the
majority of lakes are found in northern Wisconsin where the population density
is fairly low. This portion of the state is also where a large seasonal/
resort population is located. Consequently, the low percentage of permanent
residents in many of these areas has likely discouraged wastewater management
planning.
X-A-23
-------
Projections to the year 2000 indicate that a maximum of 704 places in
Wisconsin may be candidates for small waste flows planning. With 246 projects
in various stages of Construction Grants activity, a maximum of 458 places
remain as candidates for small waste flows management in the period of
1985-2000.
b. Locational Characterisitcs
Nearly half of the identified rural lake projects in Wisconsin are
located in the southeastern portion of the state. Lakes then tend to serve
both permanent and seasonal/resort populations, perhaps encouraging facility
planning activities to a greater extent than in the northern portion of the
state.
The overall distribution of rural projects in Wisconsin appears to be
fairly even as illustrated in Figure X-A-7. Wisconsin does not exhibit the
development pattern along major highway corridors that is found in all four
other Region V states except Minnesota. Only 18% of the rural projects are
located within the development corridors of the interstate and other major
highways. Northern Wisconsin is not extensively served by highways of this
type, which explains in part why this portion of the state is less heavily
developed.
c. Project Characteristics
The 25% sample of rural projects in Wisconsin surveyed 41 projects,
including 21 rural lake projects. Data on population, per capita income, land
use, and level of wastewater treatment were surveyed. This information is
summarized in Table X-A-9.
Population Characteristics. Of the rural areas surveyed, 83% have an
existing population of less than 3500 people. More than half of these project
areas have less than 1000 people. Project areas with 3501 to 5000 people
represent 10% of the projects surveyed. The same percentage breakdown by
population category applies to rural lake project areas. The population of
the rural lake project areas increases substantially as seasonal residents and
tourists are attracted during the summer months. In a number of rural lake
areas, the population more than doubles during this period.
Rural project areas in all three population categories predict signi-
ficant population growth during the planning period. In fact, nearly 95% of
the project areas for which future population data were available expect at
least a 10% rate of growth. Over 44% of the rural projects anticipate
population growth to exceed 50% during the planning period.
Per Capita Income. Rural projects of 3500 people or less have a lower
average per capita income ($4213) than the 1975 state figure ($4673).
However, the larger rural projects (3500 to 10,000 people) generally exceed
the state per capita income figure. Apparently, the smaller size rural
project areas offer residents fewer job opportunities and consequently less
income potential than the larger areas.
Land Use. With the exception of the rural lake project areas, the land
use patterns of the rural project areas surveyed consist typically of one or
more areas of urban development surrounded by agricultural and/or silvi-
X-A-24
-------
X*l
/
WISCONSIN
• RURAL PROJECT
A RURAL LAKE PROJECT
Figure X-A-7. Distribtion of rural projects in Wisconsin.
X-A-25
-------
5=H
l_f
CO
^
0
CO
J-H
13^
^
i — i
CO
H
CJ
^
o
/•y'
P-J
1-1
o2
p
O,
W
H
U
w
1-5
W
CO
["T |
O
CO
1 — 1
EH
CO
M
OS
w
H
U
CH
^
p-i
CJ
o>
1
3 S-i
O ft 00
S-l O
Q-i ft
CM
S-l 4-1
4-1 CD d
O 4-1 CJ
03 S
i—i 3 CJ
CJ CJ 00
> 4-1 03
cj w d
1-3 03 03
3 E
03
4-1
S-4 -H
CJ ft
O- O3
U
CJ
i-l M
CJ 03
-Q i—l
E
3 4-1
25 0
S-J
CJ
O 4-4
E o
25
oc
d
•H 1
4-1 3
CO ft
•H O
X ft
W
O
LO
A
3-S
O
LO
1
o
, — i
o^J
O
V
en
CN
i — l
iH
CJ
E
o
u
d
• H
CO
4-1
U
CJ
• 1— j
O
S-l
ft
w
4-1
O
CJ
-i — j
o
S-l
ft
3,
o
•r-\
4_)
03
i — 1
cn CN i — i ^o
r— t 1 — '
LO CM
I 1 r— 1 CO
, 1
CM 1 1 CN
LO ^ CM jH
<}• o O ~-J"
rH i — 1
LO O i — i 'O
cn V^D oo
^H O
03
, — i
3
ft
O
ft
4-1
d
0)
j-i
S-i
3
CJ
r.
3
03
CJ
S-l
3
ffl
w
3
CO
d
CJ
o
*
CO
•
pp
E
o
S-l
4-1
CJ
S-l
3
00
•H
4-1
CJ
£
O
U
d
•H
03
4-1
.^
ft
03
U
^
CJ
ft
LO
|
o*,
^
1 rt
cn
r — .
C3>
i— 1
>
S-l
03
3
d
03
1 — 3
••
CM
LO
I — .
O
^
^
LO
CM
1
O-i
CO
CJ
•H
U
CD
CO
rv
CO
4-1
S-l
o
ft
CJ
OS
CO
£
CJ
4-J
co
£*•»
w
CJ
4->
• H
CO
1
d
o
S-l
o
4-1
d
CJ
S
4-1
03
CJ
S-l
4-J
o
^
1
, — 1
1— t
CJ
£>
CJ
1-1
CM
4-1
d
CJ
E
4-1
03
CJ
S-l
4-1
K^>
S-l
03
E
•H
S-i
0^
1
CN
^H
CJ
£>
CJ
I-J
S-4
CJ
4-1
03
O)
S-l
oc
!-l
O
4-1
d
CJ
E
4-1
03
CJ
S-l
4-1
^
S-l
03
"O
d
o
CJ
i)
CO
1
cn
i — i
CJ
^
CJ
1 ^
03
4-1
03
T3
4-1
O
CJ
CO
3
03
U
CJ
ft
T3
CJ
4-1
03
U
•H
T3
C
•H
CO
4-1
U
CJ
• I—)
o
S-l
ft
4-1
0
S-l
cu
r^
£
3
d
CJ
f~!
4-1
S
O
s^
4-1
S-i
CJ
4-1
4-1
•H
T3
t*i
03
E
i — i
03
4-1
O
H
-o
CO
CJ
•H
0
d
CJ
•H
U
•H
4-1
CJ
X-A-26
-------
cultural land uses. Land use patterns in rural lake project areas are
oriented more toward recreational and natural areas uses along with seasonal
and resort residences. The majority of the rural service areas are largely
undeveloped, with developed land uses representing less than one fourth of the
service area. Notable exceptions are areas like the Wisconsin Dells, a highly
developed tourist area, and the Salem service area that serves as a bedroom
community for nearby metropolitan areas.
Level of Wastewater Treatment. Approximately half of the rural projects
surveyed in Wisconsin have at least secondary wastewater treatment facilities.
Less than 15% of the rural project areas rely on on-site treatment systems.
In spite of the high level of wastewater treatment common to the rural lake
projects, many of the lakes in the survey have water quality problems related
to the surrounding development.
X-A-27
-------
REFERENCES
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. Undated. Assessment and classifi-
cation of Illinois lakes, Vol. II.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1978. County and City Data Book, 1977. U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington DC.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1979. Current population reports: Services P-25,
No. 752. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. Unpublished printout from Grants
Information Control System. Region V, Faciliites Planning Branch,
Chicago IL.
X-A-28
-------
B. POPULATION PROJECTION AND IMPACT TECHNIQUES
1. INTRODUCTION
The estimation and projection of population levels within a proposed
wastewater management service area are important not only in the design of a
wastewater treatment system, but also in the evaluation of impacts induced by
the proposed system. Changes in population levels within a particular service
area induced by a proposed wastewater treatment system are largely accountable
for the impacts that may result on community facilities and services, trans-
portation systems, housing, and community character and composition.
Although existing data are often available, the application of this data
to small rural service areas may be difficult. Such data may be outdated,
based on assumptions unsuitable for wastewater treatment planning and design,
and/or unacceptable for use at the small service area level. Often, the
required data are not even available for small rural service areas where no
formalized planning programs exist. In addition, many of the factors that
influence rural area population dynamics (for example, seasonal population,
dwelling unit conversions) are largely undocumented. Consequently, new data
may have to be generated that include estimates and projections of population.
Based on these needs, this section presents methods designed to identify
and evaluate existing data, to develop new data where necessary, and to eval-
uate the impacts of a wastewater management project on population and related
areas. Included in this section are recommended approaches based on the
experience of the Seven Rural Lake EIS's prepared for U.S. EPA Region V in
Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Indiana.
2. DEFINING THE PLANNING AREA
Wastewater management planning for rural areas typically relies on four
geographic areas from which the various levels of evaluation are undertaken:
(1) the study area, (2) the service area, (3) the facilities planning area,
and (4) segments. The study area typically represents the entire area of a
county, a township(s), an urban area and its fringe development, or a special
district, whereas the service area represents that portion of the study area
where wastewater treatment facilities are proposed. Normally, the service area
includes the more densely populated and developed portions of the study area
as well as those areas where development is likely to occur during the plan-
ning period. The service area may also be divided into segments for purposes
of more detailed evaluation particularly in regard to the design and analysis
of on-site and cluster systems. These three types of geographic areas are
illustrated in Figure X-B-1. Generally, the study area, the service area, and
the segments are fairly easily defined and are often defined by the facilities
plan. However, the facilities planning area, that area for which population
estimates and projections must be calculated, is normally more difficult to
define. The facilities planning area must include not only the proposed ser-
vice area, but also an area surrounding the service area where growth may be
induced by a proposed wastewater management system. As such, the facilities
planning area is usually larger than the service area but may or may not
include the entire study area.
X-B-1
-------
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
U.
C
>
tr
u.
V
o
\
\
\
^
\1
i
»<
:s
<
i
\
n
8
^
L
L
^
C
J
"t
L.
l_
/
f
C3
Z^
— <
zu
za
«
_i
0.
L.
U
•Ik
J
CJ
^
—
x'
/
o
. !_.
n
ro 1
^^^
v
\
\
\
1-
y
LtJ ^*
so"
oz
HI
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
1-
o
UJ
tr
>- ^
0 -HH
O |3 c3
w "S 2
• . i cd V-<
LU -HO
0- 8"
^ CO 60
X co C
CO rt -n
3^ C
^ >> C
^ d ^3
01 — 1 rn
. ni 0,
K- o
01
en oo
cd cd
0) C
cfl £
0 M
•H 0)
cx n)
u) ? •
ti ,^j pfl
M VJV WJ
60 -P cd
O CO Q)
QJ Cfl >-l
O > cfl
rH
1
PQ
X
0)
60
•H
X-B-2
-------
The actual definition of the facilities planning area may be based on one
or a combination of a number of different factors. These factors include
census tracts, jurisdictional boundaries, geographic boundaries, and special
district boundaries.
a. Census Tracts
In larger urban areas, census tracts provide a viable means of defining a
planning area for which demographic data are available. However, in rural
areas, census tracts are normally larger in physical size and may actually be
composed of an entire township or combination of townships. Since many rural
service areas do not conform to township boundaries, the use of census tracts
for defining a facilities planning area is generally not acceptable.
Demographic data obtained at the census tract level may however, be of some
value if they can be disaggregated or if they can be used to indicate trends
that are relevant to the smaller service area level.
b. Jurisdictional Boundaries
The jurisdictional boundaries of a political subdivision will not nor-
mally conform to a reasonable planning area in small rural areas. Township and
county boundaries are often too large for planning area purposes since they
may physically include several watersheds and/or communities. Municipal boun-
daries, at the other extreme, usually represent an area that is too small for
planning area purposes since they may not include future growth areas and/or
areas likely to have induced growth. Consequently, it is unlikely that a
jurisdictional boundary will define a planning area appropriate for a rural
area.
c. Geographic Boundaries
Geographic boundaries often provide the most defensible means of defining
a planning area. Where they exist, geographic boundaries such as lakes,
rivers, mountains, or artificially made features often represent the physical
limits to growth in an area. Watersheds represent an additional geographic
boundary that is easy to define and appropriate for wastewater management
planning. In addition, geographic boundaries often define all or portions of
the boundaries of jurisdictions or special districts. This allows for con-
formity among a variety of data sources that might arise from any of these
three areas.
d. Special Districts
In many areas, particularly rural areas, special districts have been
established to serve the wastewater management and/or water supply needs of
the area. Generally, the special districts are authorized to operate publicly
owned facilities and to collect funds through user charges, connection fees,
special assessments, and revenue bonds. The boundaries of special districts
often define a logical planning area because these boundaries represent the
physical limits to which wastewater management service can be extended by the
X-B-3
-------
district. Consequently, special districts provide a logical, easily defined
planning area that may conform to jurisdictional or geographic boundaries. In
addition, special districts may provide a source of data relevant to the
estimation and projection of population.
e. Other Factors
Not every planning area will conform to the boundaries of a jurisdiction,
special district, census tract, or geographic features. In some cases, a
planning area may have to be delineated simply on subjective factors that
define a logical area for future growth and development. As was evidenced in
several of the Seven Rural Lake EIS's, planning areas could not be defined
that conformed to established boundaries. Instead, geographic areas such as
first- and second-tier shoreline development were defined that represented
only portions of large areas such as special districts or jurisdictions.
3. SOURCES OF POPULATION DATA
Data describing the size and characteristics of populations for small
rural areas are available from government agencies and other sources. Federal,
state, regional, county, and local (township and municipal) agencies collect
and distribute such data in various forms. Other information that may be
available includes university studies and surveys, reports by water quality
planning agencies, homeowner association surveys and directories, utility
company data, and other private organizations' reports. This section identi-
fies data sources available to define population size and characteristics as
well as potential problems that are inherent in their use.
a. Data Available from Federal Agencies
The U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, is the major
source of demographic data within the Federal government. Four publications
are issued by the Census Bureau that may be useful in planning for wastewater
management facilities in rural areas. These include the decennial censuses,
[Current Population Reports, the economic censuses,] and the Construction
Reports.
The decennial census is the most comprehensive source of information for
population size and characteristics available. The Census of Population is
currently conducted at the beginning of each decade and serves as the basis
for a series of other related topics. Data typically presented at the state,
SMSA, city, county, and township levels include permanent population size,
household size, income levels, residence patterns, vacancy rates, and housing
unit characteristics. Of particular importance to wastewater management plan-
ning for small rural areas is the information regarding household size, popu-
lation levels, and vacancy rates. Counts of seasonal populations are not
provided in the decennial census.
Census data have several limitations that restrict their use for small
rural planning areas. Since the census is issued at 10-year intervals, the
data quickly become outdated. A proposed mid-decade census will provide more
X-B-4
-------
frequent reporting of these data, but the dynamics of population growth in
small rural areas may require even more frequent updating. In addition, the
fact that census data are normally not reported for small rural areas prevents
their use in many cases.
More current information on population and per capita income is found in
the Current Population Reports Series P-25, Population Estimates and Projec-
tions , which is issued annually. This publication includes estimates of popu-
lation for counties, incorporated places, and minor civil divisions (townships
and villages) by state. The estimates are dated 2 years preceding the report
date. Estimates of per capita income dated 4 years preceding the report date
are also included. Series P-26, Federal-State Cooperative Program for
Population Estimates, is also issued annually. This report contains population
estimates for counties and metropolitan areas by state. These estimates are
dated 1 year preceding the report date. Components of population change
(births, deaths, and net migration) are also defined in this report.
Economic data are available from the economic censuses published by the
Census Bureau every 5 years. This census series is comprised of individual
reports on retail trade, wholesale trade, selected service industries, manu-
facturers, agriculture, transportation, and mineral industries. Each report
includes information on employment levels, wages, sales, size of firms, number
of firms and a level of production. The results are released in the form of
printed reports and computer tapes. Their use in small rural areas is limited
by the size of the reporting areas which often include only county, state, and
major incorporated areas.
Construction Reports—Housing Authorized By Building Permits and Public
Contracts is issued monthly by the Census Bureau and includes the number and
type of residential building permits issued by local permit offices. An
annual summary is also included in each monthly report. The information can
be used to assess a number of factors relevant to small rural areas, including
the rate of growth of the housing stock, development trends, housing mix, and
the age of the housing stock.
The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), U.S. Department of Commerce,
prepares national, regional, state, county, and SMSA income and population
projections to the year 2020. These are contained in the seven-volume PEERS
Projections (Office of Business Economics/Economic Research Service). The
projections utilize an employment-derived population model based on census
bureau demographic data and projections of economic activity. In addition, BEA
can provide employment estimates, migration tabulations, and long-term
economic projections by state, county, and SMSA.
b. Data Available from State Agencies
State government agencies generally provide the official population
estimates and projections at the county level and, in some cases, at the town-
ship level. The state government agencies in U.S. EPA Region V responsible for
such data are:
• Illinois - Illinois Bureau of the Budget
X-B-5
-------
• Indiana - Indiana Board of Health, Division of Public Health
Statistics
• Michigan - Michigan Department of Management and Budget, Office of
the Budget, Information Systems Division
• Minnesota - Minnesota State Planning Agency, Office of the State
Demographer
• Ohio - Ohio Department of Economic and Community Development,
Office of Research
• Wisconsin - Department of Administration, Demographic Service
Center
The availability and types of information that can be obtained from the
state agencies vary with each state. Population estimates at the county level
are prepared annually in conjunction with the Census Bureau as part of the
Current Population Reports series. Official population projections are pre-
pared in 5-year increments to the year 2000 or beyond for counties and, in one
case (Indiana), for townships. Upon special request, it is possible to obtain
useful unpublished population data for specific areas from the state agencies.
These same state agencies and other state departments can often provide
other information, such as income levels, retail sales, employment data, local
government finances, and recreation data. The availability and source of these
data vary from state to state. However, when such data are available, they
may often be more current and relevant to small rural areas than Census Bureau
data.
c. Data Available from Regional Agencies
Regional planning, water quality, or government agencies may also have
useful data pertaining to small rural project areas. Regional planning and
development agencies are often responsible for preparing demographic studies,
comprehensive plans, land use controls, economic studies, and community faci-
lity reports for the small villages and rural settlements within their juris-
diction. Information obtained in these types of reports can be useful in
establishing baseline conditions as well as for the projection of future
population levels. Many regional planning agencies and councils of government
are also designated as the economic development coordinator for the region,
which requires that an Overall Economic Development Plan (OEDP) be submitted
annually to the U.S. Economic Development Administration (EDA). This plan
normally includes information on demography, economic base, income levels, and
public works projects.
Regional water quality management agencies such as river authorities or
basin commissions often prepare reports that include demographic, land use,
and economic data. In particular, 303(e) Basin Plans, required for every major
river basin in each state under the Clean Water Act, contain data relevant to
small rural planning areas. The usefulness of these data lies in their con-
formity with service area boundaries because the 303(e) Basin Plans are de-
signed to identify wastewater management planning priorities.
X-B-6
-------
d. Data Available from Local Sources
Municipal and county planning departments or government offices may be
able to provide pertinent data concerning rural area populations. Tax rolls,
utility connections, school censuses, and building permits can be used to
determine the rate of growth, the permanent or seasonal composition of the
population, the current number of dwelling units, and other characteristics of
a specific rural area. In most cases, personal examination of the records of
such offices is necessary because such data are not normally published. In
addition, conversation with local government officials may provide valuable
insights into current trends that are not apparent from the examination of
other data sources.
Other sources of information are available through contacts with local
real-estate agents, homeowner associations, chambers of commerce, utilities,
and other community groups. Discussions with local real-estate agents can
yield information about housing vacancy rates, housing stock, property values,
and second-home housing construction. Real-estate agents may also be aware of
planned developments and future market activity in the area. Local homeowner/
community groups, on the other hand may be able to provide information re-
garding housing vacancy rates, the permanent-seasonal population breakdown,
and local attitudes regarding development and growth.
Local utility companies and the postal service provide an additional
source of information that in some cases may be the only means of obtaining
seasonal dwelling unit information and current vacancy rates. Review of uti-
lity connection and use data or mail delivery schedules can indicate which
homes are permanently occupied and which are occupied on a seasonal basis.
e. Data Available from Universities or Other Research Groups
State and private universities represent valuable data sources for local
population, economic, and other demographic information. Frequently, univer-
sities with programs in urban and regional planning, urban studies, geography,
or similar programs conduct field studies and research projects that involve
small towns and rural areas. These studies can contain useful data on the size
and characteristics of local population, but may be difficult to obtain be-
cause they are often not formally published. Contacts with the appropriate
university personnel are usually required in order to determine if such
studies have been performed and are available. Other private and public re-
search groups such as the independent research branches of local colleges may
provide similar information.
f. Other Data Sources
Windshield surveys and aerial photo interpretation provide reliable and
readily available methods for determining the number of housing units in a
rural planning area and, consequently, required information for population
estimates and projections. The windshield survey can be accomplished by one or
preferably two persons driving through the planning area and rioting the number
and location of housing units on a map. In some rural areas, the windshield
X-B-7
-------
survey method may be inaccurate because not all of the housing units are
visible from public roads. In such cases, or when windshield surveys are not
practical, aerial photographs can be used to inventory housing units. The
aerial photographs can also be used to distinguish land use activities and to
identify land available for future development.
4. POPULATION ESTIMATION AND PROJECTION TECHNIQUES
The use of existing population estimates and projections for a particular
service area is the recommended but not normally the best course of action
available. Not only are many of the existing estimates and forecasts out of
date or not applicable to smaller subareas, but often they are not even avail-
able for small service areas. In addition, the forecasting techniques and/or
the underlying assumptions utilized may make the estimates and projections
inconsistent with the need to determine subarea baseline population levels and
sewer-induced growth. As a result, the need for original population estimates
and projections is apparent in many rural service areas.
This section discusses the population estimation and projection techni-
ques available and the relative merits of each technique for rural service
areas .
a. Population Estimation Techniques
Population estimates are used to describe the size of a population at a
current or very recent point in time. These estimates serve as existing
baseline descriptions upon which future population projections and impacts are
based. Consequently, the accuracy of population projections and impact
evaluations is directly related to the accuracy of population estimates.
Estimates of study area population (typically the entire area of a
county, township, or incorporated area) can normally be obtained through
Census Bureau reports or state planning agency publications (see Section 3,
Sources of Population Data). However, estimates of planning area population
levels are generally not readily available because the planning area boun-
daries often include only portions of areas for which population estimates are
available. If the larger area's population estimates are presented in a format
that can be disaggregated, their use is acceptable if the forecasting techni-
ques and assumptions are consistent with wastewater management planning acti-
vities and needs.
Where population estimates do not exist or cannot be disaggregated to the
planning area, independent estimates of population must be developed. The
typical methods used to prepare population estimates for cities, counties,
townships, or other government jurisdictions are not normally applicable to
smaller rural areas. These methods require detailed information concerning the
number of births and deaths, migration rates, and other demographic data not
normally available for small areas. Consequently, alternative estimation
techniques are usually required for small rural planning areas. The following
population estimation techniques are recommended for small rural planning
areas.
X-B--8
-------
House Survey Method. Small area population estimates may be developed by
housing survey methods. This method consists of a comprehensive housing unit
inventory and personal interviews with a sample or all of the households. The
housing unit inventory should result in the number, location, and occupancy
status of all the existing housing units in the planning area. The personal
interviews conducted in conjunction with the inventory will result in either
an average household size based on a partial sample of households or a com-
plete population enumeration based on all households. This method will not
distinguish permanent and seasonal populations unless the survey and inter-
views are conducted when seasonal residents are present.
The housing survey method produces a very accurate estimate of existing
population levels as well as a complete housing inventory. The information
developed is detailed and void of assumptions. However, the time and resources
involved in field work may make this method impractical for all but extremely
small planning areas.
Tax Roll Survey Method. Land population is estimated using tax rolls by
first identifying the land parcels on lots that occur within the area to be
studied and then determining the number of housing units that occur on these
parcels through the tax records. The seasonal or permanent occupancy can be
determined by the address of the land owner. It can be assumed that if the
owner's place of residence is not within the general study area, the house is
probably a seasonally occupied dwelling. This assumption, if made, should be
supported by local knowledge that the number of absentee landlords renting to
year-round residents is low.
This method alone does not supply all of the information required to
develop an estimate of population. It only produces an accurate count of the
number of permanent and seasonal housing units. The other data required to
make the estimate consist of the average size of households in the area and
the current housing vacancy rate. The average household size can be determined
through a limited sample of households, census figures updated to reflect
current household trends, and estimates from knowledgeable local officials.
Housing vacancy rates may be obtained through interviews with local real-
estate agents, knowledgeable local officials, or homeowner groups.
This method provides a relatively simple and efficient means of esti-
mating population for small rural areas. The major drawback lies in the need
for additional data beyond those that can be found in the tax rolls. Although
these other data are available from other sources, they are somewhat sub-
jective.
Aerial Photo Analysis Method. Small area population estimates can be
developed through the use of current aerial photographs of the area. This
method is similar to the tax roll survey described above except that the total
number of housing units is determined by examination of aerial photographs.
The aerial photo analysis will yield an accurate count of total housing units
provided that the analyst can distinguish between multiple and single-family
structures. The number of seasonal and permanent housing units cannot be
determined through the photo analysis, however. This information and data on
the housing vacancy rates and household size must be obtained through other
sources. The main advantage of the aerial photo analysis method is that it is
less time consuming than other methods primarily because it does not require
extensive field work.
X-B-9
-------
The major drawback of this method lies in the need to distinguish
multiple-family from single-family dwelling units and to obtain additional
information regarding seasonal-permanent population breakdown, vacancy rates,
and average household size from other sources. However, used in combination
with other data sources, the aerial photo analysis method provides perhaps the
most efficient means of developing reliable population estimates.
Dwelling Unit Review Method. Instead of using surveys or other methods to
obtain a housing count, the most recent census data regarding housing stocks
can be updated by studying building permit records. The local permitting
agency or census publications can be used to determine the housing units built
in the planning area since the date of the most recent housing count. This
would result in a total dwelling unit count for the planning area broken down
into single- and multiple-units.
Like many of the other methods, data would still need to be obtained
regarding vacancy rates, household size, and permanent-seasonal population
breakdown. This information can be obtained from other sources, however, and
should result in a reliable population estimate.
Each of the population estimation techniques described has certain
advantages and disadvantages regarding cost, reliability, and additional data
needs. No single method can be considered superior since each method yields a
certain piece of the required information. Normally, a combination of these
estimation techniques is required to produce accurate results in a cost-
effective manner. During the preparation of the Seven Rural Lake EIS's, a
combination of these techniques was utilized to fit the needs of a particular
planning area best. In some cases, the resultant estimates were utilized to
disaggregate larger area population estimates while other rural planning areas
required original estimates for baseline population data.
b. Population Projection Techniques
Population projection techniques normally rely on one or more of six
different types of models: (1) mathematical, (2) economic-employment, (3)
cohort analysis, (4) component, (5) ratio/share, and (6) land use. Beyond
these projection models, there are also various disaggregation techniques for
distributing the population totals to smaller subareas within a study area.
Each of these various projection and disaggregation techniques has certain
limitations, and some techniques are more applicable to smaller areas. Often,
a combination of techniques is required to develop projections for a parti-
cular area. The following sections briefly describe the projection models and
their relative advantages and disadvantages for small rural planning areas.
Mathematical Models. Mathematical projection models assume that the
components that characterize past population change will continue for some
period into the future. This extrapolation of historical trends requires
relatively little data and consequently is simple to apply. However, such
projections do not explain the reasons for past growth nor do they account for
possible future changes that may affect future growth. As a result, these
types of projections should only be used for a short period into the future.
In addition, they are normally more accurate for larger areas since the
changes from past trends are more likely to average out over a larger area.
X-B-10
-------
The most common mathematical model is linear extrapolation, which is
based on a fairly constant past numerical growth that is expected to continue
in the future. The formula for this model is as follows:
Pt+n = *t =
-------
other data are lacking. These models are, however, reliable only for short-
term projections since the relationship between employment and population can
shift rapidly.
The OBERS projections prepared by BEA utilize national fertility rates
and estimates of net migration derived from employment projections. Other
population projections prepared by some of the state agencies in U.S. EPA
Region V utilize similar economic employment models. Normally, population
projections from these models are not available for small rural planning
areas because the required data are often not available for these small
areas; even when they are, the relationship between employment and population
upon which these models are based is tenuous. That is, people living in small
rural areas do not normally work in these areas and the resultant commuting
labor force clouds the employment-population relationship.
Cohort Analysis. A demographic cohort-survival model relies on assump-
tions regarding future births and deaths and gross in- and out-migration to
determine future population levels by age and sex. The cohort-survival model
divides the population by sex into groups (cohorts) of persons of the same age
and uses these base cohorts to project future cohorts using fertility rates
and net migration.
Since this model considers each component of population change
separately, it is very precise if the data inputs are accurate. It is particu-
larly sensitive to fluctuations in migration and requires data that are often
not available for many cities and smaller areas. Consequently, its use for
small rural planning areas is limited by the availability and accuracy of the
required data inputs.
Component Method. The component method of population projection uses the
total population to derive one or more of the component projections. The basis
of the component method requires the preparation of separate projections for
births, deaths, and net migration. These projected components can then be
summed algebraically and added to the base population to derive the projected
population at a future date. The use of this method for small rural planning
areas is constrained by both the availability and accuracy of the required
data inputs.
Ratio/Share Method. The ratio/share method uses population projections
available for a larger area and allocates a portion of the change to the area
under evaluation. The model assumes that the population change in a particular
area depends on the amount of change in the larger region. The ratio of
regional growth to local growth may be chosen from one point in time or as an
annual average ratio from several periods. The formula for determining local
population share is as follows:
c,t+n = c.t or c,t+n = c,t s,t+n
s,t+n s , t s , t
X-B-12
-------
where: c = community
s = larger region
p
t = population at time t
p
t+n = population in year of projection
p
c ,t _ community's constant share of the region's population
~
The ratio/share method is most reliable when used for short-term projec-
tions but can be used for larger period projections. Smaller areas will
generally always have some larger area projection to rely on for this method,
making it widely applicable. However, its use for small rural planning areas
is limited by the hard data assumptions required to determine the planning
area's share of the regional growth.
Land Use Models. Land use models project population on the basis of
available land and population density. This type of projection reverses the
process of projecting population growth first and then determining what land
area will be required. Instead, it begins with the amount of developable land
available and then determines how many people can be accommodated at full
capacity. In order to determine the amount of developable land available, an
environmental constraints evaluation may be performed that incorporates infor-
mation on land use, environmental resources, and economic factors. This
evaluation defines the suitability of land parcels for various types of
development and establishes the carrying capacity of the land. A methodology
for such an evaluation is presented in Chapter XI, Section B.
Some type of density factor based on (1) houses or persons per residen-
tial acre, (2) persons residing per square mile, or (3) the ratio of floor
space to land area is then assigned to each land area. Depending on the
density factor used, a persons-per-household figure can then be applied to
determine either the number of people or residential units.
The advantage of land use models for smaller cities and areas is their
ease of disaggregation. Given the total projected population for a study area,
that portion of the growth that will occur in a particular subarea can be
determined by the land area available and pertinent density restrictions such
as zoning ordinances, comprehensive plans, environmental constraints, or
building code restrictions. Land use models have the additional advantage of
being sensitive to local policy decisions as they relate to land use and
density. The major disadvantage is the model's reliance on zoning laws or
land use plans that may or may not be implemented. Additionally, these projec-
tions often require that some sort of phasing be applied since all of the
available land may not be developed within the projection period.
The population projection methods discussed have varying degrees of
applicability to small rural planning areas. Data requirements, assumptions,
and the projection outputs may limit the usefulness of many of these projec-
tions techniques for small rural planning areas. During the preparation of the
X-B-13
-------
Seven Rural Lake EIS's, several different or a combination of projection
techniques were utilized. Most of these projection methodologies relied at
least in part on land use models and land holding capacity analysis. This
method seems to fit the requirements of small rural planning areas best, given
the data normally available for such areas. In rare instances, data will be
available to use more sophisticated projection techniques that result in
somewhat more reliable projections.
c. Permanent-Seasonal Population Breakdown
A recurring problem in rural service planning areas that include some
type of natural recreational amenity (that is, lakes, mountains, rivers) is
the determination of permanent and seasonal populations. In many of the rural
service areas where such amenities exist, seasonal residents (normally summer)
comprise a major share of the total population. Their short-term habitation of
a dwelling unit (3 to 4 months on the average) requires as much wastewater
treatment capacity as a permanent year-round dwelling unit but results in
lower annual volumes generated. Consequently, the determination of a
permanent-seasonal population breakdown is an important consideration for
calculating design flows for conventional treatment systems as well as a
determining factor for the introduction of small waste flows systems in some
areas.
There is no straightforward or easy way to determine the percentage of
the population that is seasonal. For estimates of the existing population,
house by house surveys provide the most reliable figures but are also expen-
sive and time consuming to obtain. However, if house to house survey methods
are needed for other purposes anyway (such as sanitary surveys), then the
incremental cost for population and occupancy data would be negligible. Infor-
mation from local post offices and utilities presents another option that can
indicate which dwelling units are receiving mail delivery or using the various
utility services on a year-round basis. This information eliminates the need
for house-to-house surveys except for some possible follow-up cross check
surveys.
The method most commonly used in the various Seven Rural Lake EIS's was
an analysis of the property tax rolls. The property tax rolls indicate the
home address of the owner of each residence. This provides a breakdown of
those dwelling units that are owner-occupied. While it cannot be fully deter-
mined which units are seasonally occupied and which are rented to permanent
residents, a fairly accurate delineation of permanent and seasonal units can
be made. Discussions with local realtors may further refine this delineation.
Application of permanent and seasonal household size figures to this
dwelling unit delineation will then define the permanent-seasonal population
breakdown. A close approximation of permanent resident average household size
can be obtained from available census data; however, the average household
size of seasonal residences is not well documented in the available litera-
ture. In the Seven Rural Lake EIS's, the household size of seasonal resi-
dences was determined to be larger than permanent residences because the
seasonal residences were more likely to have additional persons (guests,
relatives, etc.) during the vacation season.
X-B-14
-------
The determination of the percentage of permanent and seasonal population
for population projections requires a more subjective analysis. Neither the
survey nor the utility connection methods will provide any usable information
for projection purposes unless past trends indicate that the breakdown between
seasonal and permanent population has remained fairly constant. Normally, this
will not be the case since the second-home market varies dramatically in
accordance with national economic cycles. When the economy is growing, the
demand for second homes is normally high, and potential buyers are willing to
pay prices sufficiently high enough to drive out permanent owners and renters.
Conversely, when the economy is in a declining cycle, second-home owners are
often willing to sell these units at prices low enough to encourage permanent
residents to purchase them.
A second trend that may affect second-home demand is the increasing cost
of fuel and the resultant effect on travel. As gasoline prices continue to
increase, less disposable income is available not only to maintain a second
home but also to travel to the second home. This trend may reduce second-home
demand in the future and should be considered accordingly in the permanent-
seasonal population projections. Alternatively, gasoline price increases may
only shift demand from remote to close-in recreational communities, thereby
exacerbating lot supply limits in the close-in communities.
The use of property tax rolls may provide some insight into future perma-
nent-seasonal population breakdowns. Analysis of the tax rolls will normally
indicate recent activity in the second-home market. If second homes either
have recently been constructed or have recently changed ownership, then it can
be assumed that the seasonal second-home population will remain a stable if
not increasing portion of the population. Conversely, if no new second-home
dwelling units have been constructed in recent years, it can be assumed that
second-home demand in the service area is either stagnant or declining. Either
of these trends can be verified through discussions with local realtors and
officials.
Another factor to consider when projecting the number of second homes is
the conversion of existing second homes to primary residences. Often, second
homes are purchased as eventual post-retirement residences by the owners. The
owners utilize the houses on a seasonal basis until retirement and then occupy
them permanently. Second-home communities can eventually become year-round
residences for many people and will require the same services as any other
community. Unfortunately, current literature does not address rates of
second-home conversion to permanent residences or factors that influence the
rates. Analysis of local building permits and utility or postal records, when
accessable, is the principal means available for addressing conversion rates.
5. EVALUATION OF IMPACTS ON POPULATION
The provision of wastewater treatment and collection facilities in an
area that was previously unserved may cause a variety of impacts on the local
population. The capacity of an area to support existing and future population
varies to the degree to which wastewater facilities are site-related. On-site
wastewater treatment facilities will support a limited population in a given
area because they are dependent, among other factors, upon soil suitability
characteristics and are generally constructed without excess capacity. Cen-
X-B-15
-------
tralized sewage treatment, on the other hand, is generally independent of site
characteristics and can be designed to support vastly higher population
densities. When centralized wastewater treatment is supplied to a previously
unsewered area, the potential for additional development, population growth,
and the associated impacts on population is increased. This is due not only to
the centralized nature of the system, but also to the excess capacity often
associated with the construction of such system.
Impacts on population caused by wastewater treatment facilities occur in
the form of induced population growth, changes in community composition and
character, increased property values and taxes, additional demands upon com-
munity facilities and services, and changes in housing mix and demand. These
impact categories are described in the following sections.
a. Induced Population Growth
Induced population growth is defined as the increase in population, over
and above the projected baseline population, that results from the provision
of wastewater collection and treatment facilities. The amount of induced
population growth can be determined by comparing the baseline projected popu-
lation levels with the projected population capacity that can be supported by
the wastewater treatment facility in the planning area. The estimate of this
induced population can be developed by examining the amount of underdeveloped
land in the planning area and projecting the density of future development
that will take place as a result of the provision of centralized wastewater
treatment.
Greater densities of development can occur when site-related restrictions
to development are removed. In many cases, land that was previously under-
developable for residential purposes because of site-related wastewater treat-
ment restrictions may become available for development with the provision of
centralized wastewater treatment. In addition, land that may have been
developable only at very low densities can often be developed at significantly
greater densities with the introduction of centralized wastewater treatment.
The net result for a given planning area may be not only a larger population,
but also a more dense development pattern. This often creates problems in the
delivery of services, changes in community composition and character, and
increases in property values and taxes.
While these problems are significant for all planning areas, they are
amplified in small rural planning areas where even small amounts of induced
growth may represent a sizable percentage increase in population. The resul-
tant development patterns, changes in housing demand, demands for increased
levels of service, and potential changes in the rural environment may negate
the benefits derived from the introduction of centralized wastewater treatment
systems. In addition, the financial burdens placed on a homeowner may also be
overwhelming, forcing displacement of households.
As a rule, on-site and small-scale systems induce less growth than cen-
tralized systems and consequently result in fewer and less significant impacts
on small rural planning areas. These systems are normally smaller in size and
are void of extensive interceptor and collection systems. As a result, the
development potential of vacant land is not typically enhanced by continued
X-B-16
-------
reliance of on-site systems. Small-scale facilities such as cluster systems
will not induce growth unless significant excess treatment capacity is con-
structed.
b. Changes in Community Character and Composition
The character and composition of small rural planning areas may be signi-
ficantly affected by the introduction of centralized wastewater treatment
systems. The financial burden of increased property taxes, user fees, and
connection costs may result in displacement of seasonal and lower income
permanent residents. Permanent residents may be displaced by the combination
of increased property values and resultant tax increases as well as excessive
user and connection charges. Seasonal residents, on the other hand, may not
be able to justify the expenditure of money on a year-round basis for user
charges for a seasonal dwelling. The net result of these factors would likely
be an increase in the average income of the residents.
The character of rural areas may undergo subtle changes as centralized
wastewater treatment is made available. More land would be devoted to resi-
dential users and the accompanying support services. The higher development
densities made possible by the central treatment of wastewater would result in
a greater concentration of population and urban-related activities not common
in rural areas. In general, the rural way of life enjoyed by lifetime inhabi-
tants of the area may be changed as new development occurs and new residents
move into the area. Increased traffic congestion, a greater demand for ser-
vices, and changing community attitudes may accompany this change in
character.
The impacts on community character and composition do not occur suddenly.
Rather, these changes occur gradually over a period of time generally in
accordance with the rate and timing of new development and population growth.
c. Property Values
The value of property is determined to a large extent by its highest use.
These uses are often limited by the physical characteristics of the land
itself (soils, topography, drainage) or by legal constraints (zoning, land use
plans). Changes in the value of land are a major socioeconomic impact result-
ing from the construction of wastewater treatment facilities. Land values may
be altered in several ways by the provision of wastewater treatment. Land
adjacent to the treatment plant may decline in value owing to actual perceived
nuisances such as odors, the generally unaesthetic character of the facility,
and public health hazards such as the presence of coliform aerosols that exist
in the vicinity of treatment plants (Zimmerman, 1974). The land in the area
served by a wastewater treatment plant may increase in value by influencing
its potential use. By increasing the potential use of the land, the income
that can be derived from the property increases and the value of the land
rises. The existence and availability of the additional expansion in public
service increase the development potential of the land.
Because the construction of wastewater treatment facilities improves
water quality, such an improvement can increase land values for recreational
X-B-17
-------
uses along the shore of water resources. A number of studies have related the
quality of water resources with land values for both primary and secondary
residential development and the development of general recreational opportu-
nities .
"Another set of studies primarily cross-sectional and conceptual in
nature relate a tendency for increase in water quality to be related
to increases in land values. The study of Wisconsin Lake develop-
ments shows that lake development property was less valuable where
lakes were more polluted. A study of Lake Onondaga, an urban lake
in Syracuse, New York, estimated that an increase in water quality
would have a significantly high dollar value in terms of increased
revenues from recreational opportunities. A study of property
developments on the Rockaway River in New Jersey found that higher
property values are generally associated with cleaner waters, though
in the case of primary homes other factors such as proximity to jobs
may be more important. A recreational demand model for Upper
Klamath Lake in Oregon concluded that an increase in water quality
would increase the recreational use of the Lake. In particular,
they estimated that if algae were removed from the lake and the lake
temperature lowered, the annual rise in net economic value would be
2.65 million dollars plus 542,000 in household income. A study of
sites on San Diego Bay, the Kanawha River in Ohio and the Willamette
River found that pollution abatement could increase the value of
waterfront sites from 8 to 25 percent. Values were affected as far
as 4,000 feet from the water's edge. They estimated that the total
capital value to waterfront residential and recreational development
would be from .6 to 3.1 billion dollars." (Zimmerman, 1973)
Other studies have indicated that sewered property is approximately four
times more valuable than unsewered property and that the value of unsewered
property rises more quickly if sewer service is anticipated in the future
(U.S. EPA, 1978). Sewer facilities change the value of land by influencing its
potential use. By increasing the potential use of the land, the income that
can be derived from the property increases and the value of the land rises.
The impact of centralized wastewater treatment on land values in rural
areas depends upon the basic economic concept of supply and demand. Fre-
quently, the value of sewered land in rural areas is not affected until the
supply of lots is reduced and demand outstrips the remaining supply. Around
recreational lakes, however, the value of sewered property may increase sub-
stantially as the availability of such land for second homes and retirement
residences becomes limited. The sewered land is also more valuable to the
developer of these types of residences because more units can be built on a
given parcel of land.
Property taxes on land sewered by central treatment systems will increase
to reflect the added value of the land. The increase in property tax on a
parcel of undeveloped land may create a financial burden on the owner of the
property and force a higher use of the property. It is possible that some low
income landowners may be displaced by the combination of increased property
taxes, user fees, and connection charges resulting from the implementation of
central treatment systems.
X-B-18
-------
d. Impacts on Community Services and Facilities
The provision of wastewater treatment facilities in rural areas can
create a number of adverse impacts on the existing community services and
facilities. The impacts to community services and facilities are caused by the
more rapid pace of development and the sewer-induced population growth that
occurs when centralized wastewater treatment is provided. In general, elements
such as water supply, police and fire protection, health care, education,
recreation, solid waste disposal, and transportation networks will have to
serve a larger number of people than originally planned. Such services are
often operated at a minimal level in rural areas and do not have the built-in
capacity to provide an adequate level of service for larger populations.
Therefore, it is important to assess the consequences that a sewer project may
have on rural planning area services.
In order to assess the impacts on community services, the existing design
capacity and planned capacity increases must be determined for each service
sector. This information can be obtained from local government officials or
the private operator who provides the service. The service capacity, including
any known planned increases in capacity, is then compared to the projected
population of the area at the end of the planning period to determine if
adequate levels of service will be available.
In rural lakes or other seasonal areas, the provision of an adequate
level of community facilities and services is compounded by large seasonal
population increases. The seasonal peak population often creates a short-term
demand for services. Consequently, a rural community is faced with providing
a high level of services and facilities during a short, three to four month
period that may go unidentified during the remainder of the year. This places
a possibly unjust financial burden on the local governments and their tax-
payers .
e. Changes in Housing Characteristics
Changes in housing characteristics are often caused by the provision of
centralized wastewater treatment in rural areas. These changes are brought on
by the easing of minimum lot size restrictions that are necessitated by on-
site wastewater treatment. With the introduction of centralized wastewater
treatment, new housing and other types of development will tend to be built at
greater densities than before. For the first time in many communities,
multiple-family housing will become feasible because wastewater treatment is
no longer a limiting factor. In areas around rural recreational lakes, housing
for tourists and short-term residents, in the form of motels, lodges, and
resorts may become more common, as will second-home communities. In general, a
change from predominantly large, single-family homes to a greater variety of
housing types at higher densities can be expected to occur once centralized
wastewater treatment is in place. The rate at which this change occurs will
depend on the location of the planning area in relation to metropolitan areas
and on the housing market in the area.
X-B-19
-------
6. SUMMARY
As is apparent in the preceding discussion, no one single approach to
population estimation and projections or impact evaluation techniques is
preferable over the others. Each rural planning area will have unique
characteristics related to data needs, data availability, resources, and time
constraints that will in large measure determine the most effective and
efficient techniques to use. In many cases, a combination of techniques will
be required to develop the information needed for a particular project. Many
of the techniques discussed can be effectively combined into a single approach
that will produce reliable results. However, it is necessary that professional
judgment be used throughout the process to ensure that required assumptions
are valid and that the techniques utilized are compatible.
X-B-20
-------
REFERENCES
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1978. Manual for evaluating secondary
impacts of wastewater treatment facilities. EPA-600/5-78-003. Office of
Air, Land and Water Use, Washington DC.
Zimmerman, R. 1973. Hydrologic modifications associated with the vacation
home market. Presented at the Tenth American Water Resources Association
Conference, Puerto Rico.
Zimmerman, R. 1974. Manual for estimating selected socioeconomic impacts and
secondary environmental impacts of sewage treatment plant construction
and operation. Prepared for U.S. EPA Region II.
X-B-21
-------
C. RECREATION HOME DEMAND
Recreation lot sales and second home development have been a significant
market force in the United States in recent years. Rising levels of
disposable income, ready mobility, and increased leisure time have led to an
increase in the purchase of second homes. This has been true particularly in
areas that are contiguous to inland lakes and rivers and that are accessible
to major employment centers (Marans and Wellman, 1977). The only thing that
is certain about the future of second home development, though, is
uncertainty. The housing recession and oil shortages between 1973 and 1975
resulted in a significant downturn in second home development (ASPO, 1976).
If this experience is extrapolated to current conditions, the availability of
gasoline for leisure travel and prevailing interest rates may curtail this
type of development.
Nationally, 5.7 million households own a recreation property, most of
which occur in areas with outstanding natural attractions such as streams or
lakes (Burby, 1979). Other estimates show a stock of 10 million lots
subdivided in the U.S. as of 1976 (ASPO, 1976). As of 1973, approximately 3.5
million households, or 5.1% of all households in the U.S., owned second homes
(ASPO, 1976). Other estimates show a national stock of 12 to 15 million lots
and 3.5 million recreation homes (Ragatz, 1980). Of the national stock of 2
million second homes identified in the 1970 census, Michigan had the greatest
number with 188,864 or 8.8% (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1972). Of the other
states in Region V, Wisconsin had 4.7%, Minnesota 3.9%, Ohio 2.2%, Indiana
2.1%, and Illinois 1.8%.
The period of the late 1960s through the decade of the 1970s showed a
steady climb in this type of development. Approximately 150,000 second home
units were being constructed in the U.S. annually prior to the 1970s (ASPO,
1976). Data available from three of the Seven Rural Lake EISs showed a 12.4%
(Crooked/Pickerel Lakes), 12.5% (Otter Tail Lake), and 15% (Crystal Lake),
increase in dwelling units between 1970 and 1975. Table X-C-1 shows the
percent increase in total population projected for each of the Seven Rural
Lake EIS lake project communities to the year 2000 and the percentage of the
TABLE X-C-1. SEVEN RURAL LAKE EISs POPULATION PROJECTIONS (Increase to the
Year 2000 and Seasonal Population, expressed in Percentage)
Study area Population increase Seasonal population
Crooked/Pickerel Lakes 33.5 47.7
Crystal Lake 31.8 46.0
Otter Tail Lake 16.0 76.0
Nettle Lake 1.6 88.0
Steuben Lakes 27.0 68.0
Green Lake 18.0 43.0
Salem Utility District 31.5 27.6
X-C-1
-------
total accounted for by seasonal population. These projections run from a low
of 1.6% growth in population at Nettle Lake, Ohio to a high of 33.5% at
Crooked/Pickerel Lakes, Michigan. As these data show, these rural lake areas
are projected to experience fairly rapid rates of growth and be comprised to a
large extent, of seasonal residents.
The overwhelming attraction factor for second-home development is
accessibility to lakes and rivers and the recreation opportunities that they
afford (Marans and Wellman, 1977). In Michigan, 55% of second homes are on
inland lakes, 21% on the Great Lakes, and 10% on rivers or streams, and of the
total, 89% are within a five-minute walk of some body of water (ASPO, 1976).
Other stated reasons for second home or lot purchases are for investment/
speculation purposes or to escape the pressures of more urbanized living for
more natural surroundings.
Travel distance is a significant factor in the location of second-home
development. Data from a study conducted in northern Michigan indicate that
the distance traveled to recreation homes averaged 250 miles (Marans and
Wellman, 1977). Other studies state that accessibility is the key factor in
second-home development, with natural amenities second (ASPO, 1976). Natural
amenities include bodies of water, scenic views, seclusion, and woodlands.
This latter study indicates that the majority of second homes in the U.S. are
located within 100 miles of the primary home.
Characteristics of the second-home lot that are preferential are lot
sizes of between 1/4 and 1 acre, single-family detached housing, and ready
access to surface water for recreation. Of the national stock, approximately
57% of the lots are between 1/4 and 1 acre (ASPO, 1976). According to Marans
and Wellman (1977), a lake's shoreline development density is the most
important factor to resident satisfaction levels. Their data show that houses
spaced less than 40 feet apart engender dissatisfaction because residents do
not feel any sense of privacy at higher density. This tendency towards lower
density residential development is also borne out by the required zoning
densities in each of the Seven Rural Lake EIS areas. As Table X-C-2 shows
most of the lakeshore areas zoning districts allow densities of approximately
1 to 2 dwelling units per acre.
TABLE X-C-2.
DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE PERMITTED UNDER LAKESHORE ZONING
ORDINANCES
Lake area
Dwelling units per acre
Crooked/Pickerel Lakes
Crystal Lakes
Salem Utility District
Steuben Lakes
Green Lake Lake
Otter Tail Lake
Nettle Lake
1.98
2.5-5.1
0.2-2.2
4.3
.5-1
1-2
No zoning
X-C-2
-------
In all of the Seven Rural Lake EIS project areas, the overwhelming
dwelling unit type is single-family detached. Even in areas where development
density bonuses are permitted for clustering units in return for conserving
open space, no clustering or higher density development has taken place.
Marans and Wellman (1977) found in surveying residents in northern Michigan,
that residents favored single-family detached units even if more clustered or
high density residential development allowed for environmental preservation.
Along with housing type and density, lakefront access for recreation is
critical to recreation home residents (Marans and Wellman, 1977). The
dominant settlement pattern in five of the Seven Rural Lake EIS areas was
single tier development along the banks of the major surface water bodies with
direct access to those resources. In the Seven Rural Lake areas EIS public
access in the form of public beaches or boat ramps is limited. Nettle Lake
has no public facilities. On Crooked/Pickerel Lakes only 2% of the shoreline
is available, in Green Lake 2.9%, and in the Salem Utility District a total of
960 feet are in public access facilities. These limitations could severely
curtail the incidence of second tier residential development where little or
no direct access to lakefront recreation is available.
Various literature sources are in agreement with two aspects of the
market for second homes. One is that the recent past has seen a large
increase in the purchase of recreation lots and development of second homes as
a direct result of larger amounts of disposable income, increased leisure
time, and ready, inexpensive mobility (ASPO, 1976; Burby, 1979). The other
aspect is that the future is uncertain. One of the factors that makes an
analysis of recent market forces in recreation properties difficult is that
recent statistics are not available. Ragatz (1980) has projected demand for
recreation properties in the north central regions of the United States to the
year 1985. He cautions that these projections are based upon scant data and
market statistics that have varied significantly in recent years. Table X-C-3
shows these projections for recreation lots, single-family recreation homes,
and resort condominiums. The number of households owning recreational
properties is expected to increase by 21%, the number of households owning
single-family vacation homes will increase 14.2%, and the number of households
owning resort condominiums will increase by 32%. Based upon data from the
1973 to 1975 housing recession, the rate of development in this market is
subject to major shifts in the economy. Sources are again in agreement that
the future of this market will be dependent on the price and availability of
gasoline as well as the availability of mortgage money and the prevailing
interest rates. Possible shifts in the market could occur that would
encourage more intensive lakeside development in areas in closer proximity to
major employment centers.
X-C-3
-------
TABLE X-C-3. RECREATION DEMAND IN THE NORTH CENTRAL REGION OF THE
UNITED STATES
1980
1985
Total number of households
Number of households owning recreational
properties
Number of households owning single-family
vacation homes
Number of households owning a resort
condominium
20,500,000
1,827,200
1,107,600
163,200
22,000,000
2,318,400
1,290,200
240,000
Source: Ragatz, 1980
X-C-4
-------
RAILROADS
TRANSPORTATION
WAR & NATIONAL
DEFENSE
45 U.S.C.
49 U.S.C.
6708
6728
6881(h)
6979
7614
565
1609
1636
1722
50 U.S.C. App. § 2281
D.B.A. wage standards adopted for
local public works projects.
D.B.A. wage standards apply to
construction projects implemented
to stimulate economic recovery.
Construction undertaken as energy
conservation measure or renewable
resource measure subject to D.B.A.
D.B.A. applies to construction
related to resource recovery tech-
nology (solid or hazardous waste
disposal/recovery).
D.B.A. wage rates adopted. (See §
1857J-3).
D.B.A. also referred to in D.C. Code § 31-1053 and cross-referenced in
•
20 U.S.C. 355c Public library construction
42 U.S.C. 1416 Housing & slum clearance contracts
XVI-E-12
US GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1983—655-178/102
-------
42 U.S.C. 3310
3884
3909
3936
4529
4728
5046
5310
5919
6042
6063(b)(19)
6371J
Construction of demonstration
cities and metropolitan develop-
ment programs is subject to D.B.A.
provided that residential faci-
lities are designed to house eight
more families.
D.B.A. applies to construction of
facilities for training of person-
nel to diagnose and treat potential
delinquent youths.
D.B.A. applies to construction on
new community land development
financed by HUD.
D.B.A. applies to construction or
rehabilitation of housing and
related facilities for low and
moderate-income families and indi-
viduals .
D.B.A. applies to Federally funded
construction for urban growth and
community development.
Transfer of functions to U.S. Civil
Service Commission; all statutory
personnel requirements established
as condition of the receipt of
Federal funds are abolished except
D.B.A.
D.B.A. applies to any construction
carried on with ACTION funds.
D.B.A. labor standards apply to
construction with funds of commu-
nity development programs so long
as residential housing involves
eight or more family or individual
units.
Construction of alternative fuel
demonstration facilities subject to
D.B.A.
D.B.A. applies to construction,
renovation or modernization of
university-affiliated facilities
for those with developmental dis-
abilities. (References related to
grants for projects and application
requirements omitted in revision of
Subchap. by PL 95-602, Title V, §
509, Nov. 6, 1978).
Construction on university-affi-
liated facilities subject to D.B.A.
Energy conservation projects for
schools and hospitals involving
over $5000 must pay prevailing wage
rate.
XVI-E-11
-------
3000-3(h) Construction or modernization of
medical facilities subject to
D.B.A.
1437J Development of low-income housing
project with nine or more units
subject to D.B.A.
1440 State housing, finance and develop-
ment agencies.
1459 Development of a project under
Subchap. II, Slum clearance and
urban renewal, is subject to D.B.A.
requirements unless laborers and
mechanics are municipal employees.
I486(f) D.B.A. requirements on projects
involving financial assistance to
provide low-rent housing for do-
mestic farm labor are only waived
for voluntary donation of labor.
1500c-3 D.B.A. applies to development of
open space land.
1592i D.B.A. applies to HUD housing for
defense workers and military per-
sonnel and communication facilities
for national defense activities.
1857J-3 Construction of facilities for air
pollution prevention and control
(Clean Air Act) subject to D.B.A.
labor standards (transferred to §
7614).
2689j(5) Construction of community mental
health centers subject to D.B.A.
2992a Construction of buildings or faci-
lities in connection with volunteer
programs subject to D.B.A.
2947 Any repair, alteration or improve-
ment of buildings for Community
Service Administration subject to
D.B.A.
304la(4) Construction of multi-purpose
senior citizen centers subject to
D.B.A.
3027 Grants for community and state
plans on aging requires assurances
that workers will be paid in accor-
dance with D.B.A. provisions.
3107 Construction of basic neighborhood
water and sewer facilities subject
to D.B.A.
3222 Any construction on property ac-
quired by Sec. of HUD in connection
with loans made for public works
and economic development is subject
to D.B.A.
XVI-E-10
-------
MONEY & FINANCE
31 U.S.C. 1243
NAVIGATION & NAVIGA-
TION WATERS
33 U.S.C. 1372
VETERANS' BENEFITS
POSTAL SERVICE
PUBLIC BUILDINGS,
PROPERTY, & WORKS
PUBLIC CONTRACTS
38 U.S.C. 5035
39 U.S.C. 410
40 U.S.C. App.
808
41 U.S.C. 42
258
PUBLIC HEALTH &
WELFARE
42 U.S.C. 242m
(h)(z)
247d(f)(l)
254c(e)(l)
25 4b
291e(a)(5)
293a(c)(7)
295d(a)(6)
296a(b)(5)
299d(b)(4)
300j-9(e)
D.B.A. applies to construction
under Federal Water Pollution
Control Act. Note: No provisions
for municipal workers to be exempt.
§ 402 (omitted)
D.B.A. applies to construction on
Union Station building (including
parking lot).
D.B.A. provisions not modified by §
35-45, contracts for materials,
breach of government contracts,
etc.
D.B.A. requirement applies even if
purchase or contract was entered
without advertising.
Construction of mental health
facility subject to D.B.A.
Construction of migrant health
centers subject to B.D.A.
Construction of community health
centers subject to D.B.A.
Repealed, Oct. 12, 1976 (referred
to National Health Service Corps)
Construction and modification of
public and other non-profit hospi-
tals subject to D.B.A.
Construction of regional training
facilities for professionals sub-
ject to D.B.A.
Construction of public and private
non-profit medical schools subject
to D.B.A.
Construction of public or non-pro-
fit private nursing schools subject
to D.B.A.
Construction of facilities for
regional medical programs subject
to D.B.A.
Construction of facilities for
family planning projects subject to
D.B.A.
XVI-E-9
-------
SECTIONS THAT INCORPORATE THE LABOR STANDARDS
ESTABLISHED IN THE DAVIS-BACON ACT
40 U.S.C. § 276a (1976) lists 73 sections of the U.S.C. that refer to the
Davis-Bacon Act (as amended by PL 88-349).
Volume II of the 1978 Supplement to the U.S.C. lists nine additional sections
referring to the Davis-Bacon Act and fails to list six included in the 1976
listing.
ARMED FORCES
BANKS & BANKING
COMMERCE & TRADE
CONSERVATION
EDUCATION
HIGHWAYS
INDIANS
LABOR
10 U.S.C. 2304
12 U.S.C. 1701q
1715c
1749a
15 U.S.C. 3152b
16 U.S.C. 779e
20 U.S.C. 684
954
1232b
23 U.S.C. 113
25 U.S.C. 450e
458
1633
29 U.S.C. 251
252
253
254
256
258
259
262
776
827
964
968
917
Exempts certain contracts, pur-
chases, and formal advertising from
Davis-Bacon Act [hereinafter D.B.A.]
provisions.
General provisions specify that
reservoir work funded shall not be
of type to which D.B.A. applies.
D.B.A. noted to apply to all Fed-
erally assisted construction.
D.B.A. not applicable to youth
unemployment projects under $5000.
XVI-E-8
-------
14. Section 276a authorizes the contracting officer to withhold those
payments considered necessary to compensate workers for the difference
between the wage rates required by contract and the rates actually
paid by the contractor or subcontractor.
Section 276a-l allows for the termination of a contractor's right to
proceed with work under the contract if the specified wage rates are
not paid.
Section 276a-2 directs the Comptroller General of the United States to
give workers those payments withheld from contractors because the
required wage rates had not been paid. The Comptroller General is
also authorized to compile and distribute among all government
departments a list of those contractors recommended for debarment due
to their violation of contract obligations. A debarment listing
renders a contractor ineligible to receive any Federal contract for
three years.
Some unions are concerned that the Comptroller General is given too
much discretion. They would like to see actual enforcement in the
hands of the Labor Department, where unions have more influence.
Sections 276a-3, 276a-4, and 276a-5 establish the Act as an integral
part of the body of Federal law providing for the establishment of
wage rates, effective since September 29, 1935, but subject to
suspension by the President in the event of a national emergency.
15. 40 U.S.C.A. 276a, 276a-2, Notes of Decision.
16. United States v. Binghamton Construction Co., 347 U.S. 171 (1954) was
a landmark decision that established that the Secretary of Labor's
wage determinations are not subject to judicial review.
17. The Wage Appeals Board was created by the Labor Secretary's Order No.
32-63. Administrative review of disputed wage rates by a board of
procurements and industry experts had been recommended by the General
Subcommittee on Labor of the House Committee on Education and Labor
upon the conclusion of its oversight hearings on the Davis-Bacon Act's
administration. The Secretary's Order No. 32-63 acted upon the
subcommittee's recommendation.
18. Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. v. Brennan, 73 L.C. 33,036
D.C., 1974).
19. 29 C.F.R., Section 5.5(a)(3).
20. 40 U.S.C. 276a (1964).
21. Statement of Labor Secretary Marshall before House Labor Subcommittee
on Labor Standards, C.L.R. No. 1231 (BNA), June 20, 1979, p. E-l.
22. Id., p. E-2.
23. See nn. 10.
XVI-E-7
-------
FOOTNOTES
1. Act of March 3, 1931, 40 U.S.C. 276a.
The Act has been amended four times to further original Congressional
intent and incorporate fringe benefits in computation of prevailing
wages.
Act of August 3, 1935, 40 U.S.C. 276a made the Secretary of Labor
responsible for issuing the prevailing wage rate determinations.
Act of June 15, 1940, 40 U.S.C. 276a et seq. extended the Act's
benefits to the Territories of Alaska and Hawaii.
Act of July 12, 1960, 40 U.S.C. 276a et seq., P.L. 86-624 eliminated
references to the Territories of Alaska and Hawaii.
Act of July 2, 1964, 40 U.S.C. 276a et seq., P.L. 88-349 expanded the
term "prevailing wage" to include fringe benefits.
2. See list attached at the end of these notes.
3. Act of August 14, 1946, 60 Stat. 1062.
4. See nn. 2.
5. Building & Construction Trades Dept., AFL-CIO, Davis-Bacon Handbook
(1979) at section entitled, "The Pro-Davis-Bacon Amendment."
6. 40 U.S.C. 276a.
7. Building & Construction Trades Dept., AFL-CIO, op. cit. , at section
entitled "Questions & Answers," p. 8.
8. 29 C.F.R., Subtitle A, Part 1, Section 1.2 (a)(l); Elisburg, Wage
Protection Under the Davis-Bacon Act, 28 LABOR L.J. 323, at 325
(1977).
9. U.S. Dept. of Labor, Manual of Operations For Issuance of Wage Deter-
minations Under the Davis-Bacon And Related Acts, pp. 14-A-C (Aug. 1,
1977).
10. Interview With Tony Ponturiero, U.S. Dept. of Labor, director of the
Division of Government Contract Wage Determinations, July 24, 1980.
11. Building & Construction Trades Dept., AFL-CIO, op. cit., at section
entitled "Questions & Answers," pp. 9-10.
12. U.S. Dept. of Labor, op cit. , pp. 14-A-C (Aug. 1, 1977).
13. Id.
XVI-E-6
-------
The data on which the charges were based was refuted by the Secretary of
Labor who noted that the GAO estimates had been obtained from a survey of the
wages paid workers on private construction sites only. The unions published a
forty page rebuttal, entitled "A Fatally Flawed Study." The Department of
Labor calculates the prevailing wage rate based on the wages paid workers on
government-financed or assisted projects as well as those wages paid workers
employed on private construction projects.22 Differences in opinion on the
proper prevailing rate determination cannot be attributed to differences in
the method of survey alone, however. Labor unions object when the prevailing
wage rate is established at less than union wages and openshop contractors
challenge decisions that set union wages as the prevailing rate.23 The pre-
vailing wage rate is a bone of political contention, as are the paperwork
requirements of the law.
One way to shed light on the problem is to compare labor costs of similar
EPA-funded and Farmer's Home Administration-funded sewer projects. Farmer's
Home Administration projects are not subject to Davis-Bacon. EPA projects
are. Finding comparable projects may prove difficult.
4. RECOMMENDATIONS
Federally-funded alternative sewage projects in small communities should
be treated as the new phenomena they are. EPA and the Department of Labor
should carefully investigate private and public contracts to determine the
appropriate job classifications, rates of pay, and area differences. They
should take special care to investigage whether rural alternative projects are
similar to all other water and sewer projects. It may be appropriate to
establish a new project classification or to change the classification of
rural projects from heavy to commercial or residential. Such an examination
is especially important if, as we believe, the success of the small community
programs depends in part on whether contractors with experience in the field,
but little experience with EPA, are encouraged to bid on EPA-funded projects.
It makes sense for EPA to require Project Wage Determinations on individual
projects until the Agency is satisfied that it has enough data to develop
General Wage Determinations.
EPA and the Department of Labor should make a better effort to educate
contractors, particularly smaller businesses, on the Davis-Bacon Act, as well
as other Federal requirements.
The alternative technology, small community water and water industry—if
such an industry exists — should organize itself to see that it gets fair
treatment from the Secretary of Labor.
XVI-E-5
-------
All water and sewer projects, from the largest to the smallest, are
classified as heavy.13 This assumes that there are no labor condition
differences between big city and small town projects. This assumption needs
close examination.
e. Other Provisions
The provisions dealing with the administrative concerns of enforcement,
effective date, effect on other Federal laws, and effect in the event of a
national emergency14 have generated some concern and case law,15 but the
prevailing wage rate provision is generally recognized as the pivotal
provision of the Davis-Bacon Act, the one that in principle and practice
creates the most controversy.
The decisions made by the Secretary of Labor on prevailing wage rates are
not subject to judicial review.16 Since 1963, however, the Secretary's
decisions have been subject to administrative review.17 The Labor
Department's Wage Appeals Board is the administrative body responsible for
hearing and ruling on the validity of prevailing wage rate determinations
challenged by labor or industry representatives. The Board's decisions are
final.18
f. Record Keeping
The law requires contractors to maintain payrolls and basic records
during the course of work, submit a weekly signed copy of all payrolls to the
contracting agencies, and preserve those records for three years.19 The
payroll records should include the employee's name, his job classification,
his social security number, and wage and fringe benefits. The Act also
requires the contractor or subcontractors to post the specified wage rates for
the contract at the construction site and to pay not less often than once a
week the full amount due their workers according to the wage rates set by the
Secretary of Labor.20 One contractor on a small rural sewage project estimated
that Davis-Bacon added two to four person-hours of work each week for its
bookkeeping department.
3. THE ARGUMENT OVER INFLATION
Estimates of how inflationary Davis-Bacon is on small community projects
varied widely, from a percent or two of the total cost to a wild forty to
fifty percent of the cost.
The Secretary's prevailing wage rate decisions draw a line over which the
conflicting interests of contractors, labor, and government administrators
frequently clash. On April 27, 1979, the General Accounting Office (GAO)
issued a recommendation that the Davis-Bacon Act be repealed because the Act's
prevailing wage provision was considered to be inflationary. Advancing the
argument commonly made by contractors, the GAO charged that the Labor
Department's prevailing wage determinations were excessive, that they caused
higher wages to prevail in the industry, and that as a result construction
costs were increased. The expense of administering the law was also cited in
the GAO report as adding millions of dollars to the cost of government
construction.21
XVI-E-4
-------
The Department of Labor gives three alternative methods for calculating
prevailing wages for a particular job classification in a particular area, in
projects of a similar character:
(1) the hourly rate plus fringe benefits paid to the majority of workers in
the area, project type, and job classification;
(2) if a majority are not paid the same wage rate, plus fringes, the prevail-
ing rate is that received by the greatest number of workers, so long as
the number represents at least 30% of those in the job classification;
(3) if less than 30% of those employed are paid the same rate, the average
wage plus fringes is taken to be the prevailing wage.8
Most wage determinations are general in nature, applying to many projects
and lasting until the Department of Labor modifies or supercedes them. How-
ever, when a contracting or funding agency believes that a particular project
is unique, and that there are no appropriate general wage determinations, it
may request a Project Wage Determination. Project Wage Determinations apply
to single projects and expire 120 days after issuance.9 If the project is not
bid within the time period, a new determination must be issued.
The unions closely watch both general wage determinations and project
determinations.10 Local unions are encouraged to send all evidence of wage
increases to their international union for submission to the Department of
Labor.11 Contractors and engineers, particularly those who specialize in
rural projects, appear to be mounting no comparable efforts.
c. Job Classifications
A major gripe of contractors is that Davis-Bacon forces them to pay the
same worker who does different jobs different rates of pay. This creates
worker dissatisfaction and bookkeeping confusion. This is especially true of
non-union shops.
The Department of Labor is supposed to classify jobs on the basis of the
contractors' actual practice.
The unions claimed that many contractors underclassify jobs in order to
bid low. We were not able to determine whether small community contractors
are more or less likely to be affected by classification problems than con-
tractors in general.
d. Project Classifications
Construction projects are generally classified as:
• residential,
• commercial building,
• highway, and
• heavy.12
XVI-E-3
-------
2. WHAT DAVIS-BACON SAYS
Davis-Bacon requires contractors and subcontractors on eligible projects
to pay at least the prevailing wages paid corresponding classes of laborers
and mechanics employed on projects of similar character in the area where the
contract work is performed.6 Each of these terms—prevailing wages, classes
of laborers, projects of similar character, area where the contract work is
performed—requires and has received extensive interpretation. The key issue
for us is the way in which this law affects alternative treatment projects in
small communities.
a. Areas
The whole idea of Davis-Bacon is to protect the stability of local wage
rates. The law defines local area as the city, town, village, or other civil
subdivision of the state in which the work is to be performed. The Department
of Labor continually surveys the counties of America to determine prevailing
wages in various trades for various types of projects.
A number of contractors and engineers complained that the effect of
Davis-Bacon was to drive up wages beyond local rates, particularly in rural
areas. Some engineers and contractors dissented from the majority view. They
felt that not enough Federal money had been spent on on-site, alternative-type
sewage technologies and therefore it was hard to make a judgment. In strongly
union areas, and in states where they were aware of state equivalents to the
Davis-Bacon Act, several noted that the Federal law makes little difference.
Each Friday, the Department of Labor publishes revisions and modifica-
tions of its general or area-wide wage determinations in the Federal Register,
which the department and certain union leaders defend as accurate and current.
Some union officials admit that in certain cases rural wage determinations are
based on data from urban areas. This occurs, they say, when there is no
project of a similar character in a rural area and the Department of Labor
investigators are obliged to go to the nearest urban area where that kind of
project exists. It would seem at first that small-scale rural projects have
no urban counterparts; however, construction of Chicago's or New York's
massive sewage treatment facilities is considered by the Department of Labor
to be of a similar character to the construction of the smallest rural sewage
lagoon.
According to the AFL-CIO, "Generally speaking, the Department of Labor
analyzes data on a county-by-county basis except where the facts in a parti-
cular area indicate that a different civil subdivision should be applied."7
Sometimes one determination covers several counties. The Department of Labor
computes more than 17,000 wage determinations annually.
The argument of whether Davis-Bacon rates are truly local is usually
fought out in the context of whether Davis-Bacon is or is not inflationary.
b. Prevailing Wages
It is commonly believed that Davis-Bacon wages are always union wages.
This is false. According to the Department of Labor, in most categories of
construction, non-union wages predominate.
XVI-E-2
-------
E. THE DAVIS-BACON ACT AND SMALL COMMUNITY ALTERNATIVE WASTE-
WATER MANAGEMENT PROJECTS FUNDED BY EPA
The Davis-Bacon Act1 is a Federal law that regulates the wages paid to
laborers and mechanics under Federally funded construction contracts involving
more than $2000. All projects funded by the Clean Water Act are covered by
Davis-Bacon2 as are most other Federal or Federally funded public works and
public buildings. Projects funded by Farmer's Home Administration, including
municipal water and sewer projects, are exceptions.3
The purposes of this paper are (1) to set out the provisions and
procedures of Davis-Bacon in a clear way for the use of designers,
contractors, labor unions, administrators, and municipal officials involved in
alternative and innovative water and sewage projects; (2) to report on the
controversies surrounding this law, particularly as they relate to small
community water and sewage problems; and (3) to make recommendations to U.S.
EPA on reconciling Davis-Bacon to EPA's Small Community Program.
1. A SHORT HISTORY
The Davis-Bacon Act was a child of the Depression. It was passed in 1931
to discourage construction contractors from underbidding each other by using
low-cost, non-local labor. The Davis-Bacon Act passed the Congress on a wave
of emotion, prompted by Depression labor conditions of the type described in
John Steinbeck's novel, The Grapes of Wrath. Contractors in those days
imported bands of displaced, desperate workers from the hardest-hit sections
of the country to fulfill Federal contracts in areas with higher prevailing
wages and somewhat more stable economies. This practice accelerated the
spreading collapse of wages and labor markets across the country. It also
sowed enmity among workers from different regions. Steinbeck's book portrays
the conflicts between displaced Oklahoma farmers (the Okies) and the
marginally more prosperous Californians.
While labor conditions have changed considerably since 1931, the
Davis-Bacon Act continues to stir deep emotions in labor and management
circles. Dick O'Brecht of the Associated General Contractors surveyed his
members and found that they regard Davis-Bacon as the second most vexing
redtape requirement associated with Federally funded sewage projects. (The
first most vexing requirement is the rules governing minority business
enterprise.) In Washington, D.C. and in the state capitols, labor and
management lobbyists engage in a perpetual legislative battle over
Davis-Bacon. The American Consulting Engineers Council, the Associated
General Contractors, and other management groups are committed to an across-
the-board repeal of Davis-Bacon, a feat that would require amending 60
separate statutes4 and involve almost every committee of the Congress. The
AFL-CIO Building Trades Council has its own agenda for Davis-Bacon reform,5 a
collection of technical amendments that together would give advantages to the
labor side of disputes. This perpetual legislative conflict mirrors and
magnifies the conflicting interests of labor, management, and government on
the Federally financed job sites across America.
XVI-E-1
-------
B. The public meeting required by 40 CFR 35.917-5(b)(6) provides an
opportunity for property owners to be informed of whether or not
they have been found to need wastewater treatment facilities. During
the meeting they can respond to the consultant's determination of
their need status. A map with each lot designated as no-need,
obvious-problem, or inconclusive would be helpful for public under-
standing. This meeting could be conveniently scheduled at the end of
Phase I.
C. Partial sanitary surveys conducted during Phase 2 of needs documen-
tation offer an excellent opportunity to gain public input provided
surveyors are adequately informed about the project or can refer
difficult questions to a knowledgeable person for immediate re-
sponse.
D. The final public hearing required by 40 CFR 35.917-5 should be sche-
duled at the end of facilities planning. At this public hearing a
map showing service areas for grantee supervised decentralized
technologies will be displayed. Within service areas, tentatively
proposed methods of treatment and disposal for individual developed
lots will be available to the lot owners. It should made clear to
the public that site investigations conducted in Steps 2 or 3 may
result in adjustments to the proposed treatment and disposal methods
for individual lots.
A-12
-------
Field work necessary to thoroughly evaluate the condition of individual
on-site systems and to select technology for necessary upgrading or replace-
ment is generally to be viewed as Step 2 or Step 2 + 3 work. Typical field
work for this level of analysis includes completion of the sanitary survey
and, as appropriate to each building, installation and monitoring of water
meters, inspection of septic tanks, rodding house sewers and effluent lines,
probing or limited excavation of soil absorption systems for inspection, and
other measures listed above for representative sampling. Construction of
on-site replacements and upgrading may proceed in tandem with this site
specific analysis provided:
• state and local officials concur (their prior concurrence might be
limited to standard systems),
• contract language allows for flexibility in the facilities to be con-
structed,
• property owner concurrence with the selected alterations is obtained,
and
• additional cost-effectiveness analysis to support technology selection
is not necessary.
Necessary state and local agency approval of off-site, non-standard, or
owner-protested facilities or those requiring additional cost analysis would
optimally proceed on a segment-by-segment basis to minimize the time between
technology selection and construction.
The establishment of a management district's authority to accept re-
sponsibility for the proper installation, operation and maintenance of indi-
vidual systems per 40 CFR 35.918-l(e) and (i) should be completed before award
of Step 2 or Step 2+3 grants. Development of a management district's pro-
gram for regulation and inspection of systems must be completed before a Step
3 grant award or before authorization to proceed with construction procurement
is granted under a Step 2+3 grant.
VI. Public Participation
The following comments are intended to demonstrate how this guidance
relates to the standard requirements for public participation. It is not all
inclusive.
A. Although mailed questionnaries have limited utility for needs docu-
mentation, they can serve as useful public participation tools. A
useful "mailing list" may include all owners of residences within
unsewered areas in the planning area and other interested and
affected parties.
The requirement for consulting with the public set forth in 40 CFR
35.917-5(b)(5) will be considered satisfied if questionnaires are
submitted by individuals on the "mailing list."
A-ll
-------
^^
I
o
z
i^
L
«
w
U
S
^> «
11
u.
0>
a c
•^ ^i S
c o •»
3 ^ t_ i**
00. C
-0.25 o
c E .c
o 'c "a 3
o o a> o
Q o JT in
'to
3
U
C
o
o
c
}
4) k.
o£
0
A
U
O
^s ^x
^ Ift
'in =
5 «
0 S
a.
0
V
J
o
z
r
£
o
c
qj O> fc O
lrt-0 3'-
Q o =
CLZQ «
I
'tf)
c
o
m
a
a>
W
^
a>
E
3
U
O
Q
r»-
0.3;
*" J3
s
is
5*
>
°n
3
O
e
o
|
1
w «1
4> 4>
S.2
£So
2 -*- c
^ ^ 6°»
^ * XJ a
= ° c
s.§§
£tJ?
a. «j.E
olls
§§; 2.1
•o »£.2^
« Q» _ S
.S5S §3
lillS
41 »: •— w £
•a -c fe —
0
o
CVJ S
4> <0 E S
O 4> 0 ^
£ 4> O 2
Q.ZO v>
M o i * £
— M 0 « 0
5 S * "£ •
.2 • « ai^
2 e =" - .£ &
3 o 2 "gi^ -
|l|lf|
~^m
/
o
z
^^
i
c ,- —
O C 4>
|S|
•J a* C
<— >i>
« «
— Q. oi
2 c **
c.2>-
2o~
<".- 1
J3 ja O*
w5.£
i
w
<0
a.
a
o>
£
U
in
w
w
a
a.
E
o
U
U9
O
o
>
i«
*! /r>
< o / 5^5
^ 1 > 2 o>
I 4) ^ . —
V en ^
1 E
•rl CD
iH )-l
, -H 60
• i c ^ cd
e -g c £ C 1-1 -H
— 2 «> -j ,O 60 T3
Jlljj^l "52
£ o £ *= o c a a) r^
•-• •— CX *- » O » 5 C
w J <£ C C flj C yj .^ p£?
** 5 S 2 — 35 en p.)
^5 ^H 'J ^L M ^^ ^ >r^
Oe.«n>>o-- OOC
o o o "° •— « ° 4-1 a) o
-•«— £ o 5 °- OT3
75-3 >.5 3-5 >» > rt
|2§"1?.2< u w -°
J o i1* o 3"?
o c-| >,« S o
= SH 0-5 o,
O — . C O C
« = « o> * -~
•° 2'5'S ..2
3 g o a> o x
CO vi .a •o«S O O U.
3
60
•rl
o
Z
a>
o
A-10
-------
V. Planning of Alternatives
In unsewered, low housing density areas, PRM 78-9, "Funding of Sewage
Collection System Projects", puts the burden of proof for need and cost-
effectiveness of sewers on the applicant. The four criteria outlined in PRM
78-9 for eligibility of collector sewers are:
• need
• cost-effectiveness
• substantial human habitation in 1972
• 2/3 rule
Figure 1 portrays the relationship of these criteria in a decision flow
diagram.
Definition of need by the approach outlined above will address the first
criterion. Estimating cost-effectiveness will typically require two steps:
determining the feasibility of non-sewered technologies for remedying obvious
and potential problems, and comparing the present worth of feasible non-
sewered technologies with the present worth of sewers.
The determination of feasibility for non-sewered technologies should not
be limited to standard septic tank/soil absorption systems. Where lot sites,
site limitations or excessive flows can be overcome by alternative techno-
logies, these must be considered. To the extent that the needs documentation
results show that existing soil absorption systems smaller than current code
requirements can operate satisfactorily sub-code replacements for obvious
problems should also be considered if lot site or other restrictions preclude
full sized systems.
The use of needs documentation results in developing alternatives should
be guided by methods selected to design the Phase II field investigations. If
sanitary surveys and representative sampling were conducted on a random basis,
then the types and numbers of technical remedies should be projected for the
entire area surveyed without bias. However, if efforts were focused on
identified problem or inconclusive segments of a community, then predictions
from the data should be made for surveyed segments only. Real but unre-
cognized problems in "no problem" areas can be accounted for by assuming
upgrading or replacement of existing systems in these areas at frequencies
reasonably lower than surveyed segments.
Infeasibility of remedying individual, obvious problems on-site will not
be sufficient justification for proposing central sewering of a community or
segment of a community. Off-site treatment can be achieved by pumping and
hauling and by small scale, neighborhood collection and treatment systems.
The choice between these approaches should be based upon a cost comparison
which includes serious flow reduction measures in conjunction with any holding
tanks.
Segment by segment cost-effectiveness comparisons will be required only
for those segments where new facilities for off-site treatment are proposed.
Community-wide cost estimates for upgrading or replacement of on-site systems
in decentralized areas will generally be adequate for description of Proposed
Actions pending detailed site analysis and cost estimates for each building in
Step 2.
A-9
-------
water or bedrock will suffice. Percolation tests for existing
systems will be necessary only in extraordinary circumstances.
2. Partial Sanitary Surveys
It is not the intent of needs documentation to finally identify
each and every wastewater . problem in a community. It is not
cost-effective to select appropriate technologies for each
property in Step 1.
Therefore, Phase II sanitary surveys will include only a suf-
ficient number of existing buildings to confirm the level and type
of need present, and to predict the type and approximate number of
measures to correct the problems. Correlation of partial sanitary
survey data, representative sampling, and indirect evidence of
system problems should be sufficient to meet these objectives.
Sanitary surveys should include for each building:
• an interview with the resident to determine age of the build-
ing and sewage disposal system, design and location of the
sewage disposal system, system maintenance, occupancy of the
building, water using appliances, use of water conservation
devices, and problems with the wastewater system.
• an inspection of the property, preferably in the company of the
resident, noting location of well, septic tank, soil absorption
system, pit privies and other sanitary facilities; lot dimen-
sions; slope; roof and surface drainage; evidence of past and
present malfunctions; and other relevant information such as a
algae growth in shoreline areas.
• any representative sampling that is appropriate to the site and
that can be scheduled concurrently.
• preliminary conclusions on maintenance, repairs, applicable
water conservation methods, and types and location of replace-
ment or upgrading for existing wastewater systems.
As a rule of thumb, the number of buildings surveyed should not
exceed 30 percent. Where Phase I data is very incomplete, the
buildings may be selected on a random basis and should include a
minimum of 20 percent of existing buildings. Where buildings with
obvious problems and areas with indirect evidence of problems are
well delineated in Phase I, the surveys can be better focused,
perhaps requiring fewer buildings to be surveyed. From 10 to 50
percent of buildings having obvious problems should be surveyed.
In areas with indirect evidence of problems, 20 to 30 percent
would be sufficient. Areas with neither direct nor indirect
evidence may be surveyed where system age, unusual occupancy
patterns or especially severe consequences of system failure so
indicate.
A-8
-------
1. Representative Sampling
a. Seasonal or permanent high water table. Soil surveys and
comparison with known lake levels reviewed in Phase I may not
be accurate enough to explain specific on-site system problems
or to carefully delineate groups of lots where high water
table is a serious site limitation. Soil to a depth of 5 or 6
feet on or adjacent to suspect lots can resolve such uncer-
tainties. Where seasonal high water table is suspected and
work has to be conducted during dry weather, a soil scientist
with knowledge of local soils should be involved.
b. Groundwater Flow. The safety of on-site well water supplies
and springs on small lots may depend on the rate and direction
of groundwater flow. Estimating the effects of effluents on
surface waters may also require such information. Methods
which indicate groundwater flow characteristics should be
selected and supervised by qualified professionals. Generally
this work in Phase II will be limited to evaluation of well
logs and other available data and of rapid surveys in special
areas such as lakeshores. Exceptions for more intensive work
will be considered where uncertainties about sources of well
contamination need to be resolved for specific lots or groups
of lots.
c. Well water contamination. Where lot sizes are small or soils
are especially permeable, collection and analysis of well
water samples at residences included in sanitary surveys
should be considered. Parameters that can be evaluated as
pollution indicators include, but are not limited to: chlo-
rides, nitrates, phosphates, fecal coliforms, surfactants,
whiteners and other readily detectable constituents inherent
to domestic waste water. No well samples should be collected
from wells that are improperly protected from surface runoff
or other non-wastewater sources. An inspection report should
accompany each well analysis.
d. Shallow groundwater contamination. In areas with drainfield
to groundwater separation distances less than state standards,
shallow groundwater at or near affected water bodies (lake,
stream, unconfined aquifers) should be sampled before aban-
doning on-site wastewater systems on the basis of high water
tables. Discrete samples may be collected during checks of
high water tables for analysis of conventional parameters as
listed above. Alternatively, as rapid survey techniques are
perfected, they may be more appropriate.
e. Soil permeability. If very slow or very rapid soil per-
meability is suspected of contributing to surface malfunc-
tions, backups or groundwater contamination, soil characteris-
tics can be evaluated by augering to 5 or 6 foot depth on or
adjacent to selected lots. Usually, descriptions of soil
horizons by depth, color, texture and presence of mottling,
A-7
-------
submitted and a grant amendment expeditiously processed provided
there is concurrence at the Mid-Course Meeting.
C. Phase II Work
Field investigations in Phase II have two primary purposes:
• reclassification of buildings from the "inconclusive" category to
"obvious problem", "no problem" or "potential problem" categories
(defined below)
• development of information needed to predict the technologies and
their costs for responding to the community's waste water
problems.
Field investigations can also be designed to accomplish other objec-
tives such as public participation, socio-economic data collection,
etc.
During Phase II previously unrecognised but documentable water quali-
ty and public health problems may be identified, increasing the
number of "obvious problem" buildings. The remainder of buildings
investigated will be classified in the two remaining categories. In
order to do this, representative sampling of site conditions and
water quality in conjunction with partial santiary surveys may be
conducted. Both "obvious" and "inconclusive" problem buildings
should be included in the partial sanitary survey so that reasonable
correlations between site conditions, system usage and system
failures in the community can be made.
"Potential problems" are systems which do not yet exhibit direct
evidence of failure but which can reasonably be expected to fail in
the future. Justifying this expectation must rely on analysis of the
causes for failure of substantially similar systems in the community.
Similarity will be judged on informaton for system usage (number of
occupants and types of sanitary appliances), system design and age,
and verified site limitations (permeability, depth to groundwater or
bedrock, slope, surface drainage, etc.). Buildings in the "inclu-
sive" category whose systems are not similar to any documented fail-
ing system will be included in the "No Problem" category.
This work should be proposed and conducted with the knowledge that
adoption of decentralized alternatives will necessitate complete site
analysis for each building later in the Construction Grants process.
Work should, therefore, be thorough enough that augmentation of the
Phase II work by later studies can be accomplished without duplicat-
ing the Phase II work. The work should also seek the causes of
problem, not just their existence, so that typical on-site and small
scale technologies can be tentatively identified and incorporated
into community alternatives.
Representative sampling of site conditions and water quality should
be carefully coordinated with partial sanitary surveys. While the
design of this work will obviously have to be tailored to each com-
munity's unique situation, general guidance is provided here.
A-6
-------
The "inconclusive" group consist of developed lots with indirect
evidence of problems. The size of this group and the types of in-
direct evidence associated with it will dictate the scope and level
of effort of field investigations conducted during Phase II.
Typically field work in Phase I will be limited to rapid, community-
wide surveys which require little or no entry onto private property.
Examples are acquisition and interpretation of aerial photography,
field checking of aerial photography interpretations, and shoreline
effluent scans. Additionally, a windshield survey of the community
in the company of health department officials, soil scientists or
other locally knowledgeable persons will help the applicants' repre-
sentative or consultant develop a strategy and cost estimate for
Phase II field investigations.
To facilitate communication of Phase I information, preparation of a
planning area base map at a scale sufficient to locate individual
buildings will normally be helpful. U.S. Geological survey 7.5
minute maps (1:24,000) Soil Conservation Service soil maps (1:15,840)
or local tax maps can be used to inexpensively prepare base maps. At
the end of Phase I, base maps can be used to show developed areas
obviously requiring centralized facilities, individual buildings with
obvious problems and developed areas with indirect evidence of
problems.
Phase I as used here applies principally to needs documentation
activi ties. Obviously, other facilities planning tasks can proceed
concurrently with Phase I.
B. Mid-Course Review
At the end of Phase I, the results of the Phase I effort should be
presented for review and concurrence before proceeding to Phase II.
The Mid-Course Meeting facilities plan review is an appropriate time
for the presentation and discussion of the Phase I results.
The following should be considered at the Mid-Course Meeting:
1. It may become apparent during Phase I that on-site, alternative
technology systems will not be cost-effective for segments of the
community that have obvious needs. In this case, a preliminary
cost estimate for conventional collection and treatment should be
compared to that for the innovative/alternative treatment solu-
tion. If cost estimates and technical analysis indicate that the
use of alternative technology is clearly not cost-effective,
needs documentation may be terminated for these segments without
proceeding to the on-site investigations of Phase II.
2. The number of lots to be investiaged during the on-site evalua-
tion should be reasonably estimated. If the original estimation
of on-site work included in the Step 1 Grant Agreement is found
to be in error at the end of the preliminary evaluation (Phase
I), a request to amend the grant amount, if necessary, may be
A-5
-------
pling necessary to adequately define water quality and public health problems,
identify causes of the problems and predict measures that remedy the problems.
Phase II will also include development of alternatives and completion of the
facilities plans. Both phases should be addressed in the Plan of Study and
grant application. The phases are discussed in greater detail below.
A. Phase I
The review of existing or easily obtainable data may include the
following as appropriate:
1. Review of local well and septic tank permit records. Repair
permits for septic tank systems can provide valuable data on
rates and causes of system failures as well as information on the
repairability of local systems.
2. Interviews with health department or other officials responsible
for existing systems, with septic tank installers and haulers,
and with well drillers.
3. Review of soils maps
4. Calculation of lot sizes
5. Estimate depth to water table by reference to lake levels or from
information in soil maps.
6. Aerial photography interpreted to identify suspected surface
malfunctions
7. Leachate detection surveys of ground or surface water
8. A mailed questionnaire regarding each owner's or resident's
knowledge of the on-site system and its performance. Mailed
questionnaires will generate useful data only if well prepared.
Generally, mailed questionnaires should be used only where avail-
able information indicate very low problem rates (to support No
Action alternatives) or where the data indicate very high problem
rates (to support central collection and treatment alternatives).
This preliminary data will be used to categorize developed lots
within the planning area into one of three groups:
1. Obvious-problem
2. No-problem
3. Inconclusive
The"obvious-problem" group consists of those lots where at least one
criterion of direct evidence of a need (specified on Page 2 of this
guidance) is satisfied.
The "no-problem" group consists of theose lots where there is no
direct or indirect evidence to indicate that the present system is
inadequate or malfunctioning.
A-4
-------
4. Sewage effluent or tracer dye in surface water detected by site
visit or various effluent detection systems. Additional tests
that indicate unacceptable quantities of nutrients or bacteria
in the effluent reaching surface water will establish direct
evidence of need.
5. Bedrock proximity (within three feet of filter field pipe) can
be assessed by utilizing existing SCS soils maps.
6. Slowly permeable soils with greater than 60 minutes/inch perc-
olation rate.
7. Rapidly permeable soil with less than 0.1 minutes/inch percola-
tion rate. Soil permeability may be assessed by evaluating
existing SCS maps.
8. While holding tanks, in certain cases, can be a cost-effective
alternative, for purposes of site-specific needs determination,
a residence equipped with a holding tank for domestic sewage
should be considered as indirect evidence of need for sewage
treatment facilities. Location of holding tanks will be identi-
fied through records of local permitting officials, septage
haulers, or results of mailed questionnaires.
9. On-site treatment systems which do not conform to accepted prac-
tices or current sanitary codes may be documented by owners,
installers, or local permitting officials. This category would
include cesspools, inadequately sized system components (the
proverbial "55 gallon drum" septic tank), and systems which
feature direct discharge of septic tank effluent to surface
water.
10. On-site systems: (a) incorporating components, (b) installed on
individual lots, or (c) of an age, that local data indicate are
characterized by excessive defect and failure rates, or non-
cost-effective maintenance requirements.
Indirect evidence may not be used alone to document the need for
either centralized or decentralized facilities. Prior to field
investigation, indirect evidence should be used to define the scope
and level of effort of the investigations. When the investigations
are finalized, indirect evidence and results of the field work can
be used together to predict the type and number of on-site and small
scale facilities needed in the community. Facilities predictions
form the basis for alternatives development in Step 1 facilities
planning.
IV. Needs determination for unsewered communities
For projects in which the scope of work is difficult to assess during the
Step 1 application, it is recommended that Step 1 be divided into two phases
to more effectively allow estimation of the planning scope and associated
costs. Phase I will consist of a review of existing or easily obtainable
data. Phase II will include on-site investigations and representative sam-
A-3
-------
III. Criteria for site-specific needs determination
A. Direct evidence that demonstrates obvious problems includes:
1.
naires, and remote imagery.
cr evidence tnau demonstrates ODVIOUS prooiems iiiciuaes:
Failure by surface (breakout) ponding of filter field discharges
can be identified through direct observations, mailed question-
na-ivoc anrl Y-*»mr»1-*» -i ma Of*r\T
2. Sewage backup in residences can be identified through respones
to mailed questionnaires, knowledge of local septage haulers, or
knowledge of local health or zoning officials.
3. Flowing effluent pipes detected by aerial photography, site
visits, knowledge of local officials, or results of mailed ques-
tionnnaires.
4. Contamination of water supply wells (groundwater) by sewage can
be demonstrated by well inspection and sampling and analyses for
whiteners, chlorides, nitrates, fecal coliform bacteria, or
other indicators, and a finding of their presence in concen-
trations which significantly exceed background levels in ground-
waters of the area or primary drinking water quality standards.
Improperly constructed wells or wells inadequately protected
from surface runoff cannot be used to demonstrate an obvious
need. Wells for which construction and protection are unknown
cannot be used to demonstrate an obvious need.
5. Samples taken from effluents entering surface water through soil
that analysis shows to have unacceptable quantities of nutrients
or bacteria.
B. Indirect evidence that indicates potential problems due to site
limitations or inadequate design of treatment systems includes:
1. Seasonal or year-round high water table. Seasonal or annual
water table can be determined by taking transit sightings from a
known lake level, if the dwelling in question is adjacent to a
lake or other surface waters. Elsewhere, Soil Conservation
Service maps may indicate depth to groundwater.
2. Water well isolation distances (depending on depth of well and
presence or absence of impermeable soils). Isolation distances
may be addressed in part by lot size. In cases where a commu-
nity water system is installed or is concurrently planned, this
criterion will not be considered. Lots, including consolidated
lots, which are less than 10,000 square feet in area, will be
assumed to have insufficient isolation distances. However,
before this criterion may be used as areawide evidence, a corre-
lation with results of limited representative sampling which
substantiate water well contamination must be made.
3. Documented groundwater flow from a filter field toward a water
supply well may override seemingly adequate separation
distances.
A-2
-------
APPENDIX A
REGION V GUIDANCE
SITE SPECIFIC NEEDS
DETERMINATION AND ALTERNATIVE PLANNING
FOR UNSEWERED AREAS.
I. Objective
The objective of this guidance is to clarify fulfillment of the require-
ments regarding the demonstration of need for sewage treatment associated with
the application of Program Requirements Memorandum (PRM) 78-9, "Funding of
Sewage Collection System Projects," and PRM 79-8, "Small Wastewater Systems."
This guidance is written particularly with respect to the needs of small,
rural communities and the consideration of individual on-site and small scale
technologies. It suggests procedures which may be utilized to minimize the
time, effort, and expense necessary to demonstrate facilities needs. It is
also intended to provide guidance pertaining to the selection of decentraliza-
tion alternatives for a cost-effectiveness comparison. It is intended to
prevent indiscriminate definition of need based upon "broad brush" use of a
single criterion or on decisions unsupported by fact.
The procedure recommended herein may not be the optimum procedure for all
projects. However, compliance with this approach will be prima facie evidence
for the acceptability of the "needs" portion of a proposed plan of study. If
another method is proposed for documenting needs for wastewater facilities, it
is recommended that the grant applicant discuss the proposed approach with
reviewing authorities prior to the submission of the Plan of Study and the
Step 1 grant application.
This guidance is predicated on the premise that planning expenditures
should be commensurate with the cost and risk of implementing feasible alter-
natives for a specific planning area. The guidance further recognizes the
complexity of planning alternative technology. It presents procedures for,
and rationally limits, the amount of detailed site investigation necessary to
determine the suitability of alternative technology for specific areas within
the community, and allows for a degree of risk inherent to limited data
gathering.
II. Goal
The goal of this process is to enable communities to categorize existing
on-site treatment systems into three groups. The groups are those experi-
encing: (a) obvious sewage treatment problems, (b) no problem, and (c)
potential problems representing a planning risk that requires resolution by
the acquisition of original data.
The acquisition of original data as described will support not only
documentation of need but also development of appropriate alternatives and
their associated costs.
A-l
-------
Amend facilities planning guidance to reflect the need for site data
in developing, designing and constructing decentralized facilities.
Existing (February, 1981) regulations, Program Requirements memoranda,
and facilities planning guidance provide insufficient information on
the types of information necessary to develop and support viable
decentralized alternatives. Emphasis is generally placed on
documenting needs for improved wastewater facilities. However, it is
one thing to document a need. It is quite another to collect
sufficient information to select an alternative other than abandonment
of existing systems. Applicants and facilities planners would be well
served by a greater emphasis in the regulatory literature on data
requirements for alternatives to sewering.
XVI-D-20
-------
A number of officials have expressed concern with this level of techno-
logy specification. The primary purpose for allowing less than absolute
descriptions of funded facilities is to expedite Step 2 work on conventional
centralized treatment works. For facilities planning areas where Phase I
information indicates that centralized technologies will not be necessary, all
or most field data collection could be scheduled and completed in Step 1, as
portrayed in sequences 2, 4, and 6. Alternatively, if centralized technologies
are necessary, the project could be segmented and sequences 2, 4, or 6 could
be used for decentralized service areas.
d. Administrative Measures
Administrative measures to facilitate the construction grants process in
rural and developing communities include:
• Overcome local unfamiliarity with the Construction Grants process. The
optimium means for doing this is to train a local elected or salaried
official by intensive review of regulations or by short courses
developed for this purpose. Regional or state officials may often be
very helpful in training local officials or actually providing
assistance in grant application and administration. Delegation of
local grant responsibilities to facilities planning and design
consultants is typically practiced, but is not always the best
solution (see Chapter V).
• Use of milestones for decision-making. Several times during the
Construction Grants process, applicants are required to consult with
state or Federal reviewing agencies. Examples of interest are the
preapplication conference and the mid-course meeting in Step 1. These
meetings can be used to identify reasonable short cuts in field data
collection, alternatives development, environmental analysis, etc.
Informal contacts between applicants and reviewing agencies frequently
occur and can also be useful in tailoring the process to local
situations.
• Segment projects for centralized and decentralized service areas.
Because of substantial differences in the Construction Grants process
for centralized and decentralized facilities, letting different
service areas proceed at their own pace may achieve project goals for
each part more rapidly. A typical objection to such segmenting is
based on fears that the state priority rating given decentralized
projects may be too low to set funding. This topic is addressed in
Chapter XV-D.
• Enact county ordinances and/or state legislation enabling provision of
access to private systems. In many communities, housing density,
frequency of failures, or sensitivity of water resources are high
enough to require comprehensive management approaches (as opposed to
voluntary approaches). Gaining legal access to survey, test, upgrade,
replace, and maintain on-site systems can complicate and delay needed
action on some properties. This can be overcome by legislation
reasonably designed to protect the public's interest in water quality
and public health.
XVI-D-19
-------
CO i-l
to
01 p.
!-J 0)
,^"22
u >
CO
T3
0) 13
^ 0)
CU T)
to o
01
O CO
M-l Ol
•H
4-1 4-1
C -H
0) H
A O
O CO
CU
CU CU
T3 N
•H
CO i-l
0) CO
> H
•H 4J
4-1 C
CO OJ
C 0
CU i-i
4J O
H M-l
CO
TJ
T3 OJ
C 01
CO C
C O
o a
•H
4J I
O
CU vD
i-l
i-i cu
o o
o c
CU
CO 3
4J cr
CO CU
Q V)
I
Q
3
60
•H
•i
o
_L
UBjd
58.5
« r. « ^
asanoo-pfw
/Cpnjg
£ s g
C 0)
I £
2 o
- ai -a e
« a) -a c 9
01 > O ID T]
-H o t:
O 0)
Q. CO
o a
hss
MI*
•H ^ g^ r^
4-i rt p o
o r\_ P C
••-( "
til "^
CD e
> w
h -H
3 , O T3
M i-* OJ
CO O C
U C i-l
•H £ JZ
COB
CD 0) o
en H u
0) 4-1
58
4J B
XVI-D-18
-------
T
en C 0 O a.
o o -H c e
0.-H ^ X 3
O 4J QJ U to
U O *-i (U W
D. co a. 4-1 tfl
P
X
0)
M
jo
XVI-D-17
-------
CO
ct)
cu
ct) 0)
4-1
0> CO
!-l I
cu C
3 o
QJ
CO T3
i
1 o -H en
^ 4-1 M
CL CO OJ
ex u tn
TJ
C
CO
4-1 ~-»
C n)
O) 4-)
a nj
0)
>
cu
OJ
•H
nj
>
cfl
•H
4-1 M-l
Cfl O
C
tj *> 11
0) Q) C
4-1 -H 0)
r-l > 6
nj QJ D.
to O
*~O i~i
C >, OJ
CO rH >
J-l 0)
G cfl T3
O QJ
•H ''O
4-1 I C
O nj
QJ H
S.° o
i|5
•u ?j en
c«
a, 4-j
« C
C U
n) co o
)-l T3 -H
4J C! >
C co ^
o to
OJ QJ
H T3
r-H OJ QJ
4-J 4-J
a en -H
q] -1 p.,
cfl > M
*J )-" C
ttj D T3 -H
T3 cn c
CO TD
QJ X QJ
i—I 4-J CO 4-1
pO *i-t >^ QJ
QJ 3 4-1 -a
O O CO 3
XVI-D-16
-------
en
rt
T
c-a 3
:2§S
M CO
CO fi
O
T) -H
0) 4->
Ol H
13 O
cu co
co
C X
3 OJ
o e
"4-1 O
a
4-> ~->
C co
CD 4J
6 co
ex 'd
o
rH 0)
0) rH
> &
a) n)
w to
a; >
> CO
•H
4J 14-1
tfl O
fi »
0) OJ
4-1 -rl
•H >
a >
c
o
•H
4-J
O
01
i
r-1
rH
O
CJ
CO
QJ
1
m
0)
o
CO 3
4J cr
cfl 0)
O CO
CO
p
I
60
•rl
j 0 £
>- S
>- p !C
u 5 c
o »
f > s •
» 2
O u tr
C OJ HI
OJ -J U]
>, J) l«
HI I u-<
EC OJ
O I
Xl C OJ W 4J
XVI-D-15
-------
2) Conduct community surveys prior to Step 1 (see Section G.4.a. of this
chapter). This could facilitate the same modifications as above.
3) Include supplemental site analysis and cost-effectiveness comparisons
(see Chapter II-H) for buildings in Phase II sanitary survey (up to
30% of buildings). This could enable modifications 5 and 6, depending
on conclusiveness of the data.
4) Include sanitary surveys and supplemental site analysis for all
decentralized service area buildings in Phase II. This would substan-
tially abbreviate Step 2 and more conclusively allow modifications 5
and 6.
5) Complete technology selection and preparation of standard designs and
specifications in Step 1. This could facilitate Modification 6.
6) Complete technology selection, design of non-standard on-site systems
and construction with a Step 2 and 3 grant. This modification is
subject to 40 CFR 35.909, .920-3(d) and .935-4.
Decisions to adopt these modifications may reasonably be considered as
milestones before and during Step 1, including the preapplication conference,
Plan of Study, mid-course meeting, public hearings, and final Facilities Plan.
Specific modifications taken from the list of six in preceding paragraphs
are noted for each alternate sequence.
Several possible modified Construction Grants sequences are portrayed in
Figures XVI-D-2 through 6. All of the sequences assume that decentralized
technologies are selected in the end. This obviously will not be the case for
all unsewered areas, but the several milestones allow for modifying future
work to incorporate selection, design, and construction of centralized alter-
natives as appropriate.
The sequences vary in the degree to which the Proposed Sections identify
the technologies specified for each building. Sequences 1, 3, and 5 end Step
1 with "preliminary technology assumptions," which would include:
• Detailed service area delineations (sewered, grantee managed decen-
tralized facilities, or no action),
• Within decentralized service areas, identification of neighborhoods
probably requiring off-site treatment,
• For off-site decentralized facilities (including septage disposal),
identification of apparently suitable soils and expected availability
of sites, and
• For the remainder of decentralized service areas, predictions based on
available data and field data collection of the mix of technologies,
including no action, for upgrading and replacing existing on-site
systems. Tentatively proposed methods of treatment and disposal for
individual developed lots should be available to lot owners at the
final public hearing on the Facilities Plan (see Appendix A, Part
VI.D.).
XVI-D-14
-------
a
00
T
s
o
u
X -a o
o c o
CO flj T3
to cd
a) a.
> -H
•H o
4-1 -H
n) 4-i
ri cd
a) Cl>
a)
4J
§
C O
o >
•rH
4-1 I
O
(1) CM
rH 0)
o a
o a
OJ
« S
4-1 cr
rt to
13 (U
Surveys
>>
4~l
c
3
O
O
Complete
review of
offer
tance
available
data
CO O T3
•i-t -
T3 U "O
a) a 1-1
cn -H to
O J-i TD tn CO
a cj c c
~
OJ
) T3 o
•H >,
O 60 C
0) O O
CO 4J
> CO CJ
11 3
n a. i-i
O >> -u
«w 4-1 cn
n)
•H
a
a
a. •
m
a
J! "
o §
4-J rH
•o °
4J O
U -C
a) s
a
cn in
C 00 T3
o o- QJ
•H 3 C
cn 4-1
M cn
C
3 C
XI O
6 u
3 -H
O ^
0) cfl
XVI-D-13
-------
en
n)
01
VJ
n)
a)
M
a)
O>
CO
4J
c
0)
a
O
iH
0)
en
01 •
> o)
•H O
4-i e
n! ts
0)
-H
3
60
rH
n) >
T3 a
C O
n) -H
to
c
-------
Minimize Minimize
Planning time and cost Repetitious field work
Design time and cost vs. Repetitious cost analysis
Intrusion on occupants Premature failure of selected
technologies
The subjects discussed in this section will have to be considered along
with other planning and design exercises such as environmental analysis,
management agency design, and public participation. However, to make the
concepts discussed manageable, this section primarily considers the impact of
field data collection on the development of alternatives and the transfor-
mation of the selected alternative into a design that can be bid for and
built.
Figure XVI-D-1 portrays sequences for data collection, alternatives
development, and supporting cost analysis consistent with "Region V Guidance."
There are four implicit assumptions incorporated into the Guidance and Figure
XVI-D-1:
1) There exists very meager data prior to Step 1 that reliably define the
design, usage, and performance of existing on-site systems.
2) Service areas cannot readily be delineated for centralized collection
and treatment, community supervision of decentralized facilities, or
no action.
3) The severity of existing and potential problems with on-site systems
justifies active community management of all or a significant fraction
of the systems.
A) Technologies to replace and upgrade existing on-site systems will
include substantial use of off-site, innovative and/or subcode
designs, thereby necessitating delays in technology selection until
all individual developed sites are thoroughly surveyed and analyzed.
Note that all four assumptions are pessimistic. Lacking information to
the contrary, such assumptions should be made by applicants and grant adminis-
trators. This is appropriate because the pessimistic assumptions necessitate
more data collection. The high level of data collection also has to be staged
by the introduction of several decision points for the sake of flexibility and
ultimate economy.
Depending on verification or rejection of these four assumptions, six
modifications to Figure XVI-D-1 consistent with overall time, cost, and com-
plexity objectives, can be considered:
1) Collect and review all available data prior to Step 1 (See Section
G.4.a. of this Chapter). This could facilitate modifications 5 and 6
below.
XVT-D-11
-------
Initiate Management Planning Early. Planning of management approaches
that complement decentralized technologies can be a complex process. Although
most of the decisions are based on common sense, many types of information are
needed to make good decisions. Communities that forsee the need for management
approaches discussed in Part Two of this document could save time in Steps 1
and 2 by examining the following topics at the onset of Step 1:
• Inventory skills of existing personnel that might be available from
local, state, and Federal agencies and from consultants and contrac-
tors. (See Chapter VI.C.)
• Assess the impacts of existing regulatory authorities on the local
management agency's design.
• Familiarize local decision makers and the interested public with the
functions that may be required and options for providing those func-
tions (See Chapter VI. A and B. and Chapter VII).
Begin Pilot Renovation and Flow Reduction Studies in Step 1 or 2. Tech-
nology selection, whether at the end of Step 1 or in Step 2, will take into
account the probability that various modification or replacement technologies
will perform as expected. A number of potentially useful technologies are not
well demonstrated, however. Most alternatives may never have been tried in a
specific community or physiographic province. Technology selection will be
improved if some of the most promising techniques have been installed and
monitored locally for a period of time.
At present, such initiatives could only receive Federal funds if applied
for separately from the Facilities Plan grant. Coordination and timing of
separate grants in order to get timely performance data would certainly add
complexities — complexities that may not be worth the trouble.
In order to achieve the benefits of technology demonstration at the local
level, the Regional Administrator could allow Step 1 or 2 funding of construc-
tion and monitoring provided that the applicant can justify its applicability
and utility to wastewater management decisions for the rest of community or
physiographic province.
Establish Standard Design Packages. Specifications and layouts for
various decentralized technologies will be similar for many individual sites.
Time and effort may be saved in Step 2 by the development and description of
standard specifications and layouts. Designers should be allowed flexibility
within the standard design packages to accommodate individual site charac-
teristics .
c. Sequences For Field Data Collection, Alternatives Develop-
ment, and Design of Decentralized Approaches
"Region V Guidance - Site Specifie Needs Determination and Alternative
Planning for Unsewered Areas" (Appendix A) defines an approach to rural waste-
water planning that is generally applicable to a wide variety of rural plan-
ning situations. This section discusses modifications to the planning sequence
reflected in the guidance. The section also reviews factors to be considered
in selecting these modifications. In very general terms, persons considering
modifications should constantly weigh the following objectives:
XVI-D-10
-------
as possible. Continuity of decision-makers from Step 1 through implementation
of the agency and facilities construction will make for better decisions.
Also, key staff involvement in planning, design and construction of a project
will be excellent preparation for subsequent decisions during long term
operations.
b. Planning Considerations
Voluntary Participation in the Construction Grants Process. Much of the
discussion here assumes that counties or municipalities will be designating
parts or all of their jurisdictions as wastewater service areas and that
either centralized or decentralized wastewater management will be provided to
all buildings in the designated service areas. Construction Grants regulations
(especially 40 CFR 35.918) and the nature of decentralized facilities provide
an alternate approach—that is, participation only by owners who volunteer.
The advantages of this approach include:
• Rapid identification of sites to be evaluated. Instead of community-
wide surveys, sanitary surveys, etc., the applicant would publicize
data on soil conditions and past failure rates, then designate a place
for owners to sign up for assistance.
• Access considerations would be reduced to requiring contractual
permission to enter property as needed for inspection and repairs as a
condition of grant assistance.
• Field data collection could be limited to detailed site analysis in
Step 1. Individual sites could be demonstrated in the Facilities Plan
as called for in 40 CFR 35.917-1. Technologies could be selected for
each site in Step 1.
• Step 2 work for this approach would be relatively trivial.
This approach would be appropriate for areas with relatively low housing
densities, with no unusually sensitive surface or groundwater resources and
with problems amenable to on-site solutions. Where these conditions are not
met, the following disadvantages may be encountered:
• Serious public health and water quality problems may be missed.
Individuals who know they have difficult problems with solutions that
require high operational costs may not find grant assistance for
construction very attractive.
• Unless most occupants in segments with high density or high failure
rates volunteer, feasible off-site solutions may not be affordable by
those who do seek relief.
The applicant's decision to adopt this voluntary approach can be made any
time during Steps 1 and 2. However, within limits, the decision should be made
as soon as possible to gain the advantages cited.
Initiate Analysis of Growth Objectives and Impacts Early. This subject
has been discussed in detail in Section 3 above.
XVI-D-9
-------
• Each visit to a dwelling or business should result in as much unequi-
vocal data as possible. Sanitary survey formats developed during
preparation of the Seven Rural Lake EIS's require a substantial amount
of data to be requested from the occupant and recorded. Gaining the
needed information before the patience of either the surveyor or
occupant runs out requires that the surveyor understand on-site
systems and local jargon (see Staffing below). Additional information
sheets can be added to the survey format. However, as increased data
requirements are added, the skill of the interviewer should also
increase.
• Sanitary surveys are intended to collect data useful for subsequent
technology selection if decentralized approaches are selected.
Reducing the scope of information in the survey format or using
surveyors whose skills are below the minimum will only thwart that
intention and ultimately necessitate return visits.
• Soil or well water sampling conducted to support sanitary surveys
should either be concurrent with the interview and site inspection or
scheduled to take place as soon thereafter as possible. Occupants will
readily forgive a few days' lag between interview and sampling if
warned of the "second part of the survey" in advance. Longer delays
may be seen as new intrusions. Waiting for the second visit may create
subtle anxieties that increase occupant resistance.
• Where access agreements must be sought from each property owner, the
sanitary surveyor should have the necessary forms available and should
be able to respond to related questions or have ready access to
someone who can.
• Detailed site analysis (which could include water meter installation,
excavations of septic tanks and portions of soil absorptions, and
augering holes for groundwater or soil sampling) is likely to be the
most intrusive procedure short of actual upgrading or system replace-
ment. Optimally, all detailed site analysis on a lot would be done in
one or two days. Contractors or public employees doing this work
should be required to restore the site before leaving it.
Staffing. The success of some data collection efforts is dependent on the
personnel selected. Some methods, such as aerial photography interpretation
for surface malfunctions, and septic leachate detection, must be carried out
by professionals. Other methods require only professional supervision or
input; these would include sanitary surveys and site analysis. Much of the
effort could be provided after some training by local residents whose main
qualifications are familiarity with the community and a willingness to achieve
good sanitation and water quality.
As with the design of field studies, designation of the types of person-
nel to be used should be made by persons who understand Construction Grants
procedures for rural areas and who can weigh the cost and skills of potential
personnel against data requirements for decision-making.
An effective way to minimize time required for Construction Grants
activities is to assign or hire key staff for the management agency as early
XVI-D-8
-------
Early Collection of Available^ Data. Decisions on delineation of cen-
tralized and decentralized service areas are key to expeditious completion of
Step 1 facilities planning. Plans of study can be much more specific and
service area delineations could be made earlier, if available data is col-
lected as described in "Region V Guidance-Site Specific Needs Determination
and Alternative Planning for Unsewered Areas" (Appendix A) were started or
substantially completed before Step 1. This could be accomplished in two ways:
by the applicant or by regional planning agencies.
First, the applicant should have access to available data on existing
on-site systems. This information should include well and septic tank permits,
lot sizes, and soils maps. Some of this should be reviewed in preparing a Plan
of Study for unsewered areas anyway. A more extensive review, perhaps includ-
ing graphic presentation of the data, and interviews with septic tank instal-
lers and haulers would be even more informative. This often could be
accomplished by existing public works, health department or planning agency
staff during winter months or other periods when ordinary demands for their
services are low
Regional or state agencies could also compile available data. Several
208 agencies in Region V have already collected data relevant to performance
of on-site systems (See Chapter XV-C). Significant economies of scale could
be achieved by having knowledgable regional planning agency staff compile
available data and organize community survey data collection in advance of
rural 201 planning within an agency's planning area. Possible sources of
funding for such efforts include:
• Section 106 grants (grants to states and interstate agencies to assist
them in administering pollution control programs), and
• Section 205(g) (grants to states to administer Sections 201, 203, 204
and 212).
Avoiding Duplication of Effort. The data collection and decision-making
steps described in "Region V Guidance..." (Appendix A) could result in several
return visits to individual residences or businesses. Besides the cost of
mobilizing personnel, numerous visits could unnecessarily interfere with
privacy and thereby decrease public support for the project. Suggestions for
minimizing return visits include:
• Mailed questionnaires can provide a certain level of problem documen-
tation but seldom yield complete returns and cannot be expected to
develop information for alternative development or subsequent tech-
nology selection. They require the recipient to respond and to return
the questionnaire—to some people a greater intrusion than answering
questions from an interviewer. For these reasons, it is recommended
that mailed questionnaires be used only where previously available
data indicate very low problem rates (to support No Action alterna-
tives) or very high problem rates (to support central collection and
treatment alternatives).
• Field verification of aerial photographic interpretations could be
accomplished along with sanitary surveys.
XVI-D-7
-------
include aerial photography and boat-carried leachate-sensing equip-
ment which can be helpful in locating failing systems. Detailed
engineering investigation, including soil profile examination,
percolation tests, etc., on each and every occupied lot should
rarely be necessary during facilities planning.
These statements agree in intent. Only the second source provides
guidance on field data collection, and this guidance is general in nature. The
intent, however, is to prohibit overly conservative data collection programs.
Appendix A, "Region V Guidance-Site Specific Needs Determination and
Alternative Planning for Unsewered Areas" addresses the need for data in more
detail.
The third source of guidance does not discuss data collection directly,
but could be interpreted as calling for comprehensive data in Step 1. 40 CFR
35.917-1, "Content of Facilities Plans" states in part:
(b)...For individual systems, planning area maps must include those
individual systems which are proposed for funding under § 35.918.
If this is taken to mean that every system with problems has to be located or
that the specific on-site technology proposed for funding has to be selected,
then all of the field work otherwise reserved for Step 2 would have to be done
during Step 1. While this may be appropriate for communities with low levels
of problems amenable to conventional on-site measures (as discussed later in
this section), it would not be appropriate for many communities where collec-
tion of the data would hold up other activities and decisions.
Timing. Several types of field data are best collected during certain
parts of the year. Examples are:
Method
Sanitary Survey - permanent residents
Sanitary Survey - seasonal residents
Aerial Photography
Groundwater Depth Determination
Septic Leachate Detections
Time Limitation
Wet weather; spring
Summer; in some cases winter
After snow melt-before tree
foliation; after leaf fall
Wet weather
Variable. Depends on seasonal
occupancy patterns and weather
For any of these methods, usable data can be collected at other times.
However, there is a risk of having to repeat them should the data be insuffi-
cient or inconclusive. Decisions about balancing this risk with the costs of
delay should be made with the assistance of persons familiar with the methods
and how they relate to alternatives development and subsequent technology
selection.
XVI-D-6
-------
Any decisions made to use decentralized technologies before all relevant
data are collected contain the risk of reversal when final and complete data
become available. Obviously, the more data on hand, the less risk is involved
in making such a decision. The most likely consequences of the decision's
being reversed are the time and cost of redundant planning and design activi-
ties. In the event that decentralized facilities are upgraded or installed,
and then fail, the consequences of being wrong are more substantial. Addi-
tional expenditures for cluster systems, holding tanks or sewers may be re-
quired.
Finally, it is often the case that community objectives in applying for
Construction Grants assistance are more related to growth and development than
to resolution of water quality and public health problems. For areas where
sewering is needed and is cost-effective, this emphasis creates few conflicts
with Construction Grants funding goals. Indeed, cost-effectiveness criteria
allow for sewer and for treatment capacity to accommodate 20 years of growth
at "reasonable rates." Additional capacity can be bought by the applicant at
the margin—that is, for its incremental cost.
In contrast, decentralized technologies, especially on-site systems,
provide little or no reserve capacity for new development. Reserve capacity is
dependent on the stock of land suitable for development with these techno-
logies. (See futher discussion in Chapter VIII.A.)
Therefore, if decentralized facilities are likely to be cost-effective
solutions to local water quality problems, some applicants may want to
initiate early public debate on growth and alternate funding of centralized
technologies. Other applicants may want to incorporate planning tools in their
Step 1 application that assess the stock of suitable land. (See Chapter IX.B.
for an example).
4. OPPORTUNITIES FOR FACILITATING THE CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
PROCESS
a. Managing Field Data Collection
Identifying the Need for Field Data Collection. Three sources in exist-
ing regulations and guidance relate to how much and what type of data are
required in Facilities Plans (Step 1). 40CFR 35.917-4 titled "Planning Scope
and Detail" states:
(b) Facilities planning shall be conducted only to the extent that
the Regional Administrator finds necessary in order to insure that
facilities for which grants are awarded will be cost-effective and
environmentally sound and to permit reasonable evaluation of grant
applications and subsequent preparation of designs, construction
drawings and specifications.
Program Guidance Memorandum 79-8 states in part:
Though house-to-house visits are necessary in some areas, sufficient
augmenting information may be available from the local sanitarian,
geologist, Soil Conservation Service representative or other source
to permit preparation of the cost-effective analysis. Other sources
XVI-D-5
-------
area. The need for or, particularly, the presence of, sewer systems
essentially creates two planning, design, and construction projects within a
community. In the past, the decentralized project has either been ignored or
sewers have been extended into areas where decentralized technologies would
have been cost-effective. The Clean Water Act, regulations supporting the Act,
and conclusions of the Seven Rural Lake EIS's demand that decentralized
projects be seriously considered unless no need exists for improvements in
unsewered areas of a community. Two projects with dissimiliar information
requirements, planning and impact considerations, and design procedures are
obviously going to be more complex technically. Local administration of grants
and local decision-making may require more effort and sophistication than
either centralized or decentralized projects alone.
As discussed above, selection of decentralized technologies is highly
dependent on field data collection. It is indicative of traditional management
practices for decentralized systems that performance and usage data are almost
always lacking and that design information is reliable for only the past ten,
or at the most twenty, years of installation. Costs and time required for data
collection can become exorbitant if not well managed. To address the necessary
balance between need for data and the cost and time for obtaining it, U.S. EPA
Region V in conjunction with states in the region has prepared "Region V
Guidance - Site Specific Needs Determination and Alternative Planning for
Unsewered Areas." The current version is attached as Appendix A to this sec-
tion. Basically, the guidance describes a sequential process with decisions
after each step on technology selection and the scope of subsequent, more
detailed field studies.
Other matters besides field data affect the outcome and timing of deci-
sions to sewer or not. The sooner in Step 1 that this decision is made or that
service areas for sewered and non-sewered approaches are delineated, the
quicker and cheaper will the Construction Grants process be. Besides field
data, three matters are of primary importance:
1. Cost-effectiveness,
2. Risk of selecting the wrong approach, and
3. Compatibility between local growth objectives and development capacity
of the selected technology.
To enable preliminary comparisons of cost-effectiveness for various
centralized and decentralized technologies, the Cost-Variability Study
reported in Chapter IV.A. has been prepared. The methods developed there are
based upon readily available housing density, topographic, and soils data.
Applicants can use the cost curves either during preparation of their Plan of
Study or early in Step 1 to generate rough present-worth costs. Early deci-
sions can then be made regarding areas that definitely would or would not be
cost-effective to sewer and areas where more work is necessary to reach this
conclusion. For parts of a community where sewers are clearly not cost-
effective, sequential approaches to data collection may be short-circuited and
full-scale site analysis might be initiated thereby saving time and redundancy
in field trips.
XVI-D-4
-------
• Methods of securing access to facilities on private property,
• Review and possible modification of current regulations and legal
authorities, and
• Delineation of private/public/contractor functions and responsibi-
lities .
A major difference between centralized and decentralized approaches is
the degree to which feasible technologies can be selected with the level of
field data collection normally allowed for facilities planning (Step 1). For
centralized technologies, field data needed to address feasibility and
approximate cost seldom go beyond soil borings to determine subsurface
conditions for pipe installation and foundation support. Given the assumptions
of proper engineering and operation, it is presumed that conventional,
centralized collection and treatment facilities will operate reliably.
However, performance data on many decentralized technologies are insufficient
to support such generalities. Because of this and because of dependence on
conditions at many sites instead of one or a few, field data collection for
decentralized facilities must be more extensive. Yet, if all available means
of site analysis were applied to each existing building in a facilities
planning area, the costs of data collection would substantially reduce, and
perhaps exceed, the savings due to the lower costs of decentralized
facilities. The need for effective management of field data collection efforts
is obvious.
In terms of time and cost, increased requirements for field data collec-
tion are offset by decreased requirements for design work. The keys to most
design problems for decentralized technologies are selection of the appro-
priate technologies and knowledge of the individual site. Structural,
mechanical, and electrical design elements will normally be trivial compared
to those for centralized technologies. Designs and specifications for many
on-site technologies can be standardized for any given community. Designs and
specifications for systems requiring construction variances and for off-lot
technologies will be more demanding, but will seldom require the effort needed
for the more complex processes and structures of most mechanical, centralized
technologies.
3. FACTORS AFFECTING PROJECT COMPLEXITY
The opportunities discussed below to reduce project duration and com-
plexity apply to a number of facilities planning elements. Three elements,
however, are likely to be of greatest consequence. These are:
1. Need for both centralized and decentralized facilities,
2. Lack of performance, design, and usage information for existing waste-
water facilities, and
3. Community development goals.
Many rural and developing communities have existing sewer and centralized
treatment systems or have housing and commercial densities sufficiently high
to make centralized systems cost-effective for part of the facilities planning
XVI-D-3
-------
On the other hand, long-standing requirements to inventory existing
treatment systems and to evaluate optimal operation of existing facilities
have been reinforced in unsewered areas by provisions of the Clean Water Act
and related regulations that make existing on-site systems eligible for
upgrading and replacement.
Activities that may be necessary for the inventory and evaluation
include, but are not limited to:
• Compilation and review of septic tank and well records,
• Interviews with responsible officials, septic tank contractors and
well drillers,
• Review of soils data,
* Calculation of lot sizes,
• Estimation of depths to water tables,
• Aerial photography interpretation for identification of surface mal-
functions ,
• Leachate detection surveys of ground and surface waters,
• Mailed questionnaires to residences,
• Base map and overlay preparation showing soil, groundwater, and
geologic conditions along with identified failures,
• Representative sampling of depths to water tables, groundwater flow,
well water contamination, shallow groundwater contamination, and soil
permeability,
• Sanitary surveys involving resident interviews and property inspec-
tions ,
• Supplemental site analysis, such as inspection of septic tanks, house
sewers, and effluent lines, and probing or limited excavation of soil
absorption systems, to determine causes of failure,
• Delineation of centralized and decentralized service areas,
• Development of monitoring programs for ground and surface waters, and
• Pilot programs to evaluate innovative or subcode wastewater techno-
logies and flow reduction devices.
Eligibility requirements for individual systems (and, by analogy, other
on-site and decentralized facilities) include applicant certification that...
"such treatment works will be properly installed, operated, and maintained and
that the public body will be responsible for such actions." Management and
implementation measures that need to be addressed in response to this require-
ment include:
XVI-D-2
-------
D. ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROCEDURES FOR SMALL WASTE
FLOW AREAS
1. INTRODUCTION
The three-step Construction Grants process requires consideration and
documentation of literally hundreds of topics or activities. For any one
community, many of these topics or activities can be addressed cursorily,
thereby simplifying and shortening the process. However, local decisions to
pass over items can be expensive and time-consuming if state or U.S. EPA
officials disagree with the omissions. To a great extent, coordination between
applicants and reviewing officials will minimize such omissions and their
consequences. However, in any planning situation, there is an irreducible
level of manpower and expertise required to ensure informed coordination and
to allow for local decision-making. Many rural communities and some developing
communities do not have the requisite manpower and expertise. Attempts to
simplify the Construction Grants process without such appropriate decision-
making capabilities can be frustrating and counter-productive.
At a minimum, completion of the Construction Grants process requires
several years. New program guidance, problems in state and Federal review,
contract difficulties, and other factors can prolong the process even more.
The time required for the process can frustrate the individuals in a community
who have taken the initiative to achieve clean water goals.
The evaluation of alternative technologies, as addressed in this docu-
ment, adds to the potential number of topics and activities to be considered
in rural communities. This section first addresses the differences in Con-
struction Grants procedures between unsewered and previously sewered areas.
Then, specific opportunities for facilitating the Construction Grants process
are reviewed. The goal of this presentation is to explore ways of simplifying
and shortening the Construction Grants process for rural and developing com-
munities that will be evaluating alternative, particularly decentralized,
technologies.
2. UNSEWERED VS. SEWERED AREAS: DIFFERENCES IN PLANNING,
DESIGN, AND CONSTRUCTION
There are several potentially expensive and time-consuming activities
that will rarely be necessary in unsewered areas. These include:
• Infiltration/Inflow analysis,
• Sewer System Evaluation Survey,
• Sewer rehabilitation,
• Location, design, flows, and performance of existing treatment plants
(although small privately owned plants may be present),
• Industrial pretreatment program (although individual plants may be
treating and disposing of process wastes), and
• Value engineering.
XVI-D-1
-------
REFERENCES
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1977. Environmental assessment
guidance, municipal sewage treatment works program, EPA-905/2-77-004
Chicago IL.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. Construction grants program for
municipal wastewater treatment works, Handbook of procedures. 2nd ed.
Office of Water Programs, Washington DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1981. Facilities planning 1981.
Municipal wastewater treatment works construction grants program (draft).
FP-81 Washington DC.
XVI-C-A
-------
supply is subjected to normal environmental impact reviews. Thus, in the
facility planning process, early attention must be paid to effluent disposal
impacts on downstream and groundwater sources of public water supply. In
rural lake areas that rely extensively on land application, on-site wastewater
treatment, or cluster systems and individual on-site wells, groundwater
quality impacts are a major consideration. If a state designates the aquifer
that would receive wastewater at a sole-source aquifer, U.S. EPA may not be
permitted to fund alternative waste treatment systems under provisions of the
SDWA Sole Source Aquifer Protection Program (Section 1424(e)). If construc-
tion or upgrading of these systems causes adverse impacts on groundwater
quality, then well closure, relocation, or reconstruction may be necessary. A
policy decision that U.S. EPA must address is whether or not Construction
Grants funds for relocation of utilities under 40 CFR-35.940-1(k) are allow-
able for ameliorating this problem.
While not specifically required by law, applicants should coordinate
their efforts with local and regional land use planning agencies for an inven-
tory of existing land use plans and zoning ordinances funded under Section 701
of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (PL 93-383). These
documents should afford an assessment of land use trends and population pro-
jections as well as community development goals and objectives. This planning
coordination will also allow for an assessment of growth management tools
available, including environmental performance standards, which may have
direct bearing on the size, timing, and location of proposed facilities.
In the facility planning process, applicants must also demonstrate com-
pliance with Federal requirements for jointly funded projects. U.S. EPA
Region V should accept evidence of compliance with requirments of the follow-
ing acts: The Uniform Relocation and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act
of 1970, the Davis-Bacon Fair Labor Standards Act, the Contract Work Hours
Standards Act, the Copeland (Anti-Kickback) Act, and The Hatch Act.
XVI-C-3
-------
Under provisions of EPA's Policy to Protect Environmentally Significant
Agricultural Lands, the state or county offices of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture Soil Conservation Service should be consulted for information
related to prime and unique farmlands. It must be determined whether or not
there are significant agricultural lands in the area. If the proposed plan
includes direct or indirect impacts, means to avoid or mitigate adverse
impacts should be developed.
In U.S. EPA Region V, the Great Lakes are covered under the provisions of
the Coastal Zones Management Act of 1972. If the prospective study area is
within the Great Lakes Basin and the proposed project affects coastal zones
and coastal waters as defined in Title III, the state coastal zone management
agency and the appropriate office of the U.S. Department of Commerce NOAA
should be contacted and comments solicited. If the proposed plan signifi-
cantly affects a coastal zone area, and the state has an approved coastal zone
management program, a consistency determination must be sought.
Under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, contact should be made with
regional offices of the U.S. Department of Interior to determine if local
rivers have been designated as wild, scenic, or recreational. Designated
areas should be identified in the facility plan and alternatives should be
developed and evaluated to avoid direct, adverse impacts.
Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 mandates contact with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Services, and appro-
priate state agencies to determine if the proposed project poses a threat to
any threatened or endangered species. Where the proposed action will have an
adverse impact on listed species or habitat, mitigation measures must be
enacted.
The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act requires that all Federal actions
be performed so as to protect fish and wildlife resources that may be
affected. During facilities planning, therefore, consultation should be made
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and any appropriate state agency to
determine the means of preventing or mitigating adverse impacts on wildlife
resources associated with the project.
U.S. EPA's actions under the Construction Grants Program are subject to
provisions of the Clean Air Act, which requires all Federally funded projects
to conform to any approved State Air Quality Implementation Plan (SIP).
Applicants should evaluate the direct and indirect impacts on air quality of
the alternatives in the facilities plan after consulting the state and
regional agencies responsible for monitoring conformance with the SIP.
Alternatives should be evaluated for compliance, including measures to
mitigate adverse effects.
An important consideration in the facility planning process is its inter-
relationship with the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) of 1974. At present, no
formal avenues exist to guarantee that relevant coordination between facility
planning and safe water supply will occur. However, drinking water supplies
are an important consideration in establishing in-stream water quality stan-
dards, wasteload allocation, and effluent standards that must be met by treat-
ment alternatives. As well, a proposed alternative's impact on drinking water
XVI-C-2
-------
C. FEDERAL PROGRAMS AFFECTING CONSTRUCTION GRANTS ACTIVITIES
IN RURAL LAKE AREAS
Applicants for facility planning grants in rural areas will need to be
aware not only of Federal water quality programs, but also of other Federal
programs and regulations that will affect their planning effort. These pro-
grams must be evaluated in the facility planning process to comply with
coordination procedures required by U.S. EPA for environmental review. Early
evaluation of these program requirements may provide positive input to the
facility planning process that could result in an understanding of points of
controversy and, thereby, render a project easier to implement. The resource
information to be inventoried includes elements of the Environmental Con-
straints Evaluation Methodology outlined in Chapter XI. The evaluation
process will also provide considerable information for the required inventory
of the existing environment.
Under section 106 of the National Historical Preservation Act of 1966,
the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974, and Executive Order
11593, programs administered by U.S. EPA must comply with coordination pro-
cedures of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation if any Federal action
affects a property listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of
Historic Places. During preparation of the facilities plan, contact should be
established with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) for the loca-
tion of existing and proposed properties. Contact should also be made with
county or local historical societies for more detailed information on eligible
properties. All properties and sites in the planning area must be identified
and measures taken to avoid impact on them.
Under provisions of the Federal Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973,
the National Flood Insurance Act of 1973, Executive Order 11988, and EPA's
Statement of Procedures on Floodplain Management and Wetlands Protection, the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Regional Office should be
contacted for information on Flood Hazard Boundary maps or Flood Insurance
Rate Maps. These maps should be consulted to ensure that proposed facilities
comply with EPA policy on height and location and that they do not induce
residential development in flood plain areas. Quite frequently in rural lake
areas, mapping has not been done and detailed information is not available.
In these instances, county soil surveys available from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture Soil Conservation Service should provide information on and
mapping of alluvial soils, which approximate flood boundary areas.
Another sensitive environmental resource type, wetlands, is covered under
Executive Order 11990 and U.S. EPA's Statement of Procedures on Floodplain
Management and Wetlands Protection. Consultation and written comments should
be solicited from the Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (if a 404/Section 10 permit for discharge of dredge
and fill material is required) and the U.S. Department of Commerce, National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. If these agencies have no
information on wetland resources in the planning area, state universities or
state wildlife agencies should be contacted for inventory information. If
these contacts prove fruitless, soil maps of the area should be evaluated for
perennially wet, organic soils (Histosols such as Peat and Muck), or aerial
photographs may be interpreted for emergent vegetation types. Alternatives
should be developed or modified to avoid impacts in these areas.
XVI-C-1
-------
pus
ELIGIBLE
ACTIVITIES
SUTUUBTd
-BAaasuoj
pus pUBi
X
X
ELIGIBLE
TICIPANTS
sdnoag
sassauTsng
X
PAR
X
TYPE OF
SSISTANCE
jo
X
TBOfutpaj,
UBoq
X
P
X
X
0)
«
2
ca "
>-i 5 K
-------
ELIGIBLE
ACTIVITIES
ELIGIBLE
PARTICIPANTS
TYPE OF
ASSISTANCE
TYPE OF
PROGRAM
uonBdTOTM-d omna
aSS°p£Hn£nT™I
s^fcaa u«w«Bw»aa
gUTUTBJX
8uTUUBTd
MoaBasa*
— BAJtBSUO*} i94^/*\ pUH? plll?1^
UOT 3onji3suo3
STBnpTATpU!
sdncuj) a^BATaj
sassaujsns a,BATzd
S^DfaaSTQ
sao^Baado "9 saaunrj UUBJ
S3U3HIUJ9A03 "[BOOT
sjBTaa^B^ jo pusq
IBOTuqoax
UBOT
1U*1D
TB.auao
3UToduoN
^utod
AGENCY
SUBAGENCY
"Program Name"
Catalog of Federal
Domestic Assistance
Program Number
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
kJ t^l
KS r*S
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
(USFWS)
"Environmental Contaminant
Evaluation" 16.607
US GEOLOGICAL SURVEY (USGS)
"Water Resources Investigations"
15.804
OFFICE OF WATER RESEARCH TECHNOLOGY
(OWRT)
"National Water Research and
Development Program" 15.950
"Water Resources Scientific
Information Center" 15.955
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION (SBA)
"Water Pollution Control Loans"
59.024
XVI-B-7
-------
ELIGIBLE
ACTIVITIES
ELIGIBLE
PARTICIPANTS
TYPE OF
ASSISTANCE
TYPE OF
PROGRAM
norwlTDTWBj ojiqnd
a^°^x£3iS2
s^aFcua uo-pB^suou.aa
gu-pufBai
8U"JUUB1£
qo^asan
-BAJaSUOQ J33BM pUB pUBl
S9T3TTTD™T^i2wB
STBnpTATpui
sdnoaj) a^BA-pj,}
sassatrrsng a^BAjaj
pMTwslirSSl
sao^Baado 9 saauAiQ ULIB^
s^uatmuaAoo TBOOT
s^B-paa^Bw Jto pueq
•[BOTUtpax
UBOI
3UB.if)
"[BJtauag
3UjoduoN
5UTOJ
AGENCY
SUBAGENCY
"Program Name"
Catalog of Federal
Domestic Assistance
Program Number
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X XX
X
X
X X
X X
X
X
X
w c ^ M ^
O lj Q -H O 00 O
Q OB4J W
u ^ bo o -H eg a -H pa
QMcfl a;^— -cn-oo H
O C p £ fH O
•—' 0) 01 03
HpuiC H (Jrog H
25O-H SHCUQJ CO 2
W tfl WZgU>, W
SCrtrH SWOCWI 2
HPnP-i HSOtrJ-H H
CrfCtf -d- RdCM WCW«7> OS
<; O T3O < rHtM Q> r>-CD OM
-------
Id W
J M
CO H
M M
e> >
M M
<
g
p-J <
« PJ
M H
ca cj
M H
r^
CL,
W
o |j
gg
<
O <
W O
Cu O
>-< M
H &H
noT,BdTDT3»i onqna
Sllf JO^TUOpJ A3T"£BnQ
J33Bfi pUB 5UB3n"£^O£
s^ogfoaj uof3BJ3SuomaQ
StlfUTBJX
SUJUUB"[,J
qoaeasan
-.A».wa9!SJr£»n^
MWTTa^£S;!Sft
STBnpTATpui
sdnojf) s^HAfa^
sassaufsng a^BAjaj
pBZTUBSjQ XTT^S^I
S JOtJB^l3dQ $ S J3UM/} TOJ^ j[
SIJUBCUtlJISAOf) THDO*^
STBT Jt33^W -tO pU'BrJ
TBOTuqoai
UB01
3UBa0
"[FJ3U3f)
3UTOdUOfJ
aufoj
.-( *
S M S M
S .g 2 «
Z ^ E **•! *
W ^ cfl O "* 6
M i— i „ O
t3 o ^
X
X X X X X
X X
X
X XX
X
t-jt S*-1 S*-4 !v*
?S »^S KS (^N
X
X X XX
X
XX XX
X
X X XX
X X X X X
X X
= iz; -o
C 1 0 C
O -H M Cfl 1
T3 -H 4J g H P- -*
O 4-> 01 to -ajoio OO
r O CO OJ l-i MAJr-l-Hro
0^ > > W) HCOI.H-
O fn M C O MCO^XliH
•H OJMM M >-i 01 3 iH
4JT3 0) PH 2;OpOP-i
CO C C "0 W H O
> CO O C T3 O S 1 « ^ ' =
£t UCOC p% rHo> ^IHQJS Sj11
o .u «<-i o) cfl. ozB B •"->
u a- >VDOIO CJUP.O: P-.O
at o oi i^o-Hr-i s O-HOI 01-1
V-j -t-J i — 1 r— 1 Z3 fJ^ cd P-) P-t »~H rH 0) T— { PH
0) O CO cn«M OOO)^3-HOI
4J J-i -H OP-= nJ^SW^JJ
CO P-i= M CiH CUiJ HW aipn'iH 0)O
S en -H O-HQCO
-aow o) a) yw M-H o<
-a at -H co co= o»B so aoo OB
C X-US W CD OO. H -HU-lCO'HM
O t--iO 3iH < M O01 O01
•H • wo) co- >w cn> W o otflC O>-i
OO (Oh ^IO i-(cd 0)0) O 25 OOO) OO
c/3i — 1 [^PH PHI — 1 £3&Qp£Q O W i— 3 B W£5
~ "" ^ p [jj
XVI-B-5
-------
ELIGIBLE
ACTIVITIES
ELIGIBLE
PARTICIPANTS
TYPE OF
ASSISTANCE
TYPE OF
PROGRAM
uof tjBdjOfijjB^ ^TTV^d
8ufJto3fuoj^ A^y^BnQ
s.oafoja uo-pB^suomaa
SuTUTBax
SUTUUBT*
qoaBasa*
S9DT3O?;i£ UOJ4
— BAJ13SUOQ JtS^B/^ ptIB pll'E'J
UOT ^onji^suoQ
S "[ T?npT Af pU]£
sdnoag a^pAfij
sassaujsng s^BAfa^
P92TUBSao^nSai
saojBaado "5 saauwo uu^i
s.uamuaaAOo T^OT
SJBf J3^BJ^ JO pUB'J
TBDfiiuoax
UBO^
3UBJ.J)
"[BJ3U3f)
3UToduo^
.UTOd
AGENCY
SUBAGENCY
"Program Name"
Catalog of Federal
Domestic Assistance
Program Number
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
"Water and Waste Disposal Systems
for Rural Communities" 10.418
X
"Watershed Protection and Flood
Prevention Loan" 10.419
X
"Business and Industrial Loans"
10.422
X
"Community Facilities Loans"
10.423
X
"Industrial Development Grants"
10.424
"Area Development Assistance
Planning Grants" 10.426
X
US FOREST SERVICE (USFS)
"Cooperative Forestry Assitance"
10.664
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE (SCS)
X
1 "Resource Conservation and Devel-
r-l
0
&
o
iH
u
C
Q)
a.
o
XVI-B-4
-------
ELIGIBLE
ACTIVITIES
ELIGIBLE
PARTICIPANTS
TYPE OF
ASSISTANCE
TYPE OF
PROGRAM
noT3FdTaT9»d OTTqn*
aa^Bfl pire ^up^njjo^
saoafojj uo-pBaasuouraa
Su^ujBai
SUTUUBW
ijDJBasa^
-BAJeSUOQ JiatlBfl pUB pUB^
UOT^Dnj^SUOQ
S3f 3 JfJDBJ .IS-JEMa^SBM
sTBnpTATpu!
sdnojj) a^BAfaa
sassautsng a^BATJd
S30f JtJSfQ
sao^Bjado "9 SJSUAO UUB.J
sauamuaaAoo TBOO-J
STBT^BH *o po^
Tp^yuuDaj,
UBOT
3UBJt£)
TBaauao
3Utoduotj
5UTO.J
AGENCY
SUBAGENCY
"Program Name"
Catalog of Federal
Domestic Assistance
Program Number
XK*> *s^* *^ Kx* "^ S/1
v*v i^S i^N **S >^N KN
X X
XX XX
XX X
X X XX
X X X X X
X X
X
X XX
XX X X
X
X X X X X XX
— . i "e
^0
W •< ^£> nj - O •
0£ OC ^ E ^Td-HTJO
p2 • O oo to OP-u p rH
M O ^^ O'H O J-t MtTJ03 Cd
fj M W tH JJ J-l 00 H >
MH M t-(0O cOOO
DQCJOOO 4J 4-1 Mtfl M
OH>M -u Jj • vi • M • w h-Hnj toB -H
Q MOJ to ooo oo DO a woo S;D. o
DiW 3 J PrfO CH
S<"" " " 1*4 "
XVI-B-3
-------
ELIGIBLE
ACTIVITIES
ELIGIBLE
PARTICIPANTS
TYPE OF
ASSISTANCE
TYPE OF
PROGRAM
UOf^BdTOf^JB^ ^TTVi
8uf Jio^TUOjj Ajf^BriQ
J33BM pUB t}UB:mn°H 4_i I QJ rd
u o nj MO
^ 0) E cd S-i C co
UJ^S-i^-i C fOOO
O -H O O >>^Ora~ OJ-H \Q
<; Q >« 4-1 4-1 CM g K 03 4-J .
d -H ^ 4J a) a] \o
g; 1 WOOI— 1 i— 1 • Q) C PH>-I vD
O 4-lr-( CO\O4-)CO 4-1
M i— 1 C O" T— H POW^ i— ) W
H O cO • O O* CO O O C ~
CJ M >-j vD i-i ^2 >-iO W
t-* C CcMCL)CiOWV-< Cd) CJJ
O O C O-3-4JC3O OP 4->
pi Ur^O: CJ.cfl-HOCX. CJ C
d-i3 cc"~i >j
j o- cjs-j o aico cac/3 ocoo co
-iS 4-ir -HCM cog 4J«-o
a D -1-1 3EJS fficO 34-ivD
S t-n: debt— I4J CUCT3M iHO) co
g OMO4J OW S-iCU CO OB O
O P-iC On) Di>>PM OJ-rH rH4J (DC OOCO -H 4J -J- OlOld r-l
SSW 4-)(0 OW 4JO OC t-IC- 4->>cO O
Wt/) cOV-i CNito TO-H CMnJ oOJvD cOOJVj CN
p^"""~"
XVI-B-2
-------
B. FEDERAL WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS IN RURAL LAKE
AREAS
This section is a guide to the financial and technical assistance
programs that are available for conducting water quality planning in rural
lake areas in U.S. EPA Region V. This information originally was compiled
under 208 funding for the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission, Lansing,
Michigan, and has been revised and updated for this document. The accompany-
ing matrix identifies Federal assistance programs, the types of assistance
available, eligible participants, and eligible activities. It is designed
primarily for use by the local governing bodies, agencies, organizations, and
individuals responsible for conducting facility planning in rural lake areas.
The matrix is keyed to the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (Office of
Management and Budget, 1980), which gives details of applicant eligiblity and
procedure. Although several programs listed here pertain to issues other than
water quality, the focus is on the relevance of these programs to water
quality management.
The information about these programs is considered current as of 1980.
Programs changes, however, have been made since that time and some proposed
changes have not yet been instituted. Interested readers are advised to check
on the status of specific programs.
XVI-B-1
-------
plans for centralized systems. But eligibility of sewers depends on the
cost-effectiveness of non-sewered alternatives and their ability to meet
project needs.
In almost any unsewered community, there will be properties with
dwellings or places of business on them where standard on-site systems (septic
tank and gravity-fed soil absorption system) just will not work if loaded with
design wastewater flows. Many of these properties might be adequately served
if alternating drain fields, dosing siphon or pumps, elevated mounds, or other
design variations are added. But some of these properties may also have to
accept flow restrictions to allow the systems to work; for example, removing
garbage grinders, dishwashers or clothes washers; replacing faucets, toilets,
and showers with more efficient fixtures; or abandoning plans to expand house-
hold or business size. And some properties may have to abandon soil absorp-
tion systems altogether and use holding tanks with accompanying flow restric-
tions .
Undeveloped land, land that could be developed if sewers were available,
will remain undeveloped unless it is suited for on-site systems or unless
permits for small, effluent discharging systems are obtainable. Depending on
the stringency of regulatory programs, the suitability of sites or streams for
assimilating wastewater, and the local pressures for growth, the lack of
sewers may retard development in comparison with what would occur if sewers
were available.
The costs and the benefits of eliminating water use restrictions and of
fostering land use conversions are relative. With a program of upgrading
on-site systems and improving their management, water use restrictions would
generally increase, since this is one of the most effective means of control-
ling system failures on marginally suitable sites. However, some of the
restrictions to development might be eased if an effective management program
were instituted. But the major benefit of such an approach would be in con-
trolling water quality and public health problems.
Sewering can also control water quality and public health problems,
although some have argued that the problems are just transferred to one dis-
charge point. In terms of societal benefits, the main value of sewering
compared to upgrading on-site systems is that of avoiding water use restric-
tions and increasing community development potential. However, the added cost
to achieve these benefits in most unsewered communities is substantial.
Should the Construction Grants program subsidize this added cost? If the
expressed goals of the Clean Water Act are translated into the criteria for
"need," the answer is clearly "No."
XVI-A-3
-------
Goals and policies to achieve this objective listed in Section 101 make no
mention of improving property values or providing infrastructure for devel-
opment. The reference to public health protection related to "recreation in
and on the water" and the prohibition of "the discharge of toxic pollutants in
toxic amounts" leave little room for debate that water quality and the bene-
fits of activities that improve water quality are the focuses of the Act.
In the statements of goals and policies of the Act in Section 101 and of
the Construction Grants program in Section 201, the following references are
made to non-water quality objectives:
• "...to recognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities
and rights of the States...to plan the development and use...of land
and water resources..."(Section 101(b)).
• encouraging and assisting "public participation in the development,
revision, and enforcement of any regulation, standard, effluent limi-
tation, plan, or program...under this Act..." (Section 101(e)).
• "...application of the best practicable waste treatment technology
before any discharge into receiving waters..."(Section 201(b)).
• "...construction of revenue-producing facilities providing for...
recycling of potential sewage pollutants...confined and contained
disposal of pollutants not recycled...(and) the reclamation of waste-
water..." (Section 201 (d)).
• combining waste treatment management with "open space" and recreational
considerations (Section 201(f) and 201(g)(6)).
• evaluating alternative waste management techniques (Sections
201(g)(2)(A) and 201 (g)(5)).
• reducing total energy requirements (201(i)).
The point of this review is that the Act does not mention, much less list
as goals or even benefits, the property value and community development goals
that applicants might see as their "need" for sewers. Even public-health-
related goals are limited to allowing recreation on or in surface waters and
controlling disposal of toxic substances. Relating this to determinations of
collector sewer eligibility, it is difficult to justify a documentation of
need on any basis other than water quality and public health problems closely
associated with impaired water quality.
The practical effects of this line of thinking are several. These
effects will also result from the termination in 1984 of collector sewer
eligibility. (See amendments to Section 201(g)(l) passed in 1981.)
Obviously, the financial feasibility of sewering previously unsewered
communities is greatly reduced if the collector sewers are not eligible.
Collector sewers represent up to 80 percent of the capital investment in new
centralized wastewater systems. Even when that cost is eligible for
Construction Grants, the local cost per household is burdensome. If it is not
eligible, many unsewered communities simply will not be able to implement
XVI-A-2
-------
A. EPA POLICY REGARDING CONVENTIONAL WATER USE AND POPULATION
GROWTH
In administering the Construction Grants program, EPA will repeatedly
face the issue of sewer eligibility in unsewered areas. (However, with
passage of the Municipal Construction Grants Act of 1981, collector sewers,
except ones funded under governors' discretionary powers, will be ineligible
after September 1984). Eligibility determinations will be based on documented
need, cost-effectiveness of sewers compared to non-sewer solutions, and the
"substantial human habitation" rule.
For most unsewered communities and neighborhoods, non-sewer solutions
will be found to be cost-effective as a result of preliminary cost analysis.
Where the comparison with sewers is closer, the determination as to cost-
effectiveness may have to wait for detailed cost analysis (see Technical
Reference Document IV.A., Cost Variability Study), and the only remaining
determinant will be whether documented needs can be satisfied by non-sewer
solutions. The substantial human habitation rule will not be a determinant in
such situations, since its effect is only to rule out sewers that meet the
other tests.
The question of whether non-sewer solutions can satisfy documented needs
is, of course, open to policy regarding what is, and what is not, a "need."
The broadest definition of "need" could be based on the whole range of goals
that communities might be pursuing. Technical Reference Document IX.A. dis-
cusses five major community goals:
protecting public health
improving surface water or groundwater quality
abating and preventing nuisances
improving property values
providing infrastructure for development.
In addition, obtaining specific benefits associated with a government-funded
program might also be listed. Examples are recreational benefits of property
acquisition and improved water quality, and jobs created by the expenditure.
Federal support for any and all of these goals and benefits can be found
in ongoing or relatively recent grant and loan programs. (See Technical
Reference Document XVI. B., Federal Water Quality Improvement Programs in
Rural Lake Areas.) Indeed, most of the small communities receiving Construc-
tion Grants funds since the beginning of the program have built collector
sewers with part of their grants. And they have realized the benefits listed
above to one degree or another.
But the issue is not whether sewers are good or bad. The issue is:
Which benefits are considered, within the law authorizing and regulations
implementing the Construction Grants program, to be primary goals of the
program and, therefore, determinants of need?
The best current guide for addressing this issue is the Clean Water Act
of 1977, as amended by the Municipal Construction Grants Act of 1981. Section
101 (a) of the Act reads: "The objective of this Act is to restore and main-
tain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters."
XVI-A-1
-------
CHAPTER XVI
FEDERAL PROGRAMS
-------
7. CONSEQUENCES OF ESTABLISHING SEPARATE SMALL WASTE FLOWS
PRIORITY LISTS
Utilization of separate small waste flows priority lists will potentially
result in the following:
• Rural areas that need small waste flows management systems will be able
to receive EPA Construction Grants Program funding (if available)
according to a priority ranking system based on criteria that consider
the true needs of rural communities and the possible accomplishments of
small waste flows facilities.
• Monies allocated by states for funding of small waste flows programs
will be spent efficiently, cost-effectively, and for projects that will
do the most good for rural areas of the states within EPA Region V.
• Small waste flows management systems typically do not cause abnormal
secondary growth. As a result, utilization of separate priority lists
and the subsequent funding of small waste flows facilities will enable
small rural communities to retain small-town characteristics.
• Groundwater pollution and public health problems will be recognized and
subsequently reduced or eliminated through use of separate priority
lists that identify these problem areas by virtue of the new criteria
to be utilized.
• Applicants will be encouraged to base their proposed projects on the
true nature of their wastewater-related problems, not undocumented
problems that result in the highest priority.
XV-D-11
-------
state-specific public health problems and other small community concerns.
Use of separate small waste flows priority lists would enable the various
states within Region V to utilize grant funds specifically set aside for
alternative small waste flows systems in a cost-effective, environmentally
sound manner that is also responsive to small community needs and is
consistent with EPA regulations.
6. EXAMPLE CRITERIA FOR SEPARATE SMALL WASTE FLOWS PRIORITY
LISTS
A review of Tables XV-D-1 through XV-D-6 will show that several rating
criteria currently used within Region V are favorable to the concept of small
waste flows programs. These criteria, and several additional ones, are
suggested herein for consideration by the various states, particularly those
with a rural population of 25% or more. The criteria are offered as
suggestions only, and should not be construed or interpreted as requirements
of EPA Region V. Development and consideration of other criteria that address
state-specific needs, problems, and interests, are encouraged. The suggested
criteria (in random order) for which priority points might be given include:
• Correction of failing on-site systems that are causing or contribution
to public health problems.
• Reduction or elimination of systems adversely affecting groundwater
uses.
• Reduction in the number of stream segments polluted by failing systems.
• Projects in designated national priority basins.
• Per capita cost of the project. Projects with the lowest cost per
capita should receive priority, since this will result in serving the
most persons possible per dollar of grant funds expended. If a project
is so expensive that it causes a financial burden for citizens, then
additional funding potentially should be made available from other
federal agencies (e.g., HUD or FHA), and not from EPA.
• Low per capita income.
• Bonded indebtedness of the grantee per dollars of assessed value.
Cities with lowest debts should receive priority. If a community is
heavily in debt, it potentially cannot pay for proper system 0 & M
(which is not federally subsidized).
• Communities with a large percentage of residents served by on-site
systems.
• Elimination of ponding or surface runoff from failing on-site systems.
• Number of persons to be served by proposed small waste flows systems
that currently have on-site systems.
In addition, state-specific criteria addressing the needs and desires of
the public should be included in the priority ranking system.
XV-D-10
-------
A review of Tables XV-D-1 through 6 reveals that an overwhelming number
of criteria currently used by various states to develop funding priority lists
place small waste flows management systems at a distinct disadvantage when
competing with centralized treatment systems. This does not mean that the
existing criteria being utilized are wrong or bad; in fact, existing criteria
appear to follow closely the four general criteria established by 40 CFR
35.915(a)(1). Nonetheless, small waste flows management systems do not sur-
vive well when subjected to current state criteria established in response to
the Clean Water Act. Perhaps more recent legislation will enable changes to
be made, as discussed in the next section.
4. REGULATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER
TREATMENT CONSTRUCTION GRANTS AMENDMENTS OF 1981
Regulations have been promulgated by EPA in response to the Municipal
Wastewater Treatment Construction Grants Amendments of 1981 (Public Law
97-117). These regulations comprise a new subpart I to 40 CFR 35. They were
published in the Federal Register on May 12, 1982. Among other changes from
the earlier regulations, the use of existing population as a criterion is
optional under the new regulations. The mandatory criteria emphasize restora-
tion of groundwater as well as surface water uses. And, significantly for
unsewered communities, public health improvements are included in the
mandatory criteria.
How the revised criteria actually impact the distribution of funds to
small communities will depend on how the states modify specific provisions of
their priority lists. As is evident from their earlier priority criteria
analyzed here, the states vary in their concern for small community wastewater
problems. As suggested above, the form of the states' priority criteria is
likely to influence how communities present their projects to be rated.
The proposed regulations still require that 4% of a state's allotment be
reserved for funding alternative systems for small communities. Therefore,
monies are provided for construction of eligible small waste flows projects.
5. Concept of Separate Small Waste Flows Priority Lists
One way to promote fair consideration of small waste flows management
systems within EPA Region V, and still maintain the integrity of current
priority methodologies, is to develop separate priority criteria and a
separate priority ranking list for utilization with small community projects.
It has been shown that the rating criteria currently used by states within EPA
Region V do fulfill the intent of EPA's general criteria as developed in
response to the Clean Water Act. Continued use of the same rating criteria
also should fulfill the intent of the first criteria of the new 1981 amend-
ments (i.e., correction of municipal wastewater discharges which impair water
uses), and should provide continued successful construction or rehabilitation
of centralized municipal treatment systems, which serve a majority of the
nation's population.
In a like manner, separate small waste flows priority lists could be
developed, using new rating criteria that are directed toward helping small
and rural communities comply with the second criteria of the new 1981 amend-
ments (i.e., restoring groundwater uses and improving public health). New
rating procedures or formulas also could contain criteria developed to address
XV-D-9
-------
TABLE XV-D-6. EVALUATION OF PRIORITY RANKING CRITERIA USED FOR EPA'S
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM IN WISCONSIN
Ranking Criteria Developed by: WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Effect on SWF Systems
DESCRIPTION OF CRITERIA Pro Neutral Con
• Basin priority X
• Eliminating groundwater pollution X
• Eliminating discharges of raw sewage X
• Eliminating ponding or runoff of effluent from X
septic tank systems
• Eliminating bypasses in sewage treatment plants X
• Eliminating backups of sewage into basements X
• Assimilative capacity of receiving stream X
• Elimination of discharges of phosphorus X
• Population affected (priority to large citiess) X
• Project category (priority for new plants, new X
sewers, and eliminating on-site systems)
COMMENTS:
(1) Procedures state that "It is the position of the DNR that correction of
malfunctioning septic systems is not...central to achievement of...
water quality goals....Unsewered community projects are not needed to
meet enforceable requirements of the Clean Water Act....Elimination of
...points for unsewered communities will put those projects on the
bottom of the priority list...."
XV-D-8
-------
TABLE XV-D-5. EVALUATION OF PRIORITY RANKING CRITERIA USED FOR EPA'S
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM IN OHIO
Ranking Criteria Developed by: OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Effect on SWF Systems
DESCRIPTION OF CRITERIA Pro Neutral Con
Severity of pollution (priority if effluent X
is more than stream flow)
Priority for many industrial dischargers in a X
basin
Priority for discharge to cold water fisheries, X
wild and scenic rivers, or recreational waters
Designated federal priority basins X
Population affected (weighted to large cities) X
Protection of existing water uses (priority for X
discharges to surface drinking water supplies
and recreational waters)
Public health hazards (priority for groundwater X
contamination, public health problems, and
fish kills)
Project type (priority for existing centralized X
systems)
COMMENTS:
(1) Procedures allow unsewered areas with population problems to receive
funding, but projects are ranked using the above priority criteria and
placed on one priority list.
XV-D-7
-------
TABLE XV-D-4. EVALUATION OF PRIORITY RANKING CRITERIA USED FOR EPA'S
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM IN MINNESOTA
Ranking Criteria Developed by: MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
Effect on SWF Systems
DESCRIPTION OF CRITERIA Pro Neutral Con
• Population affected (weighted to large cities) X
• Segment ranking X
• Category of project (SWF projects are not listed) X
• Per capita cost of project (high cost gets priority) X
• Bond debt (City more in debt gets priority) X
• Per-capita income (low income gets priority) X
COMMENTS:
(1) Unsewered communities may get on the priority list only by demonstrating
the need for a project. This is done by submitting data on: (a) soil
type; (b) lot size; (c) depth to high groundwater; and (d) age of
existing system. These criteria demonstrate the need for centralized
projects; SWF systems apparently are not considered.
(2) Grant funds are allocated for metropolitan and non-metropolitan projects
according to the ratio of sewered metropolitan population to sewered non-
metropolitan population. Unsewered populations apparently are not
considered.
(3) Small waste flow funding (4%) is set aside.
XV-D-6
-------
TABLE XV-D-3. EVALUATION OF PRIORITY RANKING CRITERIA USED FOR EPA'S
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM IN MICHIGAN
Ranking Criteria Developed by: MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Effect on SW Systems
DESCRIPTION OF CRITERIA Pro Neutral Con
Population to be served (weighted to big cities) X
Designated water use (on-site systems are X
considered as discharging to groundwater,
and get extra points)
Drought flow ration (groundwater considered X
infinite)
High quality effluent X
Discharge directly to Great Lakes X
Amount discharged to groundwater X
Elimination of point source discharge to X
an inland lake
Stream segment ranking X
Extra weight given to projects which eliminate X
a public health problem
COMMENTS:
(1) Michigan procedures call for spending all of the state's available SWF
funding on SWF projects in the order in which the projects fall on the
priority list. In addition, SWF projects also are funded with regular
grant funds.
XV-D-5
-------
TABLE XV-D-2. EVALUATION OF PRIORITY RANKING CRITERIA USED FOR EPA'S
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM IN INDIANA
Ranking Criteria Developed by: INDIANA STREAM POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
DESCRIPTION OF CRITERIA
Dilution by streamflow per 1,000 persons
Ranking of stream segment
Population per square mile of basin
Assimilative capacity of receiving stream
Basin designated by EPA or plant expansion of
existing system
Major need for new conventional system or plant
expansion of existing system
New regional plants or proposed conventional plants
in Steps 1, 2, or 3
Effect on SWF Systems
Pro Neutral Con
X
X
X
X
X
X
COMMENTS:
(1) Municipalities without existing plants can be added to the priority
list.
(2) Municipalities that do not have point source discharges and that have
enforceable pollution problems (e.g., failing on-site system) can be
removed from the priority list.
(3) The narrative accompanying the description of the rating system states
that "compliance with I/A technology rules is difficult." Procedures
for spending funds for small community systems are not established;
however, it is noted that 4% of the state's allotment is set aside
for small community systems.
(4) Procedures allow municipalities with on-site systems to get on the
priority list by "documenting substantial pollution problems from raw
sewage discharge or inadequate septic systems." No mention is made of
public health problems.
XV-D-4
-------
TABLE XV-D-1. EVALUATION OF PRIORITY RANKING CRITERIA USED FOR EPA'S
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM IN ILLINOIS
Ranking Criteria Developed by: ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Effect on SWF Systems
DESCRIPTION OF CRITERIA Pro Neutral Con
Discharge of large amounts of BOD to stream X
Adequacy of existing facilities in meeting X
permit limitations
Ranking of stream segments according to X
effluents to discharged
Types of additional facilities required X
Types of existing facilities which are overloaded X
Discharge does not comply with 30/30 (BOD/TSS) X
Number of 600-feet downstream segments X
polluted by the municipality's activities
Number of 600-feet downstream segments X
polluted by drainage tile fields
Number of 600-feet downstream segments that X
have unbalanced aquatic environments due to
the municipality's activities
Severity of public health hazards resulting X
from inadequate or malfunctioning private
sewage disposal systems
Multiplying factor biased to favor large X
municipalities
COMMENTS:
(1) Points given for inadequate existing centralized facilities appear to
greatly overshadow points available for on-site systems.
(2) The narrative associated with the ranking criteria states that the trend
in Illinois is to support and encourage innovative/alternative technology
in 1982.
XV-D-3
-------
Water Act, EPA promulgated changes in its regulations involving establishments
of priority rating systems and funding reserves relating to the Construction
Grants Program. Of relevance to this discussion are the provisions of 40 CFR
35.915(a)(1), which established criteria to be used in state priority systems.
These regulations required states to establish project rating systems for
determining priorities for grant funding based on the following criteria:
• severity of the pollution problem;
• existing population;
• need for preservation of water quality; and
• specific categories of need, to be addressed on a state basis.
The first of the above-stated criteria is not particularly well suited
for application to rural communities with proposed small waste flows projects,
because failing on-site systems often result in significant public health
problems without causing significant pollution problems. The second criteria
increases priority according to the number of persons affected by (i.e.,
benefiting from) a proposed project—a situation which obviously places rural
communities at a disadvantage when they compete for funding with large
metropolitan areas. The third criteria also is not advantageous to small
waste flows systems, since water quality degradation does not always occur
with failing on-site systems. Advantages or disadvantages of the fourth
criteria are dependent upon the specific category selected by the state, if
any. It is noteworthy that neither the Clean Water Act nor the regulations
suggest a specific category for non-sewered technologies, despite the fact
that the Act made individual systems eligible for Construction Grants funding.
Additional provisions are given in 40 CFR 35.915(a)(1)(iv), which speci-
fies that other additional criteria consistent with those listed above may be
considered, including the special needs of small and rural communities.
Furthermore, 40 CFR 35.915-1(a), dealing with required reserves related to
priority lists and federal funding allotments to the various states, specifies
that "each state with a rural population of 25% or more shall set aside 4% of
the prescribed state allotment to fund alternative systems for small communi-
ties." These additional provisions, which allow states to establish ranking
criteria specifically geared to small communities, and which require monies to
be set aside for funding alternative small waste flows management programs,
provided the means for states to recognize and satisfy the need for improved
small waste flows systems in unsewered communities. The following section
presents the results of an analysis conducted to determine how proposed small
waste flows management programs are affected by the state priority ranking
systems within EPA Region V.
3. EVALUATION OF STATE PRIORITY SYSTEMS
Tables XV-D-1 through XV-D-6 summarize the results of evaluations of the
priority ranking systems used by Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio,
and Wisconsin, respectively. Each table lists the major rating criteria used,
and designates whether the criteria are advantageous to small waste flows
systems (pro); do not affect small waste flows systems (neutral); or place
small waste flows systems at a substantial disadvantage (con) when compared
with large municipal projects.
XV-D-2
-------
D. BENEFITS OF SEPARATE STATE PRIORITY LISTS FOR SMALL WASTE
FLOW AREAS
Wastewater management problems in unsewered communities are seldom
similar to those of sewered communities. This chapter explores the proposi-
tion that criteria used to rank sewered communities for grant funding are not,
therefore, appropriate for the ranking of unsewered communities. It is
suggested here that states consider adoption of separate priority lists to be
used for communities where public health and groundwater protection goals are
as significant as surface water quality goals.
1. GOALS
Of the municipal wastewater management problems faced by local, state,
and federal governments at the beginning of the Construction Grants program,
inadequately treated discharges of wastewater to surface waters, primarily by
large, centralized systems, were the most obvious and the most amenable to
solution by known technologies. It is thus not surprising that Section 216 of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-500) lists only
elements of centralized wastewater systems as mandatory categories for state
priority lists. Billions of dollars have now been spent on thousands of
centralized treatment systems to address the worst of these surface water
pollution problems.
But there remain on state priority lists many projects for which surface
water quality goals are not as urgent as are public health and groundwater
protection goals related to operation of on-site systems. Increasingly,
communities with limited or no collection facilities are rising on the
priority lists.
The priority lists, however, were established to rank centralized
projects, the dominant goals of which are surface water pollution abatement.
As a result, upcoming projects for unsewered communities, many of which have
real public health or groundwater problems, have to compete with wholly
dissimilar projects. The response of many applicants appears to be to tailor
their proposed projects to get as many points in the priority rating as
possible. The resulting project may be as inappropriate for the community as
were the priority criteria. Such projects are typically the most expensive
means of abating the actual public health and groundwater problems at hand,
requiring installation of new collection and treatment systems with new
discharges to surface waters. Misapplication of priority criteria can
actually be counter-productive, in addition to being expensive.
Several reasons for having separate state small waste flows priority
lists are presented herein. The following paragraphs discuss the basis of
current grant funding priority lists, evaluate ranking criteria used by states
within EPA Region V, discuss the need for separate funding lists, and mention
some of the anticipated consequences of establishing separate priority lists
for funding small waste flows management programs.
2. REGULATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE CLEAN WATER ACT OF 1977
The Clean Water Act of 1977 (Public Law 95-217) provided for several
modifications to EPA's Construction Grants Program. As a result of the Clean
XV-D-1
-------
Wisconsin
John Cain
Department of Natural Resources
P. 0. Box 450
Madison, WI 53701
Lyman Wible
S.E. Wisconsin Regional
Planning Commission
916 South East Avenue
Waukesha, WI 53186
William Lane
Dane County Regional
Planning Commission
City-County Building, Room 312
Madison, WI 53709
John Laumer
Fox Valley Water Quality
Planning Agency
1919 American Court
Neenah, WI 54956
XV-C-14
-------
Minnesota
Paul Davis, Chief Planner
Pollution Control Agency
1935 West County Road B2
Roseville, MN 55113
John Harrington, Environmental Planner
Metropolitan Council
300 Metro Square Building
7th and Robert Streets
St. Paul, MN 55101
Ohio
Edward Armstrong, Office of
Planning Coordinator
Environmental Protection Agency
361 East Broad Street
P. 0. Box 1049
Columbus, OH
Jim King, Environmental Engineer
Northeast Ohio Four County
Coordinating Organization
137 South Main Street
Delaware Building, Suite 300
Akron, OH 44308
John Becker, 208 Director
Northeast Ohio Areawide
Coordinating Agency
1501 Euclid Avenue
Cleveland, OH
Dorey Montezumi, 208 Director
Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional
Council of Governments
426 East Fourth Street
Cincinnati, OH
Dick Roberson, 208 Planner
Miami Valley Regional Planning
Commission
333 West First Street, Suite 500
Dayton, OH 45402
John Getchey, 208 Director
Eastgate Development and
Transportation Agency
1616 Covington Street
Youngstown, OH 45402
XV-C-13
-------
Angela Preston, Water Quality Coordinator
Indiana Heartland Coordinating Commission
7212 North Shadeland, Suite 120
Indianapolis, IN 46250
Larry Koepfle, Water Quality Planner
Michigan Area Council of Governments
County-City Building, llth Floor
South Bend, IN 46601
Rosemary Harvey, Environmental Planner
Region VI Planning and Development
Commission
207 North Talley
Muncie, IN 47303
Michigan
Ron Wilson
Department of Natural Resources
Stevens T. Mason Building, 8th Floor
Box 30028
Lansing, MI 48909
Chuck Grant, 208 Coordinator
Northwest Michigan Regional Planning
and Development Commission
2334 Aero Par Court
Traverse City, MI 49684
Marty Skoglund, 208 Coordinator
Central Upper Peninsula Planning
and Development District
2415 14th Avenue South
Escanaba, MI 29829
Ron Karwowski, 208 Director
Genesee, Lapeer and Shiawassee
Region V Planning and Development
Commission
100 Phoenix Building
Flint, MI 48502
James Sygo, 208 Director
East Central Michigan Regional Planning
Commission
500 Federal Avenue
Castle Building, Second Floor
Saginaw, MI 48607
John Koches
West Michigan Shoreline Regional
Development Commission
315 West Webster Avenue
Muskegon, MI 49440
XV-C-12
-------
AGENCIES AND PERSONNEL CONTACTED
U.S. EPA
Mark Alderson
Mike Philips
U.S. EPA Region V
230 South Dearborn St.
Chicago, IL 60604
Illinois
William Sullivan
Terri Zeal
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
220 Churchill Road
Springfield, IL 62706
Angela Kazakevicius
Greater Egypt Regional Planning and
Development Commission
P. 0. Box 3160
608 East College Street
Carbondale, IL 62901
Jacqueline Bruemmer, 208 Program Manager
Southwestern Illinois Metropolitan and
Regional Planning Commission
203 West Main Street
Collinsville, IL 62234
Thomas Trybus
Northeastern Illinois Planning and
Development Commission
400 West Madison Street
Chicago, IL 60606
Indiana
Steve Kim
Ron Weiss
Stream Pollution Control Board
Board of Health
1330 West Michigan Street
Indianapolis, IN 46206
Mose McNeese, 208 Planner
Northwestern Indiana Regional
Planning Commission
8149 Kennedy Avenue
Highland, IN 46322
XV-C-11
-------
REFERENCES
Environmental Protection Agency 1978. Grants for construction of treatment
works - Clean Water Act (40 CFR 35 Part E): Rules and regulations. 43FE
44022, 27 September 1978.
Greater Egypt Regional Planning and Development Commission. 1980. Areawide
waste treatment and water quality management planning - facilities
planning for small communities. Publication No. 1 GERPDC-80-552.
Carbondale IL.
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. 1979. Illinois water quality
management plan, volume 4. Springfield IL.
Indiana Heartland Coordinating Commission. Variously dated. Hendricks County
sewage treatment management study. Indianapolis IN.
Northeastern Illinois Planning and Development Commission. 1979. Areawide
water quality management plan, volume 1. Chicago IL.
Southwestern Illinois Metropolitan and Regional Planning Commission. 1979.
Feasibility study of alternative wastewater treatment systems.
Collinsville IL.
XV-C-10
-------
could also become involved in providing technical assistance to local com-
munities in the use of small waste flows technologies and management. Where
the 208 agency did not possess the necessary expertise in-house to provide the
assistance, it could function as a clearinghouse and obtain assistance from
other agencies.
e. Preparing Manpower Inventories for Local Small Waste Flows
Programs
A wide range of types of expertise may be required by a local community
in operation of a small waste flows program. Many communities may find that
they have deficiencies in certain expertise levels among existing personnel.
A 208 agency could assist these communities on a regional basis, by preparing
inventories of the types of expertise available to the community from private
organizations and other public agencies. A 208 agency, with its familiarity
with public and private agencies, could provide new sources of assistance to
local communities. A feasible method of solving the manpower needs of many
small communities with limited resources would be the identification of expert
personnel who could be shared by more than one community.
f. Assisting Local Communities in Grant Application and
Administration
The application for, and administration of, Construction Grants funds to
be utilized for decentralized systems may involve more expertise, time, and
effort than rural communities have at their disposal. Additional requirements
for individual systems as provided in Section 35.918-1 of the Construction
Grants Regulations (EPA, 1978) provide an example of the greater regulations
governing grants for individual systems. Many 208 agencies have provided
grants assistance to local communities under the Construction Grants program
and other Federal programs. With staff expertise in the construction grants
program and requirements, the 208 agencies would be ideally suited to provide
assistance to local communities. The 208 agencies also could provide ongoing
assistance in the administration of the grants. Such activities as providing
assistance to communities in contracting for services, hiring of personnel,
budget preparation, and others could all be feasibly performed under a 208
agency assistance program.
XV-C-9
-------
• serve as a repository for performance data on the utilization of
alternative wastewater technology.
All of these measures comprise preliminary planning efforts that would be
valuable to local communities in identifying the feasibility of utilizing
small waste flows technology and management. The activities would require a
greater involvement by the 208 agencies in recognition and identification of
the needs of rural areas and planning for these areas. However, 208 agencies
should benefit from familiarity with the local communities and availability of
necessary planning tools, and possess necessary expertise to perform such
studies.
c. Reviewing and Making Recommendations for Upgrading of Local
and State Regulations
Many local and state regulations inhibit the utilization of small waste
flows technology and the management of decentralized systems. In many states
this is done prudently because the feasibility of the utilization of small
waste flows technology has not been proven in a given area and the mechanisms
for the proper management of these systems have not been developed. However,
as the use of decentralized systems proves feasible, cost-effective, and in
harmony with environmental objectives, the need for amendments to existing
local and state regulations becomes apparent. Similarly, as the utilization
of small waste flows technologies becomes a reality, the development of
appropriate management capabilities will in many cases require revision of
local and/or state regulations.
The 208 agencies should be familiar with existing regulatory controls
within a community as well as with regulatory techniques used in other com-
munities. The 208 agencies can review local codes and recommend amendments to
communities that lack sufficient expertise to initiate such changes on their
own. A 208 agency with available staff and expertise would also be more able
to lobby state agencies for necesary amendments than would a rural community.
d. Disseminating Information on Small Waste Flows Technology
and Management
The dissemination of information on small waste flows technology and
management is an activity that most existing 208 agencies perform in some
manner. The level and types of information disseminated vary widely, however.
There are three main methods of information dissemination: educational pro-
grams, training programs, and provision of technical assistance. A 208 agency
would be an ideal agency for providing these services because it posseses the
necessary expertise and can provide assistance over a wide area.
Educational programs consist of a variety of activities that may be
utilized to educate the general public in small waste flows technology and
management. Examples might include holding public meetings, and workshops;
preparation of brochures and pamphlets describing small waste flows manage-
ment; and similar activities. Most 208 agencies will have already attained
expertise in these activities through other 208 programs. Training programs
that may be coordinated through a 208 agency include programs for regulatory
personnel, system installers, designers, and evaluators. The 208 agency
personnel could develop the programs and bring in necessary expertise for
these programs to supplement agency personnel as needed. The 208 agencies
XV-C-8
-------
• a mailed questionnaire regarding each resident's knowledge of the
on-site system and its performance,
• review of soils maps,
• review of local permit records,
• lot elevations to estimate depth to water table (lakeshore areas),
• calculation of lot sizes,
• remote photo imagery, and
• leachate detection of ground or surface water in the area.
Following such a needs determination, the condition of existing on-site
systems within the community may be categorized into one of three groups:
1. those with obvious problems,
2. those with no problems, and
3. those requiring more investigation for evaluation.
This type of initial screening indicates to a community the severity of its
wastewater needs. It also indicates the level of effort required for comple-
tion of the needs analysis based on the number and type of properties
requiring more investigation for evaluation.
Performance of this type of needs analysis could feasibly be conducted by
existing 208 agencies. The 208 agencies represent the only personnel with
expertise in wastewater planning in many rural areas, and this expertise
should be fully utilized. In addition, 208 agencies may have already con-
ducted studies providing some of the data needs and may have available or have
ready access to and familiarity with soils maps, topographic maps, lot line
maps, and other data. These agencies would also have staff available who are
capable of assimilating and interpreting the necessary data.
b. Identifying Local Feasibility of Small Waste Flows Technology
and Management
The identification of the local feasibility of small waste flows tech-
nology and management includes a wide range of activities that could be per-
formed by 208 agencies. Many existing 208 agencies are already performing a
number of these activities. The list of potential activities includes:
• prepare soil and other studies indicating the feasibility of on-site
disposal techniques throughout the community,
• identify local measures for septage treatment,
• conduct institutional analyses of local communities for the management
of decentralized systems,
• Prepare site-specific cost benefit analysis for the use of decen-
tralized systems vs. centralized collection and disposal, and
XV-C-7
-------
3. POTENTIAL 208 PROGRAM ACTIVITIES
The 208 agencies represent the only body concerned with wastewater plan-
ning in many rural areas. As such, they can have a tremendous impact on the
utilization of small waste flows technology and management to serve the waste-
water needs of rural areas by providing assistance to local communities. Many
208 programs have already been active in promoting the use of small waste
flows technology and management. Ongoing activities include conducting Muni-
cipal Needs Analysis for rural communities, studying the use of alternative
technology, managing decentralized facilities, etc. The purpose of this sec-
tion will be to identify the expanded role that 208 agencies can fulfill in
providing assistance to local communities. While it is recognized that
funding limitations may affect any expansion of 208 programs, the purpose here
is to assess the potential for 208 involvement in small waste flows programs.
The range of potential 208 activities that will be discussed includes:
• preparing of community needs analysis,
• identifying local feasibility of small waste flows technology and
management,
• reviewing and making recommendations for upgrading of local and state
regulations,
• disseminating information on small waste flows technology and manage-
ment,
• preparing manpower inventories for local small waste flows programs,
and
• assisting local communities in grant application and administration.
a. Preparing of a Community Needs Analysis
The State of Illinois provides an excellent example of what existing 208
agencies have accomplished in identifying community needs. As previously
discussed under current programs, the state and designated 208 agencies pre-
pared Municipal Needs Analyses (MNA) for those communities that had not
applied for construction grants and had not, therefore prepared a facility
plan. These MNAs are essentially the same as facilities plans although their
recommendations are not necessarily readily implementable as are the recom-
mendations of facilities plans. Through these MNAs, the state and designated
208 agencies have appraised the wastewater needs of rural communities and
identified approaches to meeting these needs.
Needs analysis assistance to local communities does not have to be as
extensive as has been done in Illinois to be of value. Needs documentation
based on easily obtainable data, such as Phase I studies described in Region V
Guidance on Site Specific Needs Determination and Alternative Planning for
Unsewered Areas may be performed. The needs documentation is based on data
such as:
XV-C-6
-------
discussed setting up a program to manage on-site systems and another subplan
that dealt with the environmental problems associated with leachate from
on-site systems. According to agency personnel, both of these subplans were
general and have been improved upon by more recent and expansive literature.
The Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments prepared a separate
report on alternative methods of on-site disposal. The Eastgate Development
and Transportation Agency is currently preparing a study dealing with on-site
systems. The study entitled Operation and Maintenance Standards for On-Site
Systems is looking at current regulatory practices regarding system operation
and maintenance and making recommendations for changes.
g. Wisconsin
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) prepared a statewide
208 plan that did not go into extensive discussion of alternative wastewater
technology. The plan did make recommendations that alternative technology
should be considered as part of the facilities planning process. The DNR has
been funded for fiscal year 1981 to prepare a study entitled Implication of
Small and Alternative Technology. This study will look at the ramifications
of applying small waste flows and alternative technology to rural communities.
They hope from this study to encourage extensive use of new alternative tech-
nology when community conditions warrant its use.
The Southeast Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission members have been
very active in exploring the issue of alternative technology to serve rural
areas. Their 208 plan discussed the feasibility of the use of alternative
technology and particularly the Wisconsin mound system. They also developed,
in 1976, a technical report entitled State of the Art of Wastewater Manage-
ment . Their 208 plan developed sewer service areas surrounding existing urban
centers and looked at alternatives for sewering these areas where conventional
sewerage did not appear feasible. They intend to conduct a detailed study to
look at alternative methods to service these areas.
The Dane County Regional Planning Commission's 208 plan primarily con-
centrated on the control of non-point source pollution problems. Outside of
readily sewerable areas, the Commission did discuss the need to address a
variety of alternatives in considering the sewer service. However, the agency
is not encouraging the use of alternative technology because it is attempting
to channel future development into areas already served by conventional
sewerage. The agency intends to undertake a study this year (1981) of systems
for requiring homeowner operation and maintenance of all existing on-site
systems, monitored by the issuance of yearly operating permits.
The remaining designated 208 agency, the Fox Valley Water Quality Plan-
ning Agency, did not extensively cover the use of alternative technology
within its 208 plan. The planning area contains very poor soils, high water
tables, and floodplains that preclude the use of on-site systems in many
areas. Much of the district is so environmentally sensitive that any type of
sewerage and development is disadvantageous. The agency plans to review the
sewer service areas to identify the environmentally sensitive areas as being
unsuitable for any type of development.
XV-C-5
-------
The plans have at least provided a starting point from which further use of
alternative technology may be considered. The statewide 208 plan that has
been recently funded will primarily focus on point source pollution problems.
Several of the 208 agencies have conducted or are becoming involved in
special studies and activities related to small waste flows management. The
West Michigan Shoreline Regional Development Commission prepared a report in
1977 entitled Sewerless Methods of Household Waste Disposal. This report
looked at the state-of-the-art in on-site and alternative wastewater disposal
as it existed in 1977. This 208 agency has been actively promoting the use of
alternative technology, but local counties are reluctant to change from the
status quo of conventional technology. The Genesee, Lapeer, and Shiawasse
Planning Development Commission prepared a report in 1978 entitled The Impact
of Unsewered Development on Water Quality. This agency worked with one county
in attempting to establish a small waste flows management district but ran
into numerous bureaucratic problems. These problems were attributed to a lack
of designation and approval on the state level of the appropriate administra-
tive mechanisms. The Northwest Michigan Regional Planning and Development
Commission has recently been funded by the Northwest Michigan Human Services
Agency to investigate starting an inspection and pump-out program for septic
tanks in a small community. They will be exploring and developing management
strategy and options.
e. Minnesota
Minnesota has only one designated 208 agency serving the Minneapolis-St.
Paul area. The Metropolitan Council, which is the designated 208 agency serv-
ing this area, has been very active indirectly in looking at alternative
wastewater technology to service their area. The Metropolitan Waste Control
Commission (MWCC), which received funds from the Metropolitan Council and the
201 program, completed an alternative wastewater management study that identi-
fied wastewater problem areas in the region and recommended generic solutions
to these problems. The MWCC is currently being funded for Phase II of this
project, which involves performing site-specific needs analysis of each
dwelling unit. The MWCC has adopted a policy of not extending sewers beyond
the present urban areas, and this will increase the likely use of alternative
technology to serve these areas. Two townships and counties have already
prepared facilities plans considering the use of alternative technologies.
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has prepared a 208 plan for the
non-designated areas of the state. The plan did not specifically address the
needs of rural planning areas or discuss the use of small waste flows tech-
nology to serve rural areas. The plan focused on the control of non-point
source pollution problems within the state.
f. Ohio
The statewide 208 plan prepared by the Ohio EPA and the 208 plans pre-
pared by the designated 208 agencies contacted did not consider extensively
the use of small waste flows technology beyond recognition of the need for its
consideration during the facilities planning stage. Generally, the 208 plans
emphasized urban and non-point source pollution problems. The Northeast Ohio
Areawide Coordinating Agency did include a subplan within their 208 plan that
XV-C-4
-------
All three of the designated 208 agencies have begun to consider the needs
of rural areas and the utilization of small waste flows technologies to serve
these areas in their respective 208 planning. The Southwestern Illinois
Metropolitan Regional Planning Commission has reassessed area 201 plans where
conventional sewering was not conisdered cost-effective for the feasibile use
of small waste flows technology. They have also prepared a feasibility study
on the utilization of alternative wastewater technology for their entire
region (Southwestern Illinois Metropolitan and Regional Planning Commission,
1979). Greater Egypt Regional Planning and Development Commission has been
very progressive in looking at the wastewater needs of rural areas. A report
entitled Facilities Planning for Small Communities (Greater Egypt Regional
Planning and Development Commission, 1980) has been prepared, which describes
ten unsewered communities and the types of factors to be considered in making
facilities planning decisions. The Northeastern Illinois Planning and Devel-
opment Commission assessed the use of land application of treated wastewater
as part of its Areawide Water Quality Management Plan (Northeastern Illinois
Planning and Development Commission, 1979). As a result of poor soils, the
high cost of available land, variability and nature of the region's climate,
and adverse public opinion, land application of wastewater was considered in
the plan as ill-suited to most areas of northeastern Illinois.
c. Indiana
The statewide 208 plan developed by the Indiana State Board of Health,
Division of Water Pollution Control, considered the use of alternative techno-
logy and the special needs of rural areas only in a general manner by men-
tioning that alternative technologies must be considered during the facilities
planning stage. Because of poor soil conditions and high water tables
throughout much of the state, the agency is currently skeptical of the use of
alternative on-site systems versus centralized collection and treatment
systems. Also cited as a problem with the use of alternative systems is the
present lack of effective community management mechanisms.
The 208 plans prepared by the four designated 208 agencies only generally
addressed the use of small waste flows technology to serve rural communities.
The Indiana Heartland Coordinating Commission is currently the most active in
looking at alternative wastewater technology. The Commission has prepared the
Hendricks County Sewage Treatment Management Study, which looked at the insti-
tutional options in this county for managing small package treatment plants
(Indiana Heartland Coordinating Commission, variously dated). The Commission
is also working with Hancock County on a similar study for the management of
mound systems.
d. Michigan
The entire state of Michigan is divided into designated 208 planning
regions. All fourteen of the designated 208 agencies considered and dis-
cussed, in some manner, the issue of the use of alternative technology to
service rural areas in development of their 208 plans. About one-half of the
208 plans contained extensive discussion of the use of alternative technology
and made recommendations for its usage. None of the 208 plans specifically
addressed the issue of setting up management agencies beyond the designation
of the county as the management agency. There has been minimal follow through
to date with the use of alternative technology recommended in the 208 plans.
XV-C-3
-------
be incapable or unwilling to manage small waste flows facilities. In this
event, a new management agency would have to be designated. None of the
agencies felt that there would be any difficulties encountered in changing the
designated management agency as long as the 208 plan was updated. However,
they did state that compliance with the 208 plan recommendations and local
support of the change in management agency designation were of major impor-
tance.
Almost all of the 208 agencies in the region professed that they had
staff available who were knowledgeable in small waste flows technology and
management. The level of knowledge varied widely from agency to agency,
depending upon the particular agencies' needs and programs relative to small
waste flows management. On the whole, agencies considered that their greatest
staff expertise remained in the use of conventional wastewater technology,
with expertise in the control of non-point source pollutants being secondary.
Potential funding support for small waste flows programs was not seen as
feasible by any of the agencies under the current 208 program funding levels.
Many agencies felt that they have not been able to maintain existing programs
because of funding limitations and cutbacks, and some agencies indicated that
they would become more involved in small waste flows management if additional
funding became available. The 201 Construction Grants program is a possible
source of funding for small waste flows programs.
The assessment of current 208 programs' consideration of small waste
flows technology and management is given on a state-by-state basis, with the
U.S. EPA Region V personnel comments provided first.
a, U.S. EPA Region V Personnel
U.S. EPA personnel contacted felt that most 208 plans in the region had
not incorporated the potential utilization of small waste flows technology or
the particular wastewater needs of rural areas in their plans. Their percep-
tion was that the current plans generally concentrated on the control of
pollution problems in urban areas with emphasis currently being shifted to the
control of non-point source pollution problems. The problems and needs of
rural wastewater areas were only beginning to be addressed with the new incen-
tives for the use of innovative and alternative technology.
b. Illinois
Illinois EPA prepared a 208 plan for the non-designated areas of the
state, which encompass more than 75% of the state (Illinois EPA, 1979). This
plan and the plans developed by the three designated 208 agencies included
Municipal Needs Analysis (MNA) for all communities with populations above 200
that had not prepared a facilties plan. The Municipal Needs Analyses identi-
fied the present wastewater-related needs of the community in relation to the
state's strategy for point source control and projected these needs over a
20-year planning period. Alternative strategies for meeting the needs were
determined, and the most cost-effective solution was identified. An environ-
mental assessment was then performed, and recommendations for action were made
for the individual communities. In many instances, the recommended actions
include upgrading or continued use of existing on-site systems.
XV-C-2
-------
C. POTENTIAL 208 PROGRAM ROLES IN SMALL WASTE FLOWS AREAS
1. INTRODUCTION
Rural communities wishing to utilize small waste flows technology and
management may not possess the expertise, manpower, and/or capital that are
needed for the design, implementation, and operation of a small waste flows
program. Such communities will require assistance from other public agencies
or private contractors who can provide necessary expertise and services.
Existing state and regional agencies, primarily 208 agencies, involved in
wastewater planning can provide valuable assistance to these communities.
Advantages to utilization of these existing agencies are many, including:
• the agencies' familiarity with the communities' and areas' needs,
resources, people, and other characteristics,
• economies of scale in costs and personnel that can be gained by a
centralized agency performing region-wide studies serving a number of
communities,
• the agencies' access to and familiarity with existing planning tools
and their utilization, and
• the expertise within the agencies that may not be present in rural
communities.
The intent of this report will be first to assess current 208 program
activities in relation to small waste flows management and secondly to assess
activities related to small waste flows management that potentially could be
performed by regional and statewide 208 agencies.
2. CURRENT 208 PROGRAMS
In assessing the involvement that existing 208 agencies have had in small
waste flows management, information was sought from U.S. EPA, state, and
regional 208 agencies concerning answers to the following questions:
• How have rural wastewater planning areas been incorporated into the
208 planning process, and how has the use of small waste flows tech-
nology and management been considered?
• A certified 208 plan designates who the grant applicant must be. Will
this cause problems for small waste flows management programs?
• Are there staff members available within the 208 agency knowledgeable
in small waste flows technology and management?
• Is there potential funding support for small waste flows programs
under the 208 programs?
Answers to all but the first of these questions were basically the same from
all of the 208 agencies contacted. The question concerning designation of a
management agency was raised because it was felt that the management agency
that was designated to operate conventional wastewater facilities may either
XV-C-1
-------
tion and experience requirements in each of these States are similar to the
Illinois requirements. However, sanitarians do not have to be certified to
work within these states. Certain local health departments require their
sanitarians to be certified in accordance with the State program while other
localities fill sanitarian positions with political appointees and under-
skilled personnel. Wisconsin, as explained above, requires persons involved
in the administration and enforcement of on-site sewage disposal facilities to
be certified plumbing inspectors. Requirements for obtaining plumbing certi-
fication include the successful completion of a training program and the
passage of a state examination. Wisconsin also requires all persons conduct-
ing soils evaluation to be certified as soil testers. Certified soil testers
are required to pass a state examination. All local units of government
regulating on-site disposal systems in Wisconsin are required to hire or
contract the services of a certified soil tester. Certification and hiring
requirements are described in greater detail in Section VI.F.
4. AUTHORITY OF SANITARIANS
The authority of sanitarians to regulate on-site systems, like hiring and
certification requirements, vary from locality to locality within Region V.
The extent of a sanitarian's authority is determined by the State's codes for
on-site regulation (Section XV.A.) and enabling legislation (both local and
state) concerning issues such as access to inspect systems and the power to
condemn houses served by systems creating a health hazard. Facilities plan-
ners considering SWF alternatives need to investigate the authority that the
local health department of utility district has with regards to the regulation
of on-site systems and enforcement of health and water quality standards.
XV-B-2
-------
B. ORGANIZATION AND MANPOWER FOR ON-SITE REGULATION
1. INTRODUCTION
On-site systems in the Region V states primarily are regulated by county
and municipal governments. State involvement in the regulation of on-site
systems, in contrast with centralized facilities, is relatively minor. The
States' role consists of promulgating on-site regulations and providing
technical assistance to local health departments. Overall, the regulation of
on-site systems varies from one locality to another throughout most of Region
V.
2. MANPOWER ESTIMATES
Sanitarians, in most cases, are the persons responsible for regulating
on-site systems on the local level. Hiring and certification requirements
differ according to locality and state. Estimates of the number of sani-
tarians were collected from each of the Region V states. These estimates are
the following:
• Illinois: 1,189 registered sanitarians
• Indiana: 680 registered and unregistered sanitarians
• Michigan: 550 registered and unregistered sanitarians
• Minnesota: 329 registered sanitarians
• Ohio: 775 registered sanitarians
• Wisconsin: 111 certified plumbing inspectors
3,000 certified soil testers.
It must be noted that these estimates do not give a true picture of the
actual number of sanitarians actually working with on-site systems in the
field. Reasons for this include the difficulty in determining what amount of
effort is spent by sanitarians on on-site systems in addition to other duties
such as restaurant inspection, rodent control, etc. and the fact that many
states do not require the registration of sanitarians. One state, Wisconsin,
does not list on-site regulators as sanitarians. They are classified as
plumbing inspectors and soil testers instead.
3. TRAINING AND HIRING REQUIREMENTS
Illinois is the only state within Region V which requires the registra-
tion of all sanitarians working in the state. The remaining states, with the
exception of Wisconsin, having voluntary certification requirements for sani-
tarians .
The Illinois requirements consists of a combination of education and
experience criteria which must be met prior to a sanitarian becoming certi-
fied. Persons meeting the education requirements but lacking the required
experience may work in Illinois as sanitarians-in-training. Indiana,
Michigan, Ohio, and Minnesota have voluntary certification programs. Educa-
XV-B-1
-------
Wheeler, Gil, and Jim Bennett. 1979. The campaign in California for alterna-
tive systems. In: Individual on-site wastewater systems: Proceedings
of the Fifth National Conference, 1978 (Nina I. McClelland, ed.). Ann
Arbor Science Publishers, Ann Arbor MI, pp 83-93.
Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services. 1976. Wisconsin Plumbing
Code. In: Wisconsin Administrative Code, Rules of Department of Health
and Social Services. Madison WI.
XV-A-19
-------
REFERENCES
Great Lakes Basin Commission. 1976. Appendix 520. State laws, policies, and
institutional arrangements. Great Lakes Basin framework study. Ann
Arbor MI.
Ilinois Department of Public Health. 1974. Private Sewage Disposal Act and
Code. Springfield IL.
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. Illinois recommended stand-
ards for sewage works. Springfield IL.
Illinois Pollution Control Board. 1979. Rules and regulations, Chapter 3:
Water pollution. Springfield IL.
Indiana State Board of Health. 1978. Septic tank-absorption field sewage
disposal systems. Bulletin No. S.E.8. Indianapolis IN.
Indiana State Board of Health. 1978. Planning guide for water supply and
wastewater disposal for small public, commercial and place of employment
buildings: Minimum requirements. Bulletin S.E.13. Indianapolis IN,
Indiana State Board of Health. 1978. Regulation HSE 25-R, Residential on-
site wastewater disposal. Indianapolis IN.
Indiana Stream Pollution Control Board. 1980. State water quality management
plan. Indianapolis IN.
Michigan Department of Public Health, Bureau of Environmental and Occupational
Health. 1977. Michigan guidelines for subsurface sewage disposal.
Lansing MI.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of Waters. 1976. Shore-
land management: Elements and explanation of the municipal shoreland
rules and regulations. Supplementary Report No. 5. St. Paul MN.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 1978. 6 MCAR Section 4, 8040, Individual
sewage treatment standards, WPC 40. St. Paul MN.
Ohio Department of Health. 1977. Home sewage disposal rules. Chapter
3701-20-01 to 3701-29-21 inclusive of the Ohio Sanitary Code. Columbus
OH.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Rules of the Ohio EPA. Home
sewage disposal in special sanitary districts. OAC-3745-13; OAC-3745-43.
Columbus OH.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1979. Initial water quality management
plan, Maumee/Portage River Basins. Columbus OH.
Otis, Richard J., and David E. Stewart. 1976. Alternative wastewater facili-
ties for small unsewered communities in rural America. University of
Wisconsin, Small Scale Waste Management Project, Madison WI.
XV-A-18
-------
system, levy property taxes, or levy special assessments for the purpose of
raising revenues to pay debt service as well as operation and maintenance
costs. Town utility districts appear to be eligible for EPA and FmHA waste-
water facilities grants.
Metropolitan sewerage districts are established by an order from
Wisconsin DNR after the receipt of a resolution for district formation from
one or more municipalities. Authorities granted to metropolitan sewerage
districts are delineated in Section 59, 66, and 67 of the Wisconsin Statutes
1973. Metropolitan sewerage districts have been granted broad powers to
manage wastewater systems. They may raise revenue through property taxes,
special assessments, service charges, and standby charges. Methods of
borrowing include: municipal bonds, general obligation bonds, mortgage bonds
and certificates, special improvement bonds, and promissory notes. Metro-
politan sewerage districts are enabled to receive grants from EPA and FmHA for
water pollution control facilities.
XV-A-17
-------
Cities in Wisconsin are enabled to own, operate and maintain wastewater
systems under Sections 62 and 66 of the Wisconsin Statutes 1973. Wisconsin
cities are authorized to incur indebtedness to fund wastewater facilities
through financing mechanisms such as general obligation bonds, promissory
notes, mortgage bonds, and special assessment bonds. Cities may institute a
user charge system and levy special assessments. Cities are eligible to
receive Federal grants for wastewater facilities.
The powers and authorities of villages essentially are the same as
cities. Villages may own and operate wastewater facilities as well as to
incur indebtedness and establish user charge systems to pay for the
facilities. Villages may receive grants from EPA and FmHA to construct
wastewater facilities. The authorization for villages to manage wastewater
systems is contained within Sections 61, 62, and 66 of the Wisconsin Statutes
1973.
Towns (townships) are authorized to construct, own, and operate
wastewater facilities in accordance with Sections 60, 66, and 67 of the
Wisconsin Statutes 1973. Towns which are incorporated under Section 60.18
have the same powers and authorities as villages. Unincorporated towns have
the ability to incur indebtedness through means such as borrowing, town bonds,
general obligation bonds, mortgage bonds, and special assessment bonds.
Indebtedness is limited by statute and must be approved by the electors of the
town. Towns may institute a system of user charges to retire debt and finance
operation and maintenance costs.
Wisconsin counties also are authorized to directly manage wastewater
facilities through Sections 59 and 66 of the Wisconsin Statutes 1973. The
financial powers of counties are limited to the use of mortgage bonds and
constructors certificates to pay facilities construction costs. They have the
ability to tax, institute user charges, and, to a limited extent, levy special
assessments. It is not clear whether or not counties have even the implicit
authority to manage decentralized facilities and they may not have the
authority to accept EPA Construction Grants (Otis and Stewart, 1976).
Special purpose districts allowed under Wisconsin law include town
utility districts, town sanitary districts, and metropolitan sewerage
commissions. Town sanitary districts (TSD's) may be formed in any unincor-
porated area of Wisconsin under Section 60, 66, and 67 of the Wisconsin
Statutes 1973. TSD's are enabled to borrow money, issue mortgage bonds, gen-
eral obligation bonds, TSD bonds, revenue bonds, and special improvement
bonds. TSD also have been granted authority to levy a tax on all taxable
property within the district to cover debt retirement, operation, and
maintenance costs. TSD's are authorized to collect user charges and levy
special assessments. They are authorized and eligible to receive Federal
water pollution control grants. TSD's may be established by a town board or
by order of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
Town utility districts are formed by a town board ordinance (after a
public hearing) in accordance with Section 66.072. Town utility districts are
authorized to provide and manage wastewater facilities. A town utility
district may use the following methods of borrowing: municipal bonds,
mortgage bonds, public improvement bonds, certificates, promissory notes, and
bond anticipation notes. Town utility districts may develop a user charge
XV-A-16
-------
Ohio municipalities are authorized to manage wastewater facilities under
Article XVIII of the Ohio Code and Section 729.49 of the Ohio Revised Code.
Municipalities may acquire, construct, own, maintain, and operate wastewater
collection and treatment systems. Municipalities have the power of eminent
domain for any public purpose including wastewater facilities. Fiscal
authorities granted municipalities include setting rates for services provided
within and outside corporate boundaries, levy property and use taxes, and
issue bonds (general obligation and revenue).
Counties may acquire, construct, and operate wastewater systems.
Counties are authorized by Ohio Revised Code Section 6117 to provide waste-
water service. Ohio counties have taxing authority and the ability to issue
bonds to plan and construct wastewater facilities.
Sanitary districts are allowed under Section 6115 of the Ohio Revised
Code. Sanitary districts may be established by a petition of landowners,
municipalities, or counties. The purposes of the district include correcting
water pollution problems, providing water, and disposing of liquid and solid
waste. As such they are enabled to own, construct, and operate wastewater
systems. Sanitary districts may levy special assessments against benefited
property and issue bonds to pay for the costs of wastewater facilities.
Regional sewer and water districts are organized under Section 6119 of
the Ohio Revised Code. The purpose of regional sewer and water districts are
the provision of water and the collection of liquid wastes. Formation of the
districts may be accomplished by court petition within unincorporated portions
of counties or by one or more municipalities. Powers include acquiring,
constructing and operating wastewater facilities as well as eminent domain.
Regional sewer and water districts may issue bonds for construction and
operation costs, levy taxes for bond retirement, and levy special assessments.
Conservancy districts are the final form of management agency allowed in
Ohio. Their authority is contained in Section 6101 of the Ohio Revised Code.
Conservancy districts are organized for a variety of purposes such as flood
control, flow regulation, public water supply, and collection and disposal of
liquid wastes. Conservancy districts can be established by a court order
resulting from the petitions of either landholders or local governments. A
conservancy district must develop and adopt a plan for carrying out its
purposes. The districts have limited power of eminent domain and the power to
own, construct, and operate wastewater facilities. Conservancy districts are
enabled to tax property, levy special assessments against benefited
properties, and issue revenue or general obligation bonds.
Wisconsin
Five mechanisms exist in Wisconsin to manage wastewater facilities. The
management mechanisms are: cities, villages, towns, counties, and special
purpose districts. None of these have been granted explicit authority to
manage on-site systems. The breadth of their authorities granted under the
Wisconsin statutes appears to grant implicit authority for this management
function. All of the management agencies described in the section are
eligible for receipt of Federal water pollution control grants from either EPA
or FmHA.
XV-A-15
-------
upgrade and rehabilitate the community's malfunctioning on-site systems. The
State of Illinois is monitoring the performance of on-site wastewater
management zones to determine whether or not similar mechanisms should be
established for counties, townships, and special purpose districts.
Currently, Illinois enables the on-site wastewater management zones to be
created only within the boundaries of cities, villages, and incorporated towns
(IEPA, 1979).
Counties in Illinois have very little active involvement in the
management of either centralized or decentralized facilities outside of
traditional health department and planning department activities. Counties
have been granted authority (Chapter 34, Section 3101, Illinois Revised
Statutes) to construct and operate a sewage system for the purpose of
controlling and regulating the disposal of sewage. They may also pass rules
and regulations governing the operation and maintenance of sewage facilities.
Despite the authority, few counties appear to be actively involved in managing
wastewater facilities. No explicit authority has been granted counties to
manage SWF districts in Illinois (IEPA, 1979).
Townships having less than 500,000 population have the power to
construct, own, and operate sewerage facilities (Chapter 139, Section 160.31,
Illinois Revised Code). No explicit authorities have been granted townships
in Illinois to manage SWF districts. Like counties, townships are used very
little as wastewater system management agencies (IEPA, 1979).
Two types of special purpose districts are enabled under Illinois law to
manage wastewater facilities. Sanitary districts (Chapter 42, Sections 247
and 418, Illinois Revised Code) are organized to prevent the pollution of
water through the construction and operation of wastewater facilities. Over
100 districts have been formed throughout Illinois. Sanitary districts can be
formed to serve either incorporated or unincorporated areas. They have the
authority to establish user charges and levy property taxes. No explicit
authority has been granted sanitary districts to manage on-site systems.
Conservancy districts are the other type special purpose district which
can be utilized in Illinois to manage wastewater (Chapter 42, Sections
383-410.1, Illinois Revised Code). In addition to prevention of water
pollution, conservancy districts may organize to carry out activities such as
conservation practices, construct flood control projects, irrigation, and
recreation. Conservancy districts generally are more difficult to form and
few have been used recently for the purpose of constructing and operating
wastewater facilities. Conservancy districts have not been granted explicit
authority to manage on-site systems. Conservancy districts do have the
authority to issue general obligation bonds with referendum approval and to
levy special assessment taxes on property benefited by district improvements.
Because of the taxing power, it is easier for conservancy districts to issue
funds to meet front end costs than it is for special districts lacking the
authority to tax.
Indiana
Municipalities and special purpose districts are the only public bodies
enabled under Indiana law to manage wastewater facilities. Neither munici-
palities or special purpose districts have been granted explicit authority to
XV-A-11
-------
manage a SWF district. However, these management structures do have the
implicit authority to carry out a local SWF program.
Municipalities (cities and towns) do have the authority to manage
wastewater systems (Indiana Code 19-2-5). Their authorities are broad enough
to meet the grant assistance requirements of U.S. EPA and FmHA. Front-end
costs can be met through taxes or general revenues of the municipality. The
authority of municipalities extends only to their boundaries, but they may
accept wastes from other nearby jurisdictions.
There are three types of special purpose districts which may be used to
manage wastewater facilities in Indiana: sanitary districts, regional sewage
districts, and conservancy districts. Sanitary districts can be formed only
by cities having a relatively large population (50,000 and over) and are not
applicable to this study.
Indiana enabled the formation of regional sewage districts (RSD) in 1969
under Indiana Code 19-3-1. RSD's can be formed to serve either incorporated
or unincorporated areas. They are the predominate mechanism used to manage
wastewater facilities in unincorporated areas. RSD's are relatively easy to
form in comparison to conservancy districts. They also meet eligibility
requirements for Federal grants. They do not have taxing authority and thus
have difficulty generating funds to meet front-end costs. Operating costs and
debt retirement are paid through the receipt of user charges.
Conservancy districts are formed under Indiana Code 19-3-2 to provide one
or more functions such as flood control, drainage, irrigation, water supply,
sewage, recreation, and soil erosion control. The actual process of
establishing a conservancy district can be arduous and time consuming. Con-
servancy districts have the statutory authority to levy taxes on real property
within the district and to make assessments on property within the district
receiving special benefits from district improvements. They can meet front-
end costs as a result of their taxing authority. However, also due to their
power to tax, they meet more public opposition during the process of district
formation.
Counties and townships have not been granted the legal authority to
construct, own, and operate wastewater facilities in Indiana. Attempts are
being made, however, to grant counties this authority.
Michigan
Four major types of public agencies are enabled to manage SWF districts
in Michigan. These management structures are incorporated cities and
villages, counties, townships, and special purpose districts. The State of
Michigan has not granted explicit authority to any of these for the purpose of
managing a local SWF district.
Municipalities (cities and villages) are legally enabled (Act 233, Public
Acts of 1955) to construct, own, and operate wastewater facilities. Munici-
palities can serve users inside and outside of its boundaries. It is not
known whether or not municipalities can manage a SWF district which lies
outside the corporate boundaries. Municipalities can levy special assessments
and property taxes. Front-end costs can be met through the taxing mechanisms.
XV-A-12
-------
Michigan municipalities meet the management agency requirements for EPA and
FmHA grant assistance.
Counties have been granted the authority to manage wastewater systems in
Michigan (Act 342, Public Acts of 1939). Their powers and authorities include
taxing. Counties also are eligible for federal grant assistiance from EPA and
FmHA. No explicit authority exists for counties to manage decentralized
facilities, but they have implicit authority to do so.
Townships also have been granted the authority (Michigan Constitution,
Article 7, Section 123.241) to construct, own, and operate wastewater facili-
ties. Townships are grant eligible and have taxing authority. They have the
ability to meet front-end costs associated with planning centralized or
decentralized wastewater facilities.
Special purpose districts which are allowed to manage wastewater
facilities under Michigan's laws include water and sewage districts, special
assessment districts, and metropolitan districts. Water and sewage disposal
districts are empowered under the Michigan Constitution, Article 7, Section
323.158, to construct, own, and operate sewage disposal districts within their
territory. The water and sewage districts may be created when any two or more
municipalities (defined to be any county, township, city, or village) petition
the Michigan Water Resources Commission for the organization of a water or
sewage disposal district. Approval by the electorate of the participating
local units of government also is required. A participating municipality may
levy special assessments and issue general obligation bonds against the full
faith and credit of the municipality to pay for its portion of district costs.
The districts are eligible to receive Federal grants from EPA and FmHA.
Special assessment districts may be formed to acquire, own, and operate
parks or public utilities for the purpose of supplying sewage disposal,
drainage, water, or transportation. Special assessment districts may be
formed by any two or more local units of government. Their powers and
authorities are similar to those of the water and sewage districts.
Metropolitan districts may be formed for the purpose of owning,
operating, and maintaining sewage disposal systems (Act 312, Public Acts of
1929). The districts may establish special assessments to pay for the costs
associated with construction, operation, and debt retirement. They are
enabled to receive grants from any government or private source.
Minnesota
Cities, counties, towns, and special purpose districts are enabled to
manage wastewater facilities. Cities, including villages and boroughs, are
authorized to construct, operate, and maintain sewer systems, sewage treatment
works, disposal systems, and other facilities for disposing of sewage within
or outside of their corporate limits. While not explicitly allowed to manage
SWF districts, the implicit authority of cities, villages, and boroughs to do
so is apparent (Otis and Stewart, 1976). They are able to issue tax backed
general obligation bonds and levy special assessments against property which
is benefitted by the wastewater facilities. Cities, villages, and boroughs
are eligible to receive Federal wastewater pollution control grants and loans.
XV-A-13
-------
Minnesota counties are empowered to manage wastewater facilities in a
manner similar to that of cities. The major exception to this is that the
seven counties of the Twin Cities metropolitan area. These couties must
obtain approval by the Metropolitan Council prior to receipt of Federal
wastewater facilities grants.
Only organized towns (townships) having a population exceeding 3,000 and
an assessed valuation of taxable property of more than $10 million are enabled
under Minnesota's statutes to manage sewage treatment plants and lay sewers.
It is uncertain whether or not towns are enabled to collect user charges and,
thus, they may not be eligible for Construction Grants from EPA. The
Minnesota statutes enable towns to pay operating costs from the general fund
or from special assessments.
There are two major types of special purpose districts which can be
formed in Minnesota for the purpose of providing wastewater collection and
treatment. One form of sanitary district may be formed under Chapter
115.17-37 of the Minnesota Statutes. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
must be petitioned to establish a sanitary district under Chapter 115.19-37.
Sanitary districts may include municipalities, organized towns, or unorganized
(unincorporated) parts of counties. Sanitary districts formed under this
chapter have the explicit authority to manage on-site systems as well as
centralized facilities. Sanitary districts may issue bonds and draw upon the
full faith and credit of participating units of government to back up general
obligation bonds. Bond issues must be approved by the participating units of
government. Sanitary districts organized under Chapter 115.19-37 are eligible
to receive Federal water pollution control grants.
Public water and sewer systems may be formed under Chapter 116A of the
Minnesota Statutes in all areas of the State except for the seven-county Twin
Cities metropolitan area and Mower County. Public water and sewer systems are
relatively easier to organize than sanitary districts formed under Chapter
115.19-37. Public water and sewer systems are created by a county board,
district court, or upon petition from 50 percent of the landowners in the
proposed service area. Unlike sanitary districts, public water and sewer
systems are not required to be approved by the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency prior to formation. No explicit authority to manage on-site systems
has been granted to public water and sewer systems. However, the enabling
legislation is very broad and implicitly allows for management of decen-
tralized facilities. The public water and sewer systems may issue general
obligation bonds backed by the full faith and credit of the county where the
management agency is located. At least 60 percent of the principal and
interest on general obligation bonds must be paid from user charge receipts
and special assessments. Public water and sewer systems are not authorized to
issue revenue bonds or special assessment bonds. Public water and sewer
systems clearly are eligible for Federal water pollution control grants.
Ohio
Five types of public bodies have legal authority to manage wastewater
facilities. These agencies are municipalities, counties, sanitary districts,
regional sewer and water districts, and conservancy districts. None of these
are explicitly authorized to manage SWF systems. However, it does appear that
implicit authority does exist for the agencies to manage SWF systems in Ohio.
XV-A-14
-------
purpose district does vary according to the legal authority granted by a
state. In some cases, special purpose districts such as conservancy districts
have the legal authority to levy taxes on property. However, districts having
the power to tax often involve a long and tedious legal formation process.
Districts which do not have taxing authority are easier to form but have
difficulty raising funds to meet front-end costs associated with the planning
and designing of wastewater facilities. Special purpose districts
historically have been oriented towards the ownership, operation, and
management of centralized facilities. They also appear to be well suited for
the management of SWF districts. The State of California has been promoting
the on-site wastewater management district (OSWMD) concept. The use of
OSWMD's gives great flexibility in supervising potential water quality
problems from on-site systems and provides a means to ensure reliable
management of on-site systems (Wheeler and Bennett, 1979).
Municipalities
Municipalities (including cities, villages, and townships) traditionally
have been heavily involved in the construction, ownership, operation, and
management of wastewater facilities. The focus of municipalities typically
has been on centralized facilities. Most states have granted municipalities
the legal authority to manage sewers and treatment plants. It is not known
definitely whether or not this power also enables municipalities to manage SWF
systems. In response to this uncertainty, the State of Illinois granted
explicit authority to municipalities to create on-site wastewater disposal
zones.
In addition to direct management of wastewater facilities, some
municipalities also have their own health department and planning department.
As such, these municipalities have the authority to approve or disapprove the
installation of individual on-site systems and to make planning decisions
based on soils suitability criteria.
c. Local Management Agencies in the Region V States
Different types of public agencies can be used to directly manage
(construct, own, and operate) a local SWF program in Region V. This section
describes the types of management agencies with a state-by-state focus. The
focus is on the primary management agencies, i. e. those which will be
eligible for EPA Construction Grants and which will be responsible for the
day-to-day operation of the SWF district.
Illinois
The State of Illinois has enabled several types of public bodies to
manage wastewater facilities. Most of the bodies have implicit authority to
manage a SWF system. However, in 1978, the Illinois legislature passed
legislation (Public Act 80-1371) enabling the creation of on-site wastewater
disposal zones. Local governments are enabled to assume responsibility for
assuring proper design, installation, maintenance, and rehabilitation of
systems within their boundaries. The ownership of on-site systems can remain
private, but the responsibility for system performance is the local
government's. Under the State legislation, municipalities forming on-site
wastewater management zones are eligible for an EPA Construction Grant to
XV-A-10
-------
to a public body to operate and maintain private on-site systems. In spite of
this, SWF management agencies can be organized on the basis that their legal
authority is implicit from existing legislation. The types of existing
management agencies which have been set up to own, operate, and maintain
publicly owned centralized wastewater facilities can be used to manage local
SWF programs. The authority granted these agencies to operate sewers and
wastewater treatment facilities has been interpretated by some to imply that
these agencies also have the legal authority to manage privately owned on-site
systems (Otis and Stewart, 1976).
The interpretation of implied authority will vary from state to state and
may be challenged in courts on the grounds that the authority to run publicly
owned facilities does not imply authority to manage privately owned on-site
facilities. Thus, while SWF programs can be operated on the basis of implied
legal authority, there is a need in each Region V state except Illinois to
judicially test implied authorities or to grant explicit authority to SWF
management agencies along the lines of the legislation enacted in Illinois and
California.
b. Types of Management Agencies
Several types of management agency structures can be utilized to
implement a local SWF program. The functions of SWF management agencies are
described in Section VI.A. Management agencies must have administrative,
technical, and planning capabilities to successfully conduct a SWF program.
These functions may be shared by more than one agency on the local level. The
types of local management agencies which can be used to carry out SWF programs
are described in this section.
Counties
Counties may perform a variety of SWF management functions. County
health departments generally have the responsibility for approving or
disapproving individual on-site systems. Health departments have the
authority to monitor and inspect individual systems. They have the power to
enter upon private land if a threat to public health from a malfunctioning
on-site system is suspected. Some states have granted health departments the
authority to issue permits to install on-site systems.
County planning and zoning departments have the ability to perform some
of the planning functions necessary for a SWF program. Planning and zoning
departments also have the authority for the approval of on-site systems in
some states.
Counties often have the authority to own and operate non-central systems.
The authority of counties to operate wastewater facilities varies considerably
from state to state.
Special Purpose Districts
•t
There are several forms of special purpose districts which can serve as
SWF management agencies. Major types of special purpose districts include
conservancy districts, sanitary districts, regional sewer districts, and
on-site wastewater management districts. The powers of each kind of special
XV-A-9
-------
code requirements cannot be met and when the proposed system would not create
potential for problems. This also is the case in Illinois, which requires
that data must support the request. In Ohio, variances can be requested when
compliance with the requirements would cause unusual hardships. Although it
appears that in these states a variance procedure exists for new systems, no
specific guidance is provided in the codes on what information must accompany
a request or on what criteria the request will be evaluated.
Performance standards or other requirements for existing systems that
were installed prior to the.enactment of the current state codes are rarely
addressed, if at all, in the codes. It is inapparent whether this lack of
attention implies that if existing systems are located in violation of the
setback requirements, then their continued use is permitted. This would seem
reasonable if the system were functioning properly; however, it would be
undesirable if the system is gradually contributing to the contamination of
nearby waters. In the few codes that mention existing on-site systems, it
generally is in connection with the need for corrective action for malfunc-
tioning systems. But without routine or periodic monitoring of water quality
near existing on-site systems, which would detect the discharge of inade-
quately treated effluent to the groundwater, only the more obvious failures
would be detected, such as surface ponding or backup of wastewater into the
house.
The Wisconsin rules state that when a failing or malfunctioning private
sewage system is encountered, it must be corrected or its use discontinued
within a period not to exceed one year. For existing systems that are located
in floodplains and that have failed, replacement systems are allowed on a
case-by-case basis in order to abate health hazards. In flood-fringe areas,
malfunctioning systems may be replaced provided favorable soil conditions and
other site conditions exist. The Indiana code also specifies that when mal-
functions exist or occur and cause unsanitary conditions, corrective action
must be taken within the time set by the health officer.
The Minnesota code is the only one in Region V that specifically
addresses existing systems in relation to setback requirements. Substandard
systems, which are those that do not meet the setback requirements, are per-
mitted for as long as they function properly. Nonconforming systems, which
are those that are not sized or located in accordance with the code, must be
eliminated or upgraded to meet the standards. The nonconformance provison
does not necessarily apply to all setback requirements. For example, if a
system is functioning properly but it is in violation of the setback distance,
the owner is not required to move the system; however, if the system is
located in groundwater or in an area with shallow or exposed bedrock, the
system would have to be moved.
5. IMPLEMENTATION OF SMALL WASTE FLOWS MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
a. Explicit vs. Implicit Authority
Management agencies organized to carry out a local SWF program must have
the legal authority to perform their roles. Some States such as Illinois and
California have passed enabling legislation granting explicit legal
authorities to certain public bodies to perform the functions necessary for a
local SWF program. However, most states have not granted explicit authority
XV-A-8
-------
• Establishment of a procedure for evaluation of new technologies
• Collection of performance data for alternative systems
• Prevention of public health problems related to unsatisfactory
performance of new systems
• Provisions for inspection during construction and monitoring after
system is operational
• Encouragement of additional specialized training of regulatory
personnel.
Indiana allows alternative on-site treatment facilities to be constructed
in cases where soil conditions preclude the use of standard systems. While
not detailing the evaluation procedure to be followed, such rules do not
prevent the use of alternative systems.
c. Improving Outdated Regulations
Many state regulations have not been updated since the various
alternatives to septic tank systems were developed. These codes, therefore,
do not include mechanisms, other than variance procedures, for encouraging new
technologies. Before updating these codes, states should enact legislation
which provides for enforcement of the codes, if such legislation does not
exist. Regulations are much more effective if enforcement power exists. The
criteria mentioned in part a. of this section should be considered when
updating codes. Regulations from other states should also be reviewed to
determine if ideas or approaches to specific problems may have some appli-
cability in revising outdated codes. By revising outdated codes, states can
develop the flexibility needed to deal with the many types of alternatives now
being proposed.
4. SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATE CODES
Implicit in the state codes is the recognition that private on-site
disposal systems, if improperly designed or if operated in unsuitable sites,
could lead to water quality degradation or human health hazards. The state
codes recommend minimum setback and soil depth requirements as a means to
minimize the potential for future adverse effects on local water quality. The
primary emphasis in these codes, however, is placed on the design and approval
of new or, in some cases, replacement systems. In general, the state codes
give very little guidance concerning the use of existing systems that are not
in compliance with setback requirements.
Most of the codes specify the minimum distances that new soil absorption
fields can be located from water supply wells, surface waters, and property
lines. Also set are separation distances between the bottom of new absorption
fields and groundwater tables or bedrock layers. Conformance with other
siting requirements, which are intended partially to minimize pollution
potential, is required as well. Typically, more stringent standards can be
adopted in local ordinances when such provisions would be necessary to protect
groundwater and surface water.
For new systems, some codes allow design factors, including setback
requirements, to be waived. Variances are considered in Michigan when the
XV-A-7
-------
State regulatory programs often do not include guidance for dealing with
existing systems. The main thrust of state regulatory programs is usually the
permitting of new systems and not the management of existing systems. Rural
areas expecting Federal grants must propose an acceptable operation and
maintenance program along with a program for regulation and inspection of
individual systems.
These programs need to address the continuing operation and management of
existing systems, thus broadening the scope of regulatory programs to include
more than the permitting of new systems. Such programs should be considered
regardless of the status of Federal grants funds.
State codes can be judged for their encouragement of alternative
technology development by reviewing them in light of the following criteria:
• Ability to adopt new technologies
• Control of new technologies through experimental programs
• Guidance on how to use variance procedures
• Consideration of existing systems in regard to facilities planning,
variances, design, application procedures, and community management.
Every state has a different approach to regulation of on-site treatment
systems. After evaluating existing state codes in EPA's Region V for
regulation of on-site wastewater systems, methods that encourage the
development and acceptance of alternative on-site systems are noted in Section
b. below. Regulatory approaches that do not promote the development of new
alternatives are identified in Section c.
b. Regulatory Approches Encouraging the Development of
Alternative Technologies
One of the better ideas for encouraging the development of alternative
on-site systems is Minnesota's Advisory Committee on Individual Sewage
Treatment Systems (ISTS). This Committee is comprised of on-site systems
contractors and other people knowledgable of on-site treatment technologies
from universities and regulatory agencies. The ISTS Committee has power to
change existing codes so that they can be kept up to date with the numerous
alternatives available.
Wisconsin developed regulations in June of 1980 that allow alternative
on-site treatment systems to be acceptable under controlled conditions.
Although other alternatives can be considered, the only systems currently
included in the rules are mounds and subsurface pressure distribution systems.
The conditions under which these alternatives can be accepted include a 5-year
control period during which inspections and monitoring are conducted. If
performance is satisfactory after the 5-year monitoring and assessment period,
controlled use shall no longer be required. A limit on the number of
alternative systems allowed in each region is established which controls the
use of unproven technologies. Additionally, new alternative systems must be
inspected by a certified plumbing inspector specifically trained in mound
systems during the construction of the system. This regulatory approach has
many beneficial aspects, such as:
XV-A-6
-------
Construction variances are granted under Ohio's on-site regulatory
program for experimental systems systems having design or components which
differ from those specified in the Rules. No mention is made in the Rules
concerning use variances.
f. Wisconsin
Chapter H 63 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code is the primary
regulation governing on-site systems. Wisconsin's regulatory program recently
was transferred from the Departemnt of Health and Social Services (DH&SS) to
the Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations (DILHR). Counties are
the local unit of government responsible for carrying out Wisconsin's on-site
regulations. Every county in Wisconsin is required to adopt ordinances in
conformance with Chapter H 63.
Two permits are required for new on-site systems. The first of these is
the State septic tank permit. The septic tank permit is required prior to the
purchase and installation of a septic tank. The permit is obtained from the
local agency responsible for regulating on-site systems. Septic tank permits
are required for the purpose of keeping a record of the number of tanks sold
and the location of tank installations throughout the State.
Sanitary permits also are required by Wisconsin law. They are to be
obtained prior to the installation of any type of on-site system. No permits
are required for systems in existence prior to 1977 unless the system is
required to be altered or replaced.
Wisconsin provides for an open-ended consideration of alternative
systems. Chapter H 63 specifically allows septic tanks, mounds, and shallow
subsurface pressure distribution systems. The use of alternative systems can
be approved provided written approval from local authorities is obtained and
submitted along with detailed plans and specifications to DILHR for their
review and consideration.
Variances are not specifically mentioned in Chapter H 63. However, a
county is required to issue a written notice to each applicant whose sanitary
permit application is disapproved. The rejection notice is to state reasons
for disapproval and list any changes which would lead to the approval of the
application. Appeal procedures are delineated on the rejection notice. The
appeals procedure applies to new systems. There is no formal variance
procedure for allowing properly functioning substandard existing systems to
continue to be used.
3. THE EFFECT OF STATE CODES ON ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT
a. Introduction
A variety of on-site technologies are available for the unsewered public
to treat and dispose of their wastewater. Many individual homeowners are not
aware of the large number of these options. As new techniques are tested and
field data are accumulated, alternatives to conventional septic tanks-soil
absorption systems become accepted and widely known. A restriction to this
process is often the regulatory codes that do not allow alternative systems to
be evaluated, installed, and monitored on an ongoing basis.
XV-A-5
-------
a number of innovative and alternative systems such as modified standard sys-
tems, privies, toilet devices, greywater systems, mounds, sewers for community
systems, sewage osmosis, seepage pits, and holding tanks.
Both WPC-40 and the Shoreland Management Act govern the use of existing
as well as new on-site systems. The Shoreland Management Act categorizes
lakes by three major uses and requires varying septic system setback distances
according to lake category types. Under Minnesota's Shoreland Management Act,
on-site systems are classified as conforming, non-conforming, and substandard.
Non-conforming systems are those which fall into one or more of the following
categories: 1) do not conform to size, construction, use, or maintenance
requirements of the local shoreland ordinance; 2) create a nuisance, public
health, or pollution problem; or 3) are located in certain areas having severe
limitations for on-site systems. Substandard systems are properly sized and
constructed but do not meet minimum setback requirements. Substandard systems
may be utilized until there are indications of system failure or need of
repairs while non-conforming systems are to be eliminated or upgraded to meet
standards upon identification.
e. Ohio
The principal regulations governing the use of on-site systems in Ohio
are the "Home Sewage Disposal Rules." The Rules are minimum standards for
on-site systems serving up to three residences. The Rules are promulgated by
the Ohio Department of Health under the Ohio Sanitary Code. All local health
districts are required to, at a minimum, adopt and enforce the Rules. How
ever, ODH does not have the power to force local health dis tricts to comply
with the "Home Sewage Disposal Rules" and, as a result, some counties have
on-site programs falling below ODH's minimum standards.
Systems serving more than three residences are regulated by the Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA). OEPA also has jurisdiction over
on-site systems serving three or less residences within designated special
sanitary districts. Approximately 100 special sanitary districts have been
designated in Ohio and OEPA has established on-site system permit programs in
eight of the districts. Special sanitary districts consist of the land (up to
one mile) surrounding lakes, State parks, canals, reservoirs, and nature
preserves. OEPA enforces the "Home Sewage Disposal Rules" in the districts
where permitting programs are established. On-site systems in the remaining
special sanitary districts are regulated by OEPA in cooperation with the local
health departments.
The design criteria set out in the Rules cover septic tanks, aerobic
systems, surface and subsurface sand filters, pit privies, and soil absorption
systems. Innovative and alternative systems may be permited after receiving
written approval from the Director of ODH.
The Rules focus on new systems and systems undergoing alterations.
Installation and operation permits are required for all newly constructed or
altered on-site systems. No operation permits are required for systems in
place prior to the effective date of the Rules. Existing systems specifically
come under the regulations when malfunctions cause a nuisance or discharge
into groundwater or water supply.
XV-A-4
-------
Procedures for variances are contained in HSE-25R. Permits are required
prior to the installation of all new systems and any alteration of existing
systems. No provision is contained regarding permits for substandard existing
systems not planning or requiring alterations and repairs.
Three goals for improving the State's on-site program have been
identified by the Indiana Stream Pollution Control Board (SPCB) in the State
Water Quality Management (208) Plan. These are 1) improving the quality of
siting septic systems, 2) promoting the utilization of acceptable alternative
systems, and 3) strengthening the local management structure (Indiana SPCB,
1980).
c. Michigan
The regulation of on-site systems treating up to 10,000 gpd in Michigan
is carried out by local health departments. The "Michigan Guidelines for
Subsurface Sewage Disposal" promulgated by the Michigan Department of Public
Health (MDPH) suggest minimum standards which may be adopted at the discretion
of local health departments. Thus the actual regulation of on-site systems
varies from county to county.
The "Michigan Guidelines for Subsurface Sewage Disposal" consist of
standard design criteria for on-site systems. No mention is contained
concerning innovative and alternative on-site systems. A variance procedure
is outlined in the Guidelines where site conditions preclude the use of
standard on-site systems. A variance may be granted after the applicant makes
a written request stating the reason for the request and documenting site
conditions. The Guidelines also fail to make any mention of granting use
variances for existing systems which are operating without any malfunctions
but do not meet design criteria.
d. Minnesota
On-site systems are managed under two major regulatory programs in
Minnesota. The "Individual Sewage Treatment Standards" (WPC-40) were
developed by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and are enforced by
local units of government. WPC-40 represents minimum standards which must be
enforced throughout Minnesota. Local governments have the option of enacting
standards stricter than the ones delineated in WPC-40.
Some on-site systems also are subject to Minnesota's Shoreland Management
Act. All land located within 1,000 feet of a lake or 300 feet from a stream
fall under the jurisdiction of the Shoreland Management Act. The Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources has been responsible for developing regula-
tions under the Act. These regulations must be adopted and enforced by local
governments.
Minnesota's on-site regulatory program is an exemplary one for several
reasons. WPC-40 created the Advisory Committee on Individual Sewage Treatment
Systems (ISTS). The ISTS Committee is enpowered to recommend changes in
WPC-40. Committee members consist of regulators, practitioners, and
university professors specializing in on-site systems. Thus, a mechanism
exists for keeping Minnesota's on-site regulatory program technologically up
to date. WPC-40 also is a flexible regulation in that it specifically allows
XV-A-3
-------
Sewage Disposal Licensing Act and Code." The Code sets out minimum require-
ments which must be adopted by each county. The code requirements are
enforced by local health departments. Permits for systems serving one
residence are handled by the local health departments. A number of different
systems are allowed under the Code: privies, septic tanks, Imhoff tanks (with
or without sand filters), waste stabilization ponds, and approved package
treatment units in conjunction with approved supplemental treatment. Existing
as well as new systems are to comply with the Code.
The State of Illinois authorizes the trial and use of innovative and
alternative systems for private on-site systems. Variances for new systems
will be considered where site limitations make it impossible to comply with
the Code. No mention is made in the Code of "use variances" for existing
on-site systems which do not meet the State of Illinois standards. Variances
are described in detail in Chapter VII-A. Generally, existing systems with no
problems are left alone (By phone, Mr. Larry Heisserer, Illinois Department of
Public Health to Mr. Robert France, WAPORA, July 1980).
The Code is applicable to systems serving only one residence. Systems
serving more than one residence are regulated by the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency (IEPA) through the "Illinois Recommended Standards for
Sewage Waste" (March 1980) and the State's NPDES program. Explicit standards
for innovative systems serving small rural and lakeshore areas are not
detailed by IEPA. However, the Standards do mention that it is the policy of
IEPA to encourage rather than obstruct the development of any equipment for
treatment of wastewater.
b. Indiana
Indiana State Board of Health (ISBH) issued minimum standards for on-site
systems in 1978 under Regulation HSE 25-R. The standards delineated in HSE
25-R are to be adopted and enforced by local health departments. Local
governments also may enact standards which are stricter than Regulation HSE
25-R. Further technical criteria are delineated in Bulletin S.E. 8 and S.E.
13.
Design criteria for septic tanks and subsurface absorption fields are
strictly laid out in HSE 25-R. The regulation covers components such as
building sewers, septic tanks, subsurface absorption fields, and privy vaults.
Site evaluations for the use of an on-site system in Indiana are based on soil
properties as set forth in the soil manuals and handbooks of the U.S. Soil
Conservation Service (SCS). Alternative equipment, facilities, or pollution
control devices may be approved where soil conditions preclude the
installation of a standard subsurface absorption field sewage disposal system.
The staff of the ISBH, Division of Sanitary Engineering, Area Personnel
Section must be consulted prior to the installation of systems which are an
alternative to conventional on-site systems.
Purdue University, in cooperation with the ISBH, currently is conducting
research on several alternative systems. The systems being considered include
pressure distribution system, alternating drainfields, double wide systems,
and elevated sand mound systems. The results of the study will be integrated
into ISBH's on-site education and assistance program. The education program
is carried out by ISBH in conjunction with Purdue University and the SCS.
XV-A-2
-------
A. REVIEW OF STATE CODES AND IMPLEMENTATION AUTHORITY FOR SMALL
WASTE FLOWS (SWF) MANAGEMENT
1. INTRODUCTION
The treatment and disposal of wastewater in the U.S. traditionally has
relied on two vastly different methods. Centralized facilities serving
densely developed urban areas consist of publicly owned sewers and a treatment
plant. A number of management structures have been developed to construct,
operate, maintain, and pay for these facilities. The effluent discharged from
centralized facilities must meet legislated standards for protecting the water
quality of the receiving stream or lake.
Decentralized facilities, on the other hand, serve less densely developed
rural areas and small communities. Decentralized facilities primarily consist
of privately owned on-site systems serving individual residences. They are
regulated by local health departments. Therefore, the objective of on-site
systems has been to protect public health rather than to meet water quality
standards. Small yet relatively dense rural and lake communities located far
beyond centralized wastewater systems may experience water quality problems
when numbers of on-site systems are high or where local ground or surface
water resources are sensitive to the impacts of these systems. Often,
malfunctions are caused by poor maintenance or inappropriate system design.
Many rural communities cannot afford centralized facilities to solve their
water quality problems. Thus, a need has arisen to merge certain aspects of
centralized and decentralized systems into a new system. The small waste
flows (SWF) management approach serves small rural communities by providing
centralized management to insure the proper planning, design, installation,
operation, and maintenance of decentralized facilities at an affordable cost
to users. The purpose of this report is to review existing state on-site
codes and authority granted for their management. The focus of the review is
on the ability of each Region V state to provide or allow centralized
management of on-site systems and to carry out a SWF management program.
2. ON-SITE REGULATORY PROGRAMS
On-site regulatory programs vary from state to state within Region V.
Generally, all of the state codes regulating on-site systems are focused on
specific design standards rather than on the performance of on-site systems.
Homeowners and builders wishing to install systems which do not meet design
standards, but which should perform without creating a public health or
pollution problem, must obtain a variance from either local or state agencies.
In addition, the state codes are oriented towards the installation of new
systems or replacement of malfunctioning existing systems. For the most part,
substandard existing systems (in terms of design) are left alone until they
malfunction whereupon they are required to be upgraded to meet code standards.
Program specifics such as the agencies involved, on-site design criteria,
allowance for alternative systems, regulation of existing on-site systems, and
variances are described in this section.
a. Illinois
Regulations for the use of on-site systems serving one residence have
been promulgated by the Illinois Department of Public Health in the "Private
XV-A-1
-------
CHAPTER XV
STATE AND 208 PROGRAMS
-------
PART FOUR
STATE AND EPA ADMINISTRATIVE ALTERNATIVES
-------
REFERENCES
American City and County. December 1980. Public forum: Public participation
costs prove small change. 96(12):12.
Glass, J. J. 1979. Citizen participation in planning: The relationship
between objectives and techniques. J. of the American Planning
Association, Chicago IL.
Gravity, N. , et al. Shopping for sewage treatment: How to get the best
bargain for your community or home. The Environmental Policy Institute
and the Clean Water Fund, Washington DC.
Sargent, F.O. 1976. Rural environmmental planning. American Planning Asso-
ciation, Chicago IL.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1979. Municipal wastewater management:
Public involvement activities guide. EPA-430-9-79-005. Office of Water
Program Operations. Washington DC.
XIV-A-15
-------
local group responsible for providing input to a project at these meetings. A
self-contained slide program keyed to a narrative tape recording is parti-
cularly effective since it can be presented at meetings, be stationed at a
centralized information center, and be presented through media such as televi-
sion. Brochures may also be developed that coordinate with an audio-visual
package and provide more in-depth information.
A slide and tape program is relatively inexpensive and can be developed
around and aimed at a specific locality. Such media can portray the local
existing natural and man-made environment in a manner with which the audience
can readily identify. Within this framework, existing water quality problems
and their interrelationship with the existing environment can be explained.
It would then be possible to demonstrate the growth trends in the area, which
would in turn lead to a discussion of the 20-year planning period in terms of
population growth and wastewater flows. Treatment alternatives, including a
demonstration of standard as well as alternative and innovative treatment
systems, can then be presented.
The audience would be shown how to scrutinize a facilities plan and
evaluate the alternatives in terms of how they would affect the community.
Evaluative tools are outlined in U.S. EPA Environmental Assessment Manuals.
Local technical expertise could be provided by the Soil Conservation Service,
Agricultural Extension Service, and public health agencies.
The chronology and structure of the facilities planning process would be
presented with emphasis upon input by the public. Notice of when and where
public hearings are to be held would be given, and testimony would be soli-
cited. The requirements for formulation of a Public Advisory Committee that
acts as an intermediary between the public and the grantee or the grantee's
consultants would be explained. The avenues of communication between faci-
lities planners and the public and mechanisms for two-way communication and
feedback would also be discussed. Such a program would fulfill both the
letter and spirit of the Clean Water Act in providing a meaningful dialogue
between the planners and the public.
XIV-A-14
-------
Wastewater treatment facilities planning may be perceived as a highly
complex process by the citizens of an area. For any given decision-making
process, some segments of the public will feel adversely affected, while
others will feel positively affected. In addition, part of the public sector
will show lesser levels of interest in the decisions that are being made.
These individuals can be inventoried and identified, particularly since many
of them belong to voluntary associations, professional groups, and other civic
organizations.
Interest groups may be categorized according to the likely impacts of the
proposed action. Improvement of surface water quality by abating point-source
pollution will be felt as a benefit by lakeside homeowner associations and by
fishing and sports clubs. Taxpayers' associations may feel that the project
will erode the local tax base and have an overall adverse impact on the
locality.
For each type of impact, organizations and individuals likely to be
affected can be identified. Research to identify organizations can take
various forms. Techniques include canvassing the community, membership direc-
tories, and the yellow pages. This may be accompanied by formal attitude
surveys, such as the sanitary survey outlined in Chapter II-G, interviews, and
examination of existing membership mailing lists.
The recipient population might generally be categorized into four general
segments:
1. public interest groups,
2. general civic organigations ,
3. public health associations, and
4s. social groups.
Public interest groups include consumer associations, environmental organi-
zations, and minority associations. General civic organizations include
homeowner associations, industrial and labor groups, a Rotary or Lions Club,
state and local governments, and educational institutions. Public health
associations inlude scientific societies and professional organizations.
Social groups are differentiated into organized and unaffiliated citizens.
Organized social groups encompass churches, the Grange, 4-H Clubs, swim or
boat clubs and historical societies. Unaffiliated citizens are those who do
not fall into the above categories and may include such diverse groups as
large land parcel owners or minorities. The public participation specialist
would uncover these local groups, associations, and institutions that could
provide input to the public participation program.
Once population groups have been identified, a public information program
may be designed. Such a program would respond to local concerns, and would
explain in simple language what facilities planning is, how it proceeds, and
how the public can provide input.
Many information mechanisms are available to reach the public and draw
them into the process. Such mechanisms include audiovisuals, brochures,
public service announcements in commercial TV or radio programs, and presenta-
tions at organization meetings. Information meetings could be sponsored by
local organizations and associations, and efforts should be taken to make the
XIV-A-13
-------
TABLE XIV-A-4. MODEL PLAN OF STUDY: FULL SCALE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (Concluded)
Decision point/technique
Schedule
Staff support
Target audience
5 .
Engineer's recommendation on
preferred alternative
a) public hearing notice2
b) prepare and mall fact sheet
30 days in advance2
c)
hearing on recommended
alternative and EIS1
6.
Town approval
a) agency responsiveness summary
distributed to hearing
participants2
b) final responsiveness study
submitted to U.S. EPA with
facility plan1
c) public notice of final
decision3
Application for Step 2 grant
a) CAC meeting to develop public
participation plan for Step
2 and 3
mos. 7-8
mos. 9
Public part. coor. General public
Public part. coor. Mailing list, civic
organizations, local
government
Grantee, General public
public part. coor.
Public part. coor. EPA, state, hearing
participants
Public part. coor. CAC members, grantee
rep.
1 Required by Part 35.
2 Required by Part 25.
3 Meets a performance standard of Parts 25 and/or 35.
SOURCE: Municipal Wastewater Management: Public Involvement Activities Guide, United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Program Operations, Facility
Requirements Division, Washington, DC.
XIV-A-12
-------
TABLE XIV-A-4. MODEL PLAN OF STUDY: FULL SCALE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION—Continued
Decision point/technique
Schedule
Staff support
Target audience
Review public participation work
element. Develop public participa-
tion work.
a) Public CAS meeting to review
public participation workplan3
b) Revised public participation
workplan3
Development of Facilities Plan
1. Assess current situation
a) begin monthly newsletter3
b) informal consultation/
interviews3
c) joint 201-208 staff and CAC
wk. 5
mos. 2-4
Grantee,
Public part.
coor.
Public part.
coor.
Public part.
coor.,
consultant's
public liaison
Broad range of com-
munity interests, CAC,
consulting engineer,
grantee representative
General public
Key officials,
selected citizen
leaders and special
interests
Public part. coor. 201-208 staff and key
Grantee rep., advisory committees
consultant staff
and public liaison
2. Assess future situation mos. 3-6
a) field trip3
b) speakers bureau3
c) series of workshops on special
issues3
1) sensitive environmental areas
2) residential and industrial
growth
d) public meeting1
e) agency responsiveness summary1
Public part. coor.
CAC, consulting
engineer, grantee
rep.
Public part. coor.
consultant,
public liaison
CAC, public
part. coor.,
consultant
liaison, grantee
rep.
public part. coor.
General public
Public and civic
interest group
General public and
special interests
U.S. EPA, state
participants
in meetings
Consideration of alternatives
Cost-effectiveness analysis
a) fact sheet on alternatives2
b) speakers bureau continues3
c) CAC mid-study briefing3
d) public meeting1
e) agency responsiveness summary1
Public part, coor., General public
as previously
described
consulting engi-
neer staff
public part. coor.
CAC, grantee, public
groups
General public
U.S. EPA, participants
in meeting
(Continued)
XIV-A-11
-------
TABLE XIV-A-4. MODEL PLAN OF STUDY: FULL SCALE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Decision point/technique
Schedule
Staff support
Target audience
Award of Step 1 Grant
Engineer selection
a) public notice
b) informal meeting w/key interests
wk. 1
Grantee
Range of community
interest that will
ultimately be on
advisory committee
environmental
civic
business
labor
Initiate preliminary stages of
public participation plan of
study (work element of)
a) grantee hires public participation wk. 2
coordinator
b) consulting firm designates public wk. 2
c) begin to develop mailing list2 wks.
1-3
Grantee
Consultant
Grantee
d) Deposit key documents in town
library
e) public notice regarding avail-
ability of documents
f) establish citizen advisory
committee1
1) notice to mailing list
and media of opportunity
to become member2
2) notice to mailing list and
media of finally selected
members.3
g) public notice w/fact sheet of
first CAC meeting to review public
participation workplan. Fact sheet
will describe project. Notice will
include list of advisory committee
and engineer.3
h) train advisory committee members
and grantee in one-day workshop.
Purpose will be to review
briefly town's water quality
problems, need for action, role
of CAC, types of conflicts, and
tradeoffs likely. Establish
goals of CAC. Workshop run by
grantee and consulting engineer.2
wks. 1-3
wk. 3
Grantee
Public part.
coor.
Grantee
wk. 6
Public part.
coor.
Grantee
Voluntary community
leader w/organizational
skills and knowledge of
water
All those private and
public interests with a
potential interest in
the facilities plan. Some
of the list will be
obtained from the 208
agency.
Mailing list media
Members of local organi-
zations such as:
League of Women Voters
Chamber of Commerce
Sierra Club
taxpayers association
local union
minority group
mailing list
newspapers
CAC members, engineer,
town officials, state
officals
(Continued)
XIV-A-10
-------
TABLE XIV-A-3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION WORK PLAN FOR BASIC PROGRAM (TOWN OF 10,000) (Concluded)
Decision point/technique
Schedule
Staff support
Target audience
b) notice of public hearing wk. 41
in local newspaper and
sent to all on mailing list2
Public liaison
General public,
mailing list
c) conduct public hearing to wk. 46
present final plan along
with the draft EIS (if
required) for their approval
to community. Allow for
additional citizen comments.
If previous public partici-
pation efforts have been
successful, however, no
significant new issues should
be raised at this time.1
5. Town of approval and submission
to State and EPA
a) public notice wk. 47
b) prepare final responsiveness wk. 48
1) place on file at local
libraries, town hall
Public liaison, General public
consultant, grantee
Public liaison
Public liaison
General public
U.S. EPA
1 Required by Part 35.
2 Required by Part 25.
3 Meets a performance standard of Parts 25 and/or 35.
SOURCE: Municipal^ Wastewater Management: Public Involvement Activities Guide, United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Program Operations, Facility
Requirements Division, Washington, DC.
XIV-A-9
-------
TABLE XIV-A-3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION WORKPLAN FOR BASIC PROGRAM (TOWN OF 10,000)--Continued
Decision
e)
f)
point/ technique
compile
attend
results
various
of survey3
local group
Schedule
wks.
wks.
15-16
17-10
Staff support
Public liaison
Consultant/public
Target
PTA,
JC
audience
' s , Grange ,
8)
3.
meetings3
Get on the agenda of
various civic groups'
weekly/monthly meetings.
Present overview of com-
munity water quality problems,
answer questions, explain re-
sults of citizen survey, seek
to further refine community
goals and objectives
prepare agency respon- wk. 22
siveness summary2
1) summarizes results of
citizen survey and other
public consultation efforts
2) outlines grantee's response
to citizen input
3) placed on file at local
libraries, town hall
Consideration of alternatives
a) develop fact sheets that wk. 26
describe various alternatives
being considered and outline
the costs and environmental
impacts of each3
b) distribute fact sheets that wk. 28
also include notice of up-
coming public meeting2
c) informal public meeting to wk. 32
discuss various alternatives,
answer questions, identify
options that may require
future study1
d) prepare local newspaper wk. 33
article that describes
public meeting and decisions
made3
liaison League of Women Voters,
Sierra Club
Public liaison U.S. EPA
Public liaison Mailing list
Public liaison Mailing list
Consultant, General public
public liaison,
grantee
Public liaison General public
e)
prepare agency responsiveness
summary2
A. Submission of final plan to town
a) distribute fact sheet that
highlights the major elements
of the proposed plan and
rationale for the selection3
wk. 34
wk. 40
Public liaison U.S. EPA
Public liasion Mailing list
(Continued)
XIV-A-8
-------
TABLE XIV-A-3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION WORKPLAN FOR BASIC PROGRAM (TOWN OF 10,000)
Decision point/technique
Schedule
Staff support
Target audience
1. Step 1 grant award
a) hire public liaison
b) develop mailing list
c) develop public participation
workplan
d) distribute workplan and fact
sheet
wks. 1-6
Public liaison General public
Assessment of present and future
situation
a) interview 208 PAC and/or
CAC members3
1) their views on areawide
and local water quality
problems and key issues
that should be addressed,
population projections
2) their experience w/public
participation, key citizens
who should be contacted
wks. 9-10
Consultant
Members of 208 PAC
and CAC
b) interview key local officials wks. 11-12
and citizens3
1) identify major water
2) identify community goals
and objectives
c) publish article in local wk. 13
newspaper that:3
1) describes current situa-
tion and status of facilities
planning process
2) summarizes attitude of town
officials and key citizens
on local water quality
problems
3) highlights the importance
of public input and
describes scheduled public
participation activities
4) identifies staff contacts
d) develop and distribute wks. 13-14
citizen survey3
Based on data collected
during previous interviews,
survey will seek to refine
community goals, identify
level of knowledge and
preferences concerning
water quality.
Consultants
Public liaison
Public health officer,
town engineers, planners,
Conservation Commission
members, industrial
dischargers, Chamber of
Commerce
General public
Public liaison on
consultant or
grantee's staff
All registered voters
(Continued)
XIV-A-7
-------
TABLE XIV-A-2. MODEL PLAN OF STUDY OUTLINE: BASIC PROGRAM (TOWN OF 10,000) (Concluded)
Decision point/technique
Schedule
Staff support
Target audience
Consideration of alternatives
Develop and distribute mos. 7-9
factsheets3
Notice of public meeting2
- Public meeting1
Prepare article for local
- Agency responsiveness summary2
Submission of final plan to town
- Distribute factsheets3 mo. 10
- Notice of public hearing2
Public hearing1
Agency responsiveness
summary1
Town approval state/EPA review
and EIS decision
- Final responsiveness mo. 11
summary1
Public liaison
Public liaison
Public liaison,
consultant,
grantee
Public liaison
Public liaison
Public liaison
Public liaison
Consultant,
grantee
Mailing list
Mailing list
General public
General public
General public
Mailing list
Mailing list
General public
1 Required by Part 35.
2 Required by Part 25.
3 Meets a performance standard of Parts 25 and/or 35.
Source: Municipal Wastewater Management: Public Involvement Activities Guide, US Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water Program Operations, Facility Requirements Division,
Washington, DC.
XIV-A-6
-------
TABLE XIV-A-2. MODEL PLAN OF STUDY OUTLINE: BASIC PROGRAM (TOWN OF 10,000)
Decision point/technique
Schedule
Staff support
Target audience
Grant Award
Select engineer
- Public notice wk. 1
- Identify public liaison on wk. 2
grantee/consultant staff2
Information program
- Public notice to media and
mailing list of despository
and materials available
Identify key interests and
develop project mailing list2
- Deposit key documents in wks. 6-7
town library2
Public participation workplan
- Develop detailed public wks. 3-4
participation workplan
w/informal public input3
- Develop and distribute public wk. 5
participation workplan and
first factsbeet which identi-
fies engineer and describes
project1
Development of Plan
Assessment of present and
future situation
Interview 208 PAC members3 mos. 2-6
- Interview key local officials
and citizens3
- Newspaper articles in paper
- Develop and distribute
citizen survey3
- Attend various local group
meetings3
Compile results of survey3
- Agency responsiveness summary2
Grantee
Grantee and/or
consultant
Consultant
Public liaison
on grantee or
consultant's staff
Consultant
Consultant
Public liaison
Consultant
Public liaison
Public liaison
Key citizen leaders who
express interest in
participating
Mailing list
208 PAC members
Public health officer,
town engineer, town
planner, regional
planners, conservation
commission members,
rep. of local industry,
Chamber of Commerce, etc.
Mailing list
PTA, JC's, Grange,
League of Women Voters
Available to general
public, prepared for
EPA
(Continued)
XIV-A-5
-------
the formation of a mailing list. The public must be notified and consulted
regarding the nature and scope of the proposed project. The Step 1 grant
application must include an outline of the proposed public participation
program, and, if that is accepted, a Public Participation Work Plan must be
submitted (see Tables XIV-A-2 and XIV-A-3). Before selecting alternatives for
evaluation, the grantee should consult with the public as well as prepare and
distribute a responsiveness summary. When the alternatives are largely
developed, a public meeting must be held for consultation before a particular
plan has been selected. At this juncture, the grantee must prepare and dis-
tribute a responsiveness summary. Before final adoption of a facilities plan,
the grantee is required to hold a formal public hearing to discuss the recom-
mended alternative. A final responsiveness summary is to be included in the
final facilities plan.
For projects that justify a more intensive public involvement effort, the
regulations outline a full-scale public participation program. This type of
program is required when an Environmental Impact Statement is prepared, when
advanced wastewater treatment is called for, or when more active public parti-
cipation is needed. Reasons cited for more active public involvement include
significant cultural or environmental impacts, significant increase in
capacity or service area, substantial capital cost or user charge, significant
public controversy, and substantial opportunity for innovative or alternative
wastewater treatment systems.
In complying with these regulations, a grantee must institute a more
in-depth public information program. During the development of the plan of
study, the grantee must notify and consult with the public regarding the
nature and scope of the proposed project and outline the participation program
(see Table XIV-A-4). In this expanded program, a public participation coordi-
nator must be hired or designated and an advisory group established. The
grantee is required to submit a public participation work plan, including
measures to coordinate with the water quality management agency public parti-
cipation activities. A public meeting must be held during assessment of the
existing environment and discussion of the 20-year planning period, but before
selection of alternatives for evaluation. At this point a responsiveness
summary must be prepared. When alternatives are largely developed but before
a particular plan is selected, a public meeting should again be held and a
responsiveness summary prepared. Prior to the adoption of a final facilities
plan, a formal public hearing is to be held that may coincide with the public
hearing on the Draft EIS. Part of the final facilities plan must be a final
responsiveness survey.
In rural lake areas, the potential for public controversy in facilities
planning is high, judging by the experience of the Seven Rural Lake EIS. An
understanding of the human ecology of an area, the resident's current view-
points, attitudes, and goals, must be understood in order to develop a faci-
lities plan that is appropriate to the area. There are a number of ways in
which a community can go beyond the minimum participation requirements to meet
the particular needs in these rural areas. Grantees and their consultants
must be prepared to discover who the citizens in the area are and how they are
organized and to involve them directly in the facilities planning process.
This program will maximize the use of existing community resources.
XIV-A-4
-------
TABLE XIV-A-1.
DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN BASIC AND FULL-SCALE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
PROGRAMS
Basic Public
Participation Programs
Full-Scale Public
Participation Programs
• Public notification and consultation
during preparation of the plan of study
• Public consultation early in the planning
process during the assessment of existing
and future situations but before the
selection of alternatives for study
• A public meeting when alternatives have
been developed but the preferred alter-
native has not yet been selected
• A public hearing prior to the adoption
of the facilities plan
• A public information program throughout
the planning process (including develop-
ment and use of a mailing list)
• Responsiveness summaries (1) after the
public consultation/public meeting that
occurs before selection of alternatives,
(2) after the public meeting on alterna-
tives, and (3) in the facility plan
(Final Responsiveness Summary)
• Advisory group
• Public participation
coordinator
• Consultation with advisory
group in developing public
participation workplan
• A public meeting early in
the planning process dur-
ing assessment of existing
and future situations but
before the selection of
alternatives for study
*This table is from material prepared by Barry Lawson Associates, Inc., Boston,
Massachusetts.
XIV-A-3
-------
monstrating that those viewpoints and preferences have been considered by
the decision-making official."
These regulations cover all aspects of the facilities planning process. Part
25 also specifies certain general ways to carry out the necessary steps to
gain public input.
Section 25 contains provisions specifying effective ways of carrying out
public participation activities. Section 25.4 requires the formation of a
mailing list to notify interested parties of deeds and events and to dis-
seminate pertinent information through fact sheets or newsletters. A central
repository of reports or information documents must be established at such
locations as schools, public libraries, town halls, or other places where
economical reproduction facilities exist. Periodic notice is to be given of
the availability of information materials, major decision-making events,
public hearings, or public meetings. In rural lake areas, consideration
should be given to conducting these meetings in areas most contiguous to the
lake, such as in swim clubs, boat houses, or sport clubs. Besides local
newspaper notice, efforts should be made to post meeting information at local
stores, crossroads areas, or in local membership newsletters.
Section 25.5 spells out the necessary steps for the timely distribution
of pertinent project information prior to notification of a public hearing or
public meeting. More informal public meetings may include such forums as
conferences, seminars, or workshops with local voluntary associations or
interest groups and should be held at a publicly convenient place and time.
The procedures for conducting public hearings are more fully described
(Section 25.6) to include 45-day notification, with background information, so
that presentations and witnesses may be scheduled in advance. The public
hearing must be located and scheduled to facilitate public attendance. Hear-
ing locations should be accessable by public transit and should be planned for
evening or weekend hours. In rural lake areas, these meetings should be
conducted in the summer months when seasonal residents may attend. A record
of the public hearing is to be made available to interested parties at cost.
Section 25.7 outlines provisions for the establishment of an advisory
group composed of balanced interests in the project area. These include local
business interests, local government officials, realtors, churches, civic
groups, sport clubs, developers, or environmental groups. The advisory
group's specified responsibilities include making recommendations to U.S. EPA
and decision makers, and conducting public participation activities. U.S. EPA
is to be available for training and assistance to the advisory group. These
specific sections should be consulted for further information.
40 CFR Subpart E, Part 35, Grants for Construction of Treatment Works,
outlines a two-tier public participation program in planning for wastewater
treatment facilities. A basic public participation program consists of the
minimum tasks and tools necessary in most Federally funded projects. A
full-scale public participation program applies to more complex projects with
potentially significant community impacts. Table XIV-A-1 shows the distinc-
tions between a basic and full-scale public participation program. A basic
public participation program is defined as suitable for less complex projects
with only minor community impacts. Under these provisons, a grantee must
conduct a public information program as specified in Section 25.4, including
XIV-A-2
-------
A. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLANS FOR RURAL PLANNING AREAS
The Clean Water Act regulations requiring public participation in the 201
facilities planning process have been in effect for almost 2 years. Sources
indicate that the reaction to the regulations has been frustration over
another set of regulations and very little experience with the techniques for
satisfying them (American City and County, 1980). However, it is recognized
that budgetary expenditures on public participation are modest in comparison
to the cost of litigation and construction delays that result from project
controversy. The public participation process does afford opportunities for
constructive input to the facilities planning process that can be key to the
implementation of a project. Through this process, facilities planners can
take into consideration a community's character, its social and environmental
values, and the attitudes of its citizens. This is especially true in rural
lake areas where the populace is more in touch with community and environ-
mental resources.
The Clean Water Act stipulates in Section 101(e) that "public partici-
pation... [in the facility planning process] shall be provided for, encouraged,
and assisted by the [EPA] Administrator and the States. The administrator, in
cooperation with the states, shall develop and publish regulations specifying
minimum guidelines for public participation in such processes." This mandate
reflects Congressional recognition that clean water depends on strong grass-
roots support. It demonstrates the necessity for the establishment of a
working relationship between the public and officials who make water quality
management decisions.
The Federal regulations referenced were published in final form on
16 February 1979 in 40 CFR 25, which relates to public participation programs
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act,
and the Clean Water Act, as well as in 40 CFR Subpart E, Parts 35.917-1(g) and
35.917-5, which relates to Federal grants for the construction of sewage
treatment works. These regulations provide the overall framework for a public
participation program and furnish facilities planners with some useful tools.
Part 25 regulations define the public as "representatives of consumer,
environmental, and minority associations; trade, industrial, agricultural, and
labor organizations; public health, scientific, and professional societies;
civic associations; public officials; and governmental and educational asso-
ciations." This is a partial listing of persons and organizations who may
feel direct impacts, either benefical or adverse, from the implementation of a
particular facilities plan alternative. While these associations and organi-
zations exert considerable influence on decisions made on the local level, the
public at large must also be actively solicited for input.
Part 25 also defines public participation as follows:
"Public participation is that part of the decision-making process through
which responsible officials become aware of public attitudes by providing
ample opportunity for interested and affected parties to communicate
their views. Public participation includes providing access to the
decision-making process, seeking input from and conducting dialogue with
the public, assimilating public viewpoints and preferences, and de-
XIV-A-1
-------
CHAPTER XIV
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
-------
REFERENCES
Nelson, J. D. , and R. C. Ward. 1980. Groundwater monitoring strategies to
support community management of on-site home sewage disposal systems.
Bulletin 140. Colorado State University Experiment Station.
Todd, D. K. , R. M. Tinlin, K. D. Schmidt, and L. G. Everett. 1976. Monitoring
groundwater quality: monitoring methodology. EPA-600/4-76-026. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Wolterink, T. J. , H. J. Williamson, D. C. Jones, T. W. Grimshaw, and W. F.
Holland. 1979. Identifying sources of subsurface nitrate pollution with
stable nitrogen isotopes. EPA-600/4-79-050. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
Hagedorn, C., and E. L. McCoy. 1979. Soil suitability for on-site waste
disposal: Development of genetically marked Escherichia coli strains as
tracers of subsurface water flow. WRRI-65. Water Resources Research
Institute, Oregon State University.
Stewart, G. L. and J. R. Stetson. 1975. Tritium and deuterium as water
tracers in hydrologic systems. Pub. No. 55, Report FY-76-2. Water
Resources Research Center, University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.
Thompson, G. M., and V. M. Hayes. 1979. Trichlorofluoromethane in groundwater:
A possible tracer and indicator of groundwater age. Water Resources
Research 15(3).
Bouwer, H. , and R. C. Rice. 1976. A slug test for determining hydraulic
conductivity of unconfined aquifers with completely or partially pene-
trating wells. American Geophysical Union 12(3).
XIII-C-10
-------
would probably reveal a three-way interrelation between data locations,
nitrate levels, and the concentrations of phosphorus. Although the results in
this example are fairly obvious, correlation analysis can demonstrate inter-
relations that are sometimes surprising and unexpected.
Hydrologic phenomena typically exhibit seasonal variations, and the
sampling of surface water bodies is often planned to coincide with low flow
periods when dilution is minimal and contaminant concentrations at maximum
levels. Thus, sampling times are generally selected on a systematic, rather
than random, basis. Sampling locations for surface water can be selected
either randomly or systematically. Groundwater is far less accessible, and
available access points such as wells or springs must be used regardless of
the resulting sampling pattern. Discrete samples collected from varying
depths within the water column of a well should be acquired when possible,
since the chemical species present can vary with changes in temperature, eH,
pH, and lithologic contacts.
The determination of a statistically representative number of samples is
difficult because the groundwater chemical variance is often high but unknown.
Estimates of sample population variance can be made by studying the varia-
bility in previous data and applying confidence tests to the results. One
method of determining a valid number of samples in this way is described by
Nelson and Ward (1980). The investigator must realize that the variance of
hydrologic data is especially subject to time-variant change.
3. CONCLUSIONS
Assuming that the treated effluent from an on-site system consists only
of typical household greywater and blackwater waste, the two most important
chemical quality parameters to know are the concentrations of nitrates and
fecal coliforms. These potential contaminants must always be considered in a
monitoring plan. The proximity of lakes to on-site systems will also neces-
sitate the study of phosphorus influx rates because high levels can greatly
accelerate eutrophication processes.
Despite advances in remote sensing of hydrologic phenomena, there is
presently no substitute for on-site inspection of waste treatment systems to
evaluate performance accurately. The effective implementation of a ground-
water monitoring network requires technical expertise in the areas of environ-
mental engineering, chemistry, hydrogeology, and photography/photo-
interpretation.
The use of experienced technical personnel is essential to the accurate
prediction of the results of establishing various treatment options. The
examples cited throughout this chapter have been intended to illustrate the
normal conditions that may be expected in rural areas of U.S. EPA Region V and
to describe possible variations of those conditions that might be encountered
at specific sites. This chapter has shown that different levels of data may be
required for different applications. The application of full-scale model
results from similar nearby systems is a crucial and most accurate first
approximation for assessing the suitability of a site for a particular land
application system.
XIII-C-9
-------
Chloride measurements can be useful in the planning of on-site systems,
but only in areas isolated from roadways that are salted during winter months.
Highly soluble salts such as NaCl and KC1 are relatively nonreactive and thus
are easily transported long distances in groundwater. Chloride analyses pro-
vide no measure of the degree of treatment provided to effluent by existing or
proposed drainage fields. But chlorides are useful tracers for studying
groundwater flow patterns and for evaluating the possible extent of pollution
caused by system failures.
The use of tracers for groundwater flow studies has the basic advantage
of providing irrefutable results. It has the disadvantages of being very
costly and of suffering from the uncertainty associated with monitoring only a
very few points, any or all of which could miss detecting the main stream of
any plume of tagged water. An additional limitation is that only one injec-
tion point may be used in one groundwater shed at one time. Tests on addi-
tional points could not be performed until the system is flushed of the first
test. Tracer tests are also very slow. With groundwater flow velocities
averaging 0.5 to 0.05 feet per day, long monitoring periods (lead times) are
required for the useful completion of such tests.
For these reasons, tracer tests are used less frequently than less re-
liable modeling of various types (Chapter XIII, Section B).
i. Evaluate the Potential for Dilution
The preceeding paragraphs of this report describe water body tagging
techniques and refer to Chapter XIII, Section B on modeling of groundwater
flow. Both of these techniques are useful for evaluating the potential for
contaminant dilution. Standard techniques are used in such an evaluation.
2. SAMPLING THEORY
Some information about sampling statistics is included here to make
researchers aware of the difficulty of obtaining theoretically adequate
samples. Too often, an investigator assumes that data collected in the general
area of a proposed site will permit significant conclusions to be drawn about
the site itself. Water quality samples are especially sensitive to mistaken
conclusions of this kind, necessitating on-site sampling in almost all cases.
Determinations of the number of required samples and the time and loca-
tion of sampling are necessary. The planner generally must prepare a moni-
toring plan without the luxury of an adequate groundwater data base. In the
absence of data that could reveal spatial or time correlation in samples, the
investigator must assume that all observations are independent (unrelated).
Correlation analysis refers to the branch of statistics used to determine the
degree of interrelation between variables. For example, within a set of water
samples a group may appear with higher than average nitrate and phosphorus
levels. These samples may also cluster together, perhaps near cropland
fertilized by the detected nutrients. In this example, correlation analysis
XIII-C-8
-------
Some specialized fluids (high density, low kinematic viscosity) may violate
this rule with predicted migration rates faster than water.
The gradients and relationships between water table and piezometric
surfaces may control groundwater and contaminant flow. In general, groundwater
flows toward the center of the earth, following the path of least resistance.
In special circumstances (when the piezometric surface of a confined aquifer
is higher than the piezometric or water table surface in overlying aquifers),
groundwater flow may be opposite of that normally expected.
h. Tracing Subsurface Flow
A number of substances can be used in the evaluation of soil suitability
for on-site disposal systems. Tracers are especially valuable when used to
determine soil permeabilities in lakeshore areas selected for development.
Perhaps the best tracer of this sort is tritium, because it can comprise part
of the structure of the water molecule. Minute quantities of tritium can be
used to "tag" large volumes of water, remaining detectible in very low con-
centrations owing to its radioactivity (Stewart and Stetson, 1975). The use of
tritium as a tracer is especially attractive for groundwater flow into and out
of lakes located in low population density areas. The method involves inject-
ing a small amount of tritium into an aquifer, utilizing an auger hole or
well. The tagged water forms a plume that migrates down-gradient from the
source. It could be detected in monitoring wells drilled down-gradient of the
injection hole. An up-gradient well would be monitored for reference. The flow
direction and average flow velocity could be determined by this process.
However, because of the controversy associated with the introduction of even
minute quantities of radioactive material into the environment, this option
must be evaluated thoroughly prior to its use. Although tritium is theoreti-
cally one of the most reliable tracers of groundwater flow, other, more envi-
ronmentally safe tracers, (dyes, conservative nontoxic substances) should be
used when possible.
Genetically marked strains of E. coli have also been used successfully as
tracers to study groundwater flow patterns in soil columns. Hagedorn and McCoy
(1979) demonstrated the superiority of bacterial tracers over fluorescein dyes
in applications of this type.
Thompson and Hayes (1979) have shown that trichlorofluoromethane (CC1JF,
trade name Freon II) can be useful as a tracer and as an indicator of ground-
water age. All sources of this compound are believed to be artificially made,
more of the material existed in the environment prior to 1931. Although re-
leased to the atmosphere, this substance establishes an equilibrium solubility
in surface water. Even in ppt concentrations, Freon II in water is readily
detectable by gas chromatography.
With regard to the planning of on-site treatment systems, the presence of
Freon II in confined aquifers would indicate the occurrence of relatively
recent recharge from surface sources. Therefore, areas can be identified in
which groundwater reservoirs are especially sensitive to degradation by sur-
face contamination. The analysis of Freon II levels is best applied on a local
or county basis to evaluate the potential impacts to water supplies of
implementing new small waste flows systems.
XIII-C-7
-------
D. Acid rain
Recent research has shown that organic and inorganic sources of nitrates
in groundwater can be differentiated on the basis of stable nitrogen isotope
levels (Wolterink et al., 1979).
f. Evaluate Site Suitability Systems
Important considerations in evaluating site suitability for small waste
flows treatment systems include the following:
1. Proximity to drinking water supplies
2. Soil type and permeability (suitability)
3. Proximity to sensitive ecosystems such as lakes, bogs, and
marshes
4. Flooding potential
5. Prediction of future impacts that may result from system
failure by
a. Determination of groundwater flow direction from
hydrologic gradient data (see Chapter XIII, Section
B)
b. Determination of groundwater flow velocities from
gradient data and permeability estimates
These factors must be considered and compared for each treatment alter-
native to determine the respective contaminant loading rates and point of
introduction into the environment. This evaluation results in the delineation
of the forcing function for the evaluation that follows.
g. Vertical Mobility of Pollutants from the Surface or Shallow
Subsurface Application of Small Waste Treatment Systems
Vertical mobility of pollutants must be evaluated to predict their
effects on the groundwater system. Vertical mobility of pollutants is most
strongly controlled by the solubility, stability, and physical properties such
as density of the contaminant; by rate of recharge, permeability, and altera-
tions of the aquifers and intervening geohydrologic units, and by the gra-
dients of the water tables affected.
The solubility, stability and other physical properties of the con-
taminant may affect its rate of dispersion and its direction of migration. For
example, a contaminant with low solubility and with density greater than water
may migrate along the bottom of the aquifer. A contaminant with low solubility
and with density lower than water would float on the water table. Either could
become trapped in a local feature on the water table and defy predicted migra-
tion patterns and rates.
Rate of recharge, permeability, and ability of an aquifer or intervening
geohydrologic unit (aquitard) to attenuate contamination may affect vertical
mobility of a contaminant. Other factors that may limit the vertical movement
of groundwater and/or contaminants include groundwater discharge or removal
rates and thicknesses and continuity of aquitards. In general, contaminants
travel through aquifers at or below the average groundwater transport rates.
XIII-C-6
-------
Chapter II, Section C of this report describes direct and indirect
sensing techniques that may be applicable to small waste flows studies.
Expensive methods such as well drilling, aquifer testing, and geophysical
surveying are generally cost-effective only if the planning effort encompasses
a large area. Planning a new lakeshore community is an example of a project
for which these geophysical and engineering techniques would prove valuable.
Whenever possible, field data should be collected from existing sampling
locations. Wells and natural springs can be sampled to analyze prevalent
groundwater chemical species. An existing open well can also be used to deter-
mine the approximate hydraulic conductivity of penetrated formations, uti-
lizing the slug test method described by Bouwer and Rice (1976). Preliminary
information of this type creates a data base, allowing the investigator to
evaluate properly future trends discovered from continued monitoring at pro-
posed wastewater treatment sites.
The ability of soils to treat domestic effluent properly can only be
determined by on-site inspection of soil wetness, texture, and horizonation,
including the collection of samples for analyses of grain size distribution.
As described in Chapter III, Section B of this report, existing wastewater
treatment systems can function as full-scale models for the evaluation of soil
effectiveness in treating effluent.
Seasonally flown aerial photography (both color and infrared) should be
an integral part of any water quality data base. Similar photographs obtained
as part of a trend monitoring program could, during the period following
facility construction, be used to help identify the significant changes in
vegetation caused by system failures.
e. Identify Existing Nonseptic Pollutant Sources from Collected
Data
For most researchers, it is only important to identify existing chemical
constituents in groundwater without regard for their source(s). In some cases,
it may be useful to identify specifically existing nonseptic pollutant
sources. The most prevalent ones are outlined below:
A. Agricultural and domestic
1. Fertilizers (applied to field or lawn)
2. Pesticides
3. Animal wastes
4. Salt applied to roads during winter
B. Industrial sources
1. Organic solvents
2. Metal cations
3. Petrochemicals
C. Drainage from surface and underground mines
XIII-C-5
-------
3. Geohydrologic units
a. Transmissivity and storativity
b. Flow and boundary conditions
C. Remote sensing
1. Geophysics
2. Multi-spectral aerial photography (including infrared)
Chapter XIII, Section A describes in detail the sources of groundwater
quality data available in U.S. EPA Region V.
The primary sources of this information, which vary from state to state,
are listed below:
A. Federal government
1. U.S. Geological Survey*
2. U.S. EPA
3. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
B. State government
1. Department of Health
2. Department of Natural Resources*
3. Geological Survey*
4. Water Survey*
5. State EPA
6. Pollution Control Agency
7. Soil Conservation Service
C. Local government
1. Department of Health
D. Other
1. Universities*
2. Scientific journals*
3. Well-drilling companies and operators
4. Private companies using groundwater
5. Personal communications*
Those sources followed by an asterisk can often provide extensive geo-
logic and geophysical data.
d. Collection of Field Data
In areas for which little published groundwater and geologic data exist,
it may be necessary to acquire additional field data to guide planning
efforts.
XIII-C-4
-------
After the data described above are collected and evaluated, the conserva-
tively defined groundwater basin may be refined. Careful consideration of the
time required for the system to cause contamination at any given location must
be included in the analysis of the data.
b. Describe Existing Uses of Groundwater within the Study Area
After the boundaries of the study area are determined, existing ground-
water usage should be described. This may be done by survey or evaluation of
existing records. The sensitivity of the groundwater use is the primary goal
of this phase of study. Potable water supplies are of the highest priority,
while agricultural, industrial process and cooling uses have correspondingly
lower priority for protection.
High groundwater withdrawal rates associated with public or industrial
water supplies should be identified at this stage, because they may locally
increase groundwater flow rates by increasing water table gradients. They may
locally even reverse groundwater flow directions. If their use is intermit-
tent, they may further complicate expected groundwater pollutant dispersion.
c. The Existing Data Base
Planners can avoid considerable expense of obtaining new groundwater data
if the existing data base is first acquired. This data base consists of both
published and unpublished material. When collecting this information, it is
most cost-effective to obtain it for the entire planning area at one time.
Then, first approximations (of affected areas, for example) may be enhanced by
extrapolating the known characteristics of the planning area. Outlined below
are the general classes of data that are applicable to groundwater problems in
small waste flows planning and that may be found in the existing data base:
A. Groundwater data
1. Water table elevations and variability
2. Groundwater geochemical analyses for the following:
a. pH
b. Specific conductivity
c. Acidity and alkalinity
d. Nitrates
e. Bacteria
f. Viruses
g. Phosphorus
h. Iron
i. Calcium, magnesium, and manganese
j. Aluminum
B. Geologic data
1. Soil types (thickness, composition, and variability)
2. Geologic formations
a. Lithology
b. Structure
XIII-C-3
-------
5. Describe any existing pollutants, their source(s), and identify poten-
tial pollutants
6. Evaluate waste disposal methods (existing and proposed)
7. Evaluate the vertical mobility of pollutants from surface or shallow
sources to the saturated zone
8. Estimate velocities of groundwater flow within underlying aquifers and
their ability to transmit pollutants
9. Estimate the potential for dilution of pollutants within the study
area or hydrologic basin (evaluate sensitivity of surface and subsur-
face waters)
This is an outline of ideal steps for the manager who is provided with
adequate finances, time, equipment, and technical skills. However, the
acquisition of original data for areas with little existing information (Step
4) is often very expensive. At a minimum, soil sampling and testing might be
performed on selected developed sites. The performance of existing systems in
soils similar to those found at the selected sites could be inferred from the
data.
a. Selection of the Monitoring Area
The extent of potential groundwater effects from the land application of
small waste flows may be closely approximated if the following basic informa-
tion is known:
• depth to the saturated zone (water table),
• permeability or grain size analysis of aquifer materials, and
• direction of groundwater flow.
In addition, if the groundwater flow rates or slope of the water table are
known, then the rate of groundwater transport of potential contaminants and
the time required for the contaminants to reach a sensitive receptor (for
example, well or surface water body) can also be modeled.
Since this information is rarely available before the data are collected,
it may be necessary to make a preliminary approximation of the potentially
affected area by examining the topography of the area surrounding the proposed
application site. In general, in humid areas such as those present in U.S.
EPA Region V, groundwater drainage basins coincide with surface water drainage
basins. Groundwater flow paths roughly approximate the direction of maximum
land surface slope. Thus, the affected area would approximately duplicate the
surface watershed of the application site, to the zone where the surface
watershed is intercepted by the first perennial surface water body (for
example, a stream, river, or lake).
Notable exceptions to this rule include sites near surface drainage
divides, sites with very deep (greater than 50 feet) water tables, or sites
located close to contacts of geohydrologic units or points of high groundwater
withdrawals. The first approximation of the groundwater basin that may be
affected by these sites should be chosen more conservatively than subsequent
approximations.
XIII-C-2
-------
C. GROUNDWATER RESOURCES DATA NEEDED FOR FACILITIES PLANNING IN
RURAL LAKE AREAS
1. INTRODUCTION
This section identifies the groundwater quality information required for
planning and design of small waste flows treatment systems. The benefits and
limitations of various data collection techniques are identified, analyzed,
and summarized to assist facilities planners in deciding how much background
data to collect and how to design an appropriate monitoring system. Chapter
VIII, Section C develops guidelines for facilities planners who will design
monitoring plans for treatment systems that are already constructed and under
operation.
The level of groundwater quality monitoring required is primarily depen-
dent on the utilization of the groundwater resource and the proximity of the
aquifer to the source of contamination. For example, groundwater used mainly
for agricultural purposes does not require the close monitoring needed to
protect drinking water supplies.
Confined and semi-confined aquifers have at least one zone of low permea-
bility between themselves and local surface sources of contamination. Typical
semi-confined sandstone aquifers are primarily recharged laterally from loca-
tions where the unit is exposed or in hydraulic continuity with the surface.
As the water travels over great distances from the recharge area to the point
of discharge or withdrawal, dilution or attenuation of low-levels of con-
tamination may occur.
Wells developed in fractured crystalline rocks are recharged almost
entirely from local surface sources. They are thus more readily subject to
contamination from these local sources.
The following outline (adapted from Todd et al., 1976) lists steps that
may be necessary to develop a groundwater monitoring strategy:
1. Select the monitoring area
2. Describe existing uses of groundwater within the study area
3. Obtain existing data on:
a. Groundwater quality and water table depths
b. Aquifer characteristics (flow and geology)
c. Soil properties
d. Climate (precipitation and temperatures)
4. Where data are lacking, obtain sufficient field information to ade-
quately evaluate the site, by means of:
a. Sampling and chemical analyses of well waters and springs
b. Well drilling to sample geology, establish observation wells, and
test aquifers
c. Auger sampling of soil profiles
XIII-C-1
-------
REFERENCES
Appel, C.A., and J.D. Bredehoeft. 1976. Status of groundwater modeling in the
U.S. Geological Survey. Circular 737. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston VA.
Bachmat, Y. , B. Andrews, D. Holtz, and S. Sebastian. 1978. Utilization of
numerical groundwater models for water resource management. EPA-600/
8-78-012. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Childs, K. E., S. B. Upchurch, and B. Ellis. 1974. Sampling of variable waste-
migration patterns in ground water. Ground Water, November-December.
Davis, S. N. , and R. J. M. DeWiest. 1966. Hydrogeology. John Wiley and Sons,
Inc., New York NY.
Fetter, C.W., Jr., W. E. Sloey, and F. L. Spangler. 1977. Potential replace-
ment of septic tank drain fields by artificial marsh wastewater treatment
systems. Proceedings of the Third National Ground Water Quality
Symposium. EPA-600/9-770H. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Grim, R. E. 1968. Clay mineralogy. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York NY.
Konikow, L. F. , and J. D. Bredehoeft. 1978. Computer model of two-dimensional
solute transport and dispersion in ground water. Techniques of water-
resources investigations of the U. S. Geological Survey, Book 7, Chapter
C2. Washington DC..
Moore, J. E. 1979. Contributions of groundwater modeling to planning. J. of
Hydrology 5:(43).
Mudroch, A., and J. A. Capobianco. 1979. Effects of treated effluent on a
natural marsh. Journal WPCF, 51(9).
Prickett, T. A. 1979. Ground-water computer models: State of the art. Ground
Water, 17(2).
Rea, R. A., and S. B. Upchurch. 1980. Influence of regolith properties on
migration of septic tank effluent. Ground Water 18(2).
Rushton, K. R. , and S. C. Redshaw. 1979. Seepage and groundwater flow. John
Wiley and Sons, New York NY.
Seckel, C. W. 1978. Feasibility study for development of a transient three-
dimensional groundwater flow model utilizing the finite element method.
University of Maryland, College Park MD.
Walton, W. C. 1970. Groundwater resource evaluation. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New
York NY.
XIII-B-12
-------
TABLE XIII-B-2. APPLICABILITY OF GROUNDWATER MODELING TO DECISION-LEVELS IN
SMALL WASTEWATER FLOW MANAGEMENT
Model Types
I. Physical
Permeameter
Individual
(systems)
X
Local
(developments
and towns)
X
Area and
Regional
(cities and
counties)
Generally not
Applicable
Sand tank (full X X
scale)
Artificial marsh X X
Viscous flow X
II. Mathematical
A. Analog
Discrete circuit X X
Continuous circuit X
B. Digital
Flow X X
Quality X
III. Analytical XXX
With regard to the planning and design of on-site treatment systems,
empirical conclusions based on the careful monitoring of selected septic
systems are far more valuable than the results of predictive groundwater
quality monitoring. When planning the design of a treatment system for a new
site, the first priority for a planner should be to examine nearby existing
septic systems to evaluate their operating performance. If any system failures
are noted, the reasons for failure should be carefully analyzed and used as
guidance on the new site. In the absence of other treatment systems, a
thorough surface and subsurface sampling program should be implemented. The
initial expenses incurred in carefully documenting the geologic and hydrologic
variables in a new area would be recouped when additional new sites are added.
In this way, an expanding data base can be established that will allow plan-
ners to estimate more reliably the ability of a soil to treat septic effluent
effectively.
XIII-B-11
-------
• evaluation of existing septic system performance levels, and
• application of remote sensing.
3. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Modeling can be a practical tool in the study of groundwater flow pro-
blems. Groundwater quality models developed during the 1970's represent the
state-of-the-art in digital flow analysis. But the use of these overly sophis-
ticated models can produce misleading results and is not cost-effective.
Solute transport in surface aquifers occurs as time-variant flow under
unconfined conditions. The boundary conditions and transport phenomena are so
complicated that computer analyses are required for credible quality modeling.
Unfortunately, quality models are not yet sophisticated enough to effectively
resolve patterns of multichemical transport and interaction. Thus, a paradox
exists in the digital evaluation of septic seepage flow. Although digital
methods are essential, they currently are theoretically inadequate and too
expensive for application to individual septic systems. Therefore, groundwater
quality models are not of practical value to planners in the evaluation of
septic seepage.
Applications of digital flow modeling are currently limited to the study
of annual water table fluctuation and patterns of local and regional ground-
water flow. Conclusions derived from large-scale studies of this type should
not be used to make assessments of specific site suitability. Only on-site
inspection and data collection can provide the necessary information.
The utility of groundwater modeling varies at different levels of manage-
ment decision-making. While only physical and analytical models can reasonably
be applied to individual septic systems, a wider range of techniques is prac-
tical on local, area, and regional decision levels. Table XIII-B-2 summarizes
the decision-level applicability of models discussed in this section.
In approaching a groundwater problem, the investigator should first try
to apply the simpler analytical techniques to determine whether mathematical
models will be required or useful. In small waste flows management, the two
most important variables are groundwater flow direction and velocity. After
obtaining this information, the planner can identify those areas that may be
affected by leachate from septic systems or that may be land application
sites. Reasonable, low-cost estimates of flow direction and velocity can be
made by using water table elevation data and estimates of aquifer porosity and
permeability. Other analytical models are the traditional methods used to
analyze aquifer test data to determine formation values of storativity and
transmissivity. These values are essential data for the subsequent application
of digital modeling.
Mathematical models are the only methods capable of handling the complex
boundary conditions inherent to seepage flow problems. Although electrical
analog techniques generally have been replaced by digital methods, the wide-
spread use of micro-processors should eventually cause a resurgence of
interest in the application of electrical analog modeling (Prickett, 1979).
XIII-B-10
-------
c. Analytical Models
Analytical models are equations which, subject to simplifying assump-
tions, can be directly solved to obtain information about groundwater flow.
The Laplace transformation is a powerful method for solving the linear dif-
ferential equations that describe subsurface flow phenomena. Analytical
methods can only be used when the geometry and boundaries of the flow medium
are relatively simple. These criteria are compatible with the pumping tests
used to derive the formation constants of transmissivity and storativity. Many
assumptions must be made before this class of problem becomes amenable to
analytical solution. For the case of pumping an unconfined aquifer, the fol-
lowing assumptions were given for an example analyzed by Walton (1970):
• aquifer is homogeneous, isotropic, infinite in areal extent, and has
uniform thickness,
• test wells fully penetrate the aquifer,
• water is unconfined,
• drawdown is very small compared to the original saturated thickness,
and
• pumping occurs at a fixed rate, and flow in the aquifer is unsteady.
It is apparent that seepage flow problems are often incompatible with
these ideal assumptions, necessitating the use of numerical approximations of
the governing differential equations. The investigator needs significant
experience dealing with groundwater flow problems to correctly determine
whether analytical methods are adequate to solve a specific problem.
Analytical techniques provide the essential aquifer parameters required for
the operation of more sophisticated digital flow and solute-transport models.
For most facilities planning efforts, these methods are useful for determining
aquifer characteristics in areas for which little information is available.
This kind of information is important when the possibility of aquifer contami-
nation from surface sources exists, or has been observed in existing wells.
d. Empirical Methods
In applying empirical methods, conclusions are based only on observations
without regard for existing theory. Because of the need for extensive data
collection to support digital or analog modeling, and because of the expense
and expertise required for the actual theoretical modeling, the most straight-
forward method to be used in the planning and design of soil-dependent waste-
water systems may often be a well-designed program of sampling existing
systems. Through time, a program of this type can provide invaluable infor-
mation about the wastewater treatment effectiveness of specific septic systems
and soil types. Another section of this report describes a plan of data col-
lection that can be used to establish a broad data base for use in site
evaluation and trend monitoring. The basic elements of this plan include:
• acquisition of existing data,
• sampling and analysis of groundwater,
• determination of water table levels,
• collection of geological data,
XIII-B-9
-------
TABLE XIII-B-1. DATA REQUIREMENTS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR A PREDICTIVE MODEL
(after Moore,1979)
I. Physical Framework
A. Groundwater Flow
1. Hydrogeological map showing areal extent, boundaries, and boundary
conditions of all aquifers
2. Topographic map showing surface water bodies
3. Water-table, bedrock-configuration, and saturated-thickness maps
4. Transmissivity map showing aquifer and boundaries
5. Transmissivity and specific storage map of confining bed
6. Map showing variation in storage coefficient of aquifer
7. Relation of saturated thickness to transmissivity
8. Relation of stream and aquifer (hydraulic connection)
B. Solute Transport (in addition to above)
9. Estimates of the parameters that comprise hydrodynamic dispersion
10. Effective porosity distribution
11. Background information on natural concentration distribution
(water quality) in aquifer
12. Estimates of fluid density variations and relationship of density
to concentration
13. Hydraulic head distributions (used to determine groundwater
velocities)
14. Boundary conditions for concentrations
II. Stresses on System
A. Groundwater Flow
1. Type and extent of recharge areas (irrigated areas, recharge
basins, recharge wells, etc.)
2. Surface water diversions
3. Groundwater pumpage (distributed in time and space)
4. Stream flow (distributed in time and space)
5. Precipitation
B. Solute Transport (in addition to above)
6. Areal and temporal distribution of water quality in aquifer
7. Stream flow quality (distribution in time and space)
8. Sources and strengths of pollution
III. Other Factors
A. Groundwater Flow and Dispersion
1. Economic information about water supply
2. Legal and administrative rules
3. Environmental factors
4. Planned changes in water and land use
XIII-B-8
-------
equation. The transport equation computes, for any point, the changes in
concentration through time caused by the processes of convective transport,
hydrodynamic dispersion, and dilution (Konikow and Bredehoeft, 1978). Models
of this type, which consider transport by flow only, are called conservative
mass-transport models. In addition to flow transport mechanisms, non-conserva-
tive mass-transport models also consider physical and chemical interactions
between the solute and flow medium. For example, models exist that include the
processes of adsorption and the biochemical transformation of nitrogen com-
pounds (Bachmat et al., 1978).
Groundwater quality modeling provides planners with a sophisticated tool
in the study of solute transport problems. But this kind of modeling cannot
readily be done without extensive technical expertise, the use of digital
computers, and the availability of a broad data base for the hydrological
regime. Table XIII-B-1 lists the data requirements for predictive digital
groundwater modeling. Relatively simple and inexpensive field methods allow
for determining parameters for flow models, but no comparable methods are
available for mass-transport models.
Soil variability is a serious obstacle in the study of groundwater
quality problems. This variability tends to be site-specific and generally
unpredictable on a regional basis. The most important variables in the soil/
regolith column are soil composition and structure, plant growth, and phreatic
fluctuation. The physical and chemical evolution of a soil profile is uniquely
controlled by climate and the nature and source of its parent materials.
Climate governs weathering rates, changes in the phreatic zone, and the growth
and variety of vegetation. Thus, it is difficult to fully account for the
complex chemical transformation undergone by septic leachate as it passes from
the unsaturated zone into and through the saturated zone.
The processes affecting these chemical changes are soil absorption,
adsorption, cation exchange, oxidation, and the activities of plants and
organisms. Numerical methods are capable of analyzing individual processes
like cation exchange, but are not yet sophisticated enough to effectively
resolve multichemical transformation and interactions.
In particular, multichemical waste migration does not readily lend itself
to numerical analysis. There is good evidence to indicate that chemicals
commonly found in septic leachate can migrate at different rates and along
independent directional axes (Childs et al., 1974). Point source leachate
cannot be assumed to migrate as a single plume, and "index" chemicals like
chlorides do not provide safe indicators of solute transport patterns. It is
apparent that the most sophisticated mass-transport models provide only first-
order estimates of solute movements. As shown in Table XIII-B-1, modeling of
mass-transport phenomena requires a much broader data base than that required
for the predictive modeling of flow systems, further increasing the cost of
the inherently expensive digital approach. Also, simplifying assumptions are
required in addition to those required for flow modeling. Considering all of
these factors, mass-transport models are overly sophisticated for the small
waste flow problem. The problem of solute-transport will continue to be a
topic of intense research.
XIII-B-7
-------
These techniques are the most accurate means available for studying flow
systems on both a local and a regional basis, where they become more cost-
effective. Flow modeling is commonly used to study seasonal water table
fluctuations, especially as they relate to precipitation events and the
associated discharge and flood potential of surface waters.
The Laplace equation is the foundation of all digital groundwater flow
problems. This differential equation takes many forms, dependent on the
aquifer characteristics, type of flow, and boundary conditions. Flow seepage
is a very complicated mathematical problem because of the presence of an
unconfined boundary. The position and geometry of this boundary are time-
dependent variables that change in response to evapotranspiration and surface
and subsurface recharge. Digital groundwater models are based on a variety of
techniques that are alternative algebraic methods of solving the simultaneous
equations that represent the flow process. Numerical models of the finite-
difference and finite-element type are common today.
The finite-difference method (FDM) is simpler, and the resulting equa-
tions can be solved with either analog or digital computers. In digital solu-
tions, involved matrix operations are not required for this method. The
geometry of the field is maintained in the FDM solution, and boundary con-
ditions for the model can readily be changed.
In the finite-element method (FEM) the field is not restricted to a grid
network of uniform mesh. Elements of varying size can be used. The method can
more easily handle flow problems with highly irregular and complex geometries,
and boundary conditions are more easily resolved than with FDM. Anisotropy of
aquifer properties can be included in the solution. Disadvantages of the FEM
are long computational times and large computer storage requirements.
The basic idea of the finite-difference method (FDM) is to represent the
flow system by a two-dimensional gridded network. Derivatives at the inter-
section points are replaced by ratios of the changes in the flow variables
over small but finite intervals. This approximation generates a set of simpler
algebraic equations, which are more easily solved. The number of equations is
directly proportional to the number of intersection points. Solution of the
equations provides the values of hydraulic head at each intersection point.
Three-dimensional problems can be handled by the use of arrays of parallel
grids to represent the flow media dimensionally.
A more sophisticated technique is the finite-element method (FEM). An
excellent description of the FEM is given by Seckel (1978). The flow domain is
divided into a finite number of sections, which are connected at common nodal
points. The sections collectively represent the shape of the actual flow
medium. The value of the continuous quantity at each of the nodal points
represents the hydraulic head variable. The derived finite-element equations
are then independently applied to each section, and the results are assembled
into the total flow domain. Solution of the set of algebraic equations then
determines the values of hydraulic head at each node.
Numerical models that study the groundwater transport of contaminants are
called mass-transport models. Most of these techniques have been created since
1973. In actual operation, the researcher first studies the pertinent flow
system to thoroughly understand its variables. Then the solute-transport
differential equation is coupled with a form of Laplace's groundwater flow
XIII-B-6
-------
include heavy organic oils, silicone oils, and liquid plastics. Temperature
control is essential since the model fluid viscosity may vary significantly
with temperature. Both steady and non-steady effects can be included by
changing the model's temperature. Flow lines can be studied by the injection
of colored dyes, and groundwater potentials can be measured with piezometers.
Viscous-flow models have the major disadvantages of complicated construction
and operation procedures (Rushton and Redshaw, 1979). These models can be used
to study and demonstrate groundwater flow in aquifers, but they have little
practical value in the analysis of quality problems.
b. Mathematical Models
Analog Models. In the past, electrical analog modeling has been used
primarily as an instructional technique in engineering and hydrology. Models
consisting either of discrete circuits or continuous conduction media have
been devised. Electrical analogs cannot be used to study groundwater quality
problems directly. The physical laws governing electrical flow are only
analogous to the hydraulic flow equations, and not to solute transport
phenomena. Accordingly, the principal value of these models is in the analysis
and demonstration of groundwater flow systems.
Resistors and capacitors in a mesh network provide, by analogy, the
solutions in electrical terms to the representative set of finite-difference
flow equations. The electrical network may be constructed in two or three
dimensions, and circuit connectors can be designed in a way that facilitates
the disassembly and reconstruction of the network. This kind of discrete
network, compared to a continuous conducting medium, has the advantage of not
requiring a constant mesh size throughout the model. The number of circuit
components can thus be reduced in model regions that are distant from speci-
fied boundaries (Rushton and Redshaw, 1979).
Other electrical analog models, such as the conductive paper method and
the electrolytic tank, employ continuous conduction media. These models are
operationally less flexible than the resistance-capacitance networks. For
example, in the conducting paper model, the flow medium is represented by a
scaled model cut from paper with a conducting layer. Complete reconstruction
of the model is often necessary to implement geometric changes in the flow
regime. Also, non-steady flow characteristics and variations in aquifer
hydraulic properties cannot conveniently be represented in this way. Thus,
continuous conduction models cannot readily be applied to non-steady, uncon-
fined flow.
Digital (Mathematical) Models. In the study of groundwater flow prob-
lems, numerical models have substantially replaced the analog techniques. This
is a direct result of the availability, utility, and convenience of computer
facilities. Digital computers are powerful tools for the solution of complex
hydrology problems, and software packages for groundwater models are now
accessible to potential users. Flow modeling techniques are available that can
be applied to many combinations of surface and subsurface data variables. And
there are numerous models which could potentially be applied to flow problems
encountered in the planning and design of on-site wastewater treatment
systems.
XIII-B-5
-------
of soil permeability. But there are two important deficiencies, and therefore
disadvantages, to the widespread use of this method. First, the sampling
process usually disturbs the original stratification of unconsolidated
samples. Thus, the actual soil layers will not be represented in the flow
analysis. Secondly, permeameters test discrete samples that may not be
statistically representative of the medium underlying the seepage field.
Sand Tanks. Sand tank models are scaled-down versions of actual flow
regimes. Groundwater flow patterns can also be studied by observing the
migration of chemical dyes through sediment-filled tanks. Flow media often
used in sand tanks include sand, glass beads, and actual soil sections. It is
difficult to represent media porosities and permeabilities accurately in scale
models, and, as a result, capillary action in the unsaturated part of the
model often has an exaggerated effect. Time-variant effects are also poorly
represented by these models. The principal value of sand tank models is in the
realm of research, studying the complex problems of molecular diffusion,
dispersion, and ion exchange. Small sand tank models may be of use to planners
in the demonstration of local flow patterns, but their operation yields
strictly qualitative results.
Artificial Marshes. Artificial marshes are essentially flooded and
vegetated sand tank models. They have recently become a subject of experi-
mentation as alternative means of wastewater treatment. Artificial marshes
can be considered models for the biological treatment of wastewater. The marsh
consists of a gravel-filled tank or basin in which the bottom and sides are
sealed. Prior to the addition of effluent, growths of emergent aquatic vegeta-
tion are established for several growing seasons. Effluent is then filtered
through the tank to provide a nutrient supply for absorption by the plant
rootlets. Inflow and outflow pipes must be high enough to prevent the marsh
from drying out. Artificial marshes may be used only during the growing
season; at other times, alternative disposal methods such as holding tanks
would be necessary.
Existing System Performance. Existing septic tank systems can function
as full-scale sand tank models in the hydrochemical study of leachate treat-
ment and migration (Childs et al., 1974; Rea and Upchurch, 1980). Only in
this manner can the actual effects of nutrient load and soil variability be
adequately understood. For example, the most important considerations in
evaluating the suitability of soils for wastewater treatment is the per-
formance of similar nearby systems. On-site inspections are essential for
proper evaluation, and when correlated with site characteristics, usage data,
and design information, provide a data base for the future trend monitoring of
existing and newly constructed systems. Sites with confirmed system failures
should be classified according to probable cause of failure, such as system
overloading due to improper maintenance, high water tables, and improper soil
conditions. Data of this type constitute a descriptive model for the per-
formance of existing on-site treatment systems.
Viscous-Flow Models. Viscous-flow models are three-dimensional construc-
tions of flow media in which transmissive zones are represented by parallel
plates made of metal or plastic. The movement of viscous liquid between the
plates is directly analogous to the laminar flow of groundwater. In fact, the
equations for viscous flow between parallel plates are identical to the equa-
tions for groundwater flow. Liquids used for modeling groundwater to scale
XIII-B-4
-------
permeability varies with the choice of direction from a specified point. A
flow medium is said to be homogeneous if its properties, isotropic or
anisotropic conditions, are constant throughout. A fluid is homogeneous when
it consists of a single phase. Heterogeneous flow occurs if either the medium
or the fluid is heterogeneous. Theoretically, a medium can be both isotropic
and heterogeneous, as for example when permeability is unaffected by direction
but varies at different points (Davis and DeWiest, 1966).
Groundwater models often assume that flow occurs under steady-state
conditions. This assumption is generally accurate for analyzing flow in con-
fined aquifers, but is not generally applicable to septic seepage, which
occurs under unconfined condition. By definition, steady-state flow does not
vary, through time and only occurs when the fluid variables (velocity, pres-
sure, density, temperature, and viscosity) are functions of the spatial
coordinates within the medium. Time-variant flow occurs when any of the above-
listed variables are also functions of time. Septic seepage is always a time-
variant phenomenon in that it is influenced by diurnal and seasonal changes in
climate and by household discharge rates.
d. Boundary Assumptions
The functioning of a septic system is strongly influenced by the nature
of local hydrogeological boundaries. These boundaries must be identified since
they act either as recharge areas or zones that retard or prevent groundwater
flow. Streams, lakes, and coastal areas are generally recharge boundaries.
Shale beds, clay layers, and massive igneous and metamorphic formations often
function as barrier boundaries. Reservoir breastworks and flood levees are
examples of man-made barrier boundaries. Confined flow occurs when all boun-
daries are fixed in space and do not change with time. Unconfined flow occurs
when at least one boundary is a free surface exposed to the atmosphere. Small
waste flows management is a problem in unconfined seepage flow. Flow seepage
is very complicated mathematically because of the presence of an unconfined
phreatic boundary (water table). The position and geometry of this boundary
are time-dependent variables that change in response to evapotranspiration
surface and subsurface recharge. The proper operation of a septic system
requires that its outflow point and drainage field remain in the unsaturated
zone above the water table.
2. DESCRIPTIONS OF GROUNDWATER FLOW MODELS
a. Physical Reproductions
Permeameters. Physical reproductions of flow systems have been used
scientifically since the early 1800's. In 1856 a French engineer named Henri
Darcy was the first person to state the mathematical law that governs ground-
water flow. Darcy invented the permeameter, a device used to measure the
hydraulic conductivity of earth materials. The equipment consists of a sample-
filled pipe through which water is forced to flow. Pressure variations within
the sediment sample, in combination with the discharge rate, are used to
quantify the ability of the sample to transmit water. Permeameters are used
today to study the permeability and chemical adsorption characteristics of
soils, sediments, and rocks. The suitability of a soil as a medium for septic
seepage application is often evaluated by the use of a permeameter. This
method is inexpensive and generally provides a reasonable first-order estimate
XIII-B-3
-------
it is necessary to become familiar with the principles of groundwater flow.
The following paragraphs describe the development of the present groundwater
flow theory and provide insight into the analytical advantages water quality
models may provide.
b. Groundwater Flow
The groundwater of most interest in the management of small waste flows
is the shallowest water, which flows through open spaces between shallow earth
materials. This shallow groundwater flow usually occurs approximately
parallel to maximum land surface gradients. It is not like an underground
river, rather it is laterally extensive like the flow of water through a
sponge.
The ability of a soil, regolith, or aquifer to hold and transmit water is
dependent on the properties of porosity and permeability. The porosity of a
medium depends on the shape, distribution, sorting, and cementation of indi-
vidual particles. Porosity is a fraction defined as the void volume divided by
the given volume of porous medium. For a medium to be transmissive, voids or
fractures must be interconnected. The coefficient of permeability for a medium
is defined as the hydraulic conductivity (K).
This important variable has traditionally been estimated by the use of a
permeameter, in which water is forced to flow through a sample and the change
in hydraulic head between the inflow and outflow points is measured. K has the
dimensions of velocity and is dependent on properties of both the fluid and
the medium. The Darcy velocity (V) is defined as
dh Q
V = -K = KS =
dl A
in which K = hydraulic conductivity (L/T)
S = —j-r- = hydraulic gradient (dimensionless)
Q = flow rate (L3/T)
2
A = cross-sectional area of flow (L )
The Darcy velocity (V) thus computed is an apparent velocity. V divided
by the porosity fraction is the average velocity of the fluid as it moves
around and between the particles of the flow medium.
c. Simplifying Assumptions
The application of flow modeling requires that simplifying assumptions be
made concerning the uniformity and directional properties of a flow system. A
medium is said to be homogeneous if its structure and composition are uniform
or vary uniformly. A medium composed of random elements is heterogeneous.
Characteristics of a medium can also be defined in directional terms. For
example, in an isotropic flow medium, the permeability is the same in all
directions emanating from any point. Conversely, in an anisotropic medium, the
XIII-B-2
-------
B. REVIEW OF GROUNDWATER MODELING TECHNIQUES
1. INTRODUCTION
This section reviews currently available techniques of groundwater
quality modeling. The review should be useful in determining which models are
applicable to planning and design of on-site sewage disposal technologies that
include land application of wastes. The information presented will assist
planners in selecting models that represent good balances between performance
and cost.
In recent years, groundwater models of all types have become increasingly
available. Scientific journals, textbooks, and the International Clearinghouse
for Groundwater Models are all important sources of this information. Some
useful references to groundwater models are listed in the bibliography of this
section.
The term "model" is used to denote an abstraction of reality in any form
or scale other than that of nature. Models range in complexity over a broad
spectrum from simple verbal models like "water flows downhill" to highly
complex numerical models that require digital computers for their operation.
Most groundwater models are used to evaluate the velocity, volume, and
direction of subsurface flow. The principal types of flow models include
physical representations, analogs, digital methods, and analytical equations.
Groundwater quality models are specialized digital flow models that incor-
porate solute-transport calculations. Since it is impossible to apply digital
quality modeling credibly unless the underlying flow system is thoroughly
understood, groundwater flow models are also examined here.
It is also possible to model groundwater flow and quality by statisti-
cally describing trends in the areal distribution of subsurface data. Des-
criptive models of this type are applicable only to the area for which there
are data, and can be refined through time as additional subsurface information
is acquired.
An analysis of seepage flow problems is presented, followed by descrip-
tions of the existing models. Finally, recommendations are made concerning the
limitations and benefits of various models with regard to small waste flows
management.
a. Description of the Seepage Flow Problem
An ubiquitous problem in small waste flows management is the environ-
mental impact of septic seepage. Under optimum site and operation conditions,
the impact is minimal. But the long-term operational effectiveness of indi-
vidual and cluster septic systems and the specific factors that cause
unacceptable impacts (and possibly health hazards) have seldom been rigorously
evaluated. Potential problems caused by surburface failures of septic tanks
include the degradation of water quality in shallow aquifers and the accelera-
tion of eutrophication processes in adjacent lakes.
To provide planners and health officials with an evaluation of the aid
that groundwater quality models can provide to the decision-making process,
XIII-B-1
-------
Direct contact should be made with agencies for which data were obtained
from the computer data bases. Often, other miscellaneous information about the
site or historic data may not have been entered into the system, and these
items may reside in paper copy files at the agency.
The organizations that register their data collection activities with
NAWDEX do not all store their data in WATSTORE or STORE!. These agencies
would have to be contacted to obtain the data.
During this data acquisition process, it is likely that other potential
sources of data and relevant information will be identified and will need to
be contacted. If after all leads have been exhausted and no data exist, well
water sampling in the study area would be the only means to acquire the
necessary background data.
XIII-A-15
-------
TABLE XIII-A-3. LIST OF U.S. EPA AND USGS OFFICES
THAT CAN PROVIDE COMPUTERIZED DATA
STORET*
Region V, STORET Representative
U.S. EPA
230 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
312/353-2061
STORET User Assistance Group
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
201/426-7792
NAWDEX**
National Water Data Exchange
USGS
421 National Center
Reston, VA 22092
703/860-6031
NAWDEX Assistance Centers, USGS, Water Resources Division
605 N. Neil Street
Champaign, IL 61820
217/398-5353
6520 Mercantile Way
Lansing, MI 48910
517/372-1910
975 W. Third Avenue
Columbus, OH 43212
614/469-5553
1819 N. Meridian Street
Indianapolis, IN 46202
317/269-7118
1033 Post Office Bldg.
St. Paul, MN 55101
612/725-7841
1815 University Avenue
Madison, WI 53706
608/263-2189
* WATSTORE data also are stored in the STORET system.
** Data stored in the U.S. EPA STORET system and in the USGS WATSTORE system
may be obtained through NAWDEX.
XIII-A-14
-------
bottles for water samples. The homeowner is notified of the results. In the
other states, water samples are collected by local health department sani-
tarians. Most local health departments send the samples to state labora-
tories.
Although there appears to be a significant amount of potentially useful
data collected, data storage methods may frustrate efforts to retrieve that
data. In the worst case, the central state laboratory is the only place where
all the water analysis records are kept, and they are filed or recorded in the
order in which the analysis was completed. It would be extremely difficult
and time-consuming to obtain this type of data, as is the case in Illinois and
Wisconsin.
Results of water sample analysis for new wells and retested wells are
maintained by local or county health departments in Michigan and Ohio, and for
retested wells in Minnesota. The ease with which the data are retrievable
will depend on how the records are filed; some will be organized by location
whereas others will be arranted by well owner's name or by date of water
analysis. Regardless of filing method, it should be possible to obtain what-
ever relevant data are available because the number of records would be
considerably less at the county level than at the state level. Well owner's
permission is not required to access water quality data for private wells from
state or local county health departments.
11. OTHER SOURCES
Only Federal and state agencies were contacted, but other sources exist.
Local agencies, including county health county heatlh departments, may be able
to provide data or information. State universities potentially are a valuable
source .of information. Many of the university engineering departments are
involved in groundwater studies, looking at environmental problems, and using
the most modern techniques for their investigations. Reports or theses
published by university members offer the advantage of scientific interpre-
tation along with data presentation. Local industries using groundwater may
have quality data. Finally, consulting firms may have gathered data in the
area during projects.
12. DATA ACQUISITION
Initial use of computerized data base systems may facilitate the data
source identification and data acquisition process. The NAWDEX data bases
offer a good starting point; these can be accessed concurrently for surface
water, water quality, and groundwater. Once the study area boundaries have
been defined, the data bases can be searched by state and county codes or by
geographic locations identified by latitude-longitude vertices. The Master
Water Data Index (MWDI) can be accessed to obtain a list of data collection
sites (for example, groundwater quality, lake water quality, stream flow,
water level, etc.) in the specified area, and the Water Data Sources Directory
(WDSD) can be used to obtain the addresses of offices from which the data may
be acquired.
Data stored in the U.S. EPA STORET system or the USGS WATSTORE system may
be obtained through NAWDEX Assistance Centers or from U.S. EPA offices. All
data stored in the WATSTORE data files are contained also in STORET. A list
of NAWDEX Assistance Centers and U.S. EPA central offices is provided in Table
XIII-A-3.
XIII-A-13
-------
§
£— 1
3
cd
13
H cu
Si S
E— 1 '|H
co e
u o
rH CJ
H 1
> CO
rH fa
H E-i
cj <;
< H
CO
£-4 >
w 3E
S o
OS U
la
w
r-H
3co
II
OH
Sd 3
H CO
H OS
CO Ed
H
0 3
•» cd
a; s
< o
CO EH
^
• rH
CN K
1 &4
> cu
O 4J
4J -H
CO rH
U -rH
0 43
43 CO
CO Oi
CJ
' t**
4-1
•rH
i-H
eg -,H
4J 43
eg eg
^4
eg
eg
s
3
t4 -0 S
CU CU -rl
4J 14 B
> 4J
4J CO
r-l >
rH -rl
CO Vi
3 Oi
CT
IH
Vi O
eu C*H
4J
CO
3
•O
CU CU
n a ca
•rH O CU
3 J3 -H
CT rH
cu eu a
V4 4J 0,
CO 3
ca > ca
00 -H
O rl IH
rH O, CU
4-1
rH IH CO
rH 0 3
CU <4H
eu
CO
4J
•o
cu
•H
0 -H
43 IH
eo cu
rH CJ
» 4-1 >H
4J Vl 14H C
CU C co O
JH T3 3 &4 eo -rl 4-1
B cj T3 eg eg IH cu
01 -i-< a M co e
4-1 eg eu 43 -iH > 4-1
3 B4JrH4-l egrH CO
ca -rH eg B 00 rH o,
OS i to -B s o '3 •£
t
M C O
Vi eu cj
CU a.
•u cu 01 ca •
cu -o a - 4-1
S 0 IH B
eg rH 43 01 -rl
VI rH B eg
CO -rH C 3 rH
OH 3 O O O.
T3 43
£ rH
14 CO 1
O 01 4J
tH 43 VI
M eg
cu X Q,
O. 4J 0)
•rl T5
00 B
B 3 CO
4-1 S CJ •
ca o -ri co
cu ej > 4J
4J 14 B
OI rS OI 01
OS 43 ca a
01
3
0"
01
IH
C3
O
ca
0 43 4-1
ca 4J cj
CO eo U
CU 4-1
B ca 43 ca
•H 43 -iH
eg IH 13
43 rH 01
CO 43 4J
rH - 4J B
CO 0 01
rH 3 8
eg 43 01 4J
4J i 5 *
B rH O,
OJ O B 01
CJ CJ >H 13
i-H
eg 1
eu ej -ri
14 O I B
co rH cu - eg
•O 4-1 00
ca 4-1 a vi
4-1 eg 43 01 O
3 4-1 rH 4J 01
eo Oi eg 14 rH
eu cu cu eg -H
Of M 43 0,i4H
S eg
O Vi
14H CU
•rl 4-1
r-l O
O CO
CJ 43
^
CU -1
43 a 4-1
a B
O O cu
4-1 CJ B
4-1
eu >. Vi
rH 43 etj •
o, a, B
S 13 01 eg
eg cu -a 'H
CO 4J IH
CJ 43 eg
rl CU 4-1 4-1
CU i-H i-H -H
4J r-H CO B
eg O 01 co
3 U 43 CO
1 ^
43 eg cu 4-1
4-1 rH 14 -H
rH 3 -H 3 rH
eg 00 3 CU CO
cu eu CT B 3
43 tl 01 0*
13 4-1 O k4
01 B rH CU
ca CU rH 00 4J
O a -H C CO
0, 4J 3 -H 3
O 14 rH
k4 CO B O4IH
O. O, O S rH
01 -rH CO 01
•< *O 4J CO 3
ca
01
o
•H
i-H
rH
• H
3
B
O •
•H >%
-" U
CO co
rH
cu o
> ca ca
CU -rl rH
•O rH CO
CU <
o -u w •a
4-1 B 01
CO 3 <4H >
O -rH rH
co CJ O
4J -0 >
eo 4-1 B B
O CO JO -iH
CO
u >, -a
cu IH W U
a oi
eg rH 43 O.
VH rH 4-1 CO
eg -H -H 3
OH 3 3 CO
•0 1 IH
CU 43 'iH 01
4J 4-1 C 43
CJ rH <0 4-1
oi co fa o
I-H eu
rH 43 4J > 01 eg
CO 43 13 4-1
4J
CO
eu
3
er
01
S
O
<
CM
(d
>,
43
"53
0)
0
4J
CO
S'
rH
43
O
0,
rH
CO
•H
CU
4J
CJ
co
43
CO
B
CO
43
4-1
1
CU
S eg
eg O 4-1
4-1 43 • CQ
eg eu •o
•o >• s
43 eg B U
BOO
< -0 -no
CU 01 r^ 4-J CU
W --I CU (0
o a u o)
*J *J S o h
•< W O hJ n)
1
X
o
B 4J
01 01
43 00
•a •
• rH T3
8 3 01
01 0 >
rH 3 rH
43 O
0 «S t»
IH CU B
O.W -H
C4H
O
43
eg •
rH CU
B
01 01
4-1 •-!
eg oo
CO 93
O
43
4-1
a. ca
01 43
4^ 4-1
B
CO O
4-> S
CO
§cg
•rH
UH eu
•H 4-1
rH CJ
O eg
CJ 43
4J 1
ca u
3 eg
S 43
a cu
H 4H
oi a
rH Ca
rH
•rH CO
•a a
• H
iH CO
rH 4J
01 43
3 0
ca
rH
eu
3
^
01
B
O
CO
B
• H
B
0
U
ca
43
4-1
•H ca
3 -rH
•0 - B
01 B -H
eg o ca -o e
•rH B CU O
rH • O 4J ca
•rH > CJ eg -rH
* 4-1 IH
•H 6 co 3 >>
43 00 3 P. O" O,
CO >» O CU cu O
r-3 X CJ "O VI CJ
IH
01
4J
co
3
rH
eg
u
•iH
o •
— 1 0)
O rH
Vi S
01 eg
4J CO
42
ca *o *J
- a • ^H
— i .a >
•H4JC "4JJ3SCW
(4 3 >» O O
iT34Jo*JC>»cau
0) fll C -U 4-*
^ C — i a O G C nj
•H -M i-H O ca 3 01
01 O 4J U i— ' O S 4*
+Jt3O? fl3U*J>
i-H 0) ,J3 * lJ -H
3-^ •- CJ >» 0) <9 4)
ca b 00,0 S •<-* £ Cu u
cuooton-rtooiO)
fli CJrHl— 1 C! UCA'Q U
c
« -
O)
41 -O
4-> -l-t
CQ i-l
s- o
*J 3
•H r-H
(Q
1
« « -f-t
a -H *j
•H M-( Cfl ^ i-l
«J O >» nj OJ
4J ^H ,-H U
•£ J3 «3
o « c u u
I-J < (fl O)
^ J3.fi'
0) s - 4J *J .a
COO) O (Q
3 !M C >> i-H
O 4H 01 J3 >»
e w So d *° "S
O •* X 3 h -H
X JC 35 s-i 0 *«
ca
0)
3
a*
-------
a
w
S
W
ta
K
H
£ri (73
Id
W H
W <
l-H H
H Cfl
> >
E-i 2
U 0
< l-H
O
£_ < 2
2
t"1
eg on
< u
04 hH
w hJ
a.
fr"^ W
)_3
^ P-
§ H
H *
H §
33
U-
0 W
§ >
CO O
H
CM
1
1
rH
rH
hH
X
CQ
H
(A
>, QJ
i-i -H
O 4-J
4J *H
TO -H
Ui -H
0 JZ
JD (0
co a
1-3 CTj
o
4_)
f— 1
to -H
J-) .Q
(t CO
•H
«
>
p
E
U -0 -H
01 OJ E
4-1 L4 -H
01 3 E
E to
TO TO TO
14 01
TO S 4-1
01
3
•O
01
u
0
eu
00
B
•H
l-H
a,
TO
CQ
CO CQ
rH l-H
TO OJ
B 3
TO
01
>. 4J
4J TO
•iH >
p-H -iH
TO 14
3 a.
0"
14
Ui 0
01 HH
TO
•a
0) OJ
U E to
00 -rl
O K 14
rH CU OJ
rH ^4 TO
rH 0 S
01 W
01
t \
CO
•o
B
C TO
•H ••
T3 -
10 rH 01
O QJ ,_^
TO '*H TO '
rH 4H t3 O
00 E 00
OJ B O TO
4-1 -H & U
TO U L4 -r*
4J a, TO jr,
t/3 C/3 C-J CJ
4J
*O CO 01 rH
01 01 J± 3 -
rH E tO 4J *C t-1 OJ
•rl -iH >% rH -rt >
UH TO 1 4-1 01 UH 01
U E U TO -H UH -H
CO 01 TO 01 UH -H Ui
4-1 "O f-XT~< OOO 4J
3 O U OJ E 'H • in
tO -rH U IH k4 ^
0) B -C 01 O dj TO O
1
U
TO
e B •
14 TO 01
O 4J
UH re TO
•H -H U4
O 0) 'H
CJ 4J B
O IQ
- e ,
U O (U
4-» U
4-1 QJ "G CA
O & B 4J
,0 erj rH
3
U V-l - V)
•O QJ M OJ
E B -H l-i
QJ 3 M
M O >» M
(U rH 4J
rQ E W IH
V-4 -fl « O.
4-1
CA
QJ
3
a*
QJ
^
B
O
QJ
CA
O
B
•H
rH
r-H
f}
n
rH CA
•H
QJ rH
4-» O
CQ CM
4rJ TO
CA B
(0
rH -H
«3 "O
l-i B
4J rH
B
QJ B
U -H
>. CA
B IH
4-> 3 QJ
G- OB
QJ 1 (0 U 3
^ CO 4J O
i-i co >, OJ
CA 0 Q rCt £
O rH >> QJ QJ
U !_ rH -0 S
QJ 4J O -H E CO
|
O
CA
•O •
* E QJ
QJ (0 "O
CC "1-1
*H E 0
4-> 3 3
• H -H rH
Z -D **H
CA CA rH •
CD -H rH tfl
rH CA QJ 4J
4-> >> 3 rH
4J l-H 3
O « W W
-Q E QJ U
CQ >H V4
CA t*H
"O CA -H UH
B g 4-> O
(U U O
W 0 E IH
rQ (H T3 E
TO
CO
C
CQ
•H
-o
E
rH
00 - •
E W CA
-H T. U
CO -H QJ
E a 3
CO CO O
, ^ ^yj f^|
E *O "0
•H E E
B «
(A r-
rQ 0 -
CQ B
rH » O
^•"•s *J
QJ B -S
4-» -H 60
CQ CO 3
4j e o
W ^— ' X QJ »• B
O4-*OECJ CQ E-r-l
•HtATO4J >,QJ4J>v
4J B3 (04Jx: C v-j E re JD
O. O "BT3 (it 4-1 . O co 4v U
QJ 1 -H>.4JO CJrH4J'H>S-lOCA
J^ QJ*4->)-lE*H>t J£CQC4J (0 rH i-i
rH*O4Jn(OU4Jj^ QJQ;COCAC^ QJ
CATO ENi>E_;CQ cArCENQJO; >. _C
TTUXeU-r-t 4-.UM T3 4-l'HrH-OXl-^
OrHr— i4->TO4JfO-HQj OCQTOCOI+H_BQJ QJ
(J TO ^ 00 rH CU .E tJ U C^ 00 4-* E *O *-*
OJ4->QJCQUj-HQ;>t4J QJOQJJ-iLH-HOEcO
p^ TO «C & O '•H *U ^aQ O 05 rH *O O O 3 W TO *O
».
E
rH -H
i-H -OP..*..
ECO CA-r-il^»OQJQJCAC.O
Sn-H QJ3OUWT.'*OCA<;
Oh 'H M-( 4-t -H *H QJ CQ
<4HQj 4JC|ce->Ur^BH
•H 4>> BQJ4JhBOO 'O
1-HU 34-lM4JOrH3l-J'a
OCQ OM-IQJ-HU.CI-HCQE
UpO OO4-)E-HCJ>4HJ=TO
1
QJ
CA 1 >t CA 1 U
OO 3 O 4-t -H JZ'HQJCA
EE'HOJ 4-JErHQJ
•H 5-1 <4-l i— ! p—iTOrHrH
rH W QJ TO rH TO CA O Oj
•H 4J U 3 J3 4J CQ
IH tj (0 i— I B CA CA
•O TO ^0 TO QJ >>4JB
in CJ t-i • 4-> E TO >-•
pH4J3.HO'O E43.HQJ
rH E O OOMH O
3 Ui 3 <-H MH
CA O *O CQ ^4
QJ 4J CO B E QJ
QS CA rH -H £0 ft
1
U
CQ
*T3
E B •
In CO CJ
<4H (0 CO
•tH -H l-i
rH >H 4->
o ey -H
U 4J E
•H
E CA •
,O QJ W
3 rH -H
w a. w
E >»
CA CQ f-H
IH CA co
QJ E
rH *H (Q
rH QJ
•H 4J Ul
IH CQ O
O 3 VH
CA
rH
QJ
QJ
E
O
W
0)
4-1
O
QJ
B
B
• H
E
•O
QJ
3
E
• H
jj
E
O
x—/
XIII-A-11
-------
The other Region V states have not implemented statewide groundwater networks,
but rather collect quality data as part of these areal projects. Therefore,
groundwater quality data may not be available for the facility planning
process unless the rural lake community happens to be located in one of these
studied areas.
In Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin the USGS district offices have taken
the lead role in collecting groundwater quality data; other agencies generally
cooperate in some of the data collection. In Minnesota, the Pollution Control
Agency conducts the statewide program, but USGS continues to perform areal
studies. Illinois is the only state with a State Water Survey, and in this
case, this agency collects most data related to groundwater.
In most states, USGS monitors well water levels through a network of
observation wells. In Ohio, the DNR operates this program, but USGS does some
of the monitoring. The Illinois State Water Survey maintains the network
exclusively in that state.
In all the Region V states except Illinois and Minnesota, the State
Department of Natural Resources is the central repository for driller's well
logs. In Illinois, again the State Water Survey maintains most of these for
water wells. The Minnesota Geological Survey is the designated organization
in that state, and their records are perhaps the most useful in comparison to
the other states in that all geological and lithological information is
verified and translated into scientific terminology and is in the process of
being computerized. Most of the other states maintain these records in manual
files. In all the Region V states, well logs are required for private wells.
Most of the state health departments are involved in some aspect of
groundwater quality analysis related to public or private water supplies.
Generally, chemical and bacterial water quality data for public water supplies
are readily available from state health departments or other designated state
agencies. At public water supplies, the intake well water is monitoried
periodically. Otherwise, the water quality records may be useful only if the
analysis reflects untreated groundwater or if the treatment does not alter the
basic quality indicators. If, after treatment, the analysis reveals high
concentrations of certain constituents, this may indicate a poor groundwater
quality at the source.
Private water supplies are under the jurisdications of state health
agencies in all the Region V states, except in Wisconsin, where, it is the
DNR, rather than the Department of Health and Social Services, that has
primacy for protection of private wells. State requirements and data
availability for residential wells differ among the states. Private water
supply related activities are summarized in Table XIII-A-2. Currently,
Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin require water testing of new wells; Ohio
has proposed a similar requirement. In these states, a safe bacteriological
sample must be obtained before the well is put into service. Minnesota law
also requires an analysis for nitrates. In most of states, the well-drilling
contractor either can submit a sample for laboratory analysis or can perform a
field determination. In Ohio, however, it is the responsibility of the local
health department to collect the water sample from new wells.
The water quality of private wells is tested also at the requests of
homeowners. In Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin, individual well owners
contact the state water laboratory, which then sends out instructions and
XIII-A-10
-------
1
as
o
[>->
a
00
rM ^J
CO E-
55 01
U "O
B -H
3
oo u n
c! 4-1 o
-4 4-1
O W
4J
• H
O
33
^
MH 4J
O -rl
>% d eg
0 O 3
C -i CT
01 4J
00 U 14
nj aj ot
•O i-H
•H
14
a.
<
U O< rH -H rH •
U 01 eg rH eg ca
eg rH eg o 3 eg u
fo eu a. oi
4-1 T4 «t-H O
0,< « T3 00 0, SJ
tu -D c a, D.
U (d U -H 3
S >* 4-1 L4 CO 00
o 4J n o O
M • -H eg 4J Ui
o
u
u
4-1
j_)
u
T3
0
O
00
J3
4-1
rH
eg
u
JS
rH
eg
§1
a
CO
o
CO
3
3
u
01
•rt
T3
3
4J
M
rH
eg
•H
CJ
01
a.
CO
CO
0
CO
eg
c
O 00 •
cj d e
0) tU rl
4-1 .a oo
eg o
4-1 O -J
•a d u
O eg -O
O — . •-!
OOCU 3
D
eg
o -a
M
rH 01
eg 00
eg
co a.
8f
a a,
JS
4-> •
rH 4-1
eg a,
U U
J=
4-1 •
rH 4J
eg a.
01 01
W 0
35
a
CO
3
CO
01
•H
•a
I 3
• eg 4->
SUM
eg eg
U CUrH
00 eg
14 CO 0
a. 01
-4 a,
01 0 CO
3 01 e/l
U rH IH •
4-1 CU 0) O
eg B 4J 01
4J eg 0) rH
CO CO 5 eg
5
a
A
4J
• rl
3
CO
CO
3
d
eg
00
•H
.£
CJ
• H
C
-C
4-1
rH 4J
eg a,
JS
4-1 •
rH 4J
ect a,
w w
x a
1 rH
O eg >v
01 U 01
C3 'rl f-
00 -4
Z 0 3
S rH CO
< CO
CJ C3
OH CO
3S 3
O rH
in eg
•H
O U
4-1 01
a.
8 m co
eo CO
1-
00 k4 to
O O k4
IH UH 11
a. u
01 01
01 rH S
4-» ex eg
eg E -<
4-> eg eg
co co a.
CJ
32
eg
4-1
O
ua
01
d
d
E
T3 •
01 CO
4J U
U CO
3 9
0 1
U eg
M <
01 04
•H CJ
•0 33
3*
cy] £i
/-N
00
•-1
JS -J
4-1 . 01
01 0) eg
X Q ^
eu
Cd
g
a
CO
CO
9
.a
4->
•r(
3
g
Q
eg
4J n
eg D
•O -H
• TJ
>> W 3
4J >H 4J
•H 01 CO
rH I4H
eg -PH rH
3 3 eg
eg cj
00 01
c co a,
•H .
O eg 4J
ca -H
CO rH
« u
3 3
•O U CO
C W 4-1
o u
U rH 01 •
eg rH eg
OS 11 rH 4J
Z U O 5J
a eg o T3
1
1
i
a
CO
CO
9
.* rH
rl eg
O 01
3 rl
4-1 eg
01
d rH
eg
01 -rl
-O O •
•H O) U
3 04 01
01 CO -H
4J -O
eg -O 3
4j a 4-1
CO eg ca
CO
CO
•=>
c
CD
d
o
u
tt
•H
3
XIII-A-9
-------
collected. For the last few years, water quality samples have been taken from
50 to 150 observation wells per year throughout the state. Good physical and
chemical quality data exist for most areas of Wisconsin. More detailed
nutrient data are obtained at their irrigation site monitoring wells. Water
levels are recorded at about 200 wells. All recent and most of the historic
data are stored in the WATSTORE system.
b. Department of Natural Resources, Madison
The Wisconsin DNR has some groundwater quality monitoring efforts
dispersed among four different sections. These program offices are
responsible for private water supplies, public water supplies, waste disposal
site monitoring, and inland lake renewal projects. The latter of these
divisions is perhaps the best source of useful data. This office responds to
requests from lake districts for technical assistance. Year-long programs at
problem lakes are conducted for collection of data so as to recommend remedial
actions. During these intensive surveys, of which there have been about 50,
groundwater quality of the area is sampled and flow direction is determined.
Well-drilling contractors are required to submit well logs and water
samples for bacteriological testing. At the well owner's request or if the
driller suspects problems based on his experience of local groundwater
quality, additional parameters may be measured such as hardness, nitrate, or
iron. The water samples are analyzed at the Wisconsin Lab of Hygiene at the
University of Wisconsin in Madison or at other laboratories certified for
bacteriological analysis. The state lab only keeps these records for four
months. Homeowners can have their well water tested for nitrate and flouride
levels by obtaining a kit for $3.00 from the Lab of Hygiene and by submitting
a water sample. At the lab, the results are recorded only in a daily log book
that provides the well owner's name, county, and city. Only if the county
health departments had applicable local codes, would any record of the results
be sent to them from the Lab of Hygiene.
There are 400,000 to 500,000 well logs on file at NCR. They are filed by
county and by date of well completion. Within one year, the logs should be
microfilmed and should be retrievable by location (for example, township,
range, and section).
10. DATA AVAILABILITY
The primary agency responsible for the collection and maintenance of
different types of groundwater data in each Region V state is presented in
Table XIII-A-1.
A few summary statements related to the availability and utility of the
existing data can be drawn from the preceding discussion. Michigan,
Minnesota, and Wisconsin have implemented statewide groundwater quality
monitoring programs. Their monitoring wells are selected so as to avoid
known, or even suspected, contamination; thus, the data should be representa-
tive of baseline conditons. Normally, laboratory and field analyses are made
for most chemical and physical properties of the water that would be needed,
except possibly for bacterial levels. This informtion can serve as a basis
against which the short-term records acquired in local or areal studies can be
analyzed. In these states, more detailed areal studies of the groundwater
system also are conducted; typically, these are performed on the county level.
XIII-A-8
-------
dissolved solids concentrations. Similar maps for each of the 11 bedrock
aquifers are being prepared as well.
8. OHIO
a. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Columbus
Ohio EPA has detailed chemical and bacteriological data for about 700
public water supply wells; data collected since 1973 have been entered into
STORE!. EPA also monitors groundwater quality at waste disposal sites (for
example, landfills, lagoons, spray irrigation sites, etc.), road salt piles,
and coal piles. As part of the U.S.EPA Underground Injection Control Program,
Ohio EPA has been compiling existing data to prepare aquifer groundwater
quality maps. As of Octtober 1980, only 3 of the 28 aquifer maps and reports
had been completed. In the reports, chemical quality data for about 15 para-
meters are presented for each well for which data are available.
Until January 1981, the Ohio EPA will continue to be responsible for
private home water supplies; at that time, however, the Department of Health
will assume most of the responsibilities. Ohio EPA has analyzed water samples
at the request of private well owners when the suspected problem was of a
chemical nature rather than bacteriological. The data are stored in a manual
filing system by homeowners' names, and well location data are scant.
b. Department of Natural Resources, Columbus
DNR is involved in the quantitative aspects of groundwater. In coopera-
tion with USGS, they maintain and collect water level data from a network of
130 observation wells. All data are readily accessible from an in-house
computer system, and requests for data are processed normally at no cost. DNR
has maintained the well log program since 1946. Records are available for
500,000 wells in paper files that are organized by county, land description,
and year, and cross-referenced with housing divisions and drillers' names. A
nominal fee is charged for paper duplicating services. DNR currently is
mapping groundwater availability by county. To date, 18 of the 88 county maps
have been prepared under this project. The agency also has limited pumping
test data and water use data for some areas.
c. Ohio Department of Health, Columbus
The Ohio Department of Health has proposed a regulation that will require
sampling of any new or altered private well for bacterial quality. The water
sample will be collected by county health department sanitarians and will be
analyzed at the central laboratory in Columbus or at other certified labora-
tories. The local health departments also will collect water samples for
analysis at the request of a homeowner. If chemical contamination of the
private water supply is suspected, then individuals from the OHIO EPA will
continue to cooperate.
9. WISCONSIN
a. U.S. Geological Survey, Madison
Through the USGS statewide monitoring program and their special county
studies, a considerable amount of background water quality data have been
XIII-A-7
-------
sodium, hardness, and detergent screening. At a homeowner's request, these
same analyses would be run for a water sample collected by a sanitarian from
the local health department. The data are maintained on the local level, and
file organization and data completeness will vary with health departments.
7. MINNESOTA
a. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), Roseville
MPCA is the lead agency for the collection of groundwater quality data. A
statewide monitoring program was initiated during 1978 to define baseline
conditions and to evaluate trends in statewide groundwater quality. At
present, 200 wells have been sampled and another 200 are scheduled for
testing; many wells are resampled. At each site, 35 to 50 parameters are
measured. In the southeastern part of the state, the Karst region, where
groundwater contamination from septic tanks and feedlots is widespread, addi-
tional nutrient and bacteriological analyses are performed. All groundwater
quality data are retrievable from the STORET data base.
b. U.S. Geological Survey, St. Paul
Groundwater quality data that were collected prior to the inception of
the MPCA program, as well as new data collected during special regional
studies, are available for about 2,000 wells from USGS. Data for the major
anions and cations and other standard physical and chemical constituents are
collected. USGS operates a network of 272 observation wells across the state
to record water levels. DNR, Division of Water, in St. Paul operates some of
these wells arid also collects water pumpage data in the state.
c. Minnesota Department of Health, Minneapolis
After a new well is drilled, the contractor must submit a well log and a
water sample to be analyzed for coliform bacteria and nitrate levels. At the
present time, it is necessary to know the unique well number, which can be
obtained from the well log, in order to match it with the quality data in the
water laboratory files. Plans have been made to computerize the well record
and quality data, which will facilitate the data retrieval process. Retesting
of private wells is done at the request of the homeowner by the community
health services departments, which generally are on the county level. Data are
maintained at this level also. The Department of Health routinely monitors the
water quality of public water supplies. Results of their chemical and bac-
terial analyses are published every few years.
d. Minnesota Geological Survey, St. Paul
The state geological survey is the repository for water-well contractors'
logs of the geologic materials encountered during drilling. Also available are
well location, well yield, water level, and aquifer used. All geologic and
location data are validated by staff geologists. About 10,000 of the approxi-
mately 70,000 well logs have been entered into a computerized data-retrieval
system; the rest reside in manual files. The Survey has prepared a groundwater
quality map of the state showing areal extents of major anions, cations, and
XIII-A-6
-------
been analyzed for nearly 85 constituents. Each year 30 to 40 wells are
sampled; some wells are sampled repetitively. The groundwater quality data,
plus the water level and pumpage figures that also are collected, are pub-
lished yearly and are entered in WATSTORE. Groundwater quality data are
available from smaller-scale studies that have been conducted in various
counties in the state. For these projects, data have been gathered for
chemical, nutrient, metal, and pesticide levels, but very rarely for bacteria.
During 1979, water levels were monitored in 138 observation wells across the
state. The quality and water level data generally are taken from observation
wells that are located more in rural areas than in urban or populated areas so
as to reflect natural groundwater quality.
b. Department of Natural Resources, Geological Survey Division,
Lansing
Other than DNR's cooperative effort with USGS, no other routine sampling
of groundwater quality is performed. They have some chemical quality data for
private water supplies. They receive requests for water analyses from the
general public when taste or odor problems, for instance, develop. At a
minimum, six parameters are measured (Ca, Na, SO,, Fe, Mn, and CO,..). The
suspected source of contamination would determine which other constituents are
analyzed. Normally, concerns relating to nitrate and bacteria contamination of
drinking water would be handled through the local health departments.
DNR maintains the drillers' well log records of which there are approxi-
mately 200,000 on file. The data are not computerized yet, as the information
that is submitted by the drillers is not standardized. The paper copy files
are arranged by county, township, range, and section. The well-drilling
contractor is required to complete a well record that indicates the well
owner's name, location of well, well depth, geologic materials, (for example,
clay, sand, gravel, etc.), and thickness penetrated, amount of casing, and
static water levels. Copies are submitted to the homeowner, health department,
and the Michigan DNR.
c. Michigan Department of Public Health, Water Supply Division,
Lansing
There are about 1,000 public water supply systems in the state. Perhaps
the only useful data that could be obtained would be for the smaller supplies
that often serve rural areas and that use untreated groundwater as their
source of drinking water. Most water purveyors, however, treat the water to
some extent. All data are computerized and are easily retrievable through the
agency.
Although the department is responsible also for private water supplies,
most of the sampling and recordkeeping is performed by local health depart-
ments. After completion of a new well, the contractor is required to chlori-
nate the water and to obtain a safe bacteriological water sample from the
well. Occasionally, a contractor also will use simple field tests to determine
water hardness and concentrations of nitrate, iron, or chlorides. If the
contractor submits water quality data along with the well log record to DNR,
then DNR would maintain this information as well. About half of the 83
counties have local health codes that require the sampling of new wells. Most
of these counties require bacteriological analysis; some counties also require
partial chemical analyses that include nitrate, iron, chloride, fluoride,
XIII-A-5
-------
These data are computerized and can be obtained from the Department of Public
Health.
d. Illinois Geological Survey, Urbana
The State Geological Survey maps the geology and mineral resources of
Illinois. It conducts research and gives information on groundwater geology as
well as on mineral resources and utilization.
5. INDIANA
a. U.S. Geological Survey, Indianapolis
At present, USGS is not monitoring groundwater quality on a statewide
basis, although plans have been made to do so. Groundwater quality data are
available for many areas in the state in which county or regional studies have
been conducted. Standard parameters include temperature, pH, specific con-
ductance, and many inorganic and organic constituents. A current project
involves groundwater sampling and water level data collection near lakes in
northern Indiana. USGS also records water level fluctuations at 80 observation
wells throughout the state.
b. Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Indianapolis
Well logs for private wells are required in Indiana. DNR maintains the
water well logs in a manual filing system that is organized by location data
(that is, county, township, range, and section of well location). Currently,
there are 250,000 to 300,000 well logs on file. Indiana DNR cooperates on USGS
projects, but they do not collect groundwater quality data as an independent
effort. Most of the groundwater work is of a quantitative nature.
c. Indiana State Board of Health, Indianapolis
Both public and private water supplies are within the jurisdiction of the
State Board of Health. Public water supplies are analyzed for chemical and
bacteriological quality in accordance with state drinking water requirements.
Private water supply quality data are limited. At a homeowner's request, the
state laboratory in Indianapolis will analyze submitted water samples. At a
minimum, nitrate, sodium, and fluoride concentrations are measured, and the
individual is notified of the results. Water quality data are maintained by
the Divison of Water and Sewage Laboratories. Chemical data are stored
indefinitely, but bacterial data are discarded after two years. Some of the
data are now being microfilmed. Considerable effort would be involved to
obtain results of private water samples because data are stored by homeowner
name within counties.
6. MICHIGAN
a. U.S. Geological Survey, Lansing
USGS, in cooperation with the Michigan DNR, has been involved in a
groundwater quality project to develop statewide, baseline data. Since about
1975, water samples have been taken from over 100 different wells and have
XIII-A-4
-------
Other observation wells are scattered elsewhere in the State. Pumpage rates
for many wells are determined also. These data are retrievable both through
the U.S.EPA STORET system and the USGS WATSTORE data bases. Data also are
published periodically. Most rural lakes are located in southern Illinois
where groundwater data are not as extensive as compared with other areas.
The Illinois State Water Survey has published a series of bulletins that
may be useful in the determination of ambient groundwater quality data in
certain areas. Bulletin 6020: Public Groundwater Supplies lists, by county,
all public groundwater supplies and provides for each well, raw water quality
data for about 25 parameters, the year the well was installed, and the strata
through which the well was drilled. The chemical quality data are considered
to be representative of background concentrations for a radius of 18 to 20
miles from the well.
b. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Springfield
There are three divisions within the Illinois EPA that are involved, to
some extent, in groundwater quality studies. One section is responsible for
public water supplies, another for groundwater quality near waste disposal
sites, and the third for groundwater quality management programs under Section
208. The State EPA will test water samples from small, public water supplies
for inorganic, organic, bacteriological, and radiological contaminants. Large
supply systems have their drinking water tested by a certified laboratory.
There are some rural, public water supply systems that do not treat the
groundwater before its distribution as drinking water; the quality data for
these systems would be useful, but all other systems report their water
quality after treatment. Data collected as part of the waste disposal site
monitoring program may be of limited utility. Groundwater monitoring wells
have been installed near landfills, surface impoundments, and injection wells
to determine long-term changes in groundwater quality. The data reflect
localized rather than natural background quality, and not many of these
disposal sites are located near rural lake communities. The 208 program office
that deals with groundwater protection is relatively new and to date has not
collected new quality data.
c. Illinois Department of Pulbic Health, Springfield
The Illinois Department of Public Health is responsible for private home
water supplies and noncommunity water supplies. It is not a state health
department requirement that chemical analysis of water samples from new wells
be performed. The health department laboratory will test water samples for
coliform bacteria and nitrate concentrations at the request of the well owner,
who can submit bottled samples for analysis. The results of the analysis are
maintained at the central lab in Springfield for four years, but the records
are stored in a numerical filing system that corresponds to the date on which
the analysis was performed. The lab does not prepare any summary tabulations
from these analyses.
Noncommunity water suppliers are establishments that serve at least 25
people (non-residents) per day and include schools, factories, road-side
taverns, and state parks. These supplies are monitored quarterly for bacteria
and nitrate; state parks' water supplies are sampled two times per month.
XIII-A-3
-------
Lakes and streams are both sources of groundwater recharge and points of
groundwater discharge. Tributary flow data and lake water levels should be
obtained. A declining lake level would indicate that the water table in the
area was dropping as well.
Soils information also is needed—soil type, composition, adsorption
potential, and many other factors will affect the groundwater resources in the
area. General knowledge of the local soils will aid in this analysis.
Additional information is required to determine the geologic conditions
in the area and the properties of the subsurface flow system. Well logs
supplemented by test drilling can be used to define and map the areal extent
of the aquifer and the confining layers. Testing methods are available to
estimate the hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer and to help determine the
horizontal flow characteristics. Water level data for wells in the area can be
used to derive water table slope information and to provide an indication of
groundwater flow direction. This is significant in delineating those areas
where the groundwater flow is toward the lake. All this information combined
can be used to indicate groundwater flow direction, velocity, and volume under
natural conditions and to evaluate the expected changes that would result from
alternative wastewater management systems.
Groundwater quality will differ from area to area in response to the
source and amount of recharge, the chemical and physical character of the
soils and rocks through which the groundwater moves, and the patterns of
movement from point of recharge to point of discharge. Groundwater quality
modeling is in a developmental stage. Of those contaminant dispersion models
that are available, all are dependent on groundwater flow models. This
explains why so much information, in addition to groundwater quality data, is
required.
3. SOURCES OF GROUNDWATER DATA
Many agencies were contacted in order to present an account of the
available groundwater data in the Region V states. The following discussion is
organized by state, and within each, the data holdings of the contacted
agencies are described. Following the state narratives, a general summary and
evaluation of the availability and utility of the data is provided.
4. ILLINOIS
a. Illinois State Water Survey, Urbana
The Illinois State Water Survey is the agency primarily responsible for
the collection of groundwater quality data in the state. In addition to the
quality data, they collect and maintain records on groundwater levels, pumpage
rates, well capacities, and water use. The State Water Survey also receives
most of the drillers' well logs. Groundwater quality mentoring is conducted on
a project basis rather than as part of a statewide network; however, the water
quality data that are available for more than 2,000 wells do provide good
coverage of the state and of the major aquifer systems. Groundwater samples
are analyzed for many physical properties and chemical substances. Bacterio-
logical data are not collected. Water levels are measured systematically at
observation wells that are clustered in two areas where groundwater is used
heavily (northern sandstone aquifer system and in the East St. Louis area).
XIII-A-2
-------
A. EXTENT OF GROUNDWATER QUALITY DATA AVAILABLE IN U.S. EPA
REGION V STATES
1. INTRODUCTION
More data are available on surface water quality than on groundwater
quality. The intent of this section is to identify the sources of groundwater
quality data for locations in Region V, to describe the nature of the
available data, and to determine the preferred method of data acquisition.
Many agencies were contacted to obtain information on their groundwater moni-
toring programs and on the extent of their data bases. More so than with
surface water data, potentially useful groundwater data are scattered amongst
several different organizations.
A wide variety of modeling techniques can be used. The model selection
process will depend largely on the availability of the model input data and on
available funding, expertise of the facilities planner, and access to appro-
priate computer facilities.
2. TYPES OF DATA REQUIRED
Various types of data that relate to or affect the groundwater resources
of an area are desirable in conducting an assessment of existing conditions
and in projecting future groundwater quality impacts from wastewater manage-
ment alternatives. Information on groundwater quality and flow patterns
integrated with some knowledge of the local hydrology and geology are neces-
sary for these evaluations.
The preservation of groundwater quality in a rural lake area is parti-
cularly important when the groundwater is both a source of lake recharge and
of drinking water. Of major concern is the contamination of groundwater by
excessive nutrients and bacteria; thus, data on the concentrations of nitrogen
and phosphorus compounds and of indicator organisms are essential. Other
chemical, physical, and biological constituents of the groundwater, such as
pH, temperature, specific conductance, and dissolved oxygen, also are useful
in the determination of ambient groundwater quality.
Because of the interrelations of ground and surface waters, surface water
quality data also can be useful in the assessment. In fact, if no local
groundwater quality data exist, then stream water quality data (obtained
during low flows after drough conditions) can be used as an indicator, to some
extent, of the groundwater quality; groundwater maintains the base flow in
streams under these conditions. An even better indicator would be water
quality data for natural springs in the area.
Several types of information can help to establish the hydrologic and
geologic characteristics of an area. Precipitation is a major source of
groundwater recharge; therefore, rainfall quantity and quality data would be
needed. Quality data for precipitation likely will become more available in
the near future because of the increased research efforts devoted to acid rain
impacts; the Wisconsin USGS district office plans to begin monitoring rainfall
quality to generate data for use in future water quality studies.
XIII-A-1
-------
CHAPTER XIII
GROUNDWATER RESOURCES
-------
REFERENCES
Berg, N. A. 1978. Unmuddying the Waters. Great Lakes Communicator 9(1).
Coote, D. R. , E. M. MacDonald, and W. T. Dickson. 1978. Agricultural water-
shed studies in the Canadian Great lakes basin; Final summary report to
Task C (Canadian Section), International Reference Group on Great Lakes
Pollution from Land Use Activities. Windsor Ontario.
Forster, D. L. 1978. Economic impacts of changing tillage practices in the
Lake Erie Basin. U.S. Army Engineer District, Buffalo NY
Logan, T. J. 1978. Maumee River Basin summary pilot watershed report.
International Reference Group on Great Lakes Pollution from Land Use
Activities.
Lake, J., and J. Morrison. 1977. Environmental impact of land use on water
quality. Final report on the Black Creek Project. EPA-905/5-77-077-B.
Miller, M. H. , and A. C. Spires. 1978. Contribution of phosphorus to the
Great Lakes from agricultural land in the Canadian Great Lakes Basin.
International Reference Group on Great Lakes Pollution from Land Use
Activities.
Stewart, B. A., et al. 1975. Control of water pollution from cropland, Vol.
I: A manual for guideline development EPA-600/2-75-026a. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Washington DC.
Prepared under Interagency Agreement with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Athens GA.
Walter, M. F. , T. S. Steenhuis, and H. P. Delancey. 1978. The effects of
soil and water conservation practices on sediment (Draft). In:
Effectiveness of Soil and Water Conservation Practices for Pollution
Control, (D. A. Haith and R. C. Loehr, eds.). U.S. EPA, Athens GA.
XII-G-14
-------
Wisconsin. At the present time, fifty million dollars has been set aside for
this program on a Federal level.
The construction of pollution control facilities at the Appoquinimink
(Delaware) and Double Pipe Creek (Maryland) projects were completed recently.
EPA has made two grants to state and areawide water quality management
agencies to support monitoring and evaluation of these two projects. The
results from these two studies will be useful for the design and selection of
future agricultural non-point pollution control.
6. SUMMARY
Practices that can reduce nutrient losses from agricultural land include
those that reduce erosion, surface runoff, and nutrient loss from fertilizer
applications and animal wastes. To be effective, these practices must be
selected to fit a specific site, properly designed and installed, and care-
fully maintained.
Use of these practices in the contributing areas could reduce phosphorus
loading to lakes (e.g., about 20% for Lake Erie) from agriculture, and would
also decrease sediment damage to fish, reduce loadings of other sediment-
associated contaminants, improve the quality of tributary water, and sub-
sequently maintain the productive capacity of the receiving lakes.
Remedial programs should be based on management plans developed by appro-
priate jurisdiction such as Section 208 water quality planning agencies.
These implementation plans should include a timetable and estimates for load
reductions and costs, and should identify the most serious contributing areas,
the most suitable institutional arrangements, and available sources of funding
and technical assistance. Planning and implementation also must involve the
public and provide for accelerated information and educational efforts.
XII-G-13
-------
^
ON
ON
FH
H
FH
K
CO
s
Z
O
FH
^
02
U
CO
Z
0
CJ
1
*
t«
FH
w
d
u
z
(d
F^
*
1
^rf*
1*3
rH
O
H
CO
IS
rH
^
1
OH
IS
CO
a
P
to
bJ
Q£
i
i— i
S
fH
CO
LO
1
1— i
X
s
CQ
.H
(— I «jt
to •&
B co
E O
< 0
i-' B
E 0
01 — 1
E 4J
•H U
•9 3
01 -O
CO OJ
05
FH
0 Z
•0
oi Z
FH
4-1
3
•D
OJ
to
M FH
OJ -H
4J CO PL,
* <
W
•o
«J
J
FH rH
2 So,
o o
H H
i
-H
•o
£
QJ
W
*O -H
QJ -C
•U O
U CO
QJ OH
U-l JC rH
4-1 OQ QJ 4-t
< .-H QJ QJ
>, pH 1-4 rH
BJ -O flj «H 4-J
QJ k4 4J 3
t.
M
CO
U
CO
,— ^
QJ G O O O O
U U") O *-* 00 u")
tJ »- O CM \O O
QJ f) CM f) i— i
/•^ r*» 0*1 O c*i ^
*8. U") CM CM t-i .—
/•••,
U
-^ 0v u*i r- r* co -3
rH
U
(0
-^ CM u"> ON O -H .3-
JD tH i-l ,«
rH
/— s
U
fl)
V., m CM CO -3 -.3 »H
fH
u
.a i-i 1-1 r-i ^
r-H
^
U
fl) O O O O O O
•O ro IT) 0s o IH "31
I— ( 1— 1 ^H f-H
/-^
U O VO tO CM -tf- *3
js S S £ £ S
U O "31 in ^o
CO
OH
g
O
c
*
•D
QJ
3
O
&
•o
w
R]
0
rH
i
*«
tn
c
o
•H
•H
•o
C
o
u
QJ
c
•H
QJ
CO
CO
i— i
#
^
•H
u
HI
1*
R!
OJ
(fi
0
j3
4-*
^
C
o
•H
•H
tQ
c
QJ
J-i
U •
0 0
&
l« **
O -H
x:
[Q ^
U *•*
M U
QJ 3t
B jj
•H LJ
to
U U
* 4J
3 >-
« *
*s» ^
QJ
•^ tj
C -H
QJ 4^
6
CM
i— i
O
CA
CO
QJ
U
X
OJ
c
•H
•o
I—I
(U
Jj
QJ
E
•H
•d
QJ
to
J=
4J
•H
5
«
QJ
U|
n
rH
r-l
^
^
B
O
•O
u
to
OJ
to
3
0)
J=
4J
M-l •
0 T3
•^ o
rH FH
Q.
01 rH
& 41
& to
3 -H
JS
U
W QJ
G 4->
•H
(U
u *o
RS QJ
IH 4-)
IH 4J
QJ -H
O C
<-3-
TT
QJ
O
rH
&.
QJ
n
•H
U
QJ
n)
G
O
CM
c
«>
4J
M
QJ
4J
(0
QJ
OO
•o
QJ
G
Or)
E
•H
T3
tL
CO
j3
4J
•H
cn
n
QJ
(Q
>-4
un
w
O
c
o
•H
4J
•c
c
o
u
QJ
C
•H
rH
QJ
to
«
.O
QJ
H
•e
QJ
CA
3
«
R)
3
QJ
g
3
i—l
*£
____,
m
4J
d
n
f*">
•H
C
QJ
4J
C
'H
Ul
QJ
O •
rH U
R)
CM •-<
XI £
*~ i^j
3 ^
I?
w >H
CO
4J
CO OJ
Si E
4-* -H
U B
OJ
11 0
>. "
OC j,
CO
•^ E
" E
o
CO 4-1
CO CO
01 CO
E -H
ro s:
\D
•O OJ CO OJ T3 rH
01 ^ to U FH CO
to u 3 E a; u
to to -H -H O
J2 3 CO >irH
-4 0
"> OJ — ' "O tu
•H CX d- -01-3
OS U g,
to S oi • -o 'S
O . 10 O 4) 3
U ^ -H v> IH "^ CO
O ^ TJ C
£ j~ tO O B -H
H 01 S "4-1
,. Si E 10
"H . 0 co S
•5 3 4-1 c *J
CO •* O 1 o 'H
co cfl -Q o, 01 ^j
.« c tu ft a, oc
•a o 4J 3 i F E
E -H 4J OJ 4-1 3 -rt
tH 4J .H B M CO E
10 W 0 CO E
» rH QJ CO U tO ffl
>> 3 B FH
4J U tu IH OJ (S,
E r-i £ 0 J= Jf
3 "3 jJ t* in
O ^ Qj 4J *J? QJ
U J_ W * £ JR
QJ u O T> j 4-*
C W RJ U rH "^ O
QJ QJ > g 4J
< S. *J «
C & 4-» W QJ
C .H - G C ^
•"H /^ O QJ O J3
__ ^^ £ 4J OJ
CO ^ * -O -H L»
QJ Cfl CN) yj QJ QJ ^
4J = «> g W T., g.
>» QJ *H ,-H CQ
W Ui O * ffl -
3 OJ 3 ^ >.
QJ ec J-> JH C *J fH
U -H [Q {J G & rH
RJ 4-1 O R) R) QJ RJ
u U 3 u
tH (j, Ui QJ O QJ
QJ .e rH QJ X! 33 c
+•> C R) &• *J 5J
3 00
O c *•* {*» •
H C W fH jj OJ
0-t ' nj O U w fO
(*^t U 4-> O
IH « - R) u O
0 Jj g rH E 4-»
**"" TO — :§ 'K ^ -o
co *^ j G O TO QJ
w *> 5 n D- c aj
0*^*7. o- c "O
U 3 QJ R) « -H
^ *r oo co
GO W *O fli C
O rH ^ ^ QJ i O
-H QJ JS Qj y ^J u
3 JS Q fc ^s
5 « * jS ftrH**^
G 'C QJ RJ C
O CU QJ rH -H
0 3 QJ §"!= S
C7N A to M-l to 0) 3
r^ co in -H X CO O
CT tO rH 01 CO Si
rH ., 01 10
TJ to ^ co
O S 3 0) J3 ,.- 4J
C, >> 4J .2 .4
V 13 *" 2 .5 .H°
B Jjj FH 01 "4H
"^ 4-1 4J 4J 4J
CO £ « 01 « 3 «
CO u 41 > = 0 0
0) 1 * "c -c o)
e * o B u S
o -1 o 0 j- j;
•H to ^ 4-1 w .B
^ *n £ 00 tO cfi
0 0) 3 -H 3 E
*4 rt 4J CO io c
E « 4J CO 4> .H
•H 4J .H to ^j JU
° 4H r-H
to B CO tu E
O E 01 FH £ 4J O
.»
-it
XII-G-12
-------
In order to overcome problems with evaluating the impact of the BMPs, a
model was developed and verified with the data collected in the watershed to
simulate various runoff conditions, and to predict the reductions obtained by
installing BMPs.
The 1,203 acre Marie Delarme Watershed, located in the Black Creek water-
shed, was gridded into 6.4 acre elements for evaluation purposes. Average
slopes range from 1 to 6 percent within the watershed elements. Predominate
soils (60 percent) are poorly drained Blount, Crosby and Hoytville silty clay
loams, with the remainder being moderately permeable Haskins and Rensselear
silt loams. The results of simulation for alternative strategies are pre-
sented in Table XII-G-5.
In general, yields of both total and available phosphorus, as well as
certain pesticides and herbicides, are highly correlated with sediment yield.
However, total nitrogen yields are much less dependent upon sediment yields.
Table XII-G-5 shows the effectiveness of different control strategies by
reductions in sediment and nutrient yields as well as unit costs. The selec-
tion of a particular strategy would depend on the ranking criteria used. For
example, Strategy 2 is the most effective from the standpoint of yield reduc-
tion, but has a high unit cost. Conversely, Strategy 5 has the lowest unit
cost, but a relatively minor total impact. Strategy 3 probably has the best
result from the standpoint of a comparatively large impact on yields at a
moderate unit cost.
5. RURAL CLEAN WATER PROGRAM (RCWP)
The RCWP is designed to help farmers control water pollution caused by
sediment from eroding cropland and animal wastes from dairies and feedlots.
Farmers in selected project areas may receive up to 75 percent of the cost of
constructing pollution control systems known as "best management practices."
These systems differ from conventional water pollution control in that no
elaborate treatment plants are built. Best management practices include such
techniques as animal waste storage facilities, grassed waterways, sediment
traps, and contour strips.
The RCWP is actually a joint effort of the EPA and three agencies under
the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The Agriculture Stabilization and Con-
servation Service is responsible for overall program administration. It
enters into contracts with individual farmers to install best management
practices. The Soil Conservation Service provides technical assistance in the
development of water quality plans and the installation of the controls. The
Cooperative Extension Service helps to acquaint farmers with the need for
agricultural water pollution control, especially as it relates to animal waste
and application of fertilizers and pesticides. EPA provides substantial funds
for the control projects and also participates in the selection of specific
best management practices to be employed.
Initially, 13 projects have been selected. They are: Lake Tholocco,
Alabama; Appoquinimink, Delaware; Rock Creek, Idaho; Highland Silver Lake,
Illinois; Prairie Rose Lake, Iowa; Upper Wakarusa, Kansas; Bonne Idee,
Louisiana; Double Pipe Creek, Maryland; Saline Valley, Michigan; Redfoot Lake,
Tennessee; Snake Creek, Utah; St. Albans Bay, Vermont; and Lower Manitowac,
XII-G-11
-------
§
(—I
H
O
I
CJ
W
g
CO
H
co
O
CJ
I
o
X
3
PQ
01
u
01
H
d
o
d
•o
o
o
00
•H
J-l
co
•rH
O
PQ
CJ
p<
•H
M
4->
U
01
W
•H
U
O
2
i i—l
3= iH
I -H
CJ 4-»
I I
CJ O
d
u
i
o
d
d
o
u
CJ
§
4J
r-.
co
o
SO
•co-
o
o
in
CM
•co-
O
O
in
CM
vo
t\
in
o
m
CM
rH
co
o
m
oo
rH
CM
O
O
CM
in
d
01
01
>-i
w
CO
o
a
cMm CM^-^J cocMoom rH
rH ^- CM
rH IT) CM
rH U-) CM
CM O"N ^^ LO LO ^D ^~^ ^^ ^^ lO ^^
CM co CM **^ to to LO O*N CM ^^ o^
COOOrHCM^d'CO»-i CMOO\O <±
r-t -^ i—)
\£)rHCMOOOCM CTsOO O
\o r*^ ^H co *~* LO r** oo CM co ^-J
co o^ i™^ c^ o^ r*^ ^^ co c> co ^™*
rH <• CM
incoinooom oooo CM
CM CM 00 i-O lO CO r*^ CO CO ^3 O^
co ^ co ^"* ^H o o c^ CM *^ r**-
01
01
4-1 iH
U
• X
U v—'
X
01 CO
^ d
(-1 01
O S
4-1 41
h en
01 01
N T3
•H -H
U
00
d
•i-t
u
-H -H M «>
U rH i— 1 T3 4-1 4-1 O
X
01
4->
^ W
n) o
A U
U
rH
0) T3 n)
CM
O
CJ
d
u
d
01
u
01
XII-G-10
-------
officials, however, must also consider the various positive and negative
economic impacts that pollution and pollution control plans have upon
agricultural producers and the economy as a whole.
The assessment of these economic impacts involves first the decision-
making process of individual farmers faced with new pollution limitations or
recommended runoff control practices, since all efforts to manage pollution
alter the decision-making options of the farmer. To insure that practices are
compatible with site conditions and with each other and commensurate with the
farmer's ability to sustain an economically viable operation, it is recom-
mended that farmers in hydrologically active areas work closely with local
planning agencies to develop water quality management plans for their operat-
ing units.
It was emphasized earlier in this chapter that phosphorus reduction
practices on agricultural land must be site-specific. It was also mentioned
that a combination of practices in some cases is needed to attain desired
effects. For these reasons and others, costs of remedial treatment will vary
from lake basin to lake basin, from farm to farm, and even from field to
field. Estimated costs for such practices, in four PLUARG (International
Reference Group on Great Lakes Pollution from Land Use Activities) agricul-
tural watersheds in Ontario, range from $15 to $58 annually per watershed
hectare (Miller and Spires, 1978). In the Black Creek, Indiana project, costs
for the initial application of practices were $146 per watershed hectare (Lake
and Morrison, 1977).
For comparison purposes, a sample calculation of costs and returns for a
farm of 250 acres for a single (average) year was calculated to evaluate
several practices (Stewart et al., 1975). Only the summary of the calcula-
tions is presented here (Table XII-G-4). Detailed tables and sources of
information are given in Stewart et al., (1975). Although some assumptions in
the calculation may not be valid for other site-specific cases, the calcula-
tion does provide a general methodology to compare the costs of various non-
point control measures.
Recent estimates of costs in the U.S. Lake Erie basin present a more
optimistic picture. An analysis of the economic impacts of changing tillage
practices in that area indicates that a significant portion of the U.S. Lake
Erie basin can be treated at minimal or no long-term cost to farmers through
the use of minimum tillage or non-till planting (Forster, 1978). Initial
capital outlay for equipment and for improved subsurface drainage on some
soils may be a deterrent.
4. BLACK CREEK PROJECT
The Black Creek (Indiana) Project began in 1972 under a Section 108 Great
Lakes Demonstration Grant from EPA, Region V. Initial efforts in the Black
Creek Project were directed toward getting needed conservation treatment on
the land to improve water quality and to develop and install a monitoring
system to evaluate the land treatment measures. Subsequently, implementation
of several best management practices (BMP) began and practical application in
the watershed was completed.
XII-G-9
-------
TABLE XII-G-3. PRACTICES FOR THE CONTROL OF NUTRIENT LOSS FROM FERTILIZER
APPLICATIONS AND ANIMAL WASTES
Nutrient Control Practice
Practice Highlights
Eliminating excessive fertilization
Incorporating surface applications
Timing fertilizer plow-down
Livestock exclusion
Livestock waste management
Reduces available phosphorus
losses; reduces fertilizer
costs; has no effect on yield.
Decreases nutrients in runoff;
no yield effects; not always
possible; adds costs in some
cases.
Reduces erosion and nutrient
loss; may be less convenient.
Usually accomplished by fencing
streambanks; often very expen-
sive.
Components may include, but are
not limited to: debris basins,
dikes, diversions, fencing,
grassed waterways or outlets,
filter strips, irrigation
systems, irrigation water con-
veyance, subsurface drains,
surface drains, storage ponds,
storage structures, waste treat-
ment lagoons, and waste utili-
zation (including the timing of
manure application).
XII-G-8
-------
TABLE XII-G-2. PRACTICES FOR CONTROLLING DIRECT RUNOFF AND THEIR HIGHLIGHTS*
*Erosion control practices with the same number are identical. Limitations
and interactions shown in Table XII-G-1 also apply to runoff control
practices.
No.
Runoff Control Practice
Practice Highlights
Rl No-till plant in prior crop residues
R17 Other practices
Contour furrows
Diversions
Drainage
Landforming
Variable effect on direct runoff from
substantial reductions to increases on
soils subject to compaction.
R2
R3
R4
R5
R6
R7
R8
R9
RIO
Rll
R12
R13
R14
R15
R16
Conservation tillage
Sod-based rotations
Meadowless rotations
Winter cover crop
Improved soil fertility
Timing of field operations
Plow plant systems
Contouring
Graded rows
Contour strip cropping
Terraces
Grassed outlets
Ridge planting
Contour listing
Change in land use
Slight to substantial runoff reduction.
Substantial runoff reduction in sod year;
slight to moderate reduction in rowcrop year.
None to slight runoff reduction.
Slight runoff increase to moderate reduction.
Slight to substantial runoff reduction
depending on existing fertility level.
Slight runoff reduction.
Moderate runoff reduction.
Slight to moderate runoff reduction.
Slight to moderate runoff reduction.
Moderate to substantial runoff reduction.
Slight increases to substantial runoff
reduction.
Slight runoff reduction.
Slight to substantial runoff reduction.
Moderate to substantial runoff reduction.
Moderate to substantial runoff reduction.
Moderate to substantial reduction.
No runoff reduction.
Increase to substantial decrease in surface
runoff.
Increase to slight runoff reduction.
R18 Construction of ponds
None to substantial runoff reduction.
Relatively expensive. Good pond sites must
be available. May-be considered as a
treatment device.
XII-G-7
-------
la
S
1«
\
*
V
*H
J
f
o
u
«•
J
n
'S
rs
^™"
2
"S
GO
*N 2
| 5 .i E °
<£ •— u. o •=
| a. E £ M
£ <= | s S
•S S = .1 a-
I ^ =s 1
•S Zl ° 2 S)
S CC at ^j ^
£ 2 t§ -
°f -o ^ '*= a.
c c *- « o
1 * i 1 S
i :| gi |
- uj o ••= |
S = g w £
•— •— 2 S
a o o uj
ad u
Q>
9 CO
\\
[ *°.
3 2
: 52
3 e
S s
( JT
CSJ
From Table 3, F
it
j$
X
X
DC
*
^
•«
J.
opriate' P, Value
5. p. 27
Z a. .2
S 1 1
uj S 2
h- O UL
CO
1
1
0
T
1
§
o
• • -O e«"
CD M c
FRIPCROPPIN
re Rotation M
Practical Optio
K < =
•5.
NG:
Topography
With Contour!
CC "O a*
= •3-5
IS!
S x 3
CD
o 3
* „ >
2t ^ o
STRAIGHT ROW f
Select From Table 4
All Systems That Hi
i —
5
HD-
Hg>-
~T
2 S
Less Than X and
for the Climate anc
t_
c
r
4
.
L
J
>
i
1
_c
£
o
1
1
.e
JJ
cl
1
i
I*
U
!i
s j
i =
3"^
=•3
i'l
fj
<
om Table 5, p
u~
to
1
'e
13
01
ell
A
)
!-s
|f
Hi '
' § "^
rt= K
0?
fc •=
i
o
•*- r^
„ fl
_ 3
1 1
o u
fing Acceptable
Four Alternatives
Nutrient or Pesticide
~ -s *
H?
J O w
cri
3
£
^ M
,
m Table 4. n.2
o
0."
•i
'>
5
teps 7 and 8
1 Proceed to S
1
vt
e
o
5.
3
i
i
M
3 a
2 e
£ u
o
n '
1?
tems That IncI
u
Q_
* ^*-
N. e
S |f
» «(
Have P Value
'S
3
" -1
•»" °
1 1
1- —
E S
0 1—
•i s
IS
i •
•w
"- d.
ll
o .2"
~ u.
If
O
d Are Suitable
'
c a '^
:«i
-< i
i5«
/~\
LT)
^ e
ON S
-< VJ
H-l
r— 1 • QJ
tH r-l )_,
0^4-'
•r-) 4J 4J £
CQ QJ ^, CU
^ W J 1
•^ ^ fi 3
ft M a o
ca o
00 S CO 13
C -i CU
d n) ^3 co
n) cu o
CO CU CU 4-1
S -H a) o
i — i CO j_) 4J
O T) CQ S-l
ft CU CU 14-1
•H ,0 a)
ri <*-i B f-<
o ^ §
CQ O O
O 14-1 CU fi
S-< OO
CU CO [fl O
CU ft TJ
00 0
s i! ^ 'H
•rl 4-1 p] 0
CQ o cd n)
cu >-i cu cu
CO ft J^ y
CO 3 J-l
n) ""i oo 3
O -H O
O 4-1
LW C « r-l
O a) cfl
*-> u .H a
VJ ^n -H
rC iH 4j -H
G *^ LJ
•H .. o
S CO Q)
O n) jj cu
-H CU o ^
PH M-l J2 4J
•
CN
O
M
1— 1
X
0)
M
3
•H
XII-G-6
-------
S
<
N
•o
!£
iZ
Land Area
•E
'S
s.
en
«
•S
•«
I
S
0.
r^
CO
* J>
u-
o
f
A
f
X
t
i. Y
n ti- — *
» °- ei
• > = ? u;
1 Il|
«J "Jo g o>
a w iZ
^-~/N
/I
5
s
1
80
V
i
u
S
C
S
i:
IS
oc il
•d
*• c
I -t^
£c§ d
s^1:
ill
uj tu u_
H
i!=
f a>
uj u! i£
c\i
*l
X |
i
res Combinationi
n Relatively
.Table 12, p. 63
»«t
= .« S
>. C <
S «M~
~B> .£• "
ll -I
*> •£ =
S * H.
•5=8,
o- e «
0) o £
= S |
= -s 1
l£5
*
r-H "I 0)
i-H r^ (-4
cfl crv nJ
O -H
•H 4-J
en « 5-1
>> • nj
,c ^ j=:
& ca o
60 4-1 tn
c cu -H
•H ,fl
4-14-14-1
O 5-1
cu co a
rH S O
cu a)
Cfl 4-1 O
C/3 4-1
13 ^^
C Td
ca . ai
CO t-l
co cfl cu
§Q) m
i-i Q)
.H cfl M
^3
o cu co
M 60 5-1
ca, )-i cu
Cfl ,0
C -i 6
O 3
co o
O IH cu -a
5-1 60 C
CU CO Cfl Cfl
0) O.
CU
4-1
C
0)
e
o
o
13
CO
•H
-S
4-1
O
60 a
a -H -a
•H 4-1 C
co a cfl
en ca
co t-i
ca
CO
cO
O
O
a) co
o
5-1 5-1
O 4-1
O 0)
4J O rH
5-c 43
cfl CU cfl
,C ^H 4->
O ^
60 CO
B
-rl
60
-H
co cu e
Cfl 4-1 O
<1) O M
14-1 ;z m
6
M
H
X
60
•H
tn
XII-G-5
-------
Erosion can usually be controlled by practices, such as conservation
tillage, which minimize raindrop impact on the soil surface and weaken the
erosive forces of the runoff by reducing its velocity and channelization.
Various investigators have concluded that, to control pollution from phos-
phorus and other sediment-associated contaminants, reducing detachment of
soil particles is the best approach (Walter et al., 1978; Logan, 1978).
For more detailed discussion of different types of practices listed in
Table XII-G-1, the publication by Stewart et al. (1975) should be consulted.
The erosion-control measures that can alleviate a non-point pollution
problem most effectively involve a logical sequence of decisions, which can be
illustrated schematically by flow charts (Figures XII-G-1 and XII-G-2). For
practice selection, it is convenient to use the Universal Soil Loss Equation
(USLE) during different steps of the process. USLE is described and its
application is demonstrated in Stewart et al. (1975), which has detailed
examples illustrating the usage of flow charts and USLE in the selection
process.
b. Runoff Control
Surface runoff from agricultural land can rarely be eliminated; however,
it can be substantially affected through agronomic and engineering practices
by changing the volume of runoff or changing the peak rate of runoff. A
change in runoff volume will generally change the peak runoff rate in the same
direction; however, peak runoff rates can be changed without affecting the
volume. Direct surface runoff volumes can be reduced by practices that in-
crease interception of rainfall by growing plants or residues. Runoff control
practices are listed in Table XII-G-2. In general, practices that control
erosion will reduce runoff, although to a lesser extent.
c. Fertilizer and Animal Waste Control
Nutrients are moved from agricultural land by leaching, direct runoff,
and in association with sediment from erosion. A number of practices will
reduce direct runoff and/or erosion and, thus, reduce nutrient transport.
These practices will usually be adequate for controlling overland nutrient
transport in addition to sediment and pesticide transport. These practices
(Table XII-G-3) reduce phosphorus losses by limiting fertilizer application to
that recommended by soil tests, reducing effects of erosion and runoff on the
transport of phosphorus, and carefully managing livestock wastes.
A similar flow chart for selecting practices for phosphorus control is
provided by Stewart et al. (1975).
3. ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
It is not practical to embark on an expensive undertaking without know-
ing, at least with some degree of certainty, the effects and the costs. This
technical manual provides information to individuals or agencies charged with
developing plans for the control or reduction of pollution from non-point
agricultural sources. The information presented in preceding sections dealt
with the technical aspects of non-point pollution control. Responsible
XII-G-4
-------
TABLE XII-G-1. PRINCIPAL TYPES OF CROPLAND EROSION CONTROL PRACTICES AND THEIR HIGHLIGHTS (concluded)
No. Erosion Control Practice
Practice Highlights
E9
Contouring
Can reduce average soil loss by 50% on moderate slopes,
but less on steep slopes; loses effectiveness if rows
break over; must be supported by terraces on long
slopes; soil, climatic, and topographic limitations;
not compatible with use of large farming equipment
on many topographies. Does not affect fertilizer
and pesticide rates.
£10 Graded rows
Similar to contouring but less susceptible to row
breakovers.
Ell Contour strip cropping
Rowcrop aad hay in alternate 50- to 100-foot strips
reduce soil loss to about 50% of that with the same
rotation contoured only; fall seeded grain in lieu
of meadow about half as effective; alternating corn
and spring grain not effective; area must be suitable
for across-slope farming and establishment of rotation
meadows; favorable and unfavorable features similar to
E3 and E9.
E12 Terraces
Support contouring and agronomic practices by reducing
effective slope length and runoff concentration; reduce
erosion and conserve soil moisture; facilitate more
intensive cropping; conventional gradient terraces
often incompatible with use of large equipment, but
new designs have alleviated this problem; substantial
initial cost and some maintenance costs.
E13
Grassed outlets
Facilitate drainage of graded rows and terrace channels
with minimal erosion; involve establishment and main-
tenance costs and may interfere with use of large
implements.
E14
Ridge planting
Earlier warming and drying of row zone; reduces erosion
by concentrating runoff flow in. mulch-covered furrows;
most effective when rows are across slope.
E15
Contour listing
Minimizes row breakover; can reduce annual soil loss by
50%; loses effectiveness with post-emergence corn
cultivation; disadvantages same as E9.
E16
Change in land use
Sometimes the only solution. Well managed permanent grass
or woodland effective where other control practices are
inadequate; lost acreage can be compensated for by more
intensive use of less erodible land.
E17
Other practices
Contour furrows, diversions, subsurface drainage, land
forming, closer row spacing, etc.
XII-G-3
-------
TABLE XII-G-1. PRINCIPAL TYPES OF CROPLAND EROSION CONTROL PRACTICES AND THEIR HIGHLIGHTS
No.
Erosion Control Practice
Practice Highlights
El
No-till plant in prior-crop
residues
Most effecitve in dormant grass or small grain; highly
effective in crop residues; minimizes spring sediment
surges and provides year-round control; reduces man,
machine and fuel requirements; delays soils warming
and drying; requires more pesticides and nitrogen;
limits fertilizer- and pesticide-placement options;
some climatic and soil restrictions.
E2
Conservation tillage
Includes a variety of no-plow systems that retain some of
the residues on the surface; more widely adaptable but
somewhat less effective than El; advantages and dis-
advantages generally same as El but to lesser degree.
E3
Sod-based rotations
Good meadows lose virtually no soil and reduce erosion
from succeeding crops total soil loss greatly reduced
but losses unequally distributed over rotation cycle;
aid in control of some diseases and pests; more
fertilizer-placement options; less realized income
from hay years; greater potential transport of water
soluble P; some climatic restrictions.
Meadowless rotations
Aid in disease and pest control; may provide more
continuous soil protection than one-crop systems; much
less effective than E3.
E5
Winter cover crops
Reduce winter erosion where corn stover has been removed
and after low-residue crops; provide good base for slot-
planting next crop; usually no advantage over heavy cover
of chopped stalks or straw; may reduce leaching of
nitrate; water use by winter cover may reduce yield
of cash crop.
E6
Improved soil fertility
Can substantially reduce erosion hazards as well as
increase crop yields.
E7
Timing of field operations
Fall plowing facilitates more timely planting in wet
springs, but it greatly increases winter and early
spring erosion hazards; optimum timing of spring
operations can reduce erosion and increase yields.
E8
Plow-plant systems
Rough, cloddy surface increases infiltration and reduces
erosion; much less effective than El and E2 when long
rain periods occur; seeding stands may be poor when
moisture conditions are less than optimum. Mulch
effect is lost by plowing.
XII-G-2
-------
G. WATER QUALITY BENEFITS OF NON-POINT SOURCE CONTROL
1. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
In cases where non-point source discharges or septic tank effluents are
largely responsible for lake eutrophication, measures involving non-sewer
control need to be considered in 201 facilities planning.
The case study of Green Lake, Minnesota, has demonstrated that septic
tanks contribute insignificant amounts of phosphorus to the lake. Therefore,
instead of eliminating the septic tanks by sewering the dwelling units around
the lake, a more cost-effective approach to improve wastewater disposal in the
area would be to correct the malfunctioning on-site systems and maintain them
properly. In addition, significant improvement of water quality in Green Lake
can be achieved only by controlling the non-point sources in the watershed.
Various control measures currently available to reduce non-point source
nutrient loads are discussed and evaluated in this section. In addition,
current literature has been consulted to summarize the control measure and the
newly established Rural Clean Water Program (RCWP) is discussed.
2. PRACTICES TO REDUCE PHOSPHORUS FROM AGRICULTURAL LAND
Practices for reducing phosphorus losses from agricultural land fall into
three general categories: (1) those that reduce erosion; (2) those that
reduce surface runoff; and (3) those that manage or control fertilizer and
animal waste. One of the most complete and useful sources of information
currently available for the selection of agricultural pollution controls is
the two-volume report jointly prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) and EPA (Stewart et al., 1975). This manual includes control measures
available for erosion, runoff, and nutrients. These two volumes are complete,
have been designed specifically for use in development of non-point source
control plans, and represent the state-of-the-art for agricultural sources.
a. Erosion Control
Table XII-G-1 (from Stewart et al., 1975) lists the principal types of
erosion-control practices and some of their favorable and unfavorable fea-
tures. It may be necessary under many conditions to apply various combina-
tions of these practices. Modifications of specific practices within these
general types affect their adaptability and also their effectives.
To be effective, erosion-control practices must be selected on a site-
specific basis (Coote et al., 1978). For example, a given practice, no-till
farming, which refers to planting in narrow slots opened by a fluted coulter
or other device without tillage, is very effective in reducing phosphorus
losses on a wide range of soil types (Berg, 1980). However, on some soils
this practice must be accompanied by improved subsurface drainage in order to
be effective. Furthermore, there are soils, such as the Paulding soil in
Ohio, on which this practice simply will not work (Logan, 1978).
XII-G-1
-------
The assumptions inherent with the simplified approach are: (1) the
validity of Dillon model and (2) the EPA phosphorus input from septic systems
at 0.1 kg/capita/yr. The assumptions associated with the Dillon model have
been discussed in a separate document. The EPA's assumption of septic system
phosphorus contribution is justified until additional data becomes available.
Data obtained from a number of freshwater lakes in rural communities in
the midwest were used to demonstrate the application of this simplified
method. In conclusion, the simplified assessment approach has been shown with
successful applications to substantiate its usefulness and validity.
XII-F-15
-------
1.0
£E
UJ
O
U.
u.
UJ
O
O
LU
I-
UJ
IT
CO
O
cr
o
x
OL
CO
O
Q.
R = 0.426exp(-0.271 q) -I- 0.574exp(-0.00949q)
80 120 160
AREAL WATER LOAD, q(m/yr)
200
240
Figure XII-F-5.
Relationship between areal, q, and phosphorus
retention, R (Kirchner and Dillon, 1975).
XII-F-14
-------
When the data are available to use Equation 6, the retention coefficient,
R can be approximated using the following empirical relationship
developed by Kirchner and Dillon (1975).
R = 0.426 exp (-0.271^) + 0.574 exp (-0.00949^) (7)
where a= areal water load to lake (m/yr)
The graphical form of Equation 7 is shown in Figure XII-F-5.
The next step in the procedure is to calculate the value of K [K =
(1-R)/Q] based on the total inflow/outflow, Q, and the retention coefficient,
R. The 45° line associated with the calculated K value is then located in
Figure XII-F-4. Drawing a horizontal line from the intersection of this 45°
line with the vertical line based on the given number of septic systems to the
vertical axis of the plot yields the total phosphorus level in the lake con-
tributed by the septic system alone.
Several regions can be divided out from Figure XII-F-4. First, when the
total phosphorus concentration in the lake, due to septic systems alone,
reaches 10 Mg/1 (which is the upper limit for oligotrophic lakes), septic
systems contribute significant loads and deserve special attention to correct
the problem. In the second region, total phosphorus concentration resulting
from septic systems lies between 1 and 10 [Jg/1. In this case, other phos-
phorus sources such as STP direct discharges and non-point sources should be
evaluated to determine the relative significance compared with septic tank
input. That is, the general approach presented in Section 3.0 should be
followed. In addition, the phosphorus input from septic system should be
verified through field work.
As with all water quality models that are the approximation of proto-
types, this simplified analysis has its limitations also. The assumption of
0.1 kg/capita/yr phosphorus input from systic systems to lakes is built in
this analysis and therefore subject to field verification under this circum-
stance. When the phosphorus concentration determined from Figure XII-F-4
falls below 0.5 pg/1, the septic system input can be considered insignificant
in contributing lake eutrophication because this low level of phosphorus
content is usually below any background phosphorus levels known in streams or
atmospheric precipitation.
5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
A general methodology of estimating the significance of on-site systems
in lake eutrophication has been presented. The approach procedures, which
include comprehensive derivation of phosphorus input from various sources, as
well as the application of this methodology have been presented using the data
from Green Lake, Minnesota.
To provide a primary assessment of on-site systems in water quality
management, a simplified method has been developed. Based on the hydro-
morphological characteristics and the number of septic systems around the
lake, the phosphorus concentration can be determined. A graphical solution
has been developed for this simplified approach.
XII-F-13
-------
100
V.
I0
co
o «?
gu
O 3
a. ° 1.0
CO
O
x
CL
0.1
1.0
K =
I-R
R = Retention coefficient
Q =lnflow/0utflow(cfs)
m3/s"' = 0.0283 cfs"1
10
100
NUMBER OF ON-SITE SYSTEMS WITHIN
300 FEET OF LAKE SHORELINE
1,000
Figure XII-F-4. Lake phosphorus concentration due to on-site systems.
XII-F-12
-------
Q = inflow/outflow rate (m3/yr)
C = total phosphorus concentration (mg/1)
R = Dillon's retention coefficient, dimensionless
Rearranging Equation 1 yields:
C = L(l-R)/f (2)
^
where f - flushing rate (yr x)
^= mean depth (m)
Equation z is the theoretical basis for Dillon's model.
Assuming that each septic tank around a lake serves each dwelling unit
with an average number of residents equal to 3, the total phosphorus loading
from each septic tank is, therefore, 0.3 kg/tank/yr based on the 0.1
kg/capita/yr rate. As a result, the total phosphorus loading rate, L in
Equation 1 can be computed from:
L = N*0.3/A (3)
where N = number of septic tanks contributing phosphorus loading to the
lake
Substituting Equation 3 into Equation 2 yields
C = 0.3 N(l-R)/p = 0.3 N(l-R) = 0.3 N(l-R) (4)
Az Vp Q
or C = 0.3NK (5)
where K = (1-R)/Q, the hydromorphological characteristics of lakes. For
each K, there is a linear relationship between the phosphorus concentra-
tion, C, which is associated only with septic tanks, and the number of
septic tanks, N, contributing phosphorus to the lake. A typical plot of
C vs . N for various hydromorphological characteristics is presented in
Figure XII-F-4.
Using Figure XII-F-4 to determine the total phosphorus concentration
in the lake can be described in the following procedure. First, the
phosphorus retention coefficient, R should be obtained. The direct
approach to derive the inflow and outflow volumes as well as the inflow
and outflow phosphorus concentrations is from the available data. As a
result, an independent means of calculating R is:
R
= i- j°P° (6)
where fy3 = outflow discharge volume (cfs)
P0 = outflow phosphorus concentration (|Jg/l)
fyi = inflow volumes (cfs)
P^ = inflow phosphorus concentrations (|Jg/l)
XII-F-11
-------
lOc
E
*v
o»
O.I
0.01
Green Lake, Minnesota
EXCESSIVE.
EUTROPHIC ZONE
PERMISSIBLE
1972-1973
— CONDITION
- 8% SEPTIC
I TANK LOAD
J I
1.0
AVERAGE
CONDITION
10% SEPTIC
' TANK LOAD
OLIGOTROPHIC ZONE
jl
10 100
MEAN DEPTH (m)
1,000
Figure XII-F-3. Dillon phosphorus loading - phosphorus retention and
mean depth relationship (Green Lake, Minnesota).
XII-F-10
-------
Phosphorus Loadings to Green Lake (in kg/yr)
1972-1973 Normalized
Observed Average Year
Outlet from Nest Lake 1,913 1,329
Direct precipitation 438 386
Immediate drainage 59 53
Septic tanks 195 195
Total 2,605 1,963
The phosphorus contribution from septic tanks was about 8% of the total
phosphorus input to Green Lake in 1972-1973. For an average year with nor-
malized flow, the septic tanks contribute approximately 10% of the total
phosphorus, due to the fact that 1972-1973 was a relatively wet year. Under
average precipitation and runoff, the non-point source phosphorus input is
greatly reduced and, therefore, the percentage of phosphorus input from septic
tanks is raised.
The Dillon model is used to evaluate the significance of on-site septic
tanks in terms of trophic status of the lake. The 1972-1973 conditions and
the normalized average year conditions are presented in Figure XII-F-3. Only
a small difference between the two conditions is seen from Figure XII-F-3
because of the logarithmic nature of the plot. The lake is mesotrophic under
both conditions. Furthermore, the portion responsible by the septic tank
input is also shown in Figure XII-F-3. The result indicates that even without
the septic tank inputs, the trophic status of Green Lake would still be
mesotrophic under both 1972-1973 and normalized average conditions. It is,
therefore, concluded that the phosphorus contribution from the septic tanks
around Green Lake is not significant as far as trophic status of the lake is
concerned. This result also implies that any significant reduction of phos-
phorus loading and improvement of trophic status has to come from control of
non-point sources in the watershed.
4. SIMPLIFIED APPROACH TO ASSESS ON-SITE SYSTEM IMPACT
The preceding sections describe the general methodology and illustrate an
example to assess the significance of on-site systems in terms of trophic
status of the lake on a whole. For preliminary assessment of the significance
of on-site systems alone, however, a simplified approach can be taken. This
simplified approach is derived and presented in the following paragraphs.
Material balance for steady-state completely mixed lake can be written
as:
Input = Output + Retained
In mathematical terms, the above balance can be expressed as:
L*A = Q*C + L*R*A (1)
where L = total phosphorus loading rate per unit area (g/yr/m2)
A = lake surface area (m2)
XII-F-9
-------
XII-F-8
-------
septic tank systems can be reduced by the number and occupancy of septic tank
systems located in suspected groundwater outflow areas. Reductions may also
be warranted if septic leachate detection surveys find few effluent plumes
emerging into a lake.
In calculating the phosphorus budget for No Action alternatives, point
source discharges, direct discharges from on-site systems, or numerous surface
malfunctions may be calculated in the range of 0.25 to 3.3 Ibs/capita/year
(0.11 to 1.5 kg/capita/year) depending on the type and frequency of discharge
and on the presence of detergent phosphorus bans.
Precipitation. A figure of 9.634 Ibs of total nitrogen/acre lake
surface/year can be used as an estimate of nitrogen in precipitation. The
estimate was the average result reported by Weible (1969) and Corey, et al.
(1967) for areas receiving approximately 30 inches of rainfall per year.
An estimate of 0.156 Ibs total phosphorus/acre/year is used to represent
total phosphorus in precipitation. This estimate, which is probably conser-
vative, lies between the number reported by Corey, et al. (1967) for soluble
phosphorus and the lower end of the range reported by Weible (1969) for the
Cincinnati, Ohio area.
3. EVALUATION OF QN-SITE SYSTEM NUTRIENT INPUTS TO LAKES
The methodology described above was applied to Green Lake, Minnesota, to
demonstrate its use in evaluating the significance of on-site systems. Green
Lake is located approximately 100 miles west of the Minnesota-St. Paul metro-
politan area (Figure XII-F-2). The Middle Fork of the Crow River, which
originates south of Belgrade, Minnesota, is the main tributary to Nest Lake
which, in turn, overflows into Green Lake.
In order to assess the water quality significance of on-site systems and
to use the Dillon model, phosphorus inputs from several sources are estimated:
• Non-point sources carried by the Middle Fork of the Crow River via
Nest Lake;
• On-Site systems;
• Direct precipitation; and
• Immediate drainage basins around the lake.
Nutrients from other non-point sources such as groundwater, detritus, water-
fowl, and sediments are assumed to be less significant than those listed above
and are not included. Both Nest Lake and Green Lake were surveyed by EPA
under the NES program (1974). Data from the NES studies are used, and pro-
cedures described in the preceding section are followed to derive the phos-
phorus loading in this anaylsis.
XII-F-7
-------
The nitrogen value of 7.5 Ibs/capita/year was derived from the informa-
tion that nitrogen to phosphorus ratios in wastewater range from 3-6 (Bartsch,
1972) and that, on the average, treatment removes only 20% of the total nitro-
gen.
When septic tank contributions of phosphorus and nitrogen compounds have
not already been quantified, initial nutrient budgets will be based on in-
formed assumptions. For any alternative other than No Action, direct dis-
charges and overland runoff of septic tank effluent will not be allowed.
Therefore, nutrient inputs from on-site systems will be by way of groundwater
transport.
Nitrogen compounds in sewage can be converted to gases, especially ele-
mental nitrogen, in septic tanks in unsaturated soil and in groundwater.
Nitrogen compounds can also be taken up by vegetation. Otherwise, nitrogen
compounds are oxidized in soil to the nitrate form which is mobile in ground-
water and may be transported to nearby lakeshores if groundwater flow is in
this direction. Gaseous transformation and uptake by vegetation are not
easily quantified and under most circumstances will be small fractions of the
nitrogen in raw wastewater. Initial nitrogen budgets may, therefore, assume
that 100% of the nitrogen in raw sewage or 9.4 Ibs/capita/year (4.3 kg/capita/
year) will reach the lake from on-site systems near the lakeshore (U.S. EPA,
1974) . The nitrogen load calculated from this assumption may be reduced by
the number of dwellings located on shorelines where groundwater is suspected
to flow out of, instead of into, the lake.
Reported phosphorus generation rates in raw household sewage are on the
order of 1.8 Ibs/capita/year (0.8 kg/capita/year) (Dillon and Rigler, 1975) to
3.2 Ibs/capita/year (1.5 kg/capita/year) (Small Scale Waste Management Project
1978). The lower value is appropriate where bans on detergents containing
phosphorus are in effect. Removal of phosphorus from effluents as they pass
through most soils is substantial. Jones and Lee (1977) state that phosphorus
removals reported in the literature were typically in excess of 95% within
short distances of soil disposal systems. Five percent of phosphorus loads in
raw household sewage would be .09 to .16 Ibs/capita/year (.04 to .07 kg/
capita/year). They also conclude that removal is controlled by the mineralogy
of specific soils, not by soil particle size as is often claimed. Phosphorus
removal is not limited to unsaturated soils. Trace amounts of clay minerals,
iron oxide, aluminum oxide and limestone, to some extent, will fix phosphorus
in aquifers.
The National Eutrophication Survey methods assume that all dwellings
within 100 yards of a lake contribute phosphorus to lakes and that the load is
0.25 Ibs/capita/year (0.11 kg/capita/year). Compared to the figures presented
above, this is a conservatively high estimate, made more conservative by the
fact that groundwater hydrology prevents some effluents from reaching nearby
shorelines (outflow of lake water to groundwater, perched lakes sealed off
from groundwater).
In calculating phosphorus budgets when local data is not available, the
National Eutrophication Survey estimate of 0.25 Ib/capita/year is a conserva-
tive first approximation for septic tank system loads. Housing counts and
occupancy rates for existing dwellings, which are needed to calculate total
load, will generally be developed for facilities plans. The total load from
XII-F-6
-------
Sampled streams usually include most of the lake watershed. Unsampled
streams, if any, and drainage from the lakeshore area also contribute
nutrients. The nutrient contribution of the unsampled portion of the drainage
area is estimated by using the average nutrient export per unit area of
sampled stream drainage and multiplying that by the area of the unsampled
portion.
For a watershed with no sampling stations and no available data to derive
nutrient loads from the watershed runoff, an approximate method can be used.
The empirical method developed by Omernik (1974) provides annual nutrient
loading rates from land such as forest, agriculture and residential. A de-
tailed description of the Omernik methodology can be found in the technical
report entitled "Review of Rural Non-point Source Models." A summary table of
mean nutrient export (kg/km2/yr) from various land covers is presented as
follows:
Total Total
Land Use/Cover Type Phosphorus Nitrogen
Agricultural 31.0 982.3
Residential 31.3 788.6
Commercial 31.3 788.6
Industrial 31.3 788.6
Open Space 14.5 449.4
Forest 8.9 440.1
Wetland 8.9 440.1
Municipal Sewage Treatment Plants. Sewage treatment plant records are
used to estimate the nutrient loads from the municipal wastewaters. Mean
daily flows for each month of sampling are averaged and the total annual loads
in Ibs/year are estimated according to the following equation:
Annual Load = (D)(F)(365)
Where D = mean daily load in pounds per million gallons
F = mean daily flow in million gallons
If a plant is not monitored or the records are not available, the
nutrient loads can be estimated on the basis of sewered population or the 1980
census figures for the municipality if no better sewered population estimate
can be obtained.
For areas not under a phosphate detergent ban, the following per capita
estimates of total phosphorus and nitrogen contributions are used:
Total P Total N
(Ibs/capita/yr) (Ibs/capita/yr)
Secondary Treated Waste 2.5 7.5
Raw Waste 3.5 9.4
The 3.5 Ibs total P.capita/year for raw waste discharge was taken from
Bartsch (1972). For treated waste, regardless of secondary treatment method,
approximately 29% of the total phosphorus would be removed leaving a con-
tribution of 2.5 Ibs/capita/year.
XII-F-5
-------
12
Annual load = 164.502 c Y S I NF.
i i
Where:
164.502 = factor including average number of days
per month and conversion of concentration
and flow to pounds per day,
c = mean nutrient concentration in the sampled stream,
malized flow for i
b{log NF - log MF}
NF. = normalized flow for i month,
Y = 10
S = (INF. . 10 b{1°8 M. ~ l°* NF} } / INF.
l i i i i
log NF = mean log normalized flow,
log MF = mean log monthly flow for year sampled,
and b = 0.11 for phosphorus, -0.06 for nitrogen.
The "Y" factor adjusts the data to account for the fact that the year in
which the samples are collected may be extremely wet or dry which has an
influence on measured contributions. The "S" factor adjusts the data to
account for seasonal flow variations.
The net result of the regression analysis and the formula is an annual
loading value generally within a few percent of the loading which would be
estimated if it were assumed that nutrient concentrations did not vary with
change in stream flow.
In analyzing data for a tributary having a point source upstream from the
sampling point, the total stream load is estimated by the method detailed
above. If the point source is located reasonably close to the sampling site,
the total annual contribution to the stream is subtracted from the total
nutrient load at the sampling site, and the difference is attributed to non-
point-source input. If the point source is located several miles upstream
from the sampling point, the scientist determining the nutrient loadings
analyzes the total stream load (including the point source), the magnitude of
the point-source load, and the nonpoint-source load of other stream systems in
the area to determine the portion of the nutrient load at the sampling site
that could be attributed to the point source and subtracted from the total
stream load. This procedure is not standardized and is performed on an indi-
vidual basis for each stream system. However, the general rule is to assume
that 100% of the point-source load eventually reaches the lake or reservoir.
XII-F-4
-------
in this section. In addition, data requirements of this methodology are
discussed in terms of data acquisition and data accuracy.
a. Tributary flows
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) surface water records should first be
consulted for the flow of tributaries. The various district offices of USGS
make estimates of the daily average flow, the flow for each month of sampling,
and i-h^. '"lit. 1.1.11. i i«... U" ..icaii il-,., £01 ^-i«_h muiti u >. j . ^ . , flowt, exjje^iv_a jariu& a
period of average precipitation and hydrology). In addition, runoff esti-
mates are made for the immediate drainage area to the lake. In cases where
tributaries are ungaged, flow estimates are based on runoff patterns at the
nearest similar gaged streams. When available, flow information can also be
available from the Corps of Engineers or power companies which maintain
records of reservoir discharge.
Errors in drainage area measurement and flow estimates vary from one
locale to another and are highly dependent on the availability of topographic
maps of the appropriate scales, the number of gaged stream sites for a given
lake system, land relief, and other factors. In general, measurements or
estimates provided by USGS for the larger drainage areas are the best, since
these are subject to less severe fluctuations in stream flow within a given
period of time.
The estimates of annual tributary and outlet flows are then used to
calculate lake hydraulic residence time or the flushing rate used in the
Dillon model.
b. Estimates of Nutrient Loadings
Tributaries and Outlets. The nutrient loadings at tributaries and out-
lets are calculated on an annual basis. Continuous monitoring, which provides
the best accuracy of the loading estimates, is usually difficult because of
the expense. In the National Eutrophication Survey (NES) conducted by EPA,
monthly sampling was performed for lakes. Normally, 14 samples were collected
from each stream. This type of data from discrete sampling is usually ade-
quate to provide a reasonable estimate of the average concentration for a
given stream for the sampled year. However, the data from any one site are
not adequate to satisfactorily estimate the relationship between flow and
concentration at that site.
NES developed a procedure to derive the annual nutrient loading by taking
into consideration the flow concentration relationships for nutrients. The
flow concentration relationship was obtained from statistical analyses of 250
sampling sites in northeastern and northcentral states. On the average, a 1%
change in flow results in a 0.11% change in phosphorus concentration and a
0.06% change in nitrogen concentration (EPA, 1974).
The method of estimating loading is to adjust the concentrations to what
they would be for each month under normalized flow conditions, and then add up
the estimated loadings for the 12 months. The annual nutrient load expressed
as pounds/year is calculated by:
XII-F-3
-------
•f
J
31-
D LU
JO
DO
CD
DCO
»-"
L
4
I
»- U
-X _
:>
coO
Si—
lo§^
— X i_ o
CCCLg-
cooy--
*§
0
4
f
CO
1 — ^
~
— .
H- _
_jO^
— ij— DI
^I< D
^cc .
CLH Jr>
Oz E
syl
XQ^
^0
1
I T
a: JJ-ri,
i— co 5^
r^ >
IM !IT O
LU^ °"
\s^- -
3 *
.J
£ CL
I U
J LU
CC
CL
^11
Q_ Q
o
CL
c
O
•H
O
3
cr
a)
jd
n)
so
C
•H
cfl
CO
o
4-1
a
X
0)
M
3
M
•H
XII-F-2
-------
F. EVALUATION OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF ON-SITE SYSTEMS IN WATER
QUALITY MANAGEMENT OF LAKES
1. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
The most common on-site disposal system for treatment of household waste-
water consists of a septic tank for primary wastewater treatment and a
leaching bed for disposal and additional treatment of the septic tank
effluent. Septic tank effluents are rich in nutrients (nitrogen and phos-
phorus), total solids, COD, BOD , dissolved ions (such as chloride, sulfates,
calcium, sodium, and potassium;, and coliform bacteria (total coliform and
fecal coliform). The most significant pollutants in terms of lake water
quality are nutrients and coliform bacteria.
Normally phosphorus is not transported from septic tank disposal fields
to surface waters. The literature pertaining to phosphorus in groundwater
indicates that there is a strong tendency for phosphorus to sorb on aquifer
materials or on soil or subsurface particles. On the other hand, significant
amounts of nitrogen can be transported from septic tank disposal fields to
surface waters by groundwater.
One of the mostvserious pollution problems related to nutrients in lakes
is eutrophication which in many cases is caused by excessive nutrient inputs.
Eutrophication, which is manifested by excessive growths of suspended and
attached algae and water plants, can have significant deleterious effect on
the beneficial uses of lakes. Excessive growths of aquatic plants (either in
open water or near shore) can interfere with the use of waters for domestic
and industrial water supplies, irrigation, recreation, fisheries, etc.
When it does occur, bacterial contamination in lakes, caused by septic
tank effluent, is limited to the shoreline of the lake due to the shore
temporal scale associated with coliform bacteria decay.
This report presents a simplified methodology for evaluation of the
significance of on-site systems in contributing water quality problems in
lakes. Near shore algal bloom and bacteria contamination are not addressed.
The analysis will be directed toward the water quality management of the open
waters in lakes. Aquatic plant nutrients considered to be the most signi-
ficant ones limiting the growth of aquatic plants in lakes are phosphorus and
nitrogen, and will be included in the analysis.
2. METHODOLOGY
The major factors and the major linkage among these factors related to
lake eutrophication are shown qualitatively in Figure XII-F-1. Because of the
complex nature of the processes relating these factors to phosphorus concen-
trations in lakes, empirical relationships between phosphorus input and plant
productivity are generally used to describe this cause-effect relationship for
lake eutrophication.
The approach recommended for this analysis, the Vollenweider/Dillon
model, has been discussed in another technical guidance report for this
project. The procedures used to apply this model are summarized and presented
XII-F-1
-------
REFERENCES
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Eutrophication Survey. 1974.
National Eutrophication Survey methods for lakes sampled in 1972 -
Working Paper No. 1. Pacific Northwest Environmental Research
Laboratory, Corvallis OR.
XII-E-6
-------
d. Septic Leachate Detection Surveys
Repeat surveys may be eligible if justified by suspected seasonal vari-
ability in on-site system usage or groundwater flow characteristics. Second
surveys will not be approved for Construction Grants funding until prior
studies are complete and results are submitted to reviewing agencies. Low
densities of emergent plumes alone will not be the basis for repeating these
surveys.
e. Leachate Plume Sampling
During initial leachate detection surveys, sampling of an average of five
plumes per shoreline mile will suffice to characterize bacterial and nutrient
inputs from on-site systems. Sampling should include surface grab samples
and, where feasible, shallow groundwater samples taken as close to the point
of plume emergence as can be ascertained.
In addition to plume samples, background samples should be collected to
allow interpretation of plume samples. An average of two locations per shore-
line mile will provide this information. Shallow groundwater samples should
be collected where feasible at shoreline locations. Two or more of the back-
ground surface samples should be collected from parts of the lake not directly
affected by wastewate'r discharges.
f. Pilot Studies
Alternative or innovative wastewater facilities funded during Step 1 on
an experimental basis may require surface water monitoring. The design of
appropriate surface water monitoring should be specified along with the design
of pilot facilities.
XII-E-5
-------
Descriptions of plant growth need only include type (macrophytes or
algae) and spatial distribution relative to effluent plumes and tributary
streams. Other information such as plant genus or species, quantitatively
measured density, nutrient content or periphyton growth rates may be collected
but will ordinarily not be eligible for added survey costs.
2. HOW MUCH FIELD DATA IN STEP 1?
In cases where decisions to sewer or not are not obvious, design of field
data collection efforts should rely on representative sampling and reasonable
extrapolation of data. The purpose for minimizing field data collection prior
to making sewering decisions is to minimize costs that are not productive.
For instance, data that is necessary to refine a decentralized alternative may
be wasted if sewers are justified by a lesser amount of data. Otherwise, if
representative sampling fails to justify the need for sewering, additional
data will seldom alter the final decision.
The following guidelines, therefore, are intended to establish a suitable
basis for making Step 1 decisions to sewer or not, and to provide sufficient
information for describing and costing decentralized facilities. To the
extent that sewering decisions can be made prior to proposing field data
collection efforts, their scope may be increased if the additional data will
be useful in designing, costing or implementing selected decentralized
systems.
a. Point Sources
Where reliable nutrient load data is not available for sewage treatment
plants discharging to lakes or lake tributaries and the data is required for
making decisions on wastewater facilities, three 24-hour composite effluent
samples taken at least one week apart (or seasonally for resorts or recrea-
tional communities) will suffice to determine average concentration. Flow, if
not known, may be measured by calibrating existing meters, installing portable
meters or using depth of flow in pipe measurements during the three sampling
periods.
b. Tributary Sources
National Eutrophication Survey methods (U.S. EPA, 1974) which include 12
monthly grab samples plus two high flow samples are sufficient for development
of nutrient budgets. Flow estimation procedures described in that publication
are also appropriate.
c. Precipitation
Monitoring nutrients in precipitation is worth the cost only when lakes
occupy a large portion of their watershed. Since both wet-fall and dry-fall
will contain nutrients, collecting equipment should be left in place con-
tinuously. The minimum period of collection needed for locally valid quanti-
fication is not established. Three to twelve months is suggested.
XII-E-4
-------
b. Special Field Data Collection for Eutrophication Studies
In the majority of cases, facilities planning decisions can be based on
the process outlined above. In some cases, however, known conditions will not
correspond to model results or the results will be especially sensitive to
assumed model inputs. Where necessary for wastewater facilities decision-
making, special field data collection will be eligible contingent on case-by-
case Construction Grants agency review. Examples of special field data
collection are:
• flow and effluent monitoring of point sources,
• bioassay to determine the limiting nutrient,
• tributary monitoring of flows and/or nutrients,
• collection and nutrient analysis of precipitation,
• repeat septic leachate detection surveys to assess seasonal variation
in effluent emergence and nutrient release,
• groundwater hydrology surveys in shoreline areas,
• detailed input/output nutrient analysis of typical lakeshore on-site
systems (not to exceed one percent of lakeshore dwellings).
c. Information on Localized Problems
Whereas whole lake eutrophication is amenable to mathematical analysis,
localized problems caused by on-site systems generally are not predictable.
They must be located and analyzed individually. Examples are direct dis-
charges, surface malfunctions that run off to nearby streams and lakes,
excessive nearshore plant growth stimulated by leachate and bacterial con-
tamination by leachate.
Surface malfunctions are normally located by sanitary surveys and aerial
photography. Other localized surface water quality problems are best located
by septic leachate surveys. Septic leachate surveys will be eligible for
unsewered lakeshores contingent upon guidance described in Chapter II-G.
These surveys may not be required for lakes where other factors dictate the
need for sewering.
During septic leachate surveys, provision should be made to collect both
plume and background water samples and to describe the occurrence of attached
plant growth. Normally, water samples will be analyzed for fecal coliform
bacteria, total phosphorus, ammonia nitrogen and nitrate nitrogen. Viruses
and toxic materials used in the home, while of potential importance, are not
readily sampled or analyzed. Their detection will not be eligible except
during surveys which the states or EPA believe to represent larger numbers of
on-site systems and for which qualified virologists and chemists are available
at competitive rates to analyze samples and to interpret the results.
XII-E-3
-------
Figure XII-E-1.
Sequential use of water quality models, field data,
and alternatives development for facilities planning
in rural lake communities.
Simplified modeling of lake
phosphorus concentration
from on-site systems
i r
< P
-------
E. GUIDELINES FOR SURFACE WATER QUALITY DATA COLLECTION IN
STEP 1 FACILITIES PLANNING
Rural lake facilities planners will face two central questions relating
to surface water data collection in Step 1:
• What type of data are necessary? and
• How much field data are enough to demonstrate need and to develop
alternatives?
Facilities planners will have to answer these questions in concert with state
(and U.S. EPA in non-delegated states) grant administrators. The decisions
cannot always be answered prior to Step 1 so that appropriate grant amendments
may be required at decision points within Step 1, such as at mid-course
meetings.
This report proposes guidelines for surface water quality data collec-
tions programs for Step 1 facilities planning in rural lake communities.
1. TYPE OF DATA
a. Use of Models
Of the various surface water quality problems caused by on-site systems,
the one most amenable to modeling is whole lake eutrophication. Using avail-
able data in conjunction with the specialized phosphorus model described in
Section XII-F, and more generalized nutrient budgeting/empirical modeling
approaches, the facilities planner can assess the magnitude and impacts of
nutrient contributions from on-site systems. From this information the
planner may be able to make presumptive decisions on the need for field data
collection.
Figure XII-E-1 shows how models can be used in determining the need for
field data collection. Key criteria incorporated in this figure are the
values in Hg/1 f°r the average concentration of phosphorus attributable to
effluent plumes entering a lake through groundwater. Below l(Jg/l, elimination
of this source will have negligible impact on lake trophic status even if the
total phosphorus load to the lake is such that the lake is mesotrophic or
slightly eutrophic, statuses which may be improved on with nominal phosphorus
reductions. Removal of 10|Jg/l phosphorus in all but the most eutrophic lakes
should result in appreciable lake water quality improvements. Pending
analysis of other considerations (cost, secondary impacts, potential uses of
the lake, etc.), a presumptive decision can be made to abandon on-site
systems. Phosphorus budgets and eutrophication analysis using available data
should be prepared to confirm results of the simplified model.
With intermediate results from the simplified model, sequential use of
models and field data collection are suggested. Following the simplified
model, effluent plumes and direct discharges may be located and sampled. Used
in conjunction with aerial photography or sanitary survey results, the surface
water data can be used to develop alternatives for remedying problems caused
by on-site systems. With appropriate modifications of the nutrient budget,
alternatives that remedy on-site system problems can then be compared with no
action and wastewater export alternatives.
XII-E-1
-------
Wischmeier, W. H. 1975. Control of water pollution from cropland: Manual
for guideline development.
Wischmeier, W. H. 1976. Control of water pollution from cropland: An
overview.
Wischmeier, W. H. 1976. Use and misuse of the universal soil loss equation.
J. of soil and water conservation.
XII-D-24
-------
REFERENCES
Dillon, P. J. 1975. The Application of the phosphorus-loading concept to
eutrophication research. Scientific Series No. 46. Canada Centre for
Inland Waters.
Dillon, P. J., and W. B. Kirchner. 1975. The efffects of geology and land
use on the export of phosphorus from watersheds. Water research.
9:135-148.
Dornbush, J. N., J. R. Anderson, and L. L. Harms. 1974. Quantification of
pollutants in agricultural runoff. EPA-660/2-74-005.
Loehr, R. C. 1974. Characteristics and comparative magnitude of non-point
sources. J. Water Pollution Control Fed. 46(8):1849-1872.
McDowell, T. R. , and J. M. Omernik. 1979. Non-point source—stream nutrient
level relationships: A nationwide study supplement 1: Nutrient map
reliability. EPA-600/3-79-103.
Midwest Research Institute. 1976. Loading functions for assessment of water
pollution from non-point sources. EPA-600/2-76-151.
Omernik, J. M. 1976. The influence of land use on stream nutrient levels.
EPA-600/3-76-014.
Omernik, J. M. 1977. Non-point source—stream nutrient level relationships:
a nationwide study. EPA-600/3-77-105.
Patalas, K. 1972. Crustacean plankton and the eutrophication of the St.
Lawrence Great Lakes. J. of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada,
29:1451-1462.
Patalas, K. , and A. Salki. 1973. Crustacean plankton and the eutrophication
of lakes in the Okanegan Valley, British Columbia. J. of the Fisheries
Research Board of Canada. 30:519-542.
Stewart, B. A., et al. 1975. Control of water pollution from cropland, Vol.
I: A manual for guideline development EPA-600/2-75-026a. U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Washington DC.
Prepared under Interagency Agreement with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Athens GA.
True, H. A. 1976. Non-point assessment processes. Planning models for
non-point runoff assessment; documentation and users' manual. U.S. EPA
Region IV. Ambient Monitoring Section, Surveillance Analysis Division,
Athens GA.
U.S. EPA. 1976. Areawide Assessment Procedures Manual, Vol 1. EPA-600/
9-76-014.
Uttormark, P. D., J. D. Chapin, and K. M. Green. 1974. Estimating nutrient
loadings of lakes from non-point sources. EPA-660/3-74-020.
XII-D-23
-------
B
o 01
3
U 4J
0) (0
jj g
" O
SPTT°S papuadsng
snjoijdsona
co
>•> u
u n
•H m
i-l 01
n) o
3 o
&&
uOfSOJa-3u3nrFP3S
1
2
Z W
O H
as
H O
CQ
>• c<
H -3
M >
J
M O
pa H
H .J
^1 a
ex. a
Ov
I
&
o
r-t
O
T)
X
sassaDOJj aopjjnsqns
•H h
4J 0)
a a.
a o
en h
CM
juanrqoqEO 3-[dT3TnH
O I-l
a u
38BJ3AV tEuoseas ^o -[Bnuuv
01
T>
o
w 31 5
M Cv, o
2 W <
PL,
Z
XII-D-22
-------
AGRUN Model
AGRUN, a revised version of the RUNOFF block of the Stormwater Management
Model (SWMM), can be used to estimate runoff quantity and quality from agri-
cultural lands. This model has not been tested extensively and is not con-
sidered appropriate for use in predicting nonpoint nutrient loading rates for
rural lakes.
5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Empirical and deterministic models designed to estimate non-point source
sediment and nutrient loads from rural watersheds were examined and evaluated.
Empirical models are calculation procedures based on analysis of data or a
certain known relationship among variables. Regression equations, such as the
Universal Soil Loss Equation and the nationwide nutrient statistics by
Omernick (1975), are examples of empirical approaches. Deterministic models
are analytical frameworks based on fundamental processes such as hydrologic,
hydraulic, and biochemical process encountered in the watershed. Thus, deter-
ministic models are based on a rigorous representation of known relationships.
In the empirical model category, the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE)
developed by the U.S. Deparment of Agriculture (USDA), has been used widely in
estimating annual sediment export from a watershed and subsequent sediment
loads in streams draining the watershed. When estimating non-point nutrient
loads, Omernik's empirical formulas and maps, which use the EPA National
Eutrophication Study Program, prove to be appropriate for rural lake planning
of water quality management. Omernik's formulas offer simplicity, and are
applicable for preliminary estimates of non-point nutrient loads where little
local information is available. Therefore, Omernik's empirical approach will
be recommended for use in water quality planning for rural lakes. Until local
data are acquired through field monitoring and sampling, Omernik's formulas
and maps are the best tools available for nutrient load estimates. In
studies of 35 lakes in rural midwest communities, Omernik's approach has been
proven successful, with adequate accuracy, in cases where little or no data
was available for non-point nutrient loads (EPA 1979, 1980).
A number of deterministic models suitable for rural non-point nutrient
load estimates were examined. Table XII-D-9 presents a brief summary review
of these models. A more comprehensive summary for these models can be found
in Huber and Heaney (1980). Deterministic models require more data input and
greater effort to perform the calculations than do empirical models. There-
fore, a more detailed output can be obtained from deterministic models
although they are not recommended for use in preliminary planning of rural
lake communities. Instead, empirical models are generally used to assess the
severity of non-point source contributions. This is not to say that deter-
ministic models are not useful, but their use should be limited to cases where
significant expenditures of monies are at stake for nutrient control.
XII-D-21
-------
Availability Factors. The fraction of total pollutants available for
immediate use by aquatic plants, etc., is also difficult to estimate. For
nitrogen, MRI suggested an upper limit of 15%, reported a value of 8%, and
used 6% in their completed example. For phosphorus, values of 5% and 10% were
reported, and 10% was chosen for use in their completed example.
Non-point Source Pollutant Loading Model (NFS)
The Non-point Source Pollutant Loading Model (NFS), designed and
developed by Hydrocomp, Inc. for U.S. EPA for use specifically in planning
studies, is compatible with existing water quality impact models. It is
comprised of sub-programs to represent the hydrologic processes in a watershed
including snow accumulation and melt, and the processes of pollutant accumu-
lation, generation, and washoff from the land surface. The hydrologic com-
ponents, derived from the Stanford Watershed Model, have been tested pre-
viously and verified on numerous watersheds across the country. The sediment
and pollutant transport components have been tested on several urban and rural
watersheds for selected pollutants and are currently undergoing additional
testing. The simulation of pollutants is based on sediment as an indicator.
Erosion processes are simulated and the resulting loads are converted to
pollutant loads by user-specified "potency factors" that indicate the pollu-
tant strength of the sediment for each pollutant simulated. Documentation of
the model, complete with a user manual and program listing, is available from
EPA in a report entitled "Modeling Non-point Pollution from the Land Surface,"
EPA-600/3-76-083.
The NFS Model can simulate non-point pollution from a maximum of five
different land used in a single simulation run. Pollutant accumulation and
removal on both pervious and impervious areas is simulated separately for each
land use. Output from the NPS Model is available in various forms, from every
15 minutes during storm events to yearly summaries including the mean,
maximum, minimum, and standard deviation of each variable. The most useful
form for the rural lakes non-point nutrient input is the yearly summaries.
As the NPS Model continuously simulates hydrologic processes in a de-
tailed fashion, extension data in terms of land use, soil type, watershed
morphology, and water quality conditions are required. In most cases, this
type of data base may not be available. In addition, the required effort and
computing cost may be prohibitive such that the NPS Model is cost-effective
for only a limited range of rural lake water quality planning projects.
Agricultural Chemical and Transport Model (ACTMO)
The Agricultural Chemical and Transport Model (ACTMO), developed by the
Agricultural Research Service (ARS), USDA, consists of three components simu-
lating hydrology, erosion and sedimentation, and interactions of agricultural
chemicals (fertilizers and pesticides) with the soil-water-plant systems. A
separate model was used for the hyrologic component and the USLE was modified
to estimate erosion/sedimentation. Documentation of the model is available
from ARS-USDA in a report entitled "ACTMO: An Agricultural Chemical Transport
Model," ARS-H-3. The hydrologic model of ACTMO has been tested on several
watersheds, the sediment model has been tested in two locations, and the
chemical transport model is essentially untested (U.S. EPA, 1976). Thus, due
to its untested nature, the ACTMO will not be totally suitable for prediction
of nutrient loads from non-point sources.
XII-D-20
-------
MRI Loading Functions
Using either the USLE equation or TRUE model, the final step in devel-
oping a series of pollutant loading functions based on sediment delivered to
the stream is correlation of pollutants to sediments. A direct ratio of
pollutants to sediments can be determined by field sampling. An alternate
approach is a correlation between pollutants and in situ soil along with a
factor to correct for the enrichment process (Midwest Research Institute,
1976). A series of loading functions were developed by MRI in the following
form:
Y(P)E = aY(S)ECs(P)rp (3)
where: Y(P)_ is pollutant, P, load to streams;
a is the dimensional constant;
Y(S)_ is sediment loading to the stream;
Ci
C (P) is the concentration of pollutant, P, in the soil profile; and
s
r is the enrichment ratio for pollutant, P.
The MRI document strongly suggests the use of local data for deriving the
loadings. In cases where local data are unavailable or where only a first-cut
analysis is desired, procedures are proposed for parameter estimation. The
following data apply to the pollutant-associated parameters of selected load-
ing functions.
Soil-Pollutant Concentrations - C (P) of Equation 3. Soil sampling data
are the most reliable and current data available for estimating C (P). If
local data are not available, an approximate estimate can be obtained from
Figures XII-D-4 and XII-D-5.
Enrichment Ratios - r in Equation 3. Estimation of enrichment ratios
without the benefit of lorally derived data requires extrapolation at its
best: only a few experimental studies have reported measured values and no
theoretical approaches to prediction have been attempted. Table XII-D-8 gives
typical values for nitrogen and phosphorus.
TABLE XII-D-8. SUMMARY OF EXPERIMENTALLY DETERMINED ENRICHMENT RATIOS*
Ratio
Land use Nitrogen Phosphorus
Fallow
Rye winter cover crop
Manure spreading
Agricultural
3.88
4.08
4.28
3.35
2.00
2.70
1.59
1.56
1.47
1.47
--
"
MRI (1976).
XII-D-19
-------
TABLE XII-D-7. RURAL NON-POINT SOURCE POLLUTANT MATRIX
Pollutants
Source Sediment Nutrients
Construction
Clearing, grubbing,
pest control X X
Rough grading X
Site restoration X X
Agriculture
Seed bed preparation X
Chemical preparation X X
Cultivation X
Harvesting X
Concentrated feeding X X
Grazing X X
Silviculture
Access X
Harvesting X X
Reforestation X X
Intermediate growing practices X
Hydrologic Modification
Channel modification X
Impoundments X
Dredging X X
Maintenance facilities X
nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, BOD, TOC, and acid drainage are calculated
and reported in pounds. Excluding acid drainage, the remaining common para-
meters are calculated from sediment, litter (leaves, twigs, etc.), and animal
and fowl droppings. These pollutant loadings are calculated by inputting a
pollutant to delivered sediment ratio.
This is a probabilistic process using a random number of generators to
obtain a better representation of highly variable conditions. This process
can easily be made into a pure deterministic process by using mean values and
zero deviations in the input data.
Data input to this model includes subarea acres, plot size, one-to-five
soil types, percent slope and slope length ranges, one-to-five crop management
practices, one-to-five erosion control practices, load factors for sediment
and litter, animal and fowl counts, and loading factors for acid drainage.
XII-D-18
-------
Drainage Area Sediment Delivery
(square miles) Ratio
0.5 0.33
1 0.30
5 0.22
10 0.18
50 0.12
100 0.10
200 0.08
The above estimates, however, should be tempered with judgment and considera-
tion of other factors, such as texture, relief, type of erosion, the sediment
transport systems, and areas of deposition within the watershed.
4. DETERMINISTIC MODELS
Essentially all nonurban, non-point source loads enter surface or ground-
water through the overland or subsurface flow paths of the hydrologic cycle.
(Notable exceptions include man-made diversions and sewers for highway drain-
age or other specific hydraulic structures.) Non-point source problems must
be evaluated with these facts in mirid. Stated simply, non-point source
pollutants result from the interactions of hydrologic cycle and land use.
Land use and the associated environmental conditions determine the type, form,
concentration, location, quantity, and time distribution of pollutants within
a given watershed. Numerical modeling approaches evaluate non-point source
loads by establishing two key relationships: the impact of land use on
pollutant type and the impact of the hydrologic cycle on pollutant transport.
The relationship of land use categories to potential pollutants is given
in Table 7. The noted relationships do not imply that water quality problems
automatically follow--it only shows those pollutants that have a known poten-
tial for becoming a water quality problem as a result of the land use.
The hydrologic cycle provides the transport of pollutants to surface or
groundwater. They will be carried with the sediment of overland flow or
dissovled in both overland and subsurface flow. The physical-chemical
processes determining distribution of pollutants between particulate and
dissolved forms are poorly understood, and are even more difficult to describe
mathematically to the point where the theory can be incorporated into non-
point source loading models. Partitioning phenomenon must be recognized,
however, for interpreting measured data and predicting loads via models.
Models have been designed to assume that some pollutants are attached to (or
behave as) sediment; other models attempt to partition pollutants between the
two transporting media.
EPARRB Model
The rural non-point source model, TRUE, developed by True (1972, 1976) is
based upon the USLE. This planning model is primarily of the periodic type
and can be run for a single month or any group of consecutive months not
exceeding one year. It is essentially nonhydrologic since the calculating
mechanism is the USLE. The model calculates tons of soil loss, sediment
delivery to water bodies, and sediment downstream migration. Forest litter,
XII-D-17
-------
TABLE XII-D-6. VALUES OF SUPPORT-PRACTICE FACTOR, P
Practice
1.1-2
Land slope (percent)
2.1-7
7.1-12
12.1-18 18.1-24
(Factor P)
Contouring (P )
Contour strip cropping (P )
R-R-M-M1 SC
R-W-M-M
R-R-W-M
R-W
R-0
Contour listing or ridge
planting
Contour terracing (P )2
No support practice
0.60
0.30
0.30
0.45
0.52
0.60
0.30
30.6/Vn
1.0
0.50
0.25
0.25
0.38
0.44
0.50
0.25
0.5/Vn
1.0
0.60
0.30
0.30
0.45
0.52
0.60
0.80
0.40
0.40
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
0.45
0.45
0.68
0.90
0.90
0.30 0.40 0.45
0.6/Vn 0.8/Vn 0.9/Vn
1.0 1.0 1.0
1 R = rowcrop, W = fall-seeded grain, 0 = spring-seeded grain. M =
meadow. The crops are grown in rotation and so arranged on the field that
rowcrop strips are always separated by a meadow or winter-grain strip.
2 These P values estimate the amount of soil eroded to the terrace
channels and are used for conservation planning. For prediction of off-field
sediment, the P values are multiplied by 0.2.
3 n = number of approximately equal-length intervals into which the field
slope is divided by the terraces. Tillage operations must be parallel to the
terraces.
The soil loss equation computes the annual soil loss rate from the water-
shed but does not directly predict downstream sediment yield. Sediment yield
equals the gross erosion minus what is deposited en route to the place of
measurement in streams. The sediment yield can be estimated by computing the
gross erosion and multiplying it by a so-called "sediment delivery ratio."
Many factors influence the sediment delivery ratio. Although no general
equation for watershed delivery ratios has been derived, several relationships
provide guidelines for approximating them. Rough estimates of delivery ratios
can be made from the following tabulation (Wischmeier, 1975, 1976):
XII-D-16
-------
TABLE XII-D-5. GENERALIZED VALUES OF THE COVER AND MANAGEMENT FACTOR, C, IN
THE 37 STATES EAST OF THE ROCKY MOUNTAINS^-Continued
Line Crop, rotation, and management3
No.
Productivity Level2
High Mod.
C value
Base value: continous fallow, tilled up and down slope 1.00
1.00
WHEAT
38 W-F, fall TP after W (2) 0.38
39 W-F, stubble mulch, 500 Ibs re (2) .32
40 W-F, stubble mulch, 1000 Ibs re (2) .21
41 Spring W, RdL, Sept TP, conv (N & S Dak) (1) .23
42 Winter W, RdL, Aug TP, conv (Kans) (1) .19
43 Spring W, stubble mulch, 750 Ibs re (1) .15
44 Spring W, stubble mulch, 1250 Ibs re (1) .12
45 Winter W, stubble mulch, 750 Ibs re (1) .11
46 Winter W, stubble mulch, 1250 Ibs re (1) .10
47 W-M, conv (2) .054
48 W-M-M, conv (3) .026
49 W-M-M-M, conv (4) .021
1 This table is for illustrative purposes only and is not a complete
list of cropping systems or potential practices. Values of C differ with
rainfall pattern and planting dates. These generalized values show approxi-
mately the relative erosion-reducing effectiveness of various crop systems,
but locationally derived C values should be used for conservation planning
at the field level. Tables of local values are available from the Soil
Conservation Service.
2 High level is exemplified by long-term yield averages greater than
75 bu. corn or 3 tons grass-and-legume hay; or cotton management that
regularly provides good stands and growth.
3 Numbers in parentheses indicate number of years in the rotation cycle.
No. (1) designates a continuous one-crop system.
4 Grain sorghum, soybeans, or cotton may be substituted for corn in lines
12, 14, 15, 17-19, 21-25 to estimate C values for sodbased rotations.
Abbrevations defined:
B - soybeans
C - corn
c-k - chemically killed
conv - conventional
cot - cotton
f - fallow
m - grass & legume hay
pi - plant
w - wheat
we - winter cover
Ibs re - pounds of crop residue per acre remaining on surface after new
crop seeding
% re - percentage of soil surface covered by residue mulch after new
crop seeding
70-50% re - 70% cover for C values in first column; 50% for second column
RdR - residues (corn stover, straw, etc.) removed or burned
RdL - all residues left on field (on surface or incorporated)
TP - turn plowed (upper 5 or more inches of soil inverted, covering
residues)
XII-D-15
-------
TABLE XII-D-5. GENERALIZED VALUES OF THE COVER AND MANAGEMENT FACTOR, C, IN
THE 37 STATES EAST OF THE ROCKY MOUNTAINS1
Productivity Level2
Line
No.
Crop, rotation, and management3
Base value: continous fallow, tilled up and down slope
CORN
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
COTTON4
27
28
MEADOW
29
30
31
SORGHUM,
32
33
SOYBEANS4
34
35
36
37
C, RdR, fall TP. conv (1)
C, RdR, spring TP. conv (1)
C, RdL, fall TP. conv (1)
C, RdR, we seeding, spring TP. conv (1)
C, RdL, standing, spring TP. conv. (1)
C, fall shred stalks, spring TP, conv. (1)
C(silage) W (RdL, fall TP) (2)
C, RdL, fall chisel, spring disk, 40-30% rc(l)
C(silage), W we seeding, no-till pi in c-k W (1)
C(RdL) - W (RdL, spring TP) (2)
C, fall shred stalks, chisel pi, 40-30% re (1)
C-C-C-W-M. RdL, TP for C, disk for W (5)
C, RdL, strip till row zones, 55-40% re (1)
C-C-C-W-M-M, RdL, TP for C, disk for W (6)
C-C-W-M, RdL, TP for C, disk for W (4)
C, fall shred, no-till pi, 70-50% re (1)
C-C-W-M-M, RdL, TP for C, disk for W (5)
C-C-C-W-M, RdL, no-till pi 2d & 3rd C (5)
C-C-W-M, RdL, no-till pi 2d C (4)
C, no-till pi in c-k wheat, 90-70% re (1)
C-C-C-W-M-M, no-till pi 2d & 3rd C (6)
C-W-M, RdL, TP for C, disk for W (3)
C-C-W-M-M, RdL, no-till pi 2d C (5)
C-W-M-M, RdL, TP for C, disk for W (4)
C-W-M-M-M, RdL, TP for C, disk for W (5)
C, no-till pi in c-k sod, 95-80% re (I)
Cot. conv (Western Plains) (1)
Cot. conv (South) (1)
Grass & Legume mix
Alfalfa, lespedeza or Sericia
Sweet clover
GRAIN (Western Plains)4
RdL, spring TP , conv (1)
No-till pi shredded 70-50% re
B, RdL, spring TP, conv (1)
C-B, TP annually, conv (2)
B, no-till pi
C-B, no-till pi, fall shred C stalks (2)
High Mod.
C value
1.00 1.
0.54 0.
.50
.42
.40
.38
.35
.31
.24
.20
.20
.19
.17
.16
.14
.12
.11
.087
.076
.068
.062
.061
.055
.051
.039
.032
.017
0.42 0
.34
0.004 0
.020
.025
0.43 0
. 11
0.48 0
.43
.22
.18
00
62
59
52
49
48
44
35
30
24
28
.26
.23
.24
.20
.17
,18
.14
.13
.11
.14
.11
.095
.094
.074
.061
.053
.49
.40
.01
.53
.18
.54
.51
.28
.22
(Continued)
XII-D-14
-------
£
c/a
: FACTOR, 1
DEEPNESS1
TOPOGRAPHIC
:NGTH AND s
in
- a
Z OH
23
< m
EROSION EC
ilNATIONS C
o u
rH
w fa
J U
< c.
> to
Q
1
X
W
-J
03
H
HI
11
J3
4-1
a
rH
CLI
a
rH
O
o
o
00
o
so
o
m
o
o
eo
o
CM
o
0
in
CM
tl
O»
o
rH
to
O NO
CM CM
O 0
rH CM
O O
r- CM
-H CM
O O
SO r-
rH CM
O O
in o
rH CM
o o
•J- 00
o o
CM SO
rH rH
O O
rH in
rH rH
O O
O CO
O O
ON CM
O I-H
O O
00 O
O rH
O O
r- ON
o o
0 0
in
O rH
O
O
00
CO
o
eo
o
CO
o
l-H
CO
o
00
CM
O
m
CM
o
en
CM
O
o
CM
O
ON
O
O
CO
0
CM
in O r-
0 rH rH
•^ CM
in ON m
O O rH
ON CM
••3" OO CO
0 0 rH
-* r-. CM
J- 0
O O rH
O CM CO
o o o
in en NO
co m f-
O 0 0
co r— so
CO -3- NO
o o o
ON O -9
CM "31 m
o o o
so so so
CM CO -3-
O O O
CO O 00
CM en eo
000
rH CM CM
O O O
eo >3* in
rH rH CO
CM CO .3-
ON 00 ON
•-< CM CO
I-H CM CO
in CM rH
1-1 CM CO
sj- o r-
rH CM CM
CM f^ *3"
l-H l-H CM
in
ON "31 ON
O rH rH
CM
oo CM r-
O rH rH
r~ ON
NO ON -3-
0 0 I-H
00 SO
in oo CM
O O rH
oo o r-
v3" r~ ON
O O O
Vf O ON
co in NO
o o o
o
SO OO rH
r*« en o
m r— ON
rH 1.O O
in so oo
-» so o
3" -31
SO CO O
CM CO -»
CM oo in
CM CM CO
00 CO OO
rH CM CM
so o in
I-H CS CM
CO SO O
l-H rH CM
o
ON CM r* CM
O O O
ON CO NO
t-H rH
CO ON O
SO 00 CM
I-H
00 0
research
alume II.
V
jr. e
4-1 -iH
MH "0
; range <
discuss*
£ 01
4-1 L4
CO
•c
C 01
0 0,
0) —1
U 14H
c o
o
4-1 4J
CO -H
re extrapo!
r irregulai
UH
CO IA
C
a 01
£5
3
^4 -^
0) T5
14H J3
O
0 B
JS
e 4->
co
-C B
4-1 -H
CO
01 U
M 01
0
I-H m
in
CD OJ
01 rH
rH 01
iven for
theref<
CCT5
B
to co
01
3 CO
rH 4-1
C5 CO
> -o
XII-D-13
-------
TABLE XII-D-3. INDICATIONS OF THE GENERAL MAGNITUDE OF THE SOIL-ERODIBILITY
FACTOR, K*
Texture class
Sand
Fine sand
Very fine sand
Loamy sand
Loamy fine sand
Loamy very fine sand
Sandy loam
Fine sandy loam
Very fine sandy loam
Loam
Silt loam
Silt
Sandy clay loam
Clay loam
Silty clay loam
Sandy clay
Silty clay
Clay
Organic
<0.5%
0.05
0.16
0.42
0.12
0.24
0.44
0.27
0.35
0.47
0.38
0.48
0.60
0.27
0.28
0.37
0.14
0.25
matter
2%
0.03
0.14
0.36
0.10
0.20
0.38
0.24
0.30
0.41
0.34
0.42
0.52
0.25
0.25
0.32
0.13
0.23
0.13-0
content
4%
0.02
0.10
0.28
0.08
0.16
0.30
0.19
0.24
0.33
0.29
0.33
0.42
0.21
0.21
0.26
0.12
0.19
.29
XII-D-12
-------
ONVS 3NIJ AM3A -•• niS iN30JJ3d
XII-D-11
-------
u
0)
t^
4J
•H
o
VJ
QJ
I
C
•H
tfl
W
a)
c
aj i-l
60 n)
n) S
!-i 0)
QJ 4J
ro
X
0)
S-l
3
60
•H
XII-D-10
-------
Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE)
Many non-point source models estimate pollutant loads by relating pol-
lutants to sediments, thus reducing the problem to calculating erosion and
sedimentation. The USLE, an analytical tool used for soil conservation plan-
ning by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), has had widespread use and
successful testing over the years. Because of this, many non-point source
loading models have been built around it. Future development of non-point
source loading models will likely continue the inclusion of USLE and varia-
tions of it. The following paragraphs present an abbreviated description of
the method. For more information about the method, several publications
(Wischmeir, 1975, 1977; U.S. EPA, 1975) on this equation and its use should be
consulted.
The Equation is:
A = RKLSCP (2)
where A is the estimated average annual soil loss in tons/acre and the other
terms are defined as follows:
R = the rainfall and runoff erosivity index. Its local value can
generally be obtained by interpolating between the iso-value
lines of Figure XII-D-3;
K = the soil-erodibility factor. The value of K for the area of
U.S. EPA Region V can be obtained from Figure XII-D-4 if ade-
quate soil survey information is available. Values for specific
soils are also available from state and local offices of the
Soil Conservation Service. Gross approximations based primarily
on soil texture can be obtained from Table XII-D-3;
LS = a dimensionless topographic factor that represents the combined
effects of slope length and steepness. Values of LS for uniform
slopes are given in Table XII-D-4;
C = the cover and management factor. C values range from 0.001 for
well-managed woodland to 1.0 for tilled, continously fallow
land. Generalized values for illustrative purposes are given in
Table XII-D-5. Local values can be computed by a procedure
published in Agriculture Handbook No. 282, or computed values
may be obtained from the Soil Conservation Service; and
P = the factor for supporting practices. Its value can be obtained
from Table XII-D-6. With no support practices, P = 1.0.
Factors R, K, and LS are relatively fixed for a given location. Their
product is the average annual soil loss that would occur without any vegeta-
tion or erosion-reducing practices. Multiplying this soil loss rate by appro-
priate values of factors C and P reduces it for effects of the cropping sys-
tem, cultural management, and supporting control practices, so that the com-
plete equation predicts average annual soil loss for specific cropland situa-
tions .
XII-D-9
-------
vv-
lllOJ»t HH>O
fM OMV NIOOk
i*
21
V k;
5 i
*s!
1
i ii
a ; = ?
1
B ' p
i
i
i \ \
i >
™ *i
u '-.
•HP
«rp
M
;
r •
II EH
n
H
)
i 8
n i r
f
i
f j
i 1
f
t(
TP
i
li:
il
n
t
V
s
fj
1
y
1
kj
i
S"*
'
R
i -
l
j
i
j
j
1 '
j _
•
II '
j
i
|-
i
!
§
.
?
!
!
!
:
m
•
•
•
*
:
•
I
i
k
«
K
!
j
K
M
i?
•*:
i
j!
„, «
i *
i
|:
J:
3 :: i'
V
•!!
i1
j?
•Ii
•!>
\l
1!
i?
i1
ji
i ~
jf
9
O
CM
|
a
i
M
M
X
01
M
3
bO
•H
C=H
z
S
<
H#
»
<
S
z
£
4
Z
<
AND Ml
Z
O
<
w
£«
IA
^
W
i
a
o
S
5
o
i
z
o
<
z
«
S
o
w*
~
2
X
a
z
<
*•
z
2
<
«
2
w
O
w
v«
O
wn
fll
M»
<
$
w
3
0
*n
1
z
o
«
"^
o
™
•
0
S
<
u
u*
3
o
z
•^
^
OVfffAl
^
•
a
I
o
«
o
«
<
o
if
If
V
ill
I 4 i 1
S j i i
&PI
fll '
y'J u L
ti
ijh
j i i
> i
? if
•: i
tl 1*
• * !
XII-D-8
-------
tlKO4V» fftlOlMSOlMOMI
v (nvoiuioiu iv tot MV
«
• •i"
*tMII
k.-a
m
i:
t:-
M
t
. 1;
" fc
I ?
• t
5 11
1
5 •*•
fl '
j .
!
K ; •
B
»
i
j
!
n
»
j
i
t
i n
; a
! l
li
III
1 HI
I i
ii'
1 1 i
p
|
1 ; l
I
•
•
•
.
^
i
•
fl
I
i •
1 1
i !
s J2t:t
§i
i
1
h
U
t
f
5 lb
i M
i il
• S B
' I
E||
3 :: =
if! .
f
jl i
|]
" §P
1*
!
1.
is
I
•j -
I
1
•II
1
1 I-'
T s
i
qp li
!'(! !
i
• i -i •
p r
ll '•
1 •
. S
•
i -
i :
i
1 'l
1 \
ll Sfl 45
iDl W t
I ^!
• J"
il3
r'>i -
3 j i :
ii i
1 IS L
i!
ftiiim
\zjaretnzz
j 2
j s
J.
r-t
1
Q
1
l — I
1 — l
x
0)
t.
M
3
M
•H
fe
O
£
£
4
•
4
3
2
4
2
4
M«
O
4
Z
O
4
;
O
i
0
4
2
^
0
J
„
J
O
6.
X
>M
O
4
Z
4
M
3
r
V*
•
4
f
w
•
S
O
2
5
«.
Z
O
M
^
V
0
e
4
u
w«
3
a
z
4
.*
4
«
>
0
»
•
a
k
p
0
u Z
u O
5 -
o
o
o
111
n
i i
aq n n
M
il
a <
jj
•S
n
XII-D-7
-------
NES Study
The results of the empirical relationships described, for the most part,
are based on data collected from a small number of drainage areas within
specific geographic regions. To estimate nutrient runoff from land use based
on coefficients developed entirely, or in part, from the literature, most
investigators presented a range of values and, in some cases, midpoints or
averages. Generally, these ranges are quite wide and the midpoints, or other
indicators of central tendency, do not vary appreciably from one land use type
to another.
The Non-point Source - Stream Nutrient Level Relationships conducted by
the US Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), (Omernik, 1976, 1977;
McDowell and Omernik, 1979), under the National Eutrophication Survey Program,
was designed to investigate the relationships between "macro" drainage area
characteristics (particularly general land use) and nutrient runoff in streams
with the means of estimating nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorus) runoff based
on land use and related geographic characteristics. This afforded a unique
opportunity to look at land use—nutrient loadings--eutrophication relation-
ships on a national scale, and to develop a range of coefficients to reflect
geographical or regional differences.
The results of the analysis are presented in Figures XII-D-1 and XII-D-2
for phosphorus and nitrogen, respectively. The results were compiled from
data collected in 586 nonpoint source watersheds. Land use types are classi-
fied as >90% forest, <90% - >75% forest, >50% forest, >75% agriculture, and
>90% agriculture.
Some important conclusions can be derived from Figures XII-D-1 and
XII-D-2: good correlations were made between general land use and nonpoint
source nutrient concentrations in streams—streams draining agricultural
watersheds had, on the average, considerably higher nutrient concentrations
than those draining forested watersheds; inorganic nitrogen made up a larger
percentage of total nitrogen concentrations in streams with watersheds having
larger percentages of agricultural land; and, differences in nutrient loads in
streams of various land uses and differences in nutrient concentrations were
not as pronounced. Differences in magnitude between the relationships of
concentration to land use and export to land use appear to be due mainly to
differences in areal stream flow from different land use types, and, to a
lesser degree, to differences in the mean precipitation patterns and mean
slope of study areas (Omernik, 1977).
Figures XII-D-1 and XII-D-2 give planners and managers a spatial picture
of nutrient levels that can be attributed to non-point sources in their geo-
graphical areas of interest. They will also provide logical, easy-to-use,
general predictive tools for use in areas where more precise sampling data are
unavailable.
As can be seen also from Figures XII-D-1 and XII-D-2, data requirements
of Omernik's analysis are relatively simple. The major input of the analysis
is land use in acres within the watershed. No information on soil charac-
teristics or slopes is required. The calculated nutrient loadings represent
the average values on an annual basis.
XII-D-6
-------
Dillon's and Kirchner's Phosphorus Export Estimates
Based on a study of 34 watersheds in southern Ontario, as well as an
extensive review of the literture on phosphorus export, Dillon and Kirchner
(1975) proposed a two-dimensional export scheme that employed land use and
geology as the factors on which to estimate phosphorus export from a watershed
(Table XII-D-2).
TABLE XII-D-2. RANGES AND MEAN VALUES FOR EXPORT OF TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
(mg m~2 yr '*) (AFTER DILLON AND KIRCHNER 1975)
Geological Classification
Land Use Igneous Sedimentary
Forest
Range 0.7-8.8 6.7-18.3
Mean 4.7 11.7
Forest and Pasture
Range 5.9-16.0 11.1-37.0
Mean 10.2 23.3
Agriculture
Range 17-113
Mean 46
Urban
Range 110-1,660
Mean 1,050
Insufficient data, however, were available for agricultural and urban water-
sheds in igneous geologic settings to derive reasonable values for these two
land use types.
Caution has to be exercised when using Dillon and Kirchner's phosphorus
export estimates because these figures were derived from local data in
southern Ontario. In addition, the ranges of phosphorus export are so wide
that a good figure for a specific case becomes relatively subjective.
Dillon's and Kirchner's mean values for export of total phosphorus offer
a straight-forward and easy estimate of phosphorus loadings to lakes. Data
requirements for the use of these values are even less than that for the
previous method (Equation 1). The only information required is the approxi-
mate land use and geological classification. This method is relatively crude
but may be suitable for many preliminary calculations of non-point source
loads.
XII-D-5
-------
M
5
w
w
u
1— i
H
CO
§
Q
Z
/-s
U
w
CO
3
OS
o
OH
O
K
QJ
0
Z
o
M
B
CO
M
e
z
o
fH
§
u
0-
rH
1
Q
1
rH
a
CO
H
00
CT>
^
01
•o
• H
01
3
e
,__i
o
e
o
01
u
c
V
V
K
4-1
e
4J
CJ
4-1
•O
e
c
-H
00
•H
Ll
Ll
•*~
4J
•H
U d
U
OH
00
w.
?
<£
rH
/— s (fl /-\
10 oo in
r-l O r-l OX
- * . £
c . C 01 JiiEQiHUO4J^
CfiC/aO U3 SKl~3W(-)rH&% -H N
,— < MH *J
rH -H
(0 00 &
u ^ d w
<; -i-i o co -H
CO 60 00 l-l rH £3
S3 O TO OJ Jrf -H
i-l U *-> O
4> O O i-l -H J3
X -rH W «r* )H JJ
4-J Jt 4-i 4J *O
•o c
G - OJ 00 *H
-H G *J d ^ C hJ
•H 0) -H QJ «H
OJ W OJ i—i 00 W CO >.
OC C M Jtf *O d vOJb
« O J-> O 3 O ON
D w 3 li tn w o
M -H 4-> -H - -H
S * •— ' «O j; rH *J
"o re a; J3 w
CJ •• *J W 4J » ^ 00
•p a o -H « c -i-»
ffl O cfl O > O ^4->
QJ W U CS -H W QJ U
(H -H O -H *J -H •*-> OJ
»£2 HH^£ itS
^
00
iD uO • if} NO
m co o r* o
OlDrHQJrH rHCOCOftA^OO
i -i ooi socor-iiooovo^H
fsi « U S Hrf r^ r^ S f™i f^ ^^
. ft) .
O O > O O
to
ffl
*J
10
Q
rH
CO
c
o
•H
4->
•H
•o
(U
d
(U
M
QJ
UH
Q U
•H 0) -H
SSS £§££ S°
co c c
CUCUCLi CLi CLi PLI W WO
OOO OOOOJ B ^
\OsOvO vOvO^D^ CMOrH
CNCsICM O1CSJCM3 r-'-Jffl'^s
O ON CO
333 333 CO -H-HON
•rl rH (0 fcJ CO
"S "w "a "S'X'wiarS'SSS
HHH HHHil-J^E^O
(0
*o
a
00
u
V
•a
01
ft
cs vo oo r*> oo oo ON
r— CO CO -J" IT) ID lO
tO iD ""J ON ON iO
^P^J Q55vo(M(rHooCTNrv.ioc*jr*-
. > t i i i i .... i
O ^ "*T "•? in PO 00 O O ^ *^ *T O
O O O M O
CM
^
r-
rH
x_/
o
rH
rH
•H
a
•x
XII-D-4
-------
Patalas' Empirical Formula
Patalas (1972) proposed Equation 1:
T _,„ Ad EcC Ao(a)
Lp = ES x — + + 0.15 Lpa —^^-
Ao Ao Ao
where: Es is the_export coefficient of phosphorus from the soil in grams
total P m 2 of land drainage per year;
Ad is the area of the land drainage in m2;
Ao is the area of the lake in m2;
EC is the per capita discharge of P reaching the lake in grams total
P/capital/yr;
C is the basin population;
Lpa is the total P loading for the next lake upstream in g m 2 yr 1;
Ao(a)/Ao is the ratio of the surface area of the next lake upstream
and the lake considered; and
0.15 is obtained by assuming that 85% of the phosphorus supplied to
the upstream lake is retained in that lake.
Equation 1 was used to calculate loadings for the Great Lakes, and good agree-
ment between the estimated and measured loadings was found for Lake Erie and
Lake Ontario (0.98 vs. 1.06 g m 2 yr 1, and 0.86 vs. 0.65 g m 2 yr 1, respec-
tively) .
There are, however, a number of potential problems inherent in this model
that, at present, impose severe restriction on its use (Dillon, 1975). First,
the export coefficient, E , is only approximate at best and its use is subjec-
tive. A better estimate By Dillon and Kirchner (1975) is presented in a later
section. Second, the coefficient EC, the per capita discharge of phosphorus
reaching the lake, may be one of the most difficult values to determine. A
number of literature values are presented in Table 1. The range of figures
used in the past was quite broad, and careful attention must be given to
picking a suitable figure in the future (in view of the fact that phosphorus
detergents have been banned in most of the Great Lakes states in recent
years). Finally, Patalas' choice of 0.85 as the retention coefficient is
reasonable for the Great Lakes. This figure may need to be modified for other
lakes.
Despite these limitations, the appeal of Equation 1 is its simplicity.
With coefficients E and E properly derived or determined, a rough estimate
of phosphorus loading to a lake can be obtained from Equation 1 with minimum
data requirements. Other data required are lake and basin morphology which
usually can be obtained readily.
XII-D-3
-------
available data. Other empirical models are calibrated by applying the model
to the measured data and calculating the parameters and coefficients that
appear as unknowns in the equations. Empirical models will yield better
results when tested against data from areas having the same properties as
those associated with the calibration data set. Indeed, the major weakness of
empirical approaches is their inability to accommodate changes in the water-
shed. Calibration of deterministic models consists of estimating the physical
constants applicable to the system under study. Testing is inherent because
deterministic formulations are developed from well understood, thoroughly
tested theory.
This review evaluates the various empirical and deterministic non-point
source models available and capable of predicting non-point sediment and
nutrient loads from the watershed. It is a means by which lake managers are
provided useful guidance for selecting and applying an appropriate non-point
source model that addresses the non-point source pollution to lakes, and a
better understanding of model capabilities and limitations of different
problem settings.
2. SCOPE OF REVIEW
This review is limited to rural non-point source models and does not
include urban non-point models.
In rural lake planning of wastewater management facilities, a common
water quality problem is lake eutrophication: sediments and nutrients
(phosphorus and nitrogen) in the water. These are the main concern of this
review.
In assessing the non-point source loads, the time scale of a potential
problem (in this case, eutrophication) will determine the time scale of the
modeling technique. The general time scale of eutrophication and, therefore,
of sediments and nutrients is "year." That is, non-point source loads of
sediments and nutrients are generally estimated on an annual basis. There-
fore, models with fine resolutions to calculate sediment and nutrient loadings
for individual storms are not included in this review. This does not imply
that non-point loads from individual storms are not important; on the con-
trary, storm runoff from agricultural lands contributes most of the annual
loads of pollutants.
While field sampling is, of course, an integral part of the rural non-
point source loads assessment, it is not addressed in this review. Instead,
another technical document prepared under a different subtask describes the
applicability as well as the requirements of surface water sampling for rural
lake area facilities planning process.
3. EMPIRICAL METHODS
This section describes the empirical relationships developed in the
1970's for predicting non-point nutrient loads to lakes (Patalas 1972; Patalas
and Salki, 1973; Dillon and Kirchner, 1975; Omernik, 1976).
XII-D-2
-------
D. REVIEW OF RURAL NON-POINT MODELING TECHNIQUES
1. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
Pollution emanating from man's activities on the land ("nonpoint" pollu-
tion) has been a major factor in the degradation of water quality in many
lakes.* Nonpoint pollution differs from that of individual discharge and
municipal sewage treatment discharge ("point" sources) in that the former
results from a large number of diffuse sources often producing significant
quantities of pollution.
Traditionally, estimating non-point loadings to lakes is done by gauging
and sampling runoff from the watershed. Sampling has its advantages because
it is derived from local conditions such as land use, rainfall, and other
watershed characteristics. In larger watersheds where insights into
mechanisms and cause-effect relationships may be required, a more intensive
data base is desirable. Monthly sampling and, particularly, continuous samp-
ling are time-consuming and may be prohibitively expensive. Sampling programs
are not likely to-be cost-effective for preliminary planning of water quality
management programs for rural lake areas. For detailed planning and decision
making, sampling will be appropriate in some cases but normally only where
non-point source control measures will be implemented.
A widely used alternate approach is an estimate of non-point loadings
using empirical or deterministic modeling techniques. Empirical models are
based on analysis of data or a certain known relationship among variables.
Regression equations, such as the Universal Soil Loss Equation and the nation-
wide nutrient statistics by Omernick (1975), are examples of empirical models,
whose data bases determine their ability to satisfy the needs of any given
task. However, solving problems outside the range of the original data base
is risky and should be done with full recognition of the possible errors.
Deterministic models are analytical frameworks based on fundamental
processes such as hydrologic, hydraulic, and biochemical processes encountered
in the watershed. Although the mathematical expressions of these processes
are, at best, approximations of the prototype, they are characterized by a
rigorous representation of known relationships. Deterministic models usually
provide highly detailed output but require significantly more input. For many
non-point source studies, the current lack of understanding of rural watershed
dynamics and the apparent inability to measure all the necessary parameters
make such models almost impossible to use. Nevertheless, progress has been
made in non-point source assessment for nonurban areas as a result of the 1972
Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (PL 92-500). Under
Section 208 of the Amendments, several modeling methodologies have been
developed to assess the magnitude of nonpoint pollution from rural areas.
Applying either of the above modeling approaches to estimates of non-
point source loads requires calibration and testing (or verification). For
some empirical models, such as regression equations, calibration and testing
are trivial tasks since the exact form of the model is determined by the
* Atmospheric precipitation is one of the major non-point sources contri-
buting to lake eutrophication in some cases.
XII-D-1
-------
Vollenweider, R. A. 1968. Scientific fundamentals of the eutrophication of
lakes and flowing waters, with particular reference to nitrogen and
phosphorus as factors in eutrophication. Technical report
DAS/CSI/68.27. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD), Paris, France.
Vollenweider, R. A. 1975. Input-output models, with special reference to the
phosphorus loading concept in limnology. Schweiz Z. Hydrol. 37:53-83.
Vollenweider, R. A. 1976. Advances in defining critical loading levels for
phosphorus in lake eutrophication. Mem. 1st. Ital. Idrobis. 33:53-83.
Vollenweider, R. A. , and P. J. Dillon. 1974. The application of the phos-
phorus loading concept to eutrophication research. NRCC No. 13691.
National Research Council Canada, NRC Associate Committee on Scientific
Criteria for Environmental Quality.
Welch, E. B., and M. A. Perkins. 1979. Oxygen deficit-phosphorus loading
relation in lakes. J. Water Pollution Control Fed. 51:2823-2828.
XII-C-31
-------
Lung, W. S., R. P. Canale, and P. L. Freedman. 1976. Phosphorus models for
eutrophic lakes. Water Res. 10:1101-1114.
Lung, W. S., and R. P. Canale. 1977. Projections of phosphorus levels in
White Lake. J. Envir. Eng. Dis., ASCE. 103:663-676.
Ohle, W. 1056. Bioactivity production and energy utilization of lakes.
Limnol. Oceanogr. 1:139-149.
Piwoni, M. D. , and G. F. Lee. 1975. Report on nutrient load-eutrophication
response of selected south-central Wisconsin impoundments. Report to
U.S. EPA, Environmental Research Lab., Corvallis OR.
Rast, W. , and G. F. Lee. 1978. Summary analysis of the North America (U.S.
portion), OECD eutrophication project: Nutrient loading—lake response
relationships and trophic state indices.
Rawson, D. S. 1939. Some physical and chemical factors in the metabolism of
lakes. Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci. 10:9-26.
Rawson, D. S. 1955. Morphometry as a dominant factor in the productivity of
large lakes. Verb. Internat. Verein. Limnol. 12:164-175.
Sakamoto, M. 1966. Primary production of phytoplankton community in some
Japanese lakes, and its dependence on lake depth. Arch. Hydrobiol., 62:
1-28.
Sawyer, C. N. 1947. Fertilization of lakes by agricultural and urban drain-
age. J. New England Water Works Assn. 61:109-127.
Thomann, R. V., D. M. DiToro, R. P. Winfield, and D. J. O'Connor. 1975.
Mathematical modeling of phytoplankton in Lake Ontario. I. Development
and verification. EPA-660/3-75-005.
Thomann, R. V., R. P. Winfield, D. M. DiToro, and D. J. O'Connor. 1976.
Mathematical modeling of phytoplankton in Lake Ontario. II. Simulations
using Lake I Model. EPA-660/3-76-065.
Thomann, R. V., R. P. Winfield, and D. S. Szumski. 1977. Estimated responses
of Lake Ontario phytoplankton biomass to varying nutrient levels. J.
Great Lakes Res. 3(1-2):124-131.
Thomann, R. V., and J. S. Segna. 1980. Dynamic phytoplankton-phosphorus
model of Lake Ontario: Ten-year verification and simulations. In:
Phosphorus management strategies for lakes (R. C. Loehr, C. S. Martin,
and W. Rast, eds.). Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Ann Arbor MI.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. An approach to a relative
trophic index system for classifying lakes and impoundments. National
Eutrophication Survey Working Paper No. 24, Pacific Northwest Environ-
mental Research Lab., Corvallis OR.
XII-C-30
-------
REFERENCES
Carlson, R. E. 1974. A trophic state index for lakes. Contribution No. 141.
Liranological Research Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis MN.
Carlson, R. E. 1977. A trophic state index for lakes. Limnol. Oceanogr.
22:361-369.
Chapra, S. 1975. Comment on: "An empirical method of estimating the
retention of phosphorus in lakes," by W. B. Kirchner and P. J. Dillon.
Water resources research. 11:1033-1034.
Chapra, S. C., and S. J. Tarapchak. 1976. A chlorophyll a_ model and its
relationship to phosphorus loading plots for lakes. Water resources
research. 12:1260-1264.
Dillon, P. J. 1974. A critical review of Vollenweider's nutrient budget
model and other related models. Water Res. Bulletin. 10(5):969-989.
Dillon, P. J. 1975. The phosphorus budget of Cameron Lake, Ontario: The
importance of flushing rate to the degree of eutrophy in lakes. Limnol.
Oceanogr. 19:28-39.
Dillon, P. J. , and F. G. Rigler. 1974. A test of a simple nutrient budget
model predicting the phosphorus concentration in lake water. J. Fish.
Res. Bd. Canada. 31:1771-1778.
Edmondson, W. T. 1961. Changes in Lake Washington following an increase in
nutrient income. Verb. Internat. Verein. Limnol. 14:167-175.
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement between the United States of America and
Canada, signed at Ottawa, April 15, 1972.
Jones, J. R. , and R. W. Bachmann. 1976. Prediction of phosphorus and
chlorophyll levels in lakes. J. Water Pollution Control Fed.
48:2176-2182.
Jones, R. , A., W. Rast, and G. F. Lee. 1976. Prediction of phosphorus and
chlorophyll levels in lakes. J. Water Pollution Control Fed.
48:2176-2182.
Jones, R. A., W. Rast, and G. F. Lee. 1979. Relationship between summer mean
and maximum chlorophyll a concentrations in lakes. Envir. Sci. & Tech.
13:869-870.
Kirchner, W. B. , and P. J. Dillon. 1975. An empirical method of estimating
the retention of phosphorus in lakes. Water Resources Res. 11:182-183.
Larson, D. P., and H. T. Mercier. 1976. Phosphorus retention capacity of
lakes. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada. 33:1742-1750.
Lorenzen, M. W. 1980. Use of chlorophyll-Secchi dish relationship. Limnol.
Oceanogr. 25:371-372.
XII-C-29
-------
6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Simplistic phosphorus models for lakes have been reviewed to assess their
capabilities. Based on the evaluation and practical applications, the
approach developed and modified by Vollenweider, relating the phosphorus
loading of a phosphorus limited water body to its morphological and hydro-
logical characteristics, has considerable validity as a method for determining
critical phosphorus loading levels and associated overall degree of fertility
for rural lakes.
The Dillon model, which was modified based on Vollenweider's original
model, was chosen for demonstration of the model application to Nest Lake and
Green Lake, Minnesota. It was found to be superior to Vollenweider's model
because it offers one more variation to characterize the phosphorus loss to
sediments. When data are available to derive the value(s) of phoshporus
retention coefficient, Dillon's model is recommended for use in the wastewater
treatment planning of rural lakes.
This modeling approach will, hopefully, contribute to the rational
management of rural lakes eutrophication. In this context, one of its major
strengths is its simplicity. All too often, models are so complex that their
credibility becomes, to a certain degree, a matter of faith. It is hoped that
the chosen model is straightforward enough to be neither oversold nor under-
estimated.
XII-C-28
-------
1.0
O.I
0.01
EUTROPHIC ZONE
OLIGOTROPHIC ZONE
1.0 10
MEAN DEPTH (m)
L= Areal Phosphorus Input (g/m2/yr)
R= Phosphorus Retention Coefficient
>°= Hydraulic Flushing Rate (yr~')
100
FIGURE XII-C-13. Trophic conditions of Nest Lake and
Green Lake (1972-1973).
XII-C-27
-------
TABLE XII-C-5. PHOSPHORUS BUDGETS FOR NEST LAKE AND GREEN LAKE (1972-1973) in
kg/yr.
Nest Lake
1. Inputs:
Middle Fork Crow River 2,447 56%
Belgrade and New London STPs 1,751 40%
Direct precipitation 73 2%
Immediate drainage 59
Septic tanks 40 }2%
Total: 4,370 100%
2. Output:
Outlet to Green Lake 1,913 44%
3. Retention 2,457 56%
Green Lake
1. Inputs:
Outlet from Nest Lake 1,913 73%
Direct precipitation 438 17%
Immediate drainage 59 2%
Septic tanks 195 8%
Total: 2,605 100%
2. Output:
Outlet to Middle Fork Crow River 975 37%
3. Retention 1,630 63%
As indicated, the non-point sources upstream from the Belgrade STP con-
tribute over half of the phosphorus input (56%) to Nest Lake. The non-point
sources and the STPs were responsible for 96% of the total phosphorus load to
Nest Lake in 1972-1973. Nest Lake retains 56% of the phosphorus input and
allows only 44% of the input to Green Lake via the outlet channel.
Output from Nest Lake represents almost three-quarters of the total
phosphorus input to Green Lake. Outlet from Green lake accounts for 37% of
the total phosphorus input. Green Lake retains 63% of the total phosphorus
input.
c. Model Application
Dillon's model (1975) was chosen in this case because the phosphorus
retention coefficient was available for both lakes. The result of model
application is shown in Figure XII-C-13. Dillon's model describes Nest Lake
as eutrophic and Green Lake as mesotrophic. This result is concurrent with
the observed water quality in the open water of both lakes (U.S. EPA, 1974).
XII-C-26
-------
a. Hydraulic Budget
A generalized hydraulic budget for a lake includes the hydraulic inputs
such as tributary inflow, precipitation, and groundwater, and the outputs such
as tributary outflow, evaporation, and groundwater. The hydraulic budgets of
Nest Lake and Green Lake are presented in Table XII-C-4.
TABLE XII-C-4. HYDRAULIC BUDGET FOR NEST LAKE AND GREEN LAKE (1972-1973)
Nest Lake
1. _
Middle Fork Crow River 45.2
Immediate drainage 2.2
Precipitation 2.8
Total: 50.2
2. Outputs:
Outlet 48.2
Evaporation 2.0
Total: 50.2
Green Lake
1. Inputs:
Outlet from Nest Lake 48.2
Immediate drainage 4.4
Precipitation 15.6
Total: 68.2
2. Outputs:
Outlet to Middle Fork Crow River 55.2
Evaporation 13.0
Total: 68.2
b. Phosphorus Budget
Phosphorus budgets for Nest Lake and Green Lake are derived using data
from the National Eutrophication Survey in 1972-1973 (U.S. EPA, 1974) and are
presented in Table XII-C-5.
XII-C-25
-------
XII-C-24
-------
TABLE XII-C-2. A COMPARISON OF SIMPLISTIC PHOSPHORUS LOADING MODELS FOR LAKES
Model
Data
Requirement
Ease of
Application
Vollenweider (1968, 1974,
1975, 1976)
Dillon (1974, 1975)
Larson & Mercier (1976)
Rast and Lee (1978)
Jones & Bachmann (1976)
Reckhow (1977)
Chapra (1976)
Mean depth, resi-
dence time, areal
phosphorus loading
Mean depth, resi-
dence time, areal
phosphorus loading,
retention coefficient
Mean depth, resi-
dence time, areal
phosphorus loading
retention coeffi-
cient
Mean depth, resi-
dence time, areal
phosphorus loading
Mean depth, resi-
dence time, areal
phosphorus loading
Mean depth, resi-
dence time, areal
phosphorus loading
Areal phosphorus
loading, resi-
dence time
Desk top
calculation
Desk top
calculation
Desk top
calculation
Desk top
calculation
Desk top
calculation
Desk top
calculation
Desk top
calculation
TABLE XII-C-3. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF NEST LAKE AND GREEN LAKE
Parameter
Drainage area (square miles)
Lake surface area (acres)
Mean depth (feet)
Maximum depth (feet)
Inflow (cfs)
Outflow (cfs)
Lake volume (acre/feet)
Hydraulic retention time (year)
Nest Lake
121.7
945.0
15.0
40.0
37.6
37.6
14,175.0
0.5
Green Lake
129.6
5,406.0
21.0
110.0
42.4
42.4
113,536.0
3.7
XII-C-23
-------
In another study, Jones et al. (1978) proposed an empirical formula
obtained using weighted least-square regression as follows:
maximum summer Chi a = 1.7 (mean summer surface Chi a) + 0.2. (21)
Chlorophyll a concentration in Equation 19 is expressed in pg/1.
Subsequently, Rast and Lee (1978) used the above equation to develop the
relationship between chlorophyll a concentration and phosphorus loading as
shown in Equation 8.
Equations 18, 19, 20, and 21 were developed using different data sets
containing information from numerous lakes in North America. There are dif-
ferent fundamental assumptions used in the development of these relationships
and it is important that caution be exercised when applying these empirical
relationships to any specific lake. It is essential to insure that the data
bases are comparable and the assumption(s) are appropriate for the specific
case.
h. Trophic Status Classification Indices
Trophic Status Indices (TSI) have been developed recently to classify the
trophic condition of water bodies in a broad and objective fashion. Four
trophic index schemes that show varying degrees of promise include the trophic
classifications of the U.S. EPA (1974), Carlson (1974), Piwoni and Lee (1975),
and Rast and Lee (1978). These classification schemes, which assign a
numerical trophic state index for a water body, have no predictive capability
as opposed to those empirical relationships or simplistic models described
earlier in this review. Thus, no further discussion of these classification
schemes is included in this review.
i. Summary of Models
Table XII-C-2 presents a comparison of the simplistic phosphorus models
discussed in this paper. Data requirement and ease of application are sum-
marized also.
5. EXAMPLE - NEST LAKE/GREEN LAKE, MINNESOTA
Nest Lake and Green Lake (Figure XII-C-12) are located approximately 100
miles west of the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area. The middle fork of
the Crow River originates south of Belgrade, Minnesota; as the river meanders
southward past New London and the nearby New London sewage treatment plant, it
enters Nest Lake from the north which, in turn, overflows into the western end
of Green Lake. The river eventually leaves the study area to the east,
passing through the wetlands of the Dietrich State Wildlife Management Areas.
Table XII-C-3 presents the physical characteristics of the lakes.
Nest Lake and Green Lake were surveyed during 1972-1973 under the
National Eutrophication Survey (NES) program (EPA, 1974). Data from NES were
used to derive the hydraulic budget and phosphorus budget in this analysis.
XII-C-22
-------
Chi a = 1,866 { L/(q + 12.4) }1>49 (16)
s
or
L = 0.0055 (Chi a)°'69 (q + 12.4). (17)
S
g. Other Empirical Relationships
Some of the recent studies in lake eutrophication have developed several
empirical relationships among the key water quality parameters. These
empirical relationships are similar in nature to the relationships derived by
Jones and Bachmann (1976) for total phosphorus and chlorophyll a concentra-
tions, and to those developed by Rast and Lee (1978) for chlorophyll a., Secchi
depth, and the oxygen depletion rate. They are reviewed in this section,
although they lack the theoretical basis on which the Vollenweider/Dillon
models were developed.
Carlson (1977) presented a regression equation between Secchi disk depth
and chlorophyll a. concentration as:
In (Secchi disk) = 2.04 - 0.68 In (Chi a) (18)
where Chi a = chlorophyll a concentration in mg/1.
Lorenzen (1980) pointed out the weakness of the above equation and modi-
fied the relationship by showing a family of curves for Secchi disk versus
chlorophyll a concentration at different values of light extinction coeffi-
cient from factors other than algae. Lorenzen1s (1980) empirical relationship
is expressed as:
c v,- A- i -ln(-.2Q)
Secchi disk = - —
a + pChl a (19)
where « = extinction coefficient from factors other than algae,
p = incremental extinction coefficient from algae, and
C = algal concentration.
Welch and Perkins (1979) developed an oxygen deficit-phosphorus loading
relationship for lakes using data from 26 lakes. The resulting regression
equation is
log ODR = 1.58 + 0.37 L/p (20)
2
where ODR = oxygen deficit rate in mg 0_/m day,
L = areal phosphorus loading in mg P/m2/year, and
p = hydraulic flushing rate in year 1.
They found the oxygen deficit rate in 26 lakes to be positively correlated
with phosphorus loading normalized for the flushing rate.
XII-C-21
-------
TABLE XII-C-1. RELATIONSHIPS DEVELOPED BY RECKHOW (1977)
General
C = L
(z 0.0025z/Tu) + z (0.35 + 0.11 (z2/Tu))e - 0.015(z2/Tu)) + e - 100 L T^/
TJ (11)
Oxic Lakes, Z/T < 50 m/yr
C = L (12)
18z + 1.05 — 0.012 z/T
TO^TT T «
U))
Lakes with z/T > 50 m/yr
C = L (13)
2.77z + 1.05 — 0.0011 a/T
G U)
Anoxic Lakes
C = L (14)
0.17z + 1.13 z/T
U)
Total P concentration = 0.84L (15)
z(0.65 + p)
where L = annual phosphorus loading per unit area of lake surface, mg/m2yr;
z = mean depth, m; and
p = hydraulic flushing rate, yr 1.
The Jones and Bachmann model is identical to any of the models presented
earlier with one exception: the sedimentation rate was determined to be 0.65
yr 1 (see Equation 15) using the specific data from the 16 Iowa lakes they
studied. Thus, the model application and data requirement are similar to
those for other previously discussed models.
f. Chapra Model
Chapra and Tarapchak (1976) presented a model predicting the summer
concentrations of chlorophyll a in a phosphorus-limited lake from simple
empirical and semitheoretical relationships. The model was rearranged and
expressed as a phosphorus loading plot which agrees closely with the predic-
tions of Vollenweider's model. Chapra's model can be expressed as:
XII-C-20
-------
1,000
o»
JE
eo
CL
en
o
£
100
I0
10
100 1,000
z(0.65
Total P = 0-84 L
z(0.65 + P
Figure XII-C-11. Measured values of total phosphorus
and calculated values (Jones and
Bachmann, 1976).
XII-C-19
-------
Hypolimnetic Oxygen Depletion Rate
10
a.
UJ
Q *—
Z O 10
UJ -o ''W
x c
O \
o ™
uj" 1 0-'
o
a.
0.01
1
1
10 100
L(P)/qs
"V^"
1,000
Log Areal Hypolimnetic Oxygen Depletion (g02/m2/day)
= 0.467 log[(L(P)/q,)/(lVfTqT)] - 1.07
Figure XII-C-10. Hypolimnetic oxygen depletion rate
and phosphorus loading relationship.
XII-C-18
-------
Secchi Depth (Water Clarity)
a.
UJ
a
100
10
§ I
UJ
O.I
I
I
I I
.0 100
L(P)/q«
1,000
Log Secchi Depth =-0.359 log[(L(P)/qs)/{l+^/|yq^)]-f- 0.925
Figure XII-C-9. Secchi depth and phosphorus loading relationship.
XII-C-17
-------
Chlorophyll Concentration in Water
100
o>
ai
10
X
0_ i
o I
ce
o
o
O.I
. •,/«
. s? .
>/-' '
I I
10 100
L(P)/qs
1,000
log [chlorophyll a] =0.76 log[(L(P)/qs) / (l+/f/oj]- 0.259
v or
Figure XII-C-8. Chlorophyll a. and phosphorus loading
relat ionship.
XtI-C-16
-------
3. Phosphorus loading and hypolimnetic oxygen depletion rate relation-
ship: log [areal/hypolimnetic oxygen depletion in gO_/m2/day] = 0.467
log [(L(P)/q /(I + z/q )] - 1.07 (10)
s s
Figures XII-C-8, XII-C-9, and XII-C-10 present these relationships in diagrams.
Equations 8, 9, and 10, and Figures XII-C-8, XII-C-9, and XII-C-10 were
developed from data of approximately 200 lakes and impoundments. They are
valid in terms of predicting the levels of these water quality parameters;
however they lack the theoretical basis that exists in the Vollenweider,
Dillon, and Larson and Mercier models. In addition, there are at least three
major shortcomings to these attempts at exploring observed behavior: (1) the
empirical plots are non-dynamic and assume a one-to-one correlation between
observed phosphorus and/or biomass (such as chlorophyll a-) concentrations and
input loading; (2) as a corollary, the relationships and plots do not directly
relate phosphorus loading to the resulting plant biomass; and (3) the rela-
tionships and plots do not explore the interactions between two or more
nutrients.
d. Reckhow Empirical Model
Reckhow (1977) developed a few empirical relationships using nonlinear
regression for optimal parameter estimation after exploratory data analysis
and other curve-fitting exercises suggested the terms and forms of the models.
Table XII-C-1 lists his general and specific relationships.
As seen in the equations listed in Table XII-C-1, Reckhow's models do not
have any theoretical basis but are simply statistical exercises. As a result,
the application of his models is a black-box exercise without any physical
insight of the lake ecosystem. His empirical relationships should be used
with caution.
e. Jones and Bachmann Model
Jones and Bachmann (1976) measured total phosphorus and chlorophyll a
concentrations on the surface waters of 16 Iowa lakes on several occasions in
July and August, 1974. The results were used to develop an empirical rela-
tionship for phosphorus loading and mean depth and flushing rate. Their model
can be expressed in the following form and is presented in Figure XII-C-11.
XII-C-15
-------
z
UJ
IO uj
d O
o
Z
o
t-
UJ
s fc
O (E
-------
c. Larsen and Mercier Model
Larson and Mercier (1976) shifted emphasis from phosphorus loadings to
average influent phosphorus concentrations as a measure of trophic state.
They described the average phosphorus concentration in a water body as a
function of the relationship between the mean influent phosphorus concen-
tration and the water body's ability to assimilate the influent phosphorus.
As with the Dillon model, their model was derived from the steady state
solution of a simple phosphorus mass balance model. The Larson and Mercier
model is presented in a diagram to show the relationship between a water
body's influent phosphorus concentration and its phosphorus retention
capacity, as illustrated in Figure XII-C-7.
The Larsen and Mercier model is identical to the Vollenweider and Dillon
models in that a relationship was developed between the external phosphorus
concentration and the lake physical characteristics; it will require a similar
level of data to that associated with the Dillon model.
Since the Larsen and Mercier diagram attempts to relate trophic state and
in-lake phosphorus concentrations, it can also be related to other parameters
of water quality (e.g., chlorophyll a- concentration, productivity, Secchi
depth, etc.). For the same values of L(P) , p, z, and R, the relative posi-
tions of lakes plotted on Dillon's loading diagram (Figure XII-C-6) would be
identical to those on the Larsen and Mercier diagrams (Figure XII-C-7) because
both diagrams estimate the property, namely in-lake steady state phosphorus
concentration, from the same variables.
d. Lee Eutrophication Relationships
In order to produce a relationship more useful for water quality manage-
ment, Vollenweider (1976) extended the phosphorus loading concept to develop
the relationship between phosphorus load and planktonic algal chlorophyll
concentrations in water bodies. Rast and Lee (1978) have further extended the
Vollenweider relationship to include the impact of phosphorus load on the
Secchi depth (water clarity) and the hypolimnetic oxygen depletion rate. The
Vollenweider's phosphorus loading characteristics and mean chlorophyll
-------
lOc
1.0
CM
E
O.I
o.oi
EXCESSIVE,
EUTROPHIC ZONE
OLIGOTROPHIC ZONE
1.0
10 100
MEAN DEPTH (m)
1,000
Figure XII-C-6. Dillon phosphorus loading - phosphorus retention
and mean depth relationship (Dillon, 1975).
XII-C-12
-------
welder's model(s) are best suited for lakes with short hydraulic residence
time so that replacement of the water volume is more frequent during the year.
Nevertheless, Vollenweider's simplified plot of loading rate versus lake
geometry and flushing rates, with its conceptual simplicity and obvious poten-
tial advantages, make it an excellent starting point to study lake eutrophi-
cation.
b. Dillon Model
Dillon (1975) was one of the first to point out one of the omissions of
Vollenweider's original phosphorus loading diagram (Figure XII-C-1). Because
flushing rate and hydraulic residence time, as well as phosphorus loading and
mean depth, play a part in determining the relative degree of fertility of a
water body, Dillon attempted to include these parameters in a formulation of
his own. The Dillon model can be derived from Equation 4:
C = L/z( + p) (6)
A much more easily measured parameter, retention coefficient R for phos-
phorus, was used to replace the first order constant for phosphorus loss to
sediment via the following relationship:
L/z p +
Therefore, = Rp/(l - R) and Equation 6 becomes C = ^ —-. (7)
zp
Inclusion of the factor (1 - R), therefore, accounts for one more source
of variation in determining a water body's trophic status. Dillon (1975)
prepared a loading diagram upon which is plotted L(P) (1 - R)/P versus z on a
log-log scale (Figure XII-C-6). The trophic status is defined by two boundary
lines associated with 0.01 mg/1 and 0.02 mg/1 phosphorus concentrations in the
lake for permissible and excessive conditions, respectively.
Compared with Vollenweider's model(s), Dillon's model has one more para-
meter to evaluate: the phosphorus retention coefficient. This parameter has
proven to be the most difficult to evaluate. Phosphorus retention is closely
related to phosphorus sedimentation rate in the lake. It may vary from one
lake to another. Several correlations between phosphorus retention co-
efficient and hydraulic loading have been derived by various investigators
(Kirchner and Dillon, 1975; Chapra, 1975; Vollenweider, 1975). In fact,
Vollenweider's model(s), such as Equation 3, include this effect of phosphorus
retention by assuming a relation between the phosphorus sedimentation rate and
mean depth. Thus, using Dillon's model, Equation 5 (when independent data of
R is available) does have the option of using any directly measured value of
R; this is the advantage of Dillon's model over Vollenweider's. Because of
this additional feature, Dillon's model requires one more piece of information
(R) than Vollenweider's model. Therefore, when data are available to directly
evaluate the phosphorus retention in the lake, Dillon's model would give more
accurate results than Vollenweider's model(s).
XII-C-11
-------
O
o
o
o
III I
> ll
o
o
o
o
o
o
o §
o
CE
O
o
o
o
(jA/2uu/d6uj)
o
o
1VOI1I8D
c tu
cfl T3
•H
t>0 OJ
c S
•H (li
-a a)
M v^
M 0-
O -rl
X ^
CX CO
(0 C
o o
42 -H
CX JJ
CO
r-l rH
Cfl 01
a M
•H
4-J
•rl
60
C
-H
O t3
03
rl O
0) rH
T3
•H
0)
S
C
rH 1-1
rH T3
O
LO
O
I
X
0)
S-i
P
60
XII-C-10
-------
10,000 r-
I
o
z
o
<
o
<
o
tr
o
1,000
100
10
"Vo!lenweider(l968
V
10 100
MEAN DEPTH,Z(m)
1,000
Figure XII-C-4. Critical phosphorus loading versus mean
depth (Vollenweider, 19763).
XII-C-9
-------
o
kj ~
i t^ ~
S. ^) C*^ ™
**- ^ 5> >• o _
(/) Q ^» ^ ^Q —
Uj ^ ^ ^ ^
^J O *t Q O LU —
I* "^J 4J *«J /V ^9
Uj ^ tt *.
\ \ 1° "
\\ 3 ,
1
\ \
:
\ \
:
\ \
\ \
\
* . ~
\ -
\
o
E
Q. UJ '
0 Z I
a: o
1- N '
Ul
1 1 t i i i i i 1 1 1 i i i i i i 1 1 i i i i i i i
o
^
^
o •£
0 £
ul
f—
UJ
10
RESIDENC
o
_i
cc
o
^v.
IN
X*
l_
_ Q-
| 1 [
O
UJ
2
^^
- o °.
0
o
a
0)
T3
•H
CO
0)
S-i
Q
•H
H
3
cfl
depth/h
a
a)
CO tfl
3 LO
CO l^~
QJ rH
>
60 M
C CU
*^ *i^
n3 cu
O S
H C
0)
CO H
3 rH
^ O
0 >
w a)
2 .p
P-l -U
B
ro
1
CJ
1
H
H
X
0)
3
W)
•H
(j*/2uj/d6) 9NIQV01 SnyOHdSOHd
XII-C-8
-------
0" = first order rate constant for loss of phosphorus to sediments (yr x).
Rearranging the above equation yields:
LA = C(Q + Vff) and
L = Cz(p
where z = mean depth (m)
L = Cz(p + ff) = C(z/T +cr ) (4)
p = flushing rate (yr 1) = 1/t
I = residence time (yr).
Vollenweider (1975, 1976) further assumed thatcrcan be approximated by
a = 10/z
and C = 10 mg/m3 for critical concentration of total phosphorus at spring
overturn.
As a result. L = 100 + 10 (3/t ).
U)
Equation 5 is plotted in Figure XII-C-3, which indicates that below a
certain combination of mean depth and flushing, the phosphorus loading
tolerance of a given water body becomes constant in spite of the fact that,
based on mean depth alone, water bodies may appear to have a higher assimi-
lation capacity (Figure XII-C-2).
The lastest modification by Vollenweider is the development of a more
generalized relationship from Equation 5, into the form of two equivalent
diagrams (Figures XII-C-4 and XII-C-5). In Figure XII-C-4, the permissible
phosphorus loading, L (P), is plotted against mean depth and parameterized as
a function of the load and as a function of mean depth z.
Data Requirement. Data required to apply Vollenweider's model(s) include
lake morphology (physical characteristics such as lake surface, drainage area,
mean depth, and volume), hydrology (annual precipitation, runoff from water-
shed, inflow and outflows of the lake), and water quality (phosphorus concen-
trations in inflows, outflows, and water column of the lake). These data are
required to construct a hydraulic budget and a phosphorus budget for the lake
being studied. All Vollenweider's model(s) or loading relationships are easy
to use with the limited amount of data described above. The model(s) are
capable of predicting the future trophic status of the lake in a very
straightforward fashion.
Model Limitations. Two inherent assumptions of Vollenweider's model(s)
are that the lake is at a steady-state condition and is completely mixed.
Theoretically, a lake never reaches a steady state. Practically, however,
some lakes with short hydraulic residence time approach steady state condi-
tions much more rapidly than lakes with long hydraulic residence time. Thus,
Vollenweider's steady state assumption is valid for some lakes to a certain
extent. His second assumption implies that substance is completely mixed
throughout the entire lake as soon as it enters. This is obviously violated,
particularly during summer stratification, when mixing between the epiliminion
and hypoliminion is prevented by a thermal gradient. Once again, Volle-
XII-C-7
-------
o
•m
i
Lii tfe t.5 —
NV| Cf\ 7** ^ — — ™
5)^ $$ ^
Uj ^r ^ ^ O ^ ""
^O S^ ^ "Z~
^^ ^^ ON
\ \ 2
% 'i
\\
\ —
\ I
\\ —
\ "™
V \ ""
\
\ \ ~
» \
\ \
\ \
\ \ -
CJ N v
iu, \ \ :
0 Z \ \
a: o \ \
H- N \
UJ
1 1 1 i i i i i 1 1 1 i i i i i i 1 1 1 i i i i i i
q
100
SIDENCE TIME,rw(m/yr)
~. iu
2 a:
o
_j
:D
<
o:
o
>-
x
IN
x"
0.
_ UJ
z
LU
^
-, _ _ _t>
- o P
OJ
a
G
0)
•H
CO
0)
>-"
a
• r-^
rH
tfl
T)
,r:
4J
a
0)
T3
01
B •
CO 10
3 m
co r^
0) rH
60 i-(
C 0)
•H *^
T3 -H
tO
-------
However, Vollenweider (1968, 1975) stated that his initial phosphorus
loading diagrams were only approximate relationships and that other parameters
would have to be considered also when establishing a water body's trophic
status. These parameters included the extent of shoreline and littoral zone,
the degree of nutrient mixing in the water column, internal loading from the
sediments, and most importantly, water renewal time (Vollenweider and Dillon,
1974). Vollenweider (1975) noted that although his initial model worked
reasonably well for hydraulic residence time of several months, no apparent
reason was provided for two water bodies having identical mean depths but
different hydraulic residence times. Water bodies with shorter hydraulic
residence times (i.e., faster flushing rates) would also have faster water
cycling through the systems.
Dillon (1974, 1975) was the first to report on lakes that did not fit
Vollenweider' s original phosphorus loading diagram scheme. Dillon concluded
that the anomalous fit of these water bodies on the Vollenweider phosphorus
loading diagram was a result of their high flushing rates.
Vollenweider (1975, 1976) modified his loading plot to include the
hydraulic residence time. For practical purposes, the hydraulic residence
time is defined as the ratio of the water body volume to the annual inflow
rate, assuming that precipitation and evaporation are approximately equal over
the annual cycle. The areal loading versus depth/hydraulic residence time
relationship is presented graphically in Figure XII-C-2. According to
Vollenweider (1976), from a simple inspection of lakes plotted using this
modified approach, the phosphorus loading criteria for separating oligotrophic
from eutrophic lakes was
Lc(P) = 100 (z/tu))°-5 (3)
where L (P) = areal permissible total phosphorus loading (mg P/m2/yr) , z =
mean depth (m), and t = hydraulic residence time. As before, the excessive
phosphorus loading was assumed to be equal to twice the permissible loading.
Theoretical Basis. Vollenweider's model is derived from the material
balance for completely mixed lakes under steady state conditions. That is,
the phosphorus input rate is equal to the sum of the phosphorus output rate
and the rate of the phosphorus retention in the lake. This material balance
can be expressed in mathematical terms as follows:
L * A = Q * C + C * V *
Input = Output + Retention
where L = areal phosphorus loading rate (mg P/m2/yr)
A = lake surface area (m2)
Q = inflow/outflow (m3/yr)
C = total phosphorus concentration (mg P/m3)
V = average lake volume (m3)
XII-C-5
-------
10
LOAD
% 0.1
o
i
Q.
I-
O
0.01
EUTROPHIC ZONE
EXCESSIVE LOADING/
PERMISSIBLE
LOADING
OLIGOTROPHIC ZONE
i
10 100
MEAN DEPTH(m)
1,000
TA = TAHOE
A = AEGERISEE
V =VANERN
L =LEMAN
0 =ONTARIO
BO=CONSTANCE
AN ^ANNECY
KEY TO LAKES
MA=MALAREN
T =TURLERSEE
F =FURES
S ^SEBASTICOOK
H =HALLWILERSEE
MO =MOSES
NO =NORRVIKEN
E =ERIE
P =PFAFFIXERSEE
G sGRIEFENSEE
B :BALOEGGERSEE
W =WASHINGTON
Z =ZURICHSEE
Figure XII-C-1. Vollenweider's total phosphorus loading
and mean depth relationship (Vollenweid-
er, 1968).
XII-C-4
-------
1974; Larson and Mercier, 1976; Jones and Bachmann, 1976; Rast and Lee,
1978). These latter models, as well as Vollenweider's refinements, focus on
phosphorus loads as the major nutrient influencing the eutrophication re-
sponses of lakes, and will be the main discussion for the remainder of this
review.
4. EVALUATION OF MODELS
This section provides a brief description of various phosphorus eutro-
phication models as well as a detailed evaluation of each in terms of model
capabilities, data requirements, and ease of application. A summary table
follows these evaluations.
a. Vollenweider Models
Vollenweider (1968) found that when the areal total phosphorus loading
was plotted against mean depth on a log-log scale (Figure XII-C-1), straight
lines or bands could be arbitrarily drawn separating the lakes into the three
standard lake types in terms of the degree of eutrophy: oligotrophic,
mesotrophic, and eutrophic lakes.
The lower line, separating oligotrophic and mesotrophic lakes, was termed
"permissible loading" since it represented the upper loading level as a func-
tion of mean depth that could be permitted without having the lakes revert
beyond the oligotrophic state; the upper line, termed "excessive loading,"
represented the level above which a lake would be characterized as eutrophic.
The approximation for the permissible loading boundary condition was
empirically determined to be
L (P) = 25z°'6 (1)
where L (P) = areal permissible total phosphorus loading (mg P/m2/yr) and z =
mean depth (m) . The excessive loading was considered to be approximately
twice the permissible loading as follows:
L(P) = 50z°'6 (2)
where L(P) = areal excessive phosphorus loading (mg P/m2/yr).
This model marked a significant advance in eutrophication studies and
became widely accepted as a guide to the degree of eutrophy of a given water
body. It was the first credible quantitative guide to "permissible" and
"excessive" phosphorus loading levels for lakes and impoundments. That is,
for most of the water bodies for which sufficient phosphorus loading data were
available, the trophic state predicted by the Vollenweider loading diagram
agreed with the trophic state indicated by the standard, but arbitrary, indi-
cators available at the time (e.g., nutrient concentrations, chlorophyll
concentrations, primary productivity, Secchi depth, hypolimnetic oxygen deple-
tion, etc.).
XII-C-3
-------
modeling approach has been adopted for rural lake analysis. As a result, the
scope of this review will focus on the simplistic nutrient loading models and
the role of phosphorus in lake eutrophication.
Phosphorus was selected because it is generally considered the most
manageable of the major nutrients. The phosphorus content of domestic and
certain industrial wastewaters has been closely scrutinized for at least three
reasons. First, wastewater treatment methods to remove phosphorus from the
effluent have been known for several years. Second, a large part of the
phosphorus in domestic wastewaters and essentially all phosphorus in some
industrial wastes are contributed by snythetic detergents. Third, phosphorus
limitation in lakes and streams is the only known means to control the nitro-
gen fixing blue-green algae (Sawyer, 1971). Thus, only the phosphorus models
for lakes are addressed in this review; however, empirical relationships
between phosphorus and some key eutrophication parameters are included also.
These parameters are usually limited to chlorophyll a, dissolved oxygen, and
Secchi depth.
3. MODELING APPROACH
It is now well accepted that eutrophication of lakes depends upon exces-
sive loads or inputs of phosphorus and nitrogen to lakes. Eutrophication
control programs are frequently based on controlling the inputs of these
aquatic plant nutrients, especially phosphorus to water bodies.
This approach led to the development of the nutrient loading concept in
limnology, which has been known for several decades as a qualitative level.
Rawson (1939, 1955), Sawyer (1947), Ohle (1956), Edmondson (1961), and
Sakamato (1966) have all presented some expression of the effects of nutrients
loads on the trophic conditions of water bodies. None of these investigators,
however, was able to present definitive quantitative conclusions concerning
nutrient loading levels and expected trophic conditions in water bodies.
Vollenweider (1968) made the first attempt to formulate loading criteria
for phosphorus and nitrogen by defining a boundary level between oligotrophic
and eutrophic water bodies, taking into account nutrient loadings relative to
mean depth (a measure of lake volume) as the principal parameters. The appeal
of Vollenweider's analysis is its simplicity. The graphical plot of nutrient
loading to the lake, such as areal phosphorus loading rate as a function of
mean depth of the lake with a general division into eutrophic or oligotrophic
lakes, provides a basis for decision-making. For a given depth of the lake,
the "allowable" loading can be read directly from the plot. This, in turn,
can be translated into treatment requirements. Indeed, for the Great Lakes
system, the analysis of Vollenweider presumably formed an important input into
original agreement between the United States and Canada on allowable phos-
phorus loading for Lake Erie and Lake Ontario (Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement, 1972).
Vollenweider (1975, 1976) has subsequently refined his approach through
several stages of development. Other investigators have also subsequently
developed models based on the nutrient loading concept for predicting and
assessing various responses of lakes to nutrient inputs (Dillon and Rigler,
XII-C-2
-------
C. REVIEW OF LAKE WATER QUALITY MODELING TECHNIQUES
1. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
Eutrophication - excessive fertilization manifested by excessive growths
of suspended and attached algae and water weed - can have significant dele-
terious effects on the beneficial uses of lakes and impoundments. Excessive
growths of aquatic plants can interfere with the use of waters for domestic
and industrial water supplies, irrigation, recreation, fisheries, etc.
The recent increase in the use of the quantitative relationship between
the degree of eutrophication and the amount of pollutants has helped lake
managers in the decision-making process. Applications of quantitative rela-
tionship, usually expressed as "models," have proven highly successful, and as
a result, water quality modeling has become a key tool with which lake man-
agers can study the present condition of the lake and predict the future
condition.
This review will assist lake managers in selecting appropriate model(s)
for use in the facility planning process for wastewater management in rural
lake areas. The availability of numerous modeling techniques, some of which
require highly skilled use, has caused some difficulties for lake managers or
planning staff when choosing the right techniques for a specific case. There-
fore, lake managers need to understand the limitations and weaknesses of the
model(s) so that they will have a better idea of model capabilities. In
addition, as a guidebook for easy reference, this review will provide lake
managers and planners with a concise summary of various models. Rural lake
managers and facility planners can consult this guide when choosing an appro-
priate model to determine its associated data requirements and limitations.
2. SCOPE OF REVIEW
Two basic approaches have evolved for analysis of lake eutrophication: a
dynamic lake/reservoir model, which simulates the interactions occurring
within ecological systems; and, a 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 appropriate approach is the complex
modeling which, with adequate data, can be used to accurately represent com-
plex interactions of aquatic organisms and water quality constituents. Some
of the research work in this category is by Thomann and his associates (1975,
1976, 1977, 1980) on Lake Ontario, and Lung et al. (1976, 1977) on White
Lake, Michigan. From a practical standpoint, however, the ability to repre-
sent these complex interactions is limited: some interactions have not been
identified; some that are known cannot be readily measured; and, a dynamic
model is very expensive.
In contrast to the complex reservior models, the empirical nutrient
loading models can be simply derived and can be used with a minimum data
requirement, unlike the dynamic modeling. Wastewater treatment facility
planning for rural lakes often lacks data and, therefore, the simplistic
XII-C-1
-------
There is then, a variety of information that can be used in estimating
non-point source inputs to lakes. However, no information has been identified
in 208 agencies or other sources that evaluate relationships between direct
runoff to lakes and the land use activities that occur adjacent to lakeshores.
XII-B-2
-------
B. AVAILABILITY OF NON-POINT SOURCE DATA
Nutrient modeling of 35 glacial lakes for the Seven Rural Lake EIS's
indicated that the largest source of phosphorus was non-point runoff. The
non-point phosphorus loads were either carried by major tributaries to the
lakes or entered the lakes directly as sheet runoff or through unidentified
channels. For the major tributaries that had been sufficiently sampled, the
phosphorus portion of the non-point source load could be calculated directly.
But for many rural lake watersheds, sufficient data are lacking for direct
calculation of nutrient loads; in practically none have data on direct runoff
been developed. For these unsampled major tributaries and for direct runoff,
load estimates had to be based on models.
Designated 208 agencies and state organizations responsible for 208
planning in non-designated areas were contracted to assess the availability of
studies or monitoring data for direct runoff in Region V's rural areas. Of
particular concern was the availability of data describing nutrient losses
from lakeshore lot runoff. The assessment of non-point sources of pollution by
the 208 agencies has been limited to qualitative analysis of pollution-related
problems in the planning areas and to gross quantitative estimates generated
by empirical models of sediments and nutrient loads. The final output of the
analysis has been identification of priority watersheds on the basis of gross
erosion rates and potential contribution of sediment and nutrients to the
surface waters. Time and money constraints have prevented the collection of
water quality data needed to assess the actual contributions of pollutants
from non-point sources in most areas.
The 208 plans would thus not provide quantitative data that could be used
for assessing the water quality problems of a lake with reference to non-point
sources of pollution. The plans do provide land use, soils, population, and
other physiographic data that could be used to conduct the initial qualitative
analysis. To quantify the pollutant loads from non-point sources, other data
sources (stream water quality and flow data) or non-point source assessment
methodology will have to be used.
The type and degree of detail of land use and soils data compiled by 208
agencies vary from agency to agency. In general, most of the agencies have
detailed land use data for urban areas and generalized categories for rural
areas. The soils data also vary from maps showing general soil associations to
detailed data on soil types.
Some of the 208 agencies in Region V have also carried out specific lake
water quality studies as part of the 208 planning project. Illinois EPA con-
ducted a preliminary assessment, classification, and prioritization of 353
inland lakes. The lakes were classified into eight major groups on the basis
of their present conditions and potential for exhibiting problems. The
assessment was based primarily on the qualitative data available for each
lake. The result of the assessment and detailed data for each lake are con-
tained in a report, "Assessment and Classification of Illinois lakes, Volume I
and II." The 208 agencies in Michigan identified priority lakes in their
region and conducted detailed water quality assessments of the lakes. Other
sources of surface water quality data are discussed in the previous report
section.
XII-B-1
-------
REFERENCES
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. 1978. Assessment and classification
of Illinois lakes. Springfield IL.
Indiana Stream Pollution Control Board. Undated. Indiana lake classification
system and management plan. Indianapolis IN.
Northeast Michigan Council of Governments. 1979. A water quality survey of 48
lakes in northeast Michigan.
South Central Michigan Planning Council. 1977. Inland lake water quality: An
assessment using satellite imagery. Nazareth College, Nazareth MI.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1977. An evaluation of the National
Eutrophication Survey data. Working Paper No. 900. Corvallis OR.
U.S. Geological Survey. 1979. Chemical and biological quality of selected
lakes in Ohio, 1976 and 1977. Water-Resources Investigations 78-109.
Columbus OH.
XII-A-13
-------
agencies will perform computer searches for data or will provide the data from
their lake files at little or no charge to the requestor, and they often can
identify other organizations to contact for more site-specific information.
XII-A-12
-------
4. DATA GAPS
Data gaps exist in several areas that may present difficulties to a
facilities planner who must assess existing and potential rural lake water
quality problems and must evaluate the impacts of wastewater treatment
alternatives. Water quality data for rural lake watersheds are limited. State
pollution control agencies traditionally have been faced with personnel and
budgetary constraints. This is evidenced by the number of lakes that can be
sampled. Most agencies develop a set of criteria that is used in the selection
of lakes for inclusion in monitoring programs while they strive to achieve a
representative cross-section of the state's inland lakes and reservoirs. Lake
size and degree of lake use are two common criteria. Thus, data more often
are available for the larger, more heavily used lakes.
Because of the same constraints, most lakes are sampled only once or
twice. The few lakes that are sampled repetitively over the years are the
exceptions. If a lake is sampled oaly one time, it is to be expected that
parameter values may vary in time from values that are reported for the lake
on the sampling date. The variation tends to be minimized as extreme values
are averaged with increasing numbers of samples over time.
Not all major parameters are analyzed. The intent of current lake moni-
toring programs is to assess eutrophication potential. Thus, data for bac-
terial and heavy metals concentrations normally are not collected. Addi-
tionally, sampling locations generally are located in the center of lakes, and
the results are used to assess the whole lake potential for eutrophication. In
many lakes, the immediate problem is the localized or shoreline water quality
and algal growth, and this is not reflected in these mid-lake samples.
5. CONCLUSIONS
Water quality data are available for many rural lakes in Region V, and
the number of lakes that are sampled will continue to increase as these states
near completion of their Section 314 lake classification and ranking programs.
However, not all rural lakes will be included in these lake monitoring
programs, and it is possible that no data exist for lakes for which facilities
plans will be prepared.
Most lakes in these classification programs have been sampled only once.
The exceptions are the very few lakes that are intensively surveyed at various
times throughout a year for several years. In these exceptional cases, less
reliance on modeling techniques is required because the data can be used to
derive, more directly and accurately, nutrient loads and to determine the
in-lake responses to those loads. For the great majority of lakes that have
data for only one sampling date, it will be difficult to assess with any
certainty the existing conditions, and it will be necessary either to collect
appropriate data in support of facilities planning or to rely on appropriate
modeling approaches.
Computerized data bases are available both to identify sources of lake
water quality data in a specified geographical area and to retrieve the needed
data. The use of these data bases is recommended in conjunction with direct
contact with the state office that is responsible for lake studies. Most state
XII-A-11
-------
data for about 5,000 lakes, which include lake morphometric data, ecological
and management classifications, some water quality data, length of shoreline,
and reported lake problems. A small amount of the data have been published or
entered into the STORET system. During the next several years, many of the
approximately 6,000 lakes that support DNR fisheries or that have public
access will be sampled. MPCA also sponsors a citizen lake monitoring program;
lake residents take Secchi disc measurements and send water samples to MPCA
for color, total phosphorus, and Kjeldahl nitrogen analysis. These data are
available for about 125 lakes. Another possible source for lake data is the
Ecological Services Section of the Minnesota DNR, which has compiled an
inventory of 15,000 lakes. Some water quality data can be obtained from their
lake survey summaries.
The Ohio EPA, in cooperation with the U.S. Geological Survey in Columbus,
Ohio, has been monitoring water quality in lakes and resevoirs since 1975 at a
rate of 15 different lakes per year. To date, about 85 of the 200 significant
lakes have been sampled. Sampling of the remaining lakes will continue during
the next few years. For each lake, a comprehensive set of water quality
characteristics are gathered in the spring and again during late summer. The
major inflows and outlet(s) also are sampled. All the data are published in
yearly or bi-yearly reports (USGS, 1979) and are entered into STORET. Complete
morphometric data are available for the lakes. The purposes of the data
collection are to classify the lakes and to obtain baseline data for future
lake management programs.
The Wisconsin DNR has two divisions that are involved in the collection
of lake water quality data. The Bureau of Research just has completed a major
lake monitoring program that has spanned a period of 13 years. Each year, more
than 100 lakes were sampled quarterly and analyzed for the standard physical,
biological, and chemical parameters. Some lakes were sampled annually for
several years. Bacterial and heavy metals data usually were not collected.
Water quality and morphometric data are available for about 1,200 lakes; all
of the data are stored on an in-house computer, rather than in the STORET
system. A report of their results and lake classification is in preparation.
A separate division within DNR, the Office of Inland Lake Renewal, was
established to respond to requests for technical assistance from Inland Lake
Protection and Rehabilitation Districts in the State. One-year surveys are
designed and conducted so as to assess the reported lake problems and to
present to the Lake Districts an evaluation of pertinent lake management
techniques. Data for most major parameters are obtained; some tributary water
quality data and groundwater data are collected also. These lake management
reports have been prepared on about 50 lakes.
The preceding discussion of existing data sources is not meant to be
exhaustive. It focuses on the primary agencies that are responsible for
collecting and maintaining water quality data. Regional planning commissions
and state universities also can be involved in lake studies. Through discus-
sions with individuals in the identified lead agencies, it is likely that
additional sources of data would be identified once the study area limits had
been delineated.
XII-A-10
-------
The Indiana Stream Pollution Control Board (ISPCB) through the Lake
Studies Program, has completed their classification process and has published
some data for about 450 lakes, which represents most public lakes and
reservoirs in the State (ISPCB, no date). All these lakes were sampled at
least once since 1972 for some physical, chemical, and biological parameters.
There are only limited chlorophyll a data and no data for pH, conductivity,
bacteria, or heavy metals. Water quality in tributaries was not analyzed;
however, the Survey Section, which generates flow and some water quality data
for many state waterways, does have these data available for some lake tribu-
taries. The data gathered by both of these divisions are retrievable from
STORET, as well as from individuals in the offices. Ball State Univeristy has
been active in lake studies and maintains close alliance with many lake asso-
ciations .
The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has a very active
Inland Lakes Management Group. This group performs intensive surveys for about
50 lakes per year. The lakes, which generally are more than 50 acres and have
public access, are analyzed for about 25 water quality characteristics.
Bacteria data normally are not collected. Some lakes are sampled only once,
whereas others are sampled repetitively throughout several years. Tributary
water quality is not analyzed routinely, but these data are available
occasionally for some lakes. There are 2,000 lakes in the state with surface
areas of 50 acres or more; only 750 of these, however, have formalized public
access. Baseline water quality data for about 450 lakes have been compiled,
and the remaining lakes will be sampled during the next two years. DNR has
established a Self-Help Program by which lake residents perform weekly and
bi-weekly sampling for Secchi disc transparency and chlorophyll a concentra-
tions. DNR provides analysis of frozen chlorophyll a samples and prepares an
annual report that contains the results for each lake. On the average, 130
lake associations or residents participate each year, and many have the data
for several years. An additional source of limited lake water quality data
within DNR is the Fisheries Division. Each time a fish survey is conducted in
lakes that support DNR fisheries, dissolved oxygen and temperature profiles
and pH and alkalinity levels are measured.
Many of the regional planning commissions and universities in Michigan
have taken active roles in lake studies. During 1977, the Southeast Michigan
Council of Governments (SEMCOG) sampled 76 lakes twice. A similar group in
Northeast Michigan, NEMCOG, conducted a survey of 48 lakes in their area and
published their findings and their lake classification scheme (NEMCOG, 1979).
The Southcentral Michigan Planning Council (SMPC) used LANDSAT satellite
imagery to assess lake water quality for approximately 100 lakes. Data inter-
pretation was limited to identifying areas of algal or macrophyte dominance
that could be attributed to probable cultural eutrophication (SMPC, 1977). The
Biological Stations of the University of Michigan and Michigan State
University, and Central Michigan University have conducted various lake water
quality surveys in the past.
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has collected lake water
quality data for 50 of the 150 priority lakes that they have selected for a
pilot clean lakes classification and ranking process. In this program, rural
lake data are limited because most of the selected lakes are those that are
heavily used and that are located near metropolitan areas. However, intensive
surveys have been conducted for several other lakes, and MPCA maintains file
XII-A-9
-------
All the state agencies have been involved in lake water quality moni-
toring, although their purposes for data collection may vary slightly. Because
of the number of Region V inland lakes and because of time and budgetary
constraints, most of the programs are restricted to one or two sampling
efforts at randomly selected or representative lakes throughout the state.
These surveys are designed to evaluate current conditions and potential for
future problems, and to determine the necessity for more intensive studies
where problems exist. In some state agencies, intensive studies are performed
regularly each year on a few lakes. Survey objectives may include the evalua-
tion of the need for lake restoration techniques or the assessment of lake
water quality responses to climatic conditions or to land use changes.
All of the states are in various stages of completion of their lake
inventory and classification programs, as mandated by Section 314 of the Clean
Water Act of 1977 (PL 95-217). The states are required to classify all
publicly owned freshwater lakes according to their trophic status and to
identify the corrective measures that would control pollution sources and
would restore the quality of problem lakes. Some of the states have undertaken
this effort as part of their Section 208 Water Quality Management Planning
Program. Indiana has completed its program and has classified all public lakes
and resevoirs according to their trophic status. In Illinois, a preliminary
lake classification and prioritization system has been developed, but during
the next few years, the system will be verified and refined, and additional
data will be collected. Wisconsin has gathered a substantial amount of lake
data and is in the process of analyzing that data to develop their lake
classification system. The other states still are collecting new data, and
their lake classification and management reports should be available by 1982.
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IL-EPA), as part of the
Lake Protection and Restoration requirement of the statewide 208 Water Quality
Management Planning Program, has published a preliminary assessment and
classification of about 350 Illinois lakes (IL-EPA, 1978). For this effort,
108 lakes were sampled during the summer of 1977 for most of the significant
physical, chemical, and biological parameters. No analyses for bacteria or
heavy metals were performed. Morphometric data and qualitative problem assess-
ments for the lakes that were not sampled were obtained from several different
sources. Morphometric data are provided for most lakes. Continuing with the
classification process, an additional 65 lakes were sampled during 1979 and 15
during 1980. The Section 314 classification and prioritization efforts are
expected to be completed during 1981. LANDSAT data will be used as part of the
classification process. Only the lake water quality data since 1979 have been
enter into STORET. IL-EPA will provide data from their files or the computer.
A few other organizations in Illinois have participated in lake-related
studies and may have some data of limited utility to facilities planners. The
Illinois Department of Conservation conducted a surface water inventory during
1972. For the lakes in each county, the lake name, ownership classification,
and surface area are provided. This same organization has compiled County
Surface Water Resource Reports for most counties, which give physical and
morphological descriptions of the fishing lakes; describe the fishery; and
include some information on lake uses, management, vegetation, and reported
problems. The Illinois State Water Survey has conducted sedimentation surveys
for about 100 lakes and has performed intensive studies on selected lakes in
the State. The Water Resources Center of the University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign has been involved in lake preservation and water management
planning programs for small Illinois communities.
XII-A-8
-------
o
00
,^
CO
a
o
^
f^i
o
^j
^
JZ
S
1— 1
O
nP
%
1— t
CO
t— t
u
3
s
tij
CO
t>^
K
>3
OS
53
j.
e
Cd
1-3
3
M
4
W
•3
E-i
.5
B
*C
g
o
r_3
fe
K
S
£
W
i— t
i
i
H- 1
X
03
H
CQ tO
*J 0)
(0 U
3
U O
U CO
5 u
O 0
d
o
• H
as W
U 3
•H *J
•H •*->
« CO
Cfl
nt
i-H
CJ
CN
cu w
h 01
o o
*J O
^
(0
<-> (Q
•O fl)
•H "G
g_4
U
u
13
O * fl
U -H
d ^
3 H
o* CQ
u w
0) 41
*J 00
§ 2
CO U
u >
CQ O
CL. U
"S
O CU
i^ > 01
rH >\ >
U d OI
OI CQ CO
u S
CO 4J 01
3 3 >
o* ^ o
•o
o
o
o
o
T3 0
d oi
3 rH
O rH
U O
00 U
OJ CO O
3 4J CO
O to rH
CO T3 CO
01
rH
to
CJ
• H
rH
0.
o.
o
X
o
»
CO
CU
CO
9J
X
^
u
o
^
J3
4-1
d
o
^
o
0
m
rH
CU CO
U 3
•H 13 01
O rH OS
d
-rH CU
Q "S rJ
OJ
.4
co
! l
CO
J3
*J
CO
.4
01
OI
E
10
u
CO
o.
OI
o
a
o
m
4-1
4-1
(0
CU
4J
CO
u
•rt
•O
d
•r(
t
1
01
'g
• H
J
CO
4J
a
CO
OJ
•o
d
to
to
•H
U
01
U
0. 01
01 U
U 3
X co
OJ eo
-1
•0
OJ 4J
u o
a d
Hi OJ
01 U
OI CO
to 01
4-1
(0 01
i-i a
OJ CO
4J r4
01 to
a a.
to 01
d
•O OI
oi a
d o
01 U
9 01
CJ 44
CU O
4J
rH CO
rH •«
CO rH
CO CU
oi a
co
u d
-H -H
"O
d t)
•H 01
1 3
TJ rH
0 0
o e
H
06
e
CO
•o
p^
CQ
U
g
4J
CO
^
CO
rH
CO
r>
01
'Jj
U
u
t)
d
CO
OJ
00
eo
O
4-)
CO
CO
4-1
eo
•0
^
4J
•H
rH
0-
U
01
4-1
CO
3
cu
w
CO
01
4-1
d
•H
•o
01
o
CO
14
eo
10
4-1
CO
•o
CU
to
rH
OJ
_e
4-1
4-1
CU
JS
3
O
4-1
CO
b
OJ
01
OS
CM
o
4J
00
c
rrj
U
O
u
u
to
CO
01
to
rH
14
OI
4-1
5
CO
CU
14
MH
•0
01
g
0
IX
rH
U
•H
rH
_Q
3
O.
rH
rH
eo
>>
•H
CO
CO
CO
rH
U
O •
4J >,
4-1
CO -H
OJ rH
4-1 CO
CO 3
4J 0*
CO
.4
CO OJ
01 t->
U CO
0< 01
V Jt
u eo
rH
U OJ
•rt U
-d o
3 4J
CO
^,
C7N O
44 CO
O CU
4-1 3
CJ CO
t i
OJ
4-1 01
eo >
a -H
4J
c u
eo OJ
OI U
rH Ul
CJ 0
u
44
O >•
*t -H
-------
CO CO
4-> * 4J 4H M
U CO • O
eg o 13 co ex
B TH tU CU CU
S -H CO eg c
•H CO -rl rH rH C
rH CO rH eg r
CU eg ,TJ en B
-< rH 3 in -n i
4-1 eg
3 4J
-a eg
•H T5
cu eg
S -U
O eg
o
s
O
00
>. B
O -r)
a rH
cu a,
3 E
C7* CO
CU CO
cu
>4
CU CO
-O
•o
o
o
o
3
03
eu >,
eo CO
s
•H
a,
W -H
12
rH ta
B
O
•H T3
as
-SrH
o
eo B M
ti eo 4J
CO CU C
•n 4J o
•O CO CJ
B
CU
eo 4-> i
cu 4-t eo CU eg
S eg 4-t > -H
O"a t CO -H CJ
CO 3 4J O
>> >>.n rH CJ CO
CU M 4J -rl r-4 CO CO
> eg T-* M eg eg
U J3 rH 4J O) >•
3 eg 4-1 eu
CO • 3 CU -rt Jt!
B CT.M • CO co
* O co to M rH
CQ -rt M rH eu CU M
CJ 4J CU -H > J3 C
CUCJ4JMUI-H4JO
CO CU CO O CO B -H TH
rH CO 3 UH *J 3 34-1
M
o
4H
*O CO
eu eu
-a ^
co eg
•H rH
rH
a o
3 in
CO
CU
o
z
to
cu
cu
a
•H
4-1
CU
B
O
•>
CO
o
=
0)
• r-i
•H
K4
0
S"
CJ
cu
w
1— 1
s_s
S « -H
ao S S w i-i
O( 4-1 3 M» rHCOOJ
(9 • -H flj -H >
O- to OJ • fl S -H
rH *J ^ -H -^ nj O S S
U fl) -yJ i-H Q C8 4-1" -i-t O 3
X t3 O*r-t -—I «J OO U
1 4J ^ W *^J V 4)
^ OJ T3 -C ;il kiOO-U
r— Jd CU-rH 3 >, CCQ
U3 n^ _gj i^ D 03 «H > C W
U O J= r-4 •-, C
Z BJ 11 -fi '^
U C3
•U O «
fl) -H 0)
O* 4-1 Jrf
•H 4) (0
tj 1— ( r-4 •
•H a c^
4J S O 00
<; u r— <— '
u
o
U3
M
ffl
r— (
S
to *o
- rH
CO O,
CU 5
•H eg
CO CU
> u
•0
O
o
o
m
a
0
CU 'fH
CO CJ
*1 CU
•a
B 4-1
rH CU
B B
B rH CU
eo 00
00 - eo
•H a: B
o a z
s
S rH
CU co eg 5S5
J! Vi -rt 4J
CO OOJ3 O rH
rH O CJ 4J J3
Mo eo
C 04 eu **O CO
CU CA U rH U
N 00 O CU B
•H B CO rH -r^ eU
4J TH CU O X B
•H 1H 4J CJ CU
0 O CO T3 M
4J U - B 3
•\
0 3 CJ
CO rH B
CU rH CU
B O 00
E CU <
'n
>4H CN
W O 00
B CJ 0>
O CJ a ^
•H a, o
4-1 X 'r( >,
O Lt4 4-1 J2
CU CO
rH 0 M
rH • -H CU
O 00 14H ^
O B -H CO
•rH CO r-t
CO O CO
4J 00 CO O
CO C rH 0
O O cj cs
CO
cu
CO
cu
>4
CO
CU
to
CU
_,
B
CO
g
•tH
4J
o
3
TJ
o
o
o
in
00
B
o
•H
4J
ca
cu
a<
o
O CO
o C5
.2s
JS
O CU •-(
•n [d 3
o
•o
V
a
c
o
CJ
XII-A-6
-------
The two data bases have common identifiers that allow them to be used in
conjunction with each other. For example, the MWDI may be used to identify
sites for which data are available within a geographic area, such as a county
or the latitude and longitude vertices of a polygon; then the WDSD can be used
to obtain the addresses of offices from which the data may be obtained. The
NAWDEX data bases are accessible by computer terminals that are located in the
USGS district offices in each Region V state. The addresses and telephone
numbers of the USGS district offices that function as NAWDEX Assistance
Centers are listed in Chapter XIII, Section A. Nominal charges are assessed
for computer costs, extensive personnel time, and duplicating services. No
standard fee schedule exists, but most of the NAWDEX Assistance Centers
provide cost estimates for their services at the time a request is made.
Because the two data bases in NAWDEX can only be used to identify the
location of sites and the agencies to contact for water data, there also are
data bases that store the actual data values. U.S.EPA maintains a system for
the storage and retrieval (STORET) of water quality data. This data base
serves as a central repository for all water quality data that are collected
by U.S.EPA and other contributing agencies. Most of the state pollution
control agencies, or their equivalents, that are involved in lake monitoring
programs, store their data on the system and can retrieve all the data for
sites that are selected by a requestor of such data. The state agencies
generally will perform STORET searches for lake data at no cost; if large
amounts of data are involved, however, requests are better handled through the
U.S.EPA, Region V office in Chicago, IL, and a charge for the computer cost
will be assessed. The computer charges are related linearly to the amount of
data that is retrieved. There generally is a lag before recent data are
entered into the system (Some very old data are not yet entered.). Thus,
unless it is known that several different agencies have collected data in the
study area, it may be more expeditious to request the data that are contained
in the paper files of the agency. Often files are kept on each lake and may
contain more information than what is stored on the computer.
The USGS also maintains a computerized file for data that have been
collected through its Water Resources Division's investigations. Their
National Water Data Storage and Retrieval system is called WATSTORE and is a
subset of STORET. Although USGS is involved in many studies related to surface
waters and groundwaters, their routine lake monitoring program is limited to
water level and volume measurements in relatively few lakes in each Region V
state. Some offices, however, do collect lake or tributary water quality data
as part of statewide or regional water resources appraisals. Lake mapping also
has been undertaken by some USGS district offices. Generally, USGS data bases
would be most useful for obtaining tributary flow data and groundwater data.
b. State Agencies and Other Sources of Data
Each Region V state has one lead agency that is responsible for the
collection and maintenance of surface water quality data. Separate offices
within most of these agencies have been established for the state's lake
protection and restoration programs. This agency often will be the primary
source of lake water quality and morphometric data and also may be able to
recommend potential sources for more site-specific data. These primary
agencies are identified in Table XII-A-1, which summarizes some of the infor-
mation that is contained in the narrative descriptions of data availability
for each state.
XII-A-5
-------
limits are defined and it is likely that local residents or organizations
would be aware of what water quality studies had been conducted in the plan-
ning area. This section presents some general information about Federal pro-
grams and data sources and then a more detailed account of the data holdings
of state governmental agencies and, in some cases, other organizations that
were identified as being actively involved in lake studies.
a. Federal Agencies
As part of the National Eutrophication Survey (NES) that was conducted by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.EPA), 241 lakes in Region V were
sampled during 1972 and 1973. Most of these lakes faced actual or potential
accelerated eutrophication problems; were affected by discharges from muni-
cipal wastewater treatment plants that were within 25 miles of the lake; had
surface areas of 100 acres or more; and had hydraulic retention times of at
least 30 days (U.S.EPA, 1977). Although the water quality data are now
historic, both the methodology that was used and the results that were
obtained are considered to be reliable. The results may be useful in com-
parison with more recent data. Reports on individual lakes were published and
each contained data on lake morphometry; physical, chemical, and biological
characteristics; and nutrient loads. The number of lakes in each Region V
state and the year in which they were sampled are listed below.
Region V Lakes in the National Eutrophication Survey (NES)
1972 1973
State Number State Number
Minnesota 78 Illinois 31
Wisconsin 46 Indiana 27
Michigan 39 Ohio 20
Because of the number of agencies that are involved in the collection of
water quality data and in the interest of storing data for use by other
investigators, computerized data bases have become important mechanisms for
disseminating this information. The National Water Data Exchange (NAWDEX)
is an interagency program that is managed by USGS. It was implemented to
assist users of water data in identifying, locating, and acquiring needed
data. The NAWDEX program maintains two computerized data bases that serve as
central indices of data available nationwide and that may be useful to faci-
lity planners. The Water Data Sources Directory (WDSD) identifies organiza-
tions that are sources of water data; provides the names, addresses, and
telephone numbers of the organizations; describes the types of data held by
the organizations; and lists the geographic locations in which the data have
been collected. Broadly grouped, the types of data include surface water
quantity and quality; groundwater quality, levels, and pumpage; and geological
descriptions. Surface water quality stations are not differentiated in this
data base as to type of site (i.e., lake or stream). The other computerized
data base, the Master Water Data Index (MWDI), contains information about
sites for which water data are available. It includes information such as the
organization collecting the data, geographic location of the site, type of
site (i.e., lake, stream, well, etc.), type of data, period of record, major
data parameters, and frequency of data collection.
XII-A-4
-------
face area, mean and maximum depths, length of shoreline, volume, retention
time, and watershed area.
b. Other Data Requirements
Water, and hence nutrient loads, can enter lakes from any of several
sources. The importance of these sources will vary with the lakes and their
watersheds. Hydraulic and nutrient budgets for a lake can be derived if the
quantity and nutrient loads of water entering the lake can be estimated for
precipitation, tributary flow, point sources, and groundwater. Examples of
these generalized budgets are presented later.
Preciptiation on lake surfaces may be of importance in large basins but
tends to be rather insignificant in terms of quantity and nutrient contribu-
tion to lakes with small surface areas. The extent of existing data and non-
point source modeling approaches as they relate to runoff from the immediate
drainage area of the lake are addressed later. If local rainfall data are not
available, summaries of precipitation data for the nearest National Weather
Station, which often is an airport, can be obtained from the National Climatic
Center of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in
Asheville, North Carolina, for a nominal charge.
When present, tributaries are a major source of water input and pollutant
loads to a lake. It is, therefore, necessary to obtain quality and flow data
for the streams that flow in and out of the lake. This information also may be
used to estimate how much of the delivered load is retained in the lake.
Quality data should include nutrient, bacterial, and dissolved oxygen concen-
trations, at a minimum. In the ideal situation, the water quality and flow
data should be obtained at the inlets and outlets of the lakes. These data
sometimes are available from lake studies that are conducted by state agencies
or other organizations. Another source for the data may be through U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) district offices that maintain gaging stations up-
stream on some tributaries to lakes. In general, tributary data for stream-fed
lakes in rural areas are sparse.
If point sources, such as municipal or industrial wastewater treament
plants, are located upstream on tributaries in the study area, effluent water
quality and the corresponding flow data should be obtained. Treatment plants
are required to monitor their effluent water quality and to keep these
records, thus plant operators are the best source for this information.
In landlocked lakes, groundwater seepage will be more of a factor than in
stream-fed lakes. Groundwater data requirements and sources are discussed
later. Although septic tank leachate is transported via the groundwater, in
the generalized nutrient budget for rural lakes, it normally is considered to
be a separate input. Site-specific data rarely are available. Therefore, the
nutrient contribution from septic tank leachate to the lake is derived from
literature values.
3. SOURCES OF RURAL LAKE WATER QUALITY DATA
In an effort to assess the extent of available and useful water quality
data for rural lakes in Region V, discussions were restricted to individuals
in Federal and state agencies that are responsible for the collection of lake
water quality data. In the actual facilities planning process, the study area
XII-A-3
-------
The two major concerns in rural lake water quality are accelerated
eutrophication and public health. The following physical, chemical, and bio-
logical water quality parameters may be used as measures of potential and
existing productivity and sanitary conditions: chlorophyll a, Secchi depth,
nutrients (phosphorus and nitrogen), dissolved oxygen, temperature, pH,
alkalinity, conductivity, bacteria, and heavy metals.
Chlorophyll refers to the green pigments of plants, and chlorophyll a_ is
one of the most common pigments. Excessive growth in lakes may cause nuisance
conditions, impair recreational value, or exert significant oxygen demand.
Secchi disc transparency is a measure of light penetration, which influences
temperature and many biological reactions and activities; it usually is among
the parameters measured in most lake studies because the measurements are made
with relative ease. Chlorophyll
-------
A. EXTENT OF SURFACE WATER QUALITY DATA AVAILABLE IN U.S. EPA
REGION V
1. INTRODUCTION
This section identifies sources of surface water quality data for rural
lakes in U.S. EPA Region V, describes approaches for obtaining the data, and
identifies data gaps that exist in relation to the application of lake eutro-
phication models. To obtain this information, Federal and state agencies that
are responsible for gathering and/or maintaining water data were contacted.
Discussions were aimed at determining the extent of their lake water quality
monitoring programs and evaluating whether or not a facilities planner would
be able to obtain and use their acquired data.
Many agencies have opted to reduce the number of parameters that are
measured per lake and the frequency at which the lake is sampled in order to
increase the number of lakes that can be surveyed. Thus, the parameter
coverage and sampling frequency for a particular lake often will dictate the
range of modeling techniques that can be used. Lake water quality models range
from simplistic models that are dependent on few readily available parameters
to complex models that require extensive input data sets. Based on the extent
of the existing data, it appears that rather simplistic models will have to be
applied for most lakes.
As a result, the emphasis that must be placed on nonpoint source modeling
should be considered. For most lakes in rural areas, the nutrient and bac-
terial loads that are contributed via nonpoint sources of pollution are signi-
ficant, but such data rarely are quantified. If a lake has been sampled
repetitively, then it might be possible to use actual data to estimate pollu-
tant loads and to evaluate the in-lake response to those loads. On the other
hand, if insufficient data exist, then greater reliance must be placed on the
results of the nonpoint source models that are discussed later.
2. SUGGESTED TYPES OF DATA
In order to conduct a comprehensive assessment of existing and potential
lake water quality problems and to develop a cost-effective management plan
for those problems, several types of data are required. In addition to actual
data on lake water quality, data are needed to characterize the sources of
pollution that influence the in-lake water quality. In general, these would
include hydrologic data, tributary data, point source data, and septic tank
leachate data.
a. Lake Water Quality Data
Depending on the level of sophistication of the selected analysis,
several water quality parameters can be useful when assessing existing and
potential water quality problems in lakes. In rural lake areas, where data
often are scarce, more simplistic analysis methods must be used. These
simplistic modeling approaches are reviewed later. The extent of available
data often dictates which analysis is appropriate.
XII-A-1
-------
Chapter XII
SURFACE WATER RESOURCES
-------
An alternative use that may be considered for such an area is agricul-
tural adaptation. If crops such as alfalfa, reed canary grass, or hay are
grown, revenues from their sale could offset operation and maintenance
expenditures. Perhaps the best suited use would be for pasture. Drawbacks to
agricultural uses include prohibitions from using heavy machinery that would
disrupt or break effluent distribution lines. This would restrict the use of
plows and harvesting equipment to smaller machines possibly with flotation
tires. Other drawbacks would be possible soil compaction or topsoil loss to
erosion. Evapotranspiration of effluent would also be limited if crop cover
were not perennial.
XI-C-2
-------
C. MULTIPLE USE OF CLUSTER SYSTEM SITES
With the implementation of a small waste flows facility plan that
includes a multifamily filter field or cluster system, a resource of
community-owned or controlled land becomes available for public use and
benefit. While no data exist on the current use of such sites, it is
anticipated that as the use of cluster systems becomes more widespread, this
resource will be utilized to a greater extent. Possible uses include
recreation facilities such as playgrounds, tot lots, and athletic fields.
Also, these lands could be used to produce revenues through less intensive
cropping such as hay or other animal fodder and for pasture lands. Of the
obstacles faced, the greatest opposition to the multiple use of these sites
will likely be based on the potential of pathogenic contamination through
exposure to wastewater effluent. However, it is probable that this potential
risk can be reduced to acceptable levels.
The land that is used for these types of systems is often highly
desirable for other purposes as well. Usually, it is level, well-drained land
so that it fits the needs for the absorption system. It will also be in close
proximity to existing development if economies of scale for wastewater con-
veyance systems are to be achieved. The amount of land is dependent upon the
amount of wastewater generated and the resulting land area requirements. In
the Seven Rural Lake EIS on Crooked/Pickerel Lakes, a cluster system included
to serve 245 people would require 4.6 acres including buffer areas and land
set aside for complete replacement of the absorption system. In the cost
variability study conducted for this EIS, a land area of 2.75 acres would be
needed to serve the wastewater flows for 200 persons, 5.25 acres for 200
people, 7.75 acres for 600 people, and 12.5 for 1000 people. These figures
also include land for buffers and reserve areas. As can be seen, this
represents a considerable resource and provides a significant opportunity for
use.
Based on cost savings for wastewater conveyance, one may assume that
cluster site would be in close proximity to the residences served. This would
provide easy access to the cluster site, to areas between the houses, and to
areas along the collection route. Recreational use of the site could thus be
afforded to residents at a very nominal investment. Possible recreational
uses include playgrounds, tot lots, picnic areas, and athletic fields.
Cluster site conditions would be conducive to playfield use because they are
relatively level and well drained.
The major point of objection that can be envisioned for such use is the
possible contact between recreation users and wastewater effluent with
attendant pathogens that may rise to the ground surface. This can be a highly
emotional issue, and, if adequate provision is not made for public safety and
education, psychological barriers may preclude the use of such an area.
Proper siting, design, and reserve drainage area should provide a sufficient
margin of safety to allow for drainage without the chance of wastewater pond-
ing on the ground surface. If intensive recreation is anticipated, obser-
vation wells with alarm systems could be installed that do interfere with
recreation activities but do indicate groundwater mound depth and thus
exposure risk factors.
XI-C-1
-------
Once the number of the total dwelling units permitted in the area is
calculated, the average number of persons per seasonal and permanent dwelling
unit derived from census or other survey data may be multiplied to determine
the total population carrying capacity. This figure should provide a sound
basis as an upper limit population figure to compare against projections
derived from other demographic sources.
It should be noted that reliance on on-site wastewater treatment systems
permits much lower housing density than more centralized systems. Also, the
soils limitations portion of the environmental constraints evaluation
methodology may be circumvented if centralized service is provided in order to
allow development in marginally suitable areas with potential significant
impacts. An analysis of the carrying capacity under both conditions will thus
facilitate a more in-depth understanding of the type of impacts that
centralized collection and treatment may generate.
For additional information on this methodology consult the following
references:
Gordon, G. 1978. User's guide to the Ohio Capability Analysis Program.
Ohio DNR, Division of Water, Columbus OH.
McHarg, I. L. 1971. Design with nature. Doubleday and Co., Garden City, NY.
Neiswand, G. H. , and P. Pizor. 1977. Current planning capacity: A practical
carrying-capacity approach to land use planning. Extension Bulletin 413.
Rutgers University, New Brunswick NJ.
Sargent, F. 0., and E. P. Sargent. 1979. Rural water planning: The wave of
the future. American Planning Association, Chicago IL.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1978. Environmental assessment manual,
Region I. J. F. Kennedy Federal Building, Boston MA.
XI-B-4
-------
• existing land use patterns, including the location of residen-
tial, commercial, industrial, and institutional uses, and
• future land uses and density information derived from local
comprehensive plans, zoning ordinances, and subdivision regula-
tions .
All of this information is inventoried as part of any environmental assessment
process in planning for wastewater treatment facilities. The information
should be compiled in narrative and cartographic form for interpretation of
those factors that would constrain land development. For all factors
examined, the statutory or regulatory basis for constraining the use must be
stated explicitly to remove normative judgments.
Each natural and man-made factor places a different degree of constraint
on the utilization of the land for residential development. These factors
must be ranked in order of importance to determine if they are prohibitive,
restrictive, or qualified constraints to development. Prohibitive constraints
are the result of legislative prohibition on development in areas where
natural phenomena pose hazards to health, safety, and welfare. These
prohibitions include such codes as municipal flood plain ordinances and
sanitary codes governing on-site treatment systems or existing developed land
that is not available for future use. Restrictive constraints are noted in
sensitive areas where performance standards must be met to minimize the impact
of residential development. Performance criteria include density restriction
on slopes greater than 15% and executive orders governing Federally funded
activities in wetland areas. Some areas with resources that are valuable and,
therefore, require protection are covered by policy recommendations in local
or municipal comprehensive plans; these may be designated as areas of
qualified constraint.
The rank order of constraining factors enables mapping of these natural
and man-made factors on a composite constraints map. The rules of combination
in overlaying these various maps are based on a preemptive hierarchy where
prohibitive constraints overrule all others. Restrictive constraints are
noted as areas where some development may occur if it coincides with
explicitly set forth criteria. These restricted areas cannot be added to form
prohibitive constraints in areas of concurrence, as a number of limitations
still may be overcome. Qualified constraints are the lowest order priority
and constitute only policy guidance.
The result of the constraints mapping process should be a single map that
graphically shows portions of the study area where prohibitive constraints
allow no development to occur, restrictive constraints permit limited
development, qualified constraints where policy recommendations should be
recognized, and remaining areas of vacant unrestricted, developable acreage.
This map should next be overlaid with existing zoning maps to determine the
maximum number of dwelling units permitted per acre. Planimetric measurement
or a grid cell overlay of the amount of developable land in each of these
districts indicates the total acreage in each category. One cautionary note
is worthwhile here: a certain percentage (10 to 20%) of this land should be
deducted for public facilities such as roads, utility right-of-ways, or odd
lot lines and sizes.
XI-B-3
-------
en .a
2 °
If
o a>
O >
= o
•5 en O
•^ <= i_
o eu
•°a.<*
o a> »
»s =
III
M52
1
3
Q.
0
0)
c
£
0)
cu
o
o>
c
£
o >,
U —
o o
— Q.
s s
r
cr
<
»"5-S
« H -~
c 12 "o
a> c a>
en O "
u
• S S
•£ a> v>
O o 2
a.
o !
o « « £
^ «« ®
O — . m
> o c >-
UJ to O to
Site dependent
o
o
Q.
in
^
o>
en
O
(Considers future
development to be
on-site wastewoter
management)
W
U
w
c
o
cd
3
-H
a)
C
•H
CO
en
C
O
a
0)
c
o
w
I
«
I
M
x
0)
S-(
3
ao
•H
XI-B-2
-------
B. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
One of the major findings of the Seven Rural Lakes EIS's was that signi-
ficant differentials in population growth and land use conversion would result
from sewering as opposed to not sewering the rural lake communities. The
decision to sewer or not has significant implications for a community's
future. However, many rural communities are relying on relatively
unsophisticated planning tools that fail to recognize important environmental
and economic resources. They rely heavily on general soil limitations for
on-site systems to justify low density land use zones. It is, therefore, in
the best interests of rural communities to examine carefully land use
potentials as a critical element of their decision making for wastewater
facilities. This is particularly true for rural lake communities because of
the high incidence of environmentally sensitive resources.
An environmental constraints methodology provides suggestions to
applicants and facility planners for incorporating information on land use,
environmental resources, and economic factors into the design and evaluation
of wastewater management alternatives. The process involves an inventory and
mapping of natural and man-made factors in the study area, followed by
interpretation of the degree of constraint on future development caused by
these factors. This will allow compilation of data into a form that will
permit facility planners the opportunity to view areas where no residential
development may occur, where limited development may occur, and the amount and
spatial distribution of land where residential development is likely to take
place. Development limitations should be based upon local zoning and
subdivision ordinances, state laws, and Federal laws and regulations. An
analysis of the amount of vacant developable land in an area, correlated to
the permitted zoning density and average number of persons per household, will
present facility planners with an additional source of information on the
amount of population to be served in a given area. (See Figure XI-B-1.)
The process requires preparation of a base map of the study area and
overlays of inventory information at the same scale. The base map should show
the planning area boundaries, minor civil divisions, transit systems, and
surface water bodies. The overlays of inventory factors that present
constraints include such resources as:
• physiography, including steep slopes or slump and slide-prone
areas,
• geology, including subsidence-prone areas and aquifer recharge
areas,
• soils conditions, including shrink and swell soils, prime
agricultural areas, and/or a soils suitability analysis for on-
site wastewater treatment,
• water resources and their related land areas, including
wetlands and flood plain areas,
• sensitive areas, such as historic and archaeologic sites,
park and recreation areas, and habitats for rare and/or endangered
species,
XI-B-1
-------
REFERENCES
Sargent, F. 0., and B. P. Sargent. 1979. Rural water planning: The wave of
the future. American Planning Association, Chicago IL.
Sargent, F. 0. 1976. Rural environmental planning. American Planning
Association, Chicago IL.
Thurow, C., et al. 1975. Performance controls for sensitive lands: a
practical guide for local administrators. EPA 600/5-45-005. U.S. EPA,
Washington DC.
Kendig, L. H. et al. 1980. Performance zoning. APA Planners Press, Chicago
IL.
Snyder, R. W. 1972. You and rural zoning. Bulletin #373. University of
Minnesota Agricultural Extension Service, St. Paul MN.
Rahenkamp, et al. 1977. Innovative zoning: A local official's guidebook,
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington DC.
Twichell, J. H. 1978. The effects of the use and regulation of septic tank
systems upon land use in Massachusetts. Pub. No. 96. University of
Massachusetts, Water Resources Research Center, Amherst MA.
Holzer, T. L. 1975. Limits to growth and septic tanks. In: Water pollution
control in low density areas: Proceedings of a rural environmental
engineering conference (W.J. Jewell and R. Swan, eds.). University Press
of New England, Hanover NH.
Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services. 1979. Final environ-
mental impact statement on mound systems for private waste disposal.
Madison WI.
XI-A-6
-------
be defined as eligible under the provisions for force accounts in 40 CFR
35.936-15(b). These funds might also be matched by Comprehensive Planning
funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 701 grants
under some form of memorandum of agreement. However, this raises a dilemma of
ineligibility if these studies constitute a "normal function of government" as
defined under 40 CFR 35.940-3(e). Unallowable studies here refer to the
design of implementation schemes, drafting of statutes or regulations,
delineating boundaries relating to finances, etc. Interpretation of these
codes and regulations for grant eligibility should be conducted to determine
elements of comprehensive community land use planning, define community
development goals and objectives, and thus mitigate potential adverse
environmental impacts in the facility planning process.
XI-A-5
-------
land use planning and zoning and do not have formally adopted land use goals
or plans. They do not have the tools to understand and inventory their
environmental resource base and formulate performance standards to permit
development but prevent significant impacts.
Planning for wastewater treatment facilities presents a significant
opportunity for local municipalities to contract for the necessary expertise
to conduct land use planning in concurrence with facility plans. Because the
two topics are so closely linked, anticipation of impacts prior to design and
formulation of a mitigation strategy could save considerable time and expense.
An understanding of the environmental resource base, housing types, lot sizes,
and existing densities possibly in the framework of the Environmental
Contraints Evaluation in Chapter IX, in conjunction with a program that
involves land use planning concurrent with facility planning would lead to an
environmentally sound wastewater management program. Lately, considerable
attention has been given to the special planning needs of rural areas. A
listing of sources available for use by local decision makers and the
interested public is included.
Of particular interest in mitigating impacts in environmentally sensitive
areas are the works by Thurow and others (1975) and Kendig and others (1980).
These authors have demonstrated the achievements of local governments in
writing performance standards that can be added to existing zoning ordinances.
These performance standards permit development while requiring that developers
show proof that the proposed housing development will not have an impact on
the community's environmentally sensitive areas or infrastructure. Thus,
these standards enable the community to mitigate any adverse environmental
impacts early in the facility planning process.
A policy issue that U.S. EPA should address is whether or not it would be
beneficial to make construction grants funds available for land use planning
during the facility planning process. There are several good reasons for
considering this approach. A significant portion of the expertise required to
do a thorough comprehensive plan with the necessary zoning enforcement is
available from consulting engineering firms that perform facility plans.
Between population projections, housing analyses, and the aspects of an
environmental assessment that are required for a facility plan, a significant
portion of the work necessary for comprehensive planning is accomplished.
Additionally, community involvement and public input would be increased
because a broader range of interests would be attracted to overall community
planning. This would ensure a definition of community development goals that
did not depend on suitable soils. Performing community planning concurrently
would ensure that formally adopted land use policies would be supported by
proper infrastructure development and that the necessary growth management
programs would be codified to mitigate any adverse environmental impacts.
The grant eligibility of conducting municipal comprehensive planning
appears to have some basis within the structure of existing codes and
regulations. U.S. EPA's Program Requirements Memorandum 77-4 (PRM 77-4)
speaks to cost allocation for multiple purpose projects under the construction
grants program. The types of projects given as examples include combined
sewer overflow projects that also reduce flooding and enhance urban drainage
and other community planning programs. If a municipality were to use its own
staff in conducting facility planning and comprehensive planning, funds could
XI-A-4
-------
separation distances will not be reduced, and thus lot size requirements may
not change. Cluster systems with centralized collection and off-site
treatment will have the same effect on lot size as large scale centralized
collection and treatment systems. As the public health risk from well
contamination is avoided, smaller lot sizes are permitted in local zoning
codes. Drawing from Seven Rural Lakes EIS examples, Littlefield Township in
the Crooked/Pickerel Lakes, Michigan area allows 4.5 dwelling units to the
acre with the provision of public water and sewer. In the Otter Tail Lake,
Minnesota area, provisions for clustered development in the local zoning
ordinance allow for 8 to 9 dwelling units to the acre where central sewer
service is provided.
The predominant settlement pattern and housing type with standard septic
tank soil absorption systems is reported as single-family detached units in
small subdivisions and dispersed low density sprawl patterns (Twichell, 1978).
This development pattern has been determined by access to and the spatial
distribution of suitable soil. This development pattern may lead to a
situation where the future option to sewer may be precluded because of the
great expense incurred by constructing sewers between dispersed houses.
Further dependence upon local sanitary codes may thus severely restrict the
amount and distribution of developable land in lake areas. Such restrictions
may run counter to local growth plans or subdivision plans by large
landholders.
It is likely that grey water/black water separation systems will require
soil properties similar to standard systems and will not change existing
settlement patterns. Elevated sand mounds, if permitted by code for new
systems, may enable development in sub-optimal soil areas. These systems may
operate on soils with a depth to seasonal high water table or limiting layer
of 2 feet including zones such as floodplain areas or other areas in close
proximity to lakeshores. The Wisconsin Department of Health and Social
Services (1979) has estimated that in Wisconsin alone, mound systems will
allow development on 3 million acres or 8.4 percent of the state that was
previously not suitable for conventional on-site systems.
Cluster systems, which are capable of serving as many as 120 homes, do
not depend on on-site conditions and thus permit development of smaller lots.
In addition, this type of service permits the development of duplex,
townhouse, and small apartment units that may not be anticipated in existing
local plans. Additionally, cluster systems foster development by allowing the
placement of collection lines in such areas as floodplains, wetlands, and even
steeply sloping areas, where local codes permit.
One of the most consistent impact findings in the Seven Rural Lakes EISs
was that, in the absence of local development controls, centralized collection
and treatment systems would induce growth into environmentally sensitive areas
such as floodplains, wetlands, and steeply sloping areas. As has been stated
here, alternative and innovative forms of wastewater treatment may have
similar effects though to a lesser degree. Historically, sanitary codes have
been used as tools to limit or control growth, and as such, have become a form
of zoning (Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services, 1979; Twichell,
1978). Some sanitary codes do not permit development of on-site wastewater
treatment systems in these marginal areas. However, in many rural lake areas,
local municipal officials often do not have the staff or the budget to conduct
XI-A-3
-------
Table XI-A-1 shows an analysis of separation distances needed between
soil absorption systems and wells, surface water bodies, lot lines, and
structures in the Seven Rural Lakes EIS project areas. On the basis of a
separation distance between a soil absorption system and a surface water body
of 50 feet, a septic tank of 10 feet, a well of 50 feet, and a lot line of 10
feet, a lot of 10,080 square feet or 0.25 acre could be permitted based on
sanitary codes alone. This assumes a soil absorption system of 1200 square
feet (24* x 50') with 10 foot separation from lot lines. Where a soil
absorption system occupies a 30 by 40 foot area with the same separation
distances, the lot can be as small as 8000 square feet. Under optimal
conditions, a lot can thus be as small as 0.25 to 0.2 acre and accommodate
both well installation and on-site wastewater treatment. This does not take
into account odd lot lines or differential lot site limitations.
Table XI-A-1. SANITARY CODE SEPARATION DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR SOILS
ABSORPTION SYSTEMS (in feet)
Surface water
Well
House
Lot line
Crystal Lake
Crooked/Pickerel Lakes
Otter Tail Lake
Green Lake
Nettle Lake
Steuben Lakes
Salem Utility District
25
50
75
75
NA
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
5
10
10
20
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
5
5
Larger lot sizes have also been institutionalized into zoning codes often
based upon on-site sanitary requirements. Generalized dwelling unit per acre
zoning in the Seven Rural Lakes EIS project areas require .5 acre or larger
lots in these unsewered areas (see Section X.B.). Often these large lot size
requirements have been based on the best professional judgment of sanitarians.
These professionals have experienced the need for larger lots because of site
limitations or odd lots lines and have recommended larger lots based on the
need to protect community health and welfare and not on community development
goals.
Alternative on-site technologies are becoming more widely accepted as
viable forms of wastewater treatment; they may have an impact on lot size
requirements. Elevated sand mounds may require larger lots due to larger
system areal requirements. Grey water/black water separation systems have the
effect of reducing the areal requirements of the soil absorption system and
thus lot sizes. However, it is likely that for public health protection, well
XI-A-2
-------
A. THE INTERRELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SMALL WASTE FLOWS FACILITY
PLANNING AND LAND USE
In rural and developing areas, the enforcement of on-site sanitary codes,
from 1945 to the end of the 1960s, has served as a form of land use control.
These codes have limited development in wetland areas, on soils with a
seasonal high water table, including floodplain areas, on steeply sloping
areas, and in locations with shallow depth to bedrock. Because these areas
are defined as unsuitable for on-site wastewater treatment by local codes,
limited residential development has been permitted. Sanitary codes have thus
served as a form of de facto zoning, resulting in large lot sizes and a
settlement pattern based on suitable soils. The codes have minimized
development in some environmentally sensitive areas that would otherwise go
unprotected such as wetlands, steep slopes, and floodplains.
The introduction of new forms of wastewater treatment technology that
partially or entirely overcome unfavorable site conditions or that take
advantage of more favorable off-site conditions, may enable developers to
circumvent these controls. These treatment systems could thus result in
significant environmental impacts as a result of the encroachment of housing
development on sensitive environmental resources. Also, this could permit a
development pattern inconsistent with local goals and objectives. The use of
on-site technology such as elevated sand mounds may enable development to
occur in areas with a seasonal high water table or shallow depth to bedrock.
Off-site treatment such as cluster systems can circumvent on-site limitations
altogether and could thus permit development in any of these areas. Impacts
that would result include markedly higher density residential development
within existing development areas; loss of open space buffers between existing
development, and encroachment into environmentally sensitive areas.
If localities wish to anticipate these impacts, consideration should be
given to conducting land use planning concurrent with wastewater treatment
facility planning. This would ensure that the suitability of the area for
development would be analyzed, community development goals defined, analyzed,
and appropriate performance standards drafted to mitigate impacts of both
wastewater treatment facility construction and associated residential
development.
Considerable information is available regarding the effects of
centralized wastewater collection and treatment facilities on land use.
Generally, these facilities allow for and may induce higher rates and higher
densities of residential development than many rural municipalities can
accommodate without burdening local tax bases and infrastructure.
The limited amount of literature available on the land use effects of
on-site systems points to the use of sanitary codes to enforce large lot
sizes. Twichell (1978) points out that local health officials and sanitarians
have often become the permitting officials for new housing development and
that stipulation has been made for lot sizes of .5 to 2 dwelling units per
acre in order to prevent groundwater pollution. Halzer (1975) states that,
based on data from well-drained sites with deep water tables in eastern
Connecticut, a dilution of renovated septic tank effluent of at least 1 to 1
may be required to reduce nitrate concentrations in groundwater to a public
health standard of 45 mg/l-NO~. His data indicate that residential
development should not occur at densities greater than an average of one
dwelling unit to the acre.
XI-A-1
-------
CHAPTER XI
LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
-------
REFERENCES
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1977. Current population reports, Series P-25.
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, B.C.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1979. Annual housing survey, 1977: Urban and
rural housing characteristics. Current Housing Reports, Series H-150-77,
Pt. E. Government Printing Office, Washington DC.
X-E-9
-------
Actual cost avoidance will depend more on public understanding and
acceptance of these alternatives. To the extent that municipalities do
nothing, the cost avoidance will be even higher. To the extent that munici-
palities sewer where they could rely on optimum operation, the region-wide
cost avoidance will be decreased. Economic contraints are liable to minimize
excess sewering whereas lethargy is open-ended. The net economic result would
be to increase cost avoidance above the nominal estimate.
X-E-8
-------
TABLE X-E-6. PRESENT WORTH COSTS PER HOUSE AND
TOTAL COSTS FOR SEWERING 430 THOUSAND RESIDENCES
Density
Range
(residences/mile)
100+
Treatment Needs
Collection Only
Collection, Trans-
and Cent. Treatment
% Number
25 25.32
75 76.98
Average
$/House
(20 Year
Present Worth)
3543
5409
Total
Present
Worth
(million $)
89.71
416.38
75-100
50-75
50-75
Collection Only 20
Collection, Trans- 80
and Cent. Treatment
Collection Only 15
Collection, Trans- 85
and Cent. Treatment
Collection Only 10
Collection, Trans- 90
and Cent. Treatment
101.3
29.18
116.72
145.9
18.59
105.31
123.90
5.9
53.1
"59.0
4264
6746
5625
8722
8171
11883
144.47
787.39
104.57
918.51
48.21
630.99
Total
430.1
3140.23
In both cases, costs per house were calculated for the lower limit of the
density groups. For example, costs for 100 homes per mile were used to repre-
sent the 100+ density group.
6. CONCLUSION
The nominal cost avoidance estimated by this method is
$3140.23 million for sewering
-1232.65 million for optimum operation
1907.58 million.
Because of the many undocumentable assumptions on which the estimate is based,
the actual figure may range from $1 billion to $3 billion. This range repre-
sents possible cost avoidance resulting from widespread use of optimum opera-
tion alternatives.
X-E-7
-------
abandonment and replacement/upgrade rates were used to reflect the hypothe-
tical case,
sewering.
i.e., these systems would also be considered for centralized
Sewering costs included the assumption that 10 to 25 percent of the
residences would be located close to existing centralized collection and
treatment systems, and would require only new collector sewers. Costs for
sewering the 430 thousand homes are presented in Table X-E-6.
TABLE X-E-5. TECHNOLOGY MIXES, PRESENT WORTH COSTS PER HOUSE
AND TOTAL COSTS FOR OPTIMUM OPERATION OF
430 THOUSAND RESIDENCES
Density
Range
(residences/mile)
Technologies
Type %_ Number
Average
$/House
(20 Year
Present Worth)
Total
Present
Worth
(million $)
100+
75-100
50-75
Cluster
20% On-site*
Holding Tank
Cluster
20% On-site*
Holding Tank
Cluster
20% On-site
Holding Tank
20 20.26
78 79.01
2 2.03
101.30
15 21.88
83 121.10
2 2.92
145.90
10 12.39
87 107.80
3 3.72
123.90
6897
1879
7761
7705
1879
7761
9691
1879
7761
139.73
148.46
15.75
168.58
227.55
22.66
120.07
202.56
28.87
25-50
Cluster
20% On-site
Holding Tank
Total
5
91
4
2.95
53.69
2.36
59.00
430.10
13300
1879
7761
39.23
100.88
18.31
1232.65
* 20% replacement of existing on-site systems.
X-E-6
-------
TABLE X-E-4. PARTITION OF 1977 URBAN AND RURAL NON-FARM ON-SITE SYSTEMS
INTO NEED GROUPS BY DENSITY CLASS
Density
Class
100+
75-100
50-75
25-50
<25
Total
Number
(1000's)
289.5
364.7
412.9
589.4
916.4
2572.9
Sewer or
Sewer Optimum Operation
% Number
(1000's)
50 144.8
30 109.4
10 41.3
-
_
295.5
% Number
(1000's)
35 101.3
40 145.9
30 123.9
10 59.0
_
430.1
Optimum Operation
% Number
(1000's)
10 29.0
20 72.9
30 123.9
40 235.9
20 183.3
645.0
No Action
7o Number
(1000's)
5 14.4
10 36.5
30 123.9
50 294.8
80 733.2
1202.8
optimum operation" group. This group represents about 13 percent of all on-
site systems in Region V and 17 percent of non-farm systems.
Cost per house is determined by density and by environmental setting as
discussed in the Cost Variability Study, Chapter IV.A. Using the cost per
house averaged for the eight scenarios at each density interval (25, 50, 75
and 100 residences per mile) and selecting the least cost sewer for each
scenario/density combination, the per-house costs for cluster systems, col-
lection only, and collection/centralized treatment were estimated. Costs are
all expressed as 20-year present worths. Other costing assumptions are pre-
sented in the Cost Variability study.
Costs for on-site systems are not dependent on density but do vary from
one environmental scenario to another. Per-house costs are the average for
the eight scenarios.
Costs per house for holding tanks are not density or environmentally
determined. It was assumed that maximum flow reduction methods, including
air-assisted showers and toilets (one each per residence), were used in con-
junction with holding tanks. On-site upgrading assumed a 20 percent replace-
ment rate.
Technology mixes, cost per house for each technology, and total costs for
optimum operation alternatives are presented in Table X-E-5.
The $2867 average cost per house is conservatively high and is due to the
assumptions for off-site treatment required (9 to 22 percent) and the 20
percent replacement/upgrade rate for the remaining on-site systems. High
X-E-5
-------
The percentage and, therefore, the numbers per class are assumptions and
might be seriously in error. However, the declining percentages at lower
densities in urban areas (generally, places with 2500 population or greater),
and increasing percentages at lower densities with a large allotment to the
lowest category, are expected to fairly represent actual conditions. Average
space per residence assuming both square and rectangular lots (twice as deep
as wide) at the density intervals are:
100 residences/mile
75 residences/mile
50 residences/mile
25 residences/mile
10 residences/mile
Square Rectangular
Space Space
0.26 acres 0.512 acres
0.45 acres 0.91 acres
1.02 acres 2.05 acres
4.10 acres 8.19 acres
25.60 acres 51.20 acres
Actual lot sizes would vary and averages would be less than those shown due to
vacancy or other uses. These figures are presented to demonstrate the wide
range of development types represented by the density classes.
Rural farm residences are not included in Table X-E-3 or in subsequent
calculations. Few of these residences are sewered now and few are expected to
be sewered in the future. Some on-site systems serving farms may require
public supervision under an optimum operation alternative, but the proportion
is expected to be small.
4. PARTITION OF TOTAL HOMES PER DENSITY CLASS TO NEED CATEGORIES
Of the two and one-half million on-site systems not on farms, many will
require no change in management--homeowner maintenance will suffice. Others
will be abandoned and the residences sewered because of irremediable problems,
proximity to problem systems, or other reasons. Some will substantially bene-
fit from local application of the optimum operation alternative.
Of the systems requiring either sewers or optimum operation, some will be
sewered for economic or performance reasons; others will be too expensive to
sewer so that optimum operation (along with cluster systems and holding tanks)
will be the only feasible remedy. Between these two groups, there are systems
that could either be sewered or publicly supervised in an optimum operation
alternative. Table X-E-4 proposes an estimate of the size of these need cate-
gories by density class.
5. COST AVOIDANCE ESTIMATE
Differences in cost, attributable to adoption of optimum operation alter-
natives, will be realized only for the 430 thousand systems in the "sewer or
X-E-4
-------
The two sources of error in this step are the application of data from a
12-state census region to the 6-state U.S.EPA Region V, and the small sample
size of the 1977 housing survey. The combined error cannot be quantified.
However, the error is expected to be somewhat greater than errors of state
population numbers, but considerably less than errors in subsequent estimates
of density distributions, numbers of households requiring improved wastewater
management, and cost savings per household.
3. DENSITY DISTRIBUTION OF URBAN AND RURAL NON-FARM ON-SITE
SYSTEMS
The relative cost-effectiveness of sewered and non-sewered approaches to
rural waste water management is strongly influenced by density of development:
as density increases, sewered approaches become more attractive. Since no
data are available for density of development, contractor's estimates were
used for percentages of urban and rural non-farm residences in various density
ranges. The density unit used is residences per mile of collector sewer, the
same unit used in the Cost Variability Study, Chapter IV.A. The highest
densities of residences are limited by regulatory and practical restrictions
on lot size. Assuming a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet, lots that are
twice as deep as their frontage, and no exclusions for side roads or vacant
lots, 150 lots could be laid out on both sides of a one-mile-long sewer
(seventy-five lots with 71 foot frontages on each side of the sewer). Few, if
any, one-mile segments at this density are likely to be unsewered.
The density classes used in subsequent estimates in residences per mile
are 100+, 75-100, 50-75, 25-50 and <25. The assumed percentages and numbers
of unsewered residences in each class are presented in Table X-E-3 for urban
and rural non-farm categories.
TABLE X-E-3.
PERCENTAGES AND NUMBERS OF RESIDENCES
PER DENSITY CLASS
Density
Class
(Residences)
mile
Urban
% Number
(1000's)
Rural
Non-farm
% Number
(1000's)
Total
Number
(1000's)
100+
75-100
50-75
25-50
<25
35
30
20
15
187.7
160.9
107.3
80.4
5
10
15
25
45
101.8
203.8
305.6
509.0
916.4
289.5
364.7
412.9
589.4
916.4
Total
100
536.3
100
2036.6
2572.9
X-E-3
-------
1977 data on urban, rural non-farm, and rural farm populations by state
are not available. However, 1970 census data for percent urban and farm popu-
lations by state provide a reasonable means to estimate the 1977 numbers when
applied to the 1977 state totals. Error due to changes in the percentages
from 1970 to 1977 is possible but unquantifiable. Table X-E-1 presents the
urban, rural non-farm, and rural farm populations by state.
2. NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS AND NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS SERVED BY ON-SITE
SYSTEMS IN REGION V
Dwelling occupancy rates for the rural and urban categories are not
available by state. 1977 occupancy rate data for those categories is avail-
able for the North Central census region. In addition to the six states in
U.S. EPA Region V, the North Central census region includes Iowa, Missouri,
Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota and North Dakota. Occupancy rates were cal-
culated from data in Table C-l of the 1977 Annual Housing Survey, Part E (U.S.
Bureau of the Census, 1979). Total population in U.S. EPA Region V, North
Central census region occupancy rates, and number of households by urban/rural
categories and presented in Table X-E-2.
The 1977 Annual Housing Survey also provides data that was used to cal-
culate percentages of occupied dwellings served by septic tanks and other on-
site systems (Table C-5 of Part E referenced above). These percentages are
applied to number of households in Table X-E-2 by urban/rural categories.
This yields the number of on-site systems for each category and a total for
Region V.
TABLE X-E-2. 1977 NUMBERS OF HOUSEHOLDS AND NUMBER OF
HOUSEHOLDS SERVED BY ON-SITE SYSTEMS IN REGION V
Urban
Rural
Non-farm
Rural
Farm
Totals
Population
(1000's)
Occupancy
(Number /Owe 11 ing)
Number of Households
(1000's)
Percentage of
Households with
On-site Systems
33371.1
2.7377
12189.5
9366.9
3.0309
3090.5
2394.8
3.1130
769.3
45132.8
16049.3
4.4
65.9
98.7
Number of Households
with On-site Systems
(1000's)
536.3
2036.6
759.3
3332.2
X-E-2
-------
E. ON-SITE SYSTEMS IN REGION V AND POTENTIAL COST AVOIDANCE FROM
ADOPTION OF OPTIMUM OPERATION ALTERNATIVES
States do not keep counts of on-site systems in use. And, because public
supervision of on-site systems has not been tested as an alternative to sewer-
ing, no real data on cost differences are available. Nevertheless, it is
important to estimate the potential cost avoidance that could be achieved with
optimum operation of existing on-site systems.
The accuracy of the estimated cost avoidance rests on the strengths of
the various data bases and assumptions used. Factors that influence the
accuracy are discussed, where appropriate, throughout this report. Quantities
are not rounded off. While this implies a level of accuracy not present in
the numbers, it reduces rounding errors and should help those who wish to
repeat the calculations with their own estimates.
This report demonstrates the estimation procedure;
marized at its end.
results are sum-
1. URBAN, RURAL NON-FARM AND RURAL FARM POPULATIONS BY STATE
1977 state populations are reported in Current Population Reports, Series
P-25 (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1977). State totals are listed in Table
X-E-1.
TABLE X-E-1. 1977 URBAN, RURAL NON-FARM AND RURAL FARM
POPULATIONS OF REGION V STATES
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
Total
1977 State
Populations Urban
(1000's) (1000's)
11237.6 9327.2
5350.1 3472.2
9185.0 6787.7
4019.5 2668.9
10696.6 8054.5
4644.3 3060.6
45132.8* 33371.1
Rural
Non-f arm
(1000's)
1476.6
1492.1
2110.7
870.6
2269.8
1147.1
9366.9
Rural
Farm
(1000's)
433.8
385.7
286.6
479.9
372.2
436.6
2394.8
'''Total does not add vertically because of rounding. Difference between
vertical and horizontal additions is 0.3 thousands.
X-E-1
-------
REFERENCES
Gold, S.N. 1980. What the leisure field can do to safeguard the future.
Parks and Recreation, May, pp45-49.
Hoffman, D.L., and R.D. Westfall. 1979. Implications of the new federal
SCORP (Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan) planning require-
ments for outdoor recreation research and planning. Presented at the
Society of Park & Recreation Educators Symposium on Leisure Research,
held in conjunction with the National Recreation & Parks Association.
Congress for Recreation & Parks, New Orleans LA, 27-29 October 1979.
Illinois Department of Conservation, Springfield IL.
Illinois Department of Conservation. 1978. Outdoor recreation in Illinois:
the Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. Springfield IL.
Indiana Department of Natural Resources. 1979. The 1979 Indiana Outdoor
Recreation Plan. Indianapolis, IN.
Lancaster, R. National Recreation and Park Association. Personal communica-
tion, December 1980.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 1979. 1979 Michigan Recreation
Plan. Lansing MI.
Ohio Department of Natural Resources. 1975. Ohio state Comprehensive Outdoor
Recreation Plan 1975-1980. Columbus OH.
Urban Research and Development Corporation. 1977. Guidelines for understand-
ing and determining optimum recreation carrying capacity. Prepared for
U.S. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Contract //BOR-14-97-5, Bethlehem PA.
U.S. Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service. 1979. Recreation benefits
from clean water. Washington DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and U.S. Department of the Interior,
Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service. 1980. Recreation and land
use: The public benefits of urban waters. Washington DC.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1976. Wisconsin Outdoor
Recreation Plan. Madison WI.
X-D-4
-------
water collection and conveyance right-of-ways for hiking and biking trails.
Again, the type of recreation facilities planned should be a synthesis of
facility plan designs, closely coordinated with needs and desires generated on
a local level. Considerable technical assistance and design experience is
available upon request from the U.S. Department of Interior, Heritage
Conservation and Recreation Service, Lake Central Office in Ann Arbor,
Michigan and the respective state offices.
The question of funding for acquisition and development of facilities in
times of austere municipal budgets had frustrated many park and recreation
plans. While planning funds are available only in Step I of the facility
planning process, acquisition and development opportunities exist in Steps II
and III. For example, a maintenance road on collection right-of-ways can
easily be constructed for hiking and biking use. The question of which costs
are eligible to accommodate recreation uses in wastewater treatment projects
has no basis in law or policy and is decided case-by-case. Historically, the
largest source of funds for development of recreation facilities has been the
U.S. Department of Interior, Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service,
Land and Water Conservation Funds. These are matching 50% grants made to
municipalities for the acquisition and development of recreation facilities.
A policy question that U.S. EPA must address is whether grants from Clean
Water Act Funds can be used as the local share of the needed 50% match to meet
HCRS requirements for the Land and Water Conservation Funds.
Additional sources of funding include U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development, Community Development Block Grants for land acquisition,
and U.S. Department of Labor, Comprehensive Employment Training Act funds for
staffing needs. State highway funds are frequently available for hiking and
biking right-of-way development. Non-governmental sources include private
foundation grants, non-profit corporations, and major public corporations that
often make grants for such public services. An uncommon, yet effective,
source of funding is the donation of partial interest of private lands (in the
form of permanent easements) in return for tax deductions for the private
property owner. Again, for technical assistance contact HCRS, Lake Central
Office or the appropriate state agency.
X-D-3
-------
The idea of local user value identification and user involvement in the
planning process is currently the most accepted way of conducting recreation
planning (Gold, 1980; Hoffman and Westfall, 1979). Because a recreation
designer does not share the same values as the users, the local population
must be actively involved in the planning process. This must be done in order
to define the users' social and physical needs and activity perferences so
that they will identify with the area and use it (Gold, 1980). Methods that
have been employed for value identification are door-to-door surveys and
market preference studies. A door-to-door survey could be accomplished as
part of the sanitary survey process for needs documentation.
The National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) is in the process of
writing an extensive report on a needs determination methodology, which should
be available for general use in the summer of 1981 (Lancaster, 1980, personal
communication). This document will provide guidance for a community to formu-
late its own standards, differing from the previous population to acreage
ratio methodology. A methodology will be presented to inventory a community's
needs based on existing use patterns and expressed values. Additionally, the
U.S. Department of Interior Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service
(HCRS) is conducting a "Rural Areas and Small Communities Assessment" to
define the kinds of recreation opportunities available to rural populations
and how they can be expanded. Information is available from HCRS Recreation
Programs, 440 G Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20243.
In order to gain the maximum recreation resource development, this effort
should be undertaken before facility planning is initiated. Before Step I,
facilities planning and local interests should contact park and recreation
experts on the local, regional, and state levels for an inventory of existing
plans and facilties. At this time a preliminary study area evaluation of
existing facilities and activities should be conducted. This can be accomp-
lished at little expense with assistance from local homeowner associations,
4-H groups, senior citizen groups, or others. This should be completed prior
to Step I because grant funds can be used for recreation and open space
planning as part of overall planning for wastewater treatment facilities but
are not available in the design and construction phases in Step II or III
(U.S. EPA and HCRS, 1980). Thus, an adequate proposal must be made in the
plan of study to allot sufficient planning funds in Step I.
During Step I, coordination should be undertaken with park and recreation
agencies to evaluate the potential multiple use of proposed collection and
treatment facilities and to syncronize with other acquisition programs active
in the area. In the facility planning process, designers should be active in
generating local interest and participation in order to gain insight into
local needs. Park and recreation representation should be evident on techni-
cal and public advisory communities to ensure input. This could be accomp-
lished by developing a consortium of interest among concerned elements of
local environmental groups, homeowner association members, and other lakeside
residents.
Coordinated recreation and wastewater facility development has enjoyed
considerable success since the passage of the Clean Water Act. Treatment
facility sites have been used for public access to surface waters, picnic
sites, play and active recreation areas (HCRS, 1979). Outmoded treatment
systems have been recycled into skating rinks, tennis courts, and play fields.
Perhaps the most notable success has been achieved in the wide use of waste-
X-D-2
-------
D. RECREATION PLANNING
A prime opportunity exists to conduct recreation planning and formulate
management structures that would determine the recreation carrying capacity in
lake areas and maximize the recreation potential of an area. Section
201(g)(6) of the Clean Water Act stipulates that, "The Administrator shall not
make grants from funds authorized for any fiscal year beginning after
September 30, 1978, to any State, municipality, or intermunicipal or inter-
state agency for the erection, building, acquisition, alteration, remodeling,
improvement, or extension of treatment works unless the grant applicant has
satisfactorily demonstrated to the Administrator that the applicant has
analyzed the potential recreation and open space opportunities in the planning
of the proposed treatment works." As has been previously stated, access to
water-based recreation is the most critical factor in second-home development.
Indeed, water-based recreation has one of the highest rates of participation
of any recreation activity identified in the upper mid-west states. The
Illinois State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) shows that the
highest household participation rate is in swimming, followed by sportfishing
(Illinois Department of Conservation, 1978). The Michigan SCORP (1979) states
that the highest vacation preference qualities sought were proximity to water,
fishing, and scenery, and that the highest participation rates were in
camping, boating, and fishing (Michigan Department of Natural Resources,
1979). State planners also projected a 38% increase in participation in
fishing and 15% in boating activities. The Wisconsin SCORP (Wisconsin DNR,
1979) states that water resources are the primary recreation attraction in the
state and that swimming, fishing, and boating are traditionally the most
popular activities. In addition, this SCORP indicates that of the lakes
suitable for pleasure boating, 25% have no public access, and only 45% have
limited access.
In conducting facility planning, the need then is to understand the
recreation potential of a particular lake area and maximize the opportunities
for using that potential. Historically, recreation needs analysis has been
conducted using ratios of population served to unit of resource. For
instance, the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) published
Outdoor Recreation Space Standards in 1965, which listed acreage needs for
public parks per unit of population. This type of standard has been applied
to swimming beach area per user, lake surface acreage per fisherman, and lake
surface acreage per boat. These standards have been widely criticized in
recent years as an unsound methodology in that they are not responsive to the
needs of users on the local level (Hoffman and Westfall, 1979).
Gold (1980) has proposed a method for determining recreation demand
factors based upon data on demographic characteristics of the service area
population, time budgets, leisure customs, and experience levels. He
stipulates that a particular recreation resource should be designed around the
potential users, travel time, travel mode, and costs. The recreation area
design should take into account site attraction factors, microclimate, design
load, and the carrying capacity of the sites natural and physical charac-
teristics. Urban Research and Development Corporation (1977) has published
Guidelines for Understanding and Determining Optimum Recreation Carrying
Capacity that may serve as a guide for local area users to define their own
thresholds.
X-D-1
-------
REFERENCES
American Society of Planning Officials. 1976. Subdividing rural America:
Impacts of recreation lot and second home development. Council on
Environmental Quality, Washington DC.
Burby, R. J. 1979. Second homes in North Carolina: An analysis of water
resource and other consequences of recreational land development. NTIS PB
80-190698. University of North Carolina, Water Resources Institute,
Raleigh NC.
Marans, R. W. , and J. D. Wellman. 1977. The quality of nonmetropolitan
living: Evaluation, behaviors, and expectations of northern Michigan
residents. University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research, Ann
Arbor MI.
Ragatz, R. L. 1980. Trends in the market for privately owned seasonal
recreation housing. In: Proceedings of the 1980 Recreation Trends
Symposium, Durham NC. USDA Forest Service Northeast Forest Experiment
Station, Broomall PA.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1972. U.S. census of housing: 1970 detailed
housing characteristics. Washington DC.
X-C-5
-------