C ca
to >ป
oo ca
0
4-1
CU
rH
H
O
4-1
cu
rH
O
o
CU
ai
ca
rt
O
H
4-1
CO
CJ
H
ป[ (
H
T3
&
4J
CU
o
3
cfl
CU
CJ
H
^
CU
o
rH
O
4J
C
t-i O
O CJ
4J
CO 3
M O
CU rH
-------
H
r-l ซ
co a
e* o
o
CO
3
C
S
01 <
0)
CO (1)
H2 ixj
c
o
H
U
CO -U
iH CO
iH O
CO O
CO
C
M
iH
CO
W -U
H CO
cu o
CO O
0
c ^^
0 H
T( 0)
U U
iH* ? ง TJ
H M 0.
co cu w cu
Q CO O ^
(3 93
O '-'
U
C
0
H
^j
>ปซ/>
i-( U C
CO 0) 00
O CO N^
c
o
CJ
0)
c.
H
5
O O O O O O
m m
rH tH
O O O O
r^ rปป o O . oo O oo
I I * I
OO SB JBOcnsSfl
CNJ O4 fH T~^
00 0 0 00
o m o o o o
O vo ซM m CN CN
sr m IH vo
^ in
CM en sr sr
iH ?H
00
Sf f**1 ON ON
i 1 iH
TJ
CO
0)
co
CO 4J C ซH 1-1 Ol 00
UO) O O U OJ > C
0)O -HJrf CUS i-t-H
U3-UU4J 3 O cox
3cOO)cOCOlO J3 > -H
COM-ICJUOUrC CO g
^4 3 -H CJ -rt CO 4-1
i 1 CO M-t > i * M-4 CJ
CD O M-l M T3OTJ >CM WW
T^UCLOi ( -HCOW 3CO
uCcfl SM-I-U wSC o-u
(OO-U hcOCLO COOl
So ^noi C-HO wo>
>, 01 CU M M3 OISi-*
coSco 33C OICTS 3&co
4JQM OOi-l WCUO OCU>
r-lrHOi^S.C ปH iH J3J3
<)faCOCOCO << fa COH
o
0)
N
OJ
^^
0
4-1
CU
ง
co
co
CO
j_.l
4nJ
ca
0
CJ
*ป
T3
4)
r-4
r-t
CO
4J
CO
(3
H
1
^4
0)
0
s
o
33
II
O
cO
-------
H
Some situations may require greater reductions in sewage generation.
An example would be existing residences for which holding tanks are required
because on-site soils are not suitable for subsurface wastewater disposal and
centralized or other alternative disposal methods are not available. Also,
where rehabilitation of existing on-lot systems may by itself be less than
totally effective in remedying failures, heroic measures to reduce wastewater
volume may be justified to improve the systems' effectiveness. In such in-
stances, the per capita rate could be reduced to a range of 15 to 30 gpcd by
combination of the following methods:
Elimination of water-carried toilet wastes by use of in-house
composting toilets.
* Recycling of bath and laundry wastewaters for toilet flushing.
Filtering and disinfection of bath and laundry wastes for this
purpose has been shown to be feasible and aesthetically acceptable
in pilot studies (Cohen and Wallman 1974; Mclaughlin 1968). This
is an alternative to in-house composting toilets that could achieve
the same level of wastewater flow reduction.
Replacement of standard toilets with dual cycle or other low
volume toilets to help assure that bath and laundry wastewater
will meet toilet flushing demand.
* Application of surplus recycled bath and laundry wastewaters for
lawn sprinkling in summer. The feasibility of this method would
have to be evaluated on a trial basis in a Study Area, since its
general applicability has not been demonstrated.
Reduction of lavatory water usage by installation of spray tap
faucets.
Reduction of shower water usage by installation of thermostatic
mixing valves along with flow controlling shower heads. Personal
bathing habits should include maximum use of showers instead of
baths because of a large difference in water consumption.
Replacement of standard clothes washing machines with machines
equipped for water level control or with front-loading machines.
The benefits of the flow and waste reduction devices listed in Table 1,
when used with small scale technologies, are strongly dependent on local
conditions of soil suitability for effluent disposal, housing density, ground-
water conditions and family water consumption patterns. The reader should be
aware that such devices are available and that they have the potential for
improving the reliability and, perhaps, the economics of small waste flow
technologies that are dependent on soil disposal.
The economic benefits of all residential flow reduction devices can
also be examined from a broader perspective than just wastewater treatment
economics. Actual acceptance and use of any of these devices will depend
on the homeowner's motivations. His economic motivation for using flow
reduction devices includes reductions in water supply and water heating
-------
H
costs in addition to wastewater treatment costs. Examined from the homeowner's
economic perspective, many flow reduction devices, especially those that con-
serve heated water, are very attractive. To quantify possible annual homeowner
savings for various devices, local costs for water supply and water heating plus
expected wastewater treatment costs for the least expensive, centralized region-
al alternative evaluated in this EIS (see Section IV.D.> have been estimated.
These costs are:
Water Supply at $0.02 per 1,000 gallons for private, on-lot wells.
Only the cost of electricity for pump operation is incorporated.
* Water Heating at $7.50 per 1,000 gallons heated.
Electric water heater, temperature rise of 100ฐP and $0.03/kilowatt-
hour are assumed.
Wastewater Treatment at $2.23 per 1,000 gallons including payback
of capital costs and operational costs of the least expensive
centralized alternative.
Using these costs, data presented in Table 1, and assumptions about the
"standard household" (Bailey 1969), the annual homeowner savings of several
devices are calculated to be:
Shower flow control insert device
Dual cycle toilet
Toilet damming device
Shallow trap toilet3
Dual flush adapter for toilets
Improved ballcock assembly for toilets
Spray tap faucet
Faucet flow control device
Faucet aerator
First Year
Savings (or
Cost)
$46.46
24.28
18.89
17.14
14.45
11.76
(63.43)
6.45
1.44
Annual Savings
After First
Year
$48.46
44.28
22.14
22.14
18.45
14.76
13.77
9.45
3.94
First year expenditure assumed to be difference in capital cost
between flow-saving toilet and a standard toilet costing $75.
-------
Agency Contacted
Date
Summary of Comments
WI So. Gas Co.
WI Elec. Power Co.
4/25/78
4/25/78
Gas service in this area.1% seasonality,
with many so-called "permanent" residents
living in District only on weekends.
"Minimum billing policy"a flat monthly
rate, Town of Salem electricity sewage
rates: June-July 1977: 1.7-2.5 million
kilowatt hrs/mo?Jan-Feb 1978: 1.9-2.3
million kilowatthrs/mo.
Camp Lake Cash. &
Carry Grocery
4/26/78
Vito's Lake Side Resort 5/1/78
Grocery business can be as much as 50%
better in the summer.
Restaurant and tavern business last year;
May, June, July, Aug. 25% higher than
Nov., Dec., Jan., and Feb.
Salem Utility District 4/25/78
Number #11
Marvin Schwenn, operator: "Estimated
seasonal population is 30%.
-------
Table E-6
COMPARISON OF POPULATION AND DWELLING UNIT ESTIMATES
1975 AND 2000
]_975 Total Permanent Seasonal Total Permanent Seasonal
Salem Utility District #2
Facility Plan 8,354 4,200 4,154 2,387
WAPORA, Inc. 7,488 5,276 2,212 2,195 1,649 546
SEWRPC 4,600
Camp Lake/Center Lake
WAPORA, Inc. 2,850
SEWRPC 2,100
Cross Lake
WAPORA, Inc. 1,452
SEWRPC 1,400
Rock. Lake
WAPORA, Inc. 522
SEWRPC 600
Wilmot
WAPORA, Inc. 442
SEWRPC 500
Salem Utility District #2
Facility Plan . 15,000 7,500 7,500
WAPORA, Inc. 10,925 7,913 3,012 3,390 2,637 753
SEWRPC 6,900
Camp /Center Lakes
WAPORA, Inc. 3.,&21
SEWRPC 2,700
Cross Lake
WAPORA, Inc. 2,232
SEWRPC 2,100
Rock Lake
WAPORA, Inc. 1,149
SEWRPC 1,300
Wilmot
WAPORA, Inc. 711
SEWRPC 300
-------
APPENDIX I
COSTS
-------
APPENDIX
1-1
DESIGN AND COSTING ASSUMPTIONS
TREATMENT
Activated Sludge:
ป The Conventional Activated Sludge treatment system for the Salem
area alternatives is of the same design as that presented in the
Facility Plan.
Polymer was assumed to be added along with alum to aid in settling.
ป The operation and maintenance cost for contract sludge handling
was determined by assuming 2,700 gallons of sludge would be pro-
duced per million gallon of sewerage per day (Wastewater Engineering,
Metcalf and Eddy).
ป Mixed media filtration was added in Alternatives 2 and 5. The
effluent generated from these alternatives would be of a higher
quality than the requirements of BOD 30 mg/1, Suspended Solids
30 mg/1, and Phosphorus 1.0 mg/1.
Land Application - Spray Irrigation:
The application technique for crop production is spray irrigation.
This is an advantageous method of applying effluent because the
areas are predominantly flat and are prime agricultural lands.
With this type of application there is also the added benefit of
income from crop revenues which defrays part of the yearly opera-
tion and maintenance expense.
ป An application rate of 1.6 in./wk was determined after comparing
the hydraulic and nitrogen loading rate for corn and alfalfa.
ป Alfalfa was the chosen crop since alfalfa allows a higher appli-
cation rate and' because it is a perenial crop with its growing
season limited solely by climatic factors. Higher loading rates
may produce poor crop growth and could easily result in contamina-
tion of the groundwater since the underlying soil of the area is
classified in the very rapid permeability range and the depth to
groundwater at times during the year may be as high as 5 feet.
An application rate of 6 in./year was used for application by
"agronomic rate". According to the University of Wisconsin
Agricultural Extension Office, this rate was considered conserva-
tive over a 20-year design period.
The storage period is based primarily on climatic factors. The
EPA manual "Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater", October 1977
recommends a 120-day storage period or approximately 17 weeks.
EPA assumed a 20-week storage period allowing for periodic har-
vesting of the alfalfa.
-------
1-1
A 200-foot buffer zone was included around application areas.
Crop revenue was estimated for alfalfa according to the following:
2.5 tons/acre
$66/ton.
Land Application - Overland Flow:
* An application rate of 4 in./wk was assumed. Biological activity,
rather than soil permeability determines the application rate in
an overland flow treatment scheme. 4 in./wk will easily match the
biological activity according to "Land Treatment of Municipal
Wastewater".
The storage period is the same as for spray irrigation.
Renovated water that was collected and discharged to the wetlands
area was chlorinated (prior to discharge).
Wisconsin DNR effluent limitations for wetlands discharge include:
BOD5 - 20 mg/1
Suspended Solids =ป 20 mg/1.
A 200-foot buffer zone was included around application areas.
Land Application - Rapid Infiltration:
An application rate of 12 in./wk was used according to "Land
Treatment of Municipal Wastewater".
Since rapid infiltration can be used year-round, no storage
facility was considered.
Renovated water that was collected and discharged to the Fox
River was chlorinated prior to discharge.
A 200-foot buffer zone was included around application areas.
Collection:
All sewer lines are to be placed at or below 6 feet of depth, due
to frost penetration in the Salem area. Gravity lines are assumed
to be placed at an average depth of 12 feet.
* The determination of the percent shoring of gravity collection
lines was performed on a segment basis. Ten percent less shoring
is required for force mains and low pressure sewers due to their
shallower average depth.
-------
1-1
All pressure sewer lines and force mains 8 inches in diameter or
less will be PVC SDR26, with a pressure rating of 160 psi. Those
force mains larger than 8 inches in diameter will be constructed
of, ductile iron with mechanical joints.
A minimum velocity of 2 fps will be maintained in all pressure
sewer lines and force mains to provide for scouring.
* Gleanouts in the pressure sewer system will be placed at the
beginning of each line, and one every 500 feet of pipe in line.
Cleanout valve boxes will contain shut-off valves to provide for
isolation of various sections of line for maintenance and/or
repairs.
The pumping units investigated for the pressure sewer system
utilized effluent and grinder pumps. Both units include a 2- by
8-foot basin with discharge at 6 feet, control panel, visual alarm,
mercury float level controls, valves, rail system for removal of
pump, antifloatation device, and the pump itself. The grinder pump
is a 2 hp pump with a total dynamic head of 90 feet. The effluent
pump is manufactured in a 1, 1% or 2 hp pump. For the Salem area,
the 1 hp pump proved to be impractical as its total dynamic head
is only 60 feet, and insufficient for long runs of pressure lines.
The 1% and 2 hp pumps reach a total dynamic head of 80 and 120
feet respectively.
* On-site and effluent pumping units (STEP) require the use of septic
tanks. Due to undersize and faulty units, a 50 percent replacement
of all septic tanks was assumed. All units are to be 1,000 gallon
concrete septic tanks.
* An even distribution of population was primarily assumed along
collection lines for all alternatives indicated.
* A peaking factor for design flows of the various systems investi-
gated was based on the Ten State Standards in concurrence with the
Salem Facility Plan.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis:
ป Quoted costs are in 1978 dollars.
EPA Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) Index of 135 (4th Quarter 1977),
and Engineering News Record Index of 2693 (1 March 1978) were used
for updating costs.
i, interest rate - 6 5/8%
Planning period - 20 years
Life of facilities, structures - 50 years
Mechanical components - 20 years.
Straight line depreciation assumed.
Land for land application sites valued at $1900/acre (except in EIS
Alternative 6, where land would be secured at no cost, under
cooperative agreement.
-------
APPENDIX
1-2
ITEMIZED AND TOTAL COSTS
FOR EACH ALTERNATIVE
FACILITY PLAN PROPOSED ACTION
EIS ALTERNATIVES 1-8
Note: Costs are shown to nearest $100. This should
not be interpreted as meaning that estimates
are accurate to that level. Most cost esti-
mates are accurate within + 10%.
-------
1-2
FACILITY PLAN
PROPOSED ACTION
SALEM TREATMENT
COST ESTIMATE
CONVENTIONAL ACTIVATED SLUDGE
0.73 MGD
Costs in.1978 Dollars
PROCESS
Preliminary Treatment
Influent Pumping
Primary Sedimentation
Activated Sludge
Final Clarification
Chemical Addition
(Alum & Polymer)
Chlorination
Lab/Maint. Bldg.
Anaerobic Digestion
Effluent Pumping
Effluent Outfall
Yard Piping
Mobilization
Sitework
Excavation
Electrical
HVAC
Controls & Instrument.
Sub-Total
Non-Cons true tion
Cost G2264)
CAPITAL
$ COST
45,650
115,500
53,900
192,500
88,000
31,900
41,250
137,500
88,000
24,200
57,200
80,300
34,650
91,300
115,500
110,000
23,650
39,600
$1,370,600
310,300
0 & M
$ COSTS
4,500
2,250
5,100
5,650
5,100
5,400
2,700
6,700
11,800
1,700
100
Sludge
Hauling 21,550
Yardwk. 1,700
Admin. 4,900
SALVAGE
20,550
34,650
32,350
0
52,800
0
16,100
61,900
39,600
0 . .
34,300
48,200
0
54,800
0
0
0
0
$395,250
79,050
TOTAL
$1,680,900
$79,150 $474,300
-------
FACILITY PLAN
PROPOSED ACTION
SALEM - COLLECTION
COST ESTIMATE
Cost in 1978 Dollars
x $1,000
1-2
SERVICE AREA
CAPITAL COST O&M COSTS SALVAGE VALUE
1980
Service Area
On-Site:
Silver Lake Park
25% Engineering Contingencies
9,088.55
229.64
9,318.19*
2,329.55
40.25
.08
40.33
4,186.53
28.24
4,214.77
842.95
Total
11,647.74
40.33
5,057.72
1990
Segment AA
275.83
1.57
151.04
1980-2000
Future Hook-Ups
60.50/yr
*Includes costs for private sewer service line connections
-------
1-2
ALTERNATIVE
SALEM TREATMENT
COST ESTIMATE
CONVENTIONAL ACTIVATED SLUDGE
0.73 MGD
Costs in 1978 Dollars
PROCESS
Preliminary Treatment
Influent Pumping
Primary Sedimentation
Activated Sludge
Final Clarification
Chemical Addition
(Alum & Polymer)
Chlorination
Lab/Maint. Bldg.
Anaerobic Digestion
Effluent Pumping
Effluent Outfall
Yard Piping
Mobilization
Sitework
Excavation
Electrical
HVAC
Controls & Instrument.
Sub-Total
Non-Construction
Cost C-2264)
CAPITAL
$ COST
. 45,650
115,500
53,900
192,500
88,000
31,900
41,250
137,500
88,000
24,200
57,200
80,300
34,650
91,300
115,500
110,000
23,650
39,600
$1,370,600
310,300
0 & M
$ COST
4,500
2,250
5,100
5,650
5,100
5,400
2,700
6,700
11,800
1,700
100
Sludge
Hauling 21,550
Yardwk. 1,700
Admin. 4,900
SALVAGE
20,550
34,650
32,350
0
52,800
0
16,100
61,900
39,600
0
34,300
48,200
0
54,800
0
0
0
0
$395,250
79,050
TOTAL
$1,680,900
$79,150 $474,300
-------
1-2
ALTERNATIVE #1
SALEM - COLLECTION
COST ESTIMATE
Costs in 1978 Dollars
x $1,000
SERVICE AREA
1980
Service Area
On-Site:
Silver Lake Park
25% Engineering Contingencies
Total
CAPITAL COST
8,927.88
229.64
9,157.52*
2,289.38
11,446.90
O&M COSTS
43.45
.08
43.53
43.53
SALVAGE VALUE
4,041.11
28.24
4,069.35
813.87
4,883.22
1990
Segment AA
275.83
1.57
151.04
1980-2000
Future Hook-Ups
75.70
.49**
183.41
*Includes costs for private sewer service line connections.
**Gradient per year over 20 years.
-------
1-2
ALTERNATIVE #2
SALEM TREATMENT
COST ESTIMATE
CONVENTIONAL ACTIVATED SLUDGE
.073 MGD
Costs in 1978 Dollars
PROCESS
CAPITAL
$ COSTS
0 & M
$ COSTS
SALVAGE
Preliminary Treatment 45,650
Influent Pumping 115,500
Primary Sedimentation 53,900
Activated Sludge 192,500
Final Clarification 88,000
Mixed Media Filtration 148,500
Chemical Addition 31,900
(Alum & Polymer)
Chlorination 41,250
Lafa/Maint. Bldg. 137,500
Anaerobic Digestion 88,000
Effluent Pumping 24,200
Effluent Outfall 57,200
Yard Piping 80,300
Mobilization 34,650
Sitework 91,300
Excavation 115,500
Electrical 110,000
HVAC 23,650
Controls & Instrument 39,600
Sub-Total $1,519,100
Non-Construction 343,900
Cost (.2264)
4,500
2,250
5,100
5,650
5,100
4,100
5,400
2,700
6,700
11,800
1,700
100
Sludge
Hauling 21,550
Yardwk. 1,700
Admin. 4,900
20,550
34,650
32,350
0
52,800
44,550
0
16,100
61,900
39,600
0
34,300
48,200
0
54,800
0
0
0
395,250
79,050
TOTAL
$1,863,000
$83,250
$518,850
-------
1-2
ALTERNATIVE #2
SALEM - COLLECTION
COST ESTIMATE
Costs in 1978 Dollars
x $1,000
SERVICE AREA
1980
Service Area
On-Site:
Silver Lake Park
25% Engineering Contingencies
Total
CAPITAL COST
8,927.88
229.64
9,157.52*
2,289.38
11, 446. 90
O&M COSTS
43.45
.08
43.53
43.53
SALVAGE VALUE
4,041.11
28.24
4.069.35
813.87
4.883.22
1990
Segment AA
275.83
1.57
151.04
1980-2000
Future Hook-Ups
75.70
.49**
183.41
*Includes costs for private sewer service line connections.
**Gradient per year over 20 years.
-------
1-2
ALTERNATIVE #3
SALEM TREATMENT
COST ESTIMATE
LAND TREATMENT - CENTRAL
0.73 MGD
Costs in 1978 Dollars
PROCESS
Preliminary Treatment
Storage Lagoon (91 MG)
Fully Lined
Transmission-Pipe
Force Mains
Land 294 Acres
CAPITAL
$ COSTS
57,750
534,600
50,800
558,600
0 & M
$ COSTS
4,500
2,500
100
SALVAGE
VALUE
26,000
320,750
30,480
1,008,832
$1900/Acre
Application-Spray
Irrigation
Q Effective - 1.18 MGD
756,000
42,600
113,400
Crop Revenues
-29,040
TOTALS
$1,957,750
$20,660 $1,499,462
-------
1-2
ALTERNATIVE #3
SALEM - COLLECTION
COST ESTIMATE
Costs in 1978 Dollars
x $1,000
SERVICE AREA
CAPITAL COST O&M COSTS SALVAGE VALUE
1980
Service Area
On-Site:
Silver Lake
Park
Conveyance to Land Application
Total
25% Engineering
Contingencies
8,927.88
229.64
685.88
9,843.40*
2,460.85
43.45
.08
1.34
44.87
4,041.11
28.24
386.09
4,455.44
891.09
12,304.25
44.87
5346.53
1990
Segment AA
239.83
44.00
127.07
1980-2000
Future Hook-tlps
75.70/yr.
.49**
183.41
*Includes costs for private sewer service line connections.
**Gradient per year over 20 years.
-------
1-2
Q = 0.70 MGD
ALTERNATIVE #4
SALEM TREATMENT
COST ESTIMATE
LAND TREATMENT - CENTRAL
Costs in 1978 Dollars
PROCESS
Preliminary Treatment
Storage Lagoon (87 MG>
CAPITAL
$ COSTS
53,600
519,750
0 & M
$ COSTS
4,250
2,500
SALVAGE
VALUE
24,100
311,850
Fully Lines
Transmission-Pipe
Force Mains
Land 286 Acres
$1900/Acre
Application-Spray
Irrigation
Q Effective ป 1.13 MGD
Crop Revenues
50,100
543,400
745,000
70
30,060
981,38Q
42,000 111,750
-27,720
TOTALS
$1,911,850 $21,100 $1,459,140
-------
1-2
ALTERNATIVE #4
SALEM - COLLECTION
COST ESTIMATE
Costs ia 1978 Dollars
x $1,000
SERVICE AREA
1980
Service Area
On- Site:
Silver Lake Park
Segment A and B
Cluster:
Segment E
Conveyance to Land Application
Total
25% Engineering Contingencies
CAPITAL COST
8,307.21
229.64
7.38
253.61
685.88
9,483.72*
2,370.93
11,854.65
O&M COSTS
38.03
.08
.08
1.78
1.34
41.31
41.00
SALVAGE VALUE
3,796.96
28.24
.80
98.67
386.09
4,310.76
862.15
5,172.91
199Q
Segment AA
275.83
42.50
151.04
1980-2000
Future Hook-tips
On-Site
70.9.3
3.32
74.25/yr.
.41**
.03**
.44**
154.83
9.54
164.37
*Includes costs for private sewer service line connections.
**Gradient per year over 20 years.
-------
1-2
ALTERNATIVE #5
SALEM TREATMENT
COST ESTIMATE
CONVENTIONAL ACTIVATED SLUDGE
0.70 MGD
Costs in 1978 Dollars
PROCESS
Preliminary Treatment
Influent Pumping
Primary Sedimentation
Activated Sludge
Final Clarification
Mixed Media Filtration
Chemical Addition
(Alum & Polymer)
Chlorination
Lab/Maint. Bldg.
Anaerobic Digestion
Effluent Pumping
Effluent Outfall
Yard Piping
Mobilization
Sitework
Excavation
Electrical
HVAC
Controls & Instrument.
Sub-Total
Non-Construction
Cost (.2264)
CAPITAL
$ COST
42,900
110,000
51,700
181,500
84,700
143,000
29,700
40,700
132,000
85,250
23,650
52,800
77,000
33,000
88,000
110,000
106,700
23,100
37,400
$1,453,100
329,000
0 & M
$ COST
4,250
2,250
5,000
5,300
5,000
3,900
5,200
2,600
6,650
11,450
1,700
100
Sludge
Hauling 20,550
Yardwk. 1,650
Admin. 4,750
SALVAGE
19,300
33,000
31,000
0
50,800
42,900
0
15,850
59,400
38,350
0
31,700
46,200
0
52,800
0
0
0
0
$378,400
75,700
TOTAL
$1,782,100
$80,350
$497,000
-------
1-2
ALTERNATIVE #5
SALEM - COLLECTION
COST ESTIMATE
Costs in 1978 Dollars
x $1,000
SERVICE AREA
1980
Service Area
flu-Site:
Silver Lake Park
Segment A and B
Cluster :
Segment E
25% Engineering Contingencies
Total
1990
Segment AA
1980-2000
Future Hook-Ups
On- Site
CAPITAL COST
8,307.21
229.64
7.38
253.61
8,797.84*
2,199.46
10,997.30
275.83
70.93
3.32
74.25/yr.
O&M COSTS
38.03
.08
.08
1.78
39.97
39.97
1.57
.41**
.03**
.44**
SALVAGE VALUE
3,796.96
28.24
.80
98.67
3,924.75
784.95
4,709.70
151.04
154.83
9.54
164.37
*Includes costs for private sewer service line connections.
**Gradient per year over 20 years.
-------
1-2
0.70 MGD
ALTERNATIVE #6
SALEM TREATMENT
LAND TREATMENT - CENTRAL
AGRONOMIC APPLICATION RATES
NO LAND PURCHASE COST
Costs in 1978 Dollars
PROCESS
Preliminary Treatment
Storage Lagoon (87 MG)
Fully Lined
On-Site Pipe
Land l-,54-7 Acres
CAPITAL
$ COST
53,600
519 , 750
105,000
-0-
0 & M
$ COST
4,250
2,500
150
SALVAGE
24,100
311,850
63,000
-0-
Application-Spray
Irrigation
Q Effective -1.13 MGD
Center Pivot
Crop Revenues
2,175,000
102,273
-221,595
326,250
TOTALS
$2,853,350
$-112,422
$725,200
-------
1-2
ALTERNATIVE #6
COST ESTIMATE
SALEM - COLLECTION
Costs in 1978 Dollars
x $1,000
SERVICE AREA
1980
Service Area
On-Site:
Silver Lake Park
Segment A and B
Cluster:
Segment E
Conveyance to Land
Application
TOTAL
25% Engineering
and Contingencies
1990
Segment AA
1980-2000
Future Hook-Ups
On-Site
CAPITAL COST
8,307.21
229.64
7.38
253.61
685.90
9,483.74
2,370.93
11,854.67
275,83
70.93
3.32
74.25/Yr.
O&M COSTS
38.03
.08
.08
1.78
1.00
40.97
40.97
1.57
.41*
.03*
0.44*
SALVAGE VALUE
3,796.96
28.24
.80
98.67
386.10
4,310.77
862.15
5,172.92
151.04
154.83
9.54
164.37
*Gradient per year over 20 years.
-------
1-2
ALTERNATIVE 7
SALEM
COST ESTIMATE
RAPID INFILTRATION - CENTRAL
0.70 MGD
Cost in 1978 Dollars
PROCESS
CAPITAL COST($) O&M COSTS($)
TOTAL
Engineering & Contingency
(25%)
1,546,250
386.563
1,932,813
SALVAGE VALUE($)
Preliminary Treatment
Stabilization Pond
Chlorination
Rapid Infiltration
Basin (Including Laboratory)
Mobilization
Sitework (Incl. Excv.)
Electrical
Yard Piping
HVAC
Controls and Instrumentation
Land (94 Ac.)
Ad-minis trat ion
Laboratory
53,600
616,000
48,950
253,100
33,000
121,000
107,800
77,000
22,000
35,200
178,600
0
0
4,250
15,330
3,500
15,330
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4,400
4,000
24,100
369,600
19,100
151,900
0
72,600
0
46,200
0
0
322,600
0
0
46,810 1,006,100
@ 20% 201.220
46,810 1,207,320
-------
1-2
ALTERNATIVE #7
COST ESTIMATE
SALEM - COLLECTION
Costs in 1978 Dollars
x $1,000
SERVICE AREA
CAPITAL COST C$) O&M COSTS ($) SALVAGE VALUE C$)
1980
Service Area
On-Site:
Silver Lake Park
Segment A and B
Cluster:
Segment E
8,307.21
229.64
7.38
253.61
Conveyance to Rapid Infilt. 1,025.10
Effluent to Point of Disc. 428.05
TOTAL
25% Engineering
and Contingencies
10,250.99
2,562.75
12,813.74
38.03
.08
.08
1.78
1.91
2.21
44.09
3,796.96
28.24
.80
98.67
564.18
226.59
4,715.44
@ 20% 943.09
5,658.53
1990
Segment AA
1980-2000
Future Hook-Ups
On-Site
275.83
70.93
3.32
74.25/Yr.
1.57
.41*
.03*
0.44*
151.04
154.83
9.54
164.37
*Gradient per year over 20 years.
-------
1-2
ALTERNATIVE #8
SALEM TREATMENT
COST ESTIMATE
CONVENTIONAL ACTIVATED SLUDGE
0.45 MGD
Costs in 1978 Dollars
PROCESS
CAPITAL
$ COST
0 & M
$ COST
SALVAGE
Preliminary Treatment 25,850
Influent Pumping 71,500
Primary Sedimentation 32,450
Activated Sludge 126,500
Final Clarification 55,000
Mixed Media Filtration 55,000
Chemical Addition 13,600
(Alum & Polymer)
Chlorination 26,400
Lab/Maint. Bldg. 88,000
Anaerobic Digestion 52,800
Effluent Pumping 13,750
Effluent Outfall 29,150
Yard Piping 49,500
Mobilization 19,800
Sitework 59,400
Excavation 72,600
Electrical 70,400
HVAC 13,200
Controls & Instrument. 23,100
Sub-Total $ 898,000
Non-Construction 203,300
Cost C.2264)
3,450
1,900
4,200
4,200
4,200
2,500
4,700
2,350
5,700
9,600
1,450
100
Sludge
Hauling 13,250
Yardwk. 1,250
Admin. 3,700
11,650
21,450
19,450
0
33,000
16,500
0
10,300
39,600
23,750
0
17,500
29,700
0
35,650
0
0
0
242,050
48,400
TOTAL
$1,101,300
$62,550
$306,950
-------
1-2
ALTERNATIVE #8
SALEM TREATMENT
COST ESTIMATE
LAND TREATMENT - CENTRAL
WILMOT
.05 MGD
Costs in 1978 Dollars
PROCESS
Preliminary Treatment
Storage Lagoon
CAPITAL
$ COSTS
22,500
148,500
0 & M
$ COSTS
1,200
500
SALVAGE
VALUE
10,100
89,100
20 weeks storage
Fully Lined
Transmission-Pipe
Force Mains
Land 40 Acres
$1900/Acre
Application-Spray
Irrigation
Q Effective = .084 MGD
12,000
76,000
217,500
15
5,500
7,200
137 ,"250
32,630
Crop Revenues
-2.180
TOTALS
476,500
5,035
276,280
-------
SALEM - COLLECTION
COST ESTIMATE
ALTERNATIVE #8
Costs in 1978 Dollars
x $1,000
1-2
SERVICE AREA
CAPITAL COST O&M COSTS SALVAGE VALUE
1980
Service Area
On-Site:
Silver
Segmem
Lake
Us A,
Park
B,
T and S
5,366.
229.
11.
45
64
81
21.07
.08
.13
2,376
28
1
.86
.24
.28
_ Land Application:
Segment U
Overland Flow with.
Wetlands Discharge:
614.23
5.64
Total
10,699.56
42.54
275.54
Segments V, W, X, Y and Z
Cluster :
Segment E
!% Engineering Contingencies
2,083.91
253.61
8:, 559. 65*
2,139.91
13.84
1.78
42.54
988.15
98.67
3,768.74
753.75
4,522.49
1990
Segment AA
275.83
1.57
151.04
1980-2000
Future Hook-Ups
On-Site
70.13
5.32
75.45
.41**
.41**
154.83
154.83
*Includes costs for private sewer service line connections.
**Gradient per year for 20 years.
-------
1-2
ALTERNATIVE #8
SALEM TREATMENT
COST ESTIMATE
LAND TREATMENT - CENTRAL OVERLAND FLOW AND WETLANDS DISCHARGE
.18 MO)
Costs in 1978 Dollars
PROCESS
prpH-, TrAซrt.AT,ซ.
Storage Lagoon
Fully Lined
Oxidation Ponds
CAPITAL
$ COSTS
54,000
200,500
222,750
0 & M '
COSTS
2,150
1,250
1,250
SALVAGE
VALUE
24,300
120,300
133,650
Chlorination - included
in overland flow
Overland Flow 371,250
Transmission
Gravity 1 ml. 118,800
Land 85 Acres @ $1900/Ac. 161,500
13,300
400
167,050
71,300
291,700
TOTALS
$1,128,800
$18,350 $808,300
-------
APPENDIX J
PRELIMINARY SITE EVALUATION: PAASCH LAKE WETLAND,
KENOSHA COUNTY, WISCONSIN
-------
APPENDIX
J
PRELIMINARY
SITE EVALUATION
Paasch Lake Wetland
Kenosh*County, Wisconsin
May 1978
Robert H. Kadlec
Donald L. Tilton
Wetland Ecosystem Research Group
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, Michigan
-------
-1-
SUMMARY
The purpose of this report is to present an initial
evaluation of the Paasch Lake wetland in Kenosha County,
Wisconsin with respect to its tertiary wastewater treatment
potential. The upper half of the wetland currently is
acting as a nutrient and sediment trap for runoff waters.
It discharges at the midpoint to Paasch Lake/ a small,
multifunctional recreational lake. The discharge from
Paasch Lake moves through a channel in the lower half of
the wetland out across Co. Rd. JS. The upper half of the
wetland is marginally sized for the anticipated discharge.
No deleterious effects on flora and fauna would be likely,
but the quality and use patterns of Paasch Lake would
likely be altered by the discharge.- -The fence row channels
in the wetland are presently carrying the moving surface
waters, thus any design would require effective surface
distribution of the added treated wastewater.
-------
-2-
1. Water Budget and Water Flows
The estimated annual water budget for the wetland is
given in Table I. Precipitation values are averages for
Milwaukee, as reported by NOAA (U.S. Weather Bureau).
Evapotranspiration is calculated from solar radiation and
average temperature, according to the Thornthwaite method,
which has proven accurate in other wetland situations.
Total annual precipitation (731 mm) exceeds total annual
evapotranspiration (607 mm), the balance occurring as net
runoff (124 mm) . Actual runoff occurs in a peak during
springtime; the pattern used here is: March 20%, April 50%,
May 20%, June 10%. This corresponds to both Thornthwaite's
recommendation and our field experience at a similar site
at Houghton Lake, Michigan. Runoff during late summer and
winter is probably not appreciable. Run-in presumably
follows the same pattern, but must be less by the difference
between precipitation and evapotranspiration.
Actual runoff was measured, in mid-May 1978, to be
240 mm/mo (2450 m /d on 75 acres above Paasch Lake).
Storage was measured at the same time (13 data points on
depths) and found to be 138 mm (5.4 inches). Thus, using
estimated precipitation, evapotranspiration, run-in and
run-off; coupled with this inventory number in mid-May,
the entire storage-time pattern can be estimated. The
results are given in Table I.
The drainage mechanism for the wetland appears to be
primarily channel flow along fence-row channels. These
-------
collect water and deliver it to Paasch Lake after a
residence time of about 17 days for the mid-May condition.
Flow in the axial fence row channel was measured at 1.0 ฑ0.2
cfs; and the outlfow to Paasch Lake was also 1.0 ฑ0.2 cfs.
Drainage out of the remainder of the lake-wetland system
at Co. Rd. JS was measured as 0.9ฑ 0.2 cfs.
If the wetland were not channelled by the fence row, we
would expect a drainage rate of about 600 m /d. This is
based on a surface hydraulic conductivity of 50 cm/sec (from
out Houghton Lake results for the 5.4 inch water depth), a
gradient of 1.36 ft/mile (from our May 1978 survey) and an
approximate width of 400 meters. The observed outflow
(2450 m /d) is considerably higher than the expected 600 m /d;
which lends support to the concept of channel flow along
fence rows.
No data are available on possible subsurface flows.
However, soil probing indicates clay and/or marl underlays
the wetland. This indicates a minimal communication and
flow between the surface waters and shallow subsurface
aquifers.
-------
-4-
2- Water Quality
Water samples were taken at selected wetland stations,
and analyzed for conductivity, pH, NH."1", N0~, PO4= (TDP) ,
Cl and suspended solids. Stations JS, 0, 1, 5 and 9 in
Figure 2 were sampled; the results are given in Table III.
Interior wetland points show relatively high nitrogen,
phosphorus, chloride and conductivity7 surface discharge
points into Paasch Lake and across Co. Rd. JS show lower
values. This indicates that the wetland is currently
receiving a nutrient load from some external source,
probably agricultural runoff, and is doing an effective job
of nutrient removal.
Suspended solids were present in trace amounts at all
locations; however our sample size was too small to determine
accurate numbers. All were in the range 20-50 mg/S,, as
would be expected based on other comparable wetland situations.
High readings on chloride and conductivity at interior
wetland points could be due to groundwater sources, or to
runoff from surrounding fields. The later appears more
likely. Nitrogen and phosphorus discharges from the wetland
are low, as would be expected for this type of wetland.
Values of pH are high for this type of wetland, indicating
the influence of runoff waters which have not yet equilibrated
to the usual slightly acid condition. No nitrate was found;
this is the expected springtime condition.
-------
3. Soil Processes
A soil map is shown in Figure 3. The central area of the
wetland area is Houghton muck with an organic matter accumula-
tion of 2.5-3.0 m in the middle and 10-20 cm at the edges.
Marl underlies the peat in the central region while clay
underlies the peat at the edges. Cation exchange capacity of
this peat is known to be high (> 100 meq/100 g soil). This
type of soil and depth of organic matter accumulation are
suitable for tertiary' stage wastewater treatment. Permeability
of the Houghton muck and Palms muck is estimated to be 5.0-
16.0 cm/hour. The impermeable soil and underlying clay
profile suggest that water movement is predominantly over
the surface and into Paasch Lake.
-------
-6-
4. Flora
The wetland west of Pausch Lake consists of two cover
types. The majority of the area is sedge (Carex sp.)
with scattered cattail (Typha sp.) areas of lesser extent.
Marsh marigold (Caltha palustris) and currant (Ribes sp.)
are scattered about the wetland. No rare or endangered
plant species were observed in the area.
The distribution of sedges was clumped with 50% of the
sedge areas in open water. Filamentous algae were prevalent
in these open water areas and algal populations will flourish
in these channels during wastewater application.
-------
-7-
5. Use Patterns
No sign of muskrat activity was observed although the
smaller cattail areas could support a small population.
Beaver were not present in the area. Waterfowl were not
observed, although the area is probably a nesting site as
well as a feeding area for several waterfowl. Although pike
(Ssox lucius) spawning was not observed, it seems likely that
such activity occurs in this wetland especially since pike
are caught from Paasch Lake.
Human use of the wetland seems minimal. At one time,
cattle were probably grazed on the land but no recent grazing
seems to have occurred. The area has been fenced along
property lines, but the fences are in need of repair.
Compared to the wetland, Paasch Lake has considerably
more recreational use. Local residents fish the lake (winter
and summer) and some residents use the lake for swimming and
recreational boating. There may be limited waterfowl hunting
during the fall. The use of this area by the public,
especially for swimming, detracts from its usefulness as a
wastewater treatment area.
-------
-8-
6. Treatment Potential
Applicable data on the amount and type of effluent
under consideration are included in the appendix. The amount
of wastewater is 95,000 gpcd, increasing to 143,000 gpcd
in the year 2000. Based on a four month irrigation season,
this means the 164 acre wetland/21 acre lake must be capable
of treating 429,000 gpd for a summer discharge. Further,
a "winter" storage pond of capacity 4.65 x 10 ft (ca. 18
acres at 6' working depth) would be required.
A surface distribution piping system would be required
- presumably a gravity-fed system of 6-8 inch gated aluminum
irrigation piping. Existence of fence row ditches would
require careful planning of water release to avoid excessive
channeling.
Irrigation could be conducted after spring runoff has
ended, until early fall when low temperatures, plant senescence
and frost would limit treatment potential.
In view of the focussing of the upper drainage basin
(ca. 75 acres) on Paasch Lake, before further wetland
portions are encountered, only this upper area can be
regarded as the "treatment" site. The balance of the acreage,
as well as Paasch Lake itself, would probably provide some
lesser level of treatment. The discharge would thus amount
to 1.5 inches per week on 75 acres during June-September.
Alternatively, the loading would be 28 people/acre. This
is at the upper limit of loading based on other experiences
with wetland treatment.
At the current population level (1976 data), the loading
-------
would be 0.93 inches per week, or 17 people/acre. This
should provide adequate rennovation of the wastewater -
if it is properly distributed. Based on other experiences,
we would expect BODj. to be marsh background at the wetland
outflow point. Entering suspended solids would be retained
in major part, but a discharge of natural suspended solids
would continue. Nitrogen and phosphorus should be dramatically
reduced, probably by 90+ %.
Chlorination is not recommended because of the adverse
effects of residual chlorine on wetland plants and microbes~
Summer dissolved oxygen should average at an acceptable
level, based on Houghton Lake, Michigan data.
Effects of the added treated wastewater would be
minimal as far as wetland flora and fauna are concerned.
The more aquatic species, such as cattails, would encouraged,
at the expense of the more terrestrial species such as
currant. It is clear, however, that the use patterns of
Paasch Lake would be altered. Fishing and swimming would
no longer be recommended activities. Further eutrophication
of the lake would occur over some time span.
-------
J
-------
-11-
T3
OS
o
o
-------
0
c
(0
rH
4J
Q)
S
0)
^
(0
o
CO
o
a
ซj
>,
o>
>
i-t
p
en
H
O
cn
0)
^
3
-------
-------
-14-
CD
cn
03
o e
cn
cn
r-
(N
in
m
CO
05
*
CO
IT)
o
CO
in
13
C
(0
rH
JJ
(U
0)
A:
03
o
en
nj .
(0 C
CU -H
cn
0) C
ฃ O
JJ U
cn
M -r-l
O 3
C
H
C
3
(X
O
o
K
a
CN
O
CN
O
O
CN
CN
n
in
CN
CD
S
CD
CD CD
J4 JJ
3 -H
03 03
JJ
CD O
13
3 03
03 x:
CD
4J
CD
4J
03
H
JJ
U]
M
(0
E-"
O
H
-U
03
-U
H S
a ฃ
H
O
03
-------
-15-
Table II
Measured Soil Elevations and Water Depths,
Paasch Lake Wetland May, 1978
[Stations are keyed to Figure 2]
Station
Number
0
1
2
3
4
5A
5B
5C
5D
5E
5F
5G
6
7
Distance from
Paasch Lake
Spillway
(m)
0
20
100
150
200
260
260
260
260
260
260
260
300
400
Relative
Soil
Elevation
(m)
0.219
0.323
0.323
0.442
0.433
0.454
0.430
0.500
0.509
0.491
0.491
0.466
0.475
Water
Depth
(cm)
40.5
29.0
30.6
30.6
7.6
20.4
12.8
10.1
10.1
5.2
5.2
2.4
7.6
7.6
-------
-16-
Table III
' Water Chemistry at Selected Points in the
Paasch Lake Wetland May 1978
ition
9
5
1
0
JS
: Conductivity
umho/cm
1020
1010
850
650
820
PH
7.6"
8.2
7.9
8.5
8.7
mg/ฃ
120
165
58
43
76
mg/i
0.22
0.62
0.04
0.04
0.04
NO3
mg/JZ.
0
0
0
0
0
TOP
mg/i
0.35
0.45
0.045
0.11
0.09
-------
-17- J
APPENDIX
WAPORA PROJECT 662
PROPOSED WETLANDS DISCHARGE
KENOSHA COUNTY, WISCONSIN
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Proposed Wetlands Discharge Site
1. Location: northeast of Lake Shangrila in sections 30 and 29 of
"Paddock Lake" quadrangle (see accompanying USGS topographic maps,
xeroxed copy and aerial photograph of proposed wetlands discharge
site).
2. Area: total area of wetlands (colored green on xeroxed topographic
sap) approx. 164 acres; area of Paasch Lake approx. 21 acres,
3. Soils: see attached SCS soil map.
4. Zoning: Kenosha County Zoning Office has stated that most of
section 30 is zoned Agricultural; the NW 1/4 of the northern half
of section 30 (north of County Road JS) is zoned "A" Residential.
5. Current land use: (based on Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Plan-
ning Commission [SEWRPC] data)
a. Sections 30 and 29 are largely managed as woodlands, svaaip-
land or cropland (crop and rotation pasture); low density
residential development is located NW of County Road JS.
b. There currently exists no public land on or near the proposed
wetlands discharge site; no land is expected to be publicly
acquired within the 20 year planning period.
c. The Kenosha County Zoning Office identified some 26 landowners
in section 30. Inquiries may be made of the Kenosha County
Tax Assessor's Office (414-656-6544) for names and addresses
of homeowners in this area.
6. Air Quality: The following data on prevailing direction and mean
speed of wind over the proposed wetlands discharge site were ob-
tained from the Climatic Atlas of the United States, U.S. Depart-
ment of Commerce, 1977:
Prevailing direction Approximate mean speed Qnph)
Jan. E-SE 12
Feb. E-SE 12
Mar. W-SW 11
Apr. E-SE 11
May W-SW 11
June N-NE 9
-------
July
Aug.
Sep.
Oct.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Annual
N-NE
N-NE
N-NE
N-NE
N-NE
E-SE
E-SE
E-SE
-18-
Prevailing direction Approximate mean speed (raph)
10
10
11
11
12
11
11
' 11
B. Population to be Served
1. Location: residential area surrounding Cross Lake (Wisconsin.
side only), Voltz Lake, Lake Shangrila, and Benet Lake.
2. Population:
a. ^1300 residents in 1976.
^2100 residents in 2000 (design year population),
b. estimated current seasonality approx- 5-10%.
C. Wastewater Characteristics
1. 'Type and pre-treatinent: purely domestic wastewater to receive
secondary treatment via oxidation ponds (at least two, with 6
months storage capacity),
2. Effluent quantity
a. 1976: ^1300 population x 60 gal/cap/day = 73,000 gal/day
+ allowance for infiltration =ป 16,777
Total - 94,777 gal/day
b. 2000, design year:
^2100 population x 60 gal/cap/day= 126,000 gal/day
-f- allowance for infiltration = 16,777 gal/day
Total =142,777 gal/day
3. Effluent quality following pre-treatinent: Based on a. review of
the literature, the character of the effluent (prior to proposed
overland flow treatment) is expected to be as follows:
Parameter mg/1
30
Total suspended solids 90
Dissolved oxygen 2-4
Total Phosphorus 10
Total Nitrogen M.2
-------
-19-
D. Wisconsin Effluent Limitations for Wetlands Discharge
1. Regulations: Wisconsin NR 104.02 (3)(b)3. States that effluent
discharged to wetland ("marginal surface water") shall meet the
following limitations on both a weekly and monthly basis:
Parameter Monthly Avg.
(rag/1)
BOD5 20
Total suspended
solids 20
Weekly Avg.
Ong/1)
30 -
30
Other
(rag/1)
._
Dissolved Oxygen. 4 (min.)
Total Residual
Chlorine 0.50 (max.)
-------
APPENDIX K
MANAGEMENT OF SMALL WASTEWATER SYSTEMS
OR DISTRICTS
-------
APPENDIX
K-l
SOME MANAGEMENT AGENCIES FOR DECENTRALIZED FACILITIES
Central management entities that administer non-central systems with
various degrees of authority have been established in several States.
Although many of these entities are quasi-public, few of them both own and
operate each component of the facility. The list of small waste flow
management agencies that follows is not comprehensive. Rather, it presents a
sampling of what is currently being accomplished. Many of these entities
are located in California, which has been in the vanguard of the movement
away from conventional centralized systems to centrally managed decentralized
systems to serve rural areas (State of California, Office of Appropriate
Technology, 1977).
Westboro (Wisconsin Town Sanitary District)
Sanitary District No. 1 of the Town of Westboro represents the public
ownership and management of septic tanks located on private property. In
1974 the unincorporated community of Westboro was selected as a demonstra-
tion site by the Small Scale Waste Management Project (SSWMP) at the
University of Wisconsin to determine whether a cost-effective alternative
to central sewage for small communities could be developed utilizing on-site
disposal techniques. Westboro was thought to be typical of hundreds of
small rural communities in the Midwest which are~iir need of improved
wastewater treatment and disposal facilities but are unable to afford
conventional sewerage.
From background environmental data such as soils and engineering
studies and groundwater sampling, it was determined that the most economical
alternative would be small diameter gravity sewers that would collect
effluents from individual septic tanks and transport them to a common soil
absorption field. The District assumed responsibility for all operation
and maintenance of the entire facility commencing at the inlet of the septic
tank. Easements were obtained to allow permanent legal access to properties
for purposes of installation, operation, and maintenance. Groundwater was
sampled and analyzed during both the construction and operation phases.
Monthly charges were collected from homeowners. The system, now in operation,
will continue to be observed by the SSWMP to assess the success of its
mechanical performance and management capabilities.
Washington State
Management systems have been mandated in certain situations in the
State of Washington to assist in implementing the small waste flow manage-
ment concept. In 1974 the State's Department of Social and Health Services
established a requirement for the management of on-site systems: an
approved management system would be responsible for the maintenance of
sewage disposal systems when subdivisions have gross densities greater
than 3.5 housing units or 12 people per acre (American Society of Agricultural
Engineers 1977). It is anticipated that this concept will soon be applied
to all on-site systems.
-------
K-l
Georgetown Divide (California) Public Utility District (GDPUD)
The GDPUD employs a full-time geologist and registered sanitarian who
manage all the individual wastewater sytems in the District. Although it
does not own individual systems this district has nearly complete central
management responsibility for centralized systems. The Board of Directors
of the GDPTJD passed an ordinance forming a special sewer improvement district
within the District to allow the new 1800-lot Auburn Lake Trails subdivision
to receive central management services from the GDPUD. The GDPUD performs
feasibility studies on lots within the subdivision to evaluate the potential
for the use of individual on-site systems, designs appropriate on-site
systems, monitors their construction and installation, inspects and maintains
them, and monitors water quality to determine their effects upon water leaving
the subdivision. If a septic tank needs pumping, GDPUD issues a repair order
to the homeowner. Service charges are collected annually.
Santa Cruz County (California) Septic Tank Maintenance District
This district was established in 1973 when the Board of Supervisors
adopted ordinance No. 1927, "Ordinance Amending the Santa Cruz County Code,
Chapter 8.03 Septic Tank System Maintenance District." Its primary function
is the inspection and pumping of all septic tanks within the District. To
date 104 residences in two subdivisions are in the district, which collects a
one-time set-up fee plus monthly charges. Tanks are pumped every three years
and inspected annually. The County Board of Supervisors is required to
contract for these services. In that the District does not have the authority
to own systems, does not perform soil studies on individual sites, or offer
individual designs, its powers are limited.
Bolinas Community (California) Public Utility District (BCPUD)
Bolinas, California is an older community that faced an expensive public
sewer proposal. Local residents organized to study the feasibility of
retaining many of their on-site systems, and in 1974 the BCPUD Sewage Disposal
and Drainage Ordinance was passed. The BCPUD serves 400 on-site systems and
operates conventional sewerage facilities for 160 homes. The District employs
a wastewater treatment plant operator who performs inspections and monitors
water quality. The County health administration is authorized to design and
build new septic systems.
Kern County (California) Public Works
In 1973 the Board of Supervisors of Kern County, California, passed an
ordinance amending the County Code to provide special regulations for water
quality control. County Service Area No. 40, including 800 developed lots
of a 2,900-lot subdivision, was the first Kern County Service Area (CSA) to
arrange for management of on-site disposal systems. Inspections of install-
ations are made by the County Building Department. Ongoing CSA responsibilities
are handled by the Public Works Department. System design is provided in an
Operation and Maintenance Manual.
-------
K-l
Marln County ^California)
In 1971 the Marin County Board of Supervisors adopted a regulation,
"Individual Sewage Disposal Systems," creating an inspection program for
all new installations (Marin County Code Chapter 18.06). The Department
of Environmental Health is responsible for the inspection program. The
Department: collects a charge from the homeowner and inspects septic tanks
twice a year. The homeowner is responsible for pumping. The Department
also inspects new installations and reviews engineered systems.
-------
APPENDIX
K-2
LEGISLATION BY STATES AUTHORIZING MANAGEMENT
OF SMALL WASTE FLOW DISTRICTS
In a recent act, the California legislature noted that then-
existing California law authorized local governments to construct and maintain
sanitary sewerage systems but did not authorize them to manage small waste
flow systems. The new act, California Statutes Chapter 1125 of 1977, empowers
certain public agencies to form on-site wastewater disposal zones to collect,
treat, and dispose of wastewater without building sanitary sewers or sewage
systems. Administrators of such on-site wastewater disposal zones are to be
responsible for the achievement of water quality objectives set by regional
water quality control boards, protection of existing and future beneficial
uses, protection of public health, and abatement of nuisances.
The California act authorizes an assessment by the public agency upon
real property in the zone in addition to other charges, assessments, or taxes
levied on property in the zone. The Act assigns the following functions to
an on-site wastewater disposal zone authority:
o To collect, treat, reclaim, or dispose of wastewater without
the use of sanitary sewers or community sewage systems;
o To acquire, design, own, construct, install, operate, monitor,
inspect, and maintain on-site wastewater disposal systems in a
manner which will promote water quality, prevent the pollution,
waste, and contamination of water, and abate nuisances;
o To conduct investigations, make analyses, and monitor conditions
with regard to water quality within the zone;. and
o To adopt and enforce reasonable rules and regulations necessary
to Implement the purposes of the zone.
To monitor compliance with Federal, State and local requirements an
authorized representative of the zone must have the right of entry to any
premises on which a source of water pollution, waste, or contamination in-
cluding but not limited to septic tanks, is located. He may inspect the
source and take samples of discharges.
The State of Illinois recently passed a similar act. Public Act 80-1371
approved in 1978 also provides for the creation of municipal on-site waste-
water disposal zones. The authorities of any municipality (city, village, or
incorporated town) are given the power to form on-site wastewater disposal
zones to "protect the public health, to prevent and abate nuisances, and to
protect existing and further beneficial water use." Bonds may be issued to
finance the disposal system and be retired by taxation of property in the
zone.
A representative of the zone is to be authorized to enter at all reason-
able times any premise in which a source of water pollution, waste, or con-
tamination (e.g., septic tank) is located, for the purposes of inspection,
rehabilitation and maintenance, and to take samples from discharges. The
-------
municipality is to be responsible for routinely inspecting the entire system
at least once every 3 years. The municipality must also remove and dispose
of sludge, its designated representatives may enter private property and, if
necessary, respond to emergencies that present a hazard to health.
-------
APPENDIX
K-3
MANAGEMENT CONCEPTS FOR SMALL WASTE FLOW DISTRICTS
Several authors have discussed management concepts applicable to
decentralized technologies. Leaning and Hermason suggested that management
of on-site systems should provide the necessary controls throughout the
entire lifecycle of a system from site evaluations through system usage.
They stressed that all segments of the cycle should be included to ensure
proper system performance (American Society of Agricultural Engineers 1977).
Stewart stated that for on-site systems a three-phase regulatory
program would be necessary (1976). Such a program would include: 1) a
mechanism to ensure proper siting and design installation and to ensure
that the location of the system is known by establishing a filing and
retrieval system; 2) controls to ensure that each system will be period-
ically inspected and maintained; and 3) a. mechanism to guarantee that
failures will be detected and necessary repair actions taken.
Winneberger and Burgel suggested a total management concept, similar
to a sewer utility, in which a centralized management entity is responsible
for design, installation, maintenance, and operation of decentralized systems
(American Society of Agricultural Engineers 1977). This responsibility
includes keeping necessary records, monitoring ground and surface water
supplies and maintaining the financial solvency of the entity.
Otis and Stewart (1976) have identified various powers and authorities
necessary to perform the functions of a management entity:
o To acquire by purchase, gift, grant, lease, or rent both real
and personal property;
o To enter into contracts, undertake debt obligations either by
borrowing and/or by issuing bonds, sue and be sued. These powers
enable a district to acquire the property, equipment, supplies
and services necessary to construct and operate small flow
systems;
o To declare and abate nuisances;
o To require correction or private systems;
o To recommend correction procedures;
o To enter onto property, correct malfunctions, and bill the owner
if he fails to repair the system;
o To raise revenue by fixing and collecting user charges and
levying special assessments and taxes;
o To plan and control how and when wastewater facilities will be
extended to those within its jurisdiction;
o To meet the eligibility requirements for loans and grants from
the State and Federal government.
-------