905D81102
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region V July 1981
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604 C«\
Water Division
Draft
Environmental
Impact Statement
^Alternate Waste
Treatment Systems
For Rural Lake Projects
Case Study Number 6
Williams County Commissioners
Nettle Lake Area
Williams County, Ohio
-------
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS FOR RURAL LAKE PROJECTS
WILLIAMS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
CASE STUDY NO. 6
NETTLE LAKE AREA, WILLIAMS COUNTY, OHIO
Prepared by the
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION V
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
With the assistance of
WAPORA, Inc.
CHEVY CHASE, MARYLAND
U.S. Environmental Protection
V, Ij'.'i-r- *
fcO'o04
Chicago,
Approved by:
Valdas V. Ada/hkus ( __ X
Acting Regional Administrator
1981 '(
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
DRAFT E3WIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Alternative Wastewater Treatment Systems for
Fural Lake Projects
Case Study Number 6: Williams County Commissioners
(Nettle Lake Area) Williams County, Ohio
Prepared by
US Environmental Protection Agency, Region V
Comments concerning this document are invited and should by received by
September 28, 1981.
For further information contact:
Ms. Catherine Grissom Garra, Project Monitor
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
312/353-2157
Abstract
A Facilities Plan was prepared for the Nettle Lake Planning Area and concluded
that extensive sewering would be required to correct malfunctioning on-site
wastewater disposal systems and to protect water quality.
Concern about the high proposed costs of the Facilities Plan Proposed Action
prompted re-examination of the Study Area and led to preparation of this EIS.
This EIS concludes that complete abandonment of on-site systems is unjustified.
An alternative to the Facilities Plan Proposed Action has therefore been pre-
sented and is recommended by this Agency.
-------
LIST OF PREPARERS
This Environmental Impact Statement was prepared with the assis-
tance of WAPORA, Inc. under the guidance of Catherine G. Garra, US EPA
Region V Project Officer. Additonal US EPA participants were Alfred
Krause, Ted Rockwell, Gene Wojcik and Ronald Brown.
Key personnel for WAPORA included:
WAPORA, Inc.
6900 Wisconsin Avenue
Chevy Chase, MD 20015
J. Ross Pilling, II - Project Manager
Winston Lung, P.E. - Water Quality Modeler
Gerald Peters - Project Director
Dr. Ulric Gibson - Senior Project Engineer
Edward Hagarty - Project Engineer
In addition, several subcontractors and others assisted in prepara-
tion of this document. These, along with their areas of expertise, are
listed below:
Aerial Survey
Monitoring and Support Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
US Environmental Protection Agency
Las Vegas, NV 89114
Septic Leachate Analysis
William Kerfoot
K-V Associates
Falmouth, MA
Engineering
David Wohlscheid, P.E.
Arthur Beard Engineers
6900 Wisconsin Avenue
Chevy Chase, MD 20015
Sanitary Survey
Mark Hummel
Rochester, MI
-------
NETTLE LAKE SUMMARY
CONCLUSIONS
The principal need for wastewater treatment improvements is to
protect Nettle Lake and the health of the area's residents from sewage
contamination during flood periods. During flooding, periodic back-up
of sewage into houses occurs, effluent is found on the ground surface
outside homes, and odors are a nuisance.. Privies are often flooded as
well.
Based on technical studies and a limited sanitary survey of exist-
ing sewage treatment facilities, most of the on-site wastewater treat-
ment systems around Nettle Lake are operating satisfactorily, except
during these flood periods. On-site systems do not appear to contribute
a significant amount of nutrients to Nettle Lake. Of the total amount
of phosphorus entering the lake, 13% or less comes from on-site systems.
The rest comes from non-point sources such as agricultural drainage.
There are large differences in the 20-year project (present worth)
cost and customer user charges among the on-site and centralized alter-
natives considered in this Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS).
Both costs increase in direct proportion to the extent of new cen-
tralized sewering. In the more expensive alternatives, high local user
charges would result in displacement pressure for many segments of the
population and pressure for conversion of seasonal residences to per-
manent use. Water quality improvements would be very slight in com-
parison to the high costs.
Future growth in the Nettle Lake study area depends on how many new
lots can be built on, the density of future development and the relative
attractiveness of other lakeside developments in areas surrounding
Williams County. Existing floodplain zoning will restrict new growth in
floodplain areas. Selecting a wastewater management alternative that
relies on the continued use of on-site systems could also limit the
number of new lots and the density of development, as compared to exten-
sive sewering around the lake. While the purpose of Federal wastewater
treatment funding is to solve existing population problems, the form of
pollution control can affect local growth pattens. One effect of
improving on-site systems, rather than sewering, may be to preserve the
present character of the Study Area.
DEIS RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommended action in this Draft EIS is EIS Alternative 8 (see
Figure IV-12). This alternative would provide:
o Site-specific environmental and engineering analysis of existing
on-site systems throughout the proposed Service Area in Step 2;
o Repair and renovation of on-site wastewater treatment systems as
needed;
-------
LEGEND
SEGMENTS 1-5: Privy
replacement and septic
tanks with mounds or
dual drainfields
SEGMENTS 6: Septic tanks
with soil absorption
systems (ST/SAS)
SEGMENTS 7,8: Existing
ST/SAS
FEET
200O
FIGURE IV-12 NETTLE LAKE: EIS ALTERNATIVE 8
ii
-------
o Replacement or improvement of privies with alternative forms of
on-site technology as needed;
o Management of the on-site systems through a small waste flows
district.
The recommended action will reduce the potential public health
hazard during flood periods at Nettle Lake. At the same time, it will
result in a modest improvement in overall water quality of Nettle Lake
that would be comparable to the improvement realized under any of the
wastewater alternatives. The present worth of Alternative 8, at a cost
of $796,500, is 45 percent of the Facilities Plan Proposed Action's
total present worth cost of $1,842,500. The local share of the capital
cost of Alternative 8 is $83,568 or approximately 21 percent of the
$396,271 local cost for the facilities Plan Proposed Action. The annual
user charges are $110 and $335 per household, respectively. The recom-
mended action would be cost-effective and would result in no significant
adverse impacts upon the environment or residents of the Study Area.
Eligible portions of the system may receive 85 percent Federal funding
for design and construction.
If the recommended action were accepted by the applicant and by the
State and local jurisdictions, it would be equivalent to a revised
Facilities Plan Proposed Action. A small waste flows district would
need to be established for the operation and management of the proposed
on-site and cluster systems. To complete the Step 1 process, the Appli-
cant would need to:
o Certify that the project would be constructed and that an opera-
tion and maintenance program could be established to meet local,
State, and Federal requirements, including those protecting
present or potential underground potable sources of water
o Obtain assurance (such as an easement or County Ordinance) of
unlimited access to each individual system at all reasonable
times for such purposes as inspection, monitoring, construction,
maintenance, operation, rehabilitation, and replacement. (An
option would satisfy this requirement if it would be exercised
no later than the initiation of construction)
o Establish a comprehensive program for regulation and inspection
of individual systems before EPA approves the plans and specifi-
cations. Planning for this comprehensive program would be
completed as part of the revised Facilities Plan. The program
would include, as a minimum, periodic testing of water from
existing potable water wells in the area.
LEGAL IMPLEMENTATION
Although it is presently possible to implement a management dis-
trict for on-site systems under Ohio health laws, the laws are not en-
tirely clear and an effort is presently being made to clarify the law to
implement these districts. Details on these developments will be pre-
sented in the Final EIS. The district would be responsible for over-
seeing the construction, financing, and maintenance of on-site systems.
iii
-------
FUTURE WORK NECESSARY IN STEP 2
The preferred alternative requires a site-by-site analysis in order
to design an appropriate wastewater treatment system for each home or
business in the service area. This will occur as part of the Step 2
design work of wastewater treatment facilities for Nettle Lake. Indi-
vidual sites and systems will be examined to determine if upgrading or
replacement is necessary. Any new system would be planned in consul-
tation with the homeowner. Eligible portions of this survey will
receive 85 percent Federal funding.
At the beginning of Step 2 the grantee will choose one of the many
small waste flow management options available and will set up a detailed
implementation system for Nettle Lake. Both good design and effective
management are needed to successfully implement the on-site wastewater
treatment alternative.
PROJECT HISTORY
Nettle Lake is an unincorporated area of Williams County, which
lies in the extreme northwest corner of Ohio. The Williams County
Commissioners submitted a Facilities Plan for the Nettle Lake Planning
Area to Ohio EPA in 1976. Two supplements were prepared in 1976 and
1977, in response to questions raised by Ohio EPA. The Facilities Plan
proposed a centralized collection system with treatment in an aerated
lagoon, chlorination for disinfection, and discharge to Nettle Creek
downstream from Nettle Lake (see Figure 1-4). Other alternatives were
examined including no action, land application, other forms of lagoons,
holding tanks, on-site treatment, and a package treatment plant. Sewer-
ing alternatives were also studied.
The Facilities Plan presents the following reasons for needing the
project:
o Reports from the Williams County Health Department of malfunc-
tioning on-lot wastewater treatment facilities;
o Complaints by residents of untreated sanitary wastes entering
Nettle Lake;
o Inundation of on-site systems during spring floods and the wash-
ing of effluent from privies into Nettle Lake;
o Inadequacy of the size of platted lots for on-site treatment.
EIS ISSUES
USEPA's review of the Facilities Plan led to the issuance of a
Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. The
issues cited in that notice, dated 20 July 1977, are:
IV
-------
LEGEND
PUMP STATION
GRAVITY SEWER
FORCE MAIN
2000
FIGURE 1-4
NETTLE LAKE: FACILITIES PLAN PROPOSED ACTION
v
-------
Cost-Effectiveness. The construction cost of the Facilities Plan
Proposed Action was estimated to be $1.2 million in 1977. This amounts
to $1,818 per person of total summer population and $960 per person of
year 2000 summer population. Each home would be charged $16 per month
for sewer service. The homeowner also would be responsible for addi-
tional costs associated with tap-in fees or sewer assessments, the house
lateral line, and septic tank disconnection, as well as installation of
indoor plumbing (in the case of some privy-equipped homes), and a run-
ning water supply. These costs could be a significant burden for re-
tired persons or those of modest income. They could result in displace-
ment of homeowners who are unable to pay for such expenses.
Wildlife Habitat and Wetlands Impact. The Nettle Lake area pro-
vides habitat for five State-listed endangered species, according to the
Ohio Department of Natural Resources. These include two birds (King
Rail and Upland Sandpiper), one snake (Northern Copperbelly), and two
fishes (Iowa Darter and Lake Chubsucker). The Facilities Plan contains
no specific discussion of the location of these habitats.
Several wetlands areas occur along the margins of Nettle Lake (see
Figure 11-11). Increased development may alter the character of the
wetlands when filled for the construction of recreational homes. In addi-
tion, groundwater pumping by an expanded population was estimated to
have the potential to lower groundwater levels. This could dewater
wetlands and affect water levels in Nettle Lake, one of the few natural
lakes in Ohio. The project's biological and hydrologic impacts also
appear potentially significant.
Population and Sizing. The Facilities Plan estimated that about
110 permanent and 550 seasonal residents lived in the study area in
1975. The applicant's year 2000 projections foresee 250 permanent and
1000 seasonal residents. US Census Bureau population estimates show an
essentially static permanent population in Northwest Township: 924 in
1960, 914 in 1970, and 934 in 1973. Commercial atlases for 1968 and
1977 show no summer population increases for the unincorporated area of
Nettle Lake: 250 summer residents in both years, with an increase in
the permanent population from 60 to 100. Oversizing wastewater treat-
ment facilities based on inflated population projections could result in
a cost burden for unneeded facilities.
Secondary Impacts and Induced Growth. The Facilities Plan and
public hearing transcript state that the population projections assume
increased growth rates caused by the availability of sewer service for
new housing developments. This increased population will place addi-
tional demands on local community services. Increased development may
impact the water quality of the lake and surrounding natural areas, as
well.
Public participation during the EIS process has not brought out any
additional EIS issues. See Section I.A.2 for a history of the construc-
tion grant application.
VI
-------
LEGEND
WETLANDS
FLOW DIRECTION
INTERMITTENT STREAM
FEET
0 2000
Source: EMSL 1978
FIGURE 11-11 NETTLE LAKE: WETLANDS
vii
-------
ENVIRONMENT
Soils. The soils in the Nettle Lake study area have formed pre-
dominantly in clay loam material from underlying limey loam glacial
till. The soils in the immediate Nettle Lake area exhibit severe limi-
tations for standard on-site wastewater absorption systems, based on
criteria in the Ohio Sanitary Code. Suitable soils do exist for these
absorption systems in parts of the northern and western sections of the
study area (see Figure II-4). In spite of severe limitations defined by
the Ohio Sanitary Code, the area's soils have apparently been effec-
tively treating wastewater from on-site systems. Special design of
individual on-site systems can be used to overcome the soil limitations
of a site.
Surface Water Resources. Nettle Lake and Nettle Creek are the
major surface water bodies in the study area. The 20 square mile water-
shed drains in a southeasterly direction to the Maumee River Basin,
which discharges to Lake Erie. A nutrient budget based on available
water quality data was developed for Nettle Lake. It shows that about
13 percent of the phosphorus entering Nettle Lake is from existing
on-site systems, whereas 86 percent comes from non-point sources such as
agricultural runoff. Water quality modeling demonstrated that the lake
is medium eutrophic, which means that there is a relative abundance of
oxygen to support aquatic animal life. Ultimately the lake will become
filled with weeds and evolve into a wetland. None of the wastewater
treatment alternatives will markedly change this projected transition.
The exact time needed for this transition is unknown, perhaps tens to
hundreds of years. What is known is that adding extra amounts of nu-
trients accelerates the process.
Substantial portions (60 percent) of the study area lie within the
100-year floodplain. This area of land has a 1% chance of being flooded
in any year and is shown in Figure II-9. Residential areas and asso-
ciated on-site treatment systems are subject to spring flooding around
Nettle Lake.
Ground Water Resources. Sand and gravel glacier deposits con-
stitute the major aquifer and drinking water supply for the planning
area. Wells in the area are 30 to 180 feet deep and are overlain by a
layer of impermeable clay. This clay layer prohibits wastewater from
entering the drinking water supply.
Existing Population and Land Use. Of the total in-summer popula-
tion of 1,873 estimated in this DEIS, approximately 93 percent are
seasonal residents. The land use in the immediate lakeshore area is
made up of 148 acres of residential and camp ground uses predominantly
in the southern portion of the lake area. The population of the area is
projected to be 1,904 by the year 2000, largely as a result of the
conversion of seasonal units to permanent use. The limited projected
growth in new housing is due to floodplain limitations and lack of
buildable lakeshore lots, as well as competition from other lakeshore
developments in surrounding areas.
Vlll
-------
LEGEND
SEVERE LIMITATIONS FOR
ON-SITE WASTEWATER
TREATMENT
SLIGHT TO MODERATE LIM-
ITATIONS FOR ON-SITE
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
FEET
0 2000
Source: Ohio Division of Lands
and Soils 1974
FIGURE II-4
NETTLE LAKE: SOIL SUITABILITY FOR STANDARD
ON-SITE SYSTEMS
IX
-------
LEGEND
FLOOD PRONE AREAS
FEET
0 2000
Source: Ganett, et.al.,KUD 1977
FIGURE II-9 NETTLE LAKE: FLOOD PRONE AREAS
-------
Additional Studies. Because of the lack of data on the extent of
malfunctioning on-site wastewater treatment systems, three additional
studies were performed in connection with this EIS. The conclusions of
these studies contradict some of the conventional sanitary codes relat-
ing to on-site systems.
1) A study was conducted during December 1978 to determine
whether wastewater effluent from septic tank absorption fields
were emerging along shoreline area. The results of this study
indicated that no distinct groundwater plumes of wastewater
were detected emerging along the shoreline of Nettle Lake and
that septic leachate appears to be contained by the tight
clayey soils. Discharges to surface waters occur, if at all,
during spring floods or periods of high water table.
2) An aerial photographic survey was conducted during May and
June of 1978 with color, color infrared, and thermal infrared
imagery. This sensing technique is designed to detect sewage
malfunctions of wastewater treatment systems. No malfunction-
ing systems within the study area were failing at the time of
the survey.
3) A sanitary survey of existing on-site systems was conducted
between late November and early December 1978 to determine the
nature and extent of problems with on-site systems and the
extent of systems not in compliance with the State sanitary
code. Although the survey results indicated widespread viola-
tions of the sanitary code, only 15% of the residents surveyed
indicated having problems with their systems. However, survey
results suggest that problems with backups, ponding, and privy
inundation are common in the area during spring flooding.
ALTERNATIVES
Because of the high cost estimate for the Facilities Plan Proposed
Action, eight alternatives were evaluated in this EIS along with the
Facilities Plan proposed alternative. These alternatives considered
water conservation, alternative collection systems (low pressure
sewers), treatment techniques (land application), multi-family septic
systems (cluster systems), and alternative on-site technologies (water-
less toilets, holding tanks, improved privies). The "No Action" alter-
native is also considered.
EIS Alternative 1. Most of the lakeshore would be served by
gravity sewers, force mains, and an aerated lagoon similar to the Faci-
lities Plan Proposed Action. Effluent would be discharged to Nettle
Creek downstream from Nettle Lake. The western portion of the lake
would be served by cluster systems, and the northern part of the lake
would retain on-site systems instead of the sewers proposed in the
Facilities Plan.
EIS Alternative 2. This alternative differs from EIS Alternative 1
only in the type of discharge after centralized collection. Treated
effluent would be conducted to a nearby wetland for final treatment and
disposal.
xi
-------
EIS Alternative 3. This alternative differs from the EIS Alterna-
tive 2 only by the type of centralized collection proposed. Low pres-
sure sewers would be used wherever feasible to convey effluent to an
aerated lagoon.
EIS Alternative 4. This alternative would incorporate both the
wetland discharge from EIS Alternative 2 and the pressure sewers from
EIS Alternative 3.
EIS Alternative 5. This alternative investigated land application
by rapid infiltration as an alternative treatment method to wetland
treatment or surface water discharge. As in EIS alternatives 1 to 4,
the northern and western portions of the lake would be served by on-site
or cluster treatment systems.
EIS Alternative 6. This alternative would provide service through
two cluster systems for the western part of the lake. The rest of the
lake would be served through on-site technology similar to EIS Alterna-
tive 7.
EIS Alternative 7. This alternative would employ on-site treatment
for all residences. A small waste flows agency would be responsible for
maintaining, repairing or replacing on-site systems as appropriate.
Most malfunctioning or underdesigned septic tank/soil absorption systems
would be upgraded to adequately sized septic tanks combined with either
an elevated sand mound or a dual soil absorption system. Throughout the
southern portion of the lake, all the privies would be replaced with
indoor bathrooms. Dwellings would be provided with a water supply, a
low flush toilet, and a holding tank for all wasteswaters.
EIS Alternative 8. This alternative is identical to EIS Alterna-
tive 7 with the exception that all privies throughout the area would be
upgraded or replaced with alternative toilets. The toilet technologies
investigated include vault toilets, chemical toilets, water conserving
flush toilets with holding tanks, and electrical composting toilets.
Vault toilets would be pumped seasonally to prevent flood water con-
tamination of the lake.
No Action Alternative. This alternative provides no EPA funding
for wastewater treatment improvements. Any new construction, upgrading
or expansion would be at the expense and initiative of individual pro-
perty owners or Williams County.
KEY IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES
Surface Waters. None of the alternatives is anticipated to have a
significant impact on the overall water quality or trophic status of
Nettle Lake. Even if the current use of on-site systems were totally
eliminated, the lake would probably remain eutrophic because of the
large load of nutrients from upstream sources. The No Action alterna-
tive will continue to contribute nutrients to Nettle Lake, as well as
present a potential health hazard during flood events.
XII
-------
Wildlife Habitat and Wetland Impacts. No significant short-term
or long-term impacts on endangered species should result from the con-
struction and operation of any of the alternatives. Minor construction
impacts would occur in wetland areas under the Facilities Plan Proposed
Action or EIS Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. No impact would result
from construction of EIS Alternatives 6, 7, 8, or the No Action alterna-
tive .
Population and Land Use. The Nettle Lake area has demonstrated
only limited development pressure for both seasonal and permanent resi-
dents. The Facilities Plan Proposed Action could result in an induced
population increase above the modest increase projected for baseline
conditions and the No Action alternative. This could result in only 10
additional acres of residential development. EIS Alternatives 1, 2, 3,
4, and 5 could induce 3.0 percent to 4.0 percent more population than
projected, whereas Alternatives 6, 7, and 8 would not induce additional
growth.
Floodplain Impacts. For any alternative, new growth will be re-
stricted by floodplain zoning. The No Action alternative will continue
the periodic nuisance and potential health impacts from existing flooded
privies. Centralized collection and treatment under EIS Alternatives 1
through 6 would not result in any floodplain impact. Potential impacts
from on-site treatment systems and privies under EIS Alternative 7 or 8
would be mitigated by seasonal pumping or temporary limitations on use.
Construction within the floodplain must occur to serve existing homes
under any of the EIS or Facilities Plan alternatives. None of these
alternatives would increase the probability of flooding. All alterna-
tives other than the No Action would provide the beneficial impact of
reducing public health and water quality problems.
Archaeology. The National Register archaeological site within the
planning area will not be affected by any alternative. Its presence
indicates the possible need to look for other potential sites in the
planning area, especially where larger areas of land will be disturbed.
USEPA will ensure compliance with all historic preservation require-
ments .
Economic Impacts. Annual user charges are estimated to range from
$376 a year for EIS Alternative 6 to $335 a year for the Facilities Plan
Proposed Action and $110 per year for EIS Alternative 8. User charges
are generally higher for the more centralized alternatives, the
Facilities Plan Proposed Action and EIS Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5,
than they are for the decentralized alternatives, EIS Alternatives 7 and
8. EIS Alternative 6, while a decentralized approach, carries the
highest user charge due to the costs of collection lines. The propor-
tion of families that would face a financial burden ranges from a low of
20 to 25% (EIS Alternative 8) to a high of 40 to 45% (EIS Alternative
5). Displacement pressure is lowest under EIS Alternative 8 (10-15%)
and highest under the Facilities Plan Proposed Action as well as EIS
Alternatives 2, 4, 5, and 6 (20-25%).
Xlll
-------
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SUMMARY i
LIST OF TABLES xxii
LIST OF FIGURES xxiii
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS xxiv
I. INTRODUCTION 1
A. Background 1
1. Location 1
2. History of the Construction Grant Application l
3. Facilities Plan 6
a. Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities 6
b. Existing Problems 6
c. Facilities Plan Alternatives and Proposed Action... 7
B. Issues of this EIS.
1. Population and Sizing .................................. 8
2. Secondary Impacts and Induced Growth ................... 10
3. Cost-Effectiveness and Socioeconomic Impact ............ J_Q
4. Wildlife Habitat and Wetlands Impact ................... IQ
C. National Perspective on the Rural Sewering Problem ......... IQ
1. Socioeconomics ......................................... 11
2. Secondary Impacts ...................................... 13
3. The Need for Management of Decentralized Alternative
Systems ............................................... 13
4. Relationship to Other EISs Prepared by USEPA Region V.. 15
D. Purpose and Approach of the EIS and Criteria for Evaluation
of Alternatives ........................................... 16
1. Purpose ................................................ 16
2. Approach ............................................... 16
a. Review of Available Data ........................... 16
b. Documentation of Need for Action ................... 17
c. Segment Analysis ................................... 17
d. Review of Wastewater Design Flows .................. 17
e. Development of Alternatives ................. . ...... 18
f. Estimation of Costs of Alternatives... ............. 18
g. Evaluation of Alternatives ......................... 18
xiv
-------
Page
3. Major Criteria for Evaluation of Alternatives 18
a. Cost 18
b. Significant Environmental and Socioeconomic Impacts.. 19
c. Reliability 19
d. Flexibility 19
II. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 21
A. Introduction 21
B. Physical Setting 21
1. Physiography . 21
2. Geology 23
a. Surficial Geology 23
b. Bedrock Geology 23
3. Soils 23
a. General 23
b. Suitability for Septic Tank Absorption Fields 26
c. Suitability for Land Application 28
d. Prime Agricultural Land 30
4. Atmosphere 30
a. Climate 30
b. Noise 30
c. Odors 30
d. Air Quality 34
C. Water Resources 34
1. Surface Water 34
a. Surface Water Hydrology 35
b. Surface Water Quality 37
c. Surface Water Use and Classification 42
2. Groundwater Resources 42
a. Groundwater Hydrology 42
b. Groundwater Quality 45
c. Groundwater Use 45
3. Water Quality Management 46
4. Flood Hazard Areas 46
xv
-------
Page
D. Biotic Resources 49
1. Aquatic Biology 49
a. Aquatic Vegetation ^9
b. Fishes 50
c. Invertebrates 52
2. Terrestrial Ecology 52
a. Forests 52
b. Wetlands 52
c. Wildlife 55
3. Threatened or Endangered Species 5
a. Mammals 56
b. Birds 56
c. Amphibians and Reptiles "
d. Fishes 57
e. Crustaceans and Mammals -*'
E. Population and Socioeconomics 57
1. Population 57
a. Existing Population 58
b. Population Projecttions 58
2. Characteristics of the Population 61
a. Permanent Population 61
b. Seasonal Population 65
3. Housing Characteristics 65
4. Land Use 66
a. Existing Land Use 66
b. Recreation 66
c. Future Land Use 68
d. Growth Management 68
5. Fiscal Characteristics 68
6. Historical and Archaeological Resources 70
F. Existing Wastewater Systems 70
1. Special Studies 70
a. "Investigation of Septic Leachate Discharges into
Nettle Lake, Ohio" (Kerfoot ]978) 72
-------
Page
b. "Environmental Analysis and Resource Inventory
for Nettle Lake, Ohio" (EMSL1978) 72
c. Nettle Lake, Construction Grant Sanitary
Survey, William County, Ohio 1978 73
2. Types of Systems 73
3. Compliance With the Sanitary Code 75
4. Problems With the Existing Systems 75
5. Conclusions 79
III. DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES 81
A. Introduction 81
1. General Approach 81
2. Comparability of Alternatives: Design Population 83
3. Comparability of Alternatives: Flow and Waste Load
Projections 83
B. Components and Options 84
1. Flow Reduction 84
2. Collection 87
3. Wastewater Treatment 89
a. Centralized TreatmentDischarge to Surface Water... 89
b. Centralized TreatmentLand Disposal 89
c. Decentralized Treatment and Disposal 91
4 . Effluent Disposal 95
a. Reuse 95
b. Discharge to Surface Waters 96
c. Land Applications 96
5. Sludge Handling and Disposal 96
C. Flexibility of Components 97
1. Transmission and Conveyance 97
2. Conventional Wastewater Treatment 97
a. Oxidation Ditch 98
b. Rotating Biological Contactor (RBC) 98
xvii
-------
3. On-Site Septic Septic Systems 99
4. Land Application 99
D. Reliability of Components 100
1. Sewers 101
2. Centralized Treatment 102
3. On-Site Treatment 102
4. Cluster Systems .103
E. Implementation 103
1. Centralized Districts 104
a. Authority 104
b. Managing Agency 104
c. Financing 105
d. User Charges 105
2. Small Waste Flows Districts 105
a. Authority 106
b. Management 106
c. Financing 109
d. User Charges 109
IV EIS ALTERNATIVES HI
A. Approach HI
B. Alternatives HI
1. No Action HI
2. Facilities Plan Proposed Action 113
3. EIS Alternative 1 113
4. EIS Alternative 2 113
5. EIS Alternative 3 H3
6. EIS Alternative 4 120
7. EIS Alternative 5 12°
8. EIS Alternative 6 120
9. EIS Alternative 7 120
10. EIS Alternative 8 125
C. Flexibility of Alternatives 125
1. No Action 128
2. Facilities Plan Proposed Action 128
3. EIS Alternative 1 128
4. EIS Alternative 2 128
5. EIS Alternative 3 128
6. EIS Alternative 4 129
7. EIS Alternative 5 129
8. EIS Alternative 6 129
9. EIS Alternatives 7 and 8 129
xviii
-------
D. Cost of Alternatives
E. Resources Needed to Operate and Maintain
Wastewater Facilities ............ . ...................... 131
V. IMPACTS.
133
A. Impacts on Surface Water Quality 133
1. Primary Impacts 133
a. Analysis of Eutrophication Potential 133
b. Bacterial Contamination 136
c. Non-Point Source Loads 136
2. Secondary Measures 138
3. Mitigative Measures 138
B. Groundwater Impacts 138
1. Groundwater Quantity Impacts 139
2. Groundwater Quality Impacts 139
3. Mitigative Measures 140
C. Impacts on Population and Land Use 141
1. Population 142
2. Land Use 142
D. Encroachment on Environmentally Sensitive Areas 143
1. Floodplains 143
a. Primary Impacts 143
b. Secondary Impacts 143
c. Mitigative Measures 144
2. Steep Slopes 144
a. Primary Impacts 144
b. Secondary Impacts 144
c. Mitigative Measures 144
3. Wetlands 144
a. Primary Impacts 144
b. Secondary Impacts 145
c. Mitigative Measures 145
4. Endangered Species 145
a. Primary Impacts 145
b. Secondary Impacts 146
c. Mitigative Measures 146
xix
-------
Page
5. Prime Agricultural Lands 147
a. Primary Impacts 147
b. Secondary Impacts 147
c. Mitigative Measures 147
6. Historical and Archaeological Resources 147
E. Economic Impacts 147
1. Introduction 147
2. User Charges 147
a. Eligibility 148
b. Calculation of User Charges 149
3. Local Cost Burden 151
a. Significant Financial Burder 151
b. Displacement Pressure 151
c. Conversion Pressure 152
4. Mitigative Measures 152
F. Narrative Impact Matrix 153
VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 159
A. Evaluation 159
B. Conclusions 159
C. Draft EIS Recommendation 164
D. Implementation. 164
1. Completion of Step 1 (Facilities Planning)
Requirements for the Small Waste Flows District 164
2. Scope of Step II for the Small Waste Flows District.... 165
3. Compliance with State and Local Standards
in the Small Waste Flows District 165
4. Ownership of On-Site Systems Serving
Seasional Residences 166
5. Technology Selection 166
VII. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM AND
LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 169
A. Short-Term Use of the Study Area 169
xx
-------
Page
B. Impact Upon Long-Term Productivity 169
1. Commitment of Nonrenewable Resources 169
2. Limitations on the Beneficial Use of the Environment... 169
VIII. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES 171
IX. PROBABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED 173
BIBLIOGRAPHY 174
GLOSSARY 180
INDEX 195
APPENDICES 199
xxi
-------
LIST OF TABLES
II-1 Interpretation of Soil Physical and Hydraulic Properties
to be Considered in the Development of Land Application
Systems 29
II-2 Prime Agricultural Lands of the Study Area 31
II-3 Physical Characteristics of Nettle Lake 35
II-4 Surface Water Quality Analysis for Nettle Lake and Nettle Creek. 38
II-5 Theoretical Nutrient Input of Nettle Lake 39
II-6 Distribution of Land Use Categories in Nettle Lake Watershed.... 40
II-7 Results of Bacteriological Sampling by Ohio EPA, Nettle Lake,
Ohio 44
II-8 Fish Catches by Fyke Nets in Nettle Lake 51
II-9 Permanent and Seasonal Population of the Nettle Lake Proposed
Service Area (1975) 59.
11-10 Permanent and Seasonal Population of the Nettle Lake Proposed
Service Area (2000) 60
11-11 Mean and Median Family Income (1969) and Per Capita Income
(1969 and 1974) 62
11-12 Percent Distribution of Family Income of Permanent Residents
(1970) 63
11-13 Employment by Industry Group - 1970 64
11-14 Fiscal Characteristics of the Local Governments in the Nettle
Lake Study Area, 1977 69
11-15 Summary of Sanitary Survey Results 74
11-16 Types of Sanitary Systems 76
III-l Estimated Savings With Flow Reduction Devices 86
III-2 Basic and Supplemental Functions For Small Waste Flows
Districts 107
IV-1 Alternatives - Summary of Major Components 112
IV-2 Cost-Effective Analysis of Alternatives 130
IV-3 Annual Labor, Energy, Chemical/Material/Supply Requirements by
Alternative 132
V-l Phosphorus Loads for Wastewater Management Alternatives in
Year 2000 134
V-2 User Charges i48
V-3 Total Local Share of Capital Costs 150
V-4 Financial Burden and Displacement Pressure 150
VI-1 Decision Matrix 160
VI-2 Technologies Considered for Privy Replacement 163
xxii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
1-1 Location of Nettle Lake Study Area 2
1-2 Nettle Lake: Study Area 3
1-3 Nettle Lake: Subdivisions in the Service Area 4
1-4 Nettle Lake: Facilities Plan Proposed Action 9
1-5 Monthly Cost of Gravity Sewers 12
II-l Nettle Lake: Topography 22
II-2 Nettle Lake: Surficial Geology 24
II-3 Nettle Lake: Bedrock Geology 25
II-4 Nettle Lake: Soil Suitability for On-Site Systems 27
II-5 Nettle Lake: Prime Agricultural Lands 27
II-6 Nettle Lake: Surface Water Hydrology 36
II-7 Nettle Lake: Trophic Status of Nettle Lake 41
II-8 Nettle Lake: Bacteriological Sampling Station 43
II-9 Nettle Lake: Flood Hazard Areas 47
11-10 Nettle Lake: Forests 53
11-11 Nettle Lake: Wetlands 54
11-12 Nettle Lake: Existing Land-Use 67
11-13 Nettle Lake: Predominant Wildlife Areas and Location of
Archaeological Site 71
III-l Typical Pump Installation for Pressure Sewer 90
III-2 Spray Irrigation 92
III-3 Rapid Infiltration 92
IV-1 Facilities Plan Proposed Action Treatment Processes 114
IV-2 Nettle Lake: Facilities Plan Proposed Action 115
IV-3 Segmented Subdivisions 116
IV-4 Nettle Lake: EIS Alternative 1 117
IV-5 Nettle Lake: EIS Alternative 2 118
IV-6 Nettle Lake: EIS Alternative 3 119
IV-7 Nettle Lake: EIS Alternative 4 121
1V-8 Nettle Lake: EIS Alternative 5 Treatment Processes 122
IV-9 Nettle Lake: EIS Alternative 5 123
IV-10 Nettle Lake: EIS Alternative 6 124
IV-11 Nettle Lake: EIS Alternative 7 126
IV-12 Nettle Lake: EIS Alternative 8 127
V-l Comparison of Phosphorus Loadings By Source Contributions For
Existing Conditions, Proposed Action and Alternatives 135
V-2 Trophic Status of Nettle Lake For Each Alternative 137
xxiii
-------
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS
v
a
An asterisk following a word indicates that the term is
defined in the Glossary at the end of this report. Uoed
at the first appearance of the term in this EIS.
less than
greater than
Rho
Mu, micro
Nu
Sigma
TECHNICAL ABBREVIATIONS
AWT
BOD
DO
ft2
fps
/ 2,
S/m /yr
GP
gpcd
gpm
I/I
kg/yr
kg/cap/yr
kg/iaile
Ib /cap /day
mgd
mg/1
ml
msl
MPN
N
NO -N
NFS
advanced wastevater treatment
biochemical oxygen demand
dissolved oxygen
square foot
feet per second
grams per square nieter per year
grinder pump
gallons per capita per day
gallons per ninute
infiltration/inflow
kilogram per year
kilograms per capita per year
kilo grans per taile
pounds per capita per day
million gallons per day
milligrams per litre
millilitre
mean sea levelimplies above msl unless otherwise indicated
most probable number
nitrogen
ammonia nitrogen
nitrate nitrogen
non-point cource
xx iv
-------
O&M
P
pH
P°4
PP3
psi
RBC
SS
STEP
STP
ST/SAS
TKN
TP-P
EPAECO
operation and maintenance
phosphorus, or "as phosphorus"
measure of acidity or basicity; <7 is acidic; >7 is basic
phosphate
parts per million
pounds per square inch
rotating biological contactor
suspended solids
septic tank effluent pumping
sewage, treatment plant
septic tank/soil absorption system
total Kjeldahl nitrogen
total phosphorus as phosphorus
micrograias par liter
name of a mathematical model
NON-TECHNICAL ABBREVIATIONS
DNR
EIS
EPA
EPIC
FWS
GT-L-BHD
HUD
NOAA
NES
NPDES
scs
STORET
DSDA
USGS
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Impact Statement
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center (of EPA)
Fish and Wildlife Service, United States Department of
the Interior
Grand Traverse-Leelanau-Benzie District Health Department
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United
States Department of Commerce
National Eutrophication Survey
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Soil Conservation Service, United States Department of
Agriculture
STOrage and RETrieval (data base system of EPA)
United States Department of Agriculture
United States Geological Survey, Department of the Interior
xxv
-------
APPENDICES
Surface Water
A-l NPDES Permit
A-2 Analytical Results of USGS Water Quality Sampling
A-3 Seasonal and Long-Term Changes in Lake Water Quality
A-4 Non-Point Source Modeling - Omernik's Model
A-5 Simplified Analysis of Lake Eutrophication
A-6 Ohio Surface Water Quality Standards
A-7 Federal, State, and Local Responsibility for Water
Quality Management
Biotic Resources
B-l Fish Species Found in Nettle Creek and Nettle Lake and
Their Relative Abundance - Distribution Status of Fishes
Within the Maumee River Basin
B-2 Trees and Shrubs of Northwestern Ohio
B-3 Birds of Northwestern Ohio, Nettle Lake Study Area
B-4 Mammals of Northwestern Ohio, Nettle Lake Study Area
Population
C-l Methodology for Projecting Proposed Service Area - Permanent
and Seasonal Populations, 1975 and 2000
Studies and Regulations of Existing Systems
D-l Investigations of Septic Leachate Discharges Into Nettle
Lake, Ohio (Kerfoot 1978)
D-2 Nettle Lake Construction Grants: Sanitary Survey
D-3 Ohio Sanitary Code
Flow Reduction
E-l Flow Reduction and Cost Data For Water Saving Devices
E-2 Incremental Capital Costs of Flow Reduction in the Nettle
Lake Study Area
Water Treatment and Disposal
F-l Comparison of Site Characteristics for Land Treatment Processes
F-2 Small Wastewater Systems
F-3 Soil Characteristics for On-Site Disposal
F-4 Design Assumptions for Cluster Systems (Machmeier)
Financing
G-l Cost Sharing
G-2 Alternatives for Financing the Local Share of Wastewater Treat-
ment Facilities in the Nettle Lake Study Area, Ohio
xxvi
-------
Volume II
Appendices (continued)
H Management
H-l Some Management Agencies for Decentralized Facilities
H-2 Legislation By States Authorizing Management of Small Waste
Flows Districts
H-3 Management Concepts for Small Waste Flows Districts
I Engineering
1-1 Design and Costing Assumptions
1-2 Costs of Alternatives
XXVll
-------
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A. BACKGROUND
1. LOCATION
This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is being conducted on the
"Facilities PlanNettle Lake Area, Williams County, Ohio, April 1976,"
with Addenda, which were submitted by the Williams County Commissioners
for Federal funding under Section 201 of the Clean Water Act of 1977,
P.L. 95-217. A preliminary environmental review of the facilities plan
and addenda by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US
EPA) Region V indicated the possibility of significant environmental
impacts and led to the Agency's decision that an EIS is warranted. The
environmental issues raised in the US EPA's Notice of Intent to prepare
an EIS are discussed in Section I.E. below.
The planning area identified in the Facilities Plan is located in
Northwest Township, Williams County, Ohio (see Figures 1-1 and 1-2)
approximately 10 miles northwest of the town of Montpelier. Centered
around Nettle Lake, the Study Area is \\ square miles in area. Resi-
dential developments occupy 148 of the 870 acres of land in the Study
Area. The Proposed Service Area of this EIS is composed of all of those
residential developments and two campgrounds: Lazy Acres North, Lazy
Acres South, Lakeview/Eureka Beach, Shady Shore, Roanza Beach,
Crestwood, Camp DiClaire, and Shady Shore Camp (see Figure 1-3). It is
identical with the areas proposed for service during Phase I of the
Facilities Plan, with the addition of Camp DiClaire and Shady Shore
Camp.
2. HISTORY OF THE CONSTRUCTION GRANT APPLICATION
The following is a list of significant events associated with
wastewater management in the Study Area and with the development of this
Environmental Impact Statement.
Apr 1, 1974 Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) issues Na-
tional Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Permit No. G746*AD to the Williams County Commissioners
for the proposed wastewater treatment facility for the
Study Area.
Sept 16, 1974 Williams County Commissioners enter into agreement with
Floyd G. Browne and Associates, Limited, Consulting Engi-
neer-Planner, for the preparation of a facilities plan
for wastewater disposal in the Study Area.
Nov 27, 1974 Ohio State Clearing House, Office of Budget and Manage-
ment, approves the Williams County Commissioners' project
information and recommends that they proceed with a Step
1 Grant application to the US Environmental Protection
Agency (US EPA).
-------
NETTLE LAKE STUDY AREA
Montpelier
WILLIAMS
COUNTY
Bryan
FIGURE 1-1 LOCATION OF THE NETTLE LAKE STUDY AREA
-------
NORTHWEST
TOWNSHIP
FEET
2000
FIGURE 1-2 NETTLE LAKE: STUDY AREA
-------
LEGEND
LAZY ACRES SOUTH
LAKEVIEW/EUREKA BEACH
SHADY SHORE
LAZY ACRES NORTH
ROANZA BEACH
CRESTWOOD
CAMP DI CLAIRE
SHADY SHORE CAMP
FEET
2000
FIGURE 1-3 NETTLE LAKE: SEGMENTED SUBDIVISIONS IN THE PROPOSED
SERVICE AREA
-------
May 22, 1975
Williams County Commissioners receive Step 1 Grant of
$8,465 from US EPA.
June 16, 1975 Williams County Commissioners accept the Step 1 Grant.
Aug 23, 1975
Dec 4, 1975
Mar 24, 1976
Apr 9, 1976
Apr 19, 1976
Jul 23, 1976
Oct 26, 1976
Mar 25, 1977
Jul 20, 1977
Oct 1, 1977
Dec 12, 1977
Williams County Commissioners hold a Public' Information
Meeting on the proposed facilities plan.
Williams County Commissioners hold a Public Hearing on
the proposed facilities plan.
Williams County Commissioners reply to the Hon. Thomas L.
Ashley, Member of Congress, concerning issues raised by
his constituents with respect to the development of the
proposed facilities plan and the plans for holding public
meetings and public hearings.
Ohio State Clearing House, Office of Budget and Manage-
ment, approves the Williams County Commissioners' project
notification information and recommends that they proceed
with a Step 2 Grant application to the US EPA.
Floyd G. Browne and Associates, Limited, submits the
Facilities Plan--Nettle Lake Area, Williams County, Ohio
to the Williams County Commissioners.
Maumee Valley Resource Conservation, Development & Plan-
ning Organization recommends that Williams County Commis-
sioners proceed with Step 2 Grant application to US EPA.
Floyd G. Browne and Associates, Limited, submits
"Addendum No. 1 to Facilities Plan--Nettle Lake Area,
Williams County, Ohio" to the Williams County Commis-
sioners in response to OEPA's interoffice memo dated 2
August 1976 concerning planned sewer-crossings of the
lake and wildlife habitats, existing privies, and related
issues.
Floyd G. Browne and Associates, Limited, submits Addendum
to Facilities Plan--Nettle Lake Area, Williams County,
Ohio" to the OEPA in response to the agency's interoffice
memo dated 18 January 1977 concerning on-site holding
facilities, energy requirements of proposed alternatives,
economic impacts, and short-term/long-term trade-offs.
US EPA Region V issues a Notice of Intent to prepare an
EIS on the Facilities Plan.
WAPORA, Inc., commences work on the EIS.
Representatives of US EPA Region V and WAPORA, Inc., meet
with Williams County Commissioners and the facility plan-
ners Floyd G. Browne and Associates, Limited.
-------
Dec 12, 1977 First EIS Public Information and Participation Meeting
held by US EPA Region V at the Edon North West Elementary
School, Cooney, Ohio.
Aug 23, 1978 US EPA Region V issues EIS Newsletter citing the special
studies in progress in the Study Area and the preliminary
set of wastewater management alternatives.
June 1980 Second EIS newsletter discussing the study process and
alternatives under consideration.
Jul 28, 1980 Second public information and participation meeting held
at the Edon Northwest Elementary School, Cooney, Ohio.
3. FACILITIES PLAN
Discussion in this section is limited entirely to summarizing the
main features of the "Facilities Plan -- Nettle Lake Area, Williams
County, Ohio" (April 1976) prepared for the Williams County Commis-
sioners by Floyd G. Browne and Associates, Limited. It should be noted
that the conclusions reached in the Facilities Plan and summarized in
this section are not those reached in this EIS.
a. Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities
The Study Area has no central wastewater collection and treatment
system. It is served entirely by individual systems, which include
privies, septic tanks, home aeration systems, and leaching fields. Some
individual treatment units are suspected of discharging directly into
the lake.
b. Existing Problems
The Facilities Plan cites the following as demonstrating a need for
action:
o Reports from the Williams County Health Department of malfunc-
tioning on-lot wastewater treatment facilities
o Complaints by residents of untreated sanitary wastes entering
the lake.
It also states:
"Many filter and leaching beds in the area have become filled;
the effluent often ponds on top of the ground and then drains di-
rectly to the lake or to drainage ditches which lead to the lake.
During late winter and spring when the lake surface is at a higher
elevation than normal, this ponded effluent mixes directly with
lake water. Because of the soil limitations, the platted lots are
not large enough for proper on-lot septic tank treatment facili-
ties."
-------
Consequently, the OEPA issued NPDES Permit No. G746«AD (see Appen-
dix A-VI) to the Williams County Commissioners, who agreed to prepare a
plan in compliance with the permit.
c. Facilities Plan Alternatives and Proposed Action
The Facilities Plan considered three alternative types of sewer
systems and seven treatment alternatives. These alternatives ranged
from the use of holding tanks and on-site systems to centralized treat-
ment facilities.
Design Parameters. The following is a summary of the main design
parameters used in the Facilities Plan:
o Design Period. The twenty-year period 1980-2000.
o Population Projection. The Study Area's population was consi-
dered in two categories, winter and summer. The following de-
sign populations were used:
1980 2000
Winter 130 250
Summer 750 1250
The projections were based on the current number of persons
per residence (2.2) in the Study Area and the anticipated
development potential of the platted areas, which would result
in growth from the existing 300 residences to 560 during the
20-year design period.
o Waste Flows. Waste flows were based on average per capita
flow of 50 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) for both winter
and summer populations throughout the design period. The
design maximum flows were based on OEPA criteria. Following
is a summary of the Facilities Plan's design flows for the
year 2000:
Average Flow (mgd) Maximum Flow (mgd)
Winter 0.025 0.077
Summer 0.125 0.420
Alternatives. Sewer system alternatives considered in the Facili-
ties Plan were: (1) conventional gravity system with lift stations and
force mains, (2) low pressure sewers with grinder pumps, and (3) vacuum
sewers. Alternatives 1 and 3 were found to have similar total annual
costs (capital plus operation and maintenance costs), which in both
cases were less than that of Alternative 2. The conventional gravity
system was, however, selected because of the probable yearly increases
in O&M costs of the vacuum system and the limited experience with the
use of such systems.
-------
Treatment system alternatives considered were:
Alternative A -- Aerated Waste Stabilization Lagoon
Alternative B -- Controlled Discharge Photosynthetic Pond
Alternative C -- Extended Aeration Package Plant
Alternative D -- On-site Treatment Facilities
Alternative E -- Modified Oxidation Ditch
Alternative F -- On-site Holding Facilities
Alternative G -- Liquid Disposal on Land.
Based on economics, aesthetics, operation, and compatibility with waste-
water flows, Alternative A, the aerated waste stabilization lagoon, was
selected as the most cost-effective solution. On-site systems were re-
jected as being incapable of meeting the NPDES requirements. Holding
facilities were rejected because of high annual costs, while land appli-
cation was rejected on the grounds that suitable soils were not avail-
able.
Facilities Plan Proposed Action. The Facilities Plan Proposed
Action consists of a centralized conventional gravity/force main collec-
tion system with an aerated waste stabilization lagoon located east of
the lake. Effluent discharge is to Nettle Creek downstream of the lake.
The original layout for the collection system routed a force main
across the lake from a point where Nettle Creek enters Nettle Lake on
its western shore. In response to comments by OEPA, the Facilities Plan
Proposed Action was modified by Addendum No. 1 to eliminate the lake
crossing and to make other related changes in the collection system.
The final layout of the Facilities Plan Proposed Action is shown in
Figure 1-4.
The total project cost (in 1976 dollars) was estimated at $1.673
million, of which the cost of sewers accounted for $1.253 million or
75%. The total annual cost was estimated at $167,000.
B. ISSUES OF THIS EIS
The US EPA's review of the Facilities Plan led to the Agency's
issuing of a Notice of Intent on 20 July 1977 to prepare an Environ-
mental Impact Statement. The issues set forth in that Notice are as
follows:
1. Population and Sizing. About 110 permanent and 550 seasonal
residents now live in the Study Area. The applicant's year
2000 projections foresee 250 permanent and 1000 seasonal resi-
dents. U.S. Census Bureau figures and P-25 population esti-
mates show an essentially static permanent population in North-
west Township: 924 in 1960, 914 in 1970, and 934 in 1973. Com-
mercial atlases for 1968 and 1977 show no summer population
increases for the unincorporated area of Nettle Lake: 250 sum-
mer residents in both years with an increase in the permanent
population from 60 to 100.
-------
LEGEND
PUMP STATION
GRAVITY SEWER
FORCE MAIN
200O
FIGURE 1-4 NETTLE LAKE: FACILITIES PLAN PROPOSED ACTION
-------
2. Secondary Impacts and Induced Growth. The Facilities Plan and
public hearing transcript state that the population projections
assume increased growth rates caused by the availability of
sewer service for new housing developments. This increased
population will place additional demands on local community
services. Increased development may impact the quality of the
lake and surrounding natural areas, as well.
3. Cost-Effectiveness and Socioeconomic Impact. Present Phase I
capital costs are estimated at $1.6 million, a $1818 cost per
capita of present summer population and $960 per capita of year
2000 summer population. Grant-eligible capital costs will be
covered by 75 percent Federal funding. Each resident will be
charged about $16.00 per month for sewer service. The user
will also be responsible for any tap-in fee or sewer assess-
ment, the costs of a house lateral line, septic tank disconnec-
tion, and (in the case of some privy-equipped homes) installa-
tion of indoor plumbing and a central water supply. Even if
spread out over an extended period of time, these costs may be
a significant burden for retired persons or those owning a
modest summer home. This may result in displacement of exist-
ing residents, many of whom live in mobile homes. Low cost
system alternatives must be thoroughly examined.
4. Wildlife Habitat and Wetlands Impact. The Facilities Plan
states the Nettle Lake area provides habitat for five State-
listed endangered species, according to the Ohio Department of
Natural Resources. These include two birds (King Rail and Up-
land Sandpiper), one snake (Northern Copperbelly), and two
fishes (Iowa Darter and Lake Chubsucker). The Facilities Plan
contains no specific discussion of the location of these habi-
tats. A grouping of several species that are considered rare
within the State would constitute an area of special scientific
interest.
Several wetlands areas surround the lake. Increased develop-
ment may alter the character of the wetlands, and additional
groundwater pumping by an expanded population may lower wet-
lands levels and affect Nettle Lake itself, one of the few
natural lakes in Ohio. The project's biological and hydrologic
impacts appear environmentally significant.
C. NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE ON THE RURAL SEWERING PROBLEM
The EIS issues discussed above are not unique to the proposed plan
for wastewater management in the Nettle Lake Study Area. They are
typical of concerns raised by a large number of wastewater projects for
rural and developing communities that have been submitted to US EPA for
funding. The scope of the problem has grown in the last few years as
controversy has mounted over the high costs and possible impacts of pro-
viding conventional sewerage facilities to small communities across the
country.
10
-------
1. SOCIOECONOMICS
To assess the cost burden that many proposed wastewater collection
projects would impose on small communities and the reasons for it, US
EPA studied over 250 pending facilities plans from 49 states for com-
munities under 50,000 population (Dearth, 1977). US EPA found that even
with substantial State and Federal construction grants, the costs of
conventional sewering are sometimes beyond the means of families in
rural and semi-rural areas. This was particularly true when the newly
proposed facilities would result in annual user charges of more than
$200 per household.
The Federal Government has developed criteria to identify high-cost
wastewater facilities projects (The White House Rural Development Initi-
atives, 1978). Projects place a financial burden on rural community
users when annual user charges (debt service plus operation and main-
tenance) would exceed:
o 1.5% of median household incomes less than $6,000;
o 2.0% of median household incomes between $6,000 and $10,000; or
o 2.5% of median household incomes over $10,000.
Annual user charges exceeding these criteria would materially affect the
households' standard of living. Federal agencies involved in funding
wastewater facilities will work with the community to lower project
costs through change in the project's scope or design. If the project's
scope or design is not changed, the agencies will work with the com-
munity until that community is clearly aware of the financial impacts of
undertaking the high-cost project.
The collection system is chiefly responsible for the high costs of
conventional sewerage facilities for small communities. Typically, 80%
or more of the total capital cost for newly serviced rural areas is
spent for collection systems. Figure 1-5 indicates that costs per resi-
dence for gravity sewers increase exponentially as population density
decreases. Primary factors contributing to this relationship are:
o Greater length of sewer pipe per dwelling in lower-density
areas;
o More problems with grade, resulting in more lift stations or
excessively deep sewers;
o Regulations or criteria setting eight inches as the smallest
allowable sewer pipe diameter; and
o Inability of small communities to spread capital costs among
larger, previously sewered populations.
In addition to the comparatively high costs of sewers, facilities
were sometimes found to be more expensive than necessary due to:
11
-------
40
30
e
fc
O
o
20
10
COST(f/month) = 43e~ai(p/a)
e - the base of
natural logarithms
p/a - persons per acre
Source: Dearth 1977
I i i
246 8 10 12 14
POPULATION DENSITY (persons/acre)
MONTHLY COST OF GRAVITY SEWERS
FIGURE 1-5 MONTHLY COST OF GRAVITY SEWERS
12
-------
o Oversophistication in design, with accompanying high chemical
usage, large energy requirements, and costly maintenance and
operator expense, when simpler methods would do.
o Use of expensive construction materials such as non-locally pro-
duced brick-and-block and terrazzo when a steel prefab and con-
crete would do.
o Abandonment of existing treatment works without economic justi-
fication.
2. SECONDARY IMPACTS
Installation of centralized collection and treatment systems in
previously unsewered areas can dramatically affect development and,
thus, the economy and environment of rural communities. These effects
may be desirable, or they may substantially offset community objectives
for water resource improvement, land use planning and environmental pro-
tection.
In broad terms, community potential for recreational, residential,
industrial, commercial, or institutional development is determined by
economic factors such as land availability, capital, and natural re-
sources. However, fulfillment of this potential can be limited by the
lack of facilities or services (called "infrastructural elements"), such
as water supply, sewerage, and transportation. If a missing element of
infrastructure is provided, it may induce development of one type or
another depending upon prevailing local economic factors. Such develop-
ment is termed "induced growth."
Induced growth is usually unplanned and may conflict with existing
or planned development. The effects of such conflicts are termed
"secondary impacts," as are the impacts of induced growth on existing
water resources, land use, air quality, cultural resources, aesthetic
features, and environmentally sensitive areas.
Secondary impacts of new wastewater facilities can be beneficial.
For example, diversification of the local employment base may be pos-
sible only when sufficient wastewater collection and treatment capacity
is provided for commercial or industrial development. On the other
hand, new commercial or industrial development sometimes may not be com-
patible with existing recreational or agricultural interests. Resi-
dential development accompanying expansion of the employment base may
take place on prime agricultural land, steep slopes, or wetlands, or may
otherwise infringe on valued natural features.
3. THE NEED FOR MANAGEMENT OF DECENTRALIZED ALTERNATIVE
SYSTEMS
One alternative to expensive centralized sewer systems in rural
areas is a decentralized wastewater management system. Both engineering
and management are integral parts of such a system, and "decentralized
alternatives," as used in this EIS, incorporate both engineering and
management elements.
13
-------
Briefly, the engineering element consists of the use of existing
and new on-site systems, rehabilitation or replacement of those systems
where necessary, and construction of small-scale off-site systems where
existing on-site systems are not acceptable. The management element
consists of continuing supervision for the systems' installation, main-
tenance, and rehabilitation, and of appropriate monitoring of the syst-
ems' environmental impacts.
While other factors such as soil characteristics, groundwater
hydrology, and lot configurations, are highly important, adequate man-
agement may be critical to the success of decentralized alternatives in
many communities. Similarly, lack, of adequate management undoubtedly
contributed to past failures of many on-site wastewater facilities, and
therefore to the lack of trust in them by local public health officials
and consulting engineers.
Historically, State and local health officials were not empowered
even to regulate installation of on-site systems until after World War
II. They usually acted in only an advisory capacity. As the conse-
quences of unregulated use of septic tank-soil absorption systems became
apparent in the 1950's and 1960's, health officials were granted new
authority. Presently most health officials have authority for permit-
ting and inspecting or denying new installations, and they can require
renovation and replacement of on-site systems. However, their role in
the operation and maintenance of on-site systems remains largely advi-
sory. They seldom have either a budget or the authority to inspect or
monitor existing systems.
In the 1970's, the Congress recognized the need for continuing
supervision and monitoring of on-site systems as demonstrated in the
1977 Clean Water Act. This encouragement of the maintenance of on-site
systems includes, where eligible, 85% Federal funding for such things as
a septage pumping truck. Now, US EPA regulations implementing the Act
require that an applicant must meet the following requirements before a
construction grant for on-site systems may be made:
o Certify that it will be responsible for properly installing,
operating, and maintaining the funded systems;
o Establish a comprehensive program for regulation and inspection
of on-site systems that will include periodic testing of exist-
ing potable water wells, and, where a substantial number of on-
site systems exists, more extensive monitoring of aquifers;
o Obtain assurance of unlimited access to each individual system
at all reasonable times for inspection, monitoring, construc-
tion, maintenance, operation, rehabilitation, and replacement.
In some cases, implementation of these requirements by municipali-
ties may be hindered by lack of State enabling legislation for small
waste flows management districts and by lack of adequately trained man-
power. The municipality may have no control over the former and be at a
disadvantage because of the latter. Section III.E discusses other
implementation factors over which municipalities should have control.
14
-------
4. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER EISs PREPARED BY US EPA REGION V
US EPA Region V is preparing six other Environmental Impact State-
ments, similar in scope and in conditions to this one. The seven facil-
ities planning areas generally share the following characteristics
(Sutfin, 1977):
o Lakeshore development in rural areas;
o Relatively low population densities;
o Substantial proportions of seasonal residents generating sewage
during perhaps a third of the year;
o High costs for their proposed plant sizes and populations
served;
o Proposed actions including construction of sewers completely
around lakes that are only partially developed.
The degree to which these characteristics are evident in the seven Study
Areas varies, thus providing a range of conditions to be evaluated. The
six other facilities planning areas for which individual EISs are being
prepared are:
o Crystal Lake, Benzie County, Michigan
o Green Lake, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota
o Salem Township, Kenosha County, Wisconsin
o Crooked/Pickerel Lakes, Emmet County, Michigan
o Steuben Lakes, Steuben County, Indiana
o Otter Tail Lake, Otter Tail County, Minnesota.
In addition to the seven individual EISs, a generic EIS is being
prepared, synthesizing findings and processes developed in the indi-
vidual projects. On the basis of findings and planning methodologies
developed during the individual EIS's, a systematic approach to planning
rural wastewater facilities will be developed to serve as a planning
guide for rural lake communities. Specific goals of the generic EIS
will be to:
o Suggest working criteria for recognition of problematic sewering
projects;
o Recommend specific, low-cost treatment alternatives to be
examined;
o Recommend items of information to be included in future facil-
ities plans for rural lake areas; and
15
-------
o Develop a comprehensive overview of the process of rural lake-
shore development and the impacts of sewering on it.
D. PURPOSE AND APPROACH OF THE EIS AND CRITERIA FOR
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
I. PURPOSE
US EPA both reviews and approves funding for wastewater treatment
facilities under Section 201 of the Clean Water Act. Federal funding
covers 75% of the eligible costs for the planning, design, and construc-
tion of eligible facilities. In special instances 85% Federal funding
is provided for innovative or alternative systems (see Section V.E.2a).
This EIS documents US EPA's review and analysis of the application
for EPA Step 2 funding of the Facilities Plan Proposed Action. Based
upon this review, the Agency will take one of several actions:
o Approve the Facilities Plan and Step 2 grant application,
possibly with recommendations for design changes and/or measures
to mitigate impacts of the Facilities Plan Proposed Action;
o With the applicant's and State's concurrence, approve Step 2
funding for a cost-effective alternative to the Facilities Plan
Proposed Action;
o Return the application with recommendations for additional Step
1 analysis; or
o Reject the grant application.
The review and analysis focused on the issues identified in Section
I.E., and were conducted with an awareness of the more general consi-
derations of rural sewering problems discussed in Section I.C. Major
emphasis has been placed on developing and evaluating alternative waste-
water management approaches to be compared with the Facilities Plan
Proposed Action.
2. APPROACH
The review and analysis reported in this EIS included a series of
tasks, undertaken in approximately the following sequence:
a. Review of Available Data
Facilities Plan data and other sources were reviewed for applica-
bility in development and/or evaluation of the Proposed Action and of
the new EIS alternatives. The EIS reference list includes these
sources.
16
-------
b. Documentation of Need for Action
The need for action had not been clearly established in the Facil-
ities Plan. Since the completion of the Facilities Plan, the require-
ments for needs documentation have been made more stringent. New tech-
nologies, such as septic snooper surveys, have also become available.
The effects of the existing systems on surface waters, groundwater, and
public health had not been clearly documented. Because determination of
eligibility for Federal funding of a substantial portion of the Facili-
ties Plan Proposed Action will be based on the documentation of these
effects, several supplemental studies were conducted:
o An aerial survey of septic tank system malfunctions using low-
altitude color and infrared photography by US EPA's Environ-
mental Monitoring and Support Laboratory (EMSL);
o An environmental analysis and resource inventory of the Study
Area using low-altitude color and infrared photography by EMSL;
o An estimation of the existing nutrient budget and empirical
modeling of the eutrophication status of Nettle Lake;
o A "Septic Snooper"* survey to locate and sample septic tank
leachate plumes entering Nettle Lake from nearby on-site sys-
tems ; and
o A sanitary survey to evaluate usage, design, and condition of
on-site systems.
The results of these needs documentation studies have been used in the
development of alternatives and form the basis for necessary refinements
in the determination of the eligibility of sewers for Federal funding.
c. Segment Analysis
As a basis for revised population projections and for development
of alternatives, the Proposed Service Area was divided into a number of
segments. The number of dwellings in each segment was counted from
black and white aerial photographs. Available information on soils,
depth of groundwater, water quality problems, environmentally sensitive
areas, and land use capabilities was tabulated for each segment and the
tabulations used to make preliminary estimates of the need for off-site
wastewater disposal.
d. Review of Wastewater Design Flows
Available population projections were revised on the basis of the
segment house counts. New US EPA guidelines for estimating design
wastewater flows were then used to revise the wastewater flow projec-
tions for the year 2000.
17
-------
e. Development of Alternatives
First, technologies that might potentially reduce project costs or
minimize adverse impacts while still solving existing problems were
examined. Four categories of alternative technologies--flow reduction,
low-cost sewers, decentralization, and land applicationwere considered
according to their functions in a wastewater management system (collec-
tion, treatment, etc.). Next, several specific areawide alternatives
were developed, combining the alternative technologies into complete
wastewater management systems that would serve the Proposed Service
Area. Chapter III describes the technologies reviewed. Chapter IV pre-
sents the areawide alternatives.
f. Estimation of Costs of Alternatives
To assure cost comparability between the Facilities Plan Proposed
Action and the EIS alternatives, all alternatives were designed to serve
a fixed design-year population. Total present worth* and local user
charge estimates were based upon unit costs listed in a separate engi-
neering report (Arthur Beard Engineers, Inc., 1978).
g. Evaluation of Alternatives
The new alternatives were developed with a knowledge of the local
environmental setting and with the understanding that they will be eval-
uated with respect to criteria from several disciplines. Section I.D.3
below lists the general criteria for evaluating both the Facilities Plan
Proposed Action and the EIS alternatives.
3. MAJOR CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
While the high cost of sewering rural communities is a primary rea-
son to examine alternative approaches to wastewater management, cost is
not the only criterion. Evaluation of trade-offs between cost and
significant impacts is also essential. The various criteria are dis-
cussed below.
a. Cost
With some exceptions for innovative technologies, US EPA construc-
tion grants regulations allow funding of only the most cost-effective
alternative. In accordance with those regulations, cost-effectiveness
has been measured here by the net present worth of capital costs for
facilities needed immediately, capital costs for facilities required
during the 20-year planning period, operation and maintenance costs for
all wastewater facilities, and the salvage value of facilities expected
to be in service at the end of the planning period. These costs are
balanced with significant adverse non-monetary effects such as environ-
mental or social drawbacks. If these drawbacks are overriding, the
least expensive waste treatment alternative may be rejected.
The interest rate used for discounting future costs to present
worth is that established by the Water Resources Council at~6 5/8% for
1978. The differentiation between public and private costs is not a
consideration of the cost-effectiveness analysis, as required by the US
EPA construction grants regulations.
18
-------
A sewer district recovers operation, maintenance, and local debt
retirement costs through periodic sewage bills or residential user
charges. Some homeowners might also incur costs that they would have to
pay directly to contractors. Installation of gravity sewers on private
land and indoor plumbing in houses now served by privies are not
eligible for Federal funding and are seldom financed by municipalities.
The local economic impacts of new wastewater facilities would be
felt largely through user charges and whatever private costs might be
incurred. To provide an index to the homeowner's cost for various
alternatives, their local public costs (debt service plus O&M) are
determined for the first year of operation and added to the amortized
(6-7/8%, 30 years) costs for all private expenditures in the community.
This "1980 Average Annual User Charge" provides a single homeowner's
costs to be used in determining economic impacts for each system alter-
native.
b. Significant Environmental and Socioeconomic Impacts
The system selected for the Proposed Service Area will impact on
environmental and socioeconomic resources within the Study Area, the
major issues of this EIS (see Section I.E.). These include: Surface
water quality impacts, groundwater impacts, population and land use
impacts, including infringement on environmentally sensitive areas, and
economic impacts.
c. Reliability
Reliability criteria for the alternatives include both ability to
remedy existing water quality problems and prospects of protecting water
quality in the future. The first criterion was applied in the analysis
of surface and groundwater impacts of the alternatives presented in
Chapter V. That analysis assumed that the collection, treatment, and
disposal units of each alternative would operate effectively as de-
signed. The second criterion recognizes that all structural,
mechanical, and electrical facilities are subject to failure. Types of
possible failure and appropriate remedies and preventive measures were
reviewed for selected components of the alternatives.
d. Flexibility
The ability of an alternative to accommodate increasing wastewater
flows from future development is referred to here as its flexibility.
To demonstrate the relative levels of investment for different alterna-
tives, all were designed and costed to provide service for the same pop-
ulationthe design year population projected in Chapter II. However,
such factors as the amount of land developable using on-lot systems or
ability to increase the capacity of a treatment plant might signifi-
cantly affect future Study Area development. Chapter III discusses the
capability of the alternatives to accommodate increased wastewater
flows. Chapter V predicts the effects of the alternatives' flexibility
on population growth.
19
-------
CHAPTER II
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
A. INTRODUCTION
Nettle Lake, one of the few natural lakes in the State of Ohio, was
formed by action of the last retreating continental glacier that ex-
tended into North America. High concentrations of organic material give
Nettle Lake a very murky appearance. The abundance of cattails, bul-
rushes, reeds, sedges, and grasses around the lakeshore is seen as an
indication of natural plant succession in the eutrophication process
(EMSL, 1978). Agriculture is the predominant form of land use in the
drainage basin. The main crops are corn, soybeans, and wheat, which are
grown in fields that are artificially drained by subsurface tile sys-
tems .
Permanent or year-round inhabitants of the Study Area are con-
siderably outnumbered by seasonal inhabitants at the lake. Typical
permanent residents are families on modest incomes living in dwellings
ranging from mobile homes to two-story wooden buildings. The seasonal
residents generally maintain summer-type cottages. For domestic waste
disposal the community relies mainly on septic-tank soil absorption
systems (ST/SAS) and on-site pit privies. The clayey soils found
throughout most of the Study Area are not well suited for standard
effluent drain fields because of poor permeability and seasonal flood-
ing.
Indian burial mounds of the prehistoric Hopewell tribe that in-
habited Ohio approximately 2000 years ago are located northwest of the
lake. The Williams County Historical Society owns and maintains the
sitethe Study Area's only known site of archaeological significance--
as a public park.
B. PHYSICAL SETTING
1. PHYSIOGRAPHY
The topography of the Study Area is characterized by gently rolling
hills with changes in elevation never exceeding 100 feet (see Figure
II-l). The highest elevations, 1000 feet above mean sea level (msl),
are found in the south and southwest of the area, while the lowest, of
approximately 900 feet msl, surround the lake. The land surface is
generally flat in the immediate vicinity of the lake, becoming hilly
with distance from the lake. Slopes steeper than 15% are found in very
few areas, mainly northeast and southwest of the lake, as indicated in
Figure II-l.
21
-------
LEGEND
I SLOPES GREATER THAN 15%
NOTE: 10' CONTOUR INTERVAL
FEET
2000
Source: USGS 1961
FIGURE II-l NETTLE LAKE: TOPOGRAPFi
22
-------
2. GEOLOGY
a. Surficial Geology
The Nettle Lake Study Area is blanketed by unconsolidated glacial
material, deposited during the Pleistocene period, 10 to 60 thousand
years ago. These end moraine deposits were left by the last recession
of the continental glacier that once covered North America. Clayey
glacial till predominates throughout the area.
The specific thickness of glacial material within the Study Area is
not known. However, average sediment thickness overlying bedrock within
Williams County is approximately 75 to 250 feet (USDA-SCS, 1978).
Glacial deposits within the Study Area are illustrated in Figure II-2.
The legend provides a key to the location of the deposits, specific
composition, and associated geologic formations.
b. Bedrock Geology
The Williams County Study Area is principally underlain by the
Coldwater Shale Member (also referred to as the Cuyahoga Member) of the
Mississippian Formation. Average thickness of the formation is about
300 to 400 feet (USDA-SCS, 1978). The general bedrock stratigraphy of
southwest Michigan, northwest Ohio (Williams County), and northeast
Indiana is shown in Figure II-3.
3. SOILS
a. General
The soils in the Nettle Lake Study Area have been formed predomi-
nantly in clay loam material underlain with limey loam glacial till.
Two major associations have been identified in the Study Area (Stone and
Powell, 1975):
1. Blount, Loam Substratum Phase-Glynwood, Loam Substratum Phase
soils, found in the southeastern half of the area, are poorly
drained and occupy level or gently sloping land. Wetness
resulting from seasonal high water table and clayey subsoils is
a severe limitation of this soil for many engineering purposes.
2. Glynwood, Loam Substratum Phase-Spinks-Haney soils are found in
the northwestern half of the area. These soils are moderately
well drained and occur in gently sloping to moderately steep
areas. The well drained Spinks soils are underlain by sand and
gravel; the Haney soils are formed in deep sandy and loamy
deposits.
b. Suitability for Septic Tank Soil Absorption Fields
Three main factors determine soil suitability for standard on-site
absorption systems, according to the criteria of the National Coopera-
tive Soil Survey, which have been adopted by the Ohio Sanitary Code.
These are:
23
-------
HILLSDALE CO.
WILLIAMS CO
NETTLE LAKE
STUDY AREA '
FIGURE II-2 NETTLE LAKE: SURFICIAL GEOLOGY
LEGEND
H
53
w
u
w
Z H
< 55
23 W
M U
CO W
g Pi
O
O
CO Q
M
CO
O
CO
II
s
SILT, SAND & GRAVEL (Mostly alluvium, but includes
some colluvial and paludal deposits.)
MUCK, PEAT & MARL (Paludal and lucustrine deposits.)
SAND & SOME SILT (Dune deposits.)
GRAVEL, SAND & SILT (Outwash valley train deposits.)
GRAVEL, SAND & SILT (Outwash plain deposits.)
£)£££] GRAVEL, SAND & SOME SILT (Ice contact stratified
drift in kames and kame moraines.)
[ :': TILL (Includes some ice contact stratified drift,
mainly ground moraine deposits.)
TILL (Includes some ice contact stratified drift,
mainly end moraine deposits.)
Source: Johnson and Keller 1972
24
-------
WILLIAMS COUNTY
(OHIO)
NORTHEAST
Unconsolidated Deposits
Shale and Limestone of Cincinnatian Age
Source: Johnson and Keller 1972
Trenton Limestone and Older Rocks
2000
FIGURE II-3 NETTLE LAKE: BEDROCK GEOLOGY
LEGEND
PM
CO
co
co
CO
S:
W
Q
Pi
MARSHALL SANDSTONE (Varicolored micaceous sandstone)
[.' '. .'..' I COLDWATER SHALE (Mostly gray shale Cuyahoga Formation
in Ohio)
\lI I/Il\ SUNBURY AND ELLSWORTH SHALES (Green shale with black
shale in upper and lower parts. Includes Berea
Sandstone and Bedford Shale in Ohio.)
ANTRIM SHALE (Black shale with gray shale and lime-
stone in lower part. Ohio Shale and upper part
of Traverse Group in Ohio.)
TRAVERSE AND DETROIT RIVER FORMATIONS (Mostly lime-
stone and dolomite. Major part of Traverse Group
and Dundee Limestone and Detroit River Group in
Ohio.)
SALINA FORMATION (Limestone and dolomite.
Group in Ohio.)
Salina
WABASH FORMATION (Dolomite, cherty limestone, and
some shale.)
25
-------
o A minimum soil percolation rate of at least 1 inch per hour has
been established.
o The seasonal water table must not be shallower than 6 feet, and
the area must not be subject to seasonal wetness, ponding of
water, or periodic flooding during any part of the year.
o Steep slope gradient is limited to 15%.
Percolation rates within the Study Area are mainly influenced by
the clay (and silt) content of the loamy soils and in most of the area
are very low. Clayey soil materials do not transmit water very readily
because they are very fine and flat and lack sizeable, continuous pores
through which water may flow. Clays mixed with the otherwise permeable
sands and gravels tend to fill the relatively large pores of the latter
granular materials and thus restrict flow through them. Therefore, the
more clayey the loam, the lower is its percolation rate. Percolation
rates through clay soils are usually so low that these soils are termed
impermeable.
High water table and severe wetness are grouped together here
because they are interrelated in the Study Area. Available information
indicates that the depths to the artesian'1' groundwater aquifer (i.e.,
the aquifer is confined by a thick clay layer) generally exceeded 30
feet throughout the Study Area (see Section C.2.a). The observed high
water tables are in effect (1) soil water* levels in clayey soils with
such low permeabilities that water is trapped in them, or (2) perched*
water tables in thin permeable soils overlying impermeable clays and
clayey materials. Where either of these occurs in low areas and depres-
sions, soils exhibit severe wetness, ponding of water, and periodic
flooding that make them unsuitable for on-site disposal systems.
The steepness of land slopes is a criterion because steep slopes
increase the depths required for sewers and adversely affect the direc-
tion and rate of surface drainage, the control of erosion and sedimenta-
tion, and the method of draining fixtures or appliances located in base-
ments. Sections of the Study Area with slopes greater than 15% may be
seen in Figure II-l to be very limited.
Figure II-4, which reflects all the above factors, shows areas
whose soils exhibit severe limitations for standard soil-dependent
on-site systems and which, therefore, should be used for that purpose
only after detailed site evaluation or documented satisfactory per-
formance of previously installed systems. The remaining areas, which
exhibit slight to moderate limitations, generally satisfy the above
criteria for soil suitability and may be used for soil absorption sys-
tems with normal site evaluation procedures.
As the soil suitability map shows, with few exceptions, the soils
immediately surrounding the lake and to its east and south exhibit
severe limitations for standard wastewater absorption systems. These
soils are mainly the Blount loam, Digby loam, Pewamo loam, Glynwood
loam, and Carlisle muck. They are deep, very poorly drained, nearly
level and medium- to fine-textured with very high seasonal water table
26
-------
LEGEND
SEVERE LIMITATIONS FOR
ON-SITE WASTEWATER
TREATMENT
SLIGHT TO MODERATE LIM-
ITATIONS FOR ON-SITE
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
FEET
0 2000
Source: Ohio Division of Lands
and Soils 1974
FIGURE II-4
NETTLE LAKE: SOIL SUITABILITY FOR STANDARD
ON-SITE SYSTEMS
27
-------
(% to \\ feet below the surface) and very low to low permeability (0.06
to 0.6 inches per minute). These soils in many cases also exhibit a
high shrink-swell potential, which is another undesirable characteris-
tic. It is seen that all development in the Study Area to the south of
the lake and most of it west of the lake are located on these soils.
In the northern and western portions of the Study Area, and extend-
ing westward out of the area, Spinks sand, Haney-Rawson sandy loams, and
Boyer loamy sands and gravelly loamy sands can be found in relative
abundance. These soils are moderately well drained, with a permeability
of more than 6 inches per hour and a depth to the seasonal high water
table of 6 feet or more. The sandy loams range in permeability from 0.6
to 2.0 inches per hour and depth to seasonal high water ranges from 1%
to more than 6 feet. Soils with these characteristics, particularly the
Spinks sand, the Boyer loamy sands and gravelly loam sands are generally
suitable for on-site systems. The temporary high water tables of the
sandy loams may be compensated for through design features such as
elevated sand mound treatment systems.
In summary, suitable soils for wastewater treatment by soil absorp-
tion systems are located in the northern and western sections of the
Study Area. With the main exception of the northeastern lakeshore, all
existing development within the Study Area is located on soils rated as
unsuitable for standard on-site wastewater treatment systems.
c. Suitability for Land Application
The physical and hydraulic properties of soils required for effec-
tive land treatment of wastewaters by overland flow (OF), slow rate (SR)
or spray irrigation, and rapid infiltration (RI) are summarized in Table
II-l (EPA, 1977). The alternatives presented in this EIS include the
use of land application by rapid infiltration. The sites selected in
all cases contain soils of the Spinks series.
The Soil Conservation Service's (SCS) interpretation of the Spinks
series soils indicate that:
o Depth of soil profile to water table exceeds 6 feet;
o The soils are yellowish brown fine sand, banded with dark brown
loamy fine sand overlying fine sand; and
o The limiting infiltration rate in the soil profile ranges from
6.0 to 20.0 inches/hour.
A comparison of these properties with those listed in Table II-l indi-
cates that the soils of the Spinks series are suitable for land applica-
tion by rapid infiltration. However, prior to design and implementa-
tion, detailed field investigations of the selected site will be neces-
sary to confirm its suitability for use in this process.
28
-------
Table II-1
INTERPRETATION OF SOIL PHYSICAL AND HYDRAULIC PROPERTIES TO BE
CONSIDERED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF LAND APPLICATION SYSTEMSa
DEPTH OF SOIL PROFILE (ft.)
* 1-2
> 2-5
5-10
TEXTURE AND STRUCTURE
Suitable for OFU
Suitable for SR and OF
Suitable for all processes
Fine texture, poor structure
Fine texture, well-structured
Coarse texture, well-structured
INFILTRATION RATE (in./hr.)
0.2-6
> 2.0
< 0.2
Suitable for OF
Suitable for SR and possibly OF
Suitable for SR and RI
Suitable for SR
Suitable for RI
Suitable for OF
SUBSURFACE PERMEABILITY
Exceeds or equals infiltration rate Infiltration rate limiting
Less than infiltration rate May limit application rate
Including overland flow (OF), slow rate or spray irrigation (SR), and
rapid infiltration (RI) systems.
Suitable soil depth must be available for shaping of overland flow slopes.
Slow rate process using a grass crop may also be suitable.
1 ft. = 0.305 m
1 in. =2.54 cm
Source: USEPA (1977), Process Design Manual for Land Treatment of Municipal
Wastewater.
29
-------
d. Prime Agricultural Lands
The Soil Conservation Service of the United States Department of
Agriculture (SCS) has set forth general guidelines for a national pro-
gram of inventorying "Prime and Unique" Farmland (SCS 1977). Prime and
Unique Farmland has been designated as those lands which can produce
present and future food and fiber supplies with the least use of energy,
capital and labor, and with minimal environmental impact. Ohio's inven-
tory to date has resulted in a tentative "List of Prime Farmland Map
Units" (by letter, C. Cunningham, District Conservationist, August 4,
1979). Criteria used in designating a soil as prime include perme-
ability and erodability (by telephone, Cecil Fleischer, SCS, September
10, 1979). Certain soil series generally considered prime may be ex-
cluded from this distinction if they are frequently flooded or if they
are not artificially drained and frequently farmed. Consequently, final
designation of prime agricultural lands must be accomplished on a site-
specific basis. Table II-2 lists the prime agricultural soil series
found in the Study Area (SCS 1979) and shows those soils which may be
excluded from the distinction of prime farmland because of flooding or
poor drainage. Figure II-5 delineates prime agricultural lands in the
Study Area based on that list. The figure illustrates that much of the
soil would require artificial drainage to be considered as prime agri-
cultural land.
4. ATMOSPHERE
a. Climate
The climate of the Study Area is of the humid continental type
characterized by warm summers and cold winters. Lake Erie and the other
Great Lakes have an important effect upon the area's weather and cli-
mate. The prevailing winds tend to moderate the temperature, resulting
in warmer winter temperatures and cooler summer temperatures than fur-
ther inland. Precipitation is moderate, averaging 34.5 inches per year.
The area is outside the principal tornado zone of the United States.
Climatological data (temperature and precipitation) are collected in
Toledo, Lucas County, in Montpelier, Williams County, and in Hoytville,
Wood County, Ohio (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administra-
tion, 1975 and 1976).
b. Noise
Other than highway or road noises and motorboat noises, the Study
Area has no known intensive noise sources.
C. Odors
Organic material containing sulfur and/or nitrogen, in the absence
of oxygen, undergoes incomplete oxidation, resulting in the emissions of
by-products which may be malodorous. The degree of tolerance to mal-
30
-------
Table II-2
PRIME AGRICULTURAL SOILS FOUND WITHIN THE STUDY AREA
Symbol Description
Bn Blount loam, 0-2% slope
Blount loam, 2-6% slope
Blount loam, 2-6% slope,
moderately eroded
BoB Boyer loamy sand, 1-6% slope
BoC Boyer loamy sand, 6-12% slope
Bv Bono silty clay loam
Ca Carlise muck
De Del Rey, 0-2% slope
Del Rey, 2-6% slope
Dm Digby loam, 0-3% slope
Dg Digby sandy loam, 0-3% slope
Ed Edwards muck
Fs Fulton loam, 0-2% slope
Fulton loam, 2-6% slope
Hd Haney loam, 1-6% slope
He Haney-Rawson sandy loam, 1-6%
slope
Hk Haskins sandy loam, 0-2% slope
Hn Haskins loam, 0-3% slope
Kl Kibbie very fine sandy loam,
0-2% slope
Kibbie very fine sandy loam,
2-6% slope
Mh Millgrove loam
Mp Glynwood loam, 2-6% slope
Glynwood loam, 2-6% slope,
moderately eroded
Ot Ottokee fine sand, 0-6% slope
Rl Rawson sandy loam, 2-6% slope
Rawson sandy loam, 6-12% slope
Sc Bono silty clay loam
Sd Seward loamy fine sand, 2-6%
slope
31
Limitation
must be drained and farmed
most years to be considered
prime
must be drained and farmed
most years to be considered
prime
-------
Table II-2 (cont.)
Symbol Description
Sg Shinrock silt loam, 2-6% slope
Sp Spinks fine sand, 2-6% slope
Spinks fine sand, 6-12% slope
So Sloan silty clay loam
We Wallkill silt loam
Wr Martisco muck
Limitation
not prime if frequently
flooded
must be drained or farmed
most years to be considered
prime
must be drained and farmed
most years to be considered
prime
32
-------
LEGEND
J PRIME AGRICULTURAL SOILS
] PRIME AGRICULTURAL SOILS
IF DRAINED AND FARM-
ED MOST YEARS
FEET
0 2000
Source: SCS 1979
FIGURE II-5 NETTLE LAKE: PRIME AGRICULTURAL LAND
33
-------
odorous gases is subjective and depends on the person exposed to the
odor and on the concentration and intensity of the odor. Odors that can
be identified as coming from domestic waste are particularly objection-
able to most people. For this reason, wastewater treatment works must
be carefully located, designed, and operated.
Objectionable odors from existing on-site systems were reported
during a sanitary survey conducted in November-December 1978 (see
Section II.F.4). Complaints indicated that the odor problems were
particularly severe during spring floods, sometimes forcing residents to
leave until the odors subsided.
d. Air Quality
The Air Quality Section of the OEPA conducts sampling and analysis
procedures for air pollutants in the State of Ohio, but they do not
maintain any stations in Williams County. The closest sampling stations
are in Defiance, Defiance County, and Napoleon, in Henry County. They
are both approximately 30 miles southeast of the Study Area, and the air
pollution readings in these areas are probably not representative of
Nettle Lake (by telephone, John Martz, Air Quality Section, OEPA, Decem-
ber 1, 1977). Nettle Lake is not close to any metropolitan area, and
Mr. Martz does not believe that Ohio air quality standards are being
violated.
C. WATER RESOURCES
1. SURFACE WATER
a. Surface Water Hydrology
Nettle Lake and Nettle Creek are the major surface water bodies in
the Study Area. Nettle Creek originates in Hillsdale County, Michigan.
It flows in a southeasterly direction, enters Nettle Lake just north of
Eureka Beach, discharges just south of Crestwood, and finally flows into
the St. Joseph's River near Montpelier, Ohio. Intermittently, a small,
unnamed stream also discharges into Nettle Lake along the north shore
(EPA-EMSL, 1978). The Nettle Lake watershed is part of the much larger
drainage area of the Maumee River, which discharges into Lake Erie.
The balance of water in lakes is expressed by changes in water
quantity and quality, determined by the inputs from all sources less the
rates of loss. Each input and output varies seasonally and is governed
by the characteristics of the drainage basin, the lake basin, and the
climate. Table II-3 summarizes the major physical characteristics of
Nettle Lake and its drainage basin, which are discussed in the next few
paragraphs.
Size of the Drainage Basin. The total runoff received by Nettle
Lake is determined by the topography and size of the drainage basin.
The Nettle Lake drainage basin, shown in Figure II-6, is approximately
20.1 square miles. In comparison to the size of Nettle Lake, its water-
shed is very large; the ratio of drainage basin to lake surface area is
137:1 (USGS Topographic Map, 1973).
34
-------
Table II-3
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF NETTLE LAKE'
Parameter
Lake Surface Area
Drainage Basin Area₯₯
Lake Mean Depth
Maximum Depth
Lake Volume
Mean Hydraulic Retention Time
94.0 acres
20.07 mi2
20 feet
28 feet
1880 acre-feet
0.32 yr.
38.1 hectares
51.98 km2
6.1 meters
8.5 meters
2.32 x 106 m3
0.32 yr.
* ODNR - 1974
** Estimated from USGS Topographic map for Clear Lake and Nettle Lake
Quadrangles. 1973.
35
-------
o
o
hJ
o
oi
o
w
H
w
u
Pi
w
§
w
H
H
W
a
w
o
36
-------
Tributary Flow. Nettle Creek is the only significant tributary in
the Nettle Lake Basin. Neither the US Geological Survey, which has
primary responsibility for monitoring stream flow, nor any other agency,
has maintained continuous stream flow gauges along Nettle Creek and
consequently no flow records are available. One important characteris-
tic of the tributary flow is that during spring runoff, Nettle Creek, at
the outlet of Nettle Lake, is unable to accommodate the additional flow,
and flooding results (EPA-EMSL, 1978).
Lake Hydraulic Retention Time. Assuming complete mixing, the
retention time of a lake is the time required for natural processes to
replace the entire volume of water. The hydraulic retention time is an
important factor in determining nutrient concentrations in the water
column of the lake. The hydraulic retention time for Nettle Lake is
estimated to be 3.8 months.
Climatological Factors. Climatological factors vary seasonally and
induce variations in stream runoff and in the capacity of a stream to
assimilate pollutants. The amount of runoff over the watershed is
equivalent to the annual precipitation minus evaporative losses and the
amount of groundwater recharge. Annual precipitation averages 34.5
inches in the Nettle Lake drainage basin, evaporative losses are
approximately 25 inches, and runoff 9.5 inches (ODNR, 1962).
b. Surface Water Quality
Water quality conditions for Nettle Lake and Nettle Creek are
discussed in this section. Only very limited data were available.
Consequently, in evaluating the water quality, it was necessary to
employ "theoretical estimates" based on assumptions discussed below
along with the actual data.
Surface Water Quality. During May and August 1978, Nettle Lake was
sampled as part of the National Eutrophication Survey (USGS, 1978).
This survey was an investigation on a nationwide basis of potential
acceleration of eutrophication of fresh water lakes and streams. Table
II-4 summarizes the analytical results for those water quality para-
meters most affected by domestic wastewater. Appendix A-2 includes
analytical results for other parameters measured during the survey.
Due to seasonal variations in tributary flow and nutrient loads, an
evaluation of water quality requires a minimum of one year's sampling
data. Seasonal variations in water quality are further discussed in
Appendix A-3. Conclusions regarding water quality drawn from the less
extensive sampling program carried out for Nettle Lake may be modified
by more extensive sampling. Total phosphorus concentrations averaged
0.04 mg/1, and orthophosphorus was not detected. Concentrations of
nitrogen compounds were reported as follows: total nitrogen, 1.55 mg/1;
total organic nitrogen, 0.74 mg/1 and 0.95 mg/1; total Kjeldahl nitro-
gen, 0.95 mg/1; and nitrite plus nitrate nitrogen, 0.61 mg/1. The
Secchi Disc was visible to a depth of 3.8 feet during August sampling.
Although these conditions are generally indicative of eutrophic condi-
tions, more complete sampling is needed to verify this.
37
-------
Table II-4
SURFACE WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS FOR
NETTLE LAKE AND NETTLE CREEK *
Nettle Lake Nettle Creek
Parameter 5/22/78 8/14/78 8/14/78
Total Nitrogen 1.5 mg/1 1.6 mg/1 1.6 mg/1
Ammonia Nitrogen** 0.16 mg/1 0.05 mg/1
Nitrate as Nitrogen 0.61 mg/1
Total Organic Nitrogen 0.74 mg/1 0.95 mg/1
Total KJD Nitrogen 0.90 mg/1 1.0 mg/1 1.1 mg/1
Total Phosphorus 0.04 mg/1 0.04 mg/1 0.05 mg/1
Ortho Phosphorus 0.00 mg/1 0.00 mg/1
Total Organic Carbon 4.9;8.5 mg/1 1.1;6.9 mg/1 7.7 mg/1
Secchi Disc Measurement - 3.8 ft
Dissolved Oxygen - 8.4 mg/1 (surface)
2.6 mg/1 (10 feet)
0.4 mg/1 (15 feet)
Chlorophyll a. (2 feet) 19.5 ug/1 19.5 yg/1
* Values are averaged for two samples unless otherwise noted.
** Both ionized and un-ionized.
Source: ODNR 1978
38
-------
Nettle Creek was sampled during August only. Similar concentra-
tions of total phosphorus (0.05 mg/1) and total nitrogen (1.6 mg/1) were
found.
Nutrient Budgets. Nutrient loads to Nettle Lake are shown in Table
II-5 for major nutrient sources, including tributaries and runoff,
precipitation, and septic tanks (or other on-site systems).
Table II-5
THEORETICAL NUTRIENT INPUT OF NETTLE LAKE
(BASED ON 1973-1975 DATA)
Precipitation
Non-point sources
Septic Tanks
Total
gm/nr/yr-
1.16
57.60
4.31
63.07
Nitrogen
428.0 2.0
22,073.0 91.0
1,653.9 7.0
24,154.9 100.0
Phosphorus
gm/m2/yrKg/yr
0.018 6.7 0.9
1.63 692.0 86.3
0.24 103.4 12.8
1.89 802.1 100.0
These nutrient sources should be measured directly in order to
accurately determine their contribution to the total nutrient load.
However, because data on water quality and land use characteristics for
the Nettle Lake watershed are so limited, direct calculations of nu-
trient loads cannot be made. Instead, a theoretical nutrient load was
calculated on the basis of assumptions used in the National Eutrophica-
tion Survey and the assumptions regarding conditions at Nettle Lake.
The theoretical load suggests that non-point sources contribute the
largest percentage of the total load, although on-site systems are also
a significant source of phosphorus.
The following assumptions and methodology were used in deriving the
theoretical load:
o Non-Point Sources: Non-point source nutrient loads were derived
using a simple model developed by Omernik (1976). The relation-
ship between land use and total phosphorus and total nitrogen
export rates was developed from tributary data collected from
other watersheds in the same geographic region as Nettle Lake
where non-point sources were the major contributor. The US EPA
National Eutrophication Survey (NES) has adopted Omernik1s model
as their standard methodology for estimating nutrient export
from ungauged tributaries and immediate drainage areas of lakes.
Omernik's model is described in detail in Appendix A-4. Table
II-6 shows the relative proportion of land use categories in the
watershed, used as a basis for calculating the non-point source
load.
39
-------
Table II-6
DISTRIBUTION OF LAND USE CATEGORIES IN
NETTLE LAKE WATERSHED
Land Type Acres Percent
Forest/Wetland 1,922 14.96
Residential 350 2.72
Agricultural 10,461 81.45
Lake 112 0.87
Total 12,845 100.00
o Precipitation: The US EPA National Eutrophication Survey metho-
dology (US EPA, 1975) was used to determine nutrient loads from
precipitation. This method assumes average nutrient loads of
1.08 gm/m2/yr nitrogen and 0.017 gm/m2/yr phosphorus, and does
not account for regional differences in annual precipitation.
o On-Site Waste Disposal Systems: Because of the recurring spring
floods at Nettle Lake, it was assumed that the wastes in the
drainfields (of permanent residences) and pit privies of resi-
dences, that are flooded, are thoroughly mixed with the Lake at
this time. During this period, phosphorus loads of 3.5 lb/cap/
yr and nitrogen loads of 9.4 Ib/cap/yr, or 100% of the total
nutrient load, were assumed to reach the surface waters in
flooded areas. Throughout the remainder of the year, the
assumption developed by NES, that only 7% of the phosphorus was
leached to surface water, was used. If this more conservative
estimate of 7% phosphorus loading from septic tanks were used
for determining the total annual load, the phosphorus load from
on-site systems would be estimated to be only 44.7 kg/yr, or
about 6% of the total input to the lake. However, the load of
103.4 kg/yr shown in Table II-5 is considered more representa-
tive of conditions at Nettle Lake.
Phosphorus Loading/Trophic Conditions Relationship. This section
examines the relationship between phosphorus inputs and the resulting
water quality and lake trophic status. Phosphorus has been found to be
the limiting nutrient for algal growth in most temperate waters, thereby
controlling their trophic status. Predictions of trophic status based
on phosphorus loading were derived from an empirical model developed by
Dillon (1975). A detailed discussion of this model can be found in
Appendix A-5. Essentially the model predicts in-lake concentrations of
phosphorus and lake trophic status by relating mean depth to a factor
that includes annual phosphorus loading, a phosphorus retention coeffi-
cient, and the hydraulic flushing rate. The Dillon relationship was
found to be applicable to 23 lakes in the eastern United States that
were sampled during the National Eutrophication Survey. Figure II-7
shows the trophic condition of Nettle Lake based on the Dillon model,
using the "theoretical phosphorus" load presented earlier in this sec-
tion. Dillon's model describes Nettle Lake as being eutrophic, a con-
clusion which concurs with water quality sampling results.
40
-------
NETTLE LAKE
EXISTING CONDITIONS
10.0
MEAN DEPTH (METERS)
L= AREAL PHOSPHORUS INPUT (g/n#yr)
R= PHOSPHORUS RETENTION COEFFICIENT
P*HYDRAULIC FLUSHING RATE (yr"1)
FIGURE I1-7 TROPHIC STATUS OF NETTLE LAKE
100.0
41
-------
Bacteria. Nettle Lake's primary use is for recreation. The water
quality standards promulgated by the OEPA declare that, for bathing
waters and waters designated for primary and secondary contact recrea-
tion, fecal coliform and fecal strep counts shall not exceed 200 per 100
ml, and 1000 per 100 ml, as a geometric mean, respectively (based on not
less than five samples per month).
OEPA sampled Nettle Lake on 12 July and 2 August 1976, for fecal
coliforms and fecal streptococcal bacteria. The locations of the sam-
pling points are shown in Figure II-8. Results of the bacteria survey
are listed in Table II-7. No conclusive violation of water quality
standards is apparent, as the results in Table II-7 were obtained from
single samples at each station instead of the required standard of five
samples per month.
Fecal streptococcal bacteria found in samples indicate the presence
of fecal pollution by warm-blooded animals. The relative concentrations
of fecal coliforms and fecal streptococci indicate the degree and likely
source of fecal contamination--human or animalin the immediate area
around Nettle Lake. High ratios of fecal coliform bacteria to fecal
streptococci (greater than 4 to 1) indicate the presence of human-
generated fecal contamination, and low ratios (less than 0.7 to 1)
indicate fecal contamination generated primarily by farm animals (USEPA,
1978e).
The fecal coliform to fecal streptococci ratios in Table II-7 show
that almost all samples were dominated by fecal bacteria of animal
origin. One possible exception was a sample taken from a backwater area
behind a house located on the south shore of Nettle Lake. The data
suggest contamination by human sewage at this location.
c. Surface Water Use and Classification
Fishing, boating, and swimming are the major recreational uses of
Nettle Lake. Ohio water quality standards were revised by the OEPA in
1977, but have not been approved by US EPA. Under these standards, all
surface waters within the state of Ohio are designated for use as warm-
water fisheries, agricultural and industrial water supply, and primary
contact recreation, unless otherwise noted (OEPA, 1977). Nettle Creek
has not been exempted from these designated uses and must therefore meet
applicable standards for these uses. The standards are listed in
Appendix A-6. The Maumee River and its tributaries, in those reaches
that include Nettle Creek, is "effluent limited." That is to say, if
all discharged wastes were to be treated in accordance with the OEPA
standards, these waters would soon attain acceptable water quality.
2. GROUNDWATER RESOURCES
a. Groundwater Hydrology
Sand and gravel units within the 75 to 250-feet-thick unconsoli-
dated glacial drift constitute the major sources of groundwater within
the Study Area. The aquifers are most likely of the discontinuous types
characteristic of glacial deposits. The available quantity of ground-
42
-------
LEGEND
BACTERIOLOGICAL SAMPLING
STATIONS
FEET
2000
FIGURE II-8 NETTLE LAKE: BACTERIOLOGICAL SAMPLING STATIONS
43
-------
Table II-7
RESULTS OF BACTERIOLOGICAL SAMPLING BY OHIO EPA, NETTLE LAKE, OHIO
JULY - AUGUST 1976
Fecal Coliform
Fecal
Sample
Station
1
2
3
4
5
6
la
2a
3a
Description
of Location
On County Rd. 4-75;
west tributary
On County Rd. 5-75;
east tributary
Off southeast shore
of Nettle Lake
Off east shore of
Nettle Lake
Off northwest shore of
Nettle Lake
MOO ft. off southwest
shore of Nettle Lake
End of canal west of
Nettle Lake
North of lake
Western shore of
Bacteria
(#/100 ml)(FC)
350
80
<1
12
9
2
<1
7,500
10
Streptococci
(#/100 ml)(FC)
1,320
430
30
30
16
62
10
<10,000
40
FC/FS
0.265
0.19
<0.03
0.4
0.56
0.032
<0.10
>0.75
0.25
Nettle Lake
4a Discharge pipe from settling
system, western shore of
Nettle Lake
5a On-shore by large home,
south end of Nettle Lake
6a Beach area (swimming),
south end of Nettle Lake
7a South end of Nettle Lake
8a Backwater area behind home
(across from Nettle Lake,
south side)
9a Pipe draining swamp area near
entrance road to cottages,
S. end, Nettle Lake
lOa Ditch draining into south
end of Nettle Lake
10
10
40
330
70
180
10
60
90
370
50
260
1,590
<0.10
0.16
0.11
0.108
6.6
0.269
0.113
44
-------
water depends upon the extent and permeability of the sand and gravel
lenses interbedded with the less permeable glacial material. Very few
wells have penetrated to the bedrock shales, which are normally very
poor aquifers.
Fourteen driller's well logs supplied by the OEPA and the US
Geological Survey were examined for wells located around the southern
half of Nettle Lake. These well logs indicate that aquifers in the
Study Area are of the artesian (confined) type, are composed primarily
of sand and gravel, range in depth below the surface from 30 to 180
feet, and are overlain or confined by clay. Six of the fourteen wells
were the flowing artesian types when constructed. Most of the sand and
gravel aquifers of Williams County are under relatively high artesian
pressure derived from two end moraines that traverse the area (Kaser and
Harstine, 1965).
Precipitation averages 34.5 inches annually, with 25 inches being
accounted for by evapotranspiration. Average annual runoff for the area
is 9.5 inches (ODNR, 1962). Recharge of the aquifers by precipitation
takes place through the unconfined sections. The extent of this re-
charge in the Study Area is unknown but is likely to be insignificant
because of the thick impermeable clays confining the aquifer. Water
level fluctuations in response to the annual recharge and discharge
cycle have been less than 0.05 foot (Kaser and Harstine, 1965). This is
an indication that current water use and disposal practices were causing
essentially no changes in water levels and thus in the availability of
water.
Because of the tight clayey soils surrounding Nettle Lake and the
thick clay layer confining the aquifer in the Study Area, it is unlikely
that any groundwater flows into the lake. This has been confirmed by
the "Septic Snooper Survey" (see Section II.F.I.a).
b. Groundwater Quality
Groundwater throughout the St. Joseph River Basin is of the calcium
magnesium bicarbonate type, very hard and of high iron content exceeding
the US Public Health Service (1962) recommended limit. Otherwise, the
water is of good chemical quality for most uses. Typical of the very
high iron content and hardness are the recorded values near Cooney, Ohio
on the west side of Nettle Lake, where the iron content is 1.3 mg/1 and
the hardness 306 mg/1 at a depth of 122 feet (USGS, 1952).
c. Groundwater Use
Groundwater sourcesprivate wellsprovide essentially all of the
water supplies of the Study Area, which are used mainly for domestic
purposes. Present groundwater use within the Study Area is on the order
of 0.06 mgd. It is expected to increase to an average of 0.07 mgd by
the year 2000 as a result of the projected population growth. These
withdrawal rates and the change of .01 mgd are miniscule and would
result in essentially no changes in water levels of the aquifer or the
lake.
45
-------
3. WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT
In the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (PL 92-500, 1972) and
the Clean Water Act that amended it in 1977 (PL 92-517), Congress out-
lined a framework for comprehensive water quality management that
applied to groundwater as well as to surface waters. Water quality is
the responsibility of the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(US EPA) in coordination with the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
(OEPA). However, the Clean Water Act instructed all Federal agencies to
safeguard water quality standards in carrying out their respective
missions. As the lead agency, US EPA coordinates the national effort,
sets standards, and reviews the work of other agencies, some of which,
for example, the Army Corps of Engineers, are assigned responsibilities
in line with their traditional missions.
In delineating the responsibilities of the various levels of
government for water quality management, Congress recognized the rights
of the States with regard to their waters. It authorized funding for
development of State plans for control of pollution, for State water
quality standards (which may be more restrictive than Federal stan-
dards), and for research. US EPA retains power of enforcement of
established standards, State or Federal. Parts of the State of Ohio's
water quality standards have not been approved by US EPA, which is
proposing Federal regulations to supersede the disapproved portions (44
FR 39371-39508, 6 July 1979). The State of Ohio has, however, been
certified to administer the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) (see Section Appendix A-l).
The key provisions on water quality planning stipulate that to
receive aid, a State must provide a continuing planning process. Part
of Section 208 requires the States to inventory all the sources of
pollution of surface and groundwaters, both point* and non-point*, and
to establish priorities for the correction of substantial water quality
problems within a given area. The 208 plans are intended to provide an
areawide and, taken together, a statewide framework for the more local
decisions on treatment facilities.
Section 201 of the Act (under which the Williams County Commis-
sioners applied for funds for Nettle Lake) authorizes US EPA to make
grants of up to 85% to localities toward the improvement or construction
of facilities for treatment of existing water quality problems. US EPA
retains authority to approve or reject applications for construction
funds for treatment facilities. Federal, State and local responsibili-
ties for water quality management in the Study Area are discussed in
Appendix A-7.
4. FLOOD HAZARD AREAS
The US Department of Housing and Urban Development Flood Insurance
Program has designated flood hazard zones within the Study Area (Ganett,
et al., 1977). These zones identify areas for which there is a 1%
chance of flooding in any year (commonly called the 100-year flood).
Wide areas bordering Nettle Lake and Nettle Creek, covering approxi-
mately 60% of the Study Area, are included in the designated flood
hazard zones (see Figure II-9).
46
-------
LEGEND
FLOOD PRONE AREAS
FEET
0 2000
Source: Ganett, et.al.,HUD 1977
FIGURE II-9 NETTLE LAKE: FLOOD PRONE AREAS
47
-------
Extended rains and spring thaws have caused the lake level to rise
as much as five or six feet in past years (Charles Cunningham, Soil and
Water Conservation Service, January 9, 1978). This has caused flooding
in the developed and wetland areas at the south end and east side of
Nettle Lake, including inundation of septic tank/soil absorption systems
and privies in the area. Two factors contribute to the flooding problem
in these areas. Flat Carlisle Muck soils surround most parts of the
lake, which increases the flooding hazard because of slow percolation
and reduced permeability properties. Additionally, several streams flow
into Nettle Lake, which acts as a natural reservoir with Nettle Creek as
the only outflow. Dredging of Nettle Creek from the lake outlet to the
St. Joseph River has been proposed as a solution to the flooding problem
but was rejected by the County Commissioners in October 1979 following a
public hearing (by telephone, John Hartman, Williams County Engineering
Office, 2 November 1979).
The Williams County Commissioners, pursuant to the Ohio Revised
Code Section 307.37 and in compliance with Section 1910 of the National
Flood Insurance Act of 1968, enacted a Floodplain Ordinance on 28 March
1978. The ordinance vested the responsibility for its implementation
and enforcement in the Williams County Regional Planning Commission,
through its Planning Director. The ordinance requires the obtaining of
a permit from the Planning Director for all construction, enlargement,
alteration, repair, improvement, moving, or demolishing of buildings or
structures within the 100-year flood hazard zone as defined by the Flood
Hazard Boundary Map issued by the Federal Insurance Administration. The
Planning Director is required to review subdivision proposals to ensure
that
a. "All such proposals are consistent with the need to minimize
flood damage within the flood prone area.
b. All public utilities and facilities, such as sewer and gas, are
designed to minimize or eliminate flood damage.
c. Adequate drainage is provided to reduce exposure to flood
hazards."
"The Planning Director must require within flood prone areas new and
replacement water supply systems to be designated to minimize or elimi-
nate infiltration of flood waters into the systems."
The Planning Director must require within the flood prone area:
a. "New and replacement sanitary sewage systems to be designed to
minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the
systems and discharges from the systems into flood waters.
b. On-site waste disposal systems to be located to avoid impair-
ment to them or contamination from them during flooding."
48
-------
D. BIOTIC RESOURCES
A range of habitats exists in the Nettle Lake Study Area. Although
49% of the Study Area is cropland, the forests and wetlands (157 acres
or 18%) provide habitat for a variety of wildlife, including amphibians,
reptiles, birds, and mammals. About 11% of the area is water, providing
the basis for the recreational development around the lake.
1. AQUATIC BIOLOGY
a. Aquatic Vegetation
There is relatively little information about the aquatic vegetation
of either Nettle Lake or Nettle Creek and none about changes in amounts
of aquatic vegetation from year to year. The shallow shorelines of gla-
cial pit lakes such as Nettle Lake are conducive to the establishment
and growth of rooted aquatic vascular plants of both emergent and sub-
mergent types. These flowering plants provide substrates for attachment
of many small animals and algae, and as importantly, they provide struc-
ture (feeding and hiding places) for young fish and other animals. Of
course, there are also plankton (free-floating tiny plants and animals)
that contribute to the productivity* of a lake, but such organisms pro-
vide no structure for the aquatic environment.
The ODNR, in their sampling of young-of-the-year fishes made in
July and August of four different years, estimated that approximately 3%
to 5% of the lake had either submergent or emergent vegetation in the
sampled areas of shoreline. Such moderately low values do not indicate
an explosive growth of aquatic plants. In one year the sampling was
conducted in the vicinity of the Shady Shore section of the lake, where
an estimated 25% of the lake bottom was vegetated by emergent plants,
probably bulrushes (Scirpus sp.) and spikerushes (Eleocharis sp.).
Emergent vegetation is usually less affected by the anaerobic conditions
that produce the die-offs, and this growth is probably unrelated to late
summer vegetation blooms. Based on this fragmentary evidence about the
aquatic vegetation of Nettle Lake, there appears to be neither excessive
aquatic growth nor the late summer die-offs that sometimes result from
such growth of vegetation.
Although some nutrients may be entering the lake from nearby
privies and from the drainage fields of septic tank systems, the ferti-
lizers applied to croplands and lawns in the watershed upstream from the
lake represent a greater potential source of phosphorus and nitrogen
through run-off. The impacts of inundation of on-site treatment systems
is discussed further in Section II.F.4.
The ODNR fish survey reports (1974, 1975, 1976, and 1977) describe
Nettle Lake's few sand and gravel bars as covered with vegetation, and
parts of the shoreline are bordered with water lilies. This survey also
estimated that 90% of the shoreline was mud bank and that the remainder
was composed equally of sand and gravel. Substrate type can be
important in determining the presence and distribution of rooted aquatic
vegetation. For example^ yellow water lilies (Nuphar sp., also known as
49
-------
spatterdock) grow primarily in lakes and river backwaters or sloughs in
which the bottom is silt or mud. Other rooted aquatic vegetation in the
lake includes pondweeds (Potamogeton spp.), spikerushes, and bulrushes
(by telephone, Mr. Darrell Allison, ODNR, Division of Wildlife, 2 May
1978).
b. Fishes
Primarily because of the summer surveys conducted each year from
1974 to 1977 by the ODNR, the fishes of Nettle Lake are better known
than the other biota. During these years, studies were conducted in
May, when adult fish populations were sampled with 6- and 14-foot fyke
nets and in late July or August, when young-of-the-year were sampled
using 4 ft x 8 ft x \ inch seine nets. The fyke nets were fished for
192 hours each year, except in 1976, when they were used for only 144
hours. The seining procedures sampled an area of 144 ft2 during each
year. These methods are judged to provide adequate information about
centrarchids (bass and panfishes) but probably do not adequately sample
minnows (Cyprinidae), the family with the largest number of species
possibly present.
Table II-8 shows the results of the combined methods for the four
years of study. A range of 14 to 16 species was obtained during the
first three years, and 21 species were found in 1977. In all, 25 dif-
ferent species were obtained.
Fishes of the region that do or could possibly occur in Nettle Lake
or Nettle Creek, according to Allison and Hothem (1975), are listed in
Appendix B-l. All fishes caught in the summer surveys (see Table II-8)
appear on Allison and Hothem's list.
The ODNR considers Nettle Lake to be an "excellent crappie and bass
lake" (1974 ejt seq.), with northern pike also contributing to the fish-
ery. Other sought fishes include bluegill and other sunfishes, yellow
perch, channel catfish, bullheads, white suckers, and carp. Most of
these species have been stocked during one or more years since the ODNR
initiated its stocking program at Nettle Lake in 1940. In an effort to
reduce the large percentage of stunted (old but small) panfish, northern
pike fingerlings (average length of 4 inches) were stocked between 1969
and 1977 (except 1974). Northern pike, top predators that feed on any
species of fish, were expected to improve the fishery in the lake by
reducing the large numbers of small bluegills and other panfish, thereby
improving conditions for the growth of the remaining fishes. (The
analysis of the fyke netting data and the creel surveys also conducted
in 1975 indicated that the desired results were being realized.)
Northern pike may have been native to the lake. Although there is a
chance that the necessary wetlands in which these fish spawn could be
present in Nettle Lake, there was no indication in any of the netting or
seining studies of successful reproduction by northern pike. Also, in
1975 and 1976, a total of 6,225 channel catfish were introduced.
The ODNR has conducted creel surveys to obtain information on the
effectiveness of these stocking programs. For example, in 1975, anglers
were asked to register their catches during a creel survey of 90 hours
50
-------
Table II-8
FISH CATCHES BY FYKE NETS IN NETTLE LAKE
OHIO DNR SURVEYS 1974-1977
Number of Fishes
1974 1975 1976 1977
Species (192 Hrs.) (192 Hrs.) (192 Hrs.) (.144 Hrs.)
Bowfin (Amia calva)
Gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum)
Northern pike (Esox lucius)
Twillback (Carpiodes carpio)
Common white sucker (Catostomus
commersoni)
Spotted sucker (Minytrema melanops)
Carp (Cyprinus carpio)
Bluntnose minnow (Pinephales notatus)
Spotfin shiner (Notropis spilopterus)
Yellow bulkhead (Ictalurus natolis)
Blackstripe topminnow
(Fundulus nototus)
Brook silverside
(Labidesthesis sicculus)
Black crappie
(Pomoxis nigromaculatus)
White crappie (Pomoxis annularis)
Rock bass (Ambloplites rupestris)
Largemouth bass
(Micropterus salmoides)
Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus)
Green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus)
Orange spotted sunfish
(Lepomis humilis)
Pumpkins eed (Lepomis gibbosus)
Warmouth (Lepomis gulosus)
Sunfish, hybrid & bluegill
Yellow perch (Perca f laves cens)
Logperch (Percina caprodes)
Johnny darter (Etheostoma nigrum)
1
38
-
10
12
11
-
200
-
2
102
-
14
158
1
-
-
-
-
2
4
1
57
1
-
41
15
-
149
20
-
1 56
J_ J \J
320
-
10
136
-
1
-
-
1
-
4
1
183
1
19
31
10
-
19
-
-
77
58
91
3
57
83
-
-
-
19
-
-
19
2
245
4
34
6
10
2
200
1
-
f.
\J
40
84
1
15
21
2
3
-
1
6
-
1
5
51
-------
distributed over seven months. Five northern pike were recorded, for
1,258 total hours of angling, or at the rate of four per thousand hours.
Although no evaluation of this catch rate was made, ODNR believes that
better northern pike fishing occurs in early spring and through the ice,
when no creel censuses are made. Nevertheless, the majority of anglers
at Nettle Lake are seeking panfishes, including bluegills, black crap-
pies, white crappies, and others. Largemouth bass make up a relatively
small proportion of the fish taken by anglers. In 1975, a representa-
tive year, bass were caught at the rate of one per 8.3 hours of angling.
c. Invertebrates
The number and kind of invertebrates in a lake can provide a basis
for evaluating water quality data as well as fish and other biological
data. No such data exist for Nettle Lake. However, ODNR did report
that mayfly larvae (1974), snails, and crayfish (1977) were observed
during the annual fish surveys of those years.
2. TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY
a. Forests
The original primary forests of northwestern Ohio were dominated by
oak-hickory associations. However, repeated clearings for cropland and
lumber have eliminated the primary forest. The draining of forested
swamplands, dating from the 19th century, resulted in a drop in the
water table that has affected the forests of the region even more pro-
foundly. Much of the farmland in Williams and neighboring counties is
tillable only because the fields have been underlain with drainage
tiles.
In the Study Area, the majority of the 157 acres of undeveloped
land is in secondary forest, dominated by oaks and hickories (see Figure
11-10). The forested areas are located primarily northeast and east of
the lake, in areas where slopes are often too steep to be easily worked
as farmland. Appendix B-2 lists the common and scientific names of the
trees that are likely to be present in northwestern Ohio, including the
Study Area (by telephone, Mr. Roger Herrett, Service Forester, Ohio
Division of Forestry, January 3, 1979).
b. Wetlands
There are three major classes of wetlands surrounding Nettle Lake:
emergent wetlands, scrub-shrub wetlands, and forested wetlands, all of
which belong to the Palustine system. These areas are valuable habitats
for a wide variety of amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals, many of
which are considered to be important wildlife resources of the state and
region.
The most productive, and most valuable wetlands are the swampy,
marshlike areas at the northern end of the lake, where Nettle Creek and
the unnamed creek enter and leave the lake (see Figure 11-11). Lush
growth of rooted aquatic vascular plants flourishes here due to the
deposition of wind and water-borne sediments. These and similar areas
52
-------
LEGEND
FORESTED AREAS
FEET
0
Source:
2000
EMSL 1978
FIGURE 11-10 NETTLE LAKE: FORESTED AREAS
53
-------
LEGEND
r^' '1 WETLANDS
FLOW DIRECTION
INTERMITTENT STREAM
FEET
0 2000
Source: EMSL 1978
FIGURE 11-11 NETTLE LAKE: WETLANDS
54
-------
surrounding the lake are in the emergent wetland class, vascular sub-
class. They are in a semi-permanently flooded water regime and have an
organic soil type. Vegetation is mostly herbaceous vascular plants
consisting predominantly of: Typha spp. (cattails), Scirpus spp.
(bulrushes), Sagittaria spp. (arrowheads), Carex spp. (sedges), and
members of the Gramineae family (grasses). Ducks and shore birds nest
in these areas and feed in the wetlands and open water, colonially
nesting blackbirds are seasonal residents, and wading birds feed and
nest here as well. Muskrats and meadow voles eat the vegetation and
provide prey for minks and raccoons.
Slightly further from the water's edge are areas of the shrub-scrub
class. The shrub layer is predominantly characterized by Alnus spp.
(alder), and Salix spp. (willow). The diversity of wildlife in this
area is increased due to the structural habitats provided and to the
presence of saturated, not flooded, soils. These areas blend into the
upper forested regions.
Areas belonging to the forested wetlands class (subclass broad-
leaved deciduous; water regime: seasonally flooded; soil: organic are
also apparent near the lake's edge (see Figure 11-10). These areas are
commonly flooded to depths greater than one foot for several weeks in
the spring. These wet woodlands consist almost entirely of broad-leaved
deciduous trees approximately 20 to 40 years old, and there is sparse
understory vegetation. These forests are located east (approximately 50
acres) and south (approximately 10 acres) of Nettle Lake (see Figure
11-11). Such an area provides relatively little food or other resources
for wildlife.
The rich organic soil of these wetlands produces a large biomass of
green vegetation and, consequently, supports a highly diverse and pro-
ductive group of herbivores and carnivores. As wetlands are sensitive
to the lowering and raising of the water table and to the altering of
drainage patterns, it is important to minimize any outside impacts that
may cause such occurrences and hence destroy important natural re-
sources .
c. Wildlife
A great diversity of wildlife is supported by the forested and wet-
land habitats of the Study Area (see Figures 11-10 and 11-11). Mammals
include foxes, deer, weasels, raccoons, woodchucks, squirrels, muskrats,
mice, and voles. Lists of the birds and mammals likely to be found in
the Study Area are contained in Appendixes B-3 and B-4.
3. THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES
Of the mammals (1), birds (4), fishes (3), mussels (2), plants (1)
classified as Endangered or Threatened by the US Fish and Wildlife Ser-
vice, and the four plants proposed for such classification, none has
been found in Williams County, Ohio, except some of the migratory birds
and the Indiana bat. In addition, endangered wild animals in Ohio, as
designated in Publication 316 of the ODNR, are legally protected by the
Ohio Revised Code, Section 1531.25, effective 1 January 1974, in con-
formity with Section 4(c)(4) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
55
-------
a. Mammals
The Indiana bat, Myotis sodalis, is the only mammal of Williams
County, Ohio, classified by the US Fish and Wildlife Service as Threat-
ened or Endangered (44 FR, January 17, 1979). The Indiana bat is only a
summer resident of Ohio, where its range is considered to encompass all
of the State except a tier of counties in northeastern Ohio. The only
information on summer breeding activity of Indiana bats is found in the
study of Humphrey, Richter, and Cope (1977), conducted in 1974 and 1975
near Webster, Wayne County, in east central Indiana about half a state
south of Williams County. Discovered by accident, the colony of females
and their young alternatively used the loose bark of a living shagbark
hickory tree or a dead bitternut hickory tree as its roosting place.
Feeding flights were made well above ground level and primarily along
the riparian forest of nearby streams. Humphrey and his colleagues
studied the rate at which nursery bark was lost from weathering and con-
cluded that any given roost is habitable only for a short time, perhaps
6 to 8 years. Consequently, Indiana bats need to move their nursery
roosts every few years.
Although the summer range of Indiana bats is reasonably well known,
there is no other specific information that may be used to predict their
possible occurrence in the Nettle Lake Study Area. Certainly Williams
County is well within the summer range of the species, and it is poss-
ible that one or more nursery colonies may occur there, because of the
presence of large trees and the waterside habitat. However, owing to
the small number of Indiana bats in the United States, and in view of
the large number of summer habitats available to them along the flood-
plains in the eastern US, the probability that the bats use any speci-
fic, small segment of floodplain forest is low. If the selected alter-
native demonstrates potential for significantly altering riparian habi-
tat, field studies will be required to determine if the Indiana Bat is
present. This research must be conducted during the summer nesting
period.
The Study Area is within the range of the badger, Taxidea taxus,
listed in the Facilities Plan (F. G. Bourne & Associates, Ltd., 1976) as
being rare in the State. It is not protected by Ohio law. Badgers may
occur in the County, although the best habitat, large grassy fields, is
uncommon in the Study Area, and the badger is unlikely to be numerous
there.
There are no confirmed reports that the river otter, bobcat, or
eastern woodrat (Ohio endangered mammals) occur in Williams County.
b. Birds
Of the Federally protected birds, both American and Arctic pere-
grine falcons and Kirtland's warbler are migratory throughout the State.
The American bald eagle breeds and spends winters in seven Ohio
counties, not including Williams County. However, the Ohio endangered
list also includes the king rail, Rallus elegans, and the upland sand-
piper, Bartramia longicauda, both of which are shore birds that have
been sighted in the Study Area (by telephone, Mr. Larry Cunningham,
56
-------
Wildlife Biologist, ODNR Division of Wildlife, June 1978). Both species
use cattail wetlands and adjacent mudflats as the focus of their nesting
and feeding activities. There is no evidence that the other endangered
species (sharp-shinned hawk and common tern) are residents of the Study
Area.
c. Amphibians and Reptiles
Four species considered by the State of Ohio to be endangered are
known to occur in the Study Area. The four-toed salamander,
Hemidactylium scutatum, is known in the Nettle Lake area, and the blue-
spotted salamander, Ambystoma laterale, has been caught very close to
Nettle Lake (by letter, Mr. Robert H. Eversole, Supervisor, Wildlife
Management Section, ODNR Division of Wildlife, July 25, 1978). The
northern copperbelly, Nerodia (Natrix) erythrogaster neglecta, and the
spotted turtle, Clemmys guttata, are confirmed inhabitants of the Study
Area (by telephone, Mr. Larry Cunningham, ODNR, June 1978), but the same
source indicated the probable absence of the eastern plains garter
snake, Thamnophis radix. The status of populations of endangered amphi-
bians and reptiles in the Study Area is unknown. All four species
require the lake for at least a part of their annual and/or life cycles,
and all rely on adjacent wetlands or wet woodlands as well. The pos-
sible occurrence of the remaining endangered species of amphibians and
reptiles in the Study Area is unknown.
d. Fishes
ODNR gives endangered status to forty species of fishes, two of
which have been collected in Nettle Lake in the past (by letter, Robert
H. Eversole, ODNR). The lake chubsucker, Erimyzon sucetta, has been
taken by ODNR in Nettle Creek upstream from the lake, and the Iowa
darter, Etheostoma exile, is known from the region only in Nettle Lake.
However, neither was taken during the 1974-1977 fish surveys conducted
by the ODNR; consequently, their population status is unknown.
e. Crustaceans and Mussels
There is no information on the possible occurrence in the Nettle
Lake Study Area of the one crustacean or 16 mussels considered by the
Ohio Division of Wildlife to be endangered.
E. POPULATION AND SOCIOECONOMICS
1. POPULATION
Published information on population characteristics does not cover
the Study Area by itself but the whole of Northwest Township or Williams
County. Inasmuch as the Proposed Service Area (see Figure 1-2) occupies
only a small portion of the Township, the published socioeconomic data
do not precisely describe the population characteristics for the sub-
areas of Northwest Township that would be directly affected by the
alternative wastewater management systems. Therefore, existing subarea
housing stock and population were determined from 1975 aerial photo-
graphs. The methodology employed is explained in Appendix C-l.
57
-------
a. Existing Population
Williams County has experienced continued population growth since
1960, increasing by 12.3% from 1960 to 1970 and by 4.0% from 1970 to
1975. Unlike most other minor civil divisions of the County, Northwest
Township experienced a decline in population of 1.1%, from 1960 to 1970,
but it grew by 4.3% from 1970 to 1975. No data prior to 1975 are avail-
able on population levels in the Proposed Service Area.
From an analysis of past County and Township population trends and
aerial photography, a total in-summer population of 1,873 people was
derived for 1975 for the Proposed Service Area, 128 (6.8%) permanent
residents and 1,745 (93.2%) seasonal residents. The estimated permanent
population of the Proposed Service Area constitutes only 13.0% of North-
west Township's permanent population and 0.3% of Williams County's
permanent population. As indicated in Table II-9, the permanent popu-
lation is relatively well-distributed throughout the Proposed Service
Area, with the exception of the Crestwood, Camp DiClaire, and Shady
Shore Camp subareas, which are entirely seasonal. All eight subareas
have high percentages of seasonal population.
These population estimates for 1975 differ considerably from the
Facilities Plan estimates of 110 permanent residents and 550 seasonal
residents for that year. The difference is due to the smaller household
sizes (permanent and seasonal) used in the Facilities Plan and to the
exclusion of seasonal population estimates for Camp DeClair and Shady
Shore Camp in the Facilities Plan.
b. Population Projections
Population projections for the Study Area must incorporate the
following three growth factors:
o the rate of growth or decrease of the permanent population;
o the rate of growth or decrease of the seasonal population; and
o the potential conversion of seasonal to permanent dwelling units
and the resulting effect on the permanent population.
Each of these factors represents a potential growth force that may
significantly affect future total population levels and the distribution
of population between permanent and seasonal residents.
Projections of permanent and seasonal baseline populations for the
Nettle Lake Proposed Service Area in the year 2000 were based on the
best available information regarding these three growth factors (see
Appendix C-l for methodology). As indicated in Table 11-10, the total
in-summer population for the Proposed Service Area is projected to be
1,904 by the year 2000. This total population is expected to consist of
228 permanent residents (12%) and 1,676 seasonal residents (88%). The
net percentage increase of total in-summer population during the plan-
ning period would be only 1.7%. Seasonal population would actually
decline by approximately 4.1% because of the conversion of seasonal to
58
-------
Table II-9
PERMANENT AND SEASONAL POPULATION OF THE NETTLE LAKE
PROPOSED SERVICE AREA (1975)
1
Population
Subarea
Lazy Acres South
Lakeview/Eureka Beach
Shady Shore
Lazy Acres North
Roanza Beach
Crestwood
Camp DeClair
Shady Shore Camp
Permanent
22
32
13
13
48
0
0
0
Seasonal
290
307
105
197
71
55
480
240
Total Percent Seasonal
312
339
118
210
119
55
480
240
92.9%
90.6%
89.0%
93.8%
59.7%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Total Service Area
128
1,745
1,873
93.2%
1
The methodology utilized to develop these population estimates is
described in Appendix C-l.
59
-------
Table 11-10
PERMANENT AND SEASONAL POPULATION OF THE NETTLE LAKE
PROPOSED SERVICE AREA (2000)1
Subarea Permanent Seasonal Total Percent Seasonal
Lazy Acres South
Lakeview/Eureka Beach
Shady Shore
Lazy Acres North
Roanza Beach
Crestwood
Camp DeClair
Shady Shore Camp
Total Service Area 228 1,676 1,904 88.0%
60
63
21
30
51
3
0
0
268
280
88
188
60
72
480
240
328
343
109
218
111
75
480
240
81.7%
81.6%
80.7%
86 . 2%
54.1%
96.0%
100.0%
100.0%
The methodology utilized to develop these population projections is
described in Appendix C-l.
60
-------
permanent dwelling units and the decrease forecast for seasonal dwelling
unit occupancy rates (i.e., persons per unit). Permanent population
would increase by over 78%, again because of the conversion of seasonal
dwelling units to permanent. These figures are in line with general
national and local trends indicating declines in seasonal populations
and increasing conversion of seasonal dwelling units to permanent.
Of the eight subareas, only Crestwood is projected to have a sig-
nificant rate of growth (36.4%), and even that increase would amount to
only 20 people. The Camp DiClaire and Shady Shore Camp areas are not
expected to expand even though use of both approaches peak capacity
during summer weekends. In general, population growth in the Proposed
Service Area would be relatively stagnant during the planning period.
Contributory factors include the restrictions on development in the
floodplain, the shortage of available lakeshore sites, marked competi-
tion from nearby lakeshore resort areas, and the minimal development
pressures in the area. For all the subareas, with the exception of Camp
DiClaire and Shady Shore Camp, the percentage of seasonal population
would be lower.
2. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE POPULATION
a. Permanent Population
Income. The mean family income in Northwest Township, according to
the 1970 Census, was $8,870, a figure significantly lower than the
national, State, and County means (see Table 11-11). Northwest Township
also had a higher percentage of families with annual incomes below
$2,000 (16.9%) than either the State (4.4%) or the County (4.5%).
Likewise, in the upper income range, only 12.1% of Northwest Township's
families had incomes over $15,000, while 14.3% of the County's and 21.6%
of the State's families exceeded this annual figure (see Table 11-12).
Similarly, not only were per capita incomes in Northwest Township lower
than the County's and the State's, but they increased by a smaller per-
centage from 1969 to 1974. During 1970, Northwest Township also exhi-
bited a higher incidence of poverty among families (16.9%) than either
the County (7.4%) or the State (7.6%).
Employment. In 1970, the economies of Williams County and North-
west Township depended heavily on the manufacturing industry as a source
of employment. As indicated in Table 11-13, manufacturing accounted for
the employment of nearly 60% of Northwest Township residents and 44% of
Williams County residents. In contrast with the State and the County,
only a relatively small percentage of Northwest Township residents were
employed in the wholesale and retail trade industry and the professional
and personal services category, A relatively high percentage of North-
west Township's residents were employed in the "other industries" cate-
gory, presumably largely in agricultural activities.
In 1976, the largest percentage of jobs available within Williams
County was still in the manufacturing category (60%), according to
County Business Patterns. Retail trade (17%) and services (10%) were
also major employment categories in the County; tourist-oriented activi-
ties constituted an important portion of these. During 1972, sales
61
-------
Table 11-11
MEAN AND MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME (1969) AND
PER CAPITA INCOME (1969 and 1974)
Per Capita Income
Mean Median 1969 1974
United States
Ohio
Williams County
Northwest Township
$10,999
$11,488
$10,060
$ 8,870
$ 9,586
$10,313
$ 9,494
N/A
$3,199
$2,851
$2,581
$4,561
$4,002
$3,581
US Census of the Population and Housing.
Fifth County Summary Tapes. 1970.
US Census. Population Estimates and
Projections, Series P-25. May 1977.
62
-------
Table 11-12
PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF FAMILY INCOME OF PERMANENT RESIDENTS, 1970
Under $1,000
$ 1,000 - $ 1,999
$ 2,000 - $ 2,999
$ 3,000 - $ 3,999
$ 4,000 - $ A,999
$ 5,000 - $ 5,999
$ 6,000 - $ 6,999
$ 7,000 - $ 7,999
$ 8,000 - $ 9,999
$10,000 - $14,999
$15,000 - $24,999
$25,999 - $49,999
$50,000 and Over
State of Ohio
1.8
2.6
3.5
3.7
3.9
4.6
5.4
6.7
15.5
30.8
17.4
3.5
.7
Williams
County
1.3
3.2
4.7
3.6
3.9
5.9
6.0
8.8
16.9
31.4
12.3
1.6
.4
Northwest
Township
10.0
6.9
2.2
2.2
-
4.3
4.3
9.5
14.7
33.8
12.1
-
_
US Census, General Social and Economic
Characteristics. 1970.
US Census, Census of Population and Housing,
Fifth Count Summary Tapes. 1970.
63
-------
Table 11-13
EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY GROUP - 1970
Total
Construction
Manufacturing
Transportation
Communications
Communications
and Utilities
Wholesale and
Retail Trade
Finance, Insurance,
Business, Repair
Other Professional
and Related
Services(1)
Educational
Services
State of Ohio
Williams County
Northwest Township
Number
4,063,780
204,493
1,447,586
139,708
111,114
781,856
267,617
Percent
100.0
5.0
35.6
3.4
2.7
19.2
6.6
Number
13,007
633
5,742
510
376
2,237
501
Percent
100.0
4.9
44.1
3.9
2.9
17.2
3.9
Number
313
17
185
13
9
9
8
Percent
100.0
5.4
59.1
4.2
2.9
2.9
2.6
361,577
294,521
Public Administration 171,399
Other Industries (2) 283,909
8.9
7.2
4.2
7.0
828
747
298
1,135
6.4
5.7
2.3
8.7
17
5.4
55
17.6
(1) Other professional and related services include hospital; health services;
welfare, religious and nonprofit membership organizations; and legal, en-
gineering, and miscellaneous professional services.
(2) Other industries include agriculture, mining, private households; other
personal services; and entertainment and recreation services.
US Census of Population and Housing.
Fifth Count Summary Tapes, 1970.
US Bureau of the Census. General
Social and Economic Characteristics,
Ohio, 1970.
64
-------
receipts from hotels accounted for more than 10% of all selected service
receipts, while amusement services represented nearly 25%. Retail trade
statistics for 1972 reinforce the observation that travel-related indus-
tries are important to the economy of Williams County. Sales from
gasoline service stations (19.4%) and food stores (26.6%) were substan-
tially higher on a percentage basis than the figures for the State,
indicating high seasonal consumption of such goods and services.
b. Seasonal Population
No published statistics on income, age, employment, or other socio-
economic characteristics are available for the seasonal residents of
Northwest Township or the Proposed Service Area. It can generally be
assumed that seasonal residents have higher mean family incomes that
allow them to own and maintain permanent as well as seasonal homes.
Property ownership data for the Proposed Service Area indicate that
nearly all seasonal residents live in the midwestern states (Illinois,
Indiana, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Kentucky), with a
small percentage of the seasonal residents from the South and West.
Most live in Michigan or Ohio, particularly the Toledo, Ohio area. In
general, the higher incomes of seasonal residents allow them greater
mobility, and it is difficult to ascertain whether their seasonal resi-
dences would be their likely place of retirement. However, the property
tax rolls show that several seasonal residents have become permanent
residents of the Proposed Service Area, presumably upon retirement.
3. HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
In order to develop a data base for the analysis of wastewater
management alternatives, the number of existing dwelling units within
the Proposed Service Area was obtained from 1975 aerial photographs and
County property tax rolls. Dwelling unit equivalents for the Proposed
Service Area during 1975 totalled 464. This total included 40 permanent
units (8.6%) and 424 seasonal units (91.4%), including 180 camping
spaces at Camp DeClair and Shady Shore Camp. The seasonal residency
figures are much higher than the State (0.5%), County (1.6%), and Town-
ship (30.9%) percentages.
The existing dwelling units are all single-family units, and in-
clude a large number of mobile homes. Lot sizes in the Proposed Service
Area are generally small; two or three lots are often combined for one
dwelling unit. Age characteristics of the permanent housing stock
indicate that Northwest Township has a relatively older housing stock
than the State or County. Consequently, the median value of owner-
occupied units and the median gross rent for rental units are con-
siderably lower than national and State figures. The low values could
be attributed partly to the rural location and to a high vacancy rate,
but they are more likely the result of poorer structural conditions and
lack of amenities in many older units. The US Bureau of the Census C-40
Construction Reports indicate a substantial increase in new residential
construction in Williams County, amounting to over 750 new dwelling
units (including 200 multiple-family units) since 1970. However,
officials of the Williams County Regional Planning Commission indicated
65
-------
(by telephone, F.C. Michael, February 1, 1979) that none of this new
development has occurred at Nettle Lake.
No substantive information regarding the characteristics of season-
al dwelling units is available. Seasonal units, by their nature as
part-time residences, are generally smaller, lower in value, and often
lacking in many of the amenities of permanent units. However, examina-
tion of the County property tax rolls revealed that the average value of
seasonal residences in the Proposed Service Area equalled or slightly
exceeded that of permanent residences, which may be due to the below-
average condition of permanent dwelling units in the Proposed Service
Area.
4. LAND USE
a. Existing Land Use
The Proposed Service Area consists of approximately 870 acres of
land located in the northwest portion of Ohio near the Michigan and
Indiana borders. It includes five major residential developments con-
taining 148 acres of platted residential lots, approximately one-third
of which are developed. Most private residences and seasonal dwelling
units are located around the southern half of the lake (see Figure
11-12).
Other land uses in the Proposed Service Area are agricultural (426
acres), recreational (26 acres), lake and water areas (104 acres),
commercial (9 acres), and undeveloped (157 acres). The predominant
crops of the agricultural land under cultivation are corn, soybeans,
wheat, and hay. Recreational land is composed primarily of two camping
areas and other small boating and beach facilities. Most undeveloped
land in the Proposed Service Area lies north and east of the Lake.
The transportation network in the Study Area includes township
highways, county highways, and Interstate Route 80/90 runs east-west
approximately three miles south of the Study Area, and Interstate Route
69 runs north-south approximately 15 miles west of the area. These two
highways along with State Route 20, provide excellent access to the
Proposed Service Area from most parts of Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio.
b. Recreation
Recreation is the major attraction of the Nettle Lake area to both
permanent and seasonal residents. Water-oriented activities such as
fishing, boating, swimming, and camping, are important summer features
there and at the various other lakes in the region. Nettle Lake has no
public beaches or access points. However, 120 campsites, a general
service building for water and sanitary facilities, and privies for tent
sites are available at Camp DiClaire, and Shady Shore Camp has 60 camp-
sites and a general service building for water and sanitary facilities.
Winter recreational activities are not common in the Proposed Service
Area or in Williams County.
66
-------
LEGEND
RESIDENTIAL
UNDEVELOPED RESIDENTIAL
Vftffiffi COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
[ '. .] OPEN SPACE/NATURAL AREAS
AGRICULTURAL
FEET
0 2000
Source: EMSL 1978
FIGURE 11-12 NETTLE LAKE: EXISTING LAND USE
67
-------
c. Future Land Use
The Williams County Land Use Plan was published in January 1980 and
defines the goals and objectives for future land use in the county. The
Nettle Lake area is shown as being located in an agricultural land use
district. Policies for this area recommend that growth should occur in
areas adjacent to existing development. It should be developed with due
regard given to good conservation practices, and development should be
discouraged in floodplains and other environmentally sensitive areas.
Policy was also defined that residential growth should not occur on
prime agricultural land.
The county has also adopted a number of policy recommendations to
mitigate environmental hazards. These areas are indicated as occurring
along rivers and streams and on agricultural lands. Measures to miti-
gate environmental problems include preservation of prime agricultural
land and associated soil conservation practices. In order to protect
private wells and groundwater resources from contamination by malfunc-
tioning on-site wastewater treatment systems, the county has recommended
the formation of an on-site management district to reduce or eliminate
water pollution.
d. Growth Management
Williams County has no comprehensive zoning ordinance to control
land use. The County adopted a set of subdivision regulations (1962,
amended 1966) that apply to the subdivision of land along major County
roads. However, no controls for lakeshore development are set forth in
these regulations. These regulations have not been adopted by Northwest
Township, which has no zoning regulations in force.
The County has also adopted a floodplain ordinance (1978) in com-
pliance with the provisions of the National Flood Insurance Program.
The Provisions of this ordinance effectively restrict development and
alteration of the land lying within the 100-year floodplain. Within
flood-prone areas, sanitary sewerage systems must be designed to mini-
mize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters. On-site wastewater
disposal systems are required to be located to avoid impairment of them
or contamination from them during flooding.
5. FISCAL CHARACTERISTICS
Fiscal characteristics of Williams County and Northwest Township
are indicated in Table 11-14. This information is necessary for the
evaluation of various alternatives available to the local governments
for financing wastewater management improvements. In Ohio, townships
act as the collectors of property taxes, which are redistributed to the
county, the school districts, and various township activities. A total
tax of 45.30 mills per $100 of assessed valuation was levied on property
in Northwest Township in 1977, of which 3.90 mills were retained for
Township operations and services. During the 1977 fiscal year, North-
west Township disbursements exceeded revenues by approximately $5,500.
68
-------
Table 11-14
FISCAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN THE
NETTLE LAKE STUDY AREA, 1977.
Assessed
Valuation
Total
Revenues
Total
Disbursements
Total
Long Term Debt
Williams County
$200,750,847
$ 17,056,633
$ 17,041,173
- 0 -
Northwest Township
$4,227,257
43,152
48,760
- 0 -
Williams County, Ohio County Auditor's Office.
Telephone Conversation, April 10, 1978.
69
-------
Counties and townships are both authorized by the State of Ohio to
issue bonds and incur long-term debt. As of April 1978, neither
Williams County nor Northwest Township had any outstanding debt. Since
Williams County anticipates using revenue bonds to finance the waste-
water management improvements, there should be no difficulty in obtain-
ing required matching funds.
6. HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The only notable historic and archaeological resource known in the
Nettle Lake Study Area is the site of the Hopewell Indian burial mounds.
The mounds are situated along the shoreline of Nettle Creek about 1,200
feet from the inlet to Nettle Lake (see Figure 11-13). The two-acre
site was purchased by the Williams County Historical Society in the
mid-19601s. The Society reconstructed the mounds, which had been exca-
vated for their relics, and currently maintains them. Historically, the
site is unique because it represents the northernmost boundary of the
Hopewell Indian tribe, and is over 2000 years old (Farmland News, 5
September 1978). The site is of interest from an aesthetic as well as
an historic point of view, because the Hopewell tribe was famous for its
ceremonial earthworks and burial mounds.
The site has been listed on the National Park Service's National
Register of Historic Places and relics and artifacts from the mounds are
displayed in the Williams County Historical Society's Museum (EPA-EMSL
1978). An archaeological survey may be necessary for the chosen alter-
native to determine if any previously undiscovered cultural resources
would be affected by the project.
F. EXISTING WASTEWATER SYSTEMS
All private residences within the Proposed Service Area are served
by on-site systems. Privies and septic tanks discharging to drainfields
are most common. The treatment facility serving Camp DiClaire uses a
settling tank followed by a sand filter, and disinfects the effluent
prior to discharge to Nettle Creek. This system has been conditionally
approved by OEPA, pending the implementation of a regional collection
and treatment system. The wastewater from Shady Shore Camp is treated
by a septic tank leaching bed system.
When the Facilities Plan was drafted, information about on-site
systems was very limited. It was known that site limitations for use of
on-site systems were widespread, and that many systems could not comply
with minimum standards set forth in the Ohio Sanitary Code (ODH 1977).
Indeed, many of the existing systems predated the code. The code is
discussed later in this section. Both OEPA and the Williams County
Health Department reported malfunctioning on-site systems that were
suspected of contributing to public health and water quality problems,
although there was little documentation to support these suspicions.
1. SPECIAL STUDIES
Because more information was needed to evaluate the existing sys-
tems and to determine the nature and extent of problems resulting from
70
-------
LEGEND
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE
(INDIAN BURIAL
GROUNDS)
] PREDOMINANT WILDLIFE
HABITAT AREAS
FEET
0 2000
Source: (Archaeological) Floyde
Brown & Associates, Limited 1976
FIGURE 11-13
NETTLE LAKE: PREDOMINANT WILDLIFE AREAS AND LOCATION
OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE
71
-------
these systems, US EPA undertook three additional studies. The results
of these studies, discussed below, have been used in determining grant
eligibility for collector sewers and for determining wastewater treat-
ment needs.
a. "Investigation of Septic Leachate Discharges' into Nettle
Lake, Ohio" (Kerfoot, 1978)
This study was undertaken during December 1978 to determine whether
groundwater plumes from nearby septic tanks were emerging along the
shoreline and causing elevated concentrations of nutrients. Septic tank
leachate* plumes were monitored with an instrument called the "Septic
Snooper." The device is equipped with analyzers to detect both organic
and inorganic chemicals from domestic wastewater. The "Septic Snooper"
is towed along a shoreline to obtain a profile of septic leachate plumes
discharging to surface water. Based upon experience from other rural
lake projects, it is estimated that late fall is the best time to detect
plumes. Plumes often take time to force their way through the soil into
the lake, and therefore, it is not until long after the summer is over
that they are detectable.
No distinct groundwater plumes of wastewater origin were detected
along the shoreline of Nettle Lake. Surface and groundwater samples
were collected for analysis of nutrients and specific conductance. High
total phosphorus concentrations, ranging from 0.022 mg/1 to 0.040 mg/1,
were detected in shoreline water samples. Variation in background
conductance, which would indicate different types of groundwater inflow,
was not observed. These findings suggest that very little groundwater
flows into Nettle Lake. However, interstitial groundwater* samples from
the lakeshore sediments were consistently found to contain elevated
nutrient concentrations common to eutrophic conditions and phosphorus
precipitation in the lake. Apparently septic leachate is contained by
the tight clayey soils, and discharge to surface water via groundwater
is prevented. The Kerfoot report can be found in Appendix D-l.
b. "Environmental Analysis and Resource Inventory for
Nettle Lake, Ohio" (EMSL, 1978)
The Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory (EMSL) of EPA
prepared a detailed environmental analysis and resource inventory of the
Nettle Lake Study Area. The data used for this purpose were obtained
from color, color infrared, and thermal infrared imagery (at scales of
1:3,000 and 1:13,500) from an aerial photo mission flown on May 3 and
June 4, 1978. EMSL's report presents colored photographs and data on
annotated overlays for easy reference and assimilation. The original
purpose of the study was to identify and locate malfunctioning septic
tank/soil absorption systems in the Study Area. Subsequently, the study
was expanded to include the environmental resource inventory.
Location of Malfunctioning Septic Tanks. The remote sensing tech-
nique used in the study can only detect those malfunctions that are
noticeable on the ground surface. It does not detect malfunctions
related to sewage backing up into the home, nor to too rapid transport
through the soil to groundwater. The various "signatures" used as photo
72
-------
interpretation keys for identifying malfunctions included: 1) con-
spicuously lush vegetation, 2) dead vegetation (especially grass), 3)
standing water or seepage, and 4) dark soil with accumulations of excess
organic matter. Two suspected malfunctioning systems identified in the
Proposed Service Area by remote sensing were later inspected on the
ground, and neither was found to be failing at that time.
Environmental Resource Inventory. This inventory contains per-
tinent environmental, geographic, and hydrologic data that have been
incorporated in appropriate sections of Chapter II. The major data
categories displayed on the photographs and overlays are:
o Land use/cover based on the modified USGS Land Use Classifica-
tion.
o Delineation of flood prone areas (in 100-year floodplain).
o Location of predominant wildlife habitat areas and archae-
ological sites.
o Geological features, including soil types and distribution, and
bedrock and surficial geology.
c. Nettle Lake, Construction Grant Sanitary Survey,
Williams County, Ohio (1978)
A sanitary survey of systems along the shore of Nettle Lake, con-
ducted between November 29th and December 6, 1978, provided information
on the extent of non-compliance with the Sanitary Code, and the nature
and extent of problems with on-site systems. The survey, conducted at a
time when only permanent residents were present, does not fully reflect
the conditions of on-site systems throughout the Proposed Service Area.
However, it does give an indication of the performance of on-site sys-
tems in full use. Permanent residents around Nettle Lake are generally
served by ST/SAS's, while about half of the seasonal homes have privies.
Although the survey results summarized in Table 11-15 indicated wide-
spread violations of the sanitary code, few (14%) of the permanent
residents surveyed admitted to having any problems with their systems.
However, the survey results suggested that problems with backups, pond-
ing, and odors are common during the spring flooding, and the residents
may have considered these problems too routine to mention. Appendix D-2
includes additional information on the sanitary survey.
2. TYPES OF EXISTING SYSTEMS
Treatment facilities serving Shady Shore Camp and Camp DiClaire
were described earlier in this section. The following is a discussion
of on-site systems serving private residences.
A survey conducted by Floyd G. Brown and Associates determined that
about 50% of the on-site systems serving private homes are privies.
This type of system, which is a waterless device for the collection and
storage of human waste, is most prevalent in Roanza Beach and Shady
Shore. Estel Cottrell, the County Sanitarian, stated that lakeshore
73
-------
o o c o c o o
O (M t-> AJ .u 4-1 4-t
O «-i C C O O O
<*"> rH Z Z Z Z Z
QJ 01
g §
a a
O) II 01
c c c
o o o
2 Z 2
c c c c c c c
o o o o o o o
Z Z SC 2 Z Z Z
OJ
OJ
TO
0)
w -^
01 0)
QJ C
z o
U J-J
o> re o)
>- OJ JH
OJ V- *- 0) I-
H Z O H Z
oo r
ON C
C 1
H i
1-
" £ J
z o c
h
-4
U a)
2 OJ
5 Z
QJ 0)
OJ CJ
z z
QJ
OJ
Z
-<
0\
c
H
01 OJ QJ QJ
o> c o;
CT.
C
O)
<§
r~
^
C
Q>
8
r~-
,>-.>> M >>>>;>,
QJ N N N
. l-i TO TO TO
j u j j 2
«3 ra
J ^J ,
74
-------
development increased significantly after World War II and that on-site
systems installed after 1959 were mainly septic tanks with tile leach
fields (drainfields). This was confirmed by the results of the Sanitary
Survey. The survey results indicated that, of 27 dwellings constructed
since 1959, 23, or 85%, are served by a septic tank and drainfield, and
the remaining 4 residences by holding tanks. The distribution of on-
site systems determined by the sanitary survey is shown in Table 11-16.
Again, the survey results are representative of the systems serving the
permanent residences but not necessarily of those serving seasonal ones.
3. COMPLIANCE WITH THE SANITARY CODE
The District Board of Health of Williams County is responsible for
enforcement of a statewide sanitary code. A code for controlling indi-
vidual sewage disposal systems was first adopted in 1974 and amended in
July 1977. Current regulations are contained in "Home Sewage Disposal
Regulations," Chapters 3701.01 to 3701.29, inclusive, of the Ohio
Administrative Code (ODH, 1977a), and include the following: (see
Appendix D-3).
Minimum design criteria for individual systems are set forth in the
code, but local boards of health may establish more stringent criteria.
The Williams County Health Department has adopted the State sanitary
code as written.
The sanitary code requires that every household sewage disposal
system be inspected and approved by the local health commissioner before
it is put into operation. Important criteria regulating the use of
ST/SAS's include:
o A minimum separation distance of 50 feet between the well and
the drainfield (100 ft if the septic tank is followed by an
absorption pit.)
o Percolation rates within the range of 10 to 60 min/in.
o Minimum depth to water table of 4 feet below the absorption
system.
o Minimum septic tank capacities (not less than 1,000 gallons)
based on the number of bedrooms in the residence.
The Ohio sanitary code does not specify standards for the use of
holding tanks nor does it specify minimum setback distances from the
shoreline for the construction of on-site systems. Currently, the
sanitarian evaluates the setback distance on a case-by-case basis.
Because many of the on-site systems were constructed before the
sanitary code was adopted, several existing systems do not comply with
minimum standards. The sanitary survey was the basis for evaluating the
nature and extent of non-conforming on-site systems. The survey, con-
ducted at a time when only permanent residents were residing at the
lake, probably gives a low estimate of the number of non-conforming
75
-------
Table 11-16
TYPES OF ON-SITE SYSTEMS
(BASED ON SANITARY SURVEY RESULTS)
Number
More Than
Number Percent 20 Years Old
Drainfield* 13 0
Privy** 26 1
Holding Tank 4 13 0
Septic Tank/Drainfield 23 75 1
Septic Tank/Drainfield/Trench 13 0
*Drainfield alone was only used for clothes washing; residence also had
ST/SAS.
**Privy for summer use only; residence also had holding tank.
76
-------
systems. Permanent residents are generally served by septic tank soil
absorption systems rather than privies. Table 11-16 summarizes the
findings of the sanitary survey.
Well Setback Distance. A minimum distance of 50 feet separating a
well and a drainfield or privy is intended to provide sufficient soil to
remove bacteria and nutrients (or dilution in the case of nitrates) as
the wastewater percolates through the soil matrix and travels laterally
in an aquifer to a well. Of those systems surveyed, 31% were located
closer than 50 feet to the well. Violation, of the minimum well setback
distance was found to be most prevalent in Roanza Beach, where 50% of
the systems surveyed did not comply with minimum standards. The number
of non-complying systems may be much higher than the sanitary survey
indicates. Residents served by pit privies were generally not available
during the sanitary survey. Finally, the 50-foot minimum setback dis-
tance, also required for privies, cannot be met on some small lakeshore
lots.
Undersized Septic Tanks. Twenty-four of the residences surveyed
were served by ST/SASs; 17 residents knew the capacity of the septic
tank. Of these systems, 8, or 47%, were undersized. Septic tanks that
are too small for the number of residents using them can lead to several
problems, including backups into the house and poor solids removal in
the septic tank. Poor solids removal can lead to clogging of the soil
absorption unit.
Site Limitations. Ten of the 24 ST/SASs, or 42% of those surveyed,
did not comply with the code's requirement for a minimum separation of 4
feet between the high water table and the absorption system; all but one
of the systems surveyed, or 97%, were situated in the 100-year flood-
plain. Figure 11-10, illustrating the flood hazard areas, indicates
that only small parts of Lakeshore Drive and Biscayne Boulevard and the
southernmost part of Lazy Acres lie outside the 100-year floodplain.
The site limitations common to the Nettle Lake area probably result
in poor soil absorption of effluent, particularly during spring flood.
Many of the leaching fields are inundated with water during flooding.
The contents of many of the privies may be washed into Nettle Lake
during flooding as well, although there is only indirect evidence to
support this.
Undersized Drainfields. Very few of the residents knew the size of
their drainfields, so non-compliance with standards for minimum drain-
fields size could not be ascertained. However, the severe site limita-
tions suggest that, during spring flooding, drainfields cannot absorb
effluent adequately regardless of the size.
4. PROBLEMS WITH EXISTING SYSTEMS
Severe site limitations and numerous violations of the standards
for on-site systems have led to the question of whether existing systems
along the lakeshore are causing public health or water quality problems.
The distinction should be made between water quality and public health
problems on the one hand, and community improvement problems on the
77
-------
other. On-site systems known to contribute to violations of water
quality standards or changes in lake trophic status pose water quality
problems. Public health problems may result from recurring backups,
ponding of the effluent on the surface of the soil, or contamination of
the groundwater supply in excess of drinking water standards. Where
lakes are used for contact recreation, swimming etc., violation of the
fecal coliform standard also constitutes a public health hazard. Com-
munity improvement problems include odors, or restrictions on water use
or building expansion, but they do not pose a threat to public health.
Backups/Ponding. Backups of septic tanks into residences, or pond-
ing of effluent on the soil surface, could be verified for only four
systems or 13% of those surveyed. These four systems were located in
flood prone areas, and three of the four were situated in high ground-
water areas. There is no definite indication that the problems can be
attributed to site limitations; at least two of the systems experiencing
problems were undersized, and two systems over 10 years old had poor
maintenance records. The most recent report from the health department
indicates only one malfunctioning drainfield in the Biscayne Boulevard
area (by telephone Larry Vagho, District Sanitarian, 3 April 1981).
Problems with backups and ponding are probably more widespread than
the results of the sanitary survey indicated. Most of the Proposed
Service Area lies in the 100-year floodplain, and many residents may not
have mentioned problems result from flooding. Several conversations the
surveyor had with residents around the lake suggested that this was the
case. The extent of spring flooding suggests that many of the leaching
fields were completely inundated and that the waste in many of the
privies could mix with flood waters.
Groundwater Contamination. Despite the large number of residences
located in high groundwater areas and the large number of systems that
cannot meet the minimum well set back distance, there are no reports of
groundwater contamination. As described in Section II.B., groundwater
supplies used for domestic purposes are generally under artesian condi-
tions confined by thick impermeable clays. The thick surficial clays
serve as a barrier to wastewater percolation to groundwater aquifers,
and contamination would not be expected. Groundwater samples taken by
the Health Department showed low levels of bacteria. However, well
water was not sampled for nitrate contamination.
Water Quality Problems. Limited information available on water
quality in Nettle Lake indicates that nutrient concentrations are high
and that the lake is eutrophic. Although non-point sources are seem-
ingly the major contributor to the total nutrient loading of Nettle
Lake, on-site systems perhaps also contribute to eutrophication during
spring flooding. During the rest of the year, the tight clayey soils
prevent leaching of effluent from on-site systems into the lake. Based
on samples collected during July and August 1976, there were no con-
clusive violations of fecal coliform standards associated with ST/SASs.
One sampling point on the south shore of Nettle Lake was contaminated by
fecal coliforms, but additional sampling would be required to determine
if standards are being violated.
78
-------
Odors. During interviews conducted for the sanitary survey, it
became apparent that odors resulting from on-site systems are a nuisance
for Proposed Service Area residents. There were complaints that the
odor problems are severe during spring flooding, and some residents
leave until the odors subside.
Flooding. The principle need identified for upgrading wastewater
treatment facilities in the study area is the suspected water pollution
and public health problems associated with the inundation of on-site
systems during flood events. The different varieties of on-site waste-
water treatment have different impacts associated with each form of
technology. There are also different construction and management
mechanisms for mitigating these problems.
Flood water intrusion into existing privy systems results in the
mixing of these waters and allows for transfer of bacteria and nutrients
to the lake water column. However, this mixing allows for only a
limited transfer of solids. The release of bacteria and viral disease
vectors presents the possibility of contaminating surface water re-
sources and may intrude into poorly sealed wells. Nutrient release may
result in increases in biochemical oxygen demand and oxygen depletion
stress causing fish die-off.
Flooding of septic tank soil absorption systems results in satura-
tion of the absorption field. This can result in backups into the house
or in ponding of effluent on the ground surface with attendant potential
for public health problems. Flooding of these systems also results in
temporary limitations on use or inaccessability.
5. CONCLUSIONS
This analysis shows that flooding, seasonal high water, and poor
permeability combine to present severe site limitations to on-site
wastewater treatment systems in the service area. However, field work
conducted for this EIS shows that recurrent problems are associated pri-
marily with spring flood events. The septic leachate detector found no
effluent plumes entering the lake. The aerial photo survey located only
two suspected malfunctions that were not confirmed by ground inspection.
The sanitary survey results indicated that, of the residents surveyed,
only 14% have recurrent problems with their on-site systems.
On the issue of public health and water quality problems, residents
reported that backups of effluent into houses occurred in four systems,
all located in floodplain areas with a seasonal high water table.
Recent health department records show one surface malfunction where
effluent is ponded on the ground surface. In spite of poor well separa-
tion distances, there are no reports of groundwater or well water con-
tamination. Bacterial surveys of beach areas show no violation of water
quality standards. While the lake is characterized as eutrophic, the
major source of nutrients is non-point, from the watershed above the
lake. On-site systems may contribute to eutrophication during flooding;
however, clayey soils and intermittent use probably prevent leaching
into the lake for most of the year.
79
-------
CHAPTER III
DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES
A. INTRODUCTION
1. GENERAL APPROACH
This chapter explains the development of the new alternative sys-
tems for wastewater collection and treatment in the Proposed Service
Area. Chapter IV describes and compares these alternatives, for cost-
effectiveness, with the Facilities Plan Proposed Action (Floyd G. Browne
& Associates, Ltd., 1976). Chapter V assesses the environmental and
socioeconomic impacts of all these systems.
The development of the EIS alternatives has focused on those
aspects and implications of the proposed wastewater management plan for
the Proposed Service Area that (a) have been identified as major issues
or concerns, or (b) were not adequately addressed in the Facilities
Plan.
Chapter I emphasizes that one of the main issues is the high cost
of the centralized facilities proposed in the Facilities Plan, and its
impact on area residents. Since the collection system accounts for most
(75%) of the construction costs of the Proposed Action, low-cost decen-
tralized systems should be considered. Attention was therefore centered
on advanced on-site and cluster systems for groups of homes, as well as
on other alternative and innovative technologies.
This approach made it necessary to determine the suitability of the
soils for effluent absorption systems. The soils data (see Figure
II-4) showed that soils suitable for on-site and cluster systems are
mainly north and west of the lake, thus limiting the use of these sys-
tems in the EIS Alternatives.
A second important issue is the overall need for the Facilities
Plan proposal. Documenting a clear need for new wastewater facilities
is sometimes difficult, requiring evidence directly relating existing
on-lot systems to water quality and public health problems. Such a need
is shown by one or more of the following conditions:
o Standing pools of septic tank effluent or raw domestic sewage in
yards or public areas where direct contact with residents is
likely;
o Sewage in basements from inoperable or sluggish sewage disposal
systems; and
o Contaminated private wells clearly associated with sewage dis-
posal systems.
The Proposed Service Area exhibits some indirect evidence of un-
suitable site conditions for on-site soil absorption systems--high
81
-------
groundwater, slowly permeable soils, small lot sizes, proximity to
lakeshores, and substandard setback distances between wells and private
wastewater facilities. The most direct need identified is the public
health and water pollution problems associated with the inundation of
on-site systems during flood events. Flood water intrusion into privy
systems will result in mixing of these waters, allowing for transfer of
bacteria and nutrients.
Indirect evidence cannot justify Federal funding, however. Federal
water pollution control legislation and regulations require documenta-
tion of actual water quality or public health problems. Section II.F
summarizes the extensive efforts mounted during this EIS to document and
quantify the need for improved facilities around Nettle Lake.
The extent of sewering needed and the use of newer technologies for
wastewater collection have been investigated in detail here, as have
alternative wastewater treatment systems. The technologies assessed
were:
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMPONENTS AND OPTIONS
Functional Component
Flow and Waste Load Reduction
Options
household water conservation
measures
Collection of Wastewaters
Wastewater Treatment Processes
Effluent Disposal
limited service area
pressure sewers
gravity sewers
holding tanks
conventional centralized
treatment
on-site treatment
land application
cluster systems
subsurface disposal
land application
discharge to surface
waters
Sludge Handling
Sludge Disposal
aerobic digestion
dewatering (drying
beds)
land application
landfilling
Next, appropriate options were selected and combined into the
alternative systems described in Chapter IV. The last section of this
chapter considers implementation, administration, and financing of the
alternatives.
82
-------
2. COMPARABILITY OF ALTERNATIVES: DESIGN POPULATION
The various alternatives for wastewater management in the Proposed
Service Area must provide equivalent or comparable levels of service if
their designs and costs are to be properly compared. The design popula-
tion is that number of people projected to reside in the Proposed Ser-
vice Area (see Figure 1-2) in the year 2000. The following comparison
of alternatives assumes a design population of 1,904.
This design population has been used as the basis for all the EIS
Alternatives and the Facilities Plan Proposed Action, in the interest of
equitable comparison. Please note, however, that each alternative
carries its own constraints, and that the wastewater management system
chosen may determine much of the Study Area's actual population in the
year 2000. Centralized systems would have a greater tendency to induce
growth than decentralized systems. Chapter V discusses the importance
of this factor.
3. COMPARABILITY OF ALTERNATIVES: FLOW AND WASTE LOAD
PROJECTIONS
Design flows for centralized treatment facilities and for the
cluster systems assumed a flow rate of 60 gallons per capita per day
(gpcd) in residential areas for both permanent and seasonal residents.
Infiltration and inflow (I/I) to gravity sewers was added to the cal-
culated sewage flow in appropriate alternatives. The rate of I/I to new
sewers is usually lower than that of old sewers and has been assumed at
200 gallons per inch-mile of gravity sewers.
The design flow used in the Facilities Plan Proposed Action was 100
gpcd, including I/I. To compare costs properly in this EIS, flows
developed for the EIS Alternatives were also used for the Facilities
Plan Proposed Action.
The rate of sewage generation depends upon the mix of residential,
commercial, and institutional sources in the area. No industrial
sources exist or are anticipated in the Study Area. Studies on resi-
dential water usage (Witt, Siegrist, and Boyle, 1976; Bailey, et al.,
1969; Cohen and Wallman, 1974) reported individual household water
consumptions varying widely between 20 and 100 gpcd. However, average
values reported in those studies generally ranged between 40 and 56
gpcd. On a community-wide basis, non-residential domestic (commercial,
small industrial, and institutional) water use increases per capita
flows. The extent of such increases is influenced by:
o the importance of the community as a local or regional trading
center;
o the concentration of such water-intensive institutions as
schools and hospitals; and
o the level of small industrial development.
83
-------
For communities with populations of less than 5,000, EPA regulations
allow design flows of 60 to 70 gpcd where existing per capita flow data
are lacking. In larger communities, and in communities within Standard
Metropolitan Statistical Areas, the maximum allowable flow ranges up to
85 gpcd.
Water consumption by seasonal users varies much more than consump-
tion by permanent residents. The actual rates of consumption depend
upon such factors as type of accommodations in the area and type of
recreation areas available. EPA regulations (EPA, 1978) suggest that
seasonal population can be converted to equivalent permanent population
using the following multipliers:
Day-use visitor 0.1 to 0.2
Seasonal visitor 0.5 to 0.8
A multiplier of 1.0 instead of a figure in the 0.5-0.8 range was
applied to the projected seasonal population to account for unquantified
day-use visitors. Considering the possible error in projecting future
seasonal populations, the preponderance of present seasonal visitors
using well-equipped private dwellings, and the lack of data on day-use
visitors, this multiplier was thought generous--i.e., it probably over-
estimates flows.
The design flow rate of 60 gpcd does not reflect potential reduc-
tions in flow from water conservation. Residential water conservation
devices, discussed in Section III.B.I.a, could reduce flows by 16 gpcd.
In Chapter IV, the Facilities Plan Proposed Action has been redesigned
and recosted in order to evaluate the effects of flow reduction.
B. COMPONENTS AND OPTIONS
I. FLOW REDUCTION
Reducing flow and pollutant loads to a wastewater management system
can:
o Reduce the sizes and capital costs of new collection and treat-
ment facilities;
o Delay the time when future expansion or replacement facilities
will be needed;
o Reduce the operational costs of pumping and treatment; and
o Mitigate the sludge and effluent disposal impacts.
A variety of devices that reduce water consumption and sewage flow
are available. The most effective are those that control shower and
toilet flows, which are the major sources of domestic water consumption.
Some of these flow reduction devices are listed in Appendix E-l, with
data on their water-saving potential and costs. Most of these devices
will require no change in the user's hygienic habits, and are as main-
tenance-free as standard fixtures. Others, such as compost toilets,
84
-------
may require changes in hygienic practices and/or maintenance. The use
of these devices may be justified under certain conditions, for instance
when no other device can provide adequate sanitation or when excessive
flows cause malfunctions of conventional on-site septic systems. In
most cases, however, the justifications for flow reduction are economic.
Table III-l lists proven flow reduction devices and homeowners'
savings resulting from their use. Data on the devices listed in
Appendix E-l and local cost assumptions listed beneath the table were
used to develop these estimates. The homeowners' savings include sav-
ings for well water supply, water heating, and wastewater treatment. A
combination of shower flow control insert device, dual cycle toilet, and
lavatory faucet flow control device could save approximately $98.89 per
year.
If all residences in the Proposed Service Area were to install
these flow reduction devices, not all families would save $2.11/1000
gallons in wastewater treatment costs (see assumption in Table III-l).
This is because a substantial portion of this charge goes to pay off
capital and operation and maintenance costs, which will remain constant
even if flow is reduced. For all to benefit fully from flow reduction,
wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal facilities would have to
be designed with flow capacities reflecting the lower sewage flows. Use
of the three types of devices cited above would reduce per capita sewage
flows by approximately 16 gpcd. To calculate the cost-effectiveness of
community-wide flow reduction, the Facilities Plan Proposed Action (see
Section IV.B.2 was redesigned and recosted with a design flow based on
44 gpcd instead of 60 gpcd.
Estimated savings in project capital costs due to flow reduction
would be small. All of the gravity sewers in the Facilities Plan Pro-
posed Action are already at the minimum diameter allowed, 8 inches.
There would be a small savings in downsizing the force main leading to
the aerated lagoon from 6" to 4". This savings is estimated to be
$2,268, less than 1% of the collection system's capital cost. Addi-
tional capital savings might also come from downsizing the aerated
lagoon and from reduced electricity requirement at the pump stations.
These savings would be small but cannot be appropriately estimated at
the level of design detail used to develop alternatives for this EIS.
Cost savings for the lagoon would be limited by the need to provide
aeration equipment and lagoon surface area sufficient to oxidize the
organic load, a parameter that would not be altered significantly by
most water conservation methods.
These economic analyses of homeowner's saving and total present
worth reduction assume sewering of all dwellings. However, for dwell-
ings that still use on-site systems, the economic benefits of flow
reduction devices cannot be readily estimated. State regulatory
agencies generally do not allow a reduction in the design of conven-
tional on-site systems based upon proposals to use flow reduction
devices. [This is possible in Ohio, under Section 3701-29-20 variance
of the ODH's Home Sewage Disposal Regulations, subject to the discretion
of the local board of healthby telephone, Glen Hackett, ODH, 7
November 1979]. However, it is likely that reduced flows will prolong
85
-------
Table III-l
ESTIMATED SAVINGS WITH FLOW REDUCTION DEVICES
Shower flow control insert device
Dual cycle toilet
Toilet damming device
Shallow trap toileta
Dual flush adapter for toilets
Spray tap faucet
Improved ballcock assembly for toilets
Faucet flow control device
Faucet aerator
First Year
Savings
(or Cost)
45.71
21.92
17.71
15.96
13.47
(63.70)
10.97
6.26
1.36
Annual Savings
After First
Year
47.71
41.92
20.96
20.96
17.47
13.50
13.97
9.26
3.86
First year expenditure assumed to be difference in capital cost between
flow-saving toilet and a standard toilet costing $75.
Assumptions
Household:
Water Cost:
Four persons occupying dwelling 328 days per year. One
bathroom in dwelling.
Private well water supply. Cost of water = $0.02/1000
gallons for electricity to pump against a 100 foot hydraulic
head.
Water Heating Electric water heater. Water temperature increase = 100°F.
Cost: Electricity costs $0.03/kilowatt-hour. Cost of water heating
= $7.50/100 gallons.
Wastewater Assumed that water supply is metered and sewage bill is based
Cost: on water supply at a constant rate of $2.11/1000 gallons.
Rate is based on a 1980 Study Area sewage flow of 0.14 mgd and
an average annual household cost of $185/yr. estimated in this
EIS for the Facilities Plan Proposed Action.
86
-------
the life of soil absorption systems, thereby saving money in the long
run.
Some decentralized systems require substantial reductions in flow
regardless of costs. Holding tanks, soil absorption systems that cannot
be enlarged, evaporation or evapotranspiration systems, and sand mounds
are examples of systems that would operate more reliably at minimal
sewage flows. Sewage flows of 15 to 30 gpcd can be achieved by combi-
nations of the following:
o Reduce lavatory water usage by installing spray tap faucets.
o Replace standard toilets with dual cycle or other low-volume
toilets.
o Reduce shower water use with thermostatic mixing valves and flow
control shower heads. Use of showers rather than baths should
be encouraged whenever possible.
o Replace older clothes washing machines with those equipped with
water-level controls or with front-loading machines.
o Eliminate water-carried toilet wastes by use of in-house com-
posting toilets.
o Recycle 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 accept-
able in pilot studies (Cohen and Wallman, 1974; Mclaughlin,
1968). This alternative to in-house composting toilets could
achieve the same level of wastewater flow reduction.
o Recycle bath and laundry wastewaters for lawn sprinkling in
summer. The feasibility of this method would have to be eval-
uated on a trial basis in the Study Area because its general
applicability is not certain.
o Use commercially available pressurized toilets and air-assisted
shower heads with a common air compressor of small horsepower to
reduce sewage volume from these two largest household sources up
to 90%.
2. COLLECTION
The collection system in the Facilities Plan is estimated to cost
$1.3 million--75% of the total cost of the Proposed Actionand is the
single most expensive portion of the sewerage facilities. Since only
some parts of collection systems are eligible for Federal and State
funding, collection system costs would affect the local community more
than other project components. There is, therefore, considerable in-
centive at local, State and national levels to choose less expensive
alternatives to conventional sewer systems.
87
-------
Alternative means of wastewater collection are:
o pressure sewers (including grinder pumps or STEP systems);
o vacuum sewers; and
o small diameter gravity sewers (Troyan and Norris, 1974).
An alternative collection system may economically sewer areas where
site conditions would increase the cost of conventional sewerage, such
as shallow depth to bedrock, high groundwater table, or hilly terrain.
Housing density also affects the relative costs of conventional and
alternative wastewater collection systems.
The alternative most extensively studied in the literature is
collection by a pressure sewer system. The principles behind the pres-
sure system are just the opposite of those of a water distribution
system. The water system consists of a single point of pressurization
and a number of user outlets. Conversely, the pressure sewer system has
inlet points of pressurization and a single outlet. Pressurized waste-
water is generally discharged to the treatment facility or to a gravity
sewer.
The two major types of pressure sewer systems are the grinder pump
(GP) system and the septic tank effluent pumping (STEP) system. They
differ in on-site equipment and layout. The GP system employs indi-
vidual grinder pumps to convey raw wastewater to the sewer. In the STEP
system, septic tank effluent from individual households is pumped to the
pressure main.
The advantages of pressure sewer systems are:
o elimination of infiltration/inflow;
o reduction of construction cost;
o suitability for use in varied site and climatic conditions.
The disadvantages include relatively high operation and maintenance
cost, and the need to use individual home STEP systems or grinder pumps.
Vacuum sewers provide similar advantages. Their major components
are vacuum mains, collection tanks and vacuum pumps, and individual home
valve connection systems. Wastewater is transported by suction through
the mains rather than by pressure. Significant differences in design
have been noted among the four major types of vacuum sewer systems
currently in use (Cooper and Rezek, 1975).
As a third alternative to conventional gravity sewers, small dia-
meter (4-inch) pipe can be used if septic tank effluent, rather than raw
waste, is collected. Such pipe may result in lower costs of materials,
but the systems retain some of the disadvantages of larger sewers. The
need for deep excavations and pump stations is not affected. Prelimi-
nary studies suggest that gravity effluent sewers become cost-preferable
at linear housing densities greater than 50 dwellings per mile.
A comparative analysis of the costs of STEP and grinder pump types
of low pressure sewer systems indicated that the STEP system would be
88
-------
slightly more cost-effective. An important assumption in this analysis
was that 35% of existing septic tanks would need to be replaced for use
in the STEP system. Based on the above finding, STEP systems are used
in almost all EIS alternatives. This decision should be reviewed during
the detailed design stage (Step 2 of the construction grant process) on
the basis of a detailed field survey of the existing septic tank sys-
tems. Figure III-l illustrates the STEP system.
3. WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Wastewater treatment options fall into three categories: central-
ized treatment followed by surface water discharge; centralized treat-
ment followed by land disposal; and decentralized treatment.
Centralized treatment means the treatment of wastewater collected
by a single system and transported to a central location. Centralized
treatment systems may serve all or part of a service area. Centrally
treated effluent may be discharged to surface waters or applied to the
land; the method and site of disposal affect the treatment process
requirements.
Decentralized treatment means treatment of a relatively small
amount of wastewater on-site or off-site. Typically, effluent is dis-
posed near the sewage source, thus eliminating costly transmission of
sewage to distant disposal sites.
a. Centralized TreatmentDischarge to Surface Water
The Facilities Plan evaluated the use of aerated lagoons, disinfec-
tion, and surface water disposal of treated effluent. Nettle Creek was
selected by the Facilities Plan and this EIS as the receiving stream for
treated wastewater.
In addition to the options examined by the Facilities Plan, this
EIS also examined the use of oxidation ditches and rotating biological
contactors (RBCs) for conventional centralized treatment. Renovated
wastewater recovered by wells from rapid infiltration sites would also
be discharged to Nettle Creek.
The use of oxidation ditches to treat wastewater is relatively new
in the United States. This technique employs a ring-shaped channel,
approximately 3 feet deep, containing wastewater. A brush-like aeration
device, placed across the channel, provides aeration and circulation.
In the RBC system, settleable solids would be removed and waste-
water would flow through a series of tanks containing rotating plastic
discs that support the treatment microorganisms. Excess sludge removed
in the secondary settling tank would be recycled to the primary settling
tank.
b. Centralized TreatmentLand Disposal
Land treatment of municipal wastewater uses vegetation and soil to
remove many constituents of wastewater. Available processes may be used
89
-------
o:
LJ
£
LU
CO
LJ
cr
ID
CO
CO
UJ
o:
Q.
cr
o
g
i-
CO
2
Q_
-£.
CL
O
Q.
w
PS
90
-------
for a variety of objectives, such as water reuse, nutrient recycling.
and crop production. The three principal types of land application
systems are (US EPA, 1977):
o Slow rate (spray irrigation)
o Rapid infiltration (infiltration-percolation)
o Overland flow.
Figures III-2 and III-3 show the techniques of irrigation and
infiltration. The effluent quality required for land application in
terms of BOD and suspended solids is not so high as for stream dis-
charge. Preliminary wastewater treatment is needed to prevent health
hazards, maintain high soil treatment efficiency, reduce soil clogging,
and ensure reliable operation of the distribution system. In this EIS,
wetlands discharge, which is a modification of overland flow, was
examined as an alternative method of land disposal. In this technique,
most of the wastewater flows over a relatively impermeable soil surface.
Renovation depends on microbial and plant activity, and secondary treat-
ment is required prior to discharge.
A recent EPA memorandum (PRM 79-3) explains Federal eligibility
requirements for pretreatment prior to land application. To encourage
both land treatment and land disposal of wastewater, EPA has indicated
that:
"A universal minimum of secondary treatment for direct surface
discharge . . . will not be accepted because it is inconsistent
with the basic concepts of land treatment.
"...the costs of the additional preapplication increment
needed to meet more stringent preapplication treatment re-
quirements [than necessary] imposed at the State or local
level would be ineligible for Agency funding and thus would be
paid for from State or local funds." (EPA, 1978)
The EPA policy has important ramifications for land treatment
alternatives. It encourages their use by allowing Federal funding of
land used for storage, and by underwriting the risk of failure for
certain land-related projects.
Land treatment systems require wastewater storage during periods of
little or no application caused by factors such as unfavorable weather.
In Ohio, storage facilities for the winter months are necessary. Con-
siderations in selecting the method of land application and potential
sites are discussed in Appendix F-l.
c. Decentralized Treatment and Disposal
A number of technologies are available for decentralized treatment
on-site or at sites near the point of sewage generation. Disposal of
treatment wastewaters can be to the air, soil, or surface waters, and
normally occurs near the treatment site. Some of the available tech-
nologies are:
o Alternative low flush toilets
91
-------
Figure III-2
SPRAY IRRIGATION
EVAPOTRANSP1RATION
SPRAY
APPLICATION
ROOT ZONE
SUBSOIL
CROP
VARIABLE
SLOPE
DEEP
PERCOLATION
Figure III-3
RAPID INFILTRATION
EVAPORATION
SPRAY OR
SURFACE APPLICATION
92
-------
Outdoor vault toilets
Composting toilets
Toilets using filtered and disinfected bath and laundry waste-
water
Waterless toilets using oils to carry and store wastes
Chemical toilets
Incineration toilets
o On-lot treatment and disposal
Septic tank and soil-disposal systems
Septic tank and dual, alternating soil-disposal systems
Aerobic treatment and soil-disposal system
Septic tank or aerobic treatment and sand filter with effluent
discharge to surface waters
Septic tank and evapotranspiration system
Septic tank and mechanical evaporation system
Septic tank and elevated sand mound system
o Off-lot treatment and disposal
Cluster systems (multiple houses served by a common soil-disposal
system)
Community septic tank or aerobic treatment and sand filter
with effluent discharge to surface water
Small-scale lagoon with seasonal effluent discharge to surface
waters
Small-scale lagoon with effluent discharge at rapid infiltra-
tion land application site
Small-scale lagoon with seasonal effluent discharge at slow
rate land application site
Small-scale, preconstructed activated sludge (package) treat-
ment plants with effluent discharge to surface waters
For a graphic portrayal of these types of systems please see Appendix
F-2.
93
-------
Because many of the developed portions of the Study Area are
located along the lakeshore rather than streams, decentralized systems
with discharges to surface waters were not considered appropriate.
Combinations of the remaining technologies could be useful in specific
situations within the Study Area. If the decentralized approach to
wastewater management is selected, technologies will be "tailored" to
the problem being remedied at each dwelling, to soil and groundwater
site characteristics, and to expected systems use. This detailed analy-
sis would occur during the Step 2 design period, after the EIS and
facilities planning are completed.
In the absence of detailed site-by-site data with which to select
appropriate technologies, this EIS assumes the use of the best known and
most reliable decentralized technologies. The on-site septic tank and
soil absorption system is the technology of choice where acceptable
public health and environmental impacts are attainable with it. Where
on-site systems (including alternatives to ST/SAS) are not economically,
environmentally, or otherwise feasible, cluster systems will be used.
The assumption that only these two technologies will be used is made
here only as the basis for cost and feasibility estimation, and is not
meant to preclude the use of other technologies. Estimates of their
frequency of repair and construction costs are conservative to reflect
the possibility that other more appropriate technologies may be more
costly.
Continued use of septic tank-soil absorption systems for most
dwellings in the Proposed Service Area would perpetuate violations of
the Ohio Sanitary Code, as discussed in Section II.F.3. However, the
field investigation undertaken for this EIS has indicated that most
existing systems are operating with acceptable environmental and public
health impacts, with the exceptions of privy floodings and suspected
sluggish operation of ST/SASs during spring floods (see Section II.F.5).
More detailed site investigations may indicate that renovation or re-
placement of some existing on-site systems is necessary. To estimate
the investment this might require, it was assumed that 35% of on-site
systems will be replaced with new septic tanks, and 20% with new soil
absorption systems.
The major water quality and public health problem that occurs in
the Study Area is the inundation of pit privies. Of approximately 132
privies believed to be located within the service area, 90% are located
within the 100-year floodplain, and many are inundated annually. In
order to address this problem, two approaches have been developed.
Existing privies would either be replaced with in-house plumbing and
holding tanks, or alternative forms of toilet technology would be
applied.
If toilets and holding tanks were employed, each residence would be
required to: abandon and backfill their privy, install a water supply,
construct a bathroom with water-saving plumbing devices, and install a
holding tank. The other recourse that was developed was to replace
existing privies with outdoor vault toilets, chemical toilets, elec-
trical composting toilets, or air-assisted low flush toilets. The last
three forms of technology may be installed in a corner of the existing
94
-------
dwelling and paritioned off, or a bathroom may be built by the homeowner
to include the new toilet.
Detailed site evaluations of some dwellings may show that continued
use of on-site systems is not feasible, or that repairs to existing
systems for a group of dwellings may be more expensive than joint dis-
posal by means of cluster systems. Cluster systems are subsurface
absorption systems, similar in operation and design to on-site soil
absorption systems, but large enough to accommodate flows from a number
of (approximately 40) dwellings,. Cluster systems include limited col-
lection facilities using pressure sewers, small diameter sewers and/or
pumps and force mains. Generally, use of existing septic tanks would
continue for settling and stabilization of wastewater.
As indicated in Section II.B.3.b, suitable soils exist near enough
to residential development in parts of the Study Area to permit the use
of cluster and on-site systems. Further field surveys of soils and
groundwater conditions at specific sites selected for cluster systems
should be undertaken prior to use (see Appendix F-3 for a discussion of
soil characteristics). The exact number and locations of dwellings
requiring off-site disposal of wastewater would be determined after
detailed evaluation of existing systems.
Appendix F-4 contains design assumptions for the cluster systems.
Design criteria recommended by the State of Ohio were considered in the
development of the typical cluster system design. The costs were devel-
oped specifically for the two cluster systems serving residences in
Segment 2 along the western shore of Nettle Lake, and include replace-
ment of 35% of existing septic tanks. Presently, there are successfully
operating cluster systems in many states, notably Minnesota and
California.
4. EFFLUENT DISPOSAL
Treated wastewater may be disposed of in one of three basic ways.
Reuse, perhaps the most desirable, implies recycling of the effluent by
industry or agriculture or to groundwater recharge. Land application
takes advantage of the absorptive and renovative capacities of soil to
improve effluent quality and reduce the quantity of wastewater requiring
disposal. Discharge to surface water generally implies the use of
streams or impoundments as the ultimate receiving body for treated
effluent.
a. Reuse
Industry Reuse. There is no industrial development in the Study
Area, nor is any planned. Consequently, reuse by industry is not a
feasible means of effluent disposal.
Agricultural Irrigation. The use of treated wastewaters for irri-
gation is addressed in Section III.B.4.C.
Groundwater Recharge. Groundwater supplies all potable water in
the Study Area. The sand and gravel deposits of the Study Area contain
95
-------
ample quantities of water and are an important resource. There is no
evidence that this resource is being depleted to an extent requiring
supplemental recharge. Furthermore, the volume of wastewater generated
is insignificant compared to the available groundwater resources.
b. Discharge to Surface Waters
In the Facilities Plan Proposed Action, effluent from the aerated
lagoon would be discharged to Nettle Creek. Treated effluent from the
rapid infiltration site would percolate down through the soil and enter
the water table. Recovery wells would collect the renovated wastewater,
which would be pumped directly to Nettle Creek; approximately 75% of
the effluent would be recovered.
c. Land Application
Two land application methods were examined during the preparation
of this EIS: wetlands discharge and rapid infiltration/percolation.
For wetlands discharge, which was proposed as an alternative to stream
discharge, wastewater would be conveyed to the site located east of
Nettle Lake.
In rapid infiltration, wastewater is treated by infiltration and
percolation through the soil. Wastewater is applied to the soil by
means of spreading basins. Besides treating wastewater, rapid infil-
tration may also recharge groundwater supplies. However, in the Nettle
Lake area, recovery wells would be constructed in the rapid infiltration
sites to protect the groundwater from pollution by nitrates. After
treatment, the renovated water would be withdrawn by the recovery wells
and discharged to Nettle Creek downstream of the Lake.
The potential sites for rapid infiltration have seasonally high
groundwater tables deeper than 6 feet, and moderately to rapidly per-
meable soils. The renovated wastewater will meet State NPDES require-
ments for surface water discharges. Facilities to store wastewater for
8 weeks of inclement weather would be necessary, and wastewater would be
applied to the land at a rate of 20 inches per week. The site identi-
fied for use is located southwest of the Lake.
5. SLUDGE HANDLING AND DISPOSAL
Two types of sludge would be generated by the wastewater treatment
options considered above--chemical/biological sludges from conventional
treatment; and solids pumped from septic tanks (septage). The residues
from treatment by lagoons and land application are grit and screenings.
Aerobic digestion of sludges, followed by land application, was the
sludge handling and disposal option considered in the Facilities Plan.
Aerobic digestion of sludge is accomplished during aeration of waste-
water in the aerated lagoons. The cost-effectiveness of aerobic diges-
tion for those alternatives that produce biological/chemical sludges has
been evaluated and the results incorporated in Section IV.D.
96
-------
To remove water from digested sludge, a dewatering process is used
following digestion. After digestion, solids concentrations in sludge
usually range from 4 to 6%. Dewatering devices such as vacuum filters,
filter presses, and drying beds can usually increase the solids content
to 20 to 45%, simplifying handling during disposal. Sludge drying beds,
the dewatering option selected in the Facilities Plan, have been evalu-
ated further in this EIS with respect to costs, reliability, and ease of
operation.
Sludge disposal would be by hauling either to a landfill site or to
farmland sites (by farmers or a contract hauler). Sludge application to
farmland is beneficial because it conditions the soil and recycles
nutrients. Both options are examined in this EIS.
Alternatives using residential septic tanks for on-lot systems,
cluster systems, or STEP sewer systems must provide for periodic removal
and disposal of sludge. For the purposes of designing and costing these
alternatives, it was assumed that the average cost of pumping and dis-
posal would be $65 per year. Local septage haulers are licensed to
operate in Williams County; farmlands are typical disposal sites.
C. FLEXIBILITY OF COMPONENTS
Flexibility measures the ability of a system to accommodate growth
or future changes in requirements. This section examines the flexi-
bility of the components in each alternative, and restraints on the
operation and design of facilities. These are discussed in terms of
their impacts upon choices of systems and decisions of planning and
design.
1. TRANSMISSION AND CONVEYANCE
For gravity and pressure sewer systems, flexibility is the ability
to handle future increases in flow. For flows greater than the original
design, this is generally low; an increase in capacity is usually expen-
sive. Also, the layout of the system depends upon the location of the
treatment facility. Relocation or expansion of a finished facility
requires costly redesign and addition of sewers.
Both gravity and pressure sewers require minimum flow velocities to
prevent deposition of solids, which could cause blockage. The velocity
of the fluid in gravity sewers depends mainly upon pipe slope. Contour
of the ground surface may determine pipe slope and depth, and, conse-
quently, construction costs. Pressure sewers, however, can carry sewage
uphill under pressure, independent of slope, to maintain the flow veloc-
ity; they offer the designer somewhat more flexibility than gravity
sewers.
2. CONVENTIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Ability to expand a conventional wastewater treatment plant depends
largely upon the process used, facility layout, and availability of
additional land for expansion. Compared to many systems for land appli-
97
-------
cation, conventional treatment processes require little land, increasing
expansion flexibility. However, unless the the plant was designed to
facilitate future increments of capacity, expansion may be difficult.
Establishment of a facility such as a sewage treatment plant reduces
flexibility for future planning decisions within the affected municipa-
lities .
Because operators can, to some extent, vary the components of
treatment, most conventional processes have good operational flexi-
bility. By alteration of the amounts and types of chemicals, flow
rates, detention times, or even process schemes, the required effluent
quality can usually be obtained.
a. Oxidation Ditch
Oxidation ditches are simple to operate. They are similar in
theory to extended aeration, long employed in the United States. Opera-
tional flexibility of such plants is good because of their relative
simplicity.
Oxidation ditches require relatively shallow basins (3 to 6 feet),
another advantage. Less structural strength for the basin is necessary
because of the shallow depth. There is also more leeway in choosing a
site since soils and geologic factors are less critical.
There are several disadvantages to these ditches. The shallow
basin limits the quantity of wastewater that can be treated. However,
design flows are limited to the range of 0.1 to 10 mgd because of the
large tracts of land needed. In addition, oxidation ditches cannot be
readily converted to another process should the need arise. Similarly,
expansion flexibility is low because of the land requirements.
b. Rotating Biological Contactor (RBC)
The use of rotating biological contactors to treat wastewater is
relatively new in the United States. The RBC rotates circular discs
covered with a film of aerobic bacteria in a basin through which waste-
water flows. The disc is usually 40% submerged for aerobic treatment.
RBCs are simple to operate. They are similar in theory to trick-
ling filters, which have been used in the United States since 1908. The
RBC units do not require sludge recycling or maintenance of a suspended
microbial culture, as in activated sludge treatment. The relatively
simple operation, therefore, makes operational flexibility high for RBC
plants.
The modular nature of RBC reactors makes expansion or upgrading of
the plant relatively easy. With proper design of other components of
the treatment plant, and proper planning of the facility layout, the
cost and effort required for expansion may be relatively small. RBCs
are therefore well suited to projects constructed in phases over an
extended period. Their use is usually limited to design flows in the
range of 0.1 to 20 mgd (well suited to the Study Area) because of the
large land areas required to accommodate the multiple discs of bigger
plants.
98
-------
The relatively shallow basin depths (6 to 8 feet) required by RBCs
constitute another advantage. Structural strength is required for the
basin because water volume per square foot of basin area is reduced.
There is, therefore, more leeway in choosing a site, since a greater
variety of soil types and ground conditions is available for locating
the RBC units.
There are several disadvantages to the RBC reactor. The mechanical
components have relatively low salvage value, and converting RBC units
to other uses may be costly, since components cannot be reused or sold.
3. ON-SITE SEPTIC SYSTEMS
Septic tank-soil absorption systems (SA/SAS) are flexible in that
they can be designed for each user. As long as spatial and environ-
mental standards are met, the type of system can be chosen according to
individual requirements. This flexibility is useful in some rural areas
where centralized treatment would be neither cost-effective nor
desirable.
Existing septic systems can be expanded by adding tank and drain-
field capacity, if suitable land is available. Flow can then be dis-
tributed to a second system with little disturbance of the first one.
Alternative toilet technologies described in this EIS are very
flexible since they do not depend on on-site soils suitability. They
may be used in any of the existing dwelling units with only minor modi-
fication and, with proper design, operation, and maintenance, can pro-
vide adequate treatment for either seasonal or permanent use. See Table
VI-2 for a comparison of technologies considered for privy replacement.
Cluster systems are similar to on-site ST/SAS with the exception
that they treat wastewater from more than one house, usually 35 to 50.
The flexibility for design and expansion of such a system is somewhat
less than for a standard septic system. Sizes of cluster system absorp-
tion fields range from one-quarter acre to one acre, a substantial
increase compared to a standard absorption system (about 1000 square
feet). Right-of-way requirements for piping must be considered because
the system crosses property boundaries and may cross public property.
The location of other underground utilities, such as water, electricity,
gas, and telephone, must also be considered in the design.
An alternative system for on-site sewage treatment, such as an
elevated sand mound, is required where siting restrictions prohibit the
use of standard septic systems, and where centralized collection of
sewage is not available. In these cases future expansion may be dif-
ficult or impossible. Stipulations of the health codes restrict the
potential of the alternative system for alteration or expansion.
4. LAND APPLICATION
To be flexible, a land application system should operate effi-
ciently under changing conditions and should be easy to modify or
expand. These factors depend largely upon geographical location.
99
-------
The ability to handle changes in treatment requirements and waste-
water characteristics is a specific measure of flexibility for a land
application facility. Furthermore, the level of treatment provided by
the land application system will in part determine whether it can handle
possible increases in flows in the future. Wastewater in the Nettle
Lake Study Area consists primarily of domestic sewage, and future chan-
ges in composition of the wastewater are not likely to occur. If indus-
trial wastewater were added in the future, pretreatment at the indus-
trial source could be required.
Expandability is an important element of flexibility. Efficient
and economical land acquisition for future flow increases depends upon
the proximity of the facility to populated areas, design and layout of
the system, additional transmission requirements, and the type of appli-
cation system used. A number of application mechanisms are available--
spray, overland flow, or rapid infiltration. Sites can be forest land,
cropland, or open fields. Attention must be paid, however, to charac-
teristics of the surrounding land, and to possible future changes in
land use. Also, requirements related to hydraulic and geologic condi-
tions of the proposed site are stringent. When initially planning the
facility, all of the above-mentioned conditions should be taken into
consideration if maximum flexibility for future expansion is desired.
Land itself accounts for much of the capital cost of a land appli-
cation facility, greatly affecting the possibility of expansion or ease
of discontinuing the site. Because land normally appreciates in value,
the final salvage value of the site may be very high after the expected
20-year design life. If the site is abandoned, much of the initial
capital cost of the facility may be recovered by reselling the land at
the appreciated price. Note, however, that the public may be reluctant
because of its former use to use the land; this would depend largely
upon the appearance of the land at the time of resale.
Finally, operational flexibility of land application systems
depends upon climate. When heavy rains saturate the soil or flooding
occurs, treatment efficiency is greatly reduced. Where cold tempera-
tures periodically make land application impracticable, storage facili-
ties are required. In very cold climates, up to 6 months of storage
capacity might be needed (see Appendix 1-1 for assumptions used in this
EIS).
D. RELIABILITY OF COMPONENTS
Reliability measures the ability of a system or component to oper-
ate without failure at the level of efficiency for which it was de-
signed. It is particularly important to have dependable operation in
situations where environmental or economic harm may result from system
failure. This section examines the reliability of local components used
in the EIS alternatives.
100
-------
1. SEWERS
Gravity Sewers. When possible, sewer systems allow wastewater to
flow downhill by force of gravity. This type of system, known as a
gravity sewer, is highly reliable. Designed properly, such systems
require little maintenance. They consume no energy and have no mechani-
cal components to malfunction.
Gravity sewer problems include clogged pipes, leading to sewer
backups; infiltration/inflow, increasing the volume of flow beyond the
design level; and broken or misaligned pipes. Major contributors to
these problems are improperly jointed pipes and the intrusion of tree
roots into the sewer, which tends to be more prevalent in older systems.
Where ground slope opposes the direction of sewage flow, it may be
necessary to pump the sewage through sections of pipe called force
mains. The pumps add a mechanical component that increases operation
and maintenance (O&M) requirements and decreases the system reliability.
To assure uninterrupted operation, two pumps are generally installed,
providing a backup if one malfunctions. Each is usually designed to
handle at least twice the peak flow. A standby generator is usually
provided to ensure operation of the pumps in times of power failure.
Because the flow through force mains is intermittent, solids may be
deposited during periods of no flow. In addition, when the pumps shut
off, the sudden cessation of flow may cause the hydraulic condition
known as "water hammer," marked by sudden sharp surges in water pressure
that may burst pipes. However, both problems can be controlled through
proper design procedures. The reliability of properly designed force
mains approaches that of gravity sewers.
Pressure Sewers. Pressure sewers transmit wastewater uphill when
topography does not allow gravity flow. Because the system is always
under pressure, pumping is needed to force the wastewater into the
sewer.
Grinder Pumps. Grinder pumps are used primarily to grind and pump
raw domestic sewage from an individual house to the collection system,
and occasionally for small lift stations. They are of either the semi-
positive displacement or the centrifugal type, depending upon the mode
of operation. The reliability of both types is high.
One problem may arise during a power failure. Standby power for a
grinder pump would not usually be available at an individual house, and
the residence would then be without sewage removal. This is a lesser
problem than might be supposed, for a power failure would also curtail
many operations that generate wastewater.
There were problems in the operation of the first generation of
grinder pumps when pressure to pump wastewater or power to grind solids
was insufficient. Modifications in their design and construction have
been made, and the second generation of these pumps has proved appre-
ciably more reliable. Periodic maintenance is required to clean or
replace parts of the grinder pump.
101
-------
Septic Tank Effluent Pumps (STEP). It is sometimes desirable to
pump wastewater from an existing septic tank rather than directly from
the house, using septic tank effluent pumps* (STEP) rather than a
grinder pump. In this way, difficulties associated with suspended
solids are largely avoided. STEP pumps are relatively simple modifica-
tions of conventional sump pumps.
The reliability of STEP pumps made by experienced manufacturers is
good. Newer entries into the field have not yet accumulated the operat-
ing experience necessary to demonstrate conclusively the reliability of
their products. In the event of failure of a STEP system, an overflow
line may be provided, allowing septic tank effluent to reach the old
drainfield for emergency disposal.
Pipes. Pressure sewer pipes are subject to the same problems as
force mains, discussed above. As with force mains, proper design can
prevent clogging and breaking of pipes, the most common cause of sewer
problems. Because pressure sewer piping has no mechanical components,
the reliability is high.
2. CENTRALIZED TREATMENT
Conventional. The reliability of conventional wastewater treatment
has been tested by time. Most unit processes have been used for many
years, and there is consequently much information on their design and
operation in nearly all climates. In general, the larger the treatment
facility, the more reliable its operation, because the large flow
volumes require multiple units per treatment process. For instance, a
large facility will have several primary clarifiers; if one malfunc-
tions, the remaining units can handle the entire load. Therefore,
difficulties arising as a result of failure of a single unit process, or
of severe weather conditions such as heavy rain or very cold tempera-
tures, are less likely to affect operations. Conventional wastewater
treatment plants can be designed to handle most problems.
Land Application. Land application of treated sewage effluent is
still uncommon in the United States, but its use is growing steadily.
Local climatic conditions such as heavy rains or very low temperatures
may make the technique unsuitable in a particular area.
Potential problems with land application include: groundwater con-
tamination; dispersal of microbial mass by airborne transport; odors;
surface water contamination; accumulation of metals in vegetation; and
possible toxic effects upon local animals. These problems can be
minimized with proper design, but there is not yet the extensive prac-
tical experience required to develop advanced design technology.
3. ON-SITE TREATMENT
Septic Tanks. The design and operation of modern septic tanks have
benefitted from long experience. Properly designed and maintained,
septic systems will provide satisfactory service with minimum mainten-
ance. Care must be taken not to put materials in the system that may
clog it. The principal maintenance requirement is periodic pumping of
the tank, usually every 2 or 3 years.
102
-------
Problems of septic systems include heavy rain saturating the
ground, clogged drainfields caused by full septic tanks, clogged or
frozen pipes, and broken pipes. Current environmental laws restricting
sites according to soil suitability, depth to groundwater and bedrock,
and other factors, limit the cases where septic systems can be used.
Sand Mounds. Elevated sand mounds 4 or 5 feet above original
ground level are an alternative drainage mechanism where siting restric-
tions do not allow standard drainfields. Because they do not always
provide satisfactory service and are considerably more expensive than
conventional drainfields, they have not been universally accepted. In
states where proper design standards are enforced, such as Minnesota and
Wisconsin, they do have a very good record of reliability.
Alternative Toilets. All of these devices have not experienced
widespread use in the US; however, considerable information is available
from years of use in European and Scandinavian countries. These systems
are gaining broader acceptance in the US, to the point where some
localities now have design and plumbing codes to cover them. Vault
toilets have the highest reliability, since they perform only limited
treatment in storing wastes. Air-assisted toilets have been in use for
a number of years, and perform very well. Chemical toilets require some
operator upkeep to charge the toilet with chemicals and monitor its
performance. Electrical composting toilets require preparation with a
mixture of soil and sawdust, monitoring of performance, owner disposal
of residue, and limitations to 2 or 3 person households.
4. CLUSTER SYSTEMS
Cluster systems are localized wastewater disposal mechanisms ser-
ving several residences. The reliability is similar to that of a septic
system, except that a malfunction affects not just one, but a number of
residences. Because a cluster system requires more piping to connect
individual houses to the treatment tank than does a series of individual
systems, there is a greater chance for pipes to break or clog, or for
I/I to occur during heavy rain. If pumping is required, the reliability
of the system declines because of the mechanical nature of the pumps and
their dependence upon electricity for power.
E. IMPLEMENTATION
The implementation of a wastewater management plan depends upon
whether the selected alternative relies primarily upon centralized or
decentralized components. Since most sanitary districts have in the
past been designed around centralized wastewater collection and treat-
ment, there is a great deal of information about the implementation of
such systems. Decentralized collection and treatment is, however,
relatively new, and there is little related management experience.
Whether the selected alternative is primarily centralized or decen-
tralized, four aspects of the implementation program must be addressed:
o Legal authority for a managing agency to exist and financial
authority for it to operate.
103
-------
o Agency management of construction, ownership, and operation of
the sanitary facilities.
o Choice between the several types of long-term financing that are
generally required to pay for project capital expenditures.
o A system of user charges to retire capital debts, to cover
expenditures for operation and maintenance, and to provide a
reserve for contingencies.
In the following sections, these requirements are examined, first
with respect to centralized sanitary districts, then with respect to
decentralized districts.
1. CENTRALIZED DISTRICTS
a. Authority
The Facilities Plan identified the Williams County Commissioners as
the legal authority for implementing the Plan's Proposed Action. This
is in accord with Chapter 6117 ORC (see Section II-C-3-c), which estab-
lishes the County as the authority to provide wastewater treatment and
collection facilities in areas, such as the Study Area, which are out-
side municipal corporate limits. This law permits the establishment of
sanitary sewer districts only within corporate limits, cities, and
villages.
b. Managing Agency
The role of the managing agency has been well defined for cen-
tralized sanitary districts. In general, the agency constructs, main-
tains, and operates the sewerage facilities. Although in fact different
contractual relationships exist between the agencies and their service
areas, for the purposes of this document, ownership of the facilities
may be assumed to reside with the agency. For gravity sewers, such
ownership has traditionally extended to the private property line. For
STEP or grinder pump stations connected to pressure sewers, several
options exist, in which all individual residences are treated equally:
o The pump station may be designed to agency specifications, with
the responsibility for purchase, maintenance, and ownership
residing with the homeowner.
o The station may be specified and purchased by the agency, with
the homeowner repurchasing and maintaining it.
o The station may be specified and owned by the agency, but pur-
chased by the homeowner.
o The station may be specified, purchased, and owned by the
agency.
104
-------
Regardless, however, of the option selected, all residences are treated
equally.
c. Financing
Appendix G-2 discusses in detail various financing methods for
capital expenses associated with a project. Briefly, they are:
o pay-as-you-go methods;
o special benefit assessments;
o reserve funds; and
o debt financing.
The Facilities Plan indicated that 75% of the Proposed Action would
be funded by a Federal grant, and assumed that funds for part of the
local share would be lent by the Farmers Home Administration.
d. User Charges
User charges are set at a level adequate to repay long-term debt
and cover operating and maintenance expenses. In addition, prudent
management agencies often add an extra charge to provide a contingency
fund for extraordinary expenses and replacement of equipment.
The implementation program proposed by the Facilities Plan is an
example of a scheme calling for the Williams County Commissioners to
recover the costs of wastewater management from the users of the system.
Because of the potential economic impacts, the charges must be carefully
allocated among various classes of users. Recognized classes of users
include:
o Permanent residents/Seasonal residents
o Residential/Commercial/Industrial users
o Presently sewered users/Newly sewered users
o Low- and fixed-income residents/Active income producers
Each class of user imposes different requirements on the design and
cost of each alternative, receives different benefits, and has different
financial capabilities.
2. SMALL WASTE FLOWS DISTRICTS
Regulation of on-lot sewage systems has evolved to the point where
most new facilities are designed, permitted, and inspected by local
health departments or other agencies. After installation, local govern-
ment has no further responsibility for these systems until malfunctions
become evident, at which time the local government may inspect and issue
permits for repair of the systems. The sole basis for government regu-
lation in this field has been its obligation to protect public health.
Rarely have governmental obligations been interpreted broadly
enough to include monitoring and control of other effects of on-lot
system use or misuse. The lack of knowledge of the operation of on-site
105
-------
systems has consequently been coupled with a general absence of infor-
mation concerning impacts of septic systems on ground and surface water
quality.
Methods of identifying and dealing with the adverse effects of
on-lot systems without building expensive sewers are being developed
throughout the United States. Technical methods include both the waste-
water treatment and disposal alternatives discussed in Section III.B,
and improved monitoring of water quality. Appendix H-l discusses man-
agerial methods already developed and applied by small waste flows
districts in dozens of communities in California. As with centralized
districts, the issues of legal and fiscal authority, agency management,
project financing, and user charges must all be resolved by small waste
flows districts.
a. Authority
Ohio presently has no legislation that explicitly authorizes
governmental entities to manage wastewater facilities other than those
of conventional centralized systems. However, statutes in Michigan,
Minnesota, and Wisconsin have been interpreted as providing counties,
townships, villages, cities, and special purpose districts with suf-
ficient powers to manage decentralized facilities (Otis and Stewart,
1976).
California and Illinois, to resolve interagency conflicts or to
authorize access to private properties for inspection and maintenance of
wastewater facilities, have passed legislation specifically intended to
facilitate management of decentralized facilities. These laws are
summarized in Appendix H-2.
b. Management
The purpose of a small waste flows district is to balance the costs
of management with the needs of public health and environmental quality.
Management of such a district implies formation of a management agency
and formulation of policies for the agency. The concept of such an
agency is relatively new. Appendix H-3 discusses this concept in
detail.
Table III-2 presents the range of functions a management agency may
exercise for adequate control and use of decentralized technologies.
Because the level of funding for these functions could become an eco-
nomic burden, their costs and benefits should be considered in the
development of the management agency. Major decisions to be made by the
locality concerning the development of this agency relate to the fol-
lowing questions:
o Should engineering and operation functions be provided by the
agency or by private organizations under contract?
o Would off-site facilities require acquisition of property and
right-of-way?
106
-------
Table III-2
BASIC AND SUPPLEMENTAL FUNCTIONS FOR
SMALL WASTE FLOWS DISTRICTS
Component
Basie functions*
Supplemental functions*
Administrative
Engineering
Operations
Planning
User charge system
Staffing
Enforcement
Adopt design standards*
Review for approval of
plans*
Evaluate Existing sys-
stems/design rehabili-
tation measures
On-site soils investi-
gations*
Acceptance for public
management of privately
installed facilities
Routine inspection and
maintenance
Septage collection and
disposal
Groundwater monitoring
Grants administration
Service contracts supervision
Occupancy/operating permits
Interagency coordination
Property and right-of-way
acquisition
Performance bonding requirements
Design and install facilities
for public ownership
Contractor training
Special designs for alternative
technologies
Pilot studies of alternative
technologies
Implementing flow reduction
techniques
Emergency inspection and main-
tenance
Surface water monitoring
Land use planning
Public education
Designate areas sensitive to
soil-dependent systems
Establish environmental, land
use and economic criteria
for issuance or non-issuance
of permits
* Function normally provided by local governments at present.
107
-------
o Would public or private ownership of on-site wastewater facili-
ties be more likely to provide cost savings and improved control
of facilities operation?
o Are there environmental, land use, or economic characteristics
of the area that would be sensitive to operation and construc-
tion of decentralized technologies? If so, would special plan-
ning, education, and permitting steps be appropriate?
Five steps are recommended to implement an efficient, effective
program for the management of wastewater in unsewered areas:
o Develop a site-specific environmental and engineering data base;
o Design the management organization;
o Start up the agency;
o Construct and rehabilitate facilities; and
o Operate facilities.
Site-Specific Environmental and Engineering Data Base. The data
base should include groundwater monitoring, a house-to-house investi-
gation (sanitary survey), soils and engineering studies, and a survey of
available technologies likely to be feasible in the area. This baseline
information will provide the framework for the systems and technologies
appropriate to the district. Such detailed work is accomplished during
the Step 2 design phase of the project.
A program for monitoring groundwater should include water quality
sampling of existing wells and possibly additional testing of the aqui-
fer. Such monitoring should be instituted early enough to provide data
useful in selecting and designing wastewater disposal systems.
The sanitary survey should include interviews with residents and
inspections of existing systems. A trained surveyor should record
information on lot size and location; age and use of dwelling; location,
age, and type of sewage disposal system; adequacy of the maintenance of
the existing system; water-using fixtures; and problems with the exist-
ing system.
Detailed site analyses may be required to evaluate operation of the
effluent disposal fields and to determine the impacts of effluent dispo-
sal upon local groundwater. These studies may include probing the
disposal area; borings for soil samples; and the installation of shallow
groundwater observation shafts. Sampling of the groundwater downhill
from leach fields aids in evaluating the potential for transport of
nutrients and pathogens through the soil. Study of soil classifications
near selected leach fields may improve correlations between soil charac-
teristics and leach field failures. An examination of the reasons for
the inadequate functioning of existing wastewater systems may avoid such
problems with the rehabilitated or new systems.
108
-------
Design of the Management Organization. Both the Facilities Plan
and this EIS have recommended the Williams County Commission as the
agency best suited to managing wastewater facilities in both unsewered
and sewered areas of the Study Area. The Commission's technical and
administrative capabilities should be analyzed as outlined in Table
III-2, concurrently with development of the environmental and engineer-
ing data base. The roles of organizations such as the Williams County
Health Department should be examined with respect to avoiding inter-
agency conflicts and duplication of effort and staffing.
Determination of the basic and supplementary management functions
to be provided will be influenced by the technologies appropriate to the
Study Area. In this respect, the questions raised earlier regarding
formulation of management policies must be resolved.
The product of these analyses should be an organizational design in
which staffing requirements, functions, interagency agreements, user
charge systems, and procedural guidelines are defined.
Agency Start-Up. Once the structure and responsibilities of the
management agency have been defined, public review is advisable. Addi-
tional personnel required for construction and/or operation should be
provided. If necessary, contractual arrangements with private organiza-
tions should be made. Acquisition of property should also be initiated.
Construction and Rehabilitation of Facilities. Site data collected
for the environmental and engineering data base should support selection
and design of appropriate systems for individual residences. Once
construction and rehabilitation begin, site conditions may be revealed
that suggest technology or design changes. Since decentralized systems
generally must be designed to operate within site limitations instead of
overcoming them, flexibility should be provided. Personnel authorized
to revise designs in the field would provide this flexibility.
Operation of Facilities. The administrative planning, engineering,
and operation functions listed in Table III-2 are primarily applicable
to this phase. The role of the management agency would have been deter-
mined in the organizational phase. However, the experience of agency
start-up and project construction may indicate the need to modify the
levels of effort established at that time in order to ensure long-term
reliability of the decentralized facilities.
c. Financing
The financing of a small waste flows district is similar to that of
a centralized district. Such financing is discussed in Section
III.E.l.c and Appendix G-2.
d. User Charges
Although renovation and replacement costs for on-site systems owned
by permanent residents are eligible for Federal funding, such costs
incurred by seasonal residents are not, unless there is public ownership
or public access and control (such as by perpetual easement or a binding
109
-------
covenant) of the treatment works. A major difference in the financing
of permanent and seasonally owned on-site systems results where there is
no public ownership or public access and control. With respect to the
Study Area, where a significant proportion of the users would be sea-
sonal, the absence of Federal funding would transfer a large fraction of
the project costs to the local users. This would be reflected in either
1) capital outlays by the users for construction, 2) increased user
charges covering increased local costs, or 3) both. Public ownership or
public access and control of all small alternative wastewater systems
would therefore be in the best interests of the residents of the Study
Area.
User charges and classes as applied to centralized districts are
discussed in Section III.E.l.d. The significance of decentralized
districts lies in the creation of an additional class of users. Since
some households of such districts may be in centrally sewered areas and
others in decentralized areas, user charges may differ. As a result,
many different management functions are conjoined. For example, per-
manent users on septic systems may be charged less than those on central
sewers. Seasonal users on pressure sewers may have high annual costs
associated with amortization of capital expenses; permanent users of
pressure sewers may be charged less than seasonal users, because Federal
funding reduced the former's share of the capital costs. Alternatively,
the management agency may choose to divide all costs equally among all
users. For the analyses in this EIS, public ownership of permanent and
seasonal on-site systems has been assumed, and user charges have been
assumed to be based on an equal distribution of local costs among all
users.
110
-------
CHAPTER IV
EIS ALTERNATIVES
A. APPROACH
The preceding chapter described options for the functional compon-
ents of wastewater management systems for the communities in the Study
Area. This chapter examines alternative wastewater management plans for
the Study Area, including a No Action Alternative.
The Proposed Action developed in the Facilities Plan (described
earlier) provided for centralized collection and treatment of waste-
water. In response to questions about the expense of the Proposed
Action, the development of EIS Alternatives emphasized decentralized and
alternative or innovative technologies, alternative collection systems,
decentralized treatment, and land disposal of wastewaters. The EIS
Alternatives would manage wastewaters in the same service area as the
Facilities Plan Proposed Action, but the EIS Alternatives use decentral-
ized collection and treatment to avoid some of the costs of sewers.
Because of the high cost of collection in the Proposed Action, the
cost-effectiveness of pressure sewers, vacuum sewers, and small-diameter
gravity sewers were compared. Of these, pressure sewers were the most
cost-effective. Similarly, the use of a septic tank effluent pumping
(STEP) system was analyzed as an alternative to grinder pumps. Assuming
35% of the septic tanks would be replaced, the STEP system was computed
to be more cost-effective and was used in the EIS Alternatives. This
selection should be reviewed during the preparation of detailed designs.
Analysis of decentralized treatment technologies and site condi-
tions showed feasible alternatives to sewering the entire Study Area.
It would be possible to combine multi-family filter fields (cluster
systems) with rehabilitated and new on-site treatment systems to meet
the wastewater treatment needs in parts of the Study Area. Addi-
tionally, on-site upgrading of existing treatment systems is examined,
which includes abandoning privies in flood-prone areas and replacing
them with vault toilets, composting toilets, or other technologies.
Appendix 1-1 presents the assumptions used in design and costing of
the alternatives. Section IV.B lists the major features of the Proposed
Action and of the EIS Alternatives.
B. ALTERNATIVES
The Facilities Plan Proposed Action has been compared with the No
Action Alternative and eight new approaches developed in this EIS.
Table IV-1 summarizes these alternatives.
1. NO ACTION
The No Action Alternative implies that EPA would not provide funds
to support new construction, upgrading, or expansion of existing waste-
Ill
-------
<4- T3
C
E TO
D
E TJ
H C
X D
£ i
JJ < 4J
H H <-*
tc OC ~ _ -^
4J -i cT sr
C ±J DC ffi C
1.2 , .S
4-J CC QJ -J
^ ^
oc-a
OJ
C-
QJ
E
QJ
E
OC
e. QJ
QJ U GJ QJ
OC TJ 3 OC
rc
reatme
E
OC
o
QJ
K
5 x
E cj C
CO C-
to c/: pi 4_>
>i 4-1 U
,£: C TO w
C > -H
C -^ O T3
O 4_) p J^
H ro 0) *U 0)
J-i i-i )-i C Q)
TO l-> (C t-i
U
CO QJ 3 4J
"O > QJ QJ
13 -H G 4J £.
C D. o K
CO CO QJ TO O
pJ! l-i !-> ^ 4->
OC U
c -<
T-l >
> s-
p- CO *J CO
>, C
5 tn QJ -o
^_ . -
,0 i-H >
112
-------
water collection and treatment systems. Any changes or improvements of
malfunctioning systems would be at the initiative and expense of either
the property owner or local government.
2. FACILITIES PLAN PROPOSED ACTION
The Facilities Plan recommended construction of a regional collec-
tion system and centralized treatment. The collection system would
comprise a combination of gravity sewers with lift stations and force
mains.
The Facilities Plan proposed treatment of 0.14 mgd of wastewater by
aerated lagoons, with discharge to Nettle Creek. Figure IV-1 is a
representation of the proposed treatment process. The proposed layout
for this alternative is illustrated in Figure IV-2.
3. EIS ALTERNATIVE 1
EIS Alternative 1 is similar to the Facilities Plan Proposed
Action. Segments 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8 would be sewered as in the Faci-
lities Plan Proposed Action (see Figure IV-3). Similarly, wastewater
would be treated in an aerated lagoon and discharged to Nettle Creek.
However, Segment 2 would be served by cluster systems, while Segment 6
would remain with the existing on-site ST/SAS systems, since soils in
this segment are suitable for on-lot treatment. The design flow for the
aerated lagoon would be reduced to 0.09 mgd. This alternative is de-
picted in Figure IV-4.
4. EIS ALTERNATIVE 2
EIS Alternative 2 differs from EIS Alternative 1 only in the type
of discharge provided after centralized collection and treatment. In
this alternative, treated wastewater from the aerated lagoon would be
discharged to nearby wetlands, thus reducing the length of the outfall
line. Figure IV-5 depicts this alternative.
5. EIS ALTERNATIVE 3
EIS Alternative 3 employs pressure sewers instead of gravity sewers
wherever suitable. Septic tank effluent pumping (STEP) was selected
over grinder pumps on the basis of cost-effectiveness. This alternative
was intended to investigate whether the different methods of collection
would reduce costs; in a few parts of the Service Area, notably Segment
1, gravity sewers were retained. This was because gravity sewers could
be more cost-effective than pressure sewers in this higher density area.
As in EIS Alternative 1, 0.09 mgd of wastewater would be conveyed
to an aerated lagoon for treatment and discharge to Nettle Creek. EIS
Alternative 3 is illustrated in Figure IV-6.
113
-------
UJ
o
UJ
UJ
oc
o
lUJ
I
o
UJ
z
z
o
I
£
3
pz
UJ0
^°
£E O
UJ <
< -J
I £ I I-
^Sr *-z
1<
-------
TO AERATION
LAGOON THEN
TO NETTLE
CREEK
LEGEND
PUMP STATION
GRAVITY SEWER
FORCE MAIN
FEET
200O
FIGURE IV-2 NETTLE LAKE: FACILITIES PLAN PROPOSED ACTION
115
-------
LEGEND
LAZY ACRES SOUTH
LAKEVIEW/EUREKA BEACH
SHADY SHORE
LAZY ACRES NORTH
ROANZA BEACH
CRESTWOOD
CAMP DI CLAIRE
SHADY SHORE CAMP
FEET
2000
FIGURE IV-3 NETTLE LAKE: SEGMENTED SUBDIVISIONS IN THE PROPOSED
SERVICE AREA
116
-------
TO AERATION
LAGOON THEN
TO NETTLE
^CREEK
LEGEND
PUMP STATION
GRAVITY SEWER
FORCE MAIN
SAS CLUSTER
ST/SAS
FEET
200O
FIGURE IV-4 NETTLE LAKE: EIS ALTERNATIVE 1
117
-------
TO AERATION
LAGOON THEN
TO WETLANDS
DISCHARGE
LEGEND
PUMP STATION
- GRAVITY SEWER
- FORCE MAIN
SAS CLUSTER
j ST/SAS
FEET
2OOO
FIGURE IV-5 NETTLE LAKE: EIS ALTERNATIVE 2
118
-------
' LAGOON THEN
TO NETTLE
CREEK
LEGEND
PUMP STATION
GRAVITY SEWER
FORCE MAIN
PRESSURE SEWER
SAS CLUSTER
ST/SAS
FEET
200O
FIGURE IV-6 NETTLE LAKE: EIS ALTERNATIVE 3
119
-------
6. EIS ALTERNATIVE 4
EIS Alternative 4 would employ the STEP system of pressure collec-
tion, with on-site ST/SAS treatment in Segment 6 and two cluster systems
in Segment 2. The difference between this and the previous alternative
is that, in this alternative treated wastewater would be discharged to
wetlands instead of directly to Nettle Creek. This alternative would
employ pressure sewers instead of gravity sewers. Figure IV-7 depicts
this alternative.
7. EIS ALTERNATIVE 5
EIS Alternative 5 investigated land application as an alternative
method of treatment. The only soils near Nettle Lake suitable for land
treatment are located southwest of the lake and their characteristics
dictate the type of land application that would be appropriate. Since
the two basic soils are Spinks sand and Ottokee sand, both of which have
a permeability greater than 6 inches per hour, rapid infiltration was
selected. Pretreatment for the 0.09 mgd of flow would include prelimi-
nary treatment, a stabilization pond, and chlorination. Recovery wells
would collect renovated effluent and would discharge to Nettle Creek.
As in previous alternatives, Segment 6 would employ on-site systems
and Segment 2, cluster systems. Wastewater would be collected by a
combination of gravity sewers and lift stations with force mains. The
treatment process is illustrated in Figure IV-8 and the alternative in
Figure IV-9.
8. EIS ALTERNATIVE 6
EIS Alternative 6 would provide service to residences in Segment 2
by two cluster systems with drainfields located west of the segment.
Cluster systems are examined as a solution in Segment 2 because soils
within the residential developments are indicated as being unsuitable
for absorption systems, while suitable soils exist within short
distances to the west of the developments. All other segments would be
served by upgraded on-site ST/SAS systems. In this alternative, all
privies would be abandoned, backfilled, and indoor plumbing would be
installed. This alternative is illustrated in Figure IV-10.
9. EIS ALTERNATIVE 7
EIS Alternative 7 is based upon on-site disposal for all resi-
dences. No central collection or treatment would be provided. A small
waste flows agency would be responsible for maintaining, repairing,
and/or replacing on-site systems as appropriate.
In Segments 1-5, holding tanks would replace the existing privies.
A water supply would be installed, bathrooms constructed, and maximum
water-saving devices would be installed in these residences, reducing
consumption to 13.4 gpcd. For on-site ST/SAS systems in these segments,
it is assumed that 35% of the septic tanks and 20% of the drainfields
would require replacement. Half of these drainfields would be replaced
by sand mounds and half by dual drainfields. The latter would consist
120
-------
I TO AERATED
\ LAGOON
\ THEN TO
LEGEND
PUMP STATION
GRAVITY SEWER
FORCE MAIN
PRESSURE SEWER
SAS CLUSTER
ST/SAS
FEET
200O
FIGURE IV-7 NETTLE LAKE: EIS ALTERNATIVE 4
121
-------
cr
LU
o
o
LU
cr
o
LULU
ucr
LU|-
crco
O
(to
_i
ui
g
a.
5
cr
CO
z
CO
<
03
o
_j
o
r
LU
O Q
< <
cr -i
g
1 __
A
CO
i ->- i
rr .
<
cr
LU cr
i_u
in H
w
w
o
o
H
3
W
H
m
w
W
H
tn
M
W
00
J.
II
W
Fn
122
-------
FROM RAPID
INFILTRATION
SITE TO
NETTLE CREEK
LEGEND
PUMP STATION
GRAVITY SEWER
- FORCE MAIN
SAS CLUSTER
] ST/SAS
FEET
200O
FIGURE IV-9 NETTLE LAKE: EIS ALTERNATIVE 5
123
-------
LEGEND
PUMP STATION
GRAVITY SEWER
FORCE MAIN
SAS CLUSTER
EZJ
HOLDING TANKS AND
SEPTIC TANKS
WITH MOUNDS OR
SUPER SYSTEMS
ST/SAS
EXISTING ST/SAS
FEET
2000
FIGURE IV-10 NETTLE LAKE: EIS ALTERNATIVE 6
124
-------
of two full-sized drainfields and a valving arrangement, permitting one
field to function while the other is inactive.
The large lot sizes and suitable soils permit the existing on-site
systems in Segment 6 to continue in use. As in Segments 1 through 5,
35% of the septic tanks and 20% of the drainfields are assumed to re-
quire replacement. Conventional drainfields would be used to replace
faulty ones in this segment.
In Segments 7 and 8 the existing on-site systems would continue in
use. It is assumed that the only costs associated with these systems
would be those for ordinary operation and maintenance.
In all segments it was assumed that 10% of the septic systems would
require hydrogen peroxide treatment at some time during the planning
period. Figure IV-11 illustrates this alternative. A small waste flows
agency would be responsible for maintaining, repairing and/or replacing
on-site systems as appropriate.
10. EIS ALTERNATIVE 8
EIS Alternative 8 also recommends on-site wastewater treatment for
all residences. In segments 1 through 5 all privies would be replaced
with different technologies. This EIS estimates that 132 privies exist
in the Study Area, and many of them are inundated and washed out
annually. In order to address this problem, this alternative recommends
abandonment of these privies. The alternative assumes replacement of
privies equally with four different forms of technology selected by the
homeowner in cooperation with the small waste flows district. The
replacement technologies would consist of outdoor vault toilets, air
assisted low flush toilets and a holding tank, chemical toilets, and
electrical composting toilets. All other segments would upgrade on-site
systems as described in Alternative 7.
The small waste flows district would work with the homeowner to
select, install, operate, and maintain the technology appropriate to a
particular site. Figure IV-12 illustrates this alternative. The small
waste flows district would also contract for a septage hauler or would
apply for the eligible 85% funding for purchase of a "honey wagon." A
post summer pumpout program would probably be initiated for holding
tanks and vault toilets. Pumpings would continue to be land-spread on
agricultural areas.
C. FLEXIBILITY OF ALTERNATIVES
This section evaluates the flexibility of the Proposed Action and
the EIS Alternatives to accommodate future Service Area growth, along
with their operational flexibility over the design period. It should be
recognized that flexibility for accommodating future growth relies upon
certain conditions that are opposed to the accommodation of planning for
the future. Specifically, flexibility for future expansion implies a
commitment to provide growth and its associated infrastructure. Retain-
ing the flexibility to provide planning for the future implies deferment
of any such commitment. Viewed in this context, the No Action Alterna-
125
-------
LEGEND
SEGMENTS 1-5: Holding
and septic tanks
with mounds or dual
drainfields
SEGMENTS 6: Septic tanks
with soil absorption
systems (ST/SAS)
SEGMENTS 7,8: Existing
ST/SAS
FEET
200O
FIGURE IV-11 NETTLE LAKE: EIS ALTERNATIVE 7
126
-------
LEGEND
SEGMENTS 1-5: Privy
replacement and septic
tanks with mounds or
dual drainfields
SEGMENTS 6: Septic tanks
with soil absorption
systems (ST/SAS)
SEGMENTS 7,8: Existing
ST/SAS
FEET
2000
FIGURE IV-12 NETTLE LAKE: EIS ALTERNATIVE 8
127
-------
tive offers the greatest flexibility for planning for the future and the
least flexibility for fv4 ,re growth. Conversely, the Facility Plan
Proposed Action offers the least flexibility for planning for the future
and the greatest flexibility for future growth.
1. NO ACTION
By maintaining the status quo, the No-Action Alternative provides
the greatest flexibility in planning for the future. Conversely, the
flexibility for accommodating future growth is minimal because no action
would be taken that would permit progress in that direction.
2. FACILITIES PLAN PROPOSED ACTION
This alternative offers good flexibility for growth; as long as
land is available, aerated lagoons can be expanded to accommodate in-
creased flows relatively easily. Flexibility for future growth is,
however, reduced somewhat because the entire Proposed Service Area is
sewered. Greater flexibility for future expansion is usually available
with alternatives that require a smaller initial commitment of re-
sources .
3. EIS ALTERNATIVE 1
Because of the similarity between Alternative 1 and the Facilities
Plan Proposed Action, this alternative similarly offers high flexibility
in accommodating future growth by employing cluster systems in Segment
2. By retaining septic systems in Segment 6, less growth is possible
than would be expected with the Facilities Plan Proposed Action. To
this extent, the flexibility in planning for the future has been in-
creased in Alternative 1 relative to the Facilities Plan Proposed
Action.
4. EIS ALTERNATIVE 2
EIS Alternatives 1 and 2 are essentially identical differing only
in the point of discharge of treated wastewater. Consequently, the
flexibilities of the two alternatives are also quite similar. The
flexibility of EIS Alternative 2 to accommodate future growth is high,
and there is somewhat limited flexibility in planning for the future,
though, like Alternative 1, it is greater than that of the Facilities
Plan Proposed Action. The changed point of discharge is not expected to
appreciably alter these flexibilities.
5. EIS ALTERNATIVE 3
Because EIS Alternative 3 is similar to Alternative 1, differing
only in the type of collection system, the flexibilities of the two
alternatives are also similar. Ability of the alternative to accom-
modate future growth depends more upon the layout of the collection
system than upon the type of collection. Since the layouts of the two
alternatives are virtually identical, the flexibilities of each are
comparable.
128
-------
6. EIS ALTERNATIVE 4
Since the only difference between Alternative 4 and Alternative 3
lies in the point of discharge of treated wastewater, there is no appre-
ciable difference in the flexibilities of the two alternatives.
7. EIS ALTERNATIVE 5
EIS Alternative 5 differs from Alternatives 1 to 4 and the Faci-
lities Plan Proposed Action in the method of wastewater treatment.
Where the previous alternatives proposed aerated lagoons for treatment,
EIS Alternative 5 would employ rapid infiltration and recovery wells.
The use of land application for treatment provides somewhat greater
flexibility to accommodate future growth than aerated lagoons. This is
because it is easier to expand the capacity of a land treatment facility
than to expand an aerated lagoon. Consequently, if pressures for addi-
tional growth develop, a land treatment facility can be more easily
expanded to meet the pressure. Conversely, this decreases the flexi-
bility to plan for the future. This alternative's flexibility for
growth, while higher than those of EIS Alternatives 1 to 4, is lower
than that of the Facilities Plan Proposed Action because of the decen-
tralized systems that would serve Segments 2 and 6 in Alternative 5.
Its flexibility for future planning is higher only than the Facilities
Plan Proposed Action.
8. EIS ALTERNATIVE 6
Because of the similarity between Alternative 6 and Alternatives 7
and 8, this alternative offers high flexibility in planning for the
future. By providing cluster systems in Segment 2, the flexibility to
accommodate future growth is somewhat greater than for Alternatives 7
and 8.
9. EIS ALTERNATIVES 7 and 8
Alternatives 7 and 8 offer the most decentralized approach of all
wastewater management plans evaluated in this EIS and thus the most
flexibility for future planning. Lacking centralized collection and
treatment facilities for present and future residents, they are the
least flexible of all alternatives in terms of accommodating future
growth.
D. COSTS OF ALTERNATIVES
Project costs were grouped by capital expenses, operating and
maintenance expenses, and salvage values of the equipment for each
alternative. A contingency fund amounting to 25% of capital and 20% of
salvage value was included to provide for such expenses as engineering
and legal fees, acquisition of rights-of-way, and administration. The
assumptions used in the analyses are described in Appendix 1-1. De-
tailed costs for each alternative are presented in Appendix 1-2.
Table IV-2 summarizes present and future project costs for each of
the alternatives. The analyses of total present worth and annual equiv-
129
-------
JO
16
H
«
H
ta
«
M
a
c/>
M
PJ
CO
o
w
i<
a
U
1-1 a
o o
< 2
to
o
o
o
3
O CO
O u O
o to
-
co o
Q) o
p o
X
>
co
< o
o
01 -
00 rH
cc to-
>J X
CU '^
>
130
-------
alent costs of each alternative are also included. (Debt service of
financing the local share is not included.) A discussion of Federal and
state cost-sharing and remaining local costs is presented in Section
V.E.
E. RESOURCES NEEDED TO OPERATE AND MAINTAIN WASTEWATER
FACILITIES (By Alternative)
The operation and maintenance (O&M) costs cover the costs of labor,
electricity, fuel, chemicals, and materials needed to run wastewater
facilities proposed by the alternatives. To enable direct comparison of
resources needed to run these facilities, the annual labor, energy, and
chemical/material/supply requirements of each alternative have been
estimated and are shown in Table IV-3.
The labor required to operate and maintain the sewers and the
sewage treatment plant proposed by the Facilities Plan appears to be
less than the labor required for alternative facilities. However, note
that the labor estimates for the Alternatives 7 and 8 and Alternative 6
are conservatively high because they are based in part on the assumption
that 5 hours per system will be spent to monitor septic systems and to
pump septic tanks (once per tank per 4 years). Also, note that use of
flow reduction devices lowers the labor required to operate the Facili-
ties Plan Proposed Action facilities.
The energy required to collect and to treat area wastewater is less
for Alternatives 7 and 8 and Alternatives 5 and 6 than for remaining
alternatives. The Alternatives 6, 7, and 8 rely on extensive use of
on-site wastewater systems, which generally require less energy to
operate than centralized treatment facilities. (Note, however, that the
energy requirements shown for these alternatives do not include energy
required to haul septage and holding tank wastes to a disposal site.)
Similarly, Alternative 5 proposes use of rapid infiltration treatment, a
process that requires less energy than the aerated lagoon process pro-
posed by remaining alternatives. As was the case with labor, use of
flow reduction devices lowers energy required to operate the Facilities
Plan Proposed Action facilities.
Finally, although costs of chemicals, materials, and other supplies
appear to be higher for Alternatives 5, 6, 7, and 8 than for remaining
alternatives, the costs given for Alternatives 6, 7, and 8 are almost
certainly overstated. These alternative costs are for chemicals,
materials, and supplies needed to treat holding tank wastes at a treat-
ment plant (probably the Montpelier municipal plant), yet these costs
are higher than costs shown for treatment of all area wastewater at a
treatment plant. Therefore, these costs should be considered to be
rough estimates only.
131
-------
Table IV-3. Annual Resource Requirements by Alternative
RESOURCE
LABOR
(manhours/yr. )
ENERGY*
(kwh/yr.)
CHEMICALS ,
MATERIALS &
SUPPLIES0
($/year)
KPP A
/ 5 ^^ j
FPPA* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7&S ^flowf
1,991 2,387 2,379 4,403 4,394 2,635 3,461+ 3,573+ 1,660
202,780 141,880 141,880 177,480 177,480 70,079 60,750 69,750 122,862
2,421 1,954 1,954 1,954 1,954 3,037 5,350+ 6,600+ 1,757
* Facility Plan Proposed Action
Not including energy used for pumping and hauling of septage and holding tank wastes,
but including energy used for treatment of these wastes
o Not including materials needed for sewer or pump station maintenance
+ These figures are conservatively stated
132
-------
CHAPTER V
IMPACTS
A. IMPACTS ON SURFACE WATER QUALITY
1. PRIMARY IMPACTS
a. Analysis of Eutrophication Potential
This section discusses the effects of the phosphorus loadings asso-
ciated with the different wastewater management alternatives. The
discussion focuses on phosphorus because phosphorus is generally be-
lieved to be the aquatic plant nutrient most frequently controlling
eutrophication in natural waters (Vollenweider 1968, Lee 1971). Fur-
thermore, the phosphorus input to a water body is usually easier to
control than the nitrogen input.
The major sources of phosphorus were identified in Chapter II as:
o tributaries and non-point sources
o privies and septic tanks
o precipitation.
Future Phosphorus Loadings. The relative contributions of the
major phosphorus sources to Nettle Lake were shown in Table II-4 for the
existing conditions. In this analysis, future phosphorus loading levels
are projected to the year 2000 for each alternative. The estimated
loads were calculated using the assumptions discussed in Chapter II.
Changes in the non-point source load attributable to land use changes
were estimated for the Proposed Service Area but were assumed to be
constant for the rest of the watershed. The estimated loading levels
for the various alternatives, including no action, are shown in Table
V-l. Changes in the phosphorus loading of the lake associated with the
alternatives are expressed as percentages of the existing loading. The
relative contributions of the major sources of phosphorus to the total
phosphorus load for each alternative are shown in Figure V-l. The
results of this analysis show that the total load to Nettle Lake would
be only slightly affected by the wastewater management alternatives.
This is because the load from septic tanks and privies is relatively
small compared to the load from tributaries and non-point sources. A
centralized sewer system for the area would be expected to reduce the
phosphorus load to Nettle Lake by about 13%. The Limited Action
Alternative and EIS Alternative 1, which would replace privies with
holding tanks and upgrade ST/SASs, would reduce the total phosphorus
load by 3%. EIS Alternatives 2 through 6 would reduce the phosphorus
loading by 9%, while the No Action Alternative would increase it by 2%.
As the discussion of surface water quality in Chapter II indicated,
these predictions were based on limited but best available data. How-
ever, the estimations of phosphorus loads from Nettle Lake and from
on-site systems may be modified by the results of a more extensive
sampling program.
133
-------
TABLE V-l
PHOSPHORUS LOADS FOR WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES IN YEAR 2000
Existing Conditions
Precipitation
On-site Systems
Tributaries
Proposed Action
Precipitation
On-site Systems
Tributaries
No Action
Precipitation
On-Site Systems
Tributaries
Alternatives 1,2>3,4»5
Precipitation
On-site Systems
Tributaries
Alternative 6
Precipitation
On-site Systems
Tributaries
Alternatives 7,8
Precipitation
On-site Systems
Tributaries
6.7
103.4
692.0
802.1
6.7
699.0
705.7
6.7
114.6
699.0
819.8
6.7
20.0
699.0
725.7
6.7
72.6
699.0
777.3
6.7
70.1
699.0
775.8
gm/m /yr
.018
.283
1.900
2.200
.018
1.900
Change
1.918
.018
.315
1.920
2.252
.018
.055
1.920
1.993
.018
.199
1.920
2.137
.018
.192
1.920
2.130
-13%
+ 2%
- 9%
- 3%
- 3%
134
-------
Q
ia
w
o
w
PJ
UTARIES
w
CO U
S Pi
w r=>
H o
CO CO
H
Z
M
O
PM
I
en
W
CJ CO
W I
Pi Z O
PH O Z
I
ID
Cft
*
o>
V)
c *?
UJ
V)
Ul
1-
vP
<}-
«
go
0)
o>
Q. H
O
o
00
o
0
<0
o
0
o
0
CM
CO
!Z
O
H
Pd W
H >
2 M
O H
U -< s:
m <:
CO ^
o o
a M
M H
Q 0
hJ Q
W
CO CO
P O
Pi P-1
o o
CO
o
rn
o
CO
CO
Z
O
o H
M
o
z
O
M U
Pi
< O
O H
U CO
ii
X
w
^ Pi
-L o
W
Pi
o
9NIQVCTI SfttJOHdSOHd
135
-------
Future Trophic Conditions. Future trophic conditions will be
determined by the in-lake phosphorus concentration, which is a function
of the phosphorus load as well as certain physical characteristics of
the lake basin that determine retention of phosphorus. The Dillon model
(see Appendix A-4) was used to determine the trophic status of Nettle
Lake for each alternative. The model results (see Figure V-2) indicate
that Nettle Lake will remain eutrophic no matter which wastewater man-
agement alternative is implemented. Even if the use of on-site systems
were eliminated, the lake would probably remain eutrophic because of the
significant non-point source load.
Shoreline Conditions. It is not expected that shoreline algal
growth would be significantly affected by any of the wastewater man-
agement alternatives. Because of the tight clay soils along the
lakeshore, septic leachate does not readily discharge to Nettle Lake.
Kerfoot (1978) did not detect any septic leachate plumes along the shore
during a 1978 survey. Most of the septic discharges that reach Nettle
Lake do so during flooding, when they are dispersed into open water and
do not stay close to the shoreline.
b. Bacterial Contamination and Public Health
Data regarding bacterial contamination of Nettle Lake under exist-
ing conditions are somewhat inconclusive. Bacterial sampling was con-
ducted in 1976, but only one sample was taken at each station. Ohio
Draft Water Quality Regulations require that violations of standards be
based on the geometric mean of a minimum of five samples. As stated in
section Il.C.l.b, human wastes were the likely source of bacterial
contamination at one backwater area south of Nettle Lake.
Continued reliance on privies and malfunctioning ST/SASs in flood
prone areas (No Action Alternative) could result in bacterial contamina-
tion, particularly during spring flooding. However, the potential for
bacterial contamination would be minimized by the replacement of pit
privies, as proposed. Alternative toilet and on-site treatment tech-
nologies would eliminate contamination by exporting the effluent by pump
truck prior to spring flooding or by containing it above flood levels.
The replacement and upgrading of malfunctioning ST/SASs in flood-prone
areas (Limited Action and all EIS Alternatives) would further reduce the
potential for bacterial contamination. Although ST/SASs are generally
very effective in removing bacteria, operation of these systems can be
impeded by flooding, which reduces the zone of aeration and may cause
effluent to pond on the surface. By sewering all areas, the Facilities
Plan Proposed Action would essentially eliminate the potential for
bacterial contamination of the lake by human wastes.
c. Non-Point Source Loads
Temporary increases in soil erosion, and therefore in the non-point
source load of sediment and nutrients to Nettle Lake, are likely to
occur during construction of a centalized collection system or rehabili-
tation of on-lot systems. Because of the greater area disturbed and the
necessity of traversing drainage ways, the non-point source impacts
136
-------
1.0 C~
i I i m
T r
M
E
O.I
oc
i
0.01
EUTROPHIC
NETTLE LAKE
NO ACTION
LIMITED ACTION, ALTERNATIVE I
ALTERNATIVE 2-6
1.0 10.0
MEAN DEPTH(METERS)
L= AREAL PHOSPHORUS INPUT (q/m^yr)
R=PHOSPHORUS RETENTION COEFFICIENT
P-HYDRAULIC FLUSHING RATE (yr"1)
FIGURE V-2 TROPHIC STATUS OF NETTLE LAKE FOR
EACH ALTERNATIVE
100.0
137
-------
would be much more severe with sewer construction than with the rehabi-
litation of on-lot systems. These impacts can be minimized by adhering
to standards for soil erosion control.
2. SECONDARY IMPACTS
The Proposed Service Area is anticipated to grow very little over
the planning period. Growth is particularly limited by the location in
the floodplain. As a result, significant increases in non-point source
loads from induced growth in the immediate watershed are unlikely. The
20 square mile drainage basin of Nettle Lake is largely agricultural and
residential. This accounts for the large non-point load under existing
conditions, a situation that will remain relatively unchanged regardless
of which wastewater management alternative is implemented in the Pro-
posed Service Area.
3. MITIGATIVE MEASURES
Measures should be taken to ensure compliance with existing
Williams County requirements for erosion control (Chapter 1515, ORC:
Am. Sub. H.B. 513) during construction, particularly of sewers. Simi-
larly, compliance with the provisions of the Williams County Floodplain
Ordinance of 28 March 1978 (pursuant to ORC Sec. 307.37) pertaining
generally to sanitary sewerage systems and specifcally to on-site
systems must be assured. This ordinance requires that within flood
prone areas:
o New and replacement sanitary sewage systems be designed to
minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the
systems and discharges from the systems into flood waters
o On-site waste disposal systems be located to avoid impairment to
them or contamination from them during flooding
o New structures and substantial improvements to existing struc-
tures be elevated or flood-proofed to or above the base flood
level.
Non-point, largely agricultural sources of phosphorus are the
largest sources of "pollution" in Nettle Lake, and these sources are not
directly related to the proposed project. Thus this project would only
have a limited effect on reducing phosphorus loads under any of the
alternatives. Under the mandate of Section 208 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act of 1972, Ohio EPA has been directed to address
non-point source water quality problems. The initial Water Quality
Management Plan, Maumee/ Portage River Basins (Ohio EPA, 1979) states
that the Maumee River basin is a priority for agricultural pollution
abatement. Programs will be ongoing to implement voluntary approaches
to agricultural pollution abatement. Coordination may be made with the
USDA Soil Conservation Service District in Bryan.
B. GROUNDWATER IMPACTS
Groundwater impacts fall into two categories: those affecting the
available quantity of the resource, and those affecting its quality.
138
-------
1. GROUNDWATER QUANTITY IMPACTS
No significant primary or secondary impacts on groundwater quantity
should result from any of the various alternatives. This is mainly
because all of the water quantities associated with the alternatives are
small, and the thick, impermeable clays that confine the aquifer in the
Study Area would essentially prevent vertical recharge in the area.
Generally, the conversion from sewage disposal practices based on
individual soil absorption systems to centralized sewage treatment
systems without effluent land disposal can result in loss of groundwater
recharge. However, the maximum possible wastewater recharge to the
Study Area's aquifers in the design year 2000 is estimated to average
0.07 mgd for the No Action Alternative. Assuming that all of this water
were to percolate downward to the aquifer(s), its effect would be un-
noticeable because of its relatively small magnitude in comparison with
the storage and flow through the aquifer(s). The thick, confining clays
of the artesian aquifer in the Study Area indicate that recharge of the
aquifer takes place outside the Study Area and that essentially no
wastewater would reach the aquifer. Hence, none of the alternatives
would be expected to have any impacts on groundwater availability.
2. GROUNDWATER QUALITY IMPACTS
No significant short- or long-term impacts on groundwater quality
should result from the construction and operation of any of the alter-
natives. This conclusion is discussed in more detail in the following
sections.
Short-term impacts. Construction-related soil erosion releases
sediment, which may cause short-term impacts on water quality. However,
the clayey soils found throughout the area provide an effective barrier
against sediments reaching the aquifers by means of filtration and
adsorption. Therefore, no significant impacts of this type are expected
from any of the alternatives.
Long-term impacts on groundwater quality are mainly associated with
the following three types of pollutants: (1) bacteria, organics, and
suspended solids; (2) phosphorus; and (3) nitrogen in the form of
nitrates.
Bacteria and suspended organics are readily removed by filtration
and adsorption onto soil particles. Five feet of soils are ample to
remove bacteria, except in very coarse-grained, highly permeable
material. In the Study Area, clayey soils also provide a barrier
through which bacteria do not pass, thus preventing groundwater contami-
nation of drinking water supplies.
Land application of treated effluent on soils should not cause
bacterial contamination of groundwater. The land application site was
chosen for the effectiveness of its soils in removing bacteria and
suspended solids. Pretreatment and subsequent die-off due to dehydra-
tion will greatly reduce viable bacteria.
139
-------
Phosphorus in groundwater is important because of its potential
role in lake eutrophication. Jones et.al. (1977) reviewed relevant
studies on this subject for the Environmental Protection Agency and con-
cluded that:
... it is unlikely that under most circumstances, sufficient avail-
able phosphate would be transported from septic tank wastewater
disposal systems to significantly contribute to the excessive
aquatic plant growth problems in water courses recharged by these
waters.
Field studies, they pointed out, have shown that most soils, even medium
sandy soils, typically remove over 95% of phosphates within short dis-
tances from effluent sources. The review shows the two primary factors
in the removal of phosphates applied to the land. The first is phos-
phorus adsorption on small amounts of clay minerals, iron oxide, and
aluminum oxide in soil and aquifer materials. The second is calcium
carbonate in hard water, which precipitates phosphate as hydroxyapatite.
Jones et al. (1977) have also indicated several studies in areas
similar to the Study Area (loamy, clayey soils over glacial moraine and
outwash deposits) where the soil has essentially removed all of the
phosphorus present in septic tank effluents. They also stated that, in
hard water areas, the "likelihood of significant phosphate transport
from septic tank wastewater disposal system effluent to the surface
waters is greatly reduced because of the calcium carbonate present in
the soil and subsoil systems."
Because the soils and subsoil systems throughout the Study Area are
mostly clayey and the groundwaters are also very hard (306 mg/1 as
CaC03), very little phosphate transport from groundwaters to surface
waters should take place. This was confirmed by the "Septic Snooper"
survey of groundwater leachate plumes entering Nettle Lake (Kerfoot,
1978). No groundwater plumes were found entering the lake, an indica-
tion that the tight clayey soils were containing the septic leachate and
effectively preventing its seepage through the ground into the lake.
Groundwater nitrates are of concern at high concentrations. This
is because high concentrations can cause methemoglobinemia in infants
who consume food prepared with such waters. The National Interim
Primary Drinking Water Regulations (40 CFR 141) of the Safe Drinking
Water Act (P.L. 93-523) set a limit of 10 mg/1 of nitrates as nitrogen
(N03-N). Since groundwater recharge by downward percolation in the
Study Area is essentially blocked by the thick tight clays confining the
aquifer, wastewater disposal on land by any means is not expected to
have any impact on nitrates or groundwater quality in general. This is
true of all the alternative wastewater management systems considered.
3. MITIGATIVE MEASURES
Since no significant impacts of any type on groundwater quantity
and quality are expected to result from implementing any of the alterna-
tives, no mitigative measures are necessary.
140
-------
C. IMPACTS ON POPULATION AND LAND USE
For the purposes of evaluating population and land use impacts, the
various wastewater management alternatives considered in this EIS have
been combined into three groups. The No Action and Limited Action
Alternatives and EIS Alternative 1 represent the fully decentralized
alternatives, which would have minimal impacts on population growth and
land use development. EIS Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 represent
combinations of centralized and decentralized systems. The Facilities
Plan Proposed Action represents a fully centralized collection and
treatment system, which would have the most significant impact on popu-
lation and land use. The impacts resulting from each of these three
groups are summarized below:
o Because of the limited development pressures for both seasonal
and permanent residences in the Nettle Lake area, it is antici-
pated that the greatest induced population growth would occur
under the Facilities Plan Proposed Action and would result in a
maximum population increase of approximately 5.0% over the
baseline projections.
o Adoption of the No Action Alternative, or EIS Alternatives 6, 7,
or 8 would not induce significant population growth beyond the
baseline population projections.
o EIS Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 would induce population
growth in the Proposed Service Area by 3.0% to 4.0% over the
baseline population projections.
o Higher degrees of centralization of wastewater treatment should
not significantly affect residential densities. The density of
new dwelling units constructed during the planning period is
likely to continue at approximately 3 to 4 dwelling units per
acre.
o Under the maximum induced population growth level of 5.0% over
baseline projections, residential land use would increase by
approximately 10 acres over projected baseline conditions. No
other major land use conversions are anticipated during the
planning period.
o The Facilities Plan Proposed Action and EIS Alternatives 1, 2,
3, 4, and 5 may accelerate the conversion rate of seasonal to
year-round dwelling units or change ownership patterns. Because
of higher costs associated with the centralized systems, sea-
sonal residents may not wish to bear these costs for only part-
time use of their dwellings.
o Community composition and character may be altered somewhat
under the centralized wastewater management alternatives. A
more affluent population base that can afford the higher costs
would be likely to emerge.
141
-------
1. POPULATION
Throughout many parts of the country, the capacity of an area to
support development and population growth varies with the availability
and the degree of site-relatedness of wastewater management facilities.
On-site wastewater treatment facilities, although generally available to
any potential user, limit development to areas with suitable soils and
site characteristics. Sewer systems, while not always available at a
specific location or with adequate capacity, allow development to be
much more site-independent, since soil, slope, and drainage become less
constraining site characteristics. Consequently, the introduction of
sewers into an area increases the inventory of developable land and the
density of development, often unleashing pent-up demand for growth and
development.
In the case of the Proposed Service Area, these development pres-
sures are not evident nor are they anticipated during the planning
period. As pointed out in Section II-E, the Proposed Service Area is
not located in close proximity to employment centers, retail trade and
service activities, or other needed amenities. Private recreational
developments located north and east of Nettle Lake offer more attractive
second home sites that are nearer to the major metropolitan areas.
Also, there is a lack of available sites with direct access to the very
small lake. As a result, development pressures in the Proposed Service
Area are extremely limited and there are no known growth factors that
are anticipated to change this trend.
Based on these projected trends, even the introduction of a fully
centralized wastewater treatment system, as proposed in the Facilities
Plan, would be likely to induce population growth of no more than 5.0%
over the baseline population projections. In order to achieve the
maximum induced growth, seasonal home development would have to double
during the planning period from 20 new units to 40 units, and permanent
population growth would have to increase by another 0.25% per year.
This would result in a year 2000 population of approximately 1,995
people, or an increase of 4.8% over the baseline projections. EIS
Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 could also induce population growth of
this magnitude, but are more likely to induce growth in the range of
3.0% to 4.0% over the baseline projections. This slightly lower induced
growth rate results primarily from the restrictions imposed by the
Williams County Floodplain Ordinance (1978) in regard to the use of
on-site treatment systems. The No Action Alternative, and EIS Alterna-
tives 6, 7, and 8 are not likely to induce any significant population
growth during the planning period.
2. LAND USE
Residential development, in accordance with the level of induced
population growth anticipated, will be relatively small during the
planning period. Even under the maximum induced growth of the Faci-
lities Plan Proposed Action, residential land use is expected to in-
crease by only a maximum of ten acres (30 new dwelling units at 3 to 4
dwelling units per acre) over the baseline projections. All of this
land would probably be converted from currently platted but vacant resi-
142
-------
dential lots. No conversion of agricultural, recreational, or other
undeveloped land would be expected. In a similar manner, EIS Alter-
natives 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 would be expected to convert 7 to 8 acres of
platted residential lots to residential use, while the decentralized
alternatives would induce no significant land use conversion. No major
non-residential land use conversions are anticipated to occur, and no
change in residential densities are projected to take place under any of
the alternatives being considered.
D. ENCROACHMENT ON ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS
Threats to environmentally sensitive areas may be categorized as
primary or secondary impacts. Primary impacts result in the immediate
loss or alteration of an area as a result of construction or operation
of a facility. Secondary impacts are long-term changes that result from
providing for induced growth.
1. FLOODPLAINS
a. Primary Impacts
Because the flood-prone areas around Nettle Lake are so extensive,
construction of wastewater facilities for existing homes in the flood-
plain is unavoidable with all alternatives. Construction-related
impacts could result in a temporary increase in sedimentation to Nettle
Lake if the area were flooded during facilities construction. These
impacts would be most severe under the Facilities Plan Proposed Action
and would occur to a lesser extent for EIS Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, and
5. None of the alternatives would increase the probability of flooding.
The County's Floodplain Ordinance, adopted in 1978, requires that
sanitary sewers and other facilities be designed to eliminate or mini-
mize infiltration of flood waters. Sewer manholes, septic tanks, and
other similar facilities located in flood-prone areas would have to be
of water tight or flood-proof construction, in accordance with EPA
requirements. Compliance with this ordinance should ensure that no
significant long-term primary impacts result from any of the alterna-
tives .
b. Secondary Impacts
None of the alternatives is likely to have a significant secondary
impact on flood-prone areas. The constraints of the local floodplain
zoning ordinance will actively discourage new building in flood-prone
areas. In addition, development pressure is very limited around Nettle
Lake since the area is far from employment opportunities and because
there are other nearby areas with more attractions for seasonal homes.
Furthermore, the very modest induced growth, which would at most require
30 dwelling units (under the Facilities Plan Proposed Action), could be
fully accommodated on currently platted but vacant residential lots with
a capacity for 630 dwelling units. Additional sewering and related
impacts on the floodplain would, therefore, be insignificant.
143
-------
c. Mitigative Measures
Sewers should not be constructed during the spring months in order
to minimize the potential for flood-related impacts. Adherence to the
provisions of the Floodplain Ordinance and EPA requirements would also
minimize construction-related impacts.
2. STEEP SLOPES
a. Primary Impacts
Most of the area immediately surrounding Nettle Lake is level;
therefore, increased erosion and sedimentation resulting from construc-
tion of wastewater management facilities on steep slopes would be mini-
mal. Only a small area along Township Highway 80 would be impacted by
construction of sewers or on-site systems.
b. Secondary Impacts
Secondary impacts on steep slopes are anticipated to be minimal for
all alternatives. Development pressure is low throughout the Study Area
and steep slopes are found only occasionally.
c. Mitigative Measures
No mitigative measures are necessary since impacts on steep slopes
will be minimal.
3. WETLANDS
a. Primary Impacts
The gravity sewer and force main linking segments 5 and 7 in the
Facilities Plan Proposed Action and EIS Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5
involves a 1,200-foot crossing of the forested wetland along the east
central shoreline of Nettle Lake. No other wetland crossings are pro-
posed in any of the alternatives. In order to construct any alternative
in wetland areas, the applicant will be responsible for securing the
necessary Section 404 permits from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The impacts of construction of these small-diameter (8" and 4")
sewers across the forested wetland would be minimal and very short-lived
if the work is scheduled during dry weather, if best construction prac-
tices are adopted, and if the surface configuration is carefully re-
stored upon completion. Since the trees in this wetland are widely
spaced and there is very little understory vegetation such as small
trees, shrubs and herbs, impacts on the natural vegetation are likely to
be insignificant. Laying of the small-diameter sewers at the relatively
shallow depths of 6 to 7 feet could be undertaken by means of a light-
weight back-hoe trencher moving on steel mats. This would avoid the
need for building berms and/or roadways that would interrupt and/or
change drainage patterns within the wetland. It should be possible to
complete the construction of these sewers within 10 days. The effects
of dewatering operations on water levels should therefore be very
144
-------
transient and insignificant. Construction of this relatively short
length of sewer during dry weather would ensure that sedimentation from
erosion of excavation spoils would be minimal. As stated in Section
II.D.2.a, the wetland's lack of understory vegetation make it a poor
wildlife habitat. The proposed sewer construction would therefore cause
no significant impact on wildlife.
EIS Alternatives 2 and 4 involve the application of treated
effluent to wet woodlands east of Nettle Lake. This application would
be beneficial in polishing the effluent by pH neutralization, and in
reduction of nutrients, BOD, COD, organics, and bacteria. The asso-
ciated increased vegetation may be useful as animal feed, composted
fertilizers/soil conditioners, and in enhancing available wildlife
habitats (US EPA, 1978).
b. Secondary Impacts
Because development pressure is low, none of the wastewater manage-
ment alternatives is likely to induce significant growth in wetland
areas because of low development pressure. Furthermore, these areas
coincide with flood-prone areas where future growth has been restricted
by the Floodplain Ordinance 1978.
c. Mitigative Measures
Primary impacts to wetland areas could be minimized by restoring
the right-of-way to its original configuration as soon as possible.
Construction work should be undertaken during dry weather, making use of
construction methods described in the previous section.
4. ENDANGERED SPECIES
a. Primary Impacts
No significant short-term or long-term impacts on endangered
species should result from the construction and operation of any of the
alternatives.
Upgrading existing on-site systems (Alts 7 and 8) will not destroy
any wooded riparian habitat, the habitat type designated as potential
nesting areas for the Indiana bat. Alternatives changing riparian
habitat would require additional summer biological studies by a quali-
fied researcher to determine if the Indiana bat nests near Nettle Lake.
If the species is present, modifications of the project or construction
outside the summer season are potential mitigative measures.
The king rail, Rallus elegans and the upland sandpiper, Bartramia
longicauda are the only birds classified as endangered by the ODNR (none
145
-------
federally) that are known in the Study Area. No construction is planned
for the mud flat nesting and feeding places near the junctions of the
creeks and Nettle Lake in any of the alternatives. No significant
impact on these species is therefore expected.
The status of the populations of the four species of amphibians and
reptiles designated as endangered by the ODNR (none federally)--the
four-toed salamander Hemidactylium scutatum, the blue spotted salamander
Ambystoma laterale, the northern copperbelly Nerodia erythrogaster
neglecta and the spotted turtle Clemmys guttata--is unknown (see Section
II.D.B.c). The laying of the gravity sewer and/or forcemain between
segments 5 and 7 through the forested wetland east of Nettle Lake
(Facility Plan Proposed Action and EIS Alternatives 1 through 5) is the
only construction activity likely to have any impact on these species.
The impact would be insignificant if the construction method proposed in
Section V.C.S.a were adopted.
Neither of the two species of fish designated endangered by the
ODNR (none federally) and known in Nettle Lake were taken during the
1974-77 fish surveys (see Section II.D.3.d.). Of the two, the lake
chubsucker Erimyzon sucetta and the Iowa darter EtheosJ:oma exile, the
latter is more likely to be affected by construction-related sedimenta-
tion. Increases in erosion and sedimentation resulting from construc-
tion activities in the flat terrain surrounding Nettle Lake are likely
to be minimal. Related impacts of all alternatives on the Iowa darter
would therefore be expected to be insignificant. There are no stream or
lake crossings in any of the alternatives, and therefore no related
impacts.
b. Secondary Impacts
None of the alternatives is expected to induce significant growth
in any of the likely habitat areas or in any other way significantly
affect any of the designated endangered species. Development pressures
are insignificantly low. Furthermore, any induced growth is likely to
take place in currently unoccupied platted areas.
c. Mitigative Measures
Construction activities in the forested wetland east of Nettle Lake
should be limited to the period October to April in order to minimize
the potential for impacts on the Indiana bat. Dry-weather construction
of the sewer through this wetland would also limit effects on the Iowa
darter of erosion and sedimentation from excavation spoils (also see
Section V.C.S.a). Mitigation, if needed, would have to be planned in
consultation with endangered species authorities.
146
-------
5. PRIME AGRICULTURAL LANDS
a. Primary Impacts
Although construction of sewers for EIS Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
and the Facilities Plan Proposed Action will pass through soils that
meet the State's tentative criteria for prime farmland soil units, none
of these soils is currently in agricultural production. Most of these
designated soils are located in forested wetlands and areas needing
artificial drainage in order to become agriculturally productive.
Consequently, no primary impacts on prime agricultural lands are antici-
pated as the result of sewering.
b. Secondary Impacts
As indicated for the other environmentally sensitive areas, growth
potential in the Study Area is very low and consequently growth-induced
impacts would be minimal. There are no prime farmland soil units within
the Proposed Service Area that are currently in agricultural production.
c. Mitigative Measures
No mitigative measures are considered necessary since there are no
anticipated impacts to prime agricultural lands.
6. HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGIC RESOURCES
None of the alternatives would in any way impinge upon the Indian
burial mounds northwest of Nettle Lake. The Facilities Plan Proposed
Action was revised by an addendum to remove the originally proposed
sewer past the mounds site along Nettle Creek. No impacts of any type
would be expected and no mitigative measures would be necessary.
A Phase I archaeological survey may be necessary before any "build"
alternative is undertaken, to ensure that the project does not destroy
previously undiscovered cultural resources. US EPA will ensure com-
pliance with historic preservation requirements.
E. ECONOMIC IMPACTS
1. INTRODUCTION
The economic impacts of the proposed wastewater system alternatives
proposed for the Nettle Lake area are evaluated in this section. These
impacts include: financial burden on system users; financial pressure
causing residents to move away from the Study Area (displacement pres-
sure); and financial pressure to convert seasonal residences to full-
year residences (conversion pressure).
2. USER CHARGES
User charges are the costs periodically billed to customers of the
wastewater system. User charges consist of three parts: debt service
(repayment of principal and interest), operation and maintenance costs,
and a reserve fund allocation assumed to equal 20% of the debt service
147
-------
amount. The reserve fund is a portion of current revenues invested to
accumulate adequate funds to finance future needed capital improvements.
Estimated user charges for each alternative are presented in Table V-2.
Table V-2. Estimated Annual User Charges
Alternative User Charges
Facilities Plan Proposed Action 335
EIS Alternative 1 270
EIS Alternative 2 325
EIS Alternative 3 320
EIS Alternative 4 361
EIS Alternative 5 355
EIS Alternative 6 376
EIS Alternative 7 255
EIS Alternative 8 110
a. Eligibility
Eligibility refers to that portion of wastewater facilities costs
determined by EPA to be eligible for a Federal wastewater facilities
construction grant. Capital costs of v;astewater facilities are funded
under Section 201 of the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amend-
ments and the Clean Water Act of 1977. The 1972 and 1977 Acts enable
EPA to fund 75% of total eligible capital costs of conventional systems
and 85% of the eligible capital costs of innovative and alternative
systems. Innovative and alternative systems considered in the EIS
include land treatment, pressure sewers, cluster systems, and septic
tank rehabilitation and replacement. The funding formula in Ohio thus
requires localities to pay 25% of the capital costs of conventional
systems and 15% of the capital costs of innovative/alternative systems.
Operation and maintenance costs are not funded by the Federal government
and must be paid by the users of the facilities.
The percentage of capital costs eligible for Federal and State
funding greatly affects the cost that local users must bear. Treatment
capital costs were assumed to be fully eligible for grant funding, while
collection system capital costs were subject to the terms of Program
Requirements Memorandum (PRM) 78-9 and 79-8. These PRMs establish three
main conditions that must be satisfied before collector sewer costs may
be declared eligible:
o Systems in use for disposal of wastes from the existing popula-
tion are creating a public health problem, contaminating ground-
water, or violating point source discharge requirements.
o Two-thirds of the design population (year 2000) served by. a
sewer must have been in residence in 18 October 1972.
148
-------
o Sewers must be shown to be cost-effective when compared to
decentralized or on-site alternatives.
US EPA Region V evaluated the eligibility of the treatment and
collection systems proposed in the Facility Plan and the EIS (by letter,
Mr. Gene Wojcik, US EPA Region V, to Dr. Ulric Gibson, WAPORA, Inc., 19
November 1979). US EPA's eligibility evaluation concluded that all
system components, with the exception of customer sewer hook-up charges
and flow reduction devices, are eligible for Federal funding. The
annual household user charges presented in Table V-2 and the local share
of capital costs presented in Table V-3 are based on the US EPA deter-
mination of eligibility.
A final determination of grant eligibility will be prepared by the
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA). OEPA's determination will
be based upon Step 2 plans and specifications for the alternative se-
lected to be funded. The OEPA determination may differ from the US EPA
determination in two respects:
o US EPA did not have detailed plans and specifications for all
alternatives upon which to base its computation. Consequently,
a detailed sewer-by-sewer determination was impossible.
o In estimating collector sewer eligibilities, US EPA did not
compare the alternatives to one another in regard to cost-
effectiveness or to their probable success in satisfying docu-
mented public health, groundwater or point source problems.
Each alternative was considered on its own merits and on its
ability to meet the "two-thirds" rule. Enforcement of the
"need" criteria may further reduce the eligibility of the cen-
tralized alternatives.
b. Calculation of User Charges
The user charges developed for the Nettle Lake alternative systems
consist of local capital costs, operation and maintenance costs, a
reserve fund charge, and private (not grant-eligible) costs. The calcu-
lation of debt service was based on local costs being paid through the
use of a 30-year bond at 6 7/8% interest. The user charges in Table V-2
are presented on an annual charge per household basis.
The estimated annual household user charges range from a low of
$110 (EIS Alternative 8) to a high of $376 (EIS Alternative 6). The
Facilities Plan Proposed Action has an estimated annual user charge of
$335.
All households will not have to pay the same user charge because
the private (non-grant eligible) costs will vary considerably from one
household to another. For the user charge calculation, these private
costs were averaged over all the households. The private costs consist
of $1,000 for a gravity sewer hook-up, $1,941 for indoor bathroom con-
struction, $1,124 for a cluster system hook-up, $271 for water saving
devices, and $10 for a toilet seat.
149
-------
TABLE V-3
Total Local Share of Capital Costs
(1979 Dollars)
Alternative
Facilities Plan
Proposed Action
EIS
EIS
EIS
EIS
EIS
EIS
EIS
EIS
Alternative
Alternative
Alternative
Alternative
Alternative
Alternative
Alternative
Alternative
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
(1)
Local Share of
Public Costs
396
126
344
325
289
270
392
90
83
,271
,255
,200
,110
,149
,059
,717
,446
,568
(2)
Local Share of
Private Costs
540
349
537
537
537
537
537
291
1
,212
,504
,504
,504
,504
,504
,504
,984
,320
(3)
Total Local
Share
936
475
881
862
826
807
930
382
84
,483
,759
,704
,614
,653
,563
,221
,430
,888
Alternative
Proposed Alternative
EIS Alternative //I
EIS Alternative #2
EIS Alternative #3
EIS Alternative #4
EIS Alternative #5
EIS Alternative #6
EIS Alternative #7
EIS Alternative #8
TABLE V-4
Financial Burden And Displacement Pressure
Displacement Pressure
20-25%
15-20%
20-25%
15-20%
20-25%
20-25%
20-25%
15-20%
10-15%
Financial Burden
30-35%
20-75%
30-35%
25-30%
35-40%
35-40%
40-45%
25-30%
20-25%
150
-------
In the Proposed Facilities Plan, for example, the annual user
charge for a house with a bathroom would be $185 plus the hook-up fee of
$80 ($1,000 spread out over 30 years at 6-7/8% interest). For houses
without bathrooms, the annual charge would be $185 plus $80 for hook-up
plus $155 ($1,941 spread out over 30 years at 6-7/8% interest) or $420
per year. For EIS Alternative 8, the only private cost was toilet seats
for houses that use privies because bathrooms were not included in the
alternative.
3. LOCAL COST BURDEN
a. Significant Financial Burden
High-cost wastewater facilities may place an excessive financial
burden on users of the system. Such burdens may cause families to alter
their spending patterns substantially. The Federal government has
developed criteria to identify high-cost wastewater projects (The White
House Rural Development Initiatives, 1978). A project is identified as
high-cost when the annual user charges are:
o 1.5% of median household incomes less than $6,000
o 2.0% of median household incomes between $6,000 and $10,000
o 2.5% of median household incomes greater than $10,000.
The 1978 median household income for the permanent residents of
Northwest Township service area has been estimated to be $17,500. (No
data are available for seasonal resident income characteristics.)
According to the Federal criteria, annual user charges should not exceed
2.5% ($437) of the $17,500 median household income figure. Any alterna-
tive having annual user charges exceeding $437 is identified as a high-
cost alternative and is likely to place a financial burden on users of
the system. None of the alternatives would be classified as high-cost
according to the Federal criteria.
Significant financial burden is determined by comparing annual user
charges with the distribution of household incomes. Families not facing
a significant financial burden would be the only families able to afford
the annual wastewater system user charges. Table V-4 shows the percent-
age of households estimated to face a significant financial burden under
each of the alternatives. The proportion of families in the proposed
service area facing a financial burden ranges from a low of 20-25% (EIS
Alternative 8) to a high of 40-45% (EIS Alternative 5).
b. Displacement Pressure
Displacement pressure is the stress placed upon families to move
away from the service area as a result of costly user charges. Dis-
placement pressure is measured by determining the percentage of house-
holds having annual user charges exceeding 5% of their annual income.
The displacement pressure induced by each of the alternatives is listed
in Table V-4.
Displacement pressure is lowest under EIS Alternative 8 (10-15%)
and highest under the Facilities Plan Proposed Action, as well as EIS
Alternatives 2, 4, 5, and 6 (20-25%).
151
-------
c. Conversion Pressure
In a seasonal home area, the conversion of seasonal to permanent
units can be expected to result from: (1) retirement age households
permanently relocating to their seasonal residence; (2) local households
converting a seasonal residence to a permanent home; and (3) previously
seasonal households converting their second home to a permanent resi-
dence in an effort to move away from metropolitan areas while retaining
access to employment opportunities and other urban amenities. In the
proposed Nettle Lake Service Area, the introduction of centralized
and/or decentralized wastewater management systems is likely to acce-
lerate conversion by further encouraging the first two of these three
factors.
Alternatives providing any form of centralized wastewater manage-
ment service to the existing seasonal units will make the conversion of
such homes by retirement age and local households more attractive by
eliminating the problems associated with on-lot systems. A number of
conversions are already occurring and are projected to continue to occur
during the planning period.
Continued use of septic tank systems may result in the highest
increase in the conversion rate. Since there is only a limited amount
of developable land available without the provision of centralized or
decentralized wastewater management facilities, the demand for permanent
units by local households will have to be met largely by existing sea-
sonal units. As the development pressures for new permanent units
continue to increase and the existing environmental constraints continue
to limit the amount of new residential development, many second home
owners may take advantage of the opportunity to profit from the sale of
their relatively costly (in terms of amount of use) seasonal residences.
4. MITIGATIVE MEASURES
The significant financial burden and displacement pressure may be
mitigated by selection of a lower cost decentralized alternative, or the
local wastewater management authority may seek to obtain a loan or grant
from the Farmers Home Administration. Such a loan would decrease annual
user charges by spreading out the payment of the local share over a
longer period of time with a lower interest rate. The impacts of the
high costs to seasonal users may be mitigated by not charging for opera-
tion and maintenance during the months that seasonal residences are
vacant.
152
-------
C i-1
CU J->
e a
' O
CU
0. B
3 l-i
I s
01 CJ
CJ
S TO
>-. 01
i e
C 00
H C
E -H
CJ 00
S
o
c
o
C 00
TO C
iJ TO
S. 0
*' 4J
w o
c "
H C
a o
a f
O iJ
rH tO
f cu
4-1 U
SB
00
0)
g-s
3 £
12
al
c
Q
H
4_)
U
13
CO
o
a
^,
CM
cfl
fH
CO
3 -H
.C C
CO QJ
9 ^
E <
^p
rO
"4H
o
CO
Q)
Vw
O
QJ
TJ
oc m
C
1-1 1
CO -H
O
rH tO
QJ
CD >
3 -H
o tf
.n c
a. M
CO QJ
o -u
.C --H
PL, 5
00
c
QJ
CO
at
t->
o
QJ
T3
00
C
H CO
T3 CU
03 >
O -H
iH 4J
CO
CO C
5 S
a <
CO
o >-t
o. 3
C3
O
iH
4J
<
o
CU
to to
4J O
0 a
to o
a >-<
B OH
H
C
4J CO
cO S
O
t-l CO
UJ Q)
00 -H
H rH
CO -H
O
O CO
UJ »3J
C C
0 CO
O 4J
iH U
iH 4J
U D-
C QJ
Q) W
4->
o oc
a c
c c
0 0
4-J 4-t
fO
P 6 co
o >*
O *o tt
c
rH CO 4J C
VJ Cy £ 4J
Q) i W CJ
J-l > CO <
O -H QJ
CO ^ IH O
CQ Q, 4J 2
Ui "O
aj
u ?"~1
CJ r-(
trj 1-1
,0 cfl
rH
T3 3
Q) CJ
N -H
H JJ
cc CO
cj a.
O
rH CO
CO
1- <
O CO
<4-, -. OO
H
co en i
CO 00 -H
H C
X -H CO
QJ C CU
O >
rH -H i-l
Q) yj QJ
4-1 rH 4J
0 (C r-t
P- 6 <
CO CO
x> w
)-< CO
O "^
t| .j t_i
CO
CO 00
H C
4-> i-l
C C
QJ 0
O 4-»
C* tJ
C
-0 3
4J rM
CJ CC
3 E CD
13 >
Cfl 4J
r-t CD C
,n 01 i-i
U -H »H
QJ IH ^
i- CX
O. f-t
0. *W rH
< 0 <
QJ
CJ QJ
CO T3
rH
X) 3
QJ O
4J S
U
O- en
X CU
CJ >
T-f
Cfl 4J
0 C
rt *-
a. a>
3 rH
CC
4-1
CtJ GJ
T\ CU
M-t 3
*!-* CU
c: co
oc
H >i
CO rH
o "3
Z *4H
u
Id
od
g
Q
a
u
0,
u
g
CU
c
o
r*>
V-
r-< &*
<
i
u;
s
<
ex,
S
"C
c
00
t>
rt
3
5
H
4J
y
z.
\
c
O TO
Cu ^
C CU
O 1-1
CC Q)
O 12
a o
c
t! 15
3 1-1
e
CU
1
00
c
o
M
TO
e
C-
c
TO
CU
TO
00
CU
p
rH
01
O
in
3
0
o
CU
CU
u
1-(
3
er
E
cu
£
c
o
1-
TO
£
1
CO
c
c
o
rH
f*
M
4J C
U 0
CO -H
CQ *J
E
QJ
1
00
C
o
i-3
**
a
C
o
CJ
QJ
CO
CU
01 rH
i- 4->
3 0
O ^
CO
4J O
c
-H OC
0 C
CM -H
O Q CC
ES
O
I
cj
I
153
-------
a
1
H
;z
O
e
H
at
^_)
[2
o
H
P-.
E
H
U
U
02
O
W
Q
«
U
OH
X
H
B
PW
£
1-1
id
a
H
PH
r-
O
C
E-
O
d
h-
QJ
00
TO
O
0) O
l-i C
T3 0)
C V-i
TO O
QJ QJ
3 QJ
U J
CO JJ
C *d
-H C
E TO
0) )->
U QJ
TO ^\
TO
to f
H S^
JJ TO
H i i
JJ TO U
d QJ
TO LI OC
3 < C
cr 05 T-I co
>. jJ C JJ
LI -a u -H o
0) 3 TO M-i TO
4-1 -UJ O-i C £b
TO CO g O E
3 -H CJ -H
U-i
QJ C -d J* T3
O QJ U QJ
C QJ JJ i-l JJ
H "O TO J TO
CO -H T-I jj rH
CO QJ QJ
QJ 3 OC
JJ 0 -C 3 J=
O JJ O JJ
a -H o x o
X J_i JJ Li
0) L. 00 00
to M-I *o oo 13
jj -H Q) LI QJ
U 3 CJ TO 0
TO cr 3 X co -a
&. TO *c3 U jJ 3
e P ' QJ u * d
tn-HC W -rt 01 WTO m-H
QJ TO Q) QJ a. 3>
> JJ -H > JJ > JJ6 > -U
-H CCO -H C -H C-H'-f C
JJTOCJJJTOjJCt) 4JTO
TO CJJJ rt CJ TO OJJ TO CJ
C-HW C-^ G-r-tC C-H
QJ-H Q>-Hd)-HO(l>-H
JJ C '-W JJ C JJ C -H JJ d
w ct) cn cfi c tn
rH a, iH i 1 00 i i'
rH C J-. "-! O M O-HrH O
> TO >-, TO
r-- -O H T3
TO p TO d
E E 0 E £ 0
-H i-i O T4 J-i O
l-t QJ QJ V^ QJ D
&H E"1 CW PM f-4 C/H
JJ JJ
H -H
rH tl
3 3
o- ex
^ u
QJ GJ
JJ JJ
TO TO
*o -a
c d
3 3
0 O
cj o
QJ
JJ (0
SJ QJ
S U
*C 3
3 0
c tn
Li (U
u c^
tft
c
0
H
jj
U
tO QJ
C i i
C 0
H ^
CJ
QJ QJ
*"~) C
0 |H
a eu
K
OJ CO
C JO
-H
0) 0)
to >
CO O
&$
1-1 O co
O JJ
tO TO
*4H JD "
d| o r**
0] 4) JJ
HE co « rH
JJ 3 TO -^ 3
u E tu to
< «H I-i 0} OJ
X CJ 0) IH
T3 TO C >
QJ £ -H -H "D
CO JJ rH
O >-, O TO 3
D. jo jj d o
0 J-. S
ON QJ OJ JJ C
JJ 1 JJ -H O
d TO TO < -H
* eu a jj
i-H *H *H -Q CJ
P-I o co u d TO
H QJ -H TO
OJ u > 4J *D
H TO JJ TO O U
JJ TO -H 3
H J2 d J3 JJ T3
^t 3 cj ^ < M
U 0 jJ O
t8 M rH W O 0
fc 0
f~
4J
3
O
O
4J
CO
K
c:
o
4J
CO
3
a
o
ex
o
4J
C
0)
g
01
H
3 en
cr c
0) 0
£ t!
~ cr oJ
3 C5 -rn
00) O
M cc a.
O -3 OJ
oj 0) e
U *J -H
3 *J r-
T3 « 01
C r-J K
H CL CO
J3
0> 01 W 1
4J «( cy
U c. >
OJ 3 O 4J
1 U r-H
O O S-S 3
iJ c -l
QJ JJ TO 3
JJ d ?s O
ft QJ JD - 3
d a. ^ r^
O *H i-( QJ CO
H G 3 CO * JJ
JJ *H U TO -H d
U JJ QJ CJ
< C E M co E
TO O O QJ QJ
T3 L. d > )-
QJ CO tw -H -H -H
CO d JJ 3
0 0 JJ o TO cr
a. *H a jj d QJ
O co E i-i x-
PH QJ QJ QJ JJ J3
> J2 1 JJ rH JJ
C C TO < 3
TO O TJ -< D. C
i ! U rH *H "O S-1
PL, 3 CO U C M
Q) O CJ -n TO
ff) U) 3 > w TD
-H tO JJ TO O O
*J T3 CJ TO *H 3
-H d M d -C JJ -d
U JJ 0
TO O O rH J-i O O
u- 2: ^ < o sc ^
e
SM
QJ
I
00
rS
TO
TJ
C
O
U
OJ
C/3
QJ
00
TO
QJ
V* CO
u d
-.
QJ
QJ JJ
i-H JJ
JD TO
TO DH
o" J=
r-H JJ
QJ 3
> O
QJ Li
Q U
to
T3
d
TO
f-J
154
-------
o
11
3
d
4_t
c
o
0
i
J
u
J
X
( (
u:
H
g
d
<
£;
M
2
O
t-H
E
>-H
(^
CJ
t/f
Q
CJ
Pu
M
W
tL
K
CJ
K3
p.
H
^
IE
i i
tu
Q:
^
Q
Ct
H
<
s:
Crf
o
c
f-
u
s
Cu
s
E
5 a>
> 0 C 00 ft
CO -H -H "9 fa
u-i u-i t; C -
° 0) C O '-|
00 N 00 JJ QJ
C M f( C CJ C
H 1-1 CO -H CO 3O
13 CC CO TJ TJ
tD ^ O ( O TJ C
C 4J C CLO QJ -rl <-w
rH C -O "H 4J -H
GJ C C 4-- CJ CO
4j CJ -H O O M V
£ Cl) r-i BO Q, CJ 4J
GJ TJ 4-i &- c x ^ y
£ rH T-l OJ 0) CC
H t-H 3 »C t-i CO C
m TJ o w J-J 3 co m E
OJ GJ -HIS CU w -H
i cn CM 3 a i QJ
O C O 4-. 4J
^H CJ -H T3 >> O r-rHCOC
cr wii rH*H cnEcc
COCO U 3 G.4J CO CDCOL
GJGJ 3 O E-3 *-* a,GJ-H*r-
>£ M JS CrH U GJ>'Ot4-
^-!cj 4J cn Or-! ro cJ *H , f
j_iC CO O CM4J4J"C
ffl-H C G) 4JCL E cnCCrHO
C **O U O iH CCCi-
MP-.OOCJ C CU S^Etr
4)tc f5 di^iiJcyw
jjgTJE C 04J 0) ^±15
rH CO ~< T34J 4J ^'~i^C
-i<;3
CW u-i C W SO i* J-J O^
*^^3- OO C/3CU QJ G) * it
Of-Hn G)4JC C/3CO 0^^
^ a-- u a -H ^j 4J >C4JCO
OT) CU rH t/!3 3 4JCJT
TzT3 >» H C 0^
T3rHfl>aJ O C^H 00 OT5 C
d) U-i j-i -H j-lO cOO QJ4^,
coci.4jcca,'-i E T3 cficn^w
CX-H fluo T3C1J u oaoc
O OOtjCO^GJ C^J 3 cOoO*''
j-iCdGJ&WX CCki T) O. t-i CM 4-
HSj^H-HCO COOTOiHCOT-( 4.
(34-*3< OJX GtCOOl 0) CMHG
fOC-O 4J>4J -H >4-J>4JCtJOC;
M3 T3C-H-H > I-H -H e -H e »-t <
4_)rHcOCJCO M-HCOtJCOCJ O
cowj_> iHCcy o-^CT^n-fHw-H?
a) c co c ^-j s-i cj c CM^MUHGJ^V-
i-H CrH O*H Q) C O OOQJ QJ*H cyTH-H CJC
4J CJ3 -H C 4J COCO iH CU 4J C 4-) C 4-1 2 !
f H VjiH O iH ^ rHCJ O 4JCL*^ "rH *Sj >H ' 4Jk-
v4G)jj, Id
i-H CC
. i GJ
CC u
4J <
C
GJ GJ
O 4J
M iH
-H CC
> c
= _? -. r- r-
4?
iH
CD
cr
*j
GJ
3
""I
0)
Of
c
H
U
c
c
a) ^r
-HO M 4J 4J
C ai a) -H 3
O CO & CO -O O
-H OJ X CC L,
4J > CJ TJ -C 00
U -H rH
3 4-> CO 3 CJ T3
M CO 4J O ^ <1)
4J C O , > jj
o TJ c m aj -H c
O C TO CO rH 4J CO
occg o cn OJXi co cj
1 -H F> tJ CD C -H
Xl O H 4J iJ*H QJ-H
j -H c cc i ' TO j-j c
X CJ*H U CJCO<-M
j 4_) < cc aJ -H cn
J C 4J U TJ <
"O O QrH OC C , c
3 E Z ^ <£J t
4J 00
! C
00 O
c: J
o
-J
^
'^ cO
rt CJ
E 0
>-i dj
fri UO
155
-------
a
i!
*J XI
e rH
I
CO X
H C
0) T3 F3
CO >i .C
g rH Q.
4J C
>^ C d
O> 0)
> i-i *
Jj t-l X
33 -D
X U Ui
> 1 C J3
CO O
C!
0 cc x
4J U 'rO
H co £
-a E to
< -H E
4-J 13 CO
X OJ CU
m C 1-1 1-1
-a -H o) <
3 00 C >^
C co fC "Q
B T3 3
CJ C 4J
II Li QJ C/3
-H X 01 QJ
1- C X J=
3 OJ 4-1 -U
0 C C
e 4J o tH
ctj
*O -H C "O TJ
<: x u cy Re
CD jj 4-1 u at OJ
CO I-i TJ
CO C C 3 CO -H
U O C O u
cj cj w cm
CO ^ 0) CO CU
a a) o K a x
E *j jj E cc
CO -H X *J r-i CO -H -H
cu ot a* *-< to cp y-<
H C *H X-H3 i-l Ct3
4J flj 4-> 0) ^ 4-1 4J tO C
TO cj cd a- rH cO CJ cc
C -H C en 3 C i-i
0) -H 01 O W 0) *H CO
rH OCr-i O. 1C (U rH OC rH
W iH CU OJ X -U
H rH CJ > rH O.
>H o >H o cu
Uj U3 C-0
-3 T3 13
C C §
U 1-. V-<
to ca co
E E E
*H -H *H
t. 1-1 W
*H X
CO OJ
U i-i
3 CJ
i-< C CO £L
3 WO LT)
1 iH rH 00 T3
U CO 0 CO OJ
Soo cj -i at i-i
4
H
c
J
-t
J
Ij
H
4J
o
4J
3
o
o
p
o
0)
00
CO
CJ
T)
cu
X
3
o
X T3 m
1 t fsj
a» o m
ex
i-l 0) |
4J X 0
CU O CN
C rC
O "^
O E
§0
I-l
in * y-t
fl 4
t^ c
01 rH CO
J2 CU tJ
rH 6 rH
3 -H 3
ox o
Z O 3
Ui rO u^
0) D, OJ
00 a " GO T3
I-l CO CM ^ C
C CO cfl to
H o ja *-i cj OJ >
tO 3 iH CO -H
"O 3 O 4J 3 4J
0) S co CO
CO rH C i-l C
O CO LJ i-i ca i-t
a 3 CD cu 3 a>
0| C S 4J C *J
M C CU rH C 1
pu < X < < <
E
01
4-)
1
bO
c
3
&
E
Cu
c
cu
TJ
3
CO
4J
CO
cS
rH
18
u
3
e
o
c
o
u
u
rH
10
0
o
J
CJ
en w ij
in rH cr
CJ U O
^4- u
QJ Ql
w -a j=
C 4JV
0) T3 ^
£ rH -j
a) 3 c
U C TO
JO 3
a. c jj
tn CD c
H TJ ClJ
° 3 ^0 2
J "»
"O Q)
01 ^H C ^
>i j^ 41 CO 10
rH r^ ^ 'H QJ
0) o "* " " =
> > m 5 ^ "
^ -H 10 CO
ij jj C C - iw
U U U IH -T O
m QJ QJ >-
c. a '! ^ « *^
CC en rH <; QJ m
4) QJ rt > IN
U J-l *^
H QJ u 1
S 2 |S 3 ON
r-i -H 5 5 m ^ 5
rj 'C -C -H i i ,Q t
e c . w « <
rt CC OOf -rH 01 4J O
3 IM "U i m
«( vD u~i "^ C OJ
yn r- LO £ u CU COU_(C
m m CN co x X o
C/V -CO- V> Oi 4-1 C Q>
3 x O & C
n) OJ fl)r^O(4-<.uiH (jj
13 n n rH O G 4J r-t T3
« OJOrH^
^3 -I ^-,mxe^T3<-H3
- - - . -"STS -c SJ3
o o 0csia)aiQ)Q,^
» 3 s - S ' " § 3.3
to cu oj-HKOojc-cno
oo oo-aoo cn-^^ocnc
i. ucu^oj^-ir-ajco
CO COCOCCO'rJX fcljC
ji ^ ^P&JJIM CX-H
yvour-.u^ , ° E '-'
4-( 1J 4J CO U
Jj ^J ^j QJ Ll ^ ^* ^^ ^ ' ^ C 10
m > Jj > m£ §120 ^ S HI
s 3 a u S n " >>cuo
^ « ^ g r- rH « i ' i! TCrH
CO U 10 U 01
iw
CO
E
OH
41
3
en
C Q)
OJ U
a cu
u
3 4J
ea c
cu
~- E
CO QJ
T-4 CJ
cj CO
2 ^
*" J2
fa Q
156
-------
c o>
O -1
I ,0
01 to
C 01
o >
O OJ
o
01
01
00
01
I-l
0>
s
u
K
z.
G
Ou
H
4-1
«
2
^(
<
J_l
0>
4-J
1
GO
1
£
H
o;
-
cn
U)
< £
^3, 0-
OS
<
O
e
Q-i
Z
>-f
>4
8
a
s
o
B
<
OH
t 1
c
o
-H
cn
i-»
0)
c
o
o
4-1
c
o
o
£
0
C
O
u
r-(
u
o
J
Q
00 C
C 3
H O
H e
r-i cc
41
? T3
b QJ
AJ
o e
01 -i
CO CC
t.
>,
oj c
OJ o
"So to
H -H
^
tu
01 H
j: oj
4J «
4J
c
H 0)
w C
3 to
01
QJ 4-1
1- C
r-l C
1-1 CO
rt E
3 £
0>
to a
01
> 0
4-1
R) l~l
C CO
u C
Ol O
4J Ul
-H CO
CO (U
01
HI
to E -0
QJ O C3
,C W CO
H «H --I
O
4J
3
J3
O
3
to
to
01
m ex
a c
c o
to -H
to
* i^
a- cu
c
o
CN OJ
to
c8
i el)
M
01 O
0> C
-21 -H
4J O
CO CO
C i- 4
IJ to
01
i-H i-H
9
1 01
03 0»
£ *H
ft 4J
^H CO
OH C
U 0)
QJ AJ
H i-l
4-1 ffi
H
rH 0)
H 01
-------
CHAPTER VI
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. EVALUATION
Four primary criteria were used in selecting the cost-effective EIS
Recommendation: costs, environmental impact, reliability, and flexibi-
lity. Within each category several factors were compared; cost factors,
for example, included present worth, user charges, and total 1980 pri-
vate costs. Impacts that US EPA considers to be decisive in selection
of an alternative are identified and considered. Alternatives reliabi-
lity is measured against centralized collection and treatment as the
standard.
The relationship between the alternatives and the criteria used to
evaluate them are easily visualized in a matrix. A matrix relating
alternatives to environmental impacts is presented in Section V.F.
Table VI-1 presents a matrix summarizing the relationship between al-
ternatives and their costs, environmental impacts, reliability, and
flexibility.
Table VI-1 also ranks the alternatives according to their total
present worth. This ranking has two purposes:
o Costs are easily quantifiable, perhaps the least subjective
measure of value.
o US EPA Construction Grants regulations require selection of the
most cost-effective alternative--that is, the alternative meet-
ing project goals with the least total present worth and with
acceptable environmental and socioeconomic impacts.
Selection of the cost-effective alternative requires identification
of trade-offs between costs and other criteria. The evaluation factors
included with total present worth in Table VI-1 are those US EPA has
determined to be most important in identifying trade-offs for this
project.
B. CONCLUSIONS
Information gathered during the preparation of this EIS has pro-
vided the following insights regarding the status of existing systems:
o Despite the large number of systems in soils with severe limita-
tions for on-site wastewater treatment, the total phosphorus
contribution to the lake from these systems accounts for less
than 13%.
o Only one location of ten sampled showed bacterial contamination
of surface waters that could be attributable to human sources.
This sample was taken in a drainage swale on the lake's south
shore and was in violation of State and Federal standards.
159
-------
(fl H. < u > -
i Si
I 5
s t ss'
uf S.C
91
f i.
! p t 3 i
J o j: cr j
.2
M
o
rl
co
H
O
CU
P
I
H
CO
H
-2 o ti or
*> " 3 C
^ ti "S ^
160
-------
o The sanitary survey demonstrated that of the residences
examined, 14% indicated having problems with their systems.
Survey results suggest that problems with backups, surface
ponding of effluent, and privy flooding are common during spring
flooding.
o Even though many systems do not meet State of Ohio standards for
on-site wastewater design, most are operating satisfactorily.
Most of the on-site systems in use within the Proposed Service Area are
poorly maintained and many are inadequately designed based upon criteria
established by the State of Ohio for design of on-site systems. Exist-
ing on-site systems have not been found to degrade water quality of the
whole lake; however, localized water quality impacts may be occurring.
Localized impacts of greatest concern are the flooding of on-site
systems and privies. Of approximately 132 privies believed to be lo-
cated within the service area, 90% are located within the 100 year
floodplain and many are inundated annually. Effluent from these systems
is thus entering the lake on a seasonal basis and presenting a potential
public health hazard.
A comparison of the impacts of the various alternatives provides a
basis for the following conclusions considered in selecting an alterna-
tive. The population in the Proposed Service Area would increase by a
maximum of 5% with the most centralized EIS alternatives. The more
centralized wastewater treatment systems may allow for higher density
development along some shoreline segments.
The surface water quality and trophic status of the lake is not
anticipated to change as the result of implementing any wastewater
alternative. Limited improvement in Nettle Lake's trophic status will
occur with the centralized alternatives because of the small contribu-
tion of septic tanks to the total nutrient load. The potential for
flooding of on-site systems, nutrient release, and bacterial contamina-
tion will exist under EIS Alternative 8; however, a seasonal pump-out
program would reduce this to an acceptable level of risk.
Centralized wastewater treatment would eliminate septic tanks as a
possible source of groundwater pollution. Improvement in the quality of
drinking water aquifers would not result, however, because they are
separated from on-site systems by thick containing layers.
EIS Alternative 8 at a cost of $796,500, has a total present worth
that is 45% of the Facilities Plan Proposed Action, with a total present
worth of $1,842,500. The local share of the capital cost of EIS Alter-
native 8 is $83,568, or approximately 21% of the $396,271 local cost of
the Facilities Plan Proposed Action. The annual user charges are esti-
mated to be $110 and $335 per household, respectively. Table VI-I shows
the financial burden and displacement pressure that would result from
these alternatives.
In EIS Alternative 8, many technologies were considered for re-
placement of existing pit privies. The criteria considered for evalua%-
tion included capital cost and operation and maintenance cost as well as
161
-------
reliability and applicability to seasonal use. Some of the technologies
considered are listed below and compared in Table VI-2.
o Vault toilets
o Holding tanks
- Low-flush toilets
o Chemical toilets
- Oil flush toilets
- Incinerating toilets
- Compost toilets
o Electrical composting toilets
o Air-assisted toilets
o Selected as viable options for EIS Alternative 8
Vault toilets were selected because their similarity to the exist-
ing privies would result in greater public acceptance, and maintenance
would be low, requiring only periodic pumping. Holding tanks were
selected because only periodic pumping is required to prevent flood
water exchange of the contents. Indoor toilets chosen for use with the
holding tanks include chemical and air-assisted types because of the
small quantities required per flush. Electrical composting toilets were
chosen as an example of higher technologies available. The major
advantage of the electrical compost toilets is that no pumping is re-
quired, which greatly reduces the operation and maintenance costs.
Electrical composting toilets do have limitations, such as a hydraulic
capacity of 2 or 3 persons' waste and start-up requirements that include
adding soil and sawdust. These toilets must also be emptied periodi-
cally and the compost incorporated into lawns or flower beds or thrown
in the garbage.
Of the technologies not chosen, low-flush toilets require more
water than chemical or air-assisted toilets and also require indoor
running water. Oil flush toilets were considered too costly and re-
quired periodic filter maintenance. Incinerating toilets require 1 KWH
of electricity per use plus a wax paper liner per use (approximate cost
is 5C/liner). These costs for operation were considered significant.
Large composting toilets are expensive and would possibly be inundated
by floods because they require a large amount of basement space below
the house floor.
The No Action Alternative is not recommended for the following
reasons:
o There are some problems with on-site systems in the Proposed EIS
Service Area that should be addressed through monitoring,
improved maintenance of the existing and future systems, resi-
dential water conservation, and renovation or replacement of
existing systems.
162
-------
TABLE VI-2
TECHNOLOGIES CONSIDERED FOR PRIVY REPLACEMENT
^ .^CRITERIA
TECHNOLOGY^"~""---\
Vault Toilets
Holding Tanks
Low- Flush
Toilets
Nipon Pearl
Chem Toilets
Oil Flush
Toilets
Incinerating
Compost Toilets
Elec. Compost
Air-Assisted
Toilets
COST
$850 per 1000
g. vault.
Building &
labor not
included
$850 for tank.
1000 g.
^$85 (Est.)
$600
$722
$5,000
Inclusive
$1,000
(7/80)
1 kwh/use
5c/liner/use
$2,495
$850
$4/mo.
elec.
$440/toilet
$300 com"
pressed
RELIABILITY
Good
Good
Good
Fair
(user upkeep)
Fair to Poor
Fair to Good
Good
Fair
Good
MAINTENANCE
Medium
(periodic pumping)
High
(frequent pumping)
Low
Medina
High
Medium to High
High
empty & line bowl
Low
Medium
Low
MANAGEMENT
REQUIRED
Necessary
Necessary
Necessary
Necessary
Necessary
Necessary
Not Necessary
Not Necessary
Not Necessary
Necessary
ADVANTAGES/
DISADVANTAGES
Bldg. construction
required
No change in habits req'd
Must be floodproofed or
pumped
Toilet fixtures req'd
Bathrooms req'd
Holding tanks req'd
along with:
water supply, and
bathrooms
Infreq. pumping
Water supply not req'd
Chem. odors
No water supply req'd
Enclosed units available
(at higher cost)
Filters may clog and need
replacement
No water supply req'd
Elec. or propane req'd
Self enclosed units avail-
able
No water req'd
Hard to floodproof access
port below house
No water supply req'd
Elec. req'd
No water req'd
Max. capacity 2-3 people
Water supply not req'd
Bathroom construction
required
163
-------
o The level of risk of water quality degradation and bacterial
contamination from unmanaged on-site systems, subject to flood-
ing, is unacceptable.
o Improved surveillance and regulation of on-site systems in the
Proposed Service Area are justified to maintain the area's
recreational values and to protect public health.
Alternatives 7 and 8, as well as the partially decentralized EIS Alter-
native 6, would require that the problems with on-site systems be cor-
rected through a program for upgrading and repair.
C. DRAFT EIS RECOMMENDATION
The Recommended Action in this EIS is EIS Alternative 8. This
Alternative would provide:
o Site-specific environmental and engineering analysis of existing
on-site systems throughout the Proposed Service Area during the
Step 2 design period;
o Repair and renovation of on-site wastewater treatment systems as
needed;
o Replacement of privies with alternative forms of on-site techno-
logy; and
o Management of the on-site systems by a Small Waste Flows
District.
The recommended action, EIS Alternative 8, will result in only a
modest improvement in overall lake water quality, an improvement com-
parable to that under any of the EIS Alternatives. The recommended
action would provide a satisfactory solution to the limited problems
defined in the Service Area. It would be cost-effective and would
result in no significant adverse impacts upon the environment or the
residents of the Study Area.
D. IMPLEMENTATION
If the recommended action were accepted by the applicant and the
State and local jurisdictions, it would be equivalent to a revised
Facilities Plan Proposed Action. A small waste flows district would
need to be established for the operation and management of the proposed
on-site systems.
1. COMPLETION OF STEP 1 (FACILITIES PLANNING) REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE SMALL WASTE FLOWS DISTRICT
As part of the Step 1 process, and to assure the timely release of
Step 2 funds the applicant would need to:
164
-------
o Certify that the project will be constructed and an operation
and maintenance program established to meet local, State, and
Federal requirements including those protecting present or
potential underground potable water sources.
o Obtain assurance (such as an easement or County Ordinance) of
unlimited access to each individual system at all reasonable
times for such purposes as inspections, monitoring, construc-
tion, maintenance, operations, rehabilitation, and replacement.
An option would satisfy this requirement if it would be exer-
cised no later than the initiation of construction.
o Establish a comprehensive program for regulations and inspec-
tion of individual systems before EPA approves the plan and
specifications. Planning for this comprehensive program would
be completed as part of the facilities plan.
2. SCOPE OF STEP 2 FOR THE SMALL WASTE FLOWS DISTRICT
A five step program for wastewater management in small waste flows
districts was suggested in Section III.E. The first three would appro-
priately be completed in Step 2 the design period. These are:
o Develop a site-specific environmental and engineering data
base in a house by house survey;
o Design the management organization; and
o Agency start-up.
US EPA will assist the applicant in defining specific objectives
and tasks for Step 2 work.
3. COMPLIANCE WITH STATE AND LOCAL STANDARDS IN THE SMALL
WASTE FLOWS DISTRICT
As discussed in Section II.F, many existing on-site systems do not
conform to current design standards for size, design, or distance from
wells or surface waters. For some systems, such as those with under-
sized septic tanks, non-conformance can be remedied relatively easily
and inexpensively. In other cases, the remedy may be disruptive and
expensive and should be undertaken only where the need is clearly
identified. Data on the effects of existing systems indicate that many
existing non-conforming systems, and future repairs that still may not
conform to design standards, may operate satisfactorily. Where com-
pliance with design standards is 1) infeasible or too expensive and 2)
site monitoring of ground and surface waters shows that acceptable
impacts are attainable, then a variance procedure to allow renovation
and continued use of non-conforming systems is recommended. Decisions
to grant variances should be based on site-specific data or on a sub-
stantial history of similar sites in the area.
Local and State decisions on variance procedures are likely to be
influenced by the degree of authority vested in the small waste flows
165
-------
district. If the district has the authority and sufficient financial
means to correct errors, and has the trained personnel to minimize
errors in granting variances, variance procedures may be more liberal
than where financial and professional resources are limited. Higher
local costs, caused by unnecessary repairs or abandonment of systems,
would be expected to result from very conservative or no variance guide-
lines. Conversely, ill-conceived or improperly implemented variance
procedures would cause frequent water quality problems and demands for
more expensive off-site technologies.
4. OWNERSHIP OF ON-SITE SYSTEMS SERVING SEASONAL RESIDENCES
Construction Grants regulations allow Federal funding for 1) reno-
vation and replacement of publicly owned on-site systems serving per-
manent or seasonally occupied residences, and 2) privately owned on-site
systems serving permanent residences. Privately owned systems serving
seasonally occupied residences are not eligible for Federally funded
renovation and replacement.
Depending upon the extent and costs of renovation and replacement
necessary for seasonal residences, the municipalities or a small waste
flows district may elect to accept ownership of the on-site systems.
Rehabilitation of these systems would then be eligible for Federal
assistance, and local costs for seasonal residents would be dramatically
reduced. Under EPA Program Requirements Memorandum 79-8, however, an
easement giving the district access to and control of on-site systems
would be considered tantamount to public ownership--without an actual
transfer of property.
In other states, existing public health and regulatory powers have
allowed counties to pass laws or ordinance giving sanitarians or small
waste flows districts access to all on-site systems and authority to
require repair and upgrading. To a considerable extent, these powers
are already exercised by local sanitarians in Ohio. EPA Headquarters
has indicated that such a law would be a binding commitment tantamount
to public ownership, and that if this were done, no easements at all
might be required. Preliminary discussion with the Attorney General's
staff suggests that existing police and public health powers are suf-
ficient to allow passage of such a county law. An Attorney General's
opinion is being requested.
5. TECHNOLOGY SELECTION
Identification of on-site system problems and the causes of the
problems is the first step to be taken to specify technologies for
individual residences. A site-specific analysis of each residence is
necessary to accomplish this. The analysis should be sequential, begin-
ning with accessing available health department records, interviewing
residents on the use and maintenance of their systems, inspecting the
site for obvious malfunctions, and inspecting the location and condition
of any on-site wells or springs. On the basis of information gathered,
additional investigations may be warranted to identify the causes and
possible remedies for recognized problems.
166
-------
In the selection of technologies for individual sites, this EIS
strongly recommends that:
o Alternatives other than those covered by existing codes be
considered
o The availability and cost of skilled manpower for maintaining
and monitoring innovative or sub-code systems be weighed against
the feasibility and cost of requiring conventional on-site
systems or off-site systems
o There be a multidisciplinary team, consisting of an experienced
sanitarian and available specialists in a number of fields, to
advise local homeowners on a case-by-case basis
o The individual homeowner be informed of the different options
being considered (and their costs) when technology selections
are being made, and that the owners' opinions and advice be
solicited.
Using information gained from the site-by-site analysis, a tech-
nical expert should discuss with the owners the feasible approaches to
solving any problems. Primary criteria for identifying the appropriate
technology should be costs, benefits, and risk of failure. Undoubtedly,
the analysis will also consider 85% eligibility for Federal Construction
Grants funding.
It is recognized that some developed lots may never be serviceable
by standard on-site technologies. Off-site treatment and disposal
systems then will be eligible for Federal funding if:
o A public health or water resource contamination problem is
documented that no combination of on-site conventional, inno-
vative, sub-code, flow reduction, or waste restriction methods
can abate, or
o The life cycle costs of off-site treatment and disposal for an
individual building or group of buildings is less than costs of
appropriate on-site technologies for the same buildings.
167
-------
CHAPTER VII
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USE
AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
A. SHORT-TERM USE OF THE STUDY AREA
Nettle Lake has been and will continue to be used as a residential/
recreational area. Disturbance of the site by routine residential/
recreational activities will continue regardless of which alternative is
implemented.
B. IMPACT UPON LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
1. COMMITMENT OF NONRENEWABLE RESOURCES
The pressure for development in the Proposed Service Area would
increase slightly as the result of implementing the Facility Plan Pro-
posed Action, or the other centralized alternatives. Filling-in devel-
opment of available shoreline areas would occur to a lesser extent under
the Recommended Alternative of this EIS.
Non-renewable resources associated with any of the wastewater
treatment scenarios would include concrete and other building materials
for construction. Consumption of electric power by pumps would be
associated to varying degrees with all actions except the Recommended
Alternative of this EIS. Labor would also be committed to the construc-
tion, operation and management of new or rehabilitated facilities.
2. LIMITATIONS ON THE BENEFICIAL USE OF THE ENVIRONMENT
The Recommended Action will not have any significant adverse effect
on beneficial use of the environment. The implementation of a centra-
lized wastewater management plan may increase the current level of
recreational activity slightly through induced near-shore development.
169
-------
CHAPTER VIII
IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES
Those resources associated with construction and maintenance of
wastewater systems would be committed. These were discussed in Section
VLB.
In addition the growth expected in the Study Area would require a
commitment of resources to the construction of new dwellings, construc-
tion or improvement of roads, and facilities associated with water
sports. Besides construction materials, such as lumber, steel, concrete
and glass, electricity and labor would also be committed to new devel-
opment .
Human resources would include construction personnel and, perhaps
public service personnel to service the added community needs.
171
-------
CHAPTER IX
PROBABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED
The Recommended Action would not induce significant development
above that projected to accommodate the baseline population. Any new
development is anticipated to be in less sensitive areas, avoiding
wetlands and floodplains. Construction of upgraded on-site systems
would minimally disturb the soil, resulting in only small amounts of
sediment runoff. This runoff would cause a minor temporary increase in
siltation in both streams and lakeshore areas.
173
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
174
-------
Allison, D. and H. Hothem, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division
of Wildlife. June 1975. "An evaluation of the status of fisheries
and the status of other selected wild animals in the Maumee River
Basin, Ohio." 15 pp. mimeo.
Bailey, J.R., R.J. Benoit, J.L. Dodson, J.M. Robb, and H. Wallman. 1969.
A study of flow reduction and treatment of wastewater from households.
Cincinnati, OH. US Government Printing Office (GPO).
Clean Water Act of 1977. Public Law 95-217. (33 U.S.C. 466 et seq.)
Cohen, S., and H. Wallman. 1974. Demonstration of waste flow reduction
from households. Environmental Protection Agency, National Environ-
mental Research Center, Cincinnati, OH.
Cooper, I.A., and J.W. Rezek. 1977. Septage treatment and disposal.
For EPA, Technology Transfer.
Dearth, K.H. 1977. Current costs of conventional approaches. Presented
at EPA National Conference of Less Costly Wastewater Treatment Systems
for Small Communities, 12-14 April 1977, Reston, VA.
Dillon, P.J. 1975. The application of the phosphorus-loading concept
to eutrophication research. Scientific Series No. 46, Canada Center
for Inland Waters, Burlington, Ontario, 14 p.
Environmental Monitoring Support Laboratory (EMSL). 1978. Nettle Lake
environmental inventory and assessment. EMSL-LV Project RSD 7851. EPA
Office of Research and Development. Las Vegas, NV.
Farmland News. 5 September 1978.
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, Public Law 92-500.
Floyd G. Browne and Associates, Ltd. 1976. Facilities plan, Nettle Lake
area, Williams County, Ohio. Marion OH.
Groszyk, Walter. 1977. Septic tank problem analysis: Impact on ground-
water. Information memorandum 77-164. USEPA, Water Planning Division,
Washington DC.
Humphrey, S.R., A.R. Richter, and J.B. Cope. 1977. Summer habitat and
ecology of the endangered Indiana bat, Myotis sodalis. Journal of
Mammalogy, 58:334-346.
Johnson, Gerald and Stanley Keller. 1972. Geologic map, 1° X 2°
Fort Wayne Quadrangle Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio, showing unconsoli-
dated deposits and bedrock. Indiana Geological Survey.
Jones, R.A. and G.F. Lee. 1977. Septic tank disposal systems as phosphorus
sources for surface waters. EPA-600/3-77-129. Robert S. Kerr Environ-
mental Research Laboratory.
175
-------
Kaser, Paul and Leonard J. Harstine. 1975. An inventory of Ohio soils,
Williams County. Progress Report No. 44. Ohio Department of Natural
Resources, Division of Lands and Soils.
Kerfoot, W. 1978. Investigation of septic leachate discharges into
Nettle Lake, Ohio. K-V Associates, Inc. Falmouth, MA.
Mazur, Paul. 1976. Water quality data, Nettle Lake. (Unpublished
reports). Ohio Department of Health.
Nettle Lake construction grants sanitary survey. Williams County, OH.
November 29-December 6, 1978.
NOAA, Environmental Data Service. 1973. Monthly normals of temperature,
precipitation, and heating and cooling degree days 1941-1970: Ohio.
Climatography of the U.S. No. 81. USDC National Climatic Center,
Asheville NC.
NOAA, Environmental Data Service. 1975. Climatological data, Ohio:
Annual summary. USDC National Climatic Center, Asheville NC. Vol.80,
No. 13.
NOAA, Environmental Data Service. 1976a. Climatological data, Ohio:
Annual summary. Vol. 81, No. 13. USDC National Climatic Center,
Asheville NC.
NOAA, Environmental Data Service. 1976b. Local Climatological data, Toledo
OH: Annual summary with comparative data. USDC National Climatic
Center, Asheville NC.
NOAA, Environmental Data Service. 1977. Climatological data: Ohio.
Vol. 82, No. 8 (Aug.). USDC National Climatic Center, Asheville NC.
ODNR (Ohio Department of Natural Resources), Division of Water. 1965.
Ground-water levels in Ohio, October 1959-September 1964. Bulletin 41.
ODNR, Division of Geological Survey. 1977. Publications list.
ODNR, Division of Water. 1962. Ohio hydrologic atlas. Ohio Water Plan
Inventory Report No. 13.
OEPA (Ohio Environmental Protection Agency). 1974a. Regulations EP-9-01 and
EP-38-01 through EP-38-08. (Mimeo) Columbus OH.
OEPA. 1974b. Water supply, sewerage, and sewage treatment for public
buildings in Ohio. Columbus OH.
OEPA. 1975a. Rotating biological disc treatment systems. (Mimeo)
Columbus OH.
OEPA. 1975b. Tertiary treatment high rate sand filters. Draft. (Mimeo)
Columbus OH.
176
-------
OEPA. 1976a. Sanitary sewer design and installation guidelines. Part I:
Gravity sewers. (Mimeo) Office of Water Pollution Control,
Columbus OH.
OEPA. 1976b. Solid waste disposal licenses regulations. OAC-3745-27.
Columbus OH.
OEPA. 1976c. Solid waste disposal regulations. OAC-3745-27. Columbus
OH.
OEPA. 1976d. Standards, guidelines, and references. (Mimeo) Public
Wastewater Engineering Section, Columbus OH.
OEPA. 1977. Final Draft, water quality standards. (Revised.) (Unpublished)
OEPA. Undated. Water quality standards. OAC-3745-1.
Ohio Department of Health and Ohio Water Development Authority. 1971.
Engineering report standards and design criteria for small wastewater treat-
ment plants: Contact stabilization, extended aeration, oxidation
ditch.
Ohio Department of Health. 1968. General policy in regard to waste
stabilization lagoons for domestic wastes, as amended. (Mimeo)
Columbus OH.
Ohio Department of Health. 1974. Policy relative to aeration type treat-
ment systems in the Ohio Sanitary Code effective 7/1/74. (Mimeo)
Columbus OH.
Ohio Department of Health. 1976a. Approved individual aeration type
treatment systems. (Mimeo) Columbus OH.
Ohio Department of Health. 1976b. Duties and responsibilities: Board of
Health. Columbus OH.
Ohio Department of Health. 1976c. Evaluation procedures for individual
aerobic wastewater treatment plants. (Mimeo) Columbus OH.
Ohio Department of Health. 1977a. Policy relative to special processes
or devices used in treating wastewater. (Mimeo) Columbus OH.
Ohio Department of Health. 1977c. Rules: Household sewage disposal
systems. Ohio sanitary code, Chapter 3701-29. (Mimeo) Columbus OH.
Ohio Department of Health. Undated. Individual aerobic wastewater treat-
ment plants approved by the Ohio Department of Health. (Mimeo)
Columbus OH.
Ohio Division of Lands and Soil. 1974. Soil maps, Williams County, OH.
177
-------
Ohio State University Cooperative Extension Service. 1976. Ohio guide
for land application of sewage sludge. Bulletin 598. Prepared in
cooperation with Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center.
Columbus OH.
Omernik, J.M. 1977. Non-point source stream nutrient level relationships:
A nationwide survey. EPA-600/3-77-105. National Environmental
Research Laboratory, Corvalis, OR.
Otis, R.J. and E.E. Steward. 1976. Alternative wastewater facilities
for small unsewered communities in rural America. Annual report to the Upper
Great Lakes Region Commission.
Stone, Kenneth L., Jr., and Kenneth L. Powell. 1975. An inventory of
Ohio soils: Williams County. Progress Report No. 44. Ohio Depart-
ment of Natural Resources, Division of Lands and Soil. Columbus, OH.
Subdivision Regulations for Williams County, Ohio as amended 1967.
Sutfin, Charles H. 11 July 1977. US EPA Region III Decision Memo for
the Seven Lakes Project to George R. Alexander, Regional Administrator.
Chicago, IL.
Troyan, J.J. and D.P. Norris. March 1977. Cost-effectiveness analysis
of alternatives for small wastewater treatment systems. For the US
Environmental Protection Agency Technology Transfer, Municipal Design
Seminar on Small Wastewater Treatment Systems, Seattle, WA.
US Department of Housing and Urban Development. 27 January 1978. Flood
hazard boundary map, Williams County, OH.
US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1975. Cost-effective
comparison of land application and advanced wastewater treatment.
US EPA. 1977a. National interim primary drinking water regulations of
the Safe Drinking Water Act. 40 CFR 141.
US EPA. 1977b. Process design manual for land treatment of municipal waste-
water. EPA-625/1-77-008. Technology Transfer.
US EPA. 1978a. Construction grants program requirements memorandum 78-9.
3 March 1978.
US EPA. 1978b. Construction grants program requirements memorandum 79-3.
15 November 1978.
US EPA. 1978c. Grants for construction of treatment works-Clean Water
Act (40 CFR 35 Part E): Rules and regulations. 43 FR 44022, 27
September 1978.
US EPA. 1978d. Innovative and alternative technology assessment manual. 1978
Draft. Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
178
-------
US EPA. 1978e. Microbiological methods for monitoring the environment--water
and wastes. EPA-600/8-78-017. Environmental Monitoring and Support
Laboratory. Cincinnati, OH.
US Geological Survey (USGS). 1952.
US Public Health Service. 1962. Drinking water standards. US Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service Publication
No. 956. Washington, DC.
USDA SCS. 1978. Soil survey of Williams County, Ohio.
USDA SCS (Soil Conservation Service). 1977. Proposed rule, prime and
unique farmlands: Important farmland inventory. 42 FR 42359, 23
August 1977.
USDA SCS. 1979. List of prime farmland map units in Williams County.
USGS. 1961, Nettle Lake 7.5 minute series topographic quadrangle.
(Photo-revised 1973).
USGS. 1970. Climate.
USGS. 1978.
White House Rural Development Initiatives. August 1978. Making water
and sewer programs work. Washington, DC.
Williams County Floodplain Ordinance 1978.
Witt, M., R. Siegrist, and W.C. Boyle. 1976. Characteristics of rural
household wastewater. Journal of the Environmental Engineering
Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, No. EES, Proceedings
Paper 12200:533-548.
179
-------
GLOSSARY
180
-------
GLOSSARY
ACTIVATED SLUDGE PROCESS. A method of secondary wastewater treatment in
which a suspended microbiological culture is maintained inside an
aerated treatment basin. The nicrobial organisms oxidize the com-
plex organic matter in the wastewater to simpler materials, and
energy.
ADVANCED WASTE TREATKENT. Wastewater treatment beyoud the secondary or
biological stage which includes removal of nutrients such as phos-
phorus and nitrogen and a high percent-age of suspended solids.
Advanced waste treatment, also known as tertiary treatment, is the
"polishing stage" of wastewater treatment and produces a high
quality of effluent.
AEROBIC. Refars to life or processes that occur only in the presence of
osygea.
ALGAL BLOOM- A proliferation of algae on the surface of Takes, stresrs
or ponds. Algal bloorus are stimulated by phosphate enrichment.
ALKALINE. Having the qualities of a base, with a pH of more thaa 7.
ALLUVIAL. Pertaining to uaterial that has been carried by a stresia.
ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY. Alternative waste treatment processes and
techniques are proven methods which provide for the reclaiming and
reuse of water, productively recycle waste water constituents or
otherwise eliminate the discharge of pollutants, or recovex- energy.
Alternative technologies may not b'e variants of conventional bio-
logical or physical/ cheaical treatment.
AMBIENT AIR. The unconfined portion of ths atmosphere; the outside air.
ANAEROBIC. Refers to life or processes that occur in the absence of
oxygen.
AQUATIC PLANTS. Plants that grow in water, either floating on the
surface, or rooted eiaergexrt or submergent.
AQUIJPJR. A geologic stratum or un.it tbat contains water and will allow
it to pass through. The water m?j reside in and travel through.
innusu^rable spaces between, rock grains iu a sand or gravel ^quiler,
sraall or cavernous ope/ii^s forced by solution in 3 li&estcne
aquifer, or fissures, cracks, and rubble in. such harder .rucks as
siiale.
ARTESIAN AQUIJET3. A water-tilled layer that is sufficiently compressed
between less penreable layers to cause the water to rise s.bove the
top of thn aquifer. If the v?£.ter pressure is great, water will
flow freely from artesian wells.
181
-------
ARTESIAN WELL. A well in which flow is sustained by the hydrostatic
pressure of the aquifer. See Artesian Aquifer.
BACTERIA. Any of a large group of microscopic plants living in soil,
water or organic matter, important to man because of their chemical
effects as in nitrogen fixation, putrefaction or fermentation, or
as pathogens.
BAR SCREEN. In wastewater treatment, a screen that removes large float-
ing and suspended solids.
BASE FLOW. The rate of movement of water in a stream channel which
occurs typically during rainless periods when, stream flow is main-
tained largely or entirely by discharges of grouadwater.
BASIC USAGE. Those functions that small waste flow districts would be
required to perform in order to comply with EPA Construction Grants
regulations governing individual on-site wastewater systesss.
BEDROCK, The solid rock t me a Us. the soil and subsoil.
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DE2AND (BOD). A measure of the amount of oxygen
cotiSuarad in the biological processes that d^coopose organic eatter
i.a wcer. Large amounts of organic waste use up large amounts of
dissolved oxygen; ttras, the greater the degree of pollution, the
greater the BOD.
BIOMASS. The weight of living matter in a specified unit of environ-
Qsrxt. Or, an expression of the total mass or weight of a given
population of plants or anisrals.
BIOTA. The plants and animali; of an area.
BOD,.. See "Eiocheaical Oxygen Demand." Standard measurement, is nade
for 5 days at 20°C.
BOG. Wet, spongy land; usually poorly drained, and rich in plant
residue, ultimately producing highly acid peat.
CAPITAL COSTS. All costs associated with installation (as opposed to
operation) of a project.
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES. Sae Capital Costs.
CKLORIHATION. The application of chlorine to drinking vater, sewage o-:
industrial waste for disinfection or oxidation of undesirable
compounds.
COARSE FISH. See Rough Fish.
COLIFORM -BACTERIA. Members of a large group of bacteria that flourish
in the feces and/or intestines of warn-blooded aniiaals, including
man. Fecal coliforra bacteri* , particularly Kscherich.xa coli _(E_.
£ol_i), enter water mostly in fecal matter, such as sewage or fecd-
182
-------
lot ruiioff. Colifona bacteria apparently do not cause serious
human, diseases, but these organisms are abundant in polluted waters
and they are fairly easy to detect. The abundance of coliform
bacteria in water, therefore, is used as an index to the proba-
bility of the occurrence of such diease-prodx'cing bodies (patho-
geus) as SaLgonella, Shigella, and enteric viruses. These path-
ogens are relatively difficult to detect.
COL1FQRI1 ORGANISM. Ary of a aumber of organisms common to the intes-
tinal tract of man and arximals whose presence in wastevater is an
indicator of pollution, and of potentially dangerous bscterial
contamination .
COMHINUTOR. A machine that breaks up wastewater solids.
CONNECTION FES. Fee charged by anmicipality to hook up house connection
to lateral sewer.
CUBIC FEET PER SECOND (cfs). A measure of the amount of water passing a
given, point.
CULTURAL EuTROPHI CATION. Acceleration by man of the natural aging
process of bodies of water.
DECIDUOUS. The terw describing a plant that periodically loses all of
its leaves, usually in the autumn. Most, broadleaf trees in North
America and a few conifers, such as larch and cypress, are decid-
uous .
DECOMPOSITION. Reduction of the net energy level and change in cheraical
composition of organic matter by 'action of aerobic or anaerobic
microorganisms. Ths breakdown of cooplex material into simpler
substances by chemical or biological means.
DETENTION TIMS. Average tijr.e required for water to flow through a
basin.. Also called retention time. Or, the ticie required for
natural processes to replace the entire volume of a lake's vater,
complete cixiug.
DETRJTUS. (1) The heavier 2ii;ieral debris moved by natural watercourses
(or in wastevater) usually in bed-load form. (2) The sand, grit,
and other coarse material removed by differential sedimentation. in
a relatively short period of detention. (3) Debris froc» the decom-
position. of plants and animals.
DISIffiFSCTION. Effective killiDg by chemical or physical processes of
all organisms capable of causing infectious disease. Ch.lo:;ination
is the disinfection luetliod coniionly employed in sewage treatment
processes .
DISSOLVED OXYGEN (DO). The oxygen gas (0 ) dissolved in. v/ater or sew-
age. Adequate oxygen is aecer.sary for maintenance of fish r.j-.d
other aquatic orga:ii:-;::s. Low dissolved oxygen rourrutration-s
sovast- nicis ait; du^.t to ^reserce, ia inadequs tfcly trea';r?
-------
DRAINAGE BASIN. (1) An area from which surface runoff is carried away
by a single drainage syste-n. Also called catchment area, water-
shed, drainage area. (2) The largest natural drainage area sub-
division of a continent. The United States has been divided at one
tine or another, for various administrative purposes, into some 12
to 18 drainage basins.
DRAINAGEWAYS. Man-made passageways, usually lined with grass or rock,
that carry runoff of surface water.
DRYWELL. A device for soall installations, comprising one or more pits
extending into porous strata and Lined with open-jointed stoae,
concrete block, precast concrete or similar walls, capped, and
provided with, a means of access, such as a manhole cover. It
serves to introduce into the ground, by seepage, the partly treated
effluent of a water-carriage wastewater disposal, systea.
EFFLUENT. Wastewater or other liquid, partially or coropletsly treated,
or in its natural state, flowing out of a reservoir, basin, treat-
ment plant, or industrial plant, or part thereof.
EFFLUENT LIMITED. Any stream sagaant for which it is known that water
quality will meet applicable water quality standards after coa-
liance v.ith. effluent discharge standards.
ELEVATED MOUND. A mound, generally cons true: ted of sand, to which
settled wistcwatar is applied. Usually used in areas where con-
ventional on-site treatment is inadequate.
ENDANGERED SPECIES (FEDERAL CLASSIFICATION). Auy species of animal or
plant declared to be in kao«ii danger of extinction throughout all
or a significant part of its range. Protected under Public Law
93-205 as amended.
ENDANGERED SPECIES (STATE CLASSIFICATION). Michigan's list includes
those species on the Federal list that are resident for any part of
their life cycle in Michigan. Also includes indigenous species the
State believes are uacot^oa and in need of study.
ENDECO. Type 2100 Septic Leachate Detector. See "Septic Snooper".
ENVIRONMENT. Tha conditions external to a particular object, but
generally limited to those coaditioas which have a direct and
measurable effect oa the object. Usually considered to be the
conditions which, surround and influence a particular living
organism, population, or corurmnity. The physical civiromaact
includes light, heat, moisture, and other principally abiotic
components. The components of the biotic environment are other
living organises and v&eir products.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. A do cur-eat required by the National
Environmental Policy Act (PL 91-190, 1969) when a Federal action
would significantly affect the quality of the hu~.au environment.
Used in the decision-making process to evaluate the anticipated
184
-------
effects (impacts) of the proposed actioa on the human, biological
and physical environment.
EPILIMINION. The upper layer of generally wana, circulating water in
lakes.
EROSION. The process by which an object is eroded, or worn away, by the
actioa of wind, water, glacial ice, or combinations of these
agents. Scscticies used to refer to results of chemical actions or
temperature changes. Erosion say be accelerated by nuiaau activ-
ities .
EUTROPHIC. Waters with a high concentration of nutrients and hence a
large production of vegetation and frequent die-offs of plants and
animals.
EUTROPEIC LAKES. Shallow lakes, weed-choked at the edges and very rich
in nutrients. The water is characterized by large quantities of
algae, low water transparency, low dissolved oxygea^and high BOD.
EUTRQFEICATION. The normally slow aging process by which a lake evolves
into a bog or marsh, ultimately assumes a completely terrestrial
state and disappears. During eutrophication the lake becomes so
rich in nutritive compounds, especially nitrogen and phosphorus,
that algae and plant life become superabundant, thereby "choking"
the lake and causing it eventually to dry up. Eutrophication may
bo accelerated by human activities. In the process, a once oligo-
trophic lake becoues mesotrophic and then eutrophic.
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION. A process by which water is evaporated and/or
transpired from water, soil, and pl'ant surfaces.
FECAL COLIFORM BACTERIA. See Colifora Bacteria.
FLOE. A sheet of floating ice.
FORCE MAIN. Pipe designed to carry wastewater under pressure.
GLACIAL DEPOSIT. A l^ndfom of rock, soil, and earth Material deposited
by a melting glacier. Such material was originally picked up by
the glacier and carried along its path; it usually varies in
texture froa very fine rock flour to large boulders. Named
according to their location and shape,
GLACIAL DRIFT. Material which has been deposited by a glacier or in
connection with glacial processes. It consists of rock flour,
sand, pebbles, cobbles, and boulders. It may occur in a heter-
ogeneous mass or be more or less well-sorted, according to its
manner of deposition.
GRAVITY SYSTEM. A system of conduits (open or closed) in vhich no
liquid purping is required.
185
-------
GRQUNDWATER. Water that is below the water table.
GHOUNDWATER RUNOFF. Groundwater that is discharged into a stream
channel as spring or seepage water.
HABITAT. The specific place or the general kind of site in which a
plant or aniraal normally lives during all or part of its life
cycle. An area in which the requirements of a specific plant or
aniiaal are mat.
HOLDING TANK. Enclosed tank, usually of fiberglass or concrete, for the
storage of wastewater prior to removal or disposal at another
location.
HYDjSOPOJTIC. Refers to growth of plants in a nutrient, solution, perhaps
with the mechanical support of an inert medium such as sand.
HXPOLJhNION. Deep, cold and relatively undisturbed water separated from
the surface layer in the lakes of temperate and arctic regions.
IGNEOUS. Rock forced by the solidification of magma (hot molten
material).
INFILTRATION. The flow of a fluid into a substance through pores or
staall openings. Ccnnsonly used in hydrology to denote the flow of
water into soil material.
INFILTRATION/ISFLOW. Total quantity of water entering a sewer systeia.
Infiltration, means entry through such sources as defective pipes,
pipe joints, connections, or manhole walls. Inflow signifies dis-
charge into the sewer system through service connections from such
sources as area or foundation drainage, springs and swasnps, storm
waters-j street wash waters, or sewers.
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES. Technologies whose use has not been widely
documented by experience. They may not be variants of conventional
biological or physical/'chemical treatment but offer promise as
methods for conservation of energy or wastewater constituents, or
contribute to the eliiaination of discharge of pollutants.
INTERCEPTOR SEWERS. Sewers used to collect the flows from main and
trunk sewers and carry them to a contra! point fcr treatment and
discharge. In a combined sewer system, where street runoff from
rains is allowed to enter the system along with the sewage,
interceptor sewers allow some of the sewage to flow untreated
directly into the receiving stream to prevent the treatment plant
froa being overloaded.
LAGOON. In wastewater treatment, a shallow pond, usually man-made, in
which sunlight, algal and bacterial action and oxygen interact to
restore the wastewater to a reasonable state of purity.
'LAND TREATMENT. A ueuhod of treatment in which soil, air, vegetation,
bacteria, and/or fungi are employed to remove pollutants from
186
-------
wastewater. In its simplest fona, the method includes three steps:
(l) pretreatunent to screen out large solids; (2) secondary treat-
ment and chlorinatiou; and (3) application to cropland, pasture, or
natural vegetation to allow plants and soil microoraanisins to
resove additional pollutants. Sorae nf th« applied wastewater
evaporates, and the remainder nay be allowed to percolate to the
water table, discharged through drain tiles, or reclaimed by wells.
LEACHATE. Soluf.ion forced when water percolates through solid wastes,
soil or other rc«terials and extracts soluble or susptnuable sub-
stances from the material.
LIMITING FACTOR. A factor whose absence, or excessive concentration,
exerts some restraining influence upon a population of plants,
animals or humans.
LOAM. The textural class name for soil having a moderate amount of
sand, silt, and clay. Loam soils contain 7 to 27% of clay, 28 to
50% of silt, and less than 52% of sand.
LOESS. Soil of wind-blown, origin, predominantly silt and fine sand.
MACROPHYTE. A large (uot microscopic) plaat, usually in aa aquatic
habitat.
MELT WATER. Water 'which is formed from the salting of snow, rinc, or
ice.
MSSOTROPRIC. Waters with a moderate supply of nutrients and, compared
to eutrophic waters, having less production of organic natter.
MESOTPvOPHIC LAKE. Lakes of characteristics intermediate between oligo-
trophic and eutrophic, with a moderate supply of nutrients and
plant, life.
METHEKOGLOBIHEMIA. The presence of metheeoglobin in the blood. Metha-
raoglobin is the ozidized form of henoglobin and it is unable to
combine reversibly with, oxygen.
MICROSTRAINER. A device for screening suspended solids chat are not
removed by sedimentation.
MILLIGRAM PER LITER (mg/1). A concentration, of 1/10QO grau of. a sub--
stance in 1 liter of water. Because 1 liter of pure water weighs
1,000 grams, the concentration also can be stated as 1 ppm (part
per niillion, by weight). Used to mej>sure and report the concen-
trations of most substances that conr^oaly occur in. natural and
polluted waters.
MORPHOLOGICAL. Pertaining to Morphology.
MORPHOLOGY. The form or structure of a pl«ut or aniii-al, or of * feature
of the earth, such as a stream, a lake, or the land in general.
Also, the science that is concerned with the study of fonn and
187
-------
structure of living organisms, Geomorphology deals with, the form
and structure of the earth.
NON-POINT' SOURCE. A general source of pollution. Surface water runoff
is an example as it does not originate from a single source and is
not easily controlled.
NUTRIENT BUDGET. The acaount of nutrients entering and leaving a body of
water oa an annual basis.
NUTRIENTS. Elements or compounds essential as raw materials for the
growth and development of organisms, especially carbon, oxygen,
nitrogea and phosphorus.
OLIG07HOPKIC. Surface waters with good water quality, relatively low
concentrations of nutrients, and modest production of vegetation.
OLIGOTSOPHIC LAKES. Lakes with highly transparent water of good
quality, high BO levels, and modest production of aquatic vegeta-
tion.
ORDINANCE. A municipal or county regulation.
OUTWASK. Drift carried by melt water from a glacier and deposited
beyond the marginal moraine.
OUTWASE PLAIN. A plain formed by material deposited by melt water from
a glacier flowing over a more or less flat surface of large area.
Deposits of this origin are usually distinguishable from ordinary
river deposits by the fact that they often grade into moraines and
their constituents bear evidence of glacial origin. Also called
frontal apron.
PARAMETER. Any of a set of physical properties whose values determine
characteristics or behavior.
PERCOLATION. The downward movement of water through pore spaces or
larger voids in soil or rock.
PERMEABILITY. The property or capacity of poro'os rock, sediment, or soil
to transmit a fluid, usual!}*" water, or air; it is a measure of the
relative ease of flow under unequal pressures. Terms used to
describe the permeability of soil are: slow, less than 0.2 inch
per hour; moderately slow, 0.2 to 0.63 inch; moderate, 0.63 to 2.0
inches; moderately rapid. 2.0 to 6.3 inches; and rapid, more than
6.3 inches per hour. A very slow class and a very rapid class also
may be recognized.
PETROGLYPH. An ancient or prehistoric carving or inscription on a rock.
PHOSPHORUS LIMITED. Of all the primary nutrients necessary to support
algal growth, phosphorus is in the shortest supply. Phosphorus can
188
-------
lirait additional algal growth, or if abundant, can stimulate growth
of algae.
PEYTOPLANKTON. Floating plants, microsopic in size, that supply scall
animals with food and give polluted water its green color and bad
taste.
POINT SOURCE. A stationary source of a large individual emission. This
is a general definition.; point source is legally and precisely
defined in Federal regulations.
POVERTY LEVEL. An index providing a range of poverty income cutoffs
adjusted by such factors as family size, sex of family head, number
of children under 18 ye?.rs of age, and farsa or non-farm residence.
PREHISTORIC. A tena which describes the period of human development
that occurred before the advent of written records. More
generally, any period in geologic time before written history.
PRESENT. WORTH. The sua of money that must-be sst aside at the beginning
of the planning period in order to amortize the costs of a project
over the planning period.
PRESSURE SEWER SYSTEM. A wastewater collection system in which, house-
hold wastes are collected in the building drain an.d conveyed
therein to the pretreatment and/or pressurizatioa facility. The
system consists of two cajor elements, ths on-site or pressuri-
zation facility, and the primary conductor pressurized se^er curia.
PRIMARY PRODUCTION. Growth of green plants resulting from solc-.r energy
being fibred as sugar during photosynthesis.
PPJMARY TR5LA.TMENT. The first stage in wastewater treatment in which
nearly all floating or Settleable solids are mechanically removed
by screening and sedimentation.
RAPID INFILTRATION. A fora of land treatment where wastewater is placed
into spresding basins and applied to the land to percolate into the
soil.
RAPID INFILTRATION BASIN. Uulir.ed vjastewater lagoons designed so that
all or part of the wastewater percolates into the underlying soil.
RARE SPECIES. A specie:.; cot EscUngered or Threatened but uricoiCTon and
deserving of further study and monitoring. Peripheral, species, not
listed an threatened, way be included in this category along with
those species thai; vere once "threatened" or "endangered" but now
have increasing or protected, stable populations. Used as official
classification by some states.
RECHARGE. The procr-r.s by t-hich wat^r is add^d to an aquifer. Used also
to indicate the water that is r.dded. Wp.tural recharge occuxs when
water from rainfall or a st.re?r> enters the ground and percol.itcs to
the water tab.!-:-. Artificial rficbar^c by spreading water oa absorp-
189
-------
five ground over an aquifer or by injecting water through, wells is
used to store water and to protect groundwater against the intru-
sion of sea water.
RETENTION TIME. See Detention Time.
ROTATING BIOLOGICAL COHTACTOR (REG). A device, consisting of plastic
disks that rotate alternately through wastewater and air, used for
secondary treatment of wastewater.
ROUGH FISH. Those fish species considered to be of low sport value when
taken on tackle, or of poor eating quality; e.g. gar, suckers.
Rough fish are more tolerant of widely changing environmental
conditions than are game fish. Also called coarse fish.
RUNOFF. Surface runoff is the water from rainfall, melted snov? or
irrigation, water that flows over the surface of tha land. Ground-
water runoff, or seepage flow from groundwater, is the water that
enters the ground and reappears as surface water. Hydraulic runoff
is groundwater runoff plus the surface runoff that flows to streara
channels, and represents that part of the precipitation on a drainage
basin that is discharged from the basin as streamflow. Runoff can
pick up pollutants from the air or the land and carry them to the
receiving waters.
SANITABY SEWERS. Sewers that transport only domestic or cossaercial
sevage. Storm water runoff is carried in a separate system. See
sewer.
SANITARY SURVEY. (1) A study of conditions related to the collection,
treatS53nt, and disposal of liquid, solid, or airborne wastes to
detemiae the potential hazards contributed froui these sources to
the environment. (2) A study of the effect of wsstewater dis-
charges on sources of water supply, on bathing or other recrea-
tional waters, on shellfish culture, and other related environ-
ments .
SCENIC EASEMENT. A partial transfer of land rights to pressrve the
aesthetic attractiveness of the land by restricting activities such.
as the removal of trees, placement of billboards, or development
incompatible with the scenic qualities of the land. Just coffipe_n.sa-
tion is given to owners for rights lost. The right of legal tres-
pass is generally not included as part of this easement..
SECCHI DISK. A round plate, 30 eta (1 foot) in diameter, that is used to
measure the transparency of water. The disk is lowered into tb~
water until it no longer can be seen froa the surface. The depth
at which the disk becoces invisible is a measure of transparency.
SECONDARY TREATMENT. The second stage in the treatment of wastewater in
which bacteria are utilized to decompose the organic matter iu
sewage. This step is accomplished by using such processes as a
trickling filter or activated slugde. Effective secondary treat-
ment processes remove virtually all floating solids and settleable
solids as well as 90% of BOD and suspended solids. Disinfection of
190
-------
the effluent by chlorinatioj.1 customarily is the last step in this
process.
SEPTIC SNOOPER. Trademark for the ENBECO (Environmental Devices Corpor-
atioa) Type 2100 Septic Leachate Detector. This instrument con-
sists of aa underwater probe, a water intake system, an analyzer
control unit arid a graphic recorder. Water drawn through the
instrument is cor.tinuously analyzed for specific fluorescence and
conductivity. When calibrated against typical effluents, the
instrument can detect and profile effluent-like substances &v.d
thereby locate septic tank leachate or other sources of domestic
sewage entering lakes and s
SEPTIC TAJIK. An underground tank used for the collection of domestic
wastes. Bacteria in the wastes deco?KpoF.e the organic matter, and
the sludge settles to the bottom. The effluent flows through
drains into the ground. Sludge is puisped out at regular intervals.
SEPTIC TANK EFFLUENT PUMP (STEP). Punp designed to transfer settled
wastewater from a septic tank to a sewer.
SEPTIC TANK SOIL ABSORPTION SYSTLI1 (ST/SAS) . A systea of wastecater
disposal ia which large solids are retained in a tank; fine solids
and liquids are dispersed into the surrounding soil by a systeu of
pipes .
SEWER, COMBINED. A sewer, or system of sewars, that collects a&d con--
ducts both sanitary sewage and storm-water runoff. During rainless
periods, most or all of th« flow in a combined sewer is cocposed of
sanitary sewage. During a stona, runoff increases the rate of flow
sad may overload the sewage treatment plant to which the sewer
connects. At. such times, it is common to divert some of the flow,
without treatment, into the receiving water.
SEWER, INTERCEPTOR. See Interceptor Sewer.
SEWER, LATERAL. A sewer designed and installed to collect sewago frou a
limited number of individual properties aad conduct it to a trunk
sewer. Also known as a street sewer or collecting sewer.
SEVER, SANITARY. See Sanitary Sewer.
SEWER, STORM. A conduit that collects aad transports stonn~v?ater tun-
off. In many sewerage systems, stona sewers are separate from
those carrying sanitary or irdustrial wastewater.
SEWER, TRUNK. A Sr.wer designed and installed to collect sewcgn from a
number of lateral sewer:? and conduct it to an interceptor sewer or,
in some cases, to a sewage treatnent plant.
SHOALING. The bottom effect that influences the height of waves moving
from deep to shallow water.
191
-------
SINKING FUND. A fund established by periodic installments to provide
for the retirement of the principal of term bonds.
SLOPE. The incline of the surface of the land. It is usually expressed
as a percent (%) of slope that equals the number of feet of fall
per 100 feet in horizontal distance.
SOIL ASSOCIATION. General term used to describe a pattern, of occurrence
of soil types in a geographic area.
SOIL TEXTURAL CLASS. The classification of soil material according to
the proportions of sand, silt, and clay. The principal textural
classes in soil, in increasing order of the asount of silt and
clay, are as follows: sand, loamy sand, sandy loan, loam, silt
loam, sandy clay loam, clay loam, silty clay loan, sandy clay,
silty clay, and clay. These class names are modified to indicate
the- size of the sand fraction or the presence of gravel, sandy
loan, gravelly loam, stony clay, and cobbly loaa, and are used on
detailed soil aaps. These terms apply only to individual soil
horizons or to the surface layer of a soil type.
STATE EQUALIZED VALUATION (SEV). A measure employed withia a State to
adjust assessed valuation upward to approximate true earket value.
In this way it is possible to relate debt burdan to the full value
of taxable property in each coiKaunity within that State.
STRATIFICATION. The condition of a lake, ocean, or other body of water
when the water: coluiaa is divided into a relatively cold bottom
layer and a relatively warm surface layer, with a thin boundary
layer (tb.ennocline) between them. Stratification generally occurs
during the sucsnar and during periods of ice cover in the winter.
Overturns, or periods of mixing, occur in the spring and autumn.
Strati!ication. is most corsEoa in middle latitudes and is related to
weather conditions, basin morphology, and altitude.
STUB FEE. See Connection Fee.
SUBSTRATE. (1) The surface on which organisas may live; generally the
soil, the bottoaj of the ocean, of a lake, a stream, or other body
of water, or the face of a rock, piling, or other natural or man-
made st.ract.ure. (2) The substances used by organisms in liquid
suspension. (3) The liquor in which activated sludge or other
matter is kept in suspension.
S1ICCESSIOH. A gradual sequence of changes or phases in vegetation (or
aniaals) over a period of ticio, even if the climata remains un-
altered; hence plant succession. This will proceed until some
situation of equilibrium is attained, and a climax comraunity is
established.
SUPPLEMENTAL USAGE. Those functions that snail waste flow districts are
not required to perform in order to comply with EPA Construction
Grants regulations governing individual, on-sit<» wastewater sys-
tems. These functions day, however, be necessary to achieve
administrative or environmental objectives.
192
-------
SUSPENDED SOLIDS (SS). Uadissolved particles that are suspende.-i in
water, wastewater or other liquid, and that contribute to tur-
bidity. The examination of suspended solids plus the BOD test
constitute the two s^ain determinations for water quality performed
at wastewater treat-sent facilities.
TERTIARY TREATMENT. See Advanced Waste Treatment.
THREATENED SPECIES (FEDERAL CLASSIFICATION). Any species of animal or
plant that is likely to become
-------
WELL LOG. A chronological record of the soil and rock formations en-
countered in the operation of sinking a well, with either their
thickness or the elevation of the top and bottoa of each, fomatioa
given. It also usually includes statements about the lithologic
coo-position and water-bearing characteristics of each formation,
static and pumping water levels, and well yield.
ZONING. The regulation, by goveroraaatal action (invested by the State to
cities, townships, or counties) of the use of the land, the height
of buildings, and/or the proportion of the land surface that can. be
covered by structures.
194
-------
INDEX
195
-------
INDEX
Aerial photographic survey, xi, 17, 72
Agriculture, 21, 49, 67
prime lands, 30, 33
impacts on, 147, 156, 160
wastewater irrigation, 95
Alternatives:
considered, xi, xii, 112-113, 117-126
costs, i, xiii, 129-132, 161
most cost effective, 18, 159
evaluation criteria, 18-19
flexibility of, 19, 125, 128-129
No-Action, xii, 111, 162
recommended, 1, 164
reliability, 19
See also Facilities Plan, alternatives
Aquatic fauna, 50-52
impacts on, 79-146
Archaeological resources, 21, 70-71
impacts on, xiii, 147, 156
Clean Water Act, 1, 16, 46
Climate, 30
Costs:
construction, vi, 8, 130
operation and maintenance, 131-132
present worth, iii, 18, 130, 161
Draft EIS, 1
Notice of Intent, iv, 8
recommended action, i-iii, 164, 167
Endangered species. See Wildlife,
threatened or endangered
Erosion, 136, 139, 144, 173
Facilities Plan, 1
alternatives, 7-8
cost comparisons, 7, 111
most cost-effective, 8
Proposed Action, iv-v, 8-9, 111-115
comparison with EIS alternatives,
111-112
costs, vi, xiii, 8, 87
flexibility of, 125, 128
implementation of, 104
public hearings/meetings on, 5
study area, 1-3
summary of, 6-8
Fecal coliforms, 42, 44, 78, 153, 159
sampling stations, 43
Fiscal characteristics
of Northwest Township, 68-70
of Williams County, 68-70
Floodplain:
hazard areas, 46-48
impacts, iv, xiii, 79, 143
zoning restrictions, i, xiii, 48, 68
Funding:
federal, iii, 1, 5, 9, 14, 16, 46,
148, 166
eligibility for, 148-149
local, iii, 150
state, 148
Generic EIS. See Rural Lake Projects
Geology, 23-25
Groundwater, viii
hydrology, 42, 45
levels, vi, 26, 45
quality, 45, 78, 138-140, 154, 160-161
recharge, 45, 139
use, 45
Land application, xii, 89, 120
flexibility of, 99-100, 129
methods, 91-92
potential problems with, 102
potential sites, 96
suitability of soils for, 28-29, 120,
139
Land use, viii, 1, 40, 66-68, 73, 116
impacts, 141-143, 154, 160
restrictions, 68
See also Agriculture
Nettle Creek:
discharges into, 112-113
water quality, 38
196
-------
Nettle Lake, 21
physical characteristics, 35-37
water quality, 37-42, 72, 161
bacterial contamination, 136
trophic status, xii, 40-41, 78,
136-137, 161
watershed, 34-36
NPDES, 46
permit, 1, 7
Odors, i, 30, 34, 79
Phosphorus:
levels, 37-38, 72
loading, i, viii, 39-40, 133-134,
136, 138, 153
sources of, i, viii, 39-40, 49,
135, 138, 159
removal by soils, 140
Population, 57
induced growth, vi, xiii, 10, 13,
141-142, 154, 160-161
past, vi, 8, 38, 59
present, viii, 8, 58
projections, vi, viii, 7-8, 58,
60-61, 83
seasonal!ty, viii, 58-61, 65
Proposed Service Area, 1, 4
Recreation, 42, 66, 169
Rural Lake Projects, 15-16
Septic leachate:
plumes, xi, 72, 79, 140
relationship to floods, xi, 79
Septic Snooper survey, 17, 45, 72, 140
Septic tanks. See Wastewater treatment
system, on-site
Sludge disposal, 82, 96-97
Small waste flows districts, iii, 105-108,
164-165
Socioeconomic characteristics:
employment, 61, 64-65
housing, 65-66
income, 61-63
of seasonal population, 65
Socioeconomic impacts, 9, 17, 147
conversion pressure, 152, 157
displacement, i, vi, xiii, 9, 141,
150-151, 156, 160
national perspective on, 11
on employment, 13
user charges, i, iii, vi, xiii, 9,
17, 19, 105, 147-149, 151, 156,
160-161
Soils:
suitability of, viii, ix, 8, 21,
23, 26-28, 81
type, viii, 23, 26, 28, 31, 45
prime agricultural, 31-33
Succession, viii
Surface water resources, viii, 34, 37
flood control measures, 48, 138
flood-prone areas, viii, x, 46-48,
73, 143, 155
quality of, 37, 38, 153, 159-160
use of, 42
See also Nettle Lake; Water quality
Topography, 21-22, 26
Vegetation:
aquatic, 49-50
terrestrial, 52-53
See also Wetlands
Wastewater:
disposal options, 95-96
flow reduction, 84-85
benefits of, 84-86
methods, 84-87
treatment technologies assessed, 82
Wastewater system:
alternative collection methods, 88-90,
112-113
flexibility of, 97
management of, 106-109
reliability of, 100-102
Wastewater treatment system:
central, xi-xii, 89
design flow, 83-84
disposal/discharge options, 89
flexibility of, 97-99, 160
cluster, xi, xii, 93, 95
design flow, 83-84
flexibility of, 99, 160
197
-------
reliability of, 103
design population, 83
on-site, xi-xii, 6, 14, 70, 94
flexibility of, 99, 160
impact of flooding on, 79, 94, 161
impact on water quality, i, 40, 72,
159
investigations of, 72-74
management of, i-iv, xii, 164-165
problems with, i, iv, xi, 6, 14, 34,
70, 72, 77-79, 161
reliability of, 102-103, 160
sanitary code requirements, 75, 77, 94
site limitations, 79, 81-82
technology of choice, 94
types of, 73-76, 91, 93, 120, 162-163
upgrading of, xii, 14, 162-164, 166
proposed, 8
See also Land application
Water consumption, 84
Water quality, i, 37-42, 72
impacts, xii, 78, 133, 159-161
management, 46, 164-166
modeling, viii, 40-41
trophic level, 40, 41, 136-137
Wetlands
impacts on, vi, xiii, 10, 144-145, 155,
160
location, vii
Wildlife
areas, 71, 73
threatened or endangered, 55-57
198
-------
APPENDIX A
SURFACE WATER
199
-------
APPENDIX
A-l
Page 1 of 10
OEPA Permit No. C746*BD
Application No. 0110051376
lifCoctivia Date: September 2<>, ]'>'/<}
Date: September 2S, l'Jo3
OlilU iiNVlKONMENlAL m/iiiC'IIOn! AGENCY
AUTHORISATION 'J'O uliioiiAivuii UNUliK Tilii
NATIONAL POLLUTANT jisuiAitGii C^DIIIIATIOIJ SYSTEM
In compliance with the provisions of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 ct. seq . hereinafter rnf^rrec' to as
"the Act"), and the Ohio Water Pollution Control Act (Ohio Revised Coc'e
Section 6111),
Board of County Commissioners
Williams County
IJettlo L*ke Area
is authorized by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, hereafter referred
to as "Ohio EPA", to discharge from the proposed wastewater treatment works to
he located
near Nettle Lake, Northwest Township, Williams County, Ohio
and discharging to Nettle Creek
in accordance with the conditions specified in Parts I, II and ill of tiiia
permit .
This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at
midnight on the expiration date shown above. In order to receive authori-
zation to discharge beyond the above date of expiration, the permittee shall
submit such information and forms as are required by the Ohio EPA no later
than 180 days prior to the above date of expiration.
Ned E. Williams, P.E.
Director
OEPA-NPDES-48
A-l-1
-------
A-l
Page 2 of 10
C. SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE. QEPA No. C746*B1)
The permittee shall achieve compliance with specified effluent limitations in accordance with the following schedule:
1. N/A
2. N/A
3. Submit an approvable Step II Grant Application, as defined by 40CFR 35.920-3(b), within 2 months after written
notification from the Ohio EPA of the availability of Federal funds for the specified treatment works or treat-
ment works segment, as defined in 40CFR 35.905-23 and 35.905-24, respectively.
4. Submit approvable detail plans and specifications to the State not later than the final date stipulated in the
payment schedule specified in the Step II Grant Agreement(s) or amended Grant Agreement(s).
5. Submit an approvable Step III Grant Application, 03 defined by 40CFR 35.920-3(c), within 2 months after written
notification from the Ohio EPA of the availability of Federal funds for the specified treatment works or treat-
ment works segment, as defined in 40CFR 35.905-23 and 35.905-24, respectively.
6. Commence construction as soon as possible after award of a Step III Grant but, in any event, not later than one
year from the date of the grant award unless the Regional Administrator has approved an extension in accordance
with 40CFR 35.935-9.
'. Notify the appropriate Ohio EPA District Office within 7 days of the initiation of construction of the treatment
works or treatment works segment.
8. Notify the appropriate Ohio EPA District Office within 7 days completion of construction of the treatment worki;
or treatment works segment.
9. Attain operational level of the constructed treatment works or treatment works segment(s) not later than the final
date stipulated in the payment schedule specified in the Step III Grant Agreement(s) or amended Grant Agreement(o).
10. Notify the appropriate Ohio EPA District Office within 7 days after attaining operational level of the
constructed treatment works or treatment works segment(s).
11. Comply with final effluent limitations upon the attainment of operational level of the treatment works required !>/
the approved facility plan for achieving such limitations. The attainment of operational levels shall be In accor-
dance with the implementation schedule of the approved facility plan, or as the schedule is amended by Grant
Agreements, amended Grant Agreements, or Special Grant Conditions.
Failure to execute a grant Agreement within the time specified by U.S. EPA shall constitute a violation of this jched-iK:
of compliance.
In cases where there are a sufficient number of municipalities in a planning area to warrant the designation of a load
applicant, It shall be the responsibility of all entities to designate a mutually acceptable lead applicant after wi 11 < <
notification of the availability of funds. Failure to reach timely agreement on a lead applicant can result in the
modification of this schedule of compliance to a schedule which is not contingent on the receipt of Federal Funds.
All grant applications, plans and reports required by the above schedule shall be submitted to the appropriate
Ohio EPA District Office.
If the time necessary for completion of an interim requirement (any item in the schedule) is more than 9 months,
Federal Regulations stipulate that interim dates shall be specified for the submission of reports on the progress
towards completion of the interim requirement. When appropriate, interim progress reports shall be submitted.
These reports may accompany grant payment requests.
SEE PART III, "NONCOMPLIANCE NOTIFICATION".
A-l-2
-------
A-l
Page 3 of 10
OEPA G746*BD
PART I, A - FINAL EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
1. During the period beginning on attainment of operational level and lasting until
the expiration date, the permittee is authorized to discharge in accordance with
the following limitations and monitoring requirements from the following
outfalls: G746001. SEE PART II, OTHER REQUIREMENTS, for location of effluent
sampling.
EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTIC
REPORTING
Code UNITS PARAMETER
DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS
Concentration
Other Units(Specify)
30 day 7 day
Loading*
kg/day
30 day 7 day
MONITORING
REQUIREMENTS
Meas. Sample
Freq. Type
50050 MGD Flow
00010 Deg. Temperature
Cent.
00530 mg/1 Suspended Solids 12
00310 mg/1 BOD5 10
31616 Count Fecal Col iform 1000
/100ml
18
15
2000
6
5
9
7
Daily Continuous
Daily Max. Incl.
Thermometer
I/week 8 hr. Comp.
1/week 8 hr. Comp.
I/week Grab
2. The pH (Reporting Code 00400) shall not be less than 6.5 S.U. nor greater than
9.0 S.U. and shall be monitored daily by grab sample
3. The Chlorine Residual (Reporting Code 50060) shall be maintained at a level not
to exceed 0.5 mg/1 and monitored daily by grab sample.
4. The Dissolved Oxygen (Reporting Code 00300) shall be monitored daily by grab
sample.
5. See PART II, OTHER REQUIREMENTS.
* The average effluent loading limitations are established using the following
flow value: 0.125 MGD
OEPA-NPDES-48
A-l-3
-------
A-l
Page 4 of 10
OEPA G746*BD
PART I, B. - ADDITIONAL MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (con't)
1. Influent Monitoring. The permittee shall monitor the treatment work's
influent wastewater at Station Number G746601 and report to the Ohio EPA
in accordance with the following table. Samples of influent used for
determination of net values or percent removal must be taken the same day
as those samples of effluent used for that determination. SEE PART II,
OTHER REQUIREMENTS, for location of influent sampling.
EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTIC
REPORTING
Code UNITS PARAMETER
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Measurement
Frequency Sample Type
00530 mg/1 Suspended Solids
00310 mg/1 BOD5
00400 S.U. pH
00010 Deg. Temperature
Cent.
1/week
1/week
Daily
Daily
8 hr. Comp.
8 hr. Comp.
Grab
Max. Ind.
Thermometer
OEPA-NPDES-48
A-l-4
-------
A-l
Page 5 of 10
OEPA G746*BD
PART II, OTHER REQUIREMENTS
A. The wastewater treatment works must be under supervision of a State
certified operator as required by Rule 3745-7-02 of the Ohio
Administration Code (formerly OEPA Regulation EP-06-02/Ohio Sanitary Code
Regulation HE-37-02) for a Class I Operator.
B. Description of the location of the required sampling stations are as
follows:
Sampling Station Description of Location
G746001 Effluent Pipe
G746601 Influent Pipe
C. All parameters, except flow, need not be monitored on days when the
plant is not normally staffed (Saturdays, Sundays, and Holidays). On
those days report "AN" on the monthly report forms.
D. Composite samples shall be comprised of at least 5 grab samples
proportionate in volume to the sewage flow rate at the time of sampling
and collected at 2 hour, intervals during the period that the plant is
staffed on each day for sampling.
E. Grab samples shall be collected at such times and locations, and in
such fashion, as to be representative of the monitored flow.
OEPA-NPDES-48
A-l-5
-------
PART III - GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. DEFINITIONS
6 of 10
G746*BD
A-l
A. 1. 1'liu "_d.i Ily loud 1 lui 1L" 1.1mm " U tuu total dixch.irgi. liy weight during uiiy rultmdar Uuy. If only one uauple IN
taken during * day, the weight of pollutant discharge calculated from It la the dally load.
i.. Tlio 'MnJ \y cmiceiiiratjoii_1 .ljuj-t.",ld.'i'1." means the aritlimetlc average (weighted by flow) of nil the determinations
of concentration wide during the day. If only one sample is taken during the day Itu concentration la the
daily concentration. Conform bacteria limitations compliance shall be determined using the geometric mean.
3. The "7-day load limitation" is the total discharge by weight during any 7-day period divided by the number of
days in that 7-day period that the facility was in operation. If only one sample is taken in a 7-day period
tin* weight of pollutant y flow" meanu the summation of each sample concentration tines its respective flow in convenient unliH
divided by the summation of the respective flows.
b. ".85 percent .removal U.m.l tat lo_nH_" means the arithmetic mean of the values for effluent samples collected In a
period of '10 consecutive days Hh.ill not exceed IS percent of the arithmetic mean of the values lur Influent
samples collected at approximately the same times during the same period.
C. 1. Absolute Limitations. Compliance with limitations having descriptions of "shall not be less than", "nor greater
than", "shall not exceed", "minimum", or "maximum", shall b« determined from any single value for effluent samples
and/or measurements collected.
^* "Net concentration" shall mean the difference between the concentration of a given substance in a sample taken of
tht> discharge and the concentration of th? same Kubstances In a sample taken at the Intake which Kupplleu water 10
the given procest*. Fur the purposes ol this definition samples that arc taken to duicrotlm' lite net ctmci-itifni Ion
shall always be 24-hour composite samples made up of at least six increments taken at regular Intervals through-
out the plant day.
3* "Net load" shall mean the difference between the load of a given substance as calculated from a sample taken ol
the discharge and the load of the same substance in u sample taken at the intake which supplies water to given
process. For purposes of this definition samples that are taken to determine the net loading shall alwny*. fou
24-hour composite samples made up of at least six Increments taken at regular Intervals throughout, the plant day.
D. 1. When Quarterly sampling frequency is specified, the sampling shall be done in the months of March, June,
August and December.
2. When a Yearly sampling frequency is specified, the sampling shall be done In the month of September.
3. Winter shall be considered to be the period from November 1 thru April 30.
4. Summer shall be considered to be the period from May 1 thru October 31.
E. 1. "MGD" means million gallons per day
2. ^ra&/_l" means milligrams per liter
3. "ug/1" means oicrograms per liter
F. "Reporting Code" is a five digit number used by the Ohio EPA in processing reported data. The reporting code
does not imply the type of analysis used nor the sampling techniques employed.
2. GENERAL EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
The effluent shall, at all tines, be free of substances:
A. In amounts that will settle to form putreacent, or otherwise objectionable, sludge deposits; or that will ad-
versely affect aquatic life or water fowl;
B. Of an oily, greasy, or surface-active nature, and of other floating debris, in amounts that will form noticeable
accumulations of scum, foam or sheen;
C. In amounts that will alter the natural color or odor of the receiving water to such degree as to create a nuisance;
D. In amounts that either singly or in combination with other substances that are toxic to human, animal, or aquatic
life;
OEPA-NPDES-48 (8/1/77)
A-l-6
-------
A-l
Page? of 10
"KPA G746*B1)
E. In amounts that are conducive tu the growth of aquatic weeds or algae to the extent that such growths become
Inlwlinl i<> more den I re.ihle lormn of aquatic life, or create conditions thi. are unsightly, or constitute a
nuisance In any other l.iiililon;
F. In amounts that will impair designated instream or downstream water uses.
3. FACILITY OPERATION AND QUALITY CONTROL
All wastewater treatment work« uhuIt be operated in a manner consistent with the following:
A. At all llme«-rml'. l ee iiliul] iiuiliil ulii In good workinK order nnd "Derate nfi efficiently an possible all treat-
ment or control facilities or systems installed or used by thu permittee Lo achievu compliance with thu LurmH and
conditions of this permit.
U. The permittee shall etfucLlvely monitor I lu: opurulloM and efficiency of treatment and control fm-llllicH und the
quantity and quality of the treated discharge.
C. Maintenance of wastcwator treatment works that resultN in degradation of effluent quality shall be scheduled during
non-critical water quality periods and shall be carried out in a manner approved by the Ohio EPA as specified In
the Paragraph in this PART III entitled, "UNAUTHORIZED DISCHARGES".
4. KKPOKTINO
A. Monitoring data required by this permit Hhall be reported on the Ohio KPA report form (KI'A-Sur-i) on a monthly
basis. Individual reports for each sampling station for each month are to be received no later than the 13th day uf
the next month. The original plus first copy of the report form must ba signed and mailed to:
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Technical Records Section
Post Office Box 1049
Columbus, Ohio 43216
II. If the permittee monitor'! any pollutant at the locatiun(s) designated herein more frequently than required by tlilx
permit, using approved analytical methods as specified below, the results of auch monitoring shall be included in
the calculation and reporting of the values required in the reports specified above.
C. Analyses of , oJlutants not required by this permit, except as noted in the preceding paragraph, shall not be re-
reported on Ohio EPA report form (EPA Sur-1) but records shall be retained as specified in the paragraph entitled
"RECORDS RETENTION".
5. SAMI'UNi; & ANALYTICAL MI'.TIIOUS
Samples and measurements taken as required herein shall be representative of the volume and nature of the monitored
flow. Te»it procedures for the finlyHlH of pollutants shall conform to regulation 40 CFR 136, "Test Procedures* For
Thu Analyuls of Pollutants". Thu permittee shall periodically calibrate and perform maintenance procedures on all
monitoring and analytical instrumentation at intervals to insure accuracy of measurements.
6. RECORDING Of RESULTS
For each measurement or sample taken pursuant to the requirements of this permit, the permittee shall record the
following information:
A. The exact place, date, and time of sampling;
B. The date and time the analyses were performed on those samples;
C. The person(s) who performed the analysea;
D. The analytical techniques or methods used; and
E. The results of all analyses and measurements
7. RECORDS RETENTION
The permittee shall retain all of the following records for the wastewater treatment works for a minimum of three years.
A. All sampling and analytical records (Including Internal aampllng data not reported);
B. All original recordings for any continuoua monitoring Instrumentation;
C. All instrumentation, calibration and maintenance records; and
U. All plant operation and maintenance records.
These periods will be extended during the course of any unresolved litigation, or whan so requested by the Regional
Administrator or the Ohio EPA.
8. AVAILABILITY OF REPORTS
Except for data determined by the Ohio EPA to be entitled confidential starts, all reports prepared in accordance with
the terms of this permit ahall be available for public Inspection at the appropriate District Offices of the Ohio EPA.
Both Section 308, Public Law 92-500 and Section 6111.05 Ohio Revised Code state that effluent data and receiving water
quality data shall not be considered confidential. Knowingly Baking any false statement on any such report Bay result
in the imposition of criminal penalties as provided for In the Ohio Revised Code Section 6111.99.
OEPA-NPDES-48
A-l-7
-------
A-l
Pane 8 of 10
* KlCill'l' OK UNTKY OKt'A G746*BD
The permittee shall allow authorized representatives of the Ohio EPA and US EFA upon the presentation of credentials;
A. To enter upon the permittee*** premises where an effluent source Is located or In which any records are required to
be kept under the terns and conditions of this permit; and
B. At reasonable times to have access to and copy any records required to be kept ujider the terms and conditions of
this permit; to frmpert any monitoring equipment or monitoring method required In this permit; and to sample any
discharge of pollutant**.
10. UNAUTHORIZED DISCHARGES
A. Unless specifically authorized in Part 1 of this permit, deliberate by-passing or diverting of wastewater from
the treatment works is prohibited except when necessary:
1. To prevent loss of life;
2. To prevent severe property damage;
3. To prevent damage to treatment works or processes; or
4. To allow essential maintenance to be performed according to a schedule approved in writing by the Ohio EFA
District Office.
B. While typical unauthorized discharges are those resulting from pipeline breads, equipment malfunction)! or failures,
operator errorn, acrtdfntH, process interruptions, or power failures, all unauthorized discharges shall be reported
according to the following procedure:
1. Report within one hour of discovery to Ohio EPA by calling (toll free) 1-800-282-9378.
2. Report within one hour of discovery to U.S. EPA Nut tonal Spill Response Center by calling (toll free)
1-800-424-8802.
3. For these telephone reports the following information must be lncli»^3d:
ji. the times at which thtt discharge occurred, and was discovered;
b. the approximate amount and the characteristics of the discharge;
c. the strcam(n) affected by the discharge;
d. the circumstances which created the discharge;
e. the names and telephone numbers of the parson* who have knowledge of these circumstances;
f. what remedial steps are being taken;
g. the names and telephone numbers of the persons responsible for such remedial steps.
4. These reports shall be confirmed in writing within seven days of the discharge and submitted to the
appropriate Ohio Kl'A District 01 flee and to the U.S. EPA KeKlonal Admlnslralur. Tills report should
Include the Information required under "HOHCOMPLIABCE NOTIFICATION".
II. NONCOHI'I.IAHCi: NOTIFICATION
A. Effluent Limitations:
If the permittee is unable to meet any effluent limitations specified in this permit, the permittee shall submit a
written report to the appropriate Ohio EPA District Office within seven day* of becoming aware of the conditions.
The report shall include the following:
1. The limltation(s) which has been violated;
2. The extent of the violation(s);
3. The cause of the vlolation(H);
4. The period of the violatlon(s) including exact dates and times;
5. If uncorrectcd, the anticipated time the violation(s) is expected to continue; and
6. Steps being taken to reduce, eliminate and/or prevent recurrence of the violatlon(s).
B. Compliance Schedule Events:
If the permittee is unable to meet any date for achieving an event, as specified in the Schedule of Compliance,
the permittee shall submit a written report to the appropriate District Office of the Ohio EPA within seven days
of becoming aware of such situation. The report s'.all include the following:
1. The compliance event which has been or will be violated;
2. The cause of the violation;
3. The remedial action being taken;
4. The probable date by which compliance will occur; and
5. The probability of complying with subsequent and final event* as scheduled.
12. POWER FAILURES
The failure of the primary source of power t
-------
Page 9 of 10
All discharges authorized herein shall be consistent with the terms and conditions of this permit. The discharge
of any pollutant Identified In this permit more frequently then, or at a level in excess of, that authorized by this
permit shall cunxtUuto a violation of the terms and conditions of this permit. Such a violation may result in the
imposition of civil and/or criminal penalities as provided for in Section 309 of the Act, and Ohio Revised Code Sec-
tions 6111.09 and 6111.99
15. DISCHARGE CHANGES
The following changes must bu reported to the appropriate Ohio KPA District Office as soon as practicable.
A. For publicly owned Lroutlnettl wurku:
1. Any proposed plant modification, addition and/or expansion that will change the capacity or efficiency
of the plant;
2. The addition of any new significant industrial discharge; and
3. Changes in the quantity or quality of the wastes from existing tributary industrial dlacharges which will
result in significant new or increaaed dlacharges of pollutants.
B. For non-publlcly owned treatment works, any proposed facility expansions, production increases, or process
modifications, which will result in new, different, or increaaed discharges of pollutants.
Following this notice, uodlfIcutluns to the permit may be made to reflect any neccexary changeu in permit conditions,
including any necessary effluent limitations for any pollutants not identified and limited herein. A determination
will also be made as to whether a National Enviromantal Policy Act (NEPA) review will be required. Chapters 6111.44
and 6111.45, Ohio Revised Code, require that plans for treatment works or Improvements to such works be approved by
the Director of the Ohio EPA prior to initiation of construction.
16. TOXIC POLLUTANTS
If a toxic effluent standard or prohibition (Including a schedule of compliance) is established under Section 307(a)
of the Act fur a toxic pollutant which is present in the permittee's discharge and such standard or prohibition
(including a schedule of compliance) Is more stringent than any limitation upon auch pollutant in this permit, the
Director shall modify this permit in accordance with the toxic effluent standard and so notify the permittee.
17. PERMIT MODIFICATION. SUSPENSION. OR REVOCATION
A. After notice and opportunity for a hearing, this permit may be modified, suspended, or revoked, by the Ohio EPA,
in whole or in part during ita term for cause including, but not limited to, the following:
1. violation of uny terms or conditions of this permit;
2. obtaining this permit by misrepresentation or failure to disclose fully all relevant facts; or
3. a change in any condition that requires either a temporary or permanent reduction or elimination of the
permitted discharge.
B. Pursuant to Rule 3745-33-06, Ohio Administrative Code (Formerly Reg. EP-31-06) the permittee may at any time
apply to the Ohio F.I'A for modification of any part of this permit. The application for modification should be
received by the appropriate Ohio EPA District Office at least ninety days before the date on which it IB dOHlrud
that the modification become effective. The application shall be w.'U only on forms approved by the Ohio EPA.
18. TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OR CONTROL
This permit cannot be transferred or assigned nor shall a new owner or successor be authorized to discharge from this
facility, until the following requirements are met:
A. The permittee shall notify the succeeding owner or successor of the existence of this permit by a letter, a copy
of hhich shall be forwarded to the appropriate Ohio EPA District Office;
B. The appropriate Ohio EPA District Office must be notified in writing sixty daya prior to any proposed transfer of
an Ohio NPDES permit. The new owner or successor shall submit a letter to the Ohio EPA requesting the permit be
transferred and stating that he will assume tha responsibility for this permit; and
C. The new owner or successor receives written confirmation and approval of the transfer from the Director of the
Ohio EPA.
19. OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE LIABILITY
Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the institution of any l«gal action or relieve the permittee
from any responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties to which tha permittee is or may be subject under Section 311
of the Act.
20. SOLIDS DISPOSAL
Collected screenings, slurries, sludges, and other solids shall be disposed of in such a manner as to prevent entry
of those wastes into waters of tha State.
21. CONSTRUCTION AFFECTING NAVIGABLE WATERS
This permit does not authorize or approve the construction of any onshore or offshore physical structures or facili-
ties or tha undertaking of any work in any navigable waters.
OEPA-NPDES-48
A-l-9
-------
22. CIVIL AMD CKIMIHAL LIABILITY
oiA
l-,x.<-|>l ,,H vx. ,»,»! r, I l,i 11... |>,.n»H ruuillt lunu on UNAUTIIORI /.ED PI SCHARCES and FOWEH FAILURES. ttolhlm ! lhl«
shall be construed tu relieve the permittee Iron civil or criminal penal It IK (or non-cuapllaat*.
ZJ. STATt LAWS ANH 1fs It .tuLltiir l/ii uuy Injury to |>rlvni.i.> property or any invasion of personal rights^ nor any
ment of Kedural, utate, or local Laws or regulations.
21. SMH-KA"'.'^'^.
The provisions of this permit are suverable, and if any provision of this permit, or the application of any provi-
sion of ihJH permit to .my circumstance, is held Invalid, the application of such provision to othvr clrcuaataoc*«t
and the remainder of this permit, shall not be affecceJ thereby.
OEPA-NPDES-48
A-l-10
-------
ANALYTICAL RESULTS OF USGS WATER QUALITY SAMPLING
UNITED STATES l)t.PAPT'--.EfJT OF THE INTERIOR
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
CENTRAL LABORATORY* ATLANTA* GEORGIA
APPENDIX
A-2
QUALITY ANALYSIS
LAd ID * 15)114 RECORD ti 13713
LOCATION: NETTLE LK N3 rUUPOINT AT SITE L-l OH
STATION 10-' 41<*Ob5U8443370U L AT . LO'JG. SEU. : 4l4Ub5 0*34^337 00
STATE CODE: 39 COUNTY CUUt: 171 PROJECT IDENTIFICATION: ^43902700
DATA TYPE: 2 SOUPCE: LAKE OH RESERVOIR GEOLOGIC UNIT:
TOP/SAMPLE
ON TOT ORGANIC
.-COO-HI--LEVEL
NITR.
NITP,,
IJ02
N03
NIT«OGEN
AS
AS
N
N
MG/L
- -Mb/L-
TOTAL MG/L
TOTAL MG/L
TOT
TOT
ASN-TOT-MG/L-
AS N MG/L
AS N03 MG/L
8.5
30
0.03
0.58
-0.1 6
1.5
6.7
NITROGEN TOT ORG N MG/L
-NITKOtEN-TOTKJD-AS N MG/L
N02 + NO 3 AS N TOT MG/L
Pri FIELD '
PhOS ORTHO TOT AS P---MG/L
PHOSPHORUS TOT AS P MG/L
SILICA DISSOLVED MG/L
- SP. CONOUCTPiMCE FtD
0.74
O.VO
0.61
0.00
0.04
O.H
45U
A-2-1
-------
MlTfcu STATES DEPAU'MtNT OF THE INTERIOR
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
CtNTKAL LABORATORY* ATLANTA* GEORGIA
LAb ID *
QUALITY ANALYSIS
151115 RECORD «* 13715
SAMPLE LOCATION: NETTLE LK NR MIDPOINT AT SITE L-l OH
STATION ID: 4l4055Ub*»433700 LAT . LQNG.SEQ. : 4l40b5 U8<»4337 00
Alt. .OF -COLLECTION: -hEGlW 7^05^^ F (vO __________ TIK-E 1630 ______
STATE COL»E: 39 COUNTY CODE: : 171 PROJECT 1 DLNT IF I C AT 1 ON :
DATA TYPE: 2 SOURCFi': LAKE OR KESERVQIR GEOLOGIC UNIT:
COMMENTS: ______ __________ ._..-_... _ ..... _ ________________
- BOTTOM SAMPLE
A-2
CARBON TOT ORGANIC MG/L
-COO-HI . LE\/EI ________ . MG/L
NlTR. N02 AS N TOTAL KG/L
NITR. N03 AS N TOTAL MG/L
-l-J I IMOGEN -Nri^-ASN-TO-T-MG/L-
NITROGEN TOT AS N MG/L
(NITROGEN TOT AS N03 MG/L
9.7
JO __________
0.01
Q.I 6
0.65
1.6
7.0
NITROGEN U)T ORG N MG/L
NITROGEN -TOTKJO AS- «N MG/L
N02 + N03 AS N TOT MG/L
PH FIELD
^PHOS ORTHO TOT-AS-P - MG/L-
PHOSPHORUS TOT AS P MG/L
SILICA DISSOLVED MG/L
SP.- CONDUCTANCE -FLO -
0.75
1.4
0.1^
7.3
- O.OC
O.Ob
5.6
460
A-2-2
-------
UNI IF.!) si/Air.s DLPAPT-"tNT or THfc INTERIOR
'>FOLObICAL SURVEY
Cc.NTnAL LMHO^ATORY» ATLANTA* GEORGIA
II)
DUALITY ANALYSIS
2 RECORD it 336?2
OH
SAMPLE lOCnTjorj: NtTTLt. LK MR MIDPOINT AT SITE L-l
STATION ID-' 4 I«0b50b4<* JJ700 L AT . LONG. SEW. : ^1
DATE OF COLLECTION: _HLO!N 7bo«i4 END _
bTATE COUP. : JV COUNTY "CGuE:" 171 PROJECT' IDErJTIF I CAT ION
DATA TYPE: d source: LAKE OR RESERVOIR GEOLOGIC UNIT
-r**, C z-f" -/ V
- - ,--.-- - --f- .-..,. ._. -_
00
44390^700
A-2
ANALYZING AGENCY BUUiO
CARBON_TOT ORGANIC _ J^G/L 6.j9 _
COD HI LEVEL~~ "~~MG/L <^2
NITR. \'02 AS N TOTAL MG/L 0.04
MTR. \'03 Ab N TOTAL MG/L °.»60
MlTRCOEN NnV'ASN TOT MG/L' O."u5
NITROGEN TOT AS N M'o/L l.b
NITROGEN TUT AS NO-3 MLVL 7.3
NITKOGEN TOT ORG N MG/L 0.9D
_NJ_TK_qGE_N TOTKJJ_ AS N MG/L _ 1.0
N02 "+ iNl03"Ab N TOT MG/L Oeb4
PH FIELD d.2
PHOS ORTHO TOT AS P MG/L O.OU
PHOSPHORUS TOT AS P MG/L 0.04
SILICA DISSOLVED MG/L 2.2
SP. CONDUCTANCE FLO 450
A-2-3
-------
UNI1FU STATES OtPAHT^tNT OF THE INTERIOR
GFJLUG1CAL SURVEY
CEN1RAL LA'iJrMlORY* ATLANTA, GEORGIA
A-2
QUALITY ANALYSIS
LAb JD « c^VOll RECORD * 33620
SAMPLE LOCATION: "NETTLL LK "N-* KIDPO~INT~AT~SITE I-l OH
STATION ID: «f lHOb£>UB4<+33700 LAT.LONG.SEQ. : 4140b5 0844337 00
.DATE of COLLECTION.- ^FGIN7booi4 F.NO _ TIME:
STATE CODE: 39 COUNTY CODE: 171 PROJECT IDENTIFICATION:
DATA TYPE: 2 SOURCE: LAKE 0* RESERVOIR GEOLOGIC UNIT:
COMMENTS:
ANALYZING AGENCY
CARdON_TOJ ORGANIC
C 00 H'I~ I EVE L. ' "~ "" M^G/L"
K'lTR. N02 AS N TOTAL f-lG/L
NITR. K'03_ AS .N_TOTAL_MG/L
Nnt ASN ~TOT Mb/L~
TOT AS N MG/L
bOUlO
NITROGEN TOT AS N03
0.01
°_-°Q
^l.b
3.3
15
NITROGEN TOT ORG N MG/L
N02 +' N03 AS N TOT
PH FIELD
!itLPs U^THO TOT AS P
PHOSPHORUS TOT AS P
SILICA DISSOLVED
SP. CONDUCTANCE FLD
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
1.5
3-3
" 0.00
7.1
0.16
"0.30
9.3
500
A-2-4
-------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE IMTEHIUK
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
CENTRAL LABORATORY. ATLANTA, GEORGIA
WATER DUALITY ANALYSIS -
LAb 10 » 151122 RECORD # 13729
-SAMPLE-LOCATION: NETTLE LK -MR MIDPOINT AT SITE t-i OH
STATION ID: 414055064433700 LAT.LONG.SEQ.: 414055 0&44337 00
DATE OF COLLECTION!: BEGIN--780522 END TIHE--16IO
STATE-CODE: 39 COUNTY CODE: 171 PROJECT IDENTIFICATION: 443902700
DATA TYPE: 2 SOURCE: LAKE OR RESERVOIR GEOLOGIC UNIT:
COMMENTS:
COMPOSITE SAMPLE " " " "
A-2
BARIUM TOTAL
BORON TOTAL
CADMIUM 'TOTAL
CALCIUM DISS
CHLORIDE DISS
CHROMIUM TOTAL
COBALT TOTAL
COPPER TOTAL
FLUORIDE DISS"
HARDNESS TOTAL
IRON TOTAL
LhAU TOTAL""
MAGNESIUM DISS
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MG/L
MG/L
UG/L <
UG/L
UG/L
MG/L
MG/L
UG/L
i ir /i
UO/L
MG/L
0
70
0
66
11
1 0
0
4
0.1
220
310
/:
14
MANGANESE TOTAL
MERCURY TOTAL
MOLYBDENUM TOTAL"
NICKEL TOTAL
PH FIELD
POTASSIUM DISS
SAR
SELENIUM TOTAL
ILvER TOTAL ~
SODIUM DISS
SODIUM PERCENT
SULFATE DISS
ZINC TOTAL
UG/L
UG/L <
!!/* ft
UG/L'
UG/L
-MG/L -
UG/L
1 1 f* * *
UG/L
MG/L
MG/L
UG/L
170
0.5
6
7.7
-2.6
0.1
0
4.6
4
A A Q
56
20
CATIONS
ANIONS
(MG/L)
CALCIUM
M AGNES I
POTASSI
SODIUM
D
tJM
UM
DI
ISS
DISS
DISS
ss
6b
14
2.
4.
-
6
6
(KEQ/L)
3.294
1.152
0.067
0.201
CHLOR
FLUOR
SULFA
IDE
IDE
TE
DISS
OI5S- -
DISS
_ - . _
(MG/L)
11
0.1
5o
(
O -
O.
1.
K
MEQ/
3 £o
ooS"
1 fefe
TOTAL
4.712
TOTAL
A-2-5
-------
A-2
UNJKi) bTAIES OtH/mrtNT OF Tut iNTE-UOrt
<»r JLOG] C»L
Lt.Nl^««L L A VJcMl O-«Y «
wArE-f DUALITY
LAD 10 >t IbMad WtCOKO « 13^13 '
_SA'-VLt" LOCnTIO-J: NLTTLt LK N-R_ MIDPOINT AT SITE L-l OH
SfMTlON 10-' M<+Ob50R^3j700 LAT. LO^b. Stu. :~ 4 1 <+05b "Oo4H 337 00
DATE OF COLLE.CTION: rfEoiN780^22 CNO TIKE
_^TJ*_TE. COJt: 39 C3UNTY CODE: 171 PROJECT IDENTIFICATION:
DATA TYPt: 2 bOuWCt":"YAKE~"Q-< KcSEKVOlH GEOLOGIC UNIT:"
PhYTO TYPE-I C/ML olUO
A~2-6
-------
A-2
* JJ/00 NEITLt LK -IK MIuPOIMl AT Silt L-l OH
LAT -'-O-a
AGENCY : USGS
STATE CODE : J9
MAY *<:
160J HOU«S
HHYTO^LAIKTON I06NTH KAT I ON
a-]u0 CELLS/ML
"NAME
C"LOr^Ot rIYCtAE
.CHLO'i'Tr;i- .''TCE -'.
A-2-1
-------
.l>YrTl' 11: tl'J tl -S
. . C.-'i'VT'iL'-i'-Y^ I jflcf r
. .c
TOTALS
o.9=uiv£^siTY
v>HYCs.a
yIN'OrLA'jt'LLAt tS
" " " "
' OJI'JUM
lOTALb
76
7h
0.0=0f VE
CtU./' L V«L.J
" - I>l»vij-H4l
"'.'-''-L YSI5 -'-n
|)1/--»S11Y J\i
iJ L" "'L TO
li .-; CJ-C)
A.\'U yttTj-flfcil TO rw
] . 1
-------
A-2
LAo 10 ^ lbl^+^7 ktCOJ-.O
LOCATION: iNJcTTLE LK .\'K ML-POIMJ A! SIT£ L-l On
LAT .U>'Jt».SE.'J. : ^14oD3 Ubt^JJ? 00
Er> )= ~~ HhT--T605
TATF COOt: 39 COUMTY Cout: : l'/i P^oJF'CT i Ot. K'l I F 1 (, ^T I O M
MA TYPE: £r bOU»C£: LAMi 0-f xEStrO-ul r>
TYpr-i c/r-lL
A-2-9
-------
A-2
i/Uo 'Jr.TILt' LK '>< Mll.->l>JVl AT Silt L-l 1H AGt'VCr JSl.S
^i-xO-riD L>lMij «-i» J-j / St-J Ou STATE CJO-: J 3"-1
~~~
ATiHN '
I^.UOO O.LLS/.-lL
*»£ ... _CL Ht«<_Cti(-hMf TA fi-nfN nLGAt
t-lLOKvH'nYC£.*£
r.C'Jci'"-IuF.
"i~ .T"S(.L..e'.)i'.<;> -_ .- - - .- 7aQ ^.. _ _____
. . (fiiLY'tCHlcs
... C'IL i! r i >,- .1 i.i.-".i.ii.ir;
.".-. .CS^Tf-ii' " ' '" - - - 330 2
... .ChL-«co ;>.,.> .-a 1.100 y
. - .. _ . fUTALS" ""7300- - ~?6"~ ?. 5 = 01 VETVS1 Tr
C-, - I SiJ^.'-Vl 4
..- .(.Tl L/ -!!',; -.^CiKf " " OI'.!.'-^ ~ -
. .< t '-T --I.LS CT-.'T^K.
... I '^ 1'.. .. i' ;:>::
.... .-in ,!:.L - - - - - dJo - . j, .- .- -
... c > .,' _:> t-f. '-Ic.
...»-. - j;. - j -1 -: -1
. ..V'TT"-:'1 r^t^ ~ ' ' ~ l.JOU ' 16
....--"'- 1-3 I
. . . i ' I' I i.- .-. 1 .. Jl.'M i
./:.-,...- r^ - i - -
. .' ! i i v: I >-Cu :
-i Fibl'-iJ .1 1 . 7 JO Ib
U'TMLS t.utui Jo l.i>=01 vFi'il Tr
" V'-.LI.OV'-^^OVJ \L3ȣ " ~ ~ "" "~ " ~"
-b
. i r r
~" "" " ' l.'-uU"' " 16 " -
T-il/Lb T-rOU To U.
i >; -rTn -Li>f - j"?ri.j AH.AC:
r> 1L J--r^-.^
C-r«i""v -'->.' L ~.'-i ' " ' C-lCCOl'i .i.J£-!*~-'<.i'i5 ~"~ -
.1 (('( C> CL-t -.^
.!>-(. VST !-> 1.100
-------
A-2
. ...c-.*r ij -'.iAS 1.100 Li _
roiAub. T7?oii IT 1.0=
".EJi-t-c v^-itC* A1! " -- - -
TOTALS =>U F 0.0=
Py"- u.-'-iYT A K [>'K ALT-ni
..Jt '1JI ;i^L£S '
1
I U.O=niVf^SlfY
'.Hr! :>.LU/ '- ',>L'-S ^-'-_ -j.1 ir i 0 ' ACT'.".!. Cri.i'b A'I.I Jir'.i'lcj I o rrj(^) S 13 11 f i 'Ju'iT F I :>.
.«-. \I. I'll T -i-iT-j'! .-L-Sa C i-\ i i ^ ( i/ .., ';l-)Cl> I -J/i-/ f >'> [C-V'.i->CoJE
r»"/L/;l[V l.'i
H A 11 L r .). i
Oc-J-VA j.6 -
-r> t '. OCT. 6. I97o
A-2-11
-------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
CENTRAL LABORATORY* ATLANTA* GEORGIA
A-2
" 'WATER'QUALITY ANALYSIS '
LAb ID it ]bl!09 RECORD d 13703
SAMPLE LOCATION: NETTLE C AB NF.TTLE'LK AT SITE 1-1 OH
STATION ID:
LAT.LONG.SF.G. : 414120 0044358 00
DATE OF COLLECTION: BE^IU780522 END-- TIMEisoo
-STATE CODE: 3V COUNTY CODE: 371 PROJECT IDENTIFICATION: 443902700
DATA TYPE: 2 SOURCE: SURFACE *ATER GEOLOGIC UNIT:
COMMENTS:
INFLOW ~ ~ . - - .
CARBON TOT ORGANIC MG/L
NITROGEN TOT AS N MG/L
NITROGEN TOT AS M03 MG/L"
NITROGEN TOTKJD AS N MG/L
4.9 N02 + N03 AS N TOT
1.6 PH FIELD
7;i ---- PHOSPHORUS -TOT AS P
0.89 SP. CONDUCTANCE FLO
MG/L
0.7
7.3
0.0
505
A-2-12
-------
U.v/ITFJD STATES DEPART -itNT OF THE"
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
CENTRAL LABORATORY* ATLANTA* OEORblA
wATE-V QUALITY ANALYSIS
LAd IU it £^9010 RECORD ti 33618
OH
SAMPLE LCATlON:NtTLtcAB NLTTLt KAT SU E
STATION ID' 4K1200b'jH F~JELD~
6.9 PhOSPnORUS TOT AS P MG/L
SP. CONDUCTANCE FLO
1.1
7.6
0.05
855
g"
t3
At.*
>^r /-. c x-
A-2-13
-------
APPENDIX
A-3
SEASONAL AND LONG-TERM CHANGES IN LAKE WATER QUALITY
Seasonal changes of temperature and density in lakes are best described
using as an example a lake in the temperate zone which freezes over in
winter. When ice coats the surface of a lake, cold water at 0°C lies in
contact with ice above warmer and denser water between 0° and 4°C.
With the coming of spring, ice melts and the waters are mixed by wind.
Shortly, the lake is in full circulation, and temperatures are approximately
uniform throughout (close to 4 C). With further heating from the sun and
mixing by the wind, the typical pattern of summer stratification develops.
That is, three characteristic layers are present: (1) a surface layer of
warm water in which temperature is more or less uniform throughout; (2) an
intermediate layer in which temperature declines rapidly with depth; and
(3) a bottom layer of cold water throughout which temperature is again
more or less uniform. These three layers are termed epilimnion, metalim-
nion (or thermocline), and hypolimnion, respectively. The thermocline
usually serves as a barrier that eliminates or reduces mixing between the
surface water and the bottom water.
In late summer and early fall, as the lake cools in sympathy with Its
surroundings, convection currents of cold water formed at night sink to find
their appropriate temperature level, mixing with warmer water on their way
down. With further cooling, and turbulence created by wind, the thermocline
moves deeper and deeper. The temperature of the epilimnion gradually
approaches that of the hypolimnion. Finally, the density gradient associated
with the thermocline becomes so weak that it ceases to be an effective barrier
to downward-moving currents. The lake then becomes uniform in temperature
indicating it is again well mixed. With still further cooling, ice forms
at the surface to complete the annual cycle.
The physical phenomenon described above has significant bearing on
biological and chemical activities in lakes on a seasonal basis. In
general, growth of algae, which are plants, in the epilimnion produces
dissolved oxygen and takes up nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus
during the summer months. Algal growth in the hypolimnion._is limited
mainly because sunlight is insufficient. As dead algae settle gradually
from the epilimnion into the hypolimnion, decomposition of dead algae
depletes a significant amount of dissolved oxygen in the bottom water. At
the same time, stratification limits oxygen supply from the surface water
to the bottom water. As a result, the hypolimnion shows a lower level of
dissolved oxygen while accumulating a large amount of nutrients by the
end of summer. Then comes the fall overturn to provide a new supply of
dissolved oxygen and to redistribute the nutrients via complete mixing.
Over each annual cycle, sedimentation builds up progressively at the
bottom of the lake. As a result, this slow process of deposition of
sediments reduces lake depth. Because major nutrients enter the lake
along with the sediments, nutrient concentrations in the lake increase
over a long period of time. This aging process is a natural phenomenon
and is measured in hundreds or thousands of years, depending on specific
lake and watershed characteristics.
A-3-1
-------
A-3
Human activities, however, have accelerated this schedule considerably.
By populating the shoreline, disturbing soils in the watershed, and altering
hydrologic flow patterns, man has increased the rate of nutrient and sediment
loading to lakes. As a result, many of our lakes are now characterized by
a state of eutrophication that would not have occurred under natural
conditions for many generations. This cultural eutrophication can in some
instances be beneficial, for example by increasing both the rate of growth
of individual fish and overall fishery production. In most cases, however,
the effects of this accelerated process are detrimental to the desired uses
of the lake.
The eutrophication process of lakes is classified according to a relative
scale based on parameters such as productivity, nutrient levels, dissolved
oxygen, and turbidity in the lake water. Lakes with low nutrient inputs
and low productivity are termed oligotrophic. Dissolved oxygen levels in
the hypolimmion of these lakes remain relatively high throughout the year.
Lakes with greater productivity are termed mesotrophic and generally have
larger nutrient inputs than oligotrophic lakes. Lakes with very high pro-
ductivity are termed eutrophic and usually have high nutrient inputs.
Aquatic plants and algae grow excessively in the latter lakes, and algal
blooms are common. Dissolved oxygen may be depleted in the hypolimnion of
eutrophic lakes during the summer months.
A-3-2
-------
APPENDIX
A-4
NON-POINT SOURCE MODELING - OMERNIK'S MODEL
Because so little data was available on non-point source runoff in
the Study Area, which is largely rural, empirical models or statistical
methods have been used to derive nutrient loadings from non-point
sources. A review of the literature led to the selection of the model
proposed by Omernik (1977). Omernik's regression model provides a quick
method of determining nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations and loading
based on use of the land. The relationship between land use and
nutrient load was developed from data collected during the National
Eutrophication Survey on a set of 928 non-point source watersheds.
Omernik's data indicated that the extent of agricultural and
residential/urban land vs. forested land was the most significant
parameter affecting the influx of nutrient from non-point sources. In
the US, little or no correlation was found between nutrient levels and
the percentage of land in wetlands, or range or cleared unproductive
land. This is probably due to the masking effects of agricultural and
forested land.
Use of a model which relates urban/residential and agricultural
land use to nutrient levels seems appropriate where agricultural and/or
forest make up the main land-use types.
The regression models for the eastern region of the US are as
follows:
Log P = 1.8364 + 0.00971A + op Log 1.85 (1)
Log N = 0.08557 + 0.00716A - 0.00227B + ON Lot 1.51 (2)
where:
P = Total phosphorus concentration - mg/1 as P
N = Total nitrogen concentration - mg/1 as N
A = Percent of watershed with agricultural plus urban land use
B = Percent of watershed with forest land use
op = Total phosphorus residuals expressed in standard deviation
units from the log mean residuals of Equation (1). Determined
from Omernik (1977), Figure 25.
a - Total nitrogen residuals expressed in standard deviation units
from the log mean residuals of Equation (2). Determined from
Omernik (1977), Figure 27.
1.85 = f, multiplicative standard error for Equation 1.
A-4-1
-------
A-4
1.51 = f, multiplicative standard error for Equation (2).
The 67% confidence interval around the estimated phosphorus or
nitrogen consideration can be calculated as shown below:
Log PT = Log P + Log 1.85 (3)
LM """
Log NL = Log N + Log 1.51 (4)
where:
P,. = Upper and lower values of the 67% phosphorus confidence limit -
mg/1 as P
The 67% confidence limit around the estimated phosphorus or
nitrogen concentrations indicates that the model should be used for
purposes of gross estimations only. The model does not account for any
macro-watershed* features peculiar to the Study Area.
A-4-2
-------
APPENDIX
A-5
SIMPLIFIED ANALYSIS OF LAKE EUTROPHICATION
Introduction
Two basic approaches to the analysis of lake eutrophication have
evolved:
1) A complex lake/reservoir model which simulates the
interactions occurring within ecological systems; and
2) the more simplistic nutrient loading model which relates the
loading or concentration of phosphorus in a body of water to
its physical properties.
From a scientific standpoint, the better approach is the complex
model; with adequate data such models can be used to accurately
represent complex interactions of aquatic organisms and water quality
constituents. Practically speaking, however, the ability to represent
these complex interactions is limited because some interactions have not
been identified and some that are known cannot be readily measured.
EPAECO is an example of a complex reservoir model currently in use. A
detailed description of this model has been given by Water Resources
Engineers (1975).
In contrast to the complex reservoir models, the empirical nutrient
budget models for phosphorus can be simply derived and can be used with
a minimum of field measurement. Nutrient budget models, first derived
by Vollenweider (1968) and later expanded upon by him (1975), by Dillon
(1975a and 1975b) and by Larsen - Mercier (1975 and 1976), are based
upon the total phosphorus mass balance. There has been a proliferation
of simplistic models in eutrophication literature in recent years
(Bachmann and Jones, 1974; Reckhow, 1978). The Dillon model has been
demonstrated to work reasonably well for a broad range of lakes with
easily obtainable data. The validity of the model has been demonstrated
by comparing results with data from the National Eutrophication Survey
(1975). The models developed by Dillon and by Larsen and Mercier fit
the data developed by the NES for 23 lakes located in the northeastern
and northcentral United States (Gakstatter et al 1975) and for 66 bodies
of water in the southeastern US (Gakstatter and Allum 1975). The Dillon
model (1975b) has been selected for estimation of eutrophication
potential for Crystal Lake and Betsie Lake in this study.
Historical Development
Vollenweider (1968) made one of the earliest efforts to relate
external nutrient loads to eutrophication. He plotted annual total
phosphorus loadings (g/m /yr) against lake mean depth and empirically
determined the transition between oligotrophic, mesotrophic and
eutrophic loadings. Vollenweider later modified his simple loading mean
depth relationship to include the mean residence time of the water so
that unusually high or low flushing rates could be taken into account.
A-5-1
-------
A-5
Dillon (1975) further modified the model to relate mean depth to a
factor that incorporates the effect of hydraulic retention time on
nutrient retention.
The resulting equation, used to develop the model for trophic
status, relates hydraulic flushing time, the phosphorus loading, the
phosphorus retention ratio, the mean depth and the phosphorus
concentration of the water body as follows:
2
where: L = phosphorus loading (gm/m /yr.)
R = fraction of phosphorus retained
p = hydraulic flushing rate (per yr.)
z = mean depth (m)
P = phosphorus concentration (mg/1)
The graphical solution, shown in Figure E-4-a, is presented as a
log-log plot of L (1-R) versus z.
P
The Larsen-Mercier relationship incorporates the same variables as
the Dillon relationship.
In relating phosphorus loadings to the lake trophic condition,
Vollenweider (1968), Dillon and Rigler (1975) and Larsen and Mercier
(1975, 1976) examined many lakes in the United States, Canada and
Europe. They established tolerance limits of 20/ug/l phosphorus above
which a lake is considered eutrophic and 10 mg/1 phosphorus above which
a lake is considered mesotrophic.
Assumptions and Limitations
The Vollenweider-Dillon model assumes a steady state, completely
mixed system, implying that the rate of supply of phosphorus and the
flushing rate are constant with respect to time. These assumptions are
not totally true for all lakes. Some lakes are stratified in the summer
so that the water column is not mixed during that time. Complete steady
state conditions are rarely realized in lakes. Nutrient inputs are
likely to be quite different during periods when stream flow is minimal
or when non-point source runoff is minimal. In addition, incomplete
mixing of the water may result in localized eutrophication problems in
the vicinity of a discharge.
Another problem in the Vollenweider-Dillon model is the inherent
uncertainty when extrapolating a knowledge of present retention
coefficients to the study of future loading effects. That is to say,
due to chemical and biological interactions, the retention coefficient
may itself be dependent on the nutrient loading.
The Vollenweider/Dillon model or simplified plots of loading rate
versus lake geometry and flushing rates can be very useful in describing
the general trends of eutrophication in lakes during the preliminary
A-5-2
-------
A-5
FIGURE E-4-a
i.o r
10.0
MEAN DEPTH (METERS)
L= AREAL PHOSPHORUS INPUT (g/rn^yr)
R= PHOSPHORUS RETENTION COEFFICIENT (DIMENSIONLESS)
P- HYDRAULIC FLUSHING RATE (yr"1)
100.0
-------
A-5
planning process. However, if a significant expenditure of monies for
nutrient control is at stake, a detailed analysis to calculate the
expected phytoplankton biomass must be performed to provide a firmer
basis for decision making.
A~5-4
-------
APPENDIX
OHIO SURFACE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS A-6
3745-1-04 STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO ALL WATERS
The fclljwing qeheral water quality standards stall apply to all
surface Caters of the State Including mixing zones. To every
exten, ; ractical and possible as determined by the Director, these
water shall be:
(A) Tree from suspended solids or other substances that enter
the waters as a result of human activity and that will
set.tle to form putrescent or otherwise objectionable sludge
deposit",, or that will adversly affect aquatic life;
(B) Free from floating debris, oil, scum and other floating
materia Is entering the waters as a result of human
activity in amounts sufficient to be unsightly or
cause- degradation;
(C) free from materials entering the waters as a result
of human activity producing color, odor or other
conditions in such a degree as to create a nuisance;
(D) !ree from '..ubstances entering the waters as a result
nf human activity in concentrations tnat are toxic
or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life and/or
are rapidly lethal in the mixing zone;
i£) Fr-'e from nutrients entering the waters as a result
of hi.iiian activity in concentrations that create
nui icince growths of aquatic weed'- and jlgae.
A -6 -1
-------
A-6
3745-1-07 WATER USE DESIGNATIONS
(A) WARMWATER HABITAT
Waters capable of supporting reproducing populations of fish
normally referred to as warmwater species and associated
vertebrate and invertebrate organisms and plans on an annual
basis. These standards will apply outside the mixing zone.
All values are expressed as total concentration and milligrams
per liter unless specified otherwise. Concentrations are not
to be exceeded unless noted differently,
(1) Ammonia - not to exceed the concentration of ammonia
as N for corresponding pH and temperature as indicated
in Table 2. These values are based on 0.05 mg/1 un-
ionized ammonia, and at no time shall the ammonia-N
concentration exceed 13 mg/1.
(2) Beryllium - 1.100 mg/1
(3) Cadmium - 0.012 mg/1
(4) Ch1orine(total residual) - 0.002 mg/1
(5) Chromium - 0.100 mg/1
Copper - not to exceed the concentrations in Table 3
based on total hardness. These values are based on
0.1 x 96 hour
(7) Cyanide - 0.025 mg/1
(8) Dissolved Oxygen - Not less than 5.C mg/1 during at
least 16 hours of any 24-hour period. It may be less
than 5 mg/1 for a period not to exceed 8 hours within
any 24-hour period, but at no time shall the oxygen
content be less than 4.0 mg/1.
(9) Dissolved Solids - may exceed one but not both of the
following:
(1) 1500 mg/1 (Equivalent 25°C specific conductance
values is 2400 micromhos/cm) or
(?) 150 rng/l attributable to human activities
(Equivalent 25°C specific conductance vulue is
240 micromhos/cm).
(10) Iron - 1.000 mq/1
-------
A-6
3745-1-07 WATER USE DESIGNATIONS
(11) Lead - 0.030 mg/1
(12) MBAS - (Foaming Agents) - 0.500 ,ig/l
(13) Mercury - not to exceed 0.0005 irg/g (wet weight)
in any whole sample of a representative aquatic
organism or 0.00005 mg/1 as a monthly average
concentration in water or 0.0002 mcj/1 at any time.
(14) Nickel - not to exceed 0.01 x 96 hour LC50 of any
representative aquatic species.
(15) Oil and Grease - Surface waters shall be free from
floating oils and shall at no time produce a
visible sheen or color film. Levels of oils or
petrochemicals in the sediment or en the banks of
a watercourse which cause deleterious effects to
the biota will not be permitted. At no time will
chlorofluorocarbon extractable materials in water
exceed 5 mg/1.
(16) Pesticides - not to exceed the concentrations in
Table 4, or section 307 of Public Law 92-500,
whichever is more stringent.
(17) £H - 6.5 to 9.0
(18) Phenolic compounds - 0.010 mg/1
(19) Phosphorus - total phosphorus os P shall be
limited to the extent necessary to prevent
nuisance growths of algae, weeds, and slimes
that result in a violation of the water quality
standards set forth in Chapter 3745-1 of the
Ohio Administrative Code. Ii, areas where such
nuisance growths exist, phospnorus discharges
from point sources determined :igr, fkdtit oy the
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency bhall not
exceed a daily average of one mill gram per liter
as total P, or such stricter .vqu indents as
may be imposed by Ohio EPA in d:co>~aa:^e with
the International Joint Commission (U--Canada
agreement).
(20) Phthalate esters - 0.003 mg/1
A-<5-3
-------
A-6
3745-1-07 WATER USE DESIGNATIONS
(21) Polychlorlnated biphenyls (PCB's) - not to
excised 0.000001 mg/1 at any time in a water
sample, or 0.01 mg/1 (wet weight) in any
whole sample of any representative organism.
(22) Selenium - not to exceed 0.01 x 96 hour LC50
of any representative aquatic species.
(23) Silver - not to exceed 0.01 x 96 hour 1050
of any representative aquatic species.
(24) Zinc - not to exceed the concentrations in
Table 3' based on total hardness. These
values are based on 0.01 x 96 hour LC$Q.
(25) Toxic Substances
(a) All pollutants or combinations of pollutants
shall not exceed, at any time, one-tenth
of the 96 hour median tolerance limit (Tim)
or LC5g for any representative aquatic species.
However, more stringent application factors
shall be imposed where justified by
"Quality Criteria for Water," US Environmental
Protection Agency, 1976; "Water Quality
Criteria 1972," National Academy of Sciences
and National Academy of Engineering, 1973;
or other scientifically based publications.
(b) Polluttnts or combinations of pollutants
which are known to be persistent toxicants
in the awuatic environment shall not exceed,
at any time, an application factor of
one one-hundredth applied to the 96 hour
Tim or
(c) Any criteria established for a water
course or segment by this regulation
shall supersede less stringent criteria
established in Rule 3745-1-07 of the Ohio
Administrative Code after appropriate
public hearings as required by Section
6111.041 of the Ohio Revised Code.
A-6-4
-------
A-6
3745-1-07 WATER USE DESIGNATIONS
(d) The median tolerance limit (TLm) f"r
LCt^o shall be determined by static or
dynamic bloassays performed in accordance
with methods outlined in "Standard
Methods for the Examination of Water
and Wastewater," Fourteenth Edition,
American Public Health Association,
American Water Works Association and
Water Pollution Control federation, 1976.
Tests will be conducted using actual
effluent, receiving water ani
representative species of aquatic life
whenever possible, and performed in
accordance with proceedures outlined
in Methods of acute Toxicity Tests with
Pish. Macroinvertebrates and Amphibians,
UStPA 660/3-75-009.
(26) Temperature
(a) There shall be no water temperature
changes as a result of human activity
that cause mortality, long-term avoidance.
exclusion from habitat, or adversely
affect the reproductive success of
representative aquatic species, unless
caused by natural conditions.
(b) At no time shall water temperature exceed a
monthly or bi-weekly average, or at any
time exceed the daily maximum temperature
as indicated in Table 5a through 5i. The
average and daily maximum temperature
Standard shall apply and be measured outside
of a thermal mixing zone it vy point on a
thermal mixing zone boundary as such i?
defined in Rule 3745-1-06(rt)(1) a"d (2)
of the Ohio Administrative CoJe.
(B) EXCEPTIONAL WARMWATER HABITAT
Waters capable of supporting exceptior.al or unusual populations
of fish normally referred to as warmwater species and associated
vertebrate and invertebrate organisms and plants on an annual
basis. This would include waters of exceptional chemical
quality that are capable of supporting sensitive species of fish
and other aquatic organisms. Waters supporting Salmonid
migration and waters having a high diversity of r.quatic organisms
should be included. These standards v.ill apply outside the
mixing zone.
A-6-5
-------
A-6
3745-1-07 WATER USE DESIGNATIONS
(H) INDUSTRIAL WATER SUPPLY
Waters suitable for commercial and industrial uses, with
or without treatment. Standards for the support of this
use designation will vary with the type of industry involved.
(I) BATHING WATERS
Waters suitable for swimming where \ lifeguard and/or
bathhouse facilities are present, during the recreation
season.
Fecal collfonn - Geometric mean fecal coliform content
(either MPN or MF), based on not less than five samples
within a 30 day period shall not exceed 200 per 100 ml
and shall not exceed 400 per 100 nil in mere than ten
percent or the samples taien during any JU day period.
(J) PRIMARY CONTACT RECREATION
Waters suitable for full body contact recreation, such as,
but not limited to; swimming and scuba diving with minimal
threat to public health as a result of water quality,
during the recreation season.
Fecal col 1 form - Geometric mean fecal coli4 >r:n content
(either MPN or MF), based on not less than five samples
within a 30 day period shall not exceed lpj?£_jiexJLOQ_J»l and
shall not exceed 2000 per 100 ml in more than ten percent
of the samples taken during any 30 day period.
(K) SECONDARY CONTACT RECREATION
Waters suitable for partial body contact recreation, such
as, but not limited to; canoeing and wad"-.- v^'th minimal
threat to public health as a result ,:f '.JL* - ua'p'ty
during the recreation season.
Fecal coliform - shall not oxcoecf 5000 .^tr :T '-.-I
(either MPN or MF) in more thcM ten per/ent .< t,nt
samples taken during any 30 day per.cd.
A-6-5
-------
A-6
3745-1-07 WATER USE DESIGNATIONS
(15) Phenolic compounds - 0.001 mg/1
(16) Po1yc h1 or inated biphenyIs (PCB's) - absent from
public water supplies.
(17) Selenium - 0.010 mg/1
(18) Silver - 0.050 mg/1
09) Suljfates_ - 250.0 mg/1
(20) Zjr_c - 5.0 mg/1
(G) AGRICULTURAL WATER SUPPLY
Waters suitable for irrigation and livestock watering without
treatment.
All values are expressed as total concentration and milliard;is
per liter, and are not to be exceeded.
0) Arsenic - 0.100 mg/1
(2) Beryllium - 0.100 mg/1
(3) Cadmium - 0.050 mg/1
(4) Chromium - 0.100 mg/1
(5) Copper - 0.500 mg/1
(6) Fluoride - 2.0 mg/1
(7) Iron - 5.0 mg/1
(8) Leajd - 5.0 mg/1
(9) Mercury - 0.010 mg/1
(10) Nickel - 0.200 mg/1
01) Nitrates + Nitrites - 100.0 mg/1
(12) Selenium - 0.050 mg/1
(13) Zinc - 25.0 mg/1
A--6-7
-------
APPENDIX
A-7
FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL RESPONSIBILITIES FOR
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT
1. Federal Agency Responsibilities for Study Area Waters
USEPA
Administers the Clean Water Act
Sets Federal water quality standards
US EPA Region V
Administers the grant program described above for the Great
Lakes Region. Region V's general and specific responsibili-
ties in this program are discussed in Section I.E.
Army Corps of Engineers
Under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, grants or denies
permits required for dredging, filling or construction activ-
ities in navigable waters of the US, their 100-year flood-
plains and adjacent wetlands.
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act allows States to take over
the issuance of permits, except in coastal or commercially
navigable waters. Ohio has not requested authority to
administer this program, and therefore the authority to grant
or deny permits required for filling activities in wetlands
remains with the Corps of Engineers. The OEPA must, however,
issue a water quality certificate under Section 401 before the
Corps can issue a permit to fill. The Corps has no record of
permit activity in the Study Area.
US Department of Agriculture
Under the Rural Clean Water Program will provide cost sharing
for soil conservation practices designed to improve water
quality. (This program will probably be assigned to SCS;
however, it has not yet been funded.)
Soil Conservation Service (SCS)
Agency's mission is to control wind and water erosion, to
sustain the soil resource base and to reduce deposition of
soil and related pollutants into the water system.
Drew up guidelines for inventorying prime or unique agri-
cultural lands.
Works with farmers and other land users on erosion and sedi-
mentation problems. Gathers information at the county level
as part of program of study and research to determine new
methods of eliminating pollution from agricultural sources.
A-7-1
-------
A-7
In the Study Area SCS has recently published a Soil Survey for
Williams County, containing not only material descriptive of
the soils but also detailed sections on the suitability of the
various County soil series for various purposes, including
sanitary facilities and building as well as for agricultural
purposes. Soils considered to be "prime" have also been
identified.
Land resources are now being monitored as part of a "County
Reliability Study." In this project 3 selected points on each
160 acres are being checked for several factors, including
water and wind erosion, building, crop rotation, etc. Ear-
lier, in 1967, the district SCS participated in the national
Conservation Needs Inventory.
Farmers Home Administration
Provides grants and loans to small rural communities to build
or improve drinking water and waste treatment facilities.
US Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Provides technical assistance in development of 208 plans.
US Geological Survey (USGS)
Monitors surface water flows. The nearest stream gauge is
near Blakelee on the St. Joseph River.
2. State Responsibilities
Pertinent Ohio Laws
Chapter 6111 of the Ohio Revised Code (ORC), which is the
State's water pollution control legislation, assigns responsi-
bility for water quality management to the Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency (OEPA). It declares all acts of pollution
of Ohio surface or ground waters to be a public nuisance. It
prohibits discharge from any sewage treatment or industrial
plant without a valid and unexpired permit from OEPA under the
NPDES program.
Rule 6111.041. ORC directs OEPA to establish State standards
for surface water quality.
Chapter 6117 ORC establishes the county as the authority to
provide community wastewater treatment and collection facili-
ties outside municipal corporate limits and to assess costs.
Within corporate limits, cities and villages may set up a
sanitary sewer district, or they may participate in a regional
system administered by the county. Where treatment units are
to be used by two or more owners, the system must be owned and
A-7
-------
A-7
operated as a public utility. A developer must turn the unit
over to the local public utility, or must obtain a license to
operate as a public utility from the Public Utility Commission
of Ohio.
Title XV, ORC - Conservation of Natural Resources
Chapter 1501 QRC is the enabling legislation for the Ohio
Department of Natural Resources (ODNR).
Sections 1501.16 through .19 contain the scenic rivers legis-
lation, which enables ODNR to designate segments of streams as
scenic rivers and to cooperate with localities in their man-
agement.
Chapter 1515 ORC, Sections .01 through .33, contains the
legislation dealing with the Division of Soil and Water Dis-
tricts within the ODNR. A Soil and Water Conservation Dis-
trict may be formed upon petition to the 7-member soil and
Water Conservation Commission by any 75 owners within a pro-
posed area.
A new law dealing with non-point agricultural pollution and
urban sediment went into effect 12 January 1979. Labeled
"Agricultural Pollution Abatement and Urban Sediment Pollution
Act," it calls for the setting of standards and rules for
controlling both waterborne and airborne agricultural sedi-
ment, animal wastes from operations handling 1,000 animal
units or less, and urban sediment pollution. It establishes a
cost-sharing program for the agricultural aspects, with a
start of $225,000 for the first year. Enforcement of the
animal waste standards is tied to issuance of administrative
orders by the Soil and Water Division which can be backed up
by cost-sharing up to 75% but not to exceed $5,000 per opera-
tion. Noncompliance with an order is a minor misdemeanor and
carries a maximum penalty of $100 per day. The State has no
authority to enforce the sediment provisions, either agricul-
tural or urban, but localities are authorized to assume en-
forcement and injunctive powers for urban sediment.
Chapter 1517 establishes a Natural Areas Program and contains
rules and regulations governing designated nature reserves.
Section 1531.25 contains the endangered species legislation.
(See Section II.D.3.)
Section 1531.29, the Stream Litter Law, prohibits littering on
any lands or waters in such a way that the litter will enter
any stream.
Chapter 3701.29 of the Ohio Administrative Code contains the
Ohio Sanitary Code.
A-7-3
-------
A-7
State Agencies
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
OEPA is responsible for the regulation of community wastewater
treatment and disposal systems in the State and approves or
disapproves plans for all wastewater treatment and disposal
facilities that may affect surface or ground water, other than
those for a private 1-, 2- or 3-family dwelling. It exercises
control through issuance or denial of NPDES permits to dis-
charge effluent. (Details of the permit granted to the
Williams County Commission for the Nettle Lake area are con-
tained in Appendix A-6.) District offices of OEPA may request
review of a project by the agency's groundwater office.
Before the Corps of Engineers can issue a permit to fill in a
lake, stream or wetland under Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act, (see above), a water quality certificate from OEPA is
required, under Section 401 of that Act.
Under its Statewide responsibility to prevent and abate pollu-
tion and to carry out Federal environmental protection laws
(Section 6111.03 ORC), OEPA is examining non-point sources of
pollution. The draft 208 plan covering the Study Area con-
tains sections on "Agricultural Runoff," prepared by the
Maumee Valley Resource Conservation Development and Planning
Organization, and on "Home (on-site) Sewage Disposal Systems."
It also states that additional data and analyses are needed on
the relationship between on-site wastewater disposal systems
and water quality. The draft plan is awaiting certification
after a 22 August 1979 public hearing, although additional
work may be required (by telephone, Gene Wright, OEPA 13
August 1979).
Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR)
ODNR administers its responsibilities for the protection of
the natural resources of the State through 13 divisions. Most
planning, including water resources planning, is locally
oriented.
ODNR's Division of Water works with regional and local plan-
ning agencies to map land capabilities in the Ohio Land Capa-
bilities Analysis Program (OCAP). This computerized mapping
program then serves as a resource for planning decisions by
the local agencies. ODNR also inspects and approves (or
disapproves) the location of sewage treatment plants with
respect to floodplains.
The Department is presently evaluating a recommendation that
the Nettle Lake area be designated as a natural preserve
because of its wetlands. ODNR approval would be needed for
any Corps of Engineers permit to fill in or drain wetlands.
A-7_4
-------
A-7
The Division of Wildlife administers the Stream Litter Law,
which it has used successfully to prosecute both industries
and sewage treatment plants for pollution spills and dumping.
The Division of Soil and Water Districts, which works with the
SWCDs, administers the new non-point source statutes. After a
public hearing on administrative procedures and management
guidelines scheduled 30 August 1979, full operation of the
agricultural pollution provisions will get under way. The
Division will provide guidance, procedures and model ordi-
nances for controls on urban sediment for the use of cities
and counties, but adoption will be voluntary.
ODNR supports land use planning at the local level and is
developing publications for use by local governments, but the
State has no land use legislation. Although the State owns
the water in a stream or lake and the fish and wildlife, the
landowner owns even the submerged land. The State does not
control riparian rights.
Ohio Department of Health (ODH)
ODH is responsible for statewide health policies, rules and
regulations to be applied by local agencies. By law, the
State is divided into "health districts." Each district has a
board of health and a staff headed by a health commissioner.
The Bureau of Environmental Health drew up the State Sanitary
Code, which is contained in Chapter 3701-29 of the Ohio Admi-
nistrative Code, adopted in 1974 and amended effective 1 July
1977. In "Household Sewage Disposal Regulations" the Bureau
sets minimum design criteria for individual systems but allows
local boards to establish more stringent criteria. The Bureau
advises health districts on the regulation of individual
on-site systems and strives for uniformity in the application
of statewide minimum rules. It consults with local authori-
ties regarding approval of proposed subdivision developments
that are to be served by individual wastewater systems.
In new subdivisions, individual sewage systems are not per-
mitted unless the local board of health and the Bureau con-
sider a centralized sewerage system to be impractical and
inadvisable. There is no formal policy regarding disposal on
the land.
Bureau regulations require upgrading of a system only where
there is a nuisance and complaint. Where physical conditions
such as small lot size rule out full compliance, a variance is
usually granted for some type of system that will eliminate
the nuisance and prevent undue hardship.
A-7-5
-------
A-7
3. Local Agencies and Responsibilities
Williams County General Health District
The county health department has jurisdiction over single-
family wastewater disposal systems. Before the first county
code was adopted in 1959, there were no sanitary restrictions;
the County adopted the State Sanitary Code in 1974. The
district has enforcement powers and can impose penalities for
non-compliance with the code. However, no enforcement actions
have been required with systems installed since adoption of
the code. The District has not enforced compliance upon
pre-existing systems because of limited staff and the diffi-
culty of proving which individual system is at fault before
enforcement action can be taken.
Williams County Commissioners
The Commissioners of Williams County have adopted zoning
resolutions that may in turn be adopted voluntarily and imple-
mented by the several townships in the county. These have not
been adopted by Northwest Township, which has no zoning regu-
lations .
A petition to the County Commissioners for a "clean-out" of
the 16 miles of Nettle Creek from the outlet of Nettle Lake to
the St. Joseph River will be discussed at a public meeting set
for 17 September 1979. A dredging and brush-clearing opera-
tion would be intended to improve drainage of farmland and
decrease flooding of the Lake.
Maumee Valley Resource Conservation, Development and Planning
Organization
This advisory association of five counties in the Maumee River
Valley has been designated as a State district and recognized
as an A-95 review board. Under contract to OEPA, pursuant to
Section 208 of the Clean Water Act, it has prepared a plan for
the 5 counties. In the plan, rankings are proposed for water-
quality-limited stream segments of the region, including the
St. Joseph River Basin, which includes the Study Area. Nettle
Lake is considered to be a problem area. Maumee Valley RC&D
planners have given priority to agricultural non-point source
pollution. They would like to address agricultural problems
through "Best Management Practices" activities, but this
approach would hinge on funding1s becoming available for the
Rural Clean Water program.
A-V-6
-------
APPENDIX B
BIOTIC RESOURCES
-------
APPENDIX
B-l
FISH SPECIES FOUND IN NETTLE CREEK AND NETTLE LAKE
AND THEIR RELATIVE ABUNDANCE DISTRIBUTION STATUS OF FISHES
WITHIN THE MAUMEE RIVER BASIN
Species
Bowfin
Amia calva
Relative
"if
Abundance
Distribution
U
Gizzard shad VC
Dorosoma cepedianum
Central mudminnow U
Umbra limi
Occasionally in Maumee and St.
Joseph River systems
Abundant in Maumee River, less
common in smaller streams
Only in Nettle Creek, where
abundant
Population
Trend
None
None
None
Northern pike
Esox lucius
Grass pickerel U
Esox americanus
vermiculatus
Quillback
Carpiodes cyprinus
Common white sucker VC
Catostomus commersoni
Spotted sucker U
Minytrema melanops
Northern hog sucker C
Hypentelium nigricans
Lake chubsucker E
Erimyzon sucetta
Golden redhorse C
Moxostoma erythrurum
Carp
Cyprinus carpio
VC
Mostly in the Maumee River, St. Declining
Joseph River and Swan Creek
although spawning occurs in
many smaller tributaries
Found in backwater areas in all None
moderate to large streams; never
in very large numbers
Present throughout the Maumee
River, very abundant in the Maumee
and Anglaize Rivers
Well distributed throughout Maumee None
River Basin
Well distributed throughout Basin, None
but never in large numbers
Found in most streams of Basin in None
small to moderate number
Recorded in upstream Nettle Creek/ Declining
may still be present in tributaries
of St. Joseph River system
General - throughout the Basin None
Well distributed throughout the None
Maumee River Basin
*Abundance terms in order of decreasing numbers: A-abundant; VC-very common;
C-common; U-uncommon; R-rare; E-endangered in Ohio.
3-1-1
-------
B-l
Species
Relative
Abundance*
Distribution
Fathead minnow
Pimephales promelas
Bluntnose minnow
Pimephales notatus
Stoneroller
Campostoma anomalum
General throughout the Basin in
small to moderate numbers
Well distributed throughout Maumee
River Basin
Well distrubuted; generally small
to moderate numbers, locally
abundant
Population
Trend
None
None
None
Silverjaw minnow
Ericymba buccata
General throughout Maumee Basin in
moderate and occasionally large
numbers
None
Spotfin shiner A
Notropis spilopterus
Redfin shiner A
Notropis umbratilis
Common shiner VC
Notropis cornutus
Spottail shiner C
Notropis hudsonius
Sand shiner U
Notropis stramineus
Creek chub VC
Semotilus atromaculatus
General throughout the Maumee None
Basin
Well distributed throughout Maumee None
River Basin
General throughout Basin None
Mostly in Maumee River None
General throughout the Basin, but None
never in large numbers
Well distributed throughout River None
Basin
Golden shiner U
Notemigonus crysoleucas
Channel catfish C
Ictalurus punctatus
Black bullhead C
Ictalurus melas
Well distributed throughout River None
Basin
Mostly in the larger streams of the None
River Basin
General throughout Maumee Basin None
Yellow bullhead
Ictalurus natalis
Brown bullhead
Ictalurus nebulosus
General throughout Maumee Basin
None
Mostly in Maumee, but found through- None
out Basin
*Abundance terms in order of decreasing numbers: A-abundant; VC-very common;
C-common; U-uncommon; R-rare; E-endangered in Ohio.
B-l-2
-------
B-l
Species
Tadpole madtom
Noturus gyrinus
Brindled madtom
Noturus miurus
Relative
Abundance*
U
Distribution
U
Blackstripe topminnow C
Fundulus notatus
Brook silverside C
Labisdesthes sicculus
Black crappie C
Pomoxis nigromaculatus
White crappie C
Pomoxis annularis
Rock bass C
Ambloplices rupestris
Largemouth bass C
Micropterus saImpides
Smallmouth bass C
Micropterus dolomieui
Bluegill C
Lepomis macrochirus
Green sunfish VC
Lepomis cyanellus
Longear sunfish U
Lepomis megalotis
Orangespotted sunfish C
Lepomis humilis
Pumpkinseed C
Lepomis gibbosus
Found throughout the Maumee Basin
but never in large numbers
Found throughout the Maumee Basin
but less frequently than the
Tadpole madtom
General throughout Basin
Mostly in the St. Joseph and Maumee
systems but found throughout the
Basin. Present in Nettle Lake
Population
Trend
None
None
None
None
Warmouth
Lepomis gulosus
R
Common throughout the Basin in the None
larger streams
Common throughout the Basin in the None
larger streams
Common throughout Basin in the None
larger streams
Common throughout Basin in the None
larger streams
Common throughout Basin in the None
larger streams
General throughout Basin None
General throughout Basin None
General throughout Basin None
General throughout Basin None
General throughout Basin None
Recorded only in West Branch of Declining
St. Joseph River and Nettle Creek
*Abundancs terms in order of decreasing numbers: A-abundant; VC-very common;
C-common; U-uncoiomon; R-rare; E-endangered in Ohio.
B-l-3
-------
B-l
Relative Population
Species Abundance* Distribution Trend
Yellow perch C Primarily in Maumee River although None
Perca flavescens present throughout the Basin in
limited numbers
Logperch C Throughout the Basin predominantly None
Percina caprodes in larger tributaries
Blackside darter C General throughout Basin None
Percina maculata
Johnny darter C General throughout the Basin None
Etheostoma nigrum
Iowa darter RE Recorded only from Nettle Lake None
Etheostoma exile
Source: Allison, D. and H. Hothem, Ohio Department of Natural Resources,
Division of Wildlife. "An evaluation of the status of fisheries
and the status of other selected wild animals in the Maumee River
Basin, Ohio." Dated June 1975. 15 pp. mimeo.
*Abundance terms in order .of decreasing numbers: A-abundant; VC-very common;
C-common; U-uncommon; R-rare; E-endangered in Ohio.
B-l-4
-------
TREES AND SHRUBS OF NORTHWESTERN OHIO
APPENDIX
B-2
Red cedar
Elderberry
White ash
Black ash*
Green ash*
Flowering dogwood*
Red-osier dogwood*
Silver maple
Sugar maple
Black locust
Prickley-ash
Black walnut
Shagbatk hickory
Pignut hickory
Bitternut hickory
Hawthorn
Gooseberry*
Basswood
Sassafras
Bigtooth aspen*
Cottonwood
Quaking aspen*
White oak
Bur oak
Red oak
Pin oak*
American elm
Ironwood
Hazelnut
Black cherry
Willows
Black gum*
Spicebush*
Juniperus virginiana
Sambucus canadensis
Fraxinus americana
Fraxinus nigra
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
var. Subintegerrina
Cornus florida
Cornus stolonifera
Acer saccharinum
Acer saccharum
Robinia pseudo-acacia
Xanthoxylum americanum
Juglans nigra
Carya ovata
Cat
Cai
f_a_ glabra
?a cordiformis
Crataegus spp.
Ribes spp.
Tilia americana
Sassafras albidum
Populus grandidentata
Populus deltoides
Populus tremuloides
Quercus alba
Quercus macrocarpa
Quercus rubra
Quercus palustris
Ulmus americanus
Carpinus caroliniana
Corylus americana
Prunus serotina
Salix spp.
Nyssa sylvatica
Lindera benzoin
Source: By telephone, Mr. Roger Herrett,Service Forester, Ohio Division of
Forestry, 3 January 1979.
* Species that might be found in the area, based on habitat that may be found
in that section of Ohio.
B-2-1
-------
APPENDIX
B-3
BIRDS OF NORTHWESTERN OHIO, NETTLE LAKE STUDY AREA
*Canada goose
*Mallard duck
*Black duck
*Blue-winged teal
*Wood duck
Turkey vulture
Sharp-shinned hawk
Red-tailed hawk
*Golden eagle
*Bald eagle
Marsh hawk
Pigeon hawk
Sparrow hawk
*0sprey
*Peregrine falcon
*Bobwhite quail
^Hungarian partridge
Ringed-necked pheasant
*Sandhill crane
*King rail
*Sora
*Coot
Killdeer
*Woodcock
Rock dove
Mourning dove
Screech owl
Great horned Owl
Yellow-shafted flicker
Red-bellied woodpecker
Red-headed woodpecker
Hairy woodpecker
Downy woodpecker
Horned lark
Branta canadensis
Anas platyrhynchos
Anas rubripes
Anas discors
Aix sponsa
Cathartes aura
Accipter striatus
Buteo jamaicensis
Aquila chrysaetos
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Circus cyaneus
Falco columbarius
Falco sparverius
Pandion haliaetus
Falco peregrinus
Colinus virginianus
Perdix perdix
Phasianus colochicus
Grus canadensis
Rallus elegans
Poranza Carolina
Fulica americana
Charadrius vociferus
Philohela minor
Columba Livia
Zenaida macroura
Otus Asio
Bubo virginianus
Colaptes auratus
Centurus carolinus
Melanerpes erythrocephalus
Dendrocopos villosus
Dendrocopos pubescens
Eremophila alpestris
B-3-1
-------
B-3
Purple martin
Blue jay
Common crow
Black-capped chickadee
Tufted titmouse
White-breasted nuthatch
Red-breasted nuthatch
Brown creeper
Carolina wren
Catbird
Eastern bluebird
Ruby-crowned kinglet
Cedar waxwing
Starling
Kirtland's warbler
House sparrow
Meadowlark
Common grackle
Brown-headed cowbird
Indigo bunting
Cardinal
Grossbeak
American gold finch
Junco
Tree sparrow
Chipping sparrow
White-crowned sparrow
White-throated sparrow
Song sparrow
Progne subis
Cyanocitta cristata
Corvus bra chy rhyn cho s
Parus atricapillus
Parus bicolor
Sitta carolinensis
Sitta canadensis
Certhia familiaris
Thryothorus ludovicianus
Dumetella carolinensis
Sialia sialis
Regulus calendula
Bombycilia cedrorum
Sturnus vulgaris
Dendroica kirtlandii
Passer domesticus
Sturnella sp.
Quiscalus quiscala
Molothrus ater
Passerina cyanea
Cardinalis cardinalis
Spinus tristis
Junco sp.
Spizella passerina
Spizella arborea
Zonotrichia leucophrys
Zonotrichla albicollis
Passerella melodia
Sources: Summer and Winter Birds; by letter, Mrs. Garland Crawford, Audubon
Society, 11 October 1978.
* Allison, Hothem, "An evaluation of the status of fisheries and the status
of other selected wild animals in the Maumee River Basin, Ohio", 1975.
** List includes summer and winter birds. * Indicates species, selected by
the ODNR, with different degrees of status in the area and many of which
are migrants to the area. A complete list of migrant species is not in-
cluded but all species in the northern part of the Mississippi Flyway would
be expected to be found in the drainage basin.
B-3-2
-------
MAMMALS OF NORTHWESTERN OHIO, NETTLE LAKE STUDY AREA
APPENDIX
B-4
Opossum
Masked shrew
Short-tailed shrew
Least shrew
Eastern mole
Star-nosed mole
Little brown myotis
Keen's myotis
Small-footed myotis
Indiana myotis
Silver-haired bat
Eastern pipistrelle
Big brown bat
Red bat
Hoary bat
Evening bat
Eastern chipmunk
Woodchuck
Thirteen-lined ground squirrel
Gray squirrel
Fox squirrel
Red squirrel
Southern flying squirrel
Beaver
Deer mouse
White-footed mouse
Meadow vole
Woodland (pine) vole
Muskrat
Norway rat
House mouse
Meadow jumping mouse
Coyote
Didelphis virginiana
Sorex cinereus
Blarina brevicauda
Cryptotis parva
Scalopus aquaticus
Condylura cristata
Myotis lucifugus
Myotis keenii
Myotis subulatus
Myotis sodalis
Lasionycteris noctivagans
Pipistrellus subflavus
Eptesicus fuscus
Lasiurus borealis
Lasiurus cinereus
Nycticeius humeralis
Tamias striatus
Marmota monax
Spermophilus tridecemlineatus
Sciurus carolinensis
Sciurus niger
Tamiasciurus hudsonicus
Glaucornys volans
Castor canadensis
Peromyscus maniculatus
Peromysyscus leucopus
Microtus pennsylvanicus
Microtus pinetorum
Ondrata zibethicus
Rattus norvegicus
Mus musculus
Zapus hudsonius
Canis latrans
B-4-1
-------
B-4
Mammals (cont'd.)
Red fox Vulpes vulpes
Gray fox Urocyon cineroargenteus
Raccoon Procyon lotor
Least weasel Mustela nivalis
Long-tailed weasel Mustela frenata
Mink Mustela vison
Badger Taxidea taxus
Striped skunk Mephitis mephitis
River otter Lutra canadensis
White-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus
Sources:
Hurt, W. H., and R. P. Grossenheider. A field guide to the mammals.
Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston. 284 p.
Jones, J. K., Jr., D. C. Carter, and H. H. Genoways. 1975. Revised
checklist of North American mammals north of Mexico. Occasional
Papers, The Museum, Texas Tech University, No. 28, 14 p.
(Used for current scientific names and accepted common names.)
Mumford, R. E. 1969. Distribution of the mammals of Indiana. Indiana
Academy of Sciences Monograph 1:1-114.
B-4-2
-------
APPENDIX C
POPULATION
-------
APPENDIX
C-l
METHODOLOGY FOR PROJECTING PROPOSED SERVICE AREA
PERMANENT AND SEASONAL POPULATIONS, 1975 and 2000
Population Estimate In Year 1975
The 1975 population estimate for the Nettle Lake Proposed Service Area
was based on an analysis of existing aerial photography, discussions with
local officials knowledgeable about occupancy rates and permanent and seasonal
resident relationships, an examination of local property tax rolls, and past
population trends. These discussions and analyses yielded the following in-
formation concerning the Nettle Lake Proposed Service Area:
A 1975 dwelling unit count by subarea
Permanent and seasonal dwelling unit percentage breakdowns
Permanent and seasonal dwelling unit occupancy rates (persons
per household).
Table 1 presents the dwelling unit count by subarea and the permanent and
seasonal population totals derived by applying the permanent/seasonal dwell-
ing unit percentage and occupancy rates to the farmer. Seasonal population
totals of the two campgrounds in the Proposed Service Area were added to the
count. Camp DeClair's reported 120 campsites and Shady Shore Camp's 60 camp-
sites accommodated peak seasonal populations of 480 and 240 people, respec-
tively, which are attained during most summer weekends.
Population Projections 1975-2000
The year 2000 permanent and seasonal baseline population projections
considered the three growth factors influencing future population levels in
the Nettle Lake Proposed Service Area: (1) the rate of growth or decline of
the permanent population; (2) the rate of growth or decline of the seasonal
population; and (3) the potential conversion of seasonal to permanent dwelling
units. The best available information regarding each of these factors was
utilized and resulted in the following assumptions:
The rate of permanent population growth in the Nettle Lake
Proposed Service Area will be equivalent to that projected
for Northwest Township by 1990. This growth rate, extrapo-
lated to year 2000, is approximately .75% annually or 20%
during the planning period.
Existing seasonal dwelling units will be converted to perma-
nent dwelling units at a rate of approximately 0.5% annually
or 10.0% during the planning period. An examination of pro-
perty tax rolls indicated that, generally, one seasonal
dwelling unit per year was converted to a permanent residence,
usually when seasonal residents of retirement age relocated
permanently to the Proposed Service Area.
There is a very limited demand for seasonal dwelling units in
the Proposed Service Area. Two private recreational develop-
ments east of Nettle Lake (one lake is near Bridgewater and
C-l-1
-------
C-l
OJ O
S-,
CU
C/3
CU
,*J
CO
J
CJ
*J
z
LT|
CTs
c
O
'^j
T
3
~
^*
T3
CU
-o
.5
2
cn
u
T3
eg
CO
u
H
c
o
M
£
i (
CU
3
Ct
UM
Q
C
~
^
-C
H
1-
U
^
CO
0)
4J
cO
>M
c
a
3
[j
r^
2
d
u
'ca
>
H
3
^
a
ij
*i
5
OC
C
1
2,
rH
11
CO
c
o
CO
CO
Qj
C/i
r-4
u
5
C
S
U
- 5
11 Li
CU D
P-
-o
u
O
CN CN ^vl OJ CM CN O O
CN CN CN CN CN CN
ft ~i ro n ft ro
^r^C^5| 5^
XOCNCN-HOOO cocoa\unooo ON
* rH rH
!
r^O-a'-^u-iCOO O
-H rsimr%sCOOO CO
f-H r-H (CNcnOO
1-1
T3
H
^H
C^
CJ
C
rH
s:
H
3
X
£
4
CO
CO
3
CJ
«4
-a
a
"3
cn
"O
\j
0
0)
u
r-i
O
'-(
X
CO
U
>>
D.
H
.C
cn
Q
£-
4-J
CO
CU
3
4-1
U
O
^
C
H
CU
N
H
cn
T3
C
"cu
cn
o
i-i
o
m
J-l
CO
CJ
c
a]
£_
U
a
o
cu
"ob
^
>N
T I
rH
CO
4_)
C
CO
cfl
J3
cn
OJ
>
CO
J3
CO
d>
Q
g
OJ
13
CO
cu
^"*
-^
CO
c
o
cn
cct
cu
X
4-1
CO
X
4-1
c
cu
u
4_l
-o
OJ
>
J-l
CU
cn
Q
O
>,
1
CO
CJ
O
*O
3
LJ
'f>
CL
CO
O
^
1 t
CO
50
, 1
M
H
1
U
c
a
E
T3
U
w
C
o
cn
CO
*H
o
CJ
CJD
c
H
d
c
cO
CU
iH
CO
C
o
00
OJ
X
i-)
d
3
c
u
cn
£
CO
H
rH
T_»
3
1)
4-1
3
3)
^3 cn
S OJ
-Jl X
D a
I- S
ON -S C
C C -
C-l-2
-------
C-l
one in Amboy Township, Michigan) have had limited second
home development activity even though they offer more
attractive second home sites (larger lakes, closer to
major metropolitan area users) than Nettle Lake.
The Williams County Floodplain Ordinance (March 1978)
has limited the potentially developable areas in the
Nettle Lake Proposed Service Area. In view of the
development restrictions and the limited demand for sea-
sonal units, it is projected that a maximum of 20 new
seasonal units, primarily mobile homes or trailers, will
be added in the Proposed Service Area during the planning
period. The limited development activity that will occur
will be in the Crestwood, Lazy Acres North, Lazy Acres
South, and Lakeview/Eureka Beach subareas.
Based on these observed trends and assumptions, the population projections
and dwelling unit equivalents for each subarea for the year 2000 were deve-
loped as indicated in Table 2. The seasonal populations for Camp DeClair
and Shady Shore Camp were assumed to remain constant during the planning
period. The smaller occupancy rates utilized for both permanent and seasonal
dwelling units reflect the national trend toward smaller family sizes. The
resulting total in-summer population for Nettle Lake for the year 2000 is
projected to be 1,904 people: 228 permanent residents and 1,676 seasonal
residents.
Comparison of Facilities Plan's and EIS Estimates of 1975 Population
The Facilities Plan for Nettle Lake estimated the 1975 Proposed Service
Area population at 660 people. This estimate was based on 300 dwelling units
at 2.2 persons per dwelling unit. The seasonal-permanent population distri-
bution was estimated at 110 permanent residents and 550 seasonal residents.
The Facilities Plan total in-summer population estimate differs from the EIS
estimate by more than 1,300. This difference is directly attributable to
three factors: (1) the Facilities Plan's use of an incorrect occupancy rate
of 2.2 persons per unit for permanent units (the 1970 US Census figure was
3.2 persons per unit); (2) the Facilities Plan's conservative use of this low
permanent occupancy rate figure for seasonal occupancy as well (national
trends indicate that occupancy rates for seasonal units are generally higher);
and (3) the Facilities Plan did not consider the seasonal population accommo-
dated at the 180 campsites in Camp DeClair and Shady Shore Camp. Consequently,
the bases for the EIS estimate for 1975--more accurate data and a more compre-
hensive examination of occupancy rates and permanent/seasonal dwelling unit
ratiosappear to be more valid.
Comparison of Population Projections for Year 2000
The Facilities Plan projection for the population in year 2000 was based
on a count of remaining developable lots in the Proposed Service Area. It
resulted in a total of 560 dwelling units by the year 2000, to which an occu-
pancy rate of 2.2 persons per dwelling unit was applied to derive a total in-
summer population of 1,250 people1,000 seasonal and 250 permanent.
01-3
-------
01
o
3
-a
o
H
area (
jed service
o
c.
o
i-l
X
CD
:cupancy Ra
o
m
r-i
o
o
CO
>,
!
rH
CU
"O
H
X
U
3
O
"c
f^
u
ft
CL
O
rH
CU
T3
0)
4->
r;
O
"^
J3
cC
XI
X
X
4-)
T-t
G
3
cU
X
_p;
j_j
o
2
rH
3
Xl
H
4J
.,_(
x:
01
o
H
CO
0
C
o
_l
cO
C
o
,
03
C
0
-a
a>
cn
oj
4J
-H
3
4_,
C
CU
G
03
CU
Cu
Q
J-J
-TJ
OJ
.U
1-1
CJ
c
o
CJ
Jl
i_J
iH
c
r 1
03
C
v;
between 1975 and 2000 is based on current development pressures
0)
0
£
4J
X
G
O
O
X
H
G
3
CO
c
r 1
01
3
T)
rH
d
c
o
in
n
a
cn
3
t_t.
C
O
4-)
3
j
H
<_i
iJ
H
^
J_i
3J
3
each subarea.
G
H
G
t 1
Xl
03
CL
O
rH
CU
>
CU
TJ
'-M
O
>^
4J
T-t
H
H
Xl
T3
-H
H
03
>
03
01
CO
X
CU
c
-3
X
CU
u
r
Q
*0
D
71
C
4-J
-^
G
3
U
c
G
CO
E
O.
cn
C
o
cn
01
c
o
CJ
o
4-1
X
o
t-H
X
u
c
3
iC
-H
-H
rH
CU
3
"U
~H
X
X
N
X
H
C
CO
U-4
CU
rt
CO
e
X
3
O
4-1
T3
C
t-4
4J
rH
03
C
0
4-1
03
C
CU
x:
4J
y
OJ
U-l
01
O
"^3
CU
3
TJ
CU
01
3
0
O
S-i
CO
CU
fU
0
'J-
X
0»
13
U
^
CJ
C
3
3~
ilities during the planning period because developable land is not
u
03
"-M
H
0)
4-1
c
CO
Cu
X
CU
4_l
a
3>
4-1
CJ
a.
X
0)
4-J
O
G
0)
s-
CL
S
C_J
CU
o
CO
>^
"3
03
CO
*e
CO
4
03
;_;
a
CL
Xl
U
u
Xl
ct3
>
-£,| N
_
H
: : x
C-l-4
-------
C-l
In comparison to the EIS projection for the year 2000, the dwelling unit
projection is high and the population projection is low. The EIS projection
assumes that development pressures in the Proposed Service Area will be mini-
mal and available developable land limited due to the floodplain ordinance
restrictions; resulting in a total dwelling unit equivalent projection of 495
(including 180 camping sites). However, the EIS projection uses more reali-
stic permanent (3.0 persons/unit) and seasonal (4.0 persons/unit) occupancy
rates to derive a total in-summer population of 1,904 people, including 228
permanent and 1,676 seasonal residents. While the Facilities Plan's perma-
nent population projection is similar to this EIS (due to an overestimation
of permanent dwelling unit projection), the seasonal projection is nearly 700
lower, primarily because it used a lower seasonal occupancy rate and excluded
the campground sites.
C-1-:
-------
APPENDIX D
STUDIES AND REGULATIONS OF EXISTING SYSTEMS
-------
APPENDIX
D-l
INVESTIGATION OF SEPTIC LEACHATE DISCHARGES
INTO
NSTTLS LAKE, OHIO
December, 1978
Prepared for
VAPORA, Inc.
Washington, D.C.
Prepared by
K-Y Associates, Inc.
Falmouth, Massachusetts
January, 1979
D-l-l
-------
D-l
TAEL3 OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 Introduction - Plume Types and Characteristics 1
2.0 Methodology - Sampling and Analysis 8
3.0 Plume Locations 11
4.0 Nutrient Analyses 15
5.0 Nutrient Relationships 15
6.0 Coliform Levels 17
7.0 Conclusions 17
References 19
Appendix 20
D-l-2
-------
D-l
INTRODUCTION
Septic Leachate Plumes - Types and Characteristics
In porous soils, groundwater inflows frequently convey
wastewaters from nearshore septic units through bottom sediments
and into lake waters, causing attached algae growth and algal
blooms. The lake shoreline is a particularly sensitive area
since: 1) the groundwater depth is shallow, encouraging soil
water saturation and anaerobic conditions; 2) septic units and
leaching fields are frequently located close to the water's
edge, allowing only a short distance for bacterial degradation
and soil adsorption of potential contaminants; and 3) the
recreational attractiveness of the lakeshore often induces
temporary overcrowding of homes leading to hydraulically
overloaded septic units. Hather than a passive release from
lakeshore bottoms, groundwater plumes from nearby on-site
treatment units actively emerge along shorelines, raising
sediment nutrient levels and creating local elevated concen-
trations of nutrients (Kerfoot and Brainard, 1978). The
contribution of nutrients from subsurface discharges of shoreline
septic units has been estimated at 30 to 60 percent of the total
nutrient load in certain New Hampshire lakes (LfiPC, 1977).
Wastewater effluent contains a mixture of near UV fluorescent
organics derived from whiteners, surfactants and natural
degradation products which are persistent under the combined
-1-
D-l-3
-------
-2-
D-l
' /-SEPTIC TANK
r-GROUNOWATER
SEPTIC LEACHATE*
FIGURE 1. Excessive Loading of Septic Systems on Porous
Soils Causes the Development of Plumes of
Poorly-treated Effluent Which Move Laterally
with Groundwater Flow and May Discharge Near
the Shoreline of Nearby Lakes.
D-l-4
-------
-3-
D-l
conditions of low oxygen and limited microbial activity.
Figure 2 shows two samples of sand-filtered effluent from the
Otis Air Force Base sewage treatment plant. One was analyzed
immediately and the other after having sat in a darkened bottle
for six months at 20°C. Note that little change in fluorescence
was apparent, although during the aging process some narrowing
of the fluorescent region did occur. The aged effluent
percolating through sandy loam soil under anaerobic conditions
reaches a stable ratio between the organic content and chlorides
which are highly mobile anions. The stable ratio (cojoint
signal) between fluorescence and conductivity allows ready
detection of leachate plumes by their conservative tracers as
an early warning of potential nutrient breakthroughs or public
health problems.
The Septic Leachate Detector (ENDECO Type 2100 "Septic
Snooper") consists of the subsurface probe, the water intake
system, the analyzer control unit, and the graphic recorder
(Figure 3)« Initially the unit is calibrated against stepwise
increases of wastewater effluent, of the type to be detected,
added to the background lake water. The probe of the unit is
then placed in the lake water along the shoreline. Groundwater
seeping through the shoreline bottom is drawn into the sub-
surface intake of the probe and travels upwards to the analyzer
unit. As it passes through the analyzer, separate conductivity
and specific fluorescence signals are generated and sent to
a signal processor which registers the separate signals on a
D-l-5
-------
DUAL CHANNEL
STRIP CHART
RECORDER
D-l
i
INTAXE
EFFLUENT
INDEX
METER
ENOECO* SEPTIC LEACHATE DETECTOR (SEPTIC SNOOPER'") SYSTEM DIAGRAM
FIGURE J>. The Type 21QO "SEPTIC SNOOPER" Consists of Combined Fluorometer/
Conductivity Units Whose Signal is Adjusted to Fingerprint Effluent.
The Unit is Mounted in a Boat and Piloted Along the Shoreline.
Here the Prcbe is Shown in che Water with a Sample Being Taken at
the Discharge of the 'Jm't for Later Detailed Analysis. D-l-6
-------
80-
70-
60-
UJ
o
z
UJ
UJ
I
u.
UJ
UJ
30-
20-
10-
EXCITATION SCAN
SAND FILTERED SECONDARILY-TREATED
WASTE WATER EFFLUENT
NEWLY SAND FILTERED
OTIS EFFLUENT
AGED
SAND FILTERED
EFFLUENT (6mo.)
D-l
300 400 500
WAVELENGTH (nm)
FIGURE2 . Sand-filtered Effluent Produces a Stable
Fluorescent Signature, Here Shown Before
and After Aging.
D-l-7
-------
-6-
D-l
strip chart recorder as the boat moves forward. The analyzed
water is continuously discharged from the unit back into the
receiving water.
Types of Plumes
The capillary-like structure of sandy porous soils and
horizontal groundwater movement induces a fairly narrow plume
from malfunctioning septic units. The point of discharge along
the shoreline is often through a small area of lake bottom,
commonly forming an oval-shaped area several meters wide when
the septic unit is close to the shoreline. In denser subdivisions
containing several overloaded units the discharges may overlap,
forming a broader increase.
Three different types of groundwater-related wastewater
plumes are commonly encountered during a septic leachate survey:
A) erupting plumes, B) passive plumes, and C) stream source
plumes. As the soil becomes saturated with dissolved solids
and organics during the aging process of a leaching on-lot
septic system, a breakthrough of organics occurs first, followed
by inorganic penetration (principally chlorides, sodium, and
other salts). The active emerging of the combined organic and
inorganic residues into the shoreline lake water describes an
erupting plume. In seasonal dwellings where wastewater loads
vary in time, a plume may be apparent during late summer when
shoreline cottages sustain heavy use, but retreat during winter
during low flow conditions. Residual organics from the waste-
water often still remain attached to soil particles i.i tne
D-l-8
-------
vicinity of the previous erupting olume, slowly releasing into
the shoreline waters. This dormant plume indicates a previous
breakthrough, but sufficient treatment of the plume exists
under current conditions so that no inorganic discharge is
apparent. Stream source plumes refer to either groundwater
leachings of nearstream septic leaching fields or direct pipe
discharges into streams which then empty into the lake.
D-l-9
-------
-8-
D-l
2.0 METHODOLOGY - SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
Water sampling for nutrient concentrations along the
shoreline is coordinated with the septic leachate profiling
to clearly identify the source of effluent. A profile of the
shoreline for emergent plumes was obtained by manually towing
the septic leachate detector along the lee side of the shore-
line in a 5 meter aluminum rowboat. As water was drawn through
the probe and through the detector, it was scanned for specific
organics and inorganics common to septage leachate.
A standard septic leachate survey proceeds in the following
manner: If elevated concentrations of leachate are indica-ed
on the continual chart recorder, a search is made of the area
to pinpoint the location of maximum concentration. At that time
1) a surface water sample is taken from the discharge of the
detector for later nutrient analysis, 2) an interstitial ground-
water sample is taken with a hand-driven well-point sampler to
a depth of .3 meter and 3) finally a surface water sample for
bacterial content (total and fecal coliform) is also taken.
The combination of the triple sampling serves to identify the
source of effluent. If the encountered plume originates from
groundwater seepage, the concentration of nutrients would be
considerably elevated in the well-point sample. If the source
were surface effluent runoff, a low nutrient groundwater content
would exist with an elevated bacterial content. If a stream
D-l-10
-------
source occurred, an isolated single plume would not be found
during search, but instead a broadening plume traced back to a
surface water inlet. Groundwater samples taken in the vicinity
of the surface outflow would also not show as high a nutrient
content as the surface water samples. However in the case of
Nettle Lake, only one plume was located. In such a situation,
numerous background samples are taken to evaluate the condition
of interstitial and surface waters of the lake.
All water samples are analyzed by SPA Standard Methods for
the following chemical constituents:
Conductivity (cond.)
Ammonia-nitrogen (NIL-N)
Nitrate-nitrogen (NO-T-N)
Total phosphorus (TP7
Orthophosphate phosphorus (PO^-P)
A total of 19 water samples for chemical analysis were obtained.
Almost all of these represented broad background sampling.
Only one was obtained at a plume location. The samples were
placed in polyethylene containers, chilled, and frozen for
transport and storage. Conductivity was determined by a
Beckman (Model RC-19) conductivity bridge, ammonium-nitrogen
by phenolate method, nitrate nitrogen by the brucine sulfate
procedure, and orthophosphate-phosphorus and total ohosphorus
by the single reagent procedures following standard methods
(SPA, 1975).
Water samples for bacterial analysis were placed in
sterilized 150 ml glass containers obtained from the Williams
County Health Department and mailed to the Ohio Department of
D-l-.ll
-------
-10- D-l
Health Laboratories, Columbus, Ohio, for analysis. Analyses
were performed for total coliform bacteria and fecal coliform
by the membrane filter method.
D-l-12
-------
-11-
D-l
3.0 PLUMB LOCATIONS
Nettle Lake is a kettle or pit lake of glacial origin.
It was formed during the recession of the last glaciation when
ice was buried under glacial till, melted, and formed a
depression of relatively impermeable soils. The developments
around the lake house a few year-round residents, but the
majority are seasonals which occupy summer cottages. The
cottages use septic tank and leaching field systems for effluent
disposal. However, the shoreline soils are not recommended for
use as leach or drain fields due to poor permeability, slow
percolation rates, seasonal flooding, and ponding problems
(Filbey, 1978).
No substantial groundwater plumes of effluent from near-
shore septic units were observed along the shoreline of Nettle
Lake. Some variation in background conductance usually
occurs as a result of the inflow of different types of
groundwater; this was lacking along the shoreline of Nettle
Lake indicating very little- groundwater inflow. The sole
plume observed was a distinct isolated surface water plume at
the inflow of Nettle Creek, suggesting a source of elevated
dissolved solids from upstream. A slight organic deflection
occurred in the vicinity of sample 15, but was hardly noticeable
above background.
D-l-13
-------
-12-
D-l
3,4 <%
, 12
16,17
Figure ±. Dots indicate locations of samclss
taken aions^ shoreline.
-------
-13-
NETTLE LAKE AREA
SOIL TYPES AND DISTRIBUTION
D-l
LEGEND
Bn Blount Loam
BoB Boyer Loamy Sand
BoC Boyer Loamy Sand
Bp Blount Loam, Loam Substratum Variant
BsD Boyer Gravelly Loamy Sand
Bv Bono Silty Clay Loam
Ca Carlisle Muck
De Del Rey Loam
Og Digby Sandy Loam
Dm Digby Loam
Ed Edwards Muck
Fs Fulton Loam
GP Gravel Pit
Ha Haney Sandy Loam
Hd Haney Loam
He Haney - Rawson Sandy Loams
Hk Haskins Sandy Loam
Hn Haskins Loam
Kl Kibbie Very Fine Sandy Loam
Mh Millgrove Loam
Mp Glynwood Loam, Loam Substratum Variant
Or Oshtemo Loamy Sand
Ot Ottokee Sand
Pa Paulding Clay
Po Pewamo Silty Clay Loam, Loam Substratum
Variant
Pr Pewamo Silty Clay Loam, Loam Substratum
Variant
Rl Rawson Sandy Loam
Sc Bono Silty Clay Loam
Sd Seward Loamy Fine Sand
Sg Shinrock Silt Loam
So Sloan Silty Clay Loam
Sp Spinks Sand
Ts Tuscola Very Fine Sandy Loam
Wb Wallkill Silty Clay Loam, Clayey Subsoil Variant
We Wallkill Silt Loam
Wr Martisco Muck
Approximate Scale 1" = 800'
Fisure 5<
Legend and map showing soil types surrounding
Nettle Lake reproduced from Filbey, 197&.
D-l-15
-------
D-l-16
-------
4.0 NUTRIENT ANALYSES
Completed analyses of the chemical content of 19 samples
taken along the Nettle Lake shoreline are presented in Table 1.
The sample letters refer to the locations given in Figure 4.
The symbol "S" refers to surface water sanrole and the symbol
"G" to groundwater sample. The conductivity of the water samples
as conductance (umhos/cm) is given in the second column. The
nutrient analyses for orthophosphorus (PC^-P), total phosphorus
(TP), ammonium-nitrogen (NE^-N), and nitrate-nitrogen (N),-N)
are presented in the next four columns in parts-per-million
(ppm - mg/1).
5.0 NUTRIENT RELATIONSHIPS
Since no distinct groundwater effluent plumes were observed,
a ratio analysis of nutrient breakthrough with the plumes is
not presented. Interstitial groundwater samples were found
to contain elevated nutrient concentrations common to eutrochic
conditions. Since groundwater inflow was severely limited by
the tight bottom soils, the nutrients are apparently not being
actively transported into the lake waters by groundwater flow.
D-l-17
-------
-16-
D-l
Table 1, Analysis of surface water (S) and ground-water (G)
samples taken along the shoreline of Nettle Lake.
Sample
Number
1 G
2 S
3 S
4 G
5 S
6 G
7 G
8 S
9 S
10 G
11 S
12 G
13 S
14 S
15 S
16 G
17 G
18 S
19 S
Cond.
448
275
280
560
250
440
320
232
330
458
275
400
205
290
300
340
360
360
340
Concentration (ppm - mg/1)
P04-P TP NH^-N NO^-N
.003
.002
.002
.002
.002
.001
.016
.001
.002
.007
.002
.002
.002
.002
.002
.004
.002
1.876
.028
.027
.285
.027
.116
.539
.036
.025
.022
.026
2.635
.022
.025
.030
.029
3.584
.279
.040
14.245
.148
.171
7.280
.132
4.634
2.205
.162
.119
8.722
.213
.637
.179
.161
.158
.171
1.442
.123
.199
.035
.069
.081
.028
.134
.011
.028
.009
.150
.022
.085
.147
.060
.077
.083
.087
.055
.057
.084
D-l-18
-------
-17-
D-l
6.0 COLIJORM L3V3LS
On December 14, six samples of surface waters were taken
along the shoreline and forwarded to the Ohio Department of
Health Laboratories for analysis (Figure 6, samples Nl - N6).
Although total coliform and fecal coliform analyses were
requested, only total coliform determinations were oerformed.
All samples contained total coliform concentrations too
numerous to count (TNTC) because of a procedural error in which
the total volume of water was processed through the culture
membrane filter. The results are therefore misleading and
should not be considered as indicative of true water condition.
For useful information, the analyses should be repeated with
fecal coliform determinations.
7.0 CONCLUSIONS
Nettle Lake basin consists of predominantly tight soils,
Martisco muck, Digby loam, Wallkill silty clay loam, Del Rey
loam, and Blount loam which limit groundwater inflow. It is
not surprising, then, that no distinct groundwater leachate
plumes were observed from individual septic systems along the
shoreline. Elevated bacterial counts were found in water samples
taken along the perichery of the lake. Since extensive shore-
line areas lie within the floodplain (flood prone zone), the
leaching fields may be inundated during periods of high water.
-------
-18-
D-l
Heavy concentrations of cattails, bulrushes, reeds, sedges,
and grasses found around the shore of the lake is an indication
of plant succession in the lake aging (eutrophication) process
(Filbey, 1973). Interstitial water samples do show significant
nutrient concentrations in the lake sediments, although the
source most likely is deposited material and not groundwater
inflow. Storm runoff and flood waters are probably sources of
nutrients and appear to be.far more important than groundwater
transport.
D-l-20
-------
-19-
D-l
R3?3HSNCSS
SPA, 1975 Methods for chemical analysis of water and wastes.
Environmental Protection Agency, NEBC, Analytical Control
Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio 4-5268.
Kerfoot, V. 3. and 3. C. Brainard, II, 1978. Septic leachate
detection - a technological breakthrough for shoreline
on-lot system performance evaluation. In: State of
Knowledge in Land Treatment of 'Jastewater, H. L. McKim,
ed., International Symposium at the Cold Regions Research
and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, New Hampshire.
LRPC, 1977 Discussion of nutrient retention coefficients,
Draft Report 6?2 from Phase II Nonpoint Source Pollution
Control Program, Lakes Region Planning Commission, Meredith,
New Hampshire.
Filbey, R. D., 1978. Nettle Lake environmental inventory and
assessment, June, 1978. SMSL-LV Project RSD 7851, Office
of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Las Vegas, Nevada 89114.
D-l-21
-------
D-l
APPENDIX
-------
D-l
16,17
N
FEET
800
Figure 5. Path of survey.
D-l-
23
-------
*. i-~_3 ^_ _-- _ \ _ - A . .
tr-:~-- - ~'= --"~r - " r -"-
-- --'-' - - - I
I ^_-' "_''
^sg^.-^^-;s =Sr-.V
I
^L -N HY >S^ )-- T .-
fc
'- ' S
= _ _ D-l
^JL i^p/e^rJ-E;
i -'
2i
IT
rv.
±1
i
i --.-"-
r
T;
~>
;
;
~j
> -
{ ---^.
x^. t
EHl-24
-------
D-l
- ------ - ----- )----
.-.- T- < -: -r -- " ---------
' ' ^
3-
n. :>-.-.
-^f;-_- . . - ..
-_
-- -^ - -
-- .- .--;.- - = -. "-
^--^i- -=T~-
^r-^:-- .--- -- ---
.^_.~ -- - .-
r. _- - r
^_ ~--
_^=r.-i------ _--_ -
£F -_-_-. _: -_v -----
_____ -_. _ . --
- -..- - - ----- -
^~':~:- '
=^r^_ - ------ -.--.
i-="-- - - -~ ~ -
----.-- - ..-
J__.. ._. -. - ---
- r :- ---.---r-
~ _ - . :
-~ -- - ~-
-.-... -..-. -
--"--. -------
--.---: ~---.- ~ . ~ ...-'^
---^-^&Jy. ., 3^:, --/::-;;--:-:_---?: v
--!-.=r:.-- 3 ,y~sp- "---"'- -7} '-UJ'\\- '
-i. ^T^^-1 "c£Lvi -N ' ;
- -- -v " - --:.--> t T~ fj\ -
:- =^- = =?j£T.jf-.:7-~- - - v
-_: -=-_- - .-=l^:ii^-_- ^r-_ .---=-
m;i=S^ "^S^.^i" ^-i-S
-~.- ".=: -="- . -.- - :
_-.^=~ r~i-:~ H::_'-- - j
.-;:._- -.-. -
. >_-^ -=7?{- -- - - -- ----
:. -.-; ~- ~_- - i. --=--. - ;- ;- ^
1 '^v3 """^jijr ""-"-'"
--'^^ -^l-^>:rx2r~~- '--
.>--:-,=.=- .---- -,-..:.-<
--.
---
'- :
- .
.--. -
--- =
~~ -
~-~ 2
-T=r-.-_
____.
- --
_-^r=_
V --------
^ ---
\-^:=
Y
I
I ^
^
: rr rr^ **»tS X^^- - - - - ^
j : u J ^ ^ ^ : : ~ i
: ^==^HF-niK£-- j .-.- ---=------^ .-. ^.-- -_--
j =^=S^ =IiV- --=-.-- .(» ?_.- - ri-=.-^- -- - -. ^ ^z_^
r--:-^.
^^1-
-
^--=:
±m 3 D-l-25
-------
J
I ==
--t-
zz
:r- --.---
^-^- ^-rjr
: --
:
--^^-"i -
fJ-V-TT ,- .
=^-=
j
~'_^ 1
- _- -_
/"-
- -=-=
^-^7
*.-.-"=-
C --V-
1 -^ r ^r---:
£=^11-5
- -r.
-:^=
:» ------ ----- -----!
, .. _ _
-^ ^-~~. - -=- -^r
O - .
-* _^:^?.=:l-l:"-C.^{^i7'
2 ^^t^^J^'-^
=^=z=r=r- =.-.-_
^"- "
_ZUT
:--f--^
--r^
-==_ -
i--^'" 2
-^
D-l
*-Hr
~~ '
.=£- .-.-
=~^--- - -- -
-.
T^=T-^T-.~. -:._-- -
======;.-;. -rrH-JTrj..:
ir=-^-..:- -- --'..
=^-~ - -
=H- :.-:.
= : -r .
. S-T
=..
T-?-:^ r^ -;-- - :..^- --._-- j-=
-^H^ ^r- ----;-:.. "-- -
- -- - -
- -: - ' -
>^ ^ . -
- ;G=
-. ->
-
:-.-.=^.
I =?=- -r~L~~JfJi±:::i'r-:-^':'::-1' i Jr.'r.~. ~:^r -.>,/;:
D-l-26
-------
r---
m ~~^-___ -
I _-.
-C-
I ^^
i ,/.
A:^
/^^ -°
(' -
1 ^L~^-;----- - _- -- ,
| -.==.-.-.=-- :
| ±^-^C ^-^-~-- ^
.- r_ .
:- ' V
.-.-
i " - , -
r 7 -W ,,-:| .-^
-'. ----- -"- " -_-_.^-:.
rsr --------. [.- =
-- f ,
-------
D-l
D-l-28
-------
APPENDIX
D-2
NETTLE LAKE CONSTRUCTION GRANTS SANITARY SURVEY
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this survey was to aid in planning and designing rural
wastewater systems for the Nettle Lake Study Area by establishing the
need for improved wastewater treatment, and evaluating the feasibility of
using on-site technology in alternative solutions.
Residents of the Nettle Lake Study Area, Williams County, Ohio,
were interviewed by Mark Hummel between November 29th and December 6th, 1978,
in order to identify existing septic problems and provide a basis for assess-
ing a range of possible solutions.
There were three specific goals in the study:
1. Identify possible sources of water quality and public health
problems to aid in determining grant eligibility.
2. Evaluate reasons for inadequate functioning of existing systems.
3. Provide a quantitative basis for selecting feasible technologies
and estimating life cycle costs of on-site alternatives.
METHODOLOGY
THE QUESTIONNAIRE
The survey questionnaire was developed by Gerald Peters, of WAPORA, Inc.
to be used as a standard form for all Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
sanitary surveys. A copy of the questionnaire is included.
The first part of the questionnaire described the location of each
dwelling well enough for someone to come back and find each site surveyed.
The next part dealt with size and location of the septic system, along with
problem and maintenance histories. There was a brief section on number of
residents and water-using fixtures, another on drainage patterns into or
over the septic system. A visual inspection was followed by a drawing
locating the septic system in relation to the house, lake, well, and main
road.
RESULTS
The Nettle Lake Study Area contained approximately 284 private
residences, 100 of them fronting on Nettle Lake. A total of 31 wastewater
disposal systems in 29 interviews (10% of the total) were surveyed in 8 days.
The survey was taken at a time when many summer-only residents were riot
home. According to WAPORA (1976), seasonal homes accounted for 91% of all
D-2-1
-------
D-2
dwellings in the area, not including 180 seasonal campsites. The WAPORA
estimates were used in calculating winter-minimum and summer-maximum popula-
tions around Nettle Lake.
The winter population of 128 expanded up to 8.0 times, to 1025, during
busy summer weekends.
Fifty-three percent of the permanent dwellings were surveyed while only
three percent of the seasonal were accounted for (Table 1). Table 2 indicates
the residents' knowledge of the survey questions.
Table 1
PERCENT OF PERMANENT AND SEASONAL DWELLINGS SURVEYED,
AND NUMBER OF PROBLEMS
Occupancy
Seasonal
Permanent
Total
WAPORA '76
Estimate of
% of Each
91.4
8.6
100.0
# Dwellings
in Planning
Area
244
40
284
Number
Surveyed
8
21
29
Percent
Surveyed
3
53
10
# with
Problems
1
4
5
% of those
Interviewed
with
Problems
13
19
17
Table 2
RESIDENT KNOWLEDGE OF SEPTIC SYSTEMS
Extent of
Knowledge
0
Residents
1
Total
Answered no questions
Answered some questions
(usually didn't know size)
Answered all questions
1
12
16
29
3
41
55
99
D-2-2
-------
D-2
SANITARY SURVEY FOR CONSTRUCTION GRANTS APPLICATION
(Page One)
Resident:
Owner:
Address of
Property:
Lot Location:
Tax Map Designation:
Preliminary Resident Interview
Age of Dwelling: years
Type of Sewage Disposal System:
Study Area:
Surveyor/Date:
Weather:
Approximate
Lot Size:
acres
Age of Sewage Disposal
System: years
Maintenance:
years since septic tank pumped
years since sewage system repairs (Describe below)
Accessibility of septic tank manholes (Describe below)
Dwelling Use: Permanent Residents
Seasonal Use:
Problems Recognized by Resident:
adults,
children
Surveyor's Visual Observations of Soil Disposal Area:
D-2-3
-------
D-2
SANITARY SURVEY FOR CONSTRUCTION GRANTS APPLICATION
(Page Two)
Sanitary and Drainage Facilities
Water Using Fixtures:
Shower Heads Kitchen Lavatories Clothes washing
Bathtubs Garbage Grinder machine
Bathroom Lavatories Dishwasher Water softener
Toilets Other Kitchen Utility sink
Other
Drainage Facilities and Discharge Location:
Basement Sump
Footing Drains
Roof Drains
Driveway Runoff
Property and Facility Sketch
D-2-4
-------
D-2
SANITARY SURVEY FOR CONSTRUCTION GRANTS APPLICATION
(Page Three)
Water Supply
Water Supply Source (check one)
Public Water Supply
Community or Shared Well
On-Lot Well
Other (Describe)
If public water supply or
community well:
If shared or on-lot well:
Well Depth (if known):
Fixed Billing Rate $
Metered Rate $
Average usage for prior year:
Drilled Well
Bored Well
Dug Well
Driven Well
feet total
feet to house
feet to soil
disposal area
Visual Inspection: Type of Casing
Integrity of Casing
Grouting Apparent?
Vent Type and Condition
Seal Type and Condition
feet to water table
feet to septic tank
feet to surface water
Water Sample Collected:
No
Yes
(Attach Analysis Report)
D-2-5
-------
APPENDIX
D-3
OHIO SANITARY CODE
dit:poaal requirements.
(A) The dcfsi.'^i, construction, installation, location,
maintenance, and operation of household sewage
ditiposjal systems including, but not limited to,
septic toiikn, aerobic type treatment systems,
filter:-'., leaching tile fields, leaching wells,
building sewers, uud privies or part thereof
nhnll comply with those rules and engineering
practicor, acceptable to tho Ohio department of
health and current Ohio environmental protection
agency of fluent utundaxda.
(B) ,\ny dwelling which is not connected to a sanitary
soworage system shall be provided with an approved
household sewage disposal system prior to its
being occupied.
(c) Each household sewage disposal system shall serve
one dwelling on an individual lot and shall be
properly maintained and operated by the owner. All
the sewage from the dwelling shall discharge into
the system.
(D) Wo household sewage disposal system or part thereof
shall create a nuisance.
(t;) No person shall discharge, or permit to be dis-
charged, treated or untreated sewage, the overflow
drainage or contents of a sewage tank, or other
putrescible, impure, or offensive wastes into an
abandoned water supply, well, spring, or cistern
or into a natural or artificial well, sink hole,
crevice, or other opening extending into limestone,
sandstone, shale, or other rock formation, or
normal ground water table.
(F) No percon shall discharge, or permit or cause to
be discharged, treated or untreated sewage, the
drainage or contents of a oewage tank, or other
putrescible or offensive wastes onto the surface
of the ground, into any street, road, alley, open
excavation, or underground drain.
D-3-1
-------
D-3
',70 1 - 29"C)i| . Installation permit and operation permit.
(A) Nu person clip. 11 install or alter a household sew-
aft''' disposal system without an installation permit
issued to him by the "board of health. The owner
or his dosi£»iated agent shall obtain such instal-
lation porait from the board of health for the
innial Int. ion of a hou:;ehold sewage disposal system
prior to the ctart of construction of a dwelling.
No person shall maintain or operate a household
sewnge disposal system installed after the effec-
tive date of this rule without an operation permit
obtained from the board of health.
(o) Application for permit shall be in writing and
.contain pertinent information as required by the
board of health. Any fee established for a permit
by law or authority of law shall accompany the
appJ i cation.
(l)) The board of health shall issue a permit when the
pertinent information indicates that the provisions
of rules 3701-29-01 to 3701-29-21 of the Ohio Sani-
tary Code can be met. The board of health may
specify terms consistent with rules 3701-29-01 to
3701-29-21 on the permit governing the installation,
alteration, and operation of the household sewage
disposal system.
(E) The board of health shall deny a permit if the
information on the application is incomplete,
inncourate, or indicates that the provisions of
rules 3701-29-0! to 3701-29-21 of the Ohio Sanitary
O.do c.annot to met.
(i-') An installation permit shaJ 1 remain in force until
euuipletiori of the household sewage disposal system
or for one year from the date of issuance, which-
ever occurs first. The permit may be revoked or
suspended by the hoard of health. An operation
permit uhnl'l remain in force until it expires, is
revoked, or suspended by the board of health.
D-3-2
Pa/-,o onu of two
-------
D-3
(3701-29-OU. Continued.)
(G) The installation and operation of the household
sewage disposal systom or any part thereof shall
conform with the requirements of rulea 3701-29-01
to 3701-29-21 of the Ohio Sanitary Code and the
terms of the penni t 0,3 required by the board of
health in division (s) of this rule.
Adopted January 17, 197lj; effective July 1, 197l».
Amended March 17, 1977; effective July 1, 1977-
D-3-3
Pago two of two
-------
D-3
3701-29-0$. Registration of installers of household sewage
disposal systems or parts thereof.
(A) No person shall perform the services of an in-
staller unless he holds a valid registration issued
to him by the board of health.
(B) Application for registration shall be in writing
and contain pertinent information as required by
the board of health. Any fee established for a
registration by law or authority of law shall
accompany the application.
(c) Each registration issued ht)reundcr shall expire
annually.
(D) A renewal application for registration shall be
submitted to the board of health at least thirty
days prioi' to the expiration date.
(E) Every registrant shall maintain and submit to the
board of health such data and records as may be
required for determining compliance with rules
3701-29-01 to 3701-29-21 of the Ohio Sanitary
Code.
(?) Tho owner sh.i] I not be required to have a regis-
tration for performing work on the household
sewage- disposal 3y»tem for the dwelling which he
occupi.oa.
(G) Whenever the health commissioner firida that an
im tall or is or has engaged in practices which are
in violation of any provision of rules 3701-29-01
to 3701-29-20 of the Ohio Sanitary Code or the
torrus of any permit ar, required by the board of
health in rule 3701 ~29-Ol4(P) under which instal-
lation is performed, the; board of health shall
give notice in writing to the registrant describing
the aJ.lc^od violation and state that an opportunity
for a hearLrv will be provided by the board of
health to show cause why his registration should
i.wt bt; muipondod or revoked.
.],Liiuar.v 17, 17/I|; rffool, Lvo July 1,
H"ir.;h 17, 1977; effective July 1, 1977.
D-3-4
-------
D-3
3701-29-06. Registration of sewage tank cleaners.
(A) No person shall perform the services of a sewage
tank cleaner unless he holds a valid registration
issued to him by the board of health.
(B) Application for registration shall be in writing
and contain pertinent information as required by
the board of health. Any fee established for
registration by law or authority of law shall
accompany the application.
(c) The board of health shall issue a permit when the
pertinent information indicates that the provisions
of rules 3701-29-01 to 3701-29-21 of the Ohio
Sanitary Code can be met. The board of health may
specify terms consistent with rules 3701-29-01 to
3701-29-21 on the permit governing the collection,
transportation, and disposal of the contents of ,
sewage tanks or privies.
(l)) Each registration issued hereunder shall expire
annually.
(F) A renewal application for registration shall be
submitted to the board of health at least thirty
dayn prior to the expiration date.
(F) Every registrant shall maintain and submit to the
board of health such data and records as may be
required for determining compliance with rules
3701-29-01 to 3701-29-21 of th<-: Ohio Sanitary
Code.
(c) Win-never Ui«> health coiu;;ri i.r.i oiir-r Firuln that a
sewage tank cleaner is or has engaged in practices
which are in violation of any provision of rules
3701-29-01 to 3701-29-21 of the Ohio Sanitary Code,
the terms of the registration permit as require! by
the board of health in rule 3701-29-06(c), or
applicable laws of the state, the board of health
shall give no tier; in writ in,"; to the registrant
describing the alleged violation and rotate that an
opportunity for u hearing will be provided by the
board of health to show caunc why his registration
should not be suspended or revoked.
Moptod J-muary 17, 197ii? effective July 1, 197i|.
Amended March 17, 1977; offoe live July 1, 1977-
D-3-5
-------
D-3
3701-29-07. Septic tanks..
(A) Th-> mirdmuin capacity of septic tanks shall be:
(l) Single family dwelling;
(n) One to two bedroom - 1000 gallons,
(b) Three bedroom - 1^00 gallons in one or
two tanks or compartments,
(c) Four to five bedroom - 2000 gallons in
two tanks or compartments,
(d) Six or more bedroom - 2^00 gallons in
two tanks or compartments.
(2) Two or three family dwelling - the sum of the
volumes for each single family residential
unit within the dwelling ao defined by rule
3701-29-0?(A)(1).
In r.yaterns using two tankn, the septic tanks shall
bo connected in ueries and all sewage shall ini-
tially enter the first tank.
The invert level of the inlet shall be not lesa
than two inches above the liquid level of the
tank.
(]")) A vented inlet baffle shall be provided to divert
the .incoming sewage downward. The baffle shall
penetrate at least six inches below the liquid
level, but the penetration shall not be greater
than that allowed for the outlet device.
(E) The outlet shall be 1'itted with a vented tee,
vented ell, or baffle which shall extend not less
than six inches above and not less than
eighteen inches below the liquid level of the
tank.
(y) The uoptic tank shall have a liquid drawing depth
of not, Jer;a than four foot.
D-3-6
Page one of two pages
-------
D-3
(3701-29-07. Continued. )
The distance from the flow line to the cover shall
be at least twelve inches.
Tlie oeptic tank shall be installed with a minimum
of one secured cover extended to grade to provide
access to each compartment of the tank for inspection
rind cleaning. The cover shall have a minimum inside
diameter of ten inches.
Adopted January 17, 197ij; effective July 1, 197)4.
Amended March 17, 1977; effective July 1, 1977.
D-3-7
Page two of two
-------
D-3
3701-29-10. Installation requirements for soil absorption and
percolation.
(A) Leaching systems utilizing soil absorption or
percolation shall not be permitted where the depth
to normal ground water table or rock strata is
less than four feet below the bottom of the pro-
posed system.
(il) Leaching systems utilizing soil absorption or
percolation shall not be installed where the
texture, structure, or permeability of the soil
ia not suitable to provide internal drainage.
The health commissioner may require the owner at
the owner's expense to provide a written site
evaluation by a qualified person before a final
decision is made in issuing a permit. The criteria
of the national cooperative soil survey shall be
used as a guideline by the health commissioner to
determine the suitability of the soils in lieu of
a more detailed guideline relating to code re-
quirements and 3O.L1 characteristics.
Adopted January 1?, 197L}; effective July 1, 197)4.
Amended Maro.h 17, 1977; effective July 1, 1977.
D-3-8
-------
D-3
3701-29-11. Leaching tilo field.
(A) Total field requirement shall be divided into two
equal sections and provided with a diversion device
equipped to provJ.de alternate flow to each section
of the field. The diversion device and inspection
oorts aha'll be brought to grade and shall be pro-
vided with secured covers.
(B) leaching field absorption area requirements for
household sewage disposal systems shall be
adequate to prevent water pollution or a nuisance,
evccpt thone sites eliminated by rules 3701-29-01
to 3701-29-21 of the Ohio Sanitary Code.
(c) The minimum distance- between any leaching lines
shall be six feet.
(D) The minimum da stance between any leaching line
and any drain line located on the lot shall be
eight feet.
(E) A leaching trench nhall have a minimum of twelve
inches of clean-gravel or stone fill, extending
at least two inches above and six inches below
the leaching line; ouch fill shall be three-
fourths inch to one and one-half inches in size.
(i1) A leaching trench shall have a minimum width of
eight inches. The depth shall be a minimum of
eighteen inches but not more than thirty inches.
(G) A leaching line shall have a maximum length of one
hundred-fifty feet.
(H) A leaching line shall have a minimum diameter of
four inches and shall have a relatively level
grade. The grade shall not exceed a fall of three
inches in fifty feet.
(l) The lop of the gravel stone fill nhall be covered
with a pervious material auch as untreated paper
or a two inch layer of hay, atraw, or similar
material before being covert;;! with earth.
(j) The land surface shall be graded so as to exclude
surface drain/igc from the household newage dis-
pon:il nite.
D-3-9
Page one of two pages
-------
D-3
3701-29-13. Leaching pit.
(A) A leaching pit shall be installed only in areas
where gravel deposits underlie the ground surface
and the seasonally high water table is not less
than ten feet below the bottom of the leaching
pit. Teat borings to determine the suitability
of the soil shall be constructed to a depth of
at least ten feet below the bottom of a proposed
leaching pit prior to issuance of an installation
permit.
(B) A leaching pit shall be a minimum of one hundred
feet from any water supply source, ten feet from
any lot or right-of-way line, and twenty feet
from any occupied building.
(c) A leaching pit shall be provided with a secured
cover extended to ground level.
Adopted January 17, 197U; effective July 1, 197U.
Amended March 17, 1977; effective July 1, 1977.
Replaces rule 3701-29-12.
D-3-10
-------
D-3
3701-29-15'. Privy.
(A) A privy shall be provided with watertight vaults
or other watertight receptacles of not lean than
five h\indred gallons capacity except an specified
in division (B) of this rule and shall be a
minimum of fifty feet from any water supply source,
ar.d twenty feet from any occupied building or lot
or right-of-way line.
(B) A vault may be constructed with an open or porous
bottom if it is located not less than one hundred
feet from any water supply source, and so located
that the liquids leaching from the vault will not
discharge at the ground surface, or into limestone,
sandstone, shale, or other rock formation. The
vault shall not be permitted where the depth to
the seasonally high water is less than four feet
below the bottom of the proposed vault.
(c) The construction and design of the vault and
superstructure shall prevent access by insects,
fowl, or animals.
A privy shall be cleaned before the contents
reach the top level of the vault.
Adopted January 1?-, 197U; effective July 1, 19?U.
Amended March 17, 1977; effective July 1, 1977.
Replaces rule 3701-29-1U.
D-3-11
-------
D-3
uraa^'s
o"
M
EC
O
CO
s
H
CO
CO
O
CO
w
H
H
CO
1
^
o
p
W
£
Pi
P4
0) tH
H i-l
,Q £5
n) o
O
tj
pj
S
CO
H
W
*E2
S
H
Cf
3
H
£|
1 I
pq
H
[~j
J^
CO
w
H
M
CO
jAOTaci D'~I i^nbaj TTCS
I ^ i. - r L .
3~[qB3iu.iad jo q}d3Q
(333.J) 3pc?Jo TJBUToTJTO
MOIacl pa^jnbaj Ijos
sfqpanLiad jo q3daQ
(UT/UT'Jl) pa33TULI3d
L L -* 4
S33BJ UO f3BTOD J3,-^
(333 j) UI33SAS UOT3
-daosqe wo~[aq 3iqE3
a33EA 03 q3dap 'UT^
(333T^ ap^E?Jl3
Sijo moaj a'jq'Bi
_j33^iM 03 q3dap *utTi»T
(7)
p333T"OLJ3d UOT3B"["['83S
-UT 3J3qw adoTS 'XB>Y
^ " SOUTJ A3.I3dOJ.-r
03 y ' ^
r"1 -*"
O 4"->
-2 ^ ^ Suf|;Tawa
S_, <^j U
n a)
O '-!
£ 'fj v"~^ ^JtSl'GAl BOBTJUQ
C r< "" ^
"M 1 . .
2 1 SIT3M
: a i i i n i i
i 5*; i i i s i i
1 Q 1 1 1 C 1 1
1 Z 1 1 1 Z 1 1
o o
1 1 1 1 1 p 1 1
1 0 0 1 I a 1 |
I 1 r-t
1 --111 II
1 C I I 1 Q | i
1 Z 1 1 1 Z 1 1
1 Q 1 1 1 P I I
1 & 1 1 1 *?< \ 1
O O O O C C O I
>~i *-H i 1 i i i 1 rH i i [
O O O O O O O I
r-i H Ul i 1 , | r-t r- 1 |
O P Q Q Q p Q |
Z ^ £2 ^ £3 *S ^ 1
C O O O O O O 1
m LO o LH in to LO i
^C 5=
a S
C "3 *-*
ai w c en
!-J ' CO >v,
4-1 o. ai .. cn -a i
^ >, C V3
J2 c c a) x; c c i
COO 4-J O cn T3
^_y* ~T^ -- * ^ .^-i ^ .fi
2 3 r- f ," ? 'z 'r 3 § ; ^ T: -
' C *-> O J-j /; i-j ~j i i o ' ' -u i C
c - x cn .n -" .c r- 1 ~ -J3 u i u. ; r.
M
(C
4J
- Q
T3 CC
ai ai
u C
03 C
T3 ~(
^
C ^-N
- ta o
cn sc o
aS S -5
(DOS:
C -H > '
to "^
Ci4 cT3 Ci
>> 5 cr-
^ M C
to o
4-1 O
H S3 U3
G C T-i
!C tU 3
CO i-i
'O ""O
0) C C
^ M (C
to
4J *t «
CO 03 !T3
H -rl
m_i Q ^
O C 03
T-I >
!-< rH >,
Oj r-l 03
Q S
CQ J-* C<
O CD
S-J 4-1 p.
cu
> ft "
S u -r-:
to !-i
HOC
a. >-4 -u
^ , ^ , (^J
n O
03 0)
cn 60 -
H CO O
cn 3 vi
cn cu jr
H CO O
S
01 «
01 -r4 ~
G- cn o
C. 1 >.
1 O 5
03 CU
CU <4-4 Z
X 0 _
i-i 3
W 03 o
to S cn
a I co
0 cn X
,
T)
CU
H
CU
TJ
c -c >, _
e.
D
C/! i CN;
O
C -O ^ *- ' i O
D-3-12
-------
APPENDIX E
FLOW REDUCTION)
-------
Flow Reduction and Cose Data for Water Saving Devices
APPENDIX
E-l
Device
Toilet modifications
Daily
Conservation
(zpd)
Daily
Conservation
(hot water)
(«pd)
Capital
Cost
Installation
Cost
Useful
Life_
(yrs.).
Average
Annual
O&M
Hater displacement 10
deviceplastic
bottles, bricks, etc.
Water damming device 30
Dual flush adaptor 25
Improved balloclc
assembly 20
Shower flow control
insert device
Alternative shower
equipment
Flow control shower, head
Shower cutoff valve
Thernostatic mixing
valve
19
19
0
0-
3.25
4.00
3.00
14
14
2.00
15.00
2.00
62.00
H-0-
H-0
H-0
H-0
H-0
H-0 or
13.30
H-0
13.30
15
20
10
10
15
15
Alternative toilets
Shallow trap toilet
Dual cycle toilet
Vac'-iira toilet
Incinerator toilec
Organic waste treatment
system
Recycle toilet
Faucet modifications
Aerator
Flow control device
Alternative faucets
Foow control faucet
Spray tap faucet
Shower modification
30
60
90
100
100
100
1
4.8
4.3
7
0- 80.00 55.20
0- 95.00 55.20
0-
0
0
0
1' 1.50 H-0
2.4 3.00 H-0
2.i 40.00 20.70
3.5 56.50 20.70
20 0
0
15 0
13 Q
0
15 0
0
0
0
-0 » Homeowner-installed; cost assumed to be zero.
E-l-1
-------
APPENDIX
E-2
INCREMENTAL CAPITAL COSTS OF FLOW REDUCTION
IN THE NETTLE LAKE STUDY AREA
Dual-cycle toilets:
$20/toilet x 2 toilets/permanent dwelling x 76 permanent
dwellings in year 2000 = $3,040
$20/toilet x 1 toilet/seasonal dwelling x 419 seasonal
dwellings in year 2000 = 8,380
Shower flow control insert device:
$2/shower x 2 shower/permanent dwelling x 76 permanent
dwellings in year 2000 = 304
$2/shower x 1 shower/seasonal dwelling x 419 seasonal
dwellings in 2000 = 838
Faucet flow control insert device:
$3/faucet x 3 faucets/permanent dwelling x 76 permanent
dwellings in year 2000 = 684
$2/faucet x 2 faucets/seasonal dwelling x 419 seasonal
dwellings in 2000 = 1,676
TOTAL $14,922
Note: The $20 cost for dual-cycle toilets is the difference between its
full purchase price of $95 and the price of a standard toilet, $75.
E-2-1
-------
APPENDIX F
WATER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
-------
APPENDIX
F-l
CO
UJ
CO
UJ
o
§
0.
i
£
UJ
0£.
O
z
_J
e
CO
^4
1
CO
» 1
ae.
UJ
K-
>a e
a >o
55
VI
2.
o
VI
vi
cS
U- k k
W
O !/-
CM - (J
o c
SCO
O 10
-4 > T*^-
01
0.
O
v>
t»
CL
k
o
J
^^
4)
* *
^0-8
VI Ol
"3 ""S S k
B oi
VI I/I k »
X " Ol k
JbstJ
3
VI
o
e
VI
O VI
f TJ
Q. C
5 M
3
o
x -^
O CL
"v» k
^^
«l 41
*J *J
IQ «J
k k
41 41
O T3
x. i
^
^
-O
0
C
g^
j^.
f^
o
I/I
3
*^
u
u
3j
r.
S
**
u
4*
u
u
I
VI «
fii
Q..C
01 X vi
0 f
kr- 01
41 .O 01
vi 10
Ol -O O
O J. C k
i 10 3 a.
^.^
e
1
w
^o
« a> 8-c
k e 3
S.. i; S
V O 4f
o o "3
O 01
** 01 O
IO C U
^
1^
5
*o
2 e
VI
vi e
0 Q'-*
O.- k
^M 01
c o
« 1.
C Ol
<
*J 4l-~
»- X *
Si'o'S.
IO U
k U
3k 01
a k
«/» "» a.
S
a
0 **
p- U
s5
VI
; C 03
tip m v!
0 S Vi
f-4 0
gss
,£ -H JU
O DQ 0)
cu eu «
H Q 3
B
u>
°
O
^
H.
,
F-l-1
-------
-------
PT?*^»^!*S"^
'
Environmental Protection
:Agency -" ^-~* !:
"S-ait-jixAJaA-f.
, . -.~ -
Septic Tank with Alternating
Absorption Fields
One field rests while other is in use. Allows field to renew
itself. Extends life of field. Provides standby if one field fails.
Valve directs sewage liquid to proper field. Fields usually
switched every 6-12 months.
Septic Tank Valve Box
Distribution
Box
Trenches
Distribution Box
O Septic Tank & Leaching
Chambers
Open-bottom concrete chambers create underground cavern
over absorption field. Liquid is piped into cavern ft spread over
field by troughs, splashplates, or dams. Liquid filters through
soil. Chambers replace perforated pipe, trenches, & rocks of
conventional absorption field. Access holes at top allow main-
tenance & soil inspection.
Vent
Pipe
F-2
1 Septic Tank & Soil Absorption
8 Field (Trench)
Sewage bacteria break up some solids in tank. Heavy solids
sink to bottom as sludge. Grease & light particles float to top
as scum. Liquid flows from tank through closed pipe and
distribution box to perforated pipes in trenches; flows through
surrounding crushed rocks or gravel and soil to ground water
(underground water). Bacteria & oxygen in soil help purify
liquid. Tank sludge & scum are pumped out periodically. Most
common onsite system. Level ground or moderate slope.
Absorption Field (Trench)
Unexcavated
Gravel or Crushed Rock
Septic System Refinements:
(A) Dosing (B) Closed Loop
(A) Pump or siphon forces liquid to perforated pipes in con-
trolled doses so all pipes discharge liquid almost at same time
(dosing). Spreads liquid more evenly & gives field chance to
dry out between dosings. (B) Variation of Sketch 1 absorption
field. Can be used for dosing & where ground is level or nearly
'ev6'- Distribution
Box Absorption Field
Septic Tank PumP or \
~_" L
(A)
Closed Loop Absorption Field
(B):
7
Q Mound System
*^ (Used with Septic or Aerobic Tank)
Liquid is pumped from storage tank (as in Sketch 21) to per-
forated plastic pipe in sand mound that covers plowed ground.
Liquid flows through rocks or gravel, sand, & natural soil.
Mound vegetation helps evaporate liquid. Rocky or tight soil or
high water table.
Perforated Pipe
Ve9e'a"°n
Absorption Field
Cross
Section
Diagram
Inlet Pipe From Septic or Aerobic
\
Plowed Surface. Original Grade
Tank & Siphon or Pump Rockyor Tig^t Soilor Hlgh Ground Water
F-2-2
-------
Aerobic System & Soil
Absorption Field
Air and wastewater are mixed in tank. Oxygen-using (aerobic)
bacteria grow, digest sewage, liquefy most solids. Liquid
discharges to absorption field where treatment continues. Can
use same treatment & disposal methods as septic tank.
Maintenance essential. Uses energy.
Absorption Field (Trench)
Septic Tank & Soil Absorption
Field (Bed)
Similar to Sketch 1 but smaller field. Total field excavated.
Used where space limited. Nearly level ground.
F-2
Absorption Field (Bed)
Distribution Box
Septic Tank
Gravel or Crushed Rock
Septic Tank with Sloping Field
Serial Distribution
Pump forces liquid to perforated pipes in contoured absorption
field. Drop boxes regulate liquid flow so highest trench fills up
first, second fills up next, & lowest fills up last. Plastic fittings
can be used instead of drop boxes to regulate flow. Used on
slopes.
Absorption Field
on Slope
~J Septic Tank with Seepage Pit
Liquid flows to pit that has open-jointed brick or stone walls
surrounded by rocks. Precast tanks with sidewall holes can
also be used. Liquid seeps through walls & rocks to surround-
ing soil. Pit sides are cleaned periodically to prevent clogging.
Seepage Pit
*1O Evapotranspiration Bed
^ (Used with Septic or Aerobic Tank)
Similar to Sketch 9 but sand bed is lined with plastic or other
waterproof material. Bed could be mound or level. Liquid
evaporates because liner prevents it from filtering through
natural soil. Plants speed evaporation by drawing moisture
from soil & breathing it into the air. Used where conventional
absorption field not possible.
Inlet Pipe From Septic
or Aerobic Tank
Existing Soil
Waterproof Liner
Septic Tank, Sand Filter,
Disinfection & Discharge
Filter is ground-level or buried sand pit. Liquid enters per-
forated pipe at top & filters through sand & gravel to bottom
pipe. Bottom pipe conducts liquid to disinfection tank. Liquid
discharges to stream or ditch. Variations are intermittent sand
filter & recirculating sand filter. Used where soil absorption
field not possible.
Septic Tank
Sand Filter
F-2-3
-------
Low-Pressure Subsurface Pipe
Distribution
Network of small-diameter perforated plastic pipes are buried
6"- 18" in 4"- 6"-wide trenches. Pump forces liquid through
pipes in controlled doses so liquid discharges evenly. Site ft
soil determine pipe layout & pipe-hole size & number. Absorp-
tion field is same size as conventional field. Rocky or tight soil
or high water table.
Holding Tank
F-2
Septic Tank
Dosing Tank
with Pump
Perforated Plastic Pipe
Sewage flows to large, underground, watertight storage tank.
Tank is pumped periodically & sewage hauled away. Isolated or
remote areas where absorption field not possible. Sewage haul-
ing cost high.
"1g Dual Systems:
^ Blackwater & Graywater
Many systems. In this one: (A) toilet wastes (blackwater) are
handled by waterless or low-water toilet system [Sketch 15].
(B) Other household wastewater from kitchen, bath, laundry
(graywater) needs separate treatment & disposal.
(A) Blackwater (Toilet Wastes)
Waste
~7I
Disposal or Recycle
Waterless or Low-Water Toilet System
(B ) Graywater (Other Household Wastewaterl
To Septic or Other
Approved Treatment
& Disposal
1"7 Small-Diameter Gravity Sewers
1 * (Collection System)
4"- 6" pipe is sloped so liquid from septic or aerobic tank flows
through pipe to treatment & disposal. Treatment ft disposal
system can be conventional or alternative. Small pipe costs less
than conventional 8" pipe.
Sepi
-Soil Absorption Fteld or Other
Treatment & Disposal
19
Land Application
Sewage liquid is applied to land to nourish vegetation & purify
liquid. Methods:
1. IrrigationLiquid is applied to crops or to forests (silviculture)
by sprinkling, flooding, or ridge & furrow. Liquid is
sometimes disinfected before application.
2. Overland flowLiquid flows through vegetation on graded
slope. Runoff is collected at bottom B reused or discharged'
to river or stream. Suitable for tight soils.
3. Rapid infiltration Partly treated sewage is applied in con-
trolled doses to sandy soil. Solids break down. Liquid
purifies as it seeps to ground water (underground water) or
is collected & may be reused.
Aquaculture:
Plants & animals that grow in wastewater help purify water by
digesting pollutants. Harvest is used as food, fertilizer, etc.
Pressure Sewers, GP
(Grinder Pump)
Unit grinds sewage & pumps it through small-
diameter plastic pipe to central or alternative
treatment & disposal. Doesn't use septic tank
but existing tank (B) may remain for emer-
gency storage. Used for one or several
homes (C).
(A ) No Septic Tank
Pressure Sewer Plastic Pipe
to Treatment & Disposal
(C ) Clusters
Grinder Pump
JF-2-4
Storage Tank
Hou
»e
-------
Cluster System
(Two or More Users on One Alternative
System)
Several houses are served by common treatment & disposal
system. Houses could also have onsite septic or aerobic tanks
with liquid conducted to common absorption field. Clusters of
houses can also use other alternative systems, such as mounds
(Sketch 9), pressure & vacuum sewers (Sketches 18, 20, 21),
& sewage treatment lagoons.
Vacuum Sewers
(Collection System)
Vacuum pump creates vacuum in collector pipes. Valve opens
when sewage from dwelling presses against it. Sewage & plug
of air behind it enter pipe. Air forces sewage to collection tank.
Sewage pump forces sewage from tank to treatment system.
Needs standby electric power & failure alarm system. Can be
used with large cluster systems (Sketch 14).
Sewage From Dwelling
Central Vacuum Pump
Central Collector Pipe
Old Septic Tank Left in Place
1 % ' or Larger
Plastic Pipe
- To Treatment
£? Disposal
Waterless or Low-Water Toilet F~2
Systems*
Composting: No water.
Large & small systems. Converts toilet wastes & most food
wastes to compost. Electric vent fan & heating element op-
tional on large systems; essential on small systems. Proper
care vital.
Incinerating: No water.
Electricity, gas, or oil burns solids & evaporates liquid. Small
amount of ash is removed weekly. Roof vent. Proper care
essential.
Recycling Oil Flush: No water.
Similar to water-flush toilet but uses oil for flush. Oil &
wastes go to large storage tank where wastes settle at bot-
tom & oil rises to top. Filtered oil recycles for flush. Storage
tank is pumped & oil replaced periodically. Uses electricity.
Proper care essential.
Recycling Chemical: Low water.
Water-chemical flush mixture is pumped into toilet bowl.
Mixture & wastes go to storage tank. Filtered liquid recircu-
lates for flush. Permanent or portable types. Permanent
needs water hookup. Storage tank is pumped & chemicals
added periodically. Uses electricity. Proper care essential.
Recycling Water: Low water.
Various systems. Some reduce wastes to water, gas, &
vapor. Treated wastewater recycles to flush toilet. System
vents to outside. Multiflush commercial units available. Most
systems use electricity. Professional maintenance essential.
'Treat toilet wastes (blackwaterl. Other household wastewater (graywater)
needs separate treatment & disposal system.
21
Grinder Pump
Old Septic Tank
for Emergency Storage
To Treatment
Pressure Sewers, STEP
(Septic Tank Effluent Pump)
(A) One dwelling. Pump forces liquid from septic
tank through plastic pipe to further treatment &
disposal. Sludge is pumped from septic tank
periodically.
(B) Cluster system. Liquid from several septic
tanks flows to one pumping tank. Pump forces
liquid through plastic pipe to treatment & disposal.
(B ) Cluster
(A ) One Dwelling
/ To Treatment
& Disposal
F-2-5
-------
Why Sma!! Systems?
F-2
Lower Water &
Sewer Rates
Rates skyrocket when a few people
have to pay for a large system.
Save Energy, Water,
Materials
Most small systems use less.
Save Prime Farmland,
Prevent Urban Sprawl
Large central sewage systems in rural
areas can bring unwanted develop-
ment.
Federal Government
Pays 85%
EPA Construction Grants Program
If you're a small community or a
sparsely populated area of a large
community and have a water pollu-
tion problem caused by buildings in
use December 27, 1977:
« The Government pays 85% of eligi-
ble costs for alternative systems if
your State, local government, and
EPA approve them for your project.
four community, often with State
help, pays the other 15%. Farmers
Home Administration, Economic
Development Administration, Housing
& Urban Development, and Com-
munity Services Administration pro-
grams also help in some areas.
The Government pays to repair or
replace the system if it fails, within 2
years of final inspection because it
proves unsuited to the project or its
design concept is faulty.
Systems can be publicly or private-
ly owned. They can be for residences
or small commercial establishments.
Publicly owned systems are owned
by the local government.
You Must Consider Alternatives
EPA can't approve a central system
plan submitted after Sept. 30, 1978,
unless the community shows it con-
sidered alternative systems.
Privately owned systems are owned
by the property owner or a communi-
ty organization. They can be funded if:
An authorized local government
unit applies for the grant; guarantees
a system for'inspection, proper
operation, maintenance, and user
charges; and says public ownership
isn't practical;
They're more cost effective than
a conventional central system;
The residence is a principal
dwelling; vacation or second homes
are not eligible.
Commercial users pay back their
share of system cost.
More Information From:
EPA National Small Wastawater
Flows Clearinghouse
West Virginia University; Morgantown, WV
26506:800-624-8301.
Center for Environmental Research
Information
26 W. St. Clair; Cincinnati, OH 45268;
513-684-7391.
> Your EPA Regional Office
1. Boston
{Conn., Maine, Mass., N.H., Ft.I., Vt.l; JFK
Federal Bldg.; Boston, MA 02203;
617-223-7210.
2. New York
(N.J., N.Y., P.R., V.I.I; 26 Federal Plaza; New
York, NY 10007; 212-264-2525.
3. Philadelphia
IDel., Md., Pa., Va., W.Va., D.C.I; 6th &
Walnut Sts.; Philadelphia, PA 19108;
215-597-9814.
4. Atlanta
(Ala., Ga., Fla., Miss., N.C., S.C., Tenn., Kyi;
345 Courtland St., N E.; Atlanta, GA 30308;
404-881-4727.
5. Chicago
till., Ind., Ohio, Mich., Minn., Wis.i; 230 S.
Dearborn St.; Chicago, IL 60604; 312-353-2000.
6. Dallas
(Ark., La., Ok/a., Tex., N.Mex.l; 1201 Elm St.;
Dallas, TX 75270; 214-767-2600.
7. Kansas City
(Iowa, Kans., Mo., Nebr.l; 324 E. 11th St.;
Kansas City, MO 64108; 816-374-5493.
8. Denver
(Colo., Utah, Wyo., Mont., N.D., S.D.); 1860
Lincoln St.; Denver, CO 80203; 303-837-3895.
9. San Francisco
(Ariz., Calif., Guam, Hawaii, Nov., Amer.
Samoa, Trust Territories of the Pacific I; 215
Fremont St.; San Francisco, CA 94105;
415-556-2320.
10. Seattle
(Alaska, Idaho, Oreg., Wash.); 1200-6th
Ave.; Seattle, WA 98101; 206-442-1220.
F-2-6
Engineers and consultants: For detailed
technical information get EPA's onsite
systems manual free from Center for En-
vironmental Research Information; 26 W. St.
Clair; Cincinnati, OH 45268:513-684-7391 ; and
Innovative and Alternative Technology Assess-
ment Manual from Municipal Construction Division
(WH-547), OWPO, EPA, 401 M St. SW., DC
20460; 202-426-8976 .
This publication isn't meant to be a com-
prehensive guide to alternative systems. It
tries to acquaint the layperson with some
representative systems used in the United
States. EPA does not endorse, approve,
or disapprove any system described here.
Not all systems shown are approved by all
jurisdictions. To get EPA funds, a project
must meet Federal, State, and local stan-
dards.
-------
APPENDIX
F-3
SOIL FACTORS THAT AFFECT ON-SITE WASTEWATER DISPOSAL
Evaluation of soil for on-sidfe wastewater disposal requires an understand-
ing of the various components of wastewater and their interaction with soil.
Wastewater treatment involves: removing suspended solids; reducing bacteria
and viruses to an acceptable level; reducing or removing undesirable chemicals;
and disposal of the treated water. For soils to be able to treat wastewater
properly they must have certain characteristics. How well a septic system
works depends largely on the rate at which effluent moves into and through the
soil, that is, on soil permeability. But several other soil characteristics
may also affect performance. Groundwater level, depth of the soil, underlying
material, slope and proximity to streams or lakes are among the other charac-
teristics that need to be considered when determining the location and size
of an on-site wastewater disposal system.
Soil permeability - Soil permeability is that quality of the soil that
enables water and air to move through it. It is influenced by the amount of
gravel, sand, silt and clay in the soil, the kind of clay, and other factors.
Water moves faster through sandy and gravelly soils than through clayey soils.
Some clays expand very little when wet; other kinds are very plastic and
expand so much when wet that the pores of the soil swell shut. This slows
water movement and reduces the capacity of the soil to absorb septic tank
effluent.
Groundwater level - In some soils the groundwater level is but a few feet,
perhaps only one foot, below the surface the year around. In other soils the
groundwater level is high only in winter and early in spring. In still others
the water level is high during periods of prolonged rainfall. A sewage absorp-
tion field will not function properly under any of these conditions.
If the groundwater level rises to the subsurface tile or pipe, the satu-
rated soil cannot absorb.effluent. The effluent remains near the surface or
rises to the surface, and the absorption field becomes a foul-smelling,
unhealthful bog.
Depth to rock, sand or gravel - At least 4 feet of soil material between
the bottom of the trenches or seepage bed and any rock formations is necessary
for absorption, filtration, and purification of septic tank effluent. In areas
where the water supply comes from wells and the underlying rock is limestone,
more than 4 feet of soil may be needed to prevent unfiltered effluent from
seeping through the cracks and crevices that are common in limestone.
Different kinds of soil - In some places the soil changes within a dis-
tance of a few feet. The presence of different kinds of soil in an absorption
field is not significant if the different soils have about the same absorption
capacity, but it may be significant if the soils differ greatly. Where this
is so, serial distribution of effluent is recommended so that each kind of
soil can absorb and filter effluent according to its capability.
Slope - Slopes of less than 15% do not usually create serious problems
in either construction or maintenance of an absorption field provided the
soils are otherwise satisfactory.
F-3-1
-------
F-3
On sloping soils the trenches must be dug on the contour so that the
effluent flows slowly through the tile or pipe and disperses properly over the
absorption field. Serial distribution is advised for a trench system on
sloping ground.
On steeper slopes, trench absorption fields are more difficult to lay out
and construct, and seepage beds are not practical. Furthermore, controlling
the downhill flow of the effluent may be a serious problem. Improperly fil-
tered effluent may reach the surface at the base of the slope, and wet,
contaminated seepage spots may result.
If thure is a layer of dense clay, rock or other impervious material near
the surface of a steep slope and especially if the soil above the clay or rock
is sandy, the effluent will flow above the impervious layer to the surface and
run unfiltered down the slope.
Proximity to streams or other water bodies - Local regulations generally
do not allow absorption fields within at least 50 feet of a stream,'open
ditch, lake, or other watercourse into which unfiltered effluent could escape.
The floodplain of a stream should not be used for an absorption field.
Occasional flooding will impair the efficiency of the absorption field; fre-
quent flooding will destroy its effectiveness.
Soil maps show the location of streams, open ditches, lakes and ponds,
and of alluvial soils that are subject to flooding. Soil surveys usually give
the probability of flooding for alluvial soils.
Soil conditions required for proper on-site wastewater disposal are sum-
marized in the Appendix A-3.
Source: Bender, William H. 1971. Soils and Septic Tanks. Agriculture Infor-
mation Bulletin 349, SCS, USDA.
F-3-2
-------
APPENDIX
SUGGESTED PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA FOR
DESIGNING COLLECTOR SEWAGE SYSTEMS F-4
(For Discussion at che 1978 Home. Sewage Treatment Workshops)
Roger E. Machrneier
Extension Agricultural Engineer
University of Minnesota
For collector systems serving more than 15 dwellings or 5,000 gallons per
day, whichever is less, an application for a permit must be submitted to
the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. If the Agency does not act within
10 days upon receipt of the application', no permit shall be required.
A permit likely will be required by the local unit of government and they
should be involved in preliminary discussions and design considerations.
Estimating sewage flows-:
A. Classify each home as type I, II, III, or IV. (See table 4, Extension
Bulletin 304, "Town and Country Sewage Treatment.)
B. Determine the number of bedrooms in each home and estimate the indi-
vidual sewage flows.
C. Total the flows to determine the estimated daily sewage flow for the
collector system. Add a 3-bedroorn type I home for each platted but
undeveloped lot.
D. For establishments other than residences, determine the average daily
-------
F-4
10. A gravity collector line, whether for raw sewage or sewage tank effluent,
shall not be less than 4 inches in diameter.
11. Cleanouts, brought flush with or above finished grade, shall be provided
wherever an individual sewer line joins a collector sewer line, or every
100 feet, whichever is less, unless manhole access is provided.
12. The pumping tank which colle~ts sewage tank effluent should have a pumpout
capacity of 10 percent of the estimated daily sewage flow plus a reserve
storage capacity equal to at least 25_ percent of the average daily sewage
flow.
13. The pumping tank should have a vent at least 2_ inches in diameter to allow
air to enter and leave the tank during filling and pumping operations.
14. The pumping tank should have manhole access for convenient service to the
pumps and control mechanisms.
15. The pumping tank must be watertight to the highest known or estimated elev.
tion of the groundwater table. Where the highest elevation of the ground-
water table is above the top of the pumping tank, buoyant forces shall be
determined and adequate anchorage provided to prevent tank flotation.
16. Pumps for sewage tank effluent:
A. There should be dual pumps operating on an alternating basis. The
elevation of the liquid level controls should be adjustable after
installation of the pumps in the pumping tank.
B. Each pump should be capable of pumping at least 25 percent of the
total estimated daily sewage flow in a -one-hour period at a head
adequate to overcome elevation differences and friction losses.
C. The pumps should either be cast iron or bronze fitted and have stain-
less steel screws or be of other durable and corrosion-proof construe:
D. A warning device should be installed to warn of the failure of either
pump. The warning device should actuate both an audible and visible
alarm. The alarm should continue to operate until manually turned
off. The alarm should be activated each time either pump does not
operate as programmed.
E. A pump cycle counter (cost approximately $10) should be installed
to monitor the flow of sewage. The number of pump cycles multiplied
by the gallons discharged per dose will provide an accurate measure-
ment of sewage flow.
17. Some site conditions may dictate that all or part -f the sewage be pumper
as raw sewage. The following recommendations should be followed:
A. When the raw sewage is pumped from 2 or more residences or from an
establishment other than a private residence, dual sewage grinder
pumps should be used. The pumps should operate on an alternate basj
and have a visible and audible warning device which should be auton.ri,
ally activated in the event of the failure of either punip to operate
as programmed.
F-4-2
-------
F-4
B. The pumps should either be case iron or bronze fitted and have stain-
less steel screws or be of other durable and corrosion-proof construction,
C. To minimize physical agitation of the septic tank into which the raw
sewage is pumped, a pumping quantity not in excess of 5 percent of
the initial liquid volume of the septic tank shall be delivered for
each pump cycle and a pumping rate not to exceed 25 percent of the
total estimated daily sewage flow occurring in one hour.
D. The diameter of the pressure pipe in which the raw sewage flows shall
be selected on the basis of a minimum flow velocity of 2.0 feet per
second.
E. The discharge head of the pump shall be adequate to overcome the eleva-
tion difference and all friction losses.
F. The diameter of the pressure pipe for the sewage shall be at least
as large as the size of sewage solids the pump can deliver.
.3. In some cases a pressure main may be the most feasible method to collect
septic tank effluent.
A. Each residence or other establishment has a septic tank and a pumping
station.
B. The required discharge head of the pump depends upon the pressure in
the collector main. The hydraulics of flow and friction loss must be
carefully calculated.
C. The pressure main does not need to be installed on any "grade but can
follow the natural topography at a depch sufficient to provide protec-
tion against freezing.
D. A double checkvalve system should be used at each pumping station.
E. A corporation stop should be installed on the individual pressure
line near the connection to the main pressure line.
F. Cleanouts along the pressure main are not required.
G. Discharge the pumped septic tank effluent into a settling tank prior
to flow into the soil treatment system. The settling tank will serve
as a stilling chamber and also separate any settleable solids.
19. Sizing the soil treatment unit:
A. Make soil borings in the area proposed for the soil treatment unit at
least 3 feet deeper than the bottom of the p-cvosed trenches. Look
for mottled soil or other evidences of seasonal high water table in
the soil.
B. Make 3 percolation tests in each representative soil present on the
site.
C. Using the percolation rate of the soil and the sewage flow estimate
from point 3, refer to table III of WPC-40 or table 4 of Extension
Bulletin 304, "Town and Country Sewage Treatment" to determine the
total required trench bottom area.
F-4-3
-------
F-4
20. Lay out the soil treatment unit using trenches with drop box distribu-
tion of effluent, so only that portion of the trench system which is
needed will be used. Drop boxes also provide for automatic resting of
trenches as sewage flow fluctuates or as soil absorption capacity varies
with amount of soil moisture. Trenches can extend 100 feet each way
from a drop box so that a. single box can distribute effluent to 200 feet
of trench.
F-4-4
-------
APPENDIX G
FINANCING
-------
APPENDIX
G-l
COST SHARING
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-500,
Section 202), authorized EPA to award grants for 75% of the construction
costs of wastewater management systems. Passage of the Clean Water Act
(P. L. 95-217) authorized increased Federal participation in the costs
of wastewater management systems. The Construction Grants Regulations
(40 CFR Part 35) have been modified in accordance with the later Act.
Final Rules and Regulations for implementing this Act were published in
the Federal Register on September 27, 1978.
There follows a brief discussion of the eligibility of major
components of wastewater management systems for Federal funds.
Federal Contribution
In general, EPA will share in the costs of constructing treatment
systems and in the cost of land used as part of the treatment process.
For land application systems the Federal government will also help to
defray costs of storage and ultimate disposal of effluent. The Federal
share is 75% of the cost of conventional treatment systems and 85% of
the cost of systems using innovative or alternative technologies.
Federal funds can also be used to construct collection systems when the
requirements discussed below are met.
The increase in the Federal share to 85% when innovative or
alternative technologies are used is intended to encourage reclamation
and reuse of water, recycling of wastewater constituents, elimination of
pollutant discharges, and/or recovering of energy. Alternative
technologies are those which have been proven and used in actual
practice. These include land treatment, aquifer recharge, and direct
reuse for industrial purposes. On-site, other small waste systems, and
septage treatment facilities are also classified as alternative
technologies. Innovative technologies are those which have not been
fully proven in full scale operation.
To further encourage the adoption and use of alternative and
innovative technologies, the Cost Effectiveness Analysis Guidelines in
the new regulations give these technologies a 15% preference (in terms
of present worth) over conventional technologies. This cost preference
does not apply to privately owned, on-site or other privately owned
small waste flow systems.
States that contribute to the 25% non-Federal share of conventional
projects must contribute the same relative level of funding to the 15%
non-Federal share of innovative or alternative projects.
Individual Systems (Privately or Publicly Owned)
P.L. 95-217 authorized EPA to participate in grants for con-
structing privately owned treatment works serving small commercial
establishments or one or more principal residences inhabited on or
G-l-1
-------
G-l
before December 27, 1977 (Final Regulations, 40 CFR 35-918,
September 27, 1978). A public body must apply for the grant, certify
that the system will be properly operated and maintained, and collect
user charges fcr operation and maintenance of the system. All
commercial users must pay industrial cost recovery on the Federal share
of the system. A principal residence is defined as a voting residence
or household of the family during 51% of the year. Note: The
"principal residence" requirement does not apply to publicly owned
systems.
Individual systems, including sewers, that use alternative
technologies may be eligible for 85% Federal participation, but
privately owned individual systems are not eligible for the 115% cost
preference in the cost-effective analysis. Acquisition of land on which
a privately owned individual system would be located is not eligible for
a grant.
Publicly owned on-site and cluster systems, although subject to the
same regulations as centralized treatment plants, are also considered
alternative technologies and therefore eligible for an 85% Federal
share.
EPA policy on eligibility criteria for small waste flow systems is
still being developed. It is clear that repair, renovation or
replacement of on-site systems is eligible if they are causing
documentable public health, groundwater quality or surface water quality
problems. Both privately owned systems servicing year-round residences
(individual systems) and publicly owned year-round or seasonally used
systems are eligible where there are existing problems. Seasonally
used, privately owned systems are not eligible.
Several questions on eligibility criteria remain to be answered and
are currently being addressed by EPA:
For systems which do not have existing problems, would
preventive measures be eligible which would delay or avoid
future problems?
Could problems with systems other than public health,
groundwater quality or surface water quality be the basis for
eligibility of repair, renovation or replacement? Examples of
"other problems", are odors, limited hydraulic capacity, and
periodic backups.
Is non-conformance with modern sanitary codes suitable
justification for eligibility of repair, renovation or
replacement? Can non-conformance be used as a measure of the
need for preventive measures?
If a system is causing public health, groundwater quality or
surface water quality problems but site limitations would
prevent a new on-site system from satisfying sanitary codes,
would a non-conforming on-site replacement be eligible if it
would solve the existing problems?
G-l-2
-------
G-l
In this EIS estimates were made of the percent repair, renovation
or replacement of on-site systems that may be found necessary during
detailed site analyses. Those estimates are felt to be conservatively
high and would probably be appropriate for generous resolutions of the
above questions.
Collection Systems
Construction Grants Program Requirements Memorandum (PRM) 78-9,
March 3, 1978, amends EPA policy on the funding of sewage collection
systems in accordance with P.L. 95-271. Collection sewers are those
installed primarily to receive wastewaters from household service lines.
Collection sewers may be grant-eligible if they are the replacement or
major rehabilitation of an existing system. For new sewers in an
existing community to be eligible for grant funds, the following
requirements must be met:
Substantial Human. Habitation The bulk (generally 67%) of
the flow design capacity through the proposed sewer system
must be for wastewaters originating from homes in existence on
October 18, 1972. Substantial human habitation should be
evaluated block by block, or where blocks do not exist, by
areas of five acres or less.
Cost-Effectiveness New collector sewers will only be
considered cost-effective when the systems in use (e.g. septic
tanks) for disposal of wastes from existing population are
creating a public health problem, violating point source
discharge requirements of PL 92-500, or contaminating ground-
water. Documentation of the malfunctioning disposal systems
and the extent of the problem is required.
Where population density within the area to be served by the
collection system is less than 1.7 persons per acre (one
household per two acres), a severe pollution or public health
problem must be specifically documented and the collection
sewers must be less costly than on-site alternatives. Where
population density is less than 10 persons per acre, it must
be shown that new gravity collector sewer construction and
centralized treatment is more cost-effective than on-site
alternatives. The collection system may not have excess
capacity which could induce development in environmentally
sensitive areas such as wetlands, floodplains or prime
agricultural lands. The proposed system must conform with
approved Section 208 plans, air quality plans, and Executive
Orders and EPA policy on environmentally sensitive areas.
Public Disclosure of Costs Estimated monthly service
charges to a typical residential customer for the system must
be disclosed to the public in order for the collection system
to be funded. A total monthly service charge must be
presented, and the portion of the charge due to operation and
maintenance, debt service, and connection to the system must
also be disclosed.
G-l-3
-------
G-l
Elements of the substantial human habitation and cost-effectiveness
eligibility requirements for new collector sewers are portrayed in
Figure 1 in a decision flow diagram. These requirements would apply
for any pressure, vacuum or gravity collector sewers except those
serving on-site or small waste flow systems.
Household Service Lines
Traditionally, gravity sewer lines built on private property
connecting a house or other building with a public sewer have been built
at the expense of the owner without local, State or Federal assistance.
Therefore, in addition to other costs for hooking up to a new sewer
system, owners installing gravity household service lines will have to
pay about $1,000, more or less depending on site and soil conditions,
distance and other factors.
Pressure sewer systems, including the individual pumping units, the
pressure line and appurtenances on private property, however, are
considered as part of the community collection system. They are,
therefore, eligible for Federal and State grants which substantially
reduce the homeowner's private costs for installation of household
service lines.
G-l-4
-------
G-l
0
z «
«H
«» .a
9>
0)
X 41
3
2
b
I-H
u.
e
o
y 0\
Q 05
-1 xS
U 0.
'.] «
d *H e
=: »* o
^ -a
«
is. ao
H a
H «
ui ca
Vi
41
*
4)
U
a
/
£
{Documented Ground water Contamination, 1
Public Health Hazard or Point Source |
\
| Violation I
« 4
e *-
41 O
0 -H
e
c. a
o JT
&. 4J
a
41
* ^
3}
41
J-
Alternative to
Severe Feasible?
i
s
a
a
>
r*
*
x
(Document '
Reasons)
Alternative
Coat
Sewering
Cost
V
X C
M el
C
*4
S
4J
TJ
C.
O )-
a. u
jj 3
U
U U
4» SJ
U *N.
O
ta u
C 4)
u o.
U C3
< u
m
U J-l _£
4) O il
3 2 oa
41 -H
41
O r1
t- A
41 -«
3 cn
41 -*
(N
> !«
S C
O
Q
w o
a a
41 b
X O
I C *<
O M O JJ
> U
41 4)
> U
w a
s S a
ca -a
s
>, a
u o
Rt U (Q
« U C
*£ <
C T3
(3 C
s o
41
41
u e
O c
4) b
u
<8 «a
w r
9)
b
4)
4)
W
a
o
S
u s
4) a
u e »*<-<
j m AJ
j
-------
APPENDIX
G-2
ALTERNATIVES FOR FINANCING THE LOCAL SHARE OF
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES IN THE NETTLE
LAKE STUDY AREA, OHIO
The financing of wastewater facilities requires a viable strategy.
In exercising the authority delegated to them by the state to finance
local activities, local governments need not only expertise in budgeting
and debt administration but also a general knowledge of the costs and
benefits of various complex financial tools and alternative investment
strategies.
This section reviews several possible ways to fund the Proposed
Action or alternative wastewater management systems in the Steuben Lakes
Regional Wastes District, Indiana. It will:
Describe options available for financing both the capital and
the operating costs of the wastewater facilities; and
Discuss institutional arrangements for financing and examine
the probable effects of various organizational arrangements on
the marketability of the bond.
FINANCING CAPITAL COSTS: OPTIONS
The several methods of financing capital improvements include: (1)
pay-as-you-go methods; (2) special benefit assessments; 3) reserve
funds; and (4) debt financing.
The pay-as-you-go method requires that payments for capital facili-
ties be made from current revenues. This approach is more suitable for
recurring expenses such as street paving than for one-time long-term
investments. As the demand for public services grows, it becomes in-
creasingly difficult for local governments to finance capital improve-
ments on a pay-as-you-go basis.
In situations where the benefits to individual properties from
capital improvements can be assessed, special benefit assessments in the
form of direct fees or taxes may be used to apportion costs.
Sometimes reserve funds are established to finance capital improve-
ments. A part of current revenues is placed in a special fund each year
and invested in order to accumulate adequate funds to finance needed
capital improvements. Although this method avoids the expense of
borrowing, it requires foresight on the part of the local government.
Debt financing of capital facilities may take several forms. Local
governments may issue short-term notes or float one of several types of
bonds. Bonds are generally classified by both their guarantee of
security and method of redemption.
G-2-1
327G
-------
G-2
GUARANTEE OF SECURITY
General Obligation (6.0. Bonds)
Debt obligations secured by the full faith and credit of the
municipality are classified as general obligation bonds. The borrower
is pledging the financial and economic resources of the community to
support the debt. Following are some of the advantages:
Interest rates on the debt are usually lower than on revenue
or special assessment bonds. With lower annual debt service
charges, the cash flow position of the jurisdiction is im-
proved.
G.O. bonds for sewerage offer financial flexibility to the
municipality since funds to retire them can be obtained
through property taxes, user charges or combinations of both.
When G.O. bonds are financed by ad valorem property taxes,
households have the advantage of a deduction from their
Federal income taxes.
G.O. bonds offer a highly marketable financial investment
since they provide a tax-free and relatively low-risk invest-
ment venture for the lender.
Revenue Bonds
Revenue bonds differ from G.O. bonds in that they are not backed by
a pledge of full faith and credit from the municipality and therefore
require a higher interest rate. The interest is usually paid, and the
bonds eventually retired, by earnings from the enterprise.
A major advantage of revenue bonds over general obligation bonds is
that municipalities can circumvent constitutional restrictions on
borrowing. Revenue bonds have become a popular financial alternative to
G.O. bonds in financing wastewater facilities.
Special Assessment Bond
A special assessment bond is payable only from the collection of
special assessments, not from general property taxes. This type of
obligation is useful when direct benefits are easily identified.
Assessments are often based on front footage or area of the benefited
property. This type of assessment may be very costly to individual
property owners, especially in rural areas. Agricultural lands may
require long sewer extensions and thus impose a very high assessment on
one user. Furthermore, not only is the individual cost high, but the
presence of sewer lines places development pressures on the rural land
and often portends the transition of land from agriculture to
residential/commercial use. Because the degree of security is lower
than with G.O. bonds, special assessment bonds represent a greater
investment risk and therefore carry a higher interest rate.
G-2-2
327G
-------
G-2
METHODS OF REDEMPTION
Two types of bonds are classified according to their method of
retirement (1) serial bonds and (2) term bonds. Serial bonds mature
in annual installments while term bonds mature at a fixed point in time.
Serial Bonds
Serial bonds provide a number of advantages for financing sewerage
facilities. First, they provide a straightforward retirement method by
maturing in annual installments; Secondly, since some bonds are retired
each year, this method avoids the use of sinking funds.-'" Third, serial
bonds are attractive to the investor and offer wide flexibility in
marketing and arranging the debt structure of the community. Serial
bonds fall into two categories (1) straight serials and (2) serial
annuities.
Straight Serial Bonds provide equal annual payments of principal
for the duration of the bond issue. Consequently, interest charges are
higher in the early years and decline over the life of the bond. This
has the advantage of 'freeing up' surplus revenues for future invest-
ment. The municipality has the option of charging these excess revenues
to a sinking or reserve fund or of lowering the sewer rates imposed on
households.
Serial Annuities provide equal annual installment payments of
principal and interest. Total debt service charges in the early years
of the bond issue are thus equal to the charges in later years. The
advantage to this method of debt retirement is that the total costs of
the projects are averaged across the entire life of the bond. Thus,
peak installment payments in the early years are avoided, and costs are
more equitably distributed than with straight serial bonds.
Although straight and annuity serials are the most common types of
debt retirement bonds, methods of repayment may vary. Such "irregular"
serial bonds may result in:
Gradually increasing annual debt service charges over the life
of the issue;
Fluctuating annual installments producing combinations of
rising then declining debt service; or
Large installments due on the last years of the issue. These
are called "ballooning" maturity bonds.
Term Bonds
Term bonds differ from serial issues in that term bonds mature at a
fixed point in time. The issuing entity makes periodic payments (in-
cluding interest earned on investments) to a sinking fund which will be
used to retire the debt at maturity. The major disadvantage to this
G-2-3
327G
-------
G-2
approach to financing is management of the sinking fund a complex
operation requiring expertise in national and regional monetary markets
to insure maximum return on investment. Mismanagement of the fund could
lead to default on the bond.
OPERATING COSTS
In most cases, operating costs are financed through service
charges. Service charges are generally constructed to reflect the
physical use of the system. For example, charges may be based on one or
a combination of the following factors:
Volume of wastewater
Pollutional load of wastewater
Number or size of connections
Type of property serviced (residential, commercial,
industrial).
Volume and pollutional load are two of the primary methods for
determining service charges. Basing service charges on volume of waste-
water requires some method for measuring or estimating volume. Because
metering of wastewater flows is expensive and impractical, many communi-
ties utilize existing water supply meters and, often, fix wastewater
volume at a percentage of water flows. When metering is not used, a
flat rate system may be employed, charging a fixed rate for each connec-
tion based on user type.
INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
There are two basic organizational arrangements available in the
State of Indiana to finance and administer rural sewerage systems: (1)
Regional Water and Sewer Districts and (2) Conservancy Districts.
1. Chapter 19-3-1.1 of the Indiana State Code and subsequent
amendments allows for the organization of a Regional Waste District. A
petition of organization must be filed with the Stream Pollution Control
Board by the participating political subdivisions and be authorized by
the County Council. Upon approval by the council and the Stream Pollu-
tion Board, an elected governing body has the power to operate,
administer and finance the wastewater facilities.
The Regional Waste District is restricted in the type of financing
available to fund the capital costs of the system. Chapter 19-3.1.1-14
of the State Code permits only revenue bonds which must be payable
solely from the net revenues of the facilities. In addition, the goven-
ing body, by ordinance, must create a sinking fund for the payment of
the debt service charges, administrative costs and operating and main-
tenance expenses of the sewerage system. This could cause financial
problems. Management of a sinking fund is complex. Expertise in
national and regional monetary markets is necessary to insure maximum
return on investment. Mismanagement of the fund could lead to default
on the bond.
327G
-------
G-2
2. An institutional alternative to the Regional Waste District
approach is the Conservancy District. This arrangement is specifically
designed to cope with regional water management problems between and
among political subdivisions. One difference between the Regional Waste
District and the Conservancy District is in the power of administration.
In the regional district, authorization is provided by the county, the
Stream Pollution Board or the Natural Resource Commission. However, the
residents of the Conservancy District must petition the clerk of the
circuit court to authorize and establish the district.
The administrative costs and court costs necessary to establish the
Conservancy District are financed through a number of funding mechanisms
available at the state and local levels. These include funding through
a special benefits tax, borrowing from the general revenue accounts of
the county, borrowing from the revolving fund of the state board of
finance; or borrowing from the flood control revolving fund. If the
petition for conservancy is denied, the court costs must be paid by the
petitioners. If the district is established the revolving fund and
general revenue accounts must be reimbursed from the net revenues from
the wastewater system.
Further, the Conservancy District Act provides for two basic
methods to finance the cost of the sewerage facilities: (1) Federal
agency financing and (2) Private market financing.
Federal Agency Financing. Chapter 19-3-2-71 of the Conservancy
District Act provides authorization for the district board to apply
to the Farmers Home Administration and other Federal agencies to
finance the local share of the project costs. The district must
file a petition of approval with the clerk of the circuit court.
If the court finds that the conditions of the loan are beneficial
to the district, then the governing board is authorized to levy a
special beneifit tax, or user charge to repay the loan and retire
the debt.
Private Market Financing. Chapter 19-3-2-845 of the Conservancy
District Act provides for the payment of the collection trans-
mission and treatment components of the wastewater facilities
through the issuance of revenue bonds. Principal and interest
charges are paid through a combination of either special benefit
taxes, assessment of exceptional benefits or user charges.
The advantage to the Conservancy District is the financial option
available to finance the sewerage system. Whereas the Regional Waste
District can only issue revenue bonds to finance the capital costs of
the system, the Conservancy approach can finance through the Farmer's
Home Administration, and issue revenue bonds. Further, the Conservancy
arrangement provides for a user charge and a special beneift tax levy
for collection of revenues to retire the debt.
A major disadvantage of the Conservancy district is the cumbrous
legal and administrative arrangements that are necessary to establish
the district and finance the facilities. For example, the Court has the
full authority to set the time and date of hearings to determine the
327G
-------
G-2
feasibility of loans and bond sales (Chapter 19-3-2-71 [27-1571]).
Although state statutes indicate that the court must give priority to
these hearings, actual practice indicates that authorization and
approval is a protracted and expensive experience.
Considering the strengths and weaknesses of each institutional
approach, the recommended organizational arrangement to finance and
administer the wastewater facilities is the Regional Waste District.
This is primarily due to two reasons. First, since a Regional Waste
District (the Steuben Lakes Regional Waste District) has recently been
established, the administrative costs of dismantling the present
organizational arrangement and implementing the court authorized Con-
servancy District may be prohibitive. Second, bond attorneys familiar
with both organizational arrangements have indicated that the Regional
Waste District would be successful in the commercial bond market. This
eliminates the need for the authorization of a Conservancy District to
provide financial commitments to the Farmers Home Administration and
other Federal agencies.
FUNDING MECHANISMS TO FINANCE THE WASTEWATER SYSTEMS
The proposed wastewater facilities and each of the six alternative
technologies under evaluation are characterized by a distinct set of
capital and operating expenditures necessary to construct and maintain
the systems. The capital costs typically constitute the largest portion
of the costs and are distributed over the life of the project. The
annual capital charge is dependent on the type of mechanisms used to
finance the project. For the Regional Sewer District, a revenue bond
approach was selected to finance the capital costs of the wastewater
systems. Constitutional restrictions prohibit the issuance of any other
type of private funding mechanism.
The revenue bonds were assumed to carry a 6 percent interest rate
for a term of 20 years. In addition a reserve margin of 10 and 20
percent of total debt service charges were added to improve the market-
ability of the bond.1 The 10 percent reserve requirement represent the
minimum reserve that the market would require to provide a reasonable
margin of safety. The margin is based on the Farmer's Home Administra-
tion reserve requirements of 10 percent. This is traditionally the
measure by which commercial paper requirements are compared.2 The 20
1 The bond market requires earnings from revenue bonds to be some
multiple of total debt service charges in order to protect the investor
from adverse economic conditions. This improves the marketability of
the bond but adds to the cost of the wastewater system.
2 The Farmers Home Administration provides loans for sewer services to
rural areas with populations less than 10,000. When it is apparent that
the financial choices of a rural sewer district are exhausted with no
method to finance the local share of the project, FHA will provide 5%,
40 year loan. If FHA covers a revenue bond issue, then it requires a
10% reserve requirement as a margin of safety.
G-2-6
327G
-------
G-2
percent reserve requirement represents a conservative estimate for the
additional funds needed to finance the capital facilities. This is a
reasonable requirement considering that there is no record of earnings
for a regional sewerage system that includes Jackson, Jamestown,
Millgrove and Pleasant Township.
SUMMARY
The above analysis provides the policymaker with information to
access the impacts associated with each alternative sewer system. A
brief review of the analysis is presented below:
o The existing organizational arrangement for the Steuben County
Regional Water and Sewer District should be maintained to
finance, administer and operate the sewerage system.
o A revenue bond approach supported by a user charge will
provide adequate financing for the district. The 20 percent
reserve requirement is a reasonable estimate based on current
revenue bond sales to areas similar to the Steuben County
study area.
G-2-7
327G
-------
APPENDIX H
MANAGEMENT
-------
APPENDIX
H-l
SOME MANAGEMENT AGENCIES FOR DECENTRALIZED FACILITIES
Central management entities that administer non-central systems with
various degrees of authority have been established in several States.
Although many of these entities are quasi-public, few of them both own and
operate each component of the facility. The list of small waste flow
management agencies that follows is not comprehensive. Rather, it presents a
sampling of what is currently being accomplished. Many of these entities
are located in California, which has been in the vanguard of the movement
away from conventional centralized systems to centrally managed decentralized
systems to serve rural areas (State of California, Office of Appropriate
Technology, 1977).
Westboro (Wisconsin Town Sanitary District)
Sanitary District No. 1 of the Town of Westboro represents the public
ownership and management of septic tanks located on private property. In
1974 the unincorporated community of Westboro was selected as a demonstra-
tion site by the Small Scale Waste Management Project (SSWMP) at the
University of Wisconsin to determine whether a cost-effective alternative
to central sewage for small communities could be developed utilizing on-site
disposal techniques. Westboro was thought to be typical of hundreds of
small rural communities in the Midwest which are in need of improved
wastewater treatment and disposal facilities but are unable to afford
conventional sewerage.
From background environmental data such as soils and engineering
studies and groundwater sampling, it was determined that the most economical
alternative would be small diameter gravity sewers that would collect
effluents from individual septic tanks and transport them to a common soil
absorption field. The District assumed responsibility for all operation
and maintenance of the entire facility commencing at the inlet of the septic
tank. Easements were obtained to allow permanent legal access to properties
for purposes of installation, operation, and maintenance. Groundwater was
sampled and analyzed during both the construction and operation phases.
Monthly charges were collected from homeowners. The system, now in operation,
will continue to be observed by the SSWMP to assess the success of its
mechanical performance and management capabilities.
Washington State
Management systems have been mandated in certain situations in the
State of Washington to assist in implementing the small waste flow manage-
ment concept. In 1974 the State's Department of Social and Health Services
established a requirement for the management of on-site systems: an
approved management system would be responsible for the maintenance of
sewage disposal systems when subdivisions have gross densities greater
than 3.5 housing units or 12 people per acre (American Society of Agricultural
Engineers 1977). It is anticipated that this concept will soon be applied
to all on-site systems.
H-l-1
-------
H-l
Georgetown Divide (California) Public Utility District (GDPUD)
The GDPUD employs a full-time geologist and registered sanitarian who
manage all the individual wastewater sytems in the District. Although it
does not own individual systems this district has nearly complete central
management responsibility for centralized systems. The Board of Directors
of the GDPUD passed an ordinance forming a special sewer improvement district
within the District to allow the new 1800-lot Auburn Lake Trails subdivision
to receive central management services from the GDPUD. The GDPUD performs
feasibility studies on lots within the subdivision to evaluate the potential
for the use of individual on-site systems, designs appropriate on-site
systems, monitors their construction and installation, inspects and maintains
them, and monitors water quality to determine their effects upon water leaving
the subdivision. If a septic tank needs pumping, GDPUD issues a repair order
to the homeowner. Service charges are collected annually.
Santa Cruz County (California) Septic Tank Maintenance District
This district was established in 1973 when the Board of Supervisors
adopted ordinance No. 1927, "Ordinance Amending the Santa Cruz County Code,
Chapter 8.03 Septic Tank System Maintenance District." Its primary function
is the inspection and pumping of all septic tanks within the District. To
date 104 residences in two subdivisions are in the district, which collects a
one-time set-up fee plus monthly charges. Tanks are pumped every three years
and inspected annually. The County Board of Supervisors is required to
contract for these services. In that the District does not have the authority
to own systems, does not perform soil studies on individual sites, or offer
individual designs, its powers are limited.
Bolinas Community (California) Public Utility District (BCPUD)
Bolinas, California is an older community that faced an expensive public
sewer proposal. Local residents organized to study the feasibility of
retaining many of their on-site systems, and in 1974 the BCPUD Sewage Disposal
and Drainage Ordinance was passed. The BCPUD serves 400 on-site systems and
operates conventional sewerage facilities for 160 homes. The District employs
a wastewater treatment plant operator who performs inspections and monitors
water quality. The County health administration is authorized to design and
build new septic systems.
Kern County (California) Public Works
In 1973 the Board of Supervisors of Kern County, California, passed an
ordinance amending the County Code to provide special regulations for water
quality control. County Service Area No. 40, including 800 developed lots
of a 2,900-lot subdivision, was the first Kern County Service Area (CSA) to
arrange for management of on-site disposal systems. Inspections of install-
ations are made by the County Building Department. Ongoing CSA responsibilities
are handled by the Public Works Department. System design is provided in an
Operation and Maintenance Manual.
H-l-2
-------
H-l
Marin County (California.)
In 1971 the Marin County Board of Supervisors adopted a regulation,
"Individual Sewage Disposal Systems," creating an inspection program for
all new installations (Marin County Code Chapter 18.06). The Department
of Environmental Health is responsible for the inspection program. The
Department collects a charge from the homeowner and inspects septic tanks
twice a year. The homeowner is responsible for pumping. The Department
also inspects new installations and reviews engineered systems.
H-l-3
-------
APPENDIX
H-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:
To collect, treat, reclaim, or dispose of wastewater without
the use of sanitary sewers or community sewage systems;
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;
To conduct investigations, make analyses, and monitor conditions
with regard to water quality within the zone; and
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 b^aeficial 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
H-2-1
-------
H-2
municipality is to be responsible for routinely inspecting the entire system
at least once every 3 years. The municipality must also remove and dispose
of sludge, its designated representatives may enter private property and if
necessary, respond to emergencies that present a hazard to health. '
H-2-.?
-------
APPENDIX
H-3
MANAGEMENT CONCEPTS FOR SMALL WASTE FLOW DISTRICTS
Several authors have discussed management concepts applicable to
decentralized technologies. Lenning and Hermason suggested that management
of on-site systems should provide the necessary controls throughout the
entire lifecycle of a system from site evaluations through system usage.
They stressed that all segments of the cycle should be included to ensure
proper system performance (American Society of Agricultural Engineers 1977).
Stewart stated that for on-site systems a three-phase regulatory
program would be necessary (1976). Such a program would include: 1) a
mechanism to ensure proper siting and design installation and to ensure
that the location of the system is known by establishing a filing and
retrieval system; 2) controls to ensure that each system will be period-
ically inspected and maintained; and 3) a mechanism to guarantee that
failures will be detected and necessary repair actions taken.
Winneberger and Burgel suggested a total management concept, similar
to a sewer utility, in which a centralized management entity is responsible
for design, installation, maintenance, and operation of decentralized systems
(American Society of Agricultural Engineers 1977) . This responsibility
includes keeping necessary records, monitoring ground and surface water
supplies and maintaining the financial solvency of the entity.
Otis and Stewart (1976) have identified various powers and authorities
necessary to perform the functions of a management entity:
To acquire by purchase, gift, grant, lease, or rent both real
and personal property;
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;
To declare and abate nuisances;
To require correction or private systems;
To recommend correction procedures;
To enter onto property, correct malfunctions, and bill the owner
if he fails to repair the system;
To raise revenue by fixing and collecting user charges and
levying special assessments and taxes;
To plan and control how and when wastewater facilities will be
extended to those within its jurisdiction;
To meet the eligibility requirements for loans and grants from
the State and Federal government.
H-3-1
-------
APPENDIX I
ENGINEERING
-------
APPENDIX
1-1
DESIGN AND COSTING ASSUMPTIONS
Treatment
(1) Aerated Lagoons
Medium-depth basins designed for continuous biological
treatment of wastewater.
Mechanical aeration.
A non-aerated polishing cell following the last
aerated cell is used to enhance suspended solids
removal prior to discharge.
An impervious flexible lining is used for the lagoons.
Costs for preliminary treatment include all costs that
might be incurred at the headworks (comminutor, bar screen,
controls, or metering).
(2) Land Application
storage period - 8 weeks per year
application rate - 20 inches per week
application technique - rapid infiltration
Facilities for recovery and recycling of tailwater provided.
(3) Wetlands Discharge
Wetland systems are somewhat similar to overland flow
systems in that most of the water flows over a relatively
impermeable soil surface and the renovation action is more
dependent on microbial and plant activity than soil chemistry.
Secondary treatment and 120 day storage capacity is required
prior to discharge.
Length of application is 245 days at a rate of one inch per
week.
A simple surface discharge system is assumed rather than
spray due to low flows.
1-1-1
-------
1-1
Individual pumping units for the pressure sewer system include
a 2- by 8-foot basin with discharge at 6 feet, control panel,
visual alarm, mercury float level controls, valves, rail system
for removal of pump, antiflotation device, and the pump itself.
(See Figure III-l).
Effluent pumps are 1-1/2 and 2 HP pumps which 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 35 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.
Replacement of all existing privies is required. For the on-site
treatment alternatives this will mean replacement of the privies
with holding tanks or other appropriate technology. Where privies
are now being used an improvement to the home has been estimated
for the addition of an indoor bathroom in all alternatives except
EIS Alternative 8.
For all on-site treatment alternatives 20 percent of the existing
drainfields need replacing. One half of these replacements are to
be super systems and the other half are to be mound systems.
Ten percent of the total septic tank-soil absorption systems will
require hydrogen peroxide (H~0 ) treatment during the 20 year period.
All flows are based on a 60 gallon per capita per day (gpcd) design
flow for residential areas. Infiltration for new sewers is based
on a rate of 200 gallons per inch-mile for gravity sewer lines.
For EIS Alternative 8 the cost for indoor bathrooms was removed.
Indoor toilets can be sectioned off in the corner of a room by use
of folding partitions or a curtain. Holding tanks were assumed to
receive blackwater only as no water supply in houses with privies
was assumed. Because of this assumption, the water conservation
devices were not costed into this alternative either.
Analysis of Cost-Effectiveness
Quoted costs are in 1979 dollars
Engineering News Record Index of 3000 used for updating costs
i, interest rate = 6-5/8%
Planning period = 20 years
Life of facilities, structures - 50 years
Mechanical components - 20 years
1-1-2
-------
1-1
Straight line depreciation
Land valued at $16000/acre
Debt service for user charge calculations assumed 30 years at 6-7/8%
(4) Cluster Systems
Design assumptions -
flow - 60 gpcd
3-bedroom home - 190 sq. feet trench bottom/bedroom
35% of existing septic tanks need to be replaced with new
1000-gallon tanks
Collection of wastewaters is by a gravity system conveying
all wastes to a central lift station where wastes are
lifted up to 60 feet to the drain field.
Cluster system includes the following requirements
monitoring wells
hydrogeological survey
Pump station capacity 50 gpm.
Collection
All sewer lines are to be placed at or below 5 feet of depth
to allow for frost penetration in the Nettle Lake area.
Gravity lines are assumed to be placed at an average depth of
11 feet.
A minimum velocity of 2 fps will be maintained in all pressure
sewer lines and force mains to provide for scouring.
Peaking factor used for design flows was based on Ten State
Standards.
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.
When possible, force mains and pressure sewer collectors will
be placed in a common trench.
Cleanouts in the pressure sewer system will be placed at the
beginning of each line, with one every 500 feet of pipe in
line. Cleanout valve boxes will contain shut-off valves to
provide for isolation of various sections of line for mainten-
ance and/or repairs.
-------
No Action
APPENDIX
1-2
Appendix 1-2
Assumptions
Existing Residences
Residences to be built
in the next 20 years
Privies
Septic tank-soil absorption
systems
Costs
Construction
0 & M
Salvage
275 houses (98% seasonal)
132 privies
143 septic tank/soil absorption systems
-0-
No pumping as floods wash out privies
seasonally. No replacement expected.
Assume 1%/yr. failure replaced by septic
tank soil absorption systems
@ $1650/system
$65 per pumping & disposal of septage once
each 10 years for all tanks
*
$8.65 x 12 hrs./replacement system perm.
Septic systems @ $650/system
x (1.43) say I/year
Permit @ $8.65/hr. x 12 hrs.
x 1/yr.
Septic systems @ $65/pumping
x 14/yr.
Septic systems 16 x 1650
(PW=16A x 0.2772)
$l,650/yr.
104/yr.
910/yr.
264.00
* Sanitarian at $18,000/yr.
1-2-1
-------
1-2
NETTLE LAKE
PROPOSED ALTERNATE
COST ESTIMATE
TREATMENT - AERATED LAGOON
0.14 MGD ENR = 3000
PROCESS
Preliminary Treatment
Aerated Lagoon
Chlorination
Lab/Maint. Bldg.
Administration
Mobilization
Site Work incl. Excav.
Electrical
Yard Piping
HVAC
Controls § Inst.
Land (IS Ac.)
Effluent Pipe 1,OOOLF
Engr. and Cont. 3 251
CAPITAL COST
11,800
43,660
7,100
22,400
-0-
4,100
14,800
17,700
13,000
2,400
-0-
24,000
20,000
180,960
45,240
226,200
0$M COSTS
1,875
2,420
1,000
2,500
1,800
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
75
9,670
-0- ''?20-
9,670
SALVAGE VALUE
5,500
26,196
4,600
10,100
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
7,800
-0-
43,300
12,000
109,296
\ 21,860
131,156
1-2-2
-------
1-2
Proposed Alternate
NETTLE LAKE - COLLECTION
COST ESTIMATE
Costs in 1979 Dollars
ENR INDEX = 3000
SERVICE AREA
CAPITAL COST 0§M COSTS
SALVAGE VALUE
1980
Central Collection
Gravity Interceptor
Pump Stations
Transmission
Bathrooms
25% Engr. and Cont.
962,683
44,200
27,000
77,225
289,209
1,400,317
350,079
1,685
55
2,820
60
-0-
4,620
-0-
580,307
26,520
8,100
46,335
173,525
834,787
@20% 166,957
1,750,396
4,620
1,001,744
1980-2000
Gravity Hook-ups
25% Engr. and Cont.
34,844
8,711
43,555
1-2-3
-------
1-2
tO
35
^g
(U rH
(30 OJ
rt >
r* -H
-4
.+-> rt
H rH
CM
CM
bo
O
O
to
to
%
O
+-»
a 12
M cd
H rH
ta
o
LO
0)
r-g
CNI
CXJ
^3
CD
<
rg
rsj
OJ
to
&
i
^
0
4-1
3
8
(O
o
&
OH
rt
§
o
oo
§
H
P
O
i
O
oo
o
o
o
g
H
P
O
O
rH
1-2-4
-------
1-2
NETTLE LAKE - COLLECTION
COST ESTIMATE
Alternate - 1
Costs in 1979 Dollars
ENR INDEX = 3000
SERVICE AREA
CAPITAL COST
0§M COSTS
SALVAGE VALUE
1980
SEGMENT
1 Same as Proposed
2 Cluster System
3 Same as Proposed
4 Same as Proposed
5 Same as Proposed
6 Same as Limited
Action
7 New
8 Same as Proposed
Transmission
25% Engr. Cont.
275,290
365,396
167,111
205,471
222,926
11,964
44,608
7,949
55,800
1,356,515
339,129
1,695,644
333
5,845
214
237
232
360
979
16
34
8,250
-0-
8,250
113,920
92,844
80,709
88,888
112,175
6,910
24,740
4,095
28,080
552,361
@20% 110,472
662,833
*Costs include bathroom addition inside home
2000
Segment 6
Gravity Hook-ups
Segment 2
25% Engr. Cont.
9,900
19,108
30,781
59,789
14,947
74,736
270
0
525
795
0
795
8 20%
1,080
0
6,489
7,569
1,514
9,083
1-2-5
-------
1-2
V
0)
4-> in !-
O
o
0)
a
f-.
to
s;
^
-------
1-2
NETTLE LAKE
GOST ESTIMATE
ALTERNATE 2
TREATMENT - AERATED LAGOON
0.09 MGD EN11 * 300°
PROCESS
Preliminary Treatment
Aerated Lagoon
Chloririation
Lab/Mair.t. Bldg.
Administration
Mobilization
Site Work incl. Excav.
Electrical
Yard Piping
HVAC
Controls § Instr.
Land (25 Ac.)
Effluent Pipe 100
Engr. and Cont. @ 251
o
CAPITAL COST
11,800
26,550
5,900
18,900
-0-
3,300
14,200
14,200
13,000
1,800
-o-
40,000
__ A.oop__
151,650
37,913
189,563
0§M COSTS*
1,800
2,400
1,000
2,500
1,100
-0-
-0-
-0-
~0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
8,800
-0- 8
8,800
SALVAGE VALUE
5,310
15,930
2,300
8,500
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
7,800
-0-
-0-
72,210
1,200
113,250
2
-------
NETTLE LAKE - COLLECTION
1-2
OOST ESTIMATE
Alternate - 2
Costs in 1979 Dollars
ENR INDEX = 3000
SERVICE AREA
1980
SEGMENT
1 Same as Proposed
2 Cluster System
3 Same as Proposed
4 Same as Proposed
5 Same as Proposed
6 Same as Limited
Action
7 New
8 Same as Proposed
Transmission
251 Engr. Cont.
CAPITAL COST
275,290
365,396
167,111
205,471
222,926
11,964
44,608
7,949
55,800
1,356,515
339,129
1,695,644
*Costs include bathroom addition
2000
Segment 6
Gravity Hook-ups
Segment 2
25% Engr. Cont.
9,900
19,108
30,781
59,789
14,947
O§M COSTS
333
5,845
214
237
232
360
979
16
__34_
8,250
-0-
8,250
inside home
270
0
525
795
0
SALVAGE VALl
113,920
92,844
80,709
88,888
112,175
6,910
24,740
4, ,095
28,080
552,361
920% 110,472
662,833
1,080
0
6,489
7,569
!§ 20% 1,514
74,736
795
9,083
1-2-8
-------
I
p-l
o
CO
tI
CO
>
u
8
w
o
o
o
M
(A
36
*S
VH -H
3> 3.
O
GO
O
O
u
O
H
4->
O
r-
to
!/)
&
3
(U
1-2-9
-------
NETTLE LAKE - COLLECTION
COST ESTIMATE
1-2
Alternate 3
Costs in 1979 Dollars
ENR INDEX = 3000
SERVICE AREA
1980
SEGMENT
1
2 Cluster
3
4
5
6 Same as
7
8 Same as
Transmission
Engr. and Cont.
CAPITAL COST*
341,363
365,396
182,122
244,314
245,418
Limited Action 11,964
51,488
Proposed 7,949
94,857
1,544,871
8 251 386,218
1,931,089
0$M COSTS
4,907
5,845
1,814
3,068
3,098
360
995
16
3,050
23,153
0
23,153
SALVAGE VALUE*
89,033
92,844
64,063
72,019
82,527
6,910
28,868
4,095
56,915
497,274
99,455
596,729
*Costs include costs for bathroom addition inside home
2000
Entire Service Area
25% Engr. and Cont.
83,946
26,457
110,383
2,410 10,629
Q <§ 20% 2,126
2,410 12,755
1-2-10
-------
o
o
o
CO
o>
+->
(O
c:
S-
OJ
-t-)
<:
4-)
rH V)
38
I c
^ s
flX ,J
*U r*i
bo cd
Cd >
rx-H
If
4-> / »
l f-t f*4 frt
rH f* r*-* ~ '
Cd (O 4-> 1
4-> (/> VH CM
5 Si i
H£^ ^
O
bo oj
/-> «J 3
to > i i
V-^I-H cd
rt >
CO
5- 12
S H
r-* Cd
CM CCT i-H
* ' II
°s
r 1 (/)
05 J-.
/ \ 4-> cd
i lt_| r_j
N-^ OirH
65
o
bo d)
^5
73^
CO
ss
tu
"3- i-H
°a
ro r<
4-> cd
H rH
S3
j-i
cd
^
£
0>
4->
t (
m
\o
m
CM
t-«-
O
to
1
r~l
r^.
CTi
rrt
o
en
i-H
CO
O
__J
^^
rH
cr>
oo
i-H
O
CM
rH
O
00
O>
r 1
4->
fi
0^
g
4->
ca
O
O
c-g
* m
» ,
to to
vO
rH
rH _l
r^
.
to GO
un
CM
rH 0
.
rH 0
to vo
cn
ft
rH
r- oo
*
vO CM
f"T\ ^i
*-* ' rH
LO
K
K
CM rH
s d
*
rH in
rH LO
to
at
t
rH
O O
oo o
o> o
rH CM
fi C
0 0
H -H
4-> 4->
O O
0)
-------
1-2
Q * 0.09 MGD
NtrrLE LAKE
COST ESTIMATE
Alternate 4
TREATMENT - AERATED LAGXJK
ENR -- 3 CM)
PROCESS
Preliminary Treatment
Aerated lagom
Chlorination
Lab/Maint. Bldg.
Adminis trat ion
Mobilization
Site Work incl. E
-------
NETfLE LAKE - COLLECTION I~2
COST LSTIMTE
Alternate - 4 Costs ^ Ig79 ltol, ar
QJR INDEX = 3000
SERVICE AREA
1980
SEOENTT
1
2 Clustei
3
4
5
6 Sa/nc: as Limited Aoti
7
8 ".v.e as lYoposed
Transmission
Engr. and Cc r.t , ' 25°;
*Cost5 include costs
2000
Entire Service Area
25% Ener. ,-cid font.
CAPITAL COST* 0§M COSTS SALVAGE VALUE
541,363
365,396
182,122
244,314
215,418
on U,964
51, '1 88
7,949
94,857
I.: "14 ,871
385 218
1, 93 1,089
for bath roan
85,946
4,907
5,845
1,814
3,068
3,098
360
995
16
3,050
23,153
0
23,153
addition inside IT .'me
2,410
0 '3 20%
89,033
92,844
64,063
72,019
32,527
6,i)JO
28,868
4,095
uv.;'- 1
JD. 4::-
^,:?.:>
10,629
2. '125
110,383 2,410 12,75.5
1-2-13
-------
M
tn
8
>H -H
M tn M
O O O
i
CM
o
o
o
be-
bO O
rt 3
> rH
rI nl
I-H tn
as ^
M O
H r-H
JXrH
ID
bO
03
C
S-
d)
4->
<
1-2
LO
CM
00
O
CM
to
to
K)
CM
LO
K)
O
\O
cn
\o
cn
3
Ol
LO
to
oo
oo
cn
oo
a
oo
CM
K
K
rH
K
01
£
LO
LO
O
o
o o o
oo o oo
en o en
rH CM rH
g
O
0)
o
o
o
CM
g
H
4->
O
c
0)
H
"3
*
K
-------
NETTIE LAST-
COST ES1IWTE
Alternate 5
RAPID INHLi'PATLON - CLNTRAL
I~2
Q - 0.09 MGD
I!NR = 3000
!T£>CESS
T n flnen t Pump ing
Influent Pipe
?rcl irrinar/ Treatment
S t a bill nation i-ond
Ch.loriiiation
i^ipid Infiltrari; n
^asin find. I.-b/;
.'4'bili:.ation
i tc: Work inci !"xv.av
l-lcctricai
.\Jmnistration
CA1JITU COST u^v' COSTS
vi.V/'u'E VALU1-
;'j.rd Piping
! ;v AC
ortrols and Ir.r-ti .
; ,ind (30 Ac. )
F f fluent P i pc ;6.S 0 0
IIDiuJ IN COLLhCriON
'NC1IJDED IM COLLECTION
J0,0.'0 1,/SO
50,0r!(j ] ;-;SO
["> .<;'"'() 'i, 4jO
H5,800 l.^SO
0-
-0-
15,310
-0
0-
48,000
.79,9'IA
00
-0-
1,0 00
30,^00
2, -.00
S',300
0-
7 , /.OO
-,.'00
,-»70
:>oo
hnur. and Cent
09'07"
BO, 114
1-2-15
-------
NETTLE LAKE - COLLECTION
COST ESTIMATE
1-2
Alternate - 5
Costs in 1979 Dollars
ENR INDEX = 3000
SERVICE AREA
CAPITAL COST* 0§M COSTS
SALVAGE VALUE
1980
SEGMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Same as Proposed
Clusters
Same as Proposed
Same as Proposed
Same as Proposed
Same as Limited Action
New
Same as Proposed
Transmission
Engr.
1
and Cont. @ 25%
275,290
365,396
167,111
205,471
222,926
11,964
42,984
7,949
102,987
,402,078
350,520
311
5,845
214
237
232
360
985
16
3,212
11,412
0
113,920
92,844
80,709
88,888
112,175
6,910
27,816
4,095
49,642
576,999
@ 201 115,400
1,752,598
11,412
692,399
*Costs include costs for bathroom addition inside house
2000
Segment 6
Gravity Hook-ups
Segment No.2
Engr. and Cont. % 25%
9,900
19,108
30,781
59,789
14,947
74,736
270
0
525
795
0
795
1,080
0
6,489
7,569
1,514
9,083
1-2-16
-------
M
rH (/)
38
It*
0>
J-. -H
CO 0> -M
M in J-i
o
&0
(C
c
s_
0)
1-2
oo
ro
(O
LT)
OO
to
.
to
to
CNl
oo
oo
en
LT)
LO
rj-
LO
LO
m
to
LO
<-n
^~
tn
o
oo
C
rt
CM
CN)
cd
K
r~-
LO
o o
oo o
C3% O
in
O
fi
0
rH
P
g
O
-------
NETTLE LAKE - COLLECTION
COST ESTIMATE
1-2
Alternate 6
Costs in 1979 Dollars
ENR INDEX = 3000
SERVICE AREA
1980
SEQUENT
1 Same as Limited
Action
2 Cluster
3 Same as "Limited
Action
4 Same as Limited
Action
5 Same as Limited
Action
6 Same as Limited
Action
7
8
Sludge Hauling Truck
Water Sug. Devices
25% Engr. and Cont.
*Costs include cost
2000
Segment 2
Remaining Service Area
25% Engr. and Cont.
CAPITAL COST
179,014
365,396
99,557
133,599
151,345
11,964
0
0
60,000
29,000
1,029,875
257,469
1,287,344
0$M COSTS
9,640
5,845
5,870
7,380
8,000
360
0
0
0
214
37,309
0
37,309
SALVAGE VALUE
106,055
92,844
59,463
79,349
90,810
6,910
0
0
0
3,210
438,641
@ 20% 87,728
526,369
of inside bathroom
30,781
37,781
68,731
17,183
68,914
1-2-18
525
1,035
1,560
0
1,560
6,489
4,140
10,629
2,126
12,755
-------
rH W
36
1-2
rH
13
a
crj
a
M
H rH
Sa
's
S
+J
to
oo
cn
LO
en
LO
rO
cn
\o
o
iH
co
to
C-.
CO
CS1
01
oo
CM
tn
to
K
K
K
to
to
oo
CS)
O O
oo o
cn o
g
H
g
H
+->
u
rt
0)
to
<^
i
^
o
B -S
5 i
K *
K
6 3
1-2-19
-------
1-2
NETTLE LAKE - COLLECTION
COST ESTIMATE
Limited Action Alternative - 7
Costs in 1979 Dollars
ENR INDEX = 3000
SERVICE AREA
1980
SEGMENTS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Sludge Hauling Truck
Water Sug. Devices
251 Engr. and Cont.
* Includes cost
2000
Entire Service Area
Engr. § Cont. @ 25%
CAPITAL COST
179,014*
176,105
99,557
133,599
151,345
11,964
0
0
60,000
35,772
847,356
211,839
1,059,195
of inside bathrooms
51,150
12,788
63,938
0$M COSTS
9,640
9,190
5,870
7,380
8,000
360
0
0
0
264
40,704
0
40,704
1,395
0
1,395
SALVAGE VALUE
106,055
104,043
59,463
79,349
90,810
6,910
0
0
0
3,960
450,590
§ 20% 90,118
540,708
5,580
1,116
6,696
1-2-20
-------
M
in
J-i -H
*
LO
X
K
(SI
LO
O
O
OO
to
i
g
o
o
o
K
K
K
-------
Project 662-007
COST SUMMARY ALT. 8
1-2
1980
SEGMENT CAPITAL COST
l $118,563
2 122,566
3 51,532
4 83,289
5 59,032
6 4,200
7 0
8 0
$439,182
Annual Operation
Cost for small waste flows
Agency
Engr. , Contingencies
& Administration
1) 9% of Coast.
Cost 39,525
2) Site Analysis 78,410
$557,117
Notes: Water saving devices not
bathrooms not included
2000
Entire Service
Area $ 51,150
Engr. & Const.
@ 25% 12,788
ANNUAL 0 & M COST
$ 5,975
6,022
3,251
4,332
3,936
360
0
0
$23,876
10,305
$34,181
included, sludge hauling
$ 1,395
0
YEAR 2000
SALVAGE VALUE
$ 62,303
67,124
24,234
42,748
26,866
2,250
0
0
$225,525
__.
$225,525
truck not includet
$ 5,580
0
$ 63,938
$ 1,395
$ 5,580
1-2-22
-------
1-2
00
w
>
M
C i
£2
25
Pi
W
H
3
/^s
P-i O
O 0
o
DO rH
M -CO-
CO ^
>-l
3
§
CJ
rH
a
0
2
o
o
w
00
w
>
1 1
%
&
<&
w
H
J
Z < -d
<3 3
CT
w
X-N
CO rH
1 nj &
CM 4J fl(
+ 0
i H
^^
0)
6
^~N (^
CO 5 >
^^ PH rH
n
00
&
/^N
CM rs ta
s-' PM
O
rH
cd
x*~s 4-) 4-J
rH -H CD
"^ eu o
cd u
u
cu
60 CU
cd 3
> rH
rH CS
cd >
oo
rH
Cd &
3 4->
C <^> CO
q o
< o o
rH
cd
4-> 4-1
H CD
O- O
cd u
o
M
cd
cu
>*
m
CT\
r^.
r-~
r^
VO
00
m
CM
VD
rH
ro
r-»
CO
i-l
r--
m
in
in
m
CM
CM CM
cr\ r-~
cr» r^
O CM
fesP fT\
D^v W »
oo . o
^ o
CM U-) rH II
i
-* vo ii cu
CO 60
II & cd
>
CU c3 r-H
4-1 Cd
cd o oo
PH
M ^
-H 4-1 O O
CO 4-1 4-1
r^ cu a a
in M cd cct
CO 0) [n ft,
4-1
CSS
M PL, PM
CO
O CU
OO 4J
O o
r-i z;
1-2-23
-------
1-2
NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE - PRESENT WORTH COST
1980 - 2000
ITEM CAPITAL COST
Septic Systems $l,650/yr.
Permits 104/yr.
TOTAL $1,754/yr.
0 & M COST
$910/yr.
SALVAGE VALUE
$26,400
$910/yr.
$26,400
Present Worth Cost = (1,754 + 910) x 10.9099 - 26,400 x 0.2772 + $21,746
Interest rate = 6-5/8%
PW factor 0 & M = 10.9099
PW factor salvage = 0.2772
U S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1981-752-040
1-2-24
------- |